Evidence of Jesus Christ [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Evidence of Jesus Christ


Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 15:18
Is Jesus Real? - Non-biblical Evidence of His Existence - YouTube

Little Joe
05-10-2012, 15:38
It's believed that most of the disciples and Paul were brutally martyred. They could have walked away from it with denouncement. They witnessed the supernatural power of God, and the resurrection of Christ. They knew it was real, and were willing to die for it. That has always spoke volumes to me.

Alizard
05-10-2012, 15:42
That is the single greatest proof: if Jesus did NOT come back from the dead as He said he would, the "following" would have dissipated and gone away over time. Instead his followers chose to be killed rather than deny Him.

G23Gen4TX
05-10-2012, 15:46
Jesus was probably a real man. With real followers who had impact on Judaism in that area in that time. That's why they gave him to the Romans to be crucified.

Some probably continued his "work" and it evolved into the Christianity we know it today as it was mixed with pagan rituals and believes of the time in Europe.

The miracles, Resurrection, being the son of god etc. is all made up. If Jesus claimed to be the son of god and that he is the messiah then all he had was the Jerusalem syndrome.

Jeff82
05-10-2012, 15:57
tagtag

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 16:14
It's believed that most of the disciples and Paul were brutally martyred. Believed based on what exactly?
They could have walked away from it with denouncement. They witnessed the supernatural power of God, and the resurrection of Christ. They knew it was real, and were willing to die for it. That has always spoke volumes to me. Does someone believing something, even fervently and without any doubt, make it true?

Schabesbert
05-10-2012, 16:34
That is the single greatest proof: if Jesus did NOT come back from the dead as He said he would, the "following" would have dissipated and gone away over time. Instead his followers chose to be killed rather than deny Him.
"The blood of the martyrs is [the] seed [of the church]."
- Tertullian

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 16:36
Jesus was probably a real man. With real followers who had impact on Judaism in that area in that time. That's why they gave him to the Romans to be crucified.

Some probably continued his "work" and it evolved into the Christianity we know it today as it was mixed with pagan rituals and believes of the time in Europe.

The miracles, Resurrection, being the son of god etc. is all made up. If Jesus claimed to be the son of god and that he is the messiah then all he had was the Jerusalem syndrome.

300 Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Isa(Jesus) -1 - YouTube


300 Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Isa(Jesus) -2 - YouTube

Schabesbert
05-10-2012, 16:37
Does someone believing something, even fervently and without any doubt, make it true?
IF they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true (i.e. they themselves were witnesses of the things happening or not happening), then this is extremely compelling evidence.

Lone Wolf8634
05-10-2012, 16:47
IF they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true (i.e. they themselves were witnesses of the things happening or not happening), then this is extremely compelling evidence.

Thousands of people claim they have seen UFO's. Since these are eyewitness accounts, I believe that they fall under the heading " they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true". They've written books and formed groups. Their membership includes people who would otherwise be granted respect and would be taken seriously.

Yet most reasonable, rational and logical people take their claims, at the very least, with a grain of salt. At best we think they are mistaken in what they thought they saw, at worst they're considered fruitcakes with an extra helping of nuts.

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 16:50
Thousands of people claim they have seen UFO's. Since these are eyewitness accounts, I believe that they fall under the heading " they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true". They've written books and formed groups. Their membership includes people who would otherwise be granted respect and would be taken seriously.

Yet most reasonable, rational and logical people take their claims, at the very least, with a grain of salt. At best we think they are mistaken in what they thought they saw, at worst they're considered fruitcakes with an extra helping of nuts.

Well, there are independant historical accounts, as has been proven. Then if you take into account the 300 Old Testament predicitions that Jesus fulfilled, there is overwhelming evidence that not only Jesus existed, but He was who He claimed to be.

Schabesbert
05-10-2012, 16:55
Thousands of people claim they have seen UFO's. Since these are eyewitness accounts, I believe that they fall under the heading " they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true". They've written books and formed groups. Their membership includes people who would otherwise be granted respect and would be taken seriously.

Yet most reasonable, rational and logical people take their claims, at the very least, with a grain of salt. At best we think they are mistaken in what they thought they saw, at worst they're considered fruitcakes with an extra helping of nuts.
How many of them have gone to their deaths in order to defend these beliefs, rather than simply renounce them? Or even more accurately, NOT renounce these beliefs but acknowledge that some other belief which was slightly contradictory could be true? The analogy I'm trying to draw is the fact that the disciples died rather than simply acknowledge the Roman gods, or Caesar. They would not even have had to renounce Jesus.

Lone Wolf8634
05-10-2012, 17:00
Well, there are independant historical accounts, as has been proven. Then if you take into account the 300 Old Testament predicitions that Jesus fulfilled, there is overwhelming evidence that not only Jesus existed, but He was who He claimed to be.

Yup, and there have been independent accounts of UFO's. People describing similar experiences with being abducted, probed and tagged like a wild animal under observation.

Yup, 300 prophesies that someone supposedly fulfilled 2000 years ago, and the prophesies were written long before that. Easy enough to rewrite history from the last century, much less a few thousand years ago.

You'll have to pardon me if I cant take such claims seriously.

Lone Wolf8634
05-10-2012, 17:05
How many of them have gone to their deaths in order to defend these beliefs, rather than simply renounce them? Or even more accurately, NOT renounce these beliefs but acknowledge that some other belief which was slightly contradictory could be true? The analogy I'm trying to draw is the fact that the disciples died rather than simply acknowledge the Roman gods, or Caesar. They would not even have had to renounce Jesus.

Again, just because someone believes something enough to sacrifice their life to it, does not make it true. It just makes them believers. Those lunatics of the Heavens Gate cult took their own lives in the belief that Gods Spaceship was in the tail of Haley's Comet, I'm pretty sure they aint "going where no man has gone before" as we speak.

I'm sure some of the people on this board believe fervently enough to die for your beliefs. And if you did so, it still wouldn't be evidence that what you believe is true. It would be evidence of the power of your belief.

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 17:12
Yup, and there have been independent accounts of UFO's. People describing similar experiences with being abducted, probed and tagged like a wild animal under observation.

Yup, 300 prophesies that someone supposedly fulfilled 2000 years ago, and the prophesies were written long before that. Easy enough to rewrite history from the last century, much less a few thousand years ago.

You'll have to pardon me if I cant take such claims seriously.

Jesus Christ Fulfilled Over 300 Prophecies, concerning His First Appearance,Written About Him over a Period of about 2000 years. George Heron, calculated the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those Prophecies are 1 in 10 followed by 157 zeros. Compare this to,"The Estimated Number of Electrons in the Universe are around 10 followed by 79 zeros."Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies by accident.

Also, your UFO analogy doesn't fit the argument. Now, if you want to be honest and say you don't want to believe despite the historical and astronomical odds when it comes to the prophecies he did fulfill that is your decision.

However, to dismiss the evidence out of hand is disengenuous.

