Jesus: Was He Real?

[Anonymous]

I don't think so... What about you?

[Murph]

Absolutely. There's as much documentation about His life outside the Bible as there is inside.

I recommend the book "He Walked Among Us" to anyone interested in reading about non-Biblical documentation on the life of Jesus.

[Jason McCullough]

Pete, you troll. ;0

[Jessica]

Absolutely. There's as much documentation about His life outside the Bible as there is inside.

I recommend the book "He Walked Among Us" to anyone interested in reading about non-Biblical documentation on the life of Jesus.

This turns out not to be the case, actually, unless something has come to light quite recently that I'm unaware of (and, hey, I'm no expert, just an interested party who checks it out occasionally).

The book "He Walked Among Us" takes the four gospels and discusses how Matthew, Mark, Luke and John experienced Jesus. It is all strictly from the Bible and a discussion of those works, if I remember correctly. It has been a number of years since I read it.

In fact, one of the problems with establishing whether Jesus actually lived, as a historical fact, is that there seems to be no record of his life other than the four Gospels, themselves generally considered to have been written from 170 to 180 years after the fact. Contemporary Roman records don't mention him, and the Romans were inveterate recordkeepers; it seems strange that Roman historians, of which there were many, would not mention someone crucified or who led a rebellion against Roman rule, as that was the Roman punishment for rebels and Palestine was a hot spot during this period.

During the period of 0 CE to the mid-30s CE, which would take in the bulk of Jesus' life, there seems to be no independant documentaton that mentions him (at least, to my knowledge). The one exception I know of is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian born in 37 CE, four years after Jesus' crucifixtion. Most scholars think the two passages in which he mentions Jesus, as a wise man crucified by Pilate, to be forgeries added later by an unknown Christian source, as it appears completely out of context with the rest of the narrative.

Of all mentions of Jesus by name within two centuries of his death, there are a total of 4, and each is consider by scholars, both Christian and non, to be interpolations of his existence due to the existence of the Christian sect.

So, for many academics, the jury is still out on whether Christ was an actual historical figure or not. That doesn't mean he didn't live; only that there is no reliable documentation that I'm aware of to independantly confirm this as fact. Who knows? It may just be waiting to be found. We shouldn't forget the lesson of the 'myth' of the Trojan War.

[Jack]

Good post, Jessica. Is there no end to your knowledge? :) I've done some reading on this, including the textbook-like The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, which like the above cited He Walked Among Us, is more of a study of the Gospels rather than any true historical evidence.

Josepheus' entries could very well be forgeries, but the passages referring to Jesus are rather bland and matter-of-fact. I believe if they were forgeries, they might have been written with a bit more verve or at least detail. Nor did Josepheus record any of the "miracles," which certainly would have helped bolster the case of the early Christians -- if, in fact, his entries are forgeries.

I'm not debating with you, though. Just discussing. :) I realize neither of us are qualified experts.

[Bub, Andrew]

Ultimately I think it doesn't matter. The lesson(s) is/are more important than the man.

[Tyjenks]

He was definitely white, though....right? :wink:

[Troy S Goodfellow]

It's interesting that the references to Jesus in Tacitus and Josephus are largely taken to be forgeries or interpolations and their references to Tacfarinas and Herod aren't.

From the Roman point of view, Jesus would have been little more than a minor local disturbance so I wouldn't expect reams of documents anyway, but even assuming that the Romans were inveterate record keepers, these records would be 2000 years old. For example, almost all of our knowledge of the late Republic comes from the writings of Cicero and (more importantly) commentaries on his writing. Plutarch refers to sources lost in the barbarian invasions, of course, but we have nothing now that confirms his accounts.

The Gospels are no worse as historical records of a man existing than Sallust's account of the Jugurthine War - the only contemporaneuos account we have of Marius - a key figure in Roman history. Mark was written in the first century, and would likely not have been much good for evangelizing