Roering
05-10-2012, 17:13
Thousands of people claim they have seen UFO's. Since these are eyewitness accounts, I believe that they fall under the heading " they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true". They've written books and formed groups. Their membership includes people who would otherwise be granted respect and would be taken seriously.

Yet most reasonable, rational and logical people take their claims, at the very least, with a grain of salt. At best we think they are mistaken in what they thought they saw, at worst they're considered fruitcakes with an extra helping of nuts.

How many of them have gone to their death because of their testimony and continued to proclaim as to the truth of the UFO's all the way to their last breath even if denying it would have saved their life?

Lone Wolf8634
05-10-2012, 17:19
Jesus Christ Fulfilled Over 300 Prophecies, concerning His First Appearance,Written About Him over a Period of about 2000 years. George Heron, calculated the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those Prophecies are 1 in 10 followed by 157 zeros. Compare this to,"The Estimated Number of Electrons in the Universe are around 10 followed by 79 zeros."Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies by accident.

Also, your UFO analogy doesn't fit the argument. Now, if you want to be honest and say you don't want to believe despite the historical and astronomical odds when it comes to the prophecies he did fulfill that is your decision.

However, to dismiss the evidence out of hand is disengenuous.

IMO the evidence is easy to dismiss, since all it is is eyewitness accounts from centuries ago.

Again, sorry.

Unfortunately I gotta go to work:supergrin:

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 17:34
IMO the evidence is easy to dismiss, since all it is is eyewitness accounts from centuries ago.

Again, sorry.

Unfortunately I gotta go to work:supergrin:

Yes, from actual primary historical evidence. It is not so easy to dismiss. My frustration is the typical mantra around here is "give me evidence" and when it is given it is blown off or dimissed. A little intellectual honesty would be nice.

Alizard
05-10-2012, 17:48
Does someone believing something, even fervently and without any doubt, make it true?You are ignoring the obvious: if a man said He was the son of God and would rise from the dead..... and was full of baloney, who would then choose to stay loyal even unto accepting death before denouncing Him?

Nobody would. But if they witnessed the resurrection and were so completely convinced He was God, they would.

G23Gen4TX
05-10-2012, 19:17
300 Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Isa(Jesus) -1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD28gnJ4Gkw&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLAC080E48A1FED499)


300 Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Isa(Jesus) -2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-G63wN_Mk&feature=BFa&list=PLAC080E48A1FED499)

How is it a prophecy if it's documented after the fact?

And all those old testament "prophecies" can be interpreted in so many ways. Like any biblical "prophecy" they are all twisted to match up events.

When someone finally correctly predicts the rapture by showing us it is written and dated in the bible then I'll believe.

Until then, bunch of Baloney.

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 19:52
Yes, from actual primary historical evidence. It is not so easy to dismiss. My frustration is the typical mantra around here is "give me evidence" and when it is given it is blown off or dimissed. A little intellectual honesty would be nice.

Such evidence is only evidence to those so inclined to believe the position you believe it supports. As far as science, being the ultimate standard for evidence, is concerned, eyewitness testimony is the bottom of the barrel.

How intellectually honest is it of you to claim you understand the OT better than a Jew, who can actually read it in the original language it was written, better than they do?

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 19:56
How is it a prophecy if it's documented after the fact?

And all those old testament "prophecies" can be interpreted in so many ways. Like any biblical "prophecy" they are all twisted to match up events.

When someone finally correctly predicts the rapture by showing us it is written and dated in the bible then I'll believe.

Until then, bunch of Baloney.

It is pretty simple. It was predicted long before it happened, and then it happened. It is prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy.

No one mentioned the rapture. Also, setting a specific date for Jesus' return is actually against scripture.

Matthew 24:36-40, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,<sup class="footnote" value='[f (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-23994f)]'>[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23994f)]</sup> but only the Father. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AN (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23994AN))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">37 </sup>As it was in the days of Noah, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AO (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23995AO))'></sup> so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. <sup class="versenum">38 </sup>For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AP (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23996AP))'></sup> up to the day Noah entered the ark; <sup class="versenum">39 </sup>and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 19:58
Such evidence is only evidence to those so inclined to believe the position you believe it supports. As far as science, being the ultimate standard for evidence, is concerned, eyewitness testimony is the bottom of the barrel.

How intellectually honest is it of you to claim you understand the OT better than a Jew, who can actually read it in the original language it was written, better than they do?

Well, have you ever been to France? If you haven't, I guess you should doubt in its existance. After all, pesky historians, and eyewitness testimony of its existance is "the bottom of the barrel.":whistling:

concretefuzzynuts
05-10-2012, 19:58
You are ignoring the obvious: if a man said He was the son of God and would rise from the dead..... and was full of baloney, who would then choose to stay loyal even unto accepting death before denouncing Him?

Nobody would. But if they witnessed the resurrection and were so completely convinced He was God, they would.

Well there he goes again.... Alitard.

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w459/concretefuzzynuts/DownloadedFile-1.jpg

G23Gen4TX
05-10-2012, 19:59
Such evidence is only evidence to those so inclined to believe the position you believe it supports. As far as science, being the ultimate standard for evidence, is concerned, eyewitness testimony is the bottom of the barrel.

How intellectually honest is it of you to claim you understand the OT better than a Jew, who can actually read it in the original language it was written, better than they do?

I went and checked his "Evidence". None of the 5-6 I checked was written in the old testament. And I can read Hebrew rather well considering it's my native language.

Snapper2
05-10-2012, 20:01
Believed based on what exactly?
Does someone believing something, even fervently and without any doubt, make it true?
This belief is based on something you refuse to believe in. The word of God. And disbelieving it fervently and with much doubt wont turn a truth into a lie either. To a believer it is truth to them. To a nonbeliever it is foolishness and a lie.

Alizard
05-10-2012, 20:53
No one mentioned the rapture. Rapture is a word not found in the bible. It is a false doctrine which will help deceive people into following the anti christ.

Want to see prophesy fulfilled?

Wait until Israel attacks Persia (Iran) who is backed by Russia, and the predicted war happens which eventually ends in a nuclear exchange..... and world panic ensues as oil prices skyrocket when the poison atmosphere above the ME panics everybody.

When the "christ" stands in the holy place (Jerusalem) bringing world peace and the "one world order", the world will fall at his feet, prophesy will be fulfilled. He is the anti christ, the true Christ comes later.

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2012, 20:58
Rapture is a word not found in the bible. It is a false doctrine which will help deceive people into following the anti christ.

Want to see prophesy fulfilled?

Wait until Israel attacks Persia (Iran) who is backed by Russia, and the predicted war happens which eventually ends in a nuclear exchange..... and world panic ensues as oil prices skyrocket when the poison atmosphere above the ME panics everybody.

When the "christ" stands in the holy place (Jerusalem) bringing world peace and the "one world order", the world will fall at his feet, prophesy will be fulfilled. He is the anti christ, the true Christ comes later.

I was never advocating the rapture.

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 22:49
IF they are in a position to KNOW, unambiguously, whether the claims are in fact true (i.e. they themselves were witnesses of the things happening or not happening), then this is extremely compelling evidence. It would be, if we had evidence for any of those things. Do we have accounts from any of the martyred Apostles verifying Jesus' miracles based on their eyewitness accounts?

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 22:52
Jesus Christ Fulfilled Over 300 Prophecies, concerning His First Appearance,Written About Him over a Period of about 2000 years. Really? Where are any of those "fulfillments" recorded, other than the Bible?
George Heron, calculated the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those Prophecies are 1 in 10 followed by 157 zeros. Compare this to,"The Estimated Number of Electrons in the Universe are around 10 followed by 79 zeros." I'd love to see the math for this.
Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies by accident. All but the last two words are correct.
However, to dismiss the evidence out of hand is disengenuous.How can one dismiss evidence that doesn't exist?

Animal Mother
05-10-2012, 23:00
How many of them have gone to their deaths in order to defend these beliefs, rather than simply renounce them? Or even more accurately, NOT renounce these beliefs but acknowledge that some other belief which was slightly contradictory could be true? The analogy I'm trying to draw is the fact that the disciples died rather than simply acknowledge the Roman gods, or Caesar. They would not even have had to renounce Jesus. How many Jews died rather than convert to Christianity, or continued to practice their Judaism underground under threat of death? Does that prove Judaism, rather than Christianity is the true faith?

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 23:20
Well, have you ever been to France? If you haven't, I guess you should doubt in its existance. After all, pesky historians, and eyewitness testimony of its existance is "the bottom of the barrel.":whistling:

Actually I have. Paris specifically. I was fairly certain it existed before I got there.

I went and checked his "Evidence". None of the 5-6 I checked was written in the old testament. And I can read Hebrew rather well considering it's my native language.

I doubt he will let that get in his way. You simply do not understand what it was your forefathers wrote even though you can read it in the language it was originally written while he is dependent on a translation.

Boogiefan
05-10-2012, 23:23
"Jesus wept" John 11:35

Lone Wolf8634
05-11-2012, 07:13
Jesus Christ Fulfilled Over 300 Prophecies, concerning His First Appearance,Written About Him over a Period of about 2000 years. George Heron, calculated the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those Prophecies are 1 in 10 followed by 157 zeros. Compare this to,"The Estimated Number of Electrons in the Universe are around 10 followed by 79 zeros."Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies by accident.

Also, your UFO analogy doesn't fit the argument. Now, if you want to be honest and say you don't want to believe despite the historical and astronomical odds when it comes to the prophecies he did fulfill that is your decision.

However, to dismiss the evidence out of hand is disengenuous.

Oh, I dunno, thousands of people making extraordinary claims they have no evidence for and cannot convince the rest of the world of. Seems to me it made my point pretty well.

If ya don't like that example, there's always Scientology. A religion birthed in our own lifetime by a mediocre science fiction writer, yet, still a religion that you would scoff at. (And I wouldn't blame you, I find that particular religion hilarious.) But IMO they have as much evidence for their belief as you do for yours. It just hasn't cooked for a few millennia so its still a bit underdone.

You accuse me of being disingenuous because I dismiss your evidence, and in another post, you state that your tired of your evidence being dismissed, I think that your evidence is always the same tired reasoning that has already been weighed, measured and found wanting. You just seem to wrap it in a new package. None has been compelling. All seems to find its way back to the bible, which I dismissed out of hand years ago as a tome of few facts, many inconsistencies, and a lot of large, hard to swallow fables.

As far as the math of those prophesies, I think my math is just as valid. I calculated the odds of one man fulfilling any of those Prophecies. I came up with 0. Followed by nothing.

:dunno:

Geko45
05-11-2012, 10:04
It's believed that most of the disciples and Paul were brutally martyred. They could have walked away from it with denouncement. They witnessed the supernatural power of God, and the resurrection of Christ. They knew it was real, and were willing to die for it. That has always spoke volumes to me.

While in the service (USAF), I was wiling to die for my country and I didn't require my country perform any supernatural acts for me to be convinced to be willing to do so. Tibetan monks self-immolate just to bring some attention to their cause of freedom for their country and people. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to die for something they believe in, without the need for divine demonstration that they are correct.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 10:14
Jesus Christ Fulfilled Over 300 Prophecies, concerning His First Appearance,Written About Him over a Period of about 2000 years.

But the problem with that is, of course, if you were writing the story down and were trying to convince your followers that Jesus was the real deal then wouldn't you write it in to the story that he fulfilled those prohecies? You would already know the signs that people would want to see, so why not just add them to the account to lend credibility? It wouldn't even have to be deliberate fraud as if the writer was a true believer, he may have rationalized fabricating these details as a "the means justify the ends" type of scenario.

George Heron, calculated the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those Prophecies are 1 in 10 followed by 157 zeros.

All the more reason to believe that the story (at least the fanciful aspects of it) are more fiction than fact.

void *
05-11-2012, 10:22
t wouldn't even have to be deliberate fraud as if the writer was a true believer, he made have rationalized fabricating these details as a "means justifies the ends" type of scenario.

Or they could have actually believed what they were writing down, without needing to rationalize anything. If you believe that X is Y, you might believe X fulfilled any prophecies required by Y whether such fulfillment was witnessed or not. You might also write down stories about such fulfillment as though it were true, because you actually believe it is true.

Paul7
05-11-2012, 10:51
IMO the evidence is easy to dismiss, since all it is is eyewitness accounts from centuries ago.



The same as we know about many other things in ancient history. Other than the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the evidence of their changed lives, what evidence would you expect to see today IF the Gospel events really happened?

Paul7
05-11-2012, 10:54
But the problem with that is, of course, if you were writing the story down and were trying to convince your followers that Jesus was the real deal then wouldn't you write it in to the story that he fulfilled those prohecies? You would already know the signs that people would want to see, so why not just add them to the account to lend credibility? It wouldn't even have to be deliberate fraud as if the writer was a true believer, he made have rationalized fabricating these details as a "means justifies the ends" type of scenario.


How could Jesus arrange His place of birth and manner of death (attested to by ancient non-Christian historical sources)? What would be their motivation to make up these lies and then die saying they were true? Why would they make up the parts making themselves look bad, or that two women were the first to see the Risen Lord, at a time when a woman's word was not equal in courts?

Paul7
05-11-2012, 10:55
While in the service (USAF), I was wiling to die for my country and I didn't require my country perform any supernatural acts for me to be convinced to be willing to do so. Tibetan monks self-immolate just to bring some attention to their cause of freedom for their country and people. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to die for something they believe in, without the need for divine demonstration that they are correct.

The difference of course is that people don't knowingly die for a lie. Being in the military is irrelevant to that fact.

Paul7
05-11-2012, 10:58
Such evidence is only evidence to those so inclined to believe the position you believe it supports. As far as science, being the ultimate standard for evidence, is concerned, eyewitness testimony is the bottom of the barrel.


Our courts today sentence people to death based on eyewitness evidence.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 11:00
The difference of course is that people don't knowingly die for a lie. Being in the military is irrelevant to that fact.

But the fanciful aspects were probably added after they were dead, so they never had to die for a lie. The lie just came later.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 11:18
How could Jesus arrange His place of birth and manner of death (attested to by ancient non-Christian historical sources)? What would be their motivation to make up these lies and then die saying they were true? Why would they make up the parts making themselves look bad, or that two women were the first to see the Risen Lord, at a time when a woman's word was not equal in courts?

The most convincing lies are those that are mixed with the truth.

Paul7
05-11-2012, 11:25
But the fanciful aspects were probably added after they were dead, so they never had to die for a lie. The lie just came later.

Your vast conspiracy theory just gets bigger, with no evidence. Wouldn't ONE person betray this? Most of the NT was written within 40 years of Jesus' resurrection, some much sooner. John lived until the '90s.

Paul7
05-11-2012, 11:25
The most convincing lies are those that are mixed with the truth.

That is certainly Satan's methodology.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 11:42
Your vast conspiracy theory just gets bigger, with no evidence. Wouldn't ONE person betray this? Most of the NT was written within 40 years of Jesus' resurrection, some much sooner. John lived until the '90s.

Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a "conspiracy" at all. I'm not so naive. I don't think a small group of people thought up and carried out the biggest hoax in the history of the human race without anyone spilling the beans, but it's not necessary to believe such to understand how it got this way. Never look for a conspiracy to explain something that can be accounted for by ordinary human nature. Rather, I think it was a slow progression. I don't believe the actual Jesus performed any miracles per se, but he may have done some extraordinary and daring things that earned him the respect of his apostles.

I believe that those factual events of his life have been subject to good intentioned embellishment over the years. They either rationalized their adding to the story because they truly felt it was important or they did as Void described and actually convinced themselves it was true. Either way, each following writer, teacher, pastor added a little more to the story until they were finally committed to paper.

At some point, the mass of followers got large enough to attract less scrupulous individuals. Those that seek to exert power over others. They saw this aimless mass of christians as a tool to be used for their own ends. A resource with which to build a power system for themselves. They meddled with it further and created what is now known as canon. All of this taking place over centuries. The point being, no need for conspiracy theories to explain what greed and ambition can achieve alone.

void *
05-11-2012, 11:57
The difference of course is that people don't knowingly die for a lie.

Why are you so sure this premise is true? Can you really conceive of no situation in which someone would knowingly die for a lie? You think there's no person that has ever existed that valued loss of face more than loss of life, for instance?

muscogee
05-11-2012, 14:12
It's believed that most of the disciples and Paul were brutally martyred. They could have walked away from it with denouncement. They witnessed the supernatural power of God, and the resurrection of Christ. They knew it was real, and were willing to die for it. That has always spoke volumes to me.

In the early days of the Vietnam conflict several Buddhist priests set themselves on fire in public to protest the actions of their government. According to your logic, God is a Buddhist. Maybe your logic is flawed.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 14:17
That is the single greatest proof: if Jesus did NOT come back from the dead as He said he would, the "following" would have dissipated and gone away over time. Instead his followers chose to be killed rather than deny Him.

If the Emperor of Rome had not chosen to make Christianity to religion of the Roman empire 300 years after the fact, Christianity would have gone away over time. Constantine did more to spread Christianity than Jesus and the disciples.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 14:29
Well, there are independant historical accounts, as has been proven.
Have you read them? As best, they say there was a man named Jesus and there were a group of people called Christians. The historical accounts do not say Jesus was divine or what the Christians believed. The Tradition of the Church does, but you reject that. So do I.

Then if you take into account the 300 Old Testament predicitions that Jesus fulfilled, there is overwhelming evidence that not only Jesus existed, but He was who He claimed to be.
Have you ever started with the Old Testament prophets and tried to work forward to Jesus being the prophesied Messiah rather than starting with the New Testament and working back? I tried it once. I couldn't get there from just the Old Testament.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 14:33
How many of them have gone to their deaths in order to defend these beliefs, rather than simply renounce them? Or even more accurately, NOT renounce these beliefs but acknowledge that some other belief which was slightly contradictory could be true? The analogy I'm trying to draw is the fact that the disciples died rather than simply acknowledge the Roman gods, or Caesar. They would not even have had to renounce Jesus.

Millions of Aztecs did. does that mean their Gods are real?

muscogee
05-11-2012, 14:38
It is pretty simple. It was predicted long before it happened, and then it happened. It is prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy.

No one mentioned the rapture. Also, setting a specific date for Jesus' return is actually against scripture.

Matthew 24:36-40, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,<sup class="footnote" value='[f (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#fen-NIV-23994f)]'>[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23994f)]</sup> but only the Father. <sup class="crossreference" value='(AN (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23994AN))'></sup> <sup class="versenum">37 </sup>As it was in the days of Noah, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AO (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23995AO))'></sup> so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. <sup class="versenum">38 </sup>For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AP (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/#cen-NIV-23996AP))'></sup> up to the day Noah entered the ark; <sup class="versenum">39 </sup>and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

Later in that same chapter Jesus says some of the people hearing him speak would live to see him return and the world end. Why did you leave that out?

muscogee
05-11-2012, 14:45
Rapture is a word not found in the bible. It is a false doctrine which will help deceive people into following the anti christ.

Want to see prophesy fulfilled?

Wait until Israel attacks Persia (Iran) who is backed by Russia, and the predicted war happens which eventually ends in a nuclear exchange..... and world panic ensues as oil prices skyrocket when the poison atmosphere above the ME panics everybody.

When the "christ" stands in the holy place (Jerusalem) bringing world peace and the "one world order", the world will fall at his feet, prophesy will be fulfilled. He is the anti christ, the true Christ comes later.

As I have asked before, will that be after or before the Zombie Apocalypse?

muscogee
05-11-2012, 15:20
Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a "conspiracy" at all. I'm not so naive. I don't think a small group of people thought up and carried out the biggest hoax in the history of the human race without anyone spilling the beans, but it's not necessary to believe such to understand how it got this way. Never look for a conspiracy to explain something that can be accounted for by ordinary human nature. Rather, I think it was a slow progression. I don't believe the actual Jesus performed any miracles per se, but he may have done some extraordianry and daring things that earned him the respect of his apostles.

I believe that those factual events of his life have been subject to good intentioned embellishment over the years. They either rationalized their adding to the story because they truly felt it was important or they did as Void described and actually convinced themselves it was true. Either way, each following writer, teacher, pastor added a little more to the story until they were finally committed to paper.

At some point, the mass of followers got large enough to attract less scrupulous individuals. Those that seek to exert power over others. They saw this aimless mass of christians as a tool to be used for their own ends. A resource with which to build a power system for themselves. They meddled with it further and created what is now known as canon. All of this taking place over centuries. The point being, no need for conspiracy theories to explain what greed and ambition can achieve alone.

Folks, we have a winner. Gecko45 will share the prize with void*. Game over.

Kingarthurhk
05-11-2012, 15:23
Later in that same chapter Jesus says some of the people hearing him speak would live to see him return and the world end. Why did you leave that out?

Actually, the transfiguration has been covered, but I would be happy to address it if you like.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 15:29
Actually, the transfiguration has been covered, but I would be happy to address it if you like.

You didn't take your quote out of context and discard the quote that invalidates everything else?

Kingarthurhk
05-11-2012, 15:32
Have you read them? As best, they say there was a man named Jesus and there were a group of people called Christians. The historical accounts do not say Jesus was divine or what the Christians believed. The Tradition of the Church does, but you reject that. So do I.


Have you ever started with the Old Testament prophets and tried to work forward to Jesus being the prophesied Messiah rather than starting with the New Testament and working back? I tried it once. I couldn't get there from just the Old Testament.

I like to work backwards and forwards. I find the New Testament references to the Old fascinating. Combined with history, archaeology, how scripture dovetails, and personal supernatural experiences there is nothing that could convince me that Jesus doesn't exist.

Kingarthurhk
05-11-2012, 15:38
You didn't take your quote out of context and discard the quote that invalidates everything else?

No, I did not take it out of context. I also didn't cover the fall of Jerusalem either. Or the various signs pointing to return of Christ, or that that they and we should pray that they ans we should have/had to flee on the Sabbath or in winter.

However, none of those things were relevant to the point.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 15:41
Folks, we have a winner. Gecko45 will share the prize with void*. Game over.

Oh! What did I win!?

*shamelessly shoves Void aside to collect his prize*

:supergrin:

Schabesbert
05-11-2012, 15:59
If the Emperor of Rome had not chosen to make Christianity to religion of the Roman empire 300 years after the fact, Christianity would have gone away over time. Constantine did more to spread Christianity than Jesus and the disciples.
Baseless speculation.

It's not like the Romans and the Jews didn't do everything they possibly could to crush Christianity for a long time.

Schabesbert
05-11-2012, 16:01
Millions of Aztecs did. does that mean their Gods are real?
Nope. Millions of Aztecs did not.

I'm really amazed at the inability of atheists to draw this critical distinction.

Schabesbert
05-11-2012, 16:02
Folks, we have a winner. Gecko45 will share the prize with void*. Game over.
You must be on the nobel prize committee. :whistling:

Schabesbert
05-11-2012, 16:04
Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a "conspiracy" at all. I'm not so naive. I don't think a small group of people thought up and carried out the biggest hoax in the history of the human race without anyone spilling the beans, but it's not necessary to believe such to understand how it got this way. Never look for a conspiracy to explain something that can be accounted for by ordinary human nature. Rather, I think it was a slow progression. I don't believe the actual Jesus performed any miracles per se, but he may have done some extraordinary and daring things that earned him the respect of his apostles.

I believe that those factual events of his life have been subject to good intentioned embellishment over the years. They either rationalized their adding to the story because they truly felt it was important or they did as Void described and actually convinced themselves it was true. Either way, each following writer, teacher, pastor added a little more to the story until they were finally committed to paper.

At some point, the mass of followers got large enough to attract less scrupulous individuals. Those that seek to exert power over others. They saw this aimless mass of christians as a tool to be used for their own ends. A resource with which to build a power system for themselves. They meddled with it further and created what is now known as canon. All of this taking place over centuries. The point being, no need for conspiracy theories to explain what greed and ambition can achieve alone.
Your revision of history would require a great miracle indeed!!

The early Church must've had the ability to time-travel in order to put the idea of a divine Jesus into writings that existed long before those centuries passed.

Amazing!!
:wavey:

Alizard
05-11-2012, 16:53
As I have asked before, will that be after or before the Zombie Apocalypse?Be sure to be first in line for the freebies that the anti christ will be handing out. You have earned it.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 19:01
Be sure to be first in line for the freebies that the anti christ will be handing out. You have earned it.

You know, sometimes I almost come to the conclusion that a live and let live strategy is best for dealing with theists, but then a total whack job such as yourself shows up and confirms my opinion that religion is one of the most dangerous forces in the modern world.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 19:12
I like to work backwards and forwards. I find the New Testament references to the Old fascinating. Combined with history, archaeology, how scripture dovetails, and personal supernatural experiences there is nothing that could convince me that Jesus doesn't exist.

If you start with a conclusion and work backwards you can nearly always find evidence to support your conclusion because you a priori conclusion biases you data search and your interpretation of the data.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 19:15
Nope. Millions of Aztecs did not.

I'm really amazed at the inability of atheists to draw this critical distinction.

Then what happened to all the Aztecs?

G23Gen4TX
05-11-2012, 19:19
Then what happened to all the Aztecs?

God made them Mexicans.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 19:26
Be sure to be first in line for the freebies that the anti christ will be handing out. You have earned it.

Baseless threats are all you've got. You're interpretation of Revelations could be incorrect. Many people think so. IMO, the author was suffering from some form of senile dementia. If you've spent much time around elderly people who are dying, then you've seen it. If you haven't seen it, you don't get to say that's impossible.

G23Gen4TX
05-11-2012, 19:27
I'm still waiting on response to my claim that none of those "proofs" are in the old testament.

juggy4711
05-11-2012, 19:40
Our courts today sentence people to death based on eyewitness evidence.

Well that is a court of law not science as I specifically referenced. Findings by a court of law are not necessarily the truth. Jesus was the son of God the same as OJ was innocent. The court of law found OJ not-guilty and Christians find Jesus to be divine.

...Have you ever started with the Old Testament prophets and tried to work forward to Jesus being the prophesied Messiah rather than starting with the New Testament and working back? I tried it once. I couldn't get there from just the Old Testament.

The OT and the NT do not jive backwards or forwards with an intellectually honest reading. The God of the OT and the God of the NT don't even agree on fundamental tenets.

Walk Soft
05-11-2012, 19:42
Combined with history, archaeology, how scripture dovetails, and personal supernatural experiences there is nothing that could convince me that Jesus doesn't exist.

The latter is enough for me.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 19:57
Our courts today sentence people to death based on eyewitness evidence.

But not upon what a third party says that someone else told them they saw. That's called hearsay and is inadmissable in a court of law and for good reason.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 20:33
The OT and the NT do not jive backwards or forwards with an intellectually honest reading. The God of the OT and the God of the NT don't even agree on fundamental tenets.

That's my interpretation as well. When Matthew tries to make the case that Jesus was the Messiah it's obvious that he was writing this for the Greek churches. The Jewish Christian churches would not have tolerated it.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 20:35
But not upon what a third party says that someone else told them they saw. That's called hearsay and is inadmissable in a court of law and for good reason.

Good point. The courts also have statutes of limitation. You would not be allowed to make your case 50 or 300 years after the fact. You certainly would not be allowed to cherry pick the evidence you presented.

Alizard
05-11-2012, 20:37
You know, sometimes I almost come to the conclusion that a live and let live strategy is best for dealing with theists, but then a total whack job such as yourself shows up and confirms my opinion that religion is one of the most dangerous forces in the modern world.
Good luck with that.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 20:39
Good luck with that.

Back at ya!

:wavey:

Alizard
05-11-2012, 20:40
Baseless threats are all you've got. You are genuinely and hopelessly confused. I do not and have not threatened anyone, just gave you a look at what is coming.

If you want to remain blind, so be it. You will have lot's of company.

juggy4711
05-11-2012, 20:48
You are genuinely and hopelessly confused. I do not and have not threatened anyone, just gave you a look at what is coming.

If you want to remain blind, so be it. You will have lot's of company.

Is that a threat or an insult?

Geko45
05-11-2012, 20:52
Is that a threat or an insult?

To be fair, he probably considers it a warning. Although one with a certain component of gamesmanship.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 21:14
You are genuinely and hopelessly confused. I do not and have not threatened anyone, just gave you a look at what is coming.

If you want to remain blind, so be it. You will have lot's of company.

Yeh, that's a baseless threat. It was supposed to happen around 2000 years ago. You've been stood up but don't want to admit it.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 21:17
Is that a threat or an insult?

It's a false belief used as a threat.

Animal Mother
05-11-2012, 21:26
You are genuinely and hopelessly confused. I do not and have not threatened anyone, just gave you a look at what is coming.

If you want to remain blind, so be it. You will have lot's of company.That's what I keep telling everyone about Ragnarok, but they never listen.

ConcealedG23
05-11-2012, 21:44
Clearly no one is really going to back down on their beliefs. Truth be told, I wouldnít expect anyone to. After all, your belief is your belief and through one avenue or another, we have all vetted our beliefs and thatís why we have them. Iíve noticed much of the arguments are based on what are facts and the feeling that many of the stories may have been embellished. I have no plans to try and change anyoneís beliefs.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
Iíd be interested to see what people on both sides of the road think about the documentary The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Iím not saying its Gospel but, it does offer a number of compelling research and facts.
<o:p> </o:p>
If you have a spare 70 min, check it out.
Hulu - Case for Christ - Watch the full movie now.@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.hulu.com/embed/FWlibUpc3wqoiH0QlCksxA@@AMEPARAM@@FWlibUpc3wqoiH0QlCksxA
<o:p> </o:p>
I really would like to hear what people have to say about it.
<o:p> </o:p>
D

Geko45
05-11-2012, 21:48
Clearly no one is really going to back down on their beliefs. Truth be told, I wouldnít expect anyone to.

I did. I was once an ardent believer. I even used many of the same arguments presented in this forum in support of theism. What finally changed my worldview was reading the bible cover to cover in a formal academic setting at a christian university. That's when I finally realized the entire premise was absurd.

I probably won't watch your video tonight. Getting tired here, but will try to make room for it tomorrow.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 21:54
Clearly no one is really going to back down on their beliefs. Truth be told, I wouldnít expect anyone to. After all, your belief is your belief and through one avenue or another, we have all vetted our beliefs and thatís why we have them. Iíve noticed much of the arguments are based on what are facts and the feeling that many of the stories may have been embellished. I have no plans to try and change anyoneís beliefs.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
Iíd be interested to see what people on both sides of the road think about the documentary The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Iím not saying its Gospel but, it does offer a number of compelling research and facts.
<o:p> </o:p>
If you have a spare 70 min, check it out.
Hulu - Case for Christ - Watch the full movie now. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/141396/case-for-christ)
<o:p> </o:p>
I really would like to hear what people have to say about it.
<o:p> </o:p>
D

OK, now you watch this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmhhZ-dex-k

ConcealedG23
05-11-2012, 22:00
OK, now you watch this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmhhZ-dex-k

No YouTube at work but I will sure hit it up when I get home.

D

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 00:00
OK, now you watch this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmhhZ-dex-k

Not a bad video. Not a whole lot of substance when it comes to professional scholars that would be taken seriously if questioned in the field of biblical/theological history. There was a lot of catchy musical effects and clever cinamatography that did a good job of attempting to connect/solidify arguments.

So I watched yours, have you watched mine?

D

muscogee
05-12-2012, 07:48
Not a bad video. Not a whole lot of substance when it comes to professional scholars that would be taken seriously if questioned in the field of biblical/theological history. There was a lot of catchy musical effects and clever cinamatography that did a good job of attempting to connect/solidify arguments.

So I watched yours, have you watched mine?

D

I spent 40 years listening to this type of rhetoric and this type of reasoning. Typical preaching to the choir fraught with logical fallacies that one could see through if one did not begin with the a prior assumption that everything their church told them was true. For example, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses except they were actually written by people who knew eyewitnesses at least a generation after the fact. The eyewitnesses wouldn't distort or misunderstand anything Jesus said and the translation from Aramaic to Greek was a perfect literal translation. The reason this is true is because I say so, and I know. As the Firesign Theater once said, "You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right".

Like I mentioned before, if you start with a belief, nearly all information you find will lead you to conclude that belief is only correct belief. After following this conclusion for many years, the belief will be so strongly held that cognitive dissonance will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consider any other point of view. That's why Joseph Goebbels and his wife killed themselves and their children rather than live in a world where everything they believed was discredited. Is cognitive dissonance the reason people were willing to die for their Christian beliefs rather than have to face the fact that their beliefs were based on flawed thinking?

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:02
But not upon what a third party says that someone else told them they saw. That's called hearsay and is inadmissable in a court of law and for good reason.

The Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or people who interviewed eyewitnesses. Paul was an eyewitness to an appearance of Christ, and many other miracles.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:05
Well that is a court of law not science as I specifically referenced.

How can science determine if what an eyewitness saw 2,000 years ago really happened? We have to use the legal method, the same way we do in court. FWIW, science has looked at the Shroud of Turin, and has not been able to explain how it was created short of a supernatural explanation.

Findings by a court of law are not necessarily the truth.

Neither are scientific guesses.

Jesus was the son of God the same as OJ was innocent. The court of law found OJ not-guilty and Christians find Jesus to be divine.

Non-sequiter.

The OT and the NT do not jive backwards or forwards with an intellectually honest reading. The God of the OT and the God of the NT don't even agree on fundamental tenets.

Cite?

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:10
If the Emperor of Rome had not chosen to make Christianity to religion of the Roman empire 300 years after the fact, Christianity would have gone away over time. Constantine did more to spread Christianity than Jesus and the disciples.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:12
Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a "conspiracy" at all. I'm not so naive. I don't think a small group of people thought up and carried out the biggest hoax in the history of the human race without anyone spilling the beans, but it's not necessary to believe such to understand how it got this way. Never look for a conspiracy to explain something that can be accounted for by ordinary human nature. Rather, I think it was a slow progression. I don't believe the actual Jesus performed any miracles per se, but he may have done some extraordinary and daring things that earned him the respect of his apostles.

I believe that those factual events of his life have been subject to good intentioned embellishment over the years. They either rationalized their adding to the story because they truly felt it was important or they did as Void described and actually convinced themselves it was true. Either way, each following writer, teacher, pastor added a little more to the story until they were finally committed to paper.

At some point, the mass of followers got large enough to attract less scrupulous individuals. Those that seek to exert power over others. They saw this aimless mass of christians as a tool to be used for their own ends. A resource with which to build a power system for themselves. They meddled with it further and created what is now known as canon. All of this taking place over centuries. The point being, no need for conspiracy theories to explain what greed and ambition can achieve alone.

So millions of people over centuries were involved in a fantastic, super-elaborate conspiracy and only Geko in 2012 has discovered this? You should get some kind of Nobel Prize or something. Shouldn't there be some kind of paper trail for this plot, maybe a secret letter from Pope X about the next layer of lies to add? Truly, this is tinfoil hat stuff, and more evidence than man will give up his rationality before he gives up his rebellion against God.

Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one.

Paul7
05-12-2012, 08:14
Why are you so sure this premise is true? Can you really conceive of no situation in which someone would knowingly die for a lie?

Not a sane person.

You think there's no person that has ever existed that valued loss of face more than loss of life, for instance?

The Apostle's loss of face was in testifying to the Gospel events, not denying them.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 08:16
Not a bad video. Not a whole lot of substance when it comes to professional scholars that would be taken seriously if questioned in the field of biblical/theological history. There was a lot of catchy musical effects and clever cinamatography that did a good job of attempting to connect/solidify arguments.

So I watched yours, have you watched mine?

D

The short answer. No, he did not.

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 08:59
The short answer. No, he did not.

I concluded as much. Typical of many involved in a conversation these days.

D

muscogee
05-12-2012, 09:00
The short answer. No, he did not.

Did too.

Your turn.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 09:10
I concluded as much. Typical of many involved in a conversation these days.

D

What did I write that leads you to conclude this? I could write more on what I saw wrong in that video than anyone would read. That's why I truncated my response. I'm not going to waste my time writing a detailed response just to have people like you dismiss it and change the subject. Why you respond to what I wrote ranter than attacking me? Cognitive dissonance will not allow you to consider that everything you think you know might be wrong.

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 09:16
Did too.

Your turn.

It seems I was wrong. Please accept my apology. So what was factually incorrect as it pertains to the validity of the Gospels and the manner in which they acount history. It seems from your argument that we should throw out all written and oral history. Do you believe that?

D

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 09:22
Did too.

Your turn.

The generalized response threw us off.

void *
05-12-2012, 09:34
The Apostle's loss of face was in testifying to the Gospel events, not denying them.

I'm not asking about the apostles. I am asking in general. You continually state "Who would knowingly die for a lie" as though it were a given that no one would. I am disputing that given. The example of someone fearing loss of face more than they feared losing their own life is presented as a situation in which someone might knowingly die to protect a lie. It is not to be construed as arguing that's what the apostles did.

So, again, I ask: Can you really not think of counterexamples?

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 09:46
An interesting angle that I have seen no one bring to light is the clear and undeniable fault of “science”. There is much talk about the fault/interpretation of written and oral history but none on science. It’s all too often, and I’d actually say more often than not, that “science” is used to find whatever the author(s) wants to find. The pharmaceutical industry and global warming are only two of an uncountable number of shining examples of this. You can even take political arguments such as gun control and see how “facts and numbers” are used as proof of a point. I find it highly interesting that people base so much on science, when science it self is every bit as flawed as any other kind of record.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
D

muscogee
05-12-2012, 09:47
It seems I was wrong. Please accept my apology. So what was factually incorrect as it pertains to the validity of the Gospels and the manner in which they acount history.
I partially answered that question. You ignored my response and choose to imply I was dishonest rather than respond to it. You're not preaching to the choir so I won't let you get away with that like they would.

It seems from your argument that we should throw out all written and oral history. Do you believe that?

D

Do you know what straw man argument is? It's when you change someone's argument and respond to what you say he said instead of what he really said. I could change your argument and say, "It seems like your argument is that we should believe everything that's ever been written or said". That's dishonest. It's bearing false witness. When you get serious about having an honest discuss discussion rather using underhanded means to prove you're right, we'll have that discussion.

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 09:57
I partially answered that question. You ignored my response and choose to imply I was dishonest rather than respond to it. You're not preaching to the choir so I won't let you get away with that like they would.



Do you know what straw man argument is? It's when you change someone's argument and respond to what you say he said instead of what he really said. I could change your argument and say, "It seems like your argument is that we should believe everything that's ever been written or said". That's dishonest. It's bearing false witness. When you get serious about having an honest discuss discussion rather using underhanded means to prove you're right, we'll have that discussion.

Iím simply attempting to understand the root of the thought behind your beliefs. Itís my perception that you dismiss what is written in the Bible because you have a perception that it canít be proven by science. Is that line of reasoning wrong?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
D

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 09:59
I partially answered that question. You ignored my response and choose to imply I was dishonest rather than respond to it. You're not preaching to the choir so I won't let you get away with that like they would.



Do you know what straw man argument is? It's when you change someone's argument and respond to what you say he said instead of what he really said. I could change your argument and say, "It seems like your argument is that we should believe everything that's ever been written or said". That's dishonest. It's bearing false witness. When you get serious about having an honest discuss discussion rather using underhanded means to prove you're right, we'll have that discussion.

On a side note, I dig your avator. Whether it's you or not, that mullet is pretty BA.

D

muscogee
05-12-2012, 10:37
The generalized response threw us off.

Like most Boomers, I grew up with a very ethnocentric view of WWII. We, the U.S, won the war all by ourselves. (i.e., The British helped a little. The Russians did nothing but come in after the war and enslave Eastern Europe). According to the myth, the war consisted of Poland, Normandy, Paris, Berlin, Pearl Harbor, the Pacific, the bomb, and the surrender of Japan. Nothing happened in Stalingrad, Leningrad, Minsk, or anywhere on the Eastern Front. Of course, the Russians told a diametrically opposed story but every one knew they were liars. That was blatantly dishonest propaganda by both sides but anyone who said otherwise was a traitor in the USSR and a traitor and a Communist in the U.S.

Is it possible that the Bible and the Tradition of the Church are similar propaganda written by Rome to strengthen it's hold on power by claiming that it was foreordained by God to usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth? Prior to the adoption of Christianity, Roman emperors could be assassinated and replaced at will. With the adoption of Christianity an attack on the Emperor became an attack on God and you would have to pay for it by spending the afterlife in eternal torment worse than anything you could imagine. Is it possible there was collusion between the Roman Church and the Emperor? Did the Church tell everyone what the Emperor wanted them to hear (e.g., Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's made is sin to avoid taxes, revolt, and so on.)? In return the Emperor made Christianity the religion of the empire and spread it to the known world. After all, it was in his best interest to do so. And you want me to believe documents written in this politically volatile situation are true and free of any editorial bias? You want me to believe the Church didn't pick the books it liked and burn those it didn't? You expect me to believe the books it chose were inspired by God and those it discarded were not. And you expect me to believe it just because the Church said so 1700 years ago and 300 years after the death of Jesus.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 10:38
Iím simply attempting to understand the root of the thought behind your beliefs. Itís my perception that you dismiss what is written in the Bible because you have a perception that it canít be proven by science. Is that line of reasoning wrong?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
D

It isn't proven by anything.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 10:43
On a side note, I dig your avator. Whether it's you or not, that mullet is pretty BA.

D

It's a picture of me looking down at an overhead projector many years ago. I was teaching a quantitative data analysis (statistics) class. It was my favorite subject because I didn't have to put up with opinions. People either knew how to do it or they didn't.

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 10:46
When you get serious about having an honest discuss discussion rather using underhanded means to prove you're right, we'll have that discussion.

I must have clearly missed something. Please point out to me where I have attempted to prove that I am right. If Iím not mistaken, I havenít even stated where I stand on the subject. Itís my perception that you have been a bit presumptive in thinking I believe as those that believe in a God do.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
D

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 11:15
It was my favorite subject because I didn't have to put up with opinions. People either knew how to do it or they didn't.

Insofar as you taught them. I’ve taken enough math and engineering to have an appreciation that quantitative data clearly isn’t quantitative in nature. There are limitations and assumptions with all data gathering systems and devices. Ergo, all quantitative data analysis is inherently flawed. I do agree that the analysis of said data is cut and very dry.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

D

Paul7
05-12-2012, 11:50
I'm not asking about the apostles. I am asking in general. You continually state "Who would knowingly die for a lie" as though it were a given that no one would. I am disputing that given. The example of someone fearing loss of face more than they feared losing their own life is presented as a situation in which someone might knowingly die to protect a lie. It is not to be construed as arguing that's what the apostles did.

So, again, I ask: Can you really not think of counterexamples?

Your example has nothing to do with the Apostles, making it a non-sequiter. Why don't YOU find an example of someone doing that (that was my question), and show how it ties in with the Apostles.

hogfish
05-12-2012, 11:50
Have you read them? As best, they say there was a man named Jesus and there were a group of people called Christians. The historical accounts do not say Jesus was divine or what the Christians believed. The Tradition of the Church does, but you reject that. So do I.


Have you ever started with the Old Testament prophets and tried to work forward to Jesus being the prophesied Messiah rather than starting with the New Testament and working back? I tried it once. I couldn't get there from just the Old Testament.

I thought the 2nd paragraph here was important, but haven't seen any discussion on it. If it was answered/discussed already, I apologize. Was Jesus clearly prophesied in the OT?

Thanks.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 12:14
I must have clearly missed something. Please point out to me where I have attempted to prove that I am right. If Iím not mistaken, I havenít even stated where I stand on the subject. Itís my perception that you have been a bit presumptive in thinking I believe as those that believe in a God do.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
D



The short answer. No, he did not.

I concluded as much. Typical of many involved in a conversation these days.

D

What are you implying here?

muscogee
05-12-2012, 12:30
Insofar as you taught them. Iíve taken enough math and engineering to have an appreciation that quantitative data clearly isnít quantitative in nature.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

There are limitations and assumptions with all data gathering systems and devices.

Of course. That statistics is about probability. Statistics can't prove anything is true. It can suggest that something might not be untrue. That's not a double negative. If the probability of it being untrue is high enough then you have to reject your assumption. Otherwise, you can proceed on the assumption is it is shown to have a high probability of being untrue.

Ergo, all quantitative data analysis is inherently flawed. I do agree that the analysis of said data is cut and very dry.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p>

D

It has limitations but the flaws are due to conclusions drawn by people thinking they understand it better than they really do.

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 12:34
What are you implying here?

I was implying that most all individuals that partake in discussions such as these arenít truly open to the other sideís point of view and are all too quick to dismiss the information that they provide. I was too quick to judge you but, this presumption goes for those on both sides of the argument.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
You still havenít definitively pointed out where I have attempted to point out that I am right about anything or that I have ever taken a stance, one way or the other, on the subject.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
D

ConcealedG23
05-12-2012, 12:43
It has limitations but the flaws are due to conclusions drawn by people thinking they understand it better than they really do.

Is it?

muscogee
05-12-2012, 12:46
I thought the 2nd paragraph here was important, but haven't seen any discussion on it. If it was answered/discussed already, I apologize. Was Jesus clearly prophesied in the OT?

Thanks.

I couldn't get there from the Old Testament. Most Jews can't either. IMO, that's why Christianity spread much faster among the Greeks and Romans than it did among the Jews. That's why the New Testament was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. That's why the Hebrew Christian churches were pretty much gone by the time Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Once again, JMO. I'm sure people will quote from the Greco-Roman Bible or the tradition of the Greco-Roman church and tell me I'm wrong.

Kingarthurhk
05-12-2012, 12:58
I couldn't get there from the Old Testament. Most Jews can't either. IMO, that's why Christianity spread much faster among the Greeks and Romans than it did among the Jews. That's why the New Testament was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. That's why the Hebrew Christian churches were pretty much gone by the time Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. Once again, JMO. I'm sure people will quote from the Greco-Roman Bible or the tradition of the Greco-Roman church and tell me I'm wrong.

Interesting. Considering that Christianity was a Jewish movement. The original disciples were all Jewish. Also, there are quite a few Messianic Jews today.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 12:58
Is it?

Of course. I see it all the time. Most people think it would be good to work for a company where the average income was increasing. You can increase the average income by terminating the lower paid employees and distributing the work they did among the remaining employees. No one makes any more money but the average i income goes up. If the CEO pays himself a bonus with the savings, the average income goes up even farther. If anyone complains about not getting a raise, the CEO can say it must be the employee's fault because the average income in the company has increased over the last year.

However, this is off topic.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 13:19
Interesting. Considering that Christianity was a Jewish movement. The original disciples were all Jewish. Also, there are quite a few Messianic Jews today.

Some scholars think Paul hijacked the Hebrew Church and converted it to the Greco-Roman Church that evolved into the Christian churches that we have today. That branch of Christianity survived while the original disappeared.

Why was the New Testament written entirely in Greek? Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, it seems that there should be something written in Aramaic or Hebrew. Since there's not that means that the Greek New Testament is at least one translation removed from what Jesus actually said. As I have mentioned before, the Greco-Roman Church decided what books would be in the New Testament. I don't know if any Hebrew churches were in on that decision or not.

Have you started entirely with the Old Testament and worked to the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah? If so, how did you get there? I have seen knowledgeable Jews rip Matthew to shreds for taking the Old Testament out of context to prove his point.

muscogee
05-12-2012, 13:24
I was implying that most all individuals that partake in discussions such as these arenít truly open to the other sideís point of view and are all too quick to dismiss the information that they provide. I was too quick to judge you but, this presumption goes for those on both sides of the argument.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
You still havenít definitively pointed out where I have attempted to point out that I am right about anything or that I have ever taken a stance, one way or the other, on the subject.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
D

I was on the other side for 40 years. I know their arguments and find them hopelessly flawed. That's why I left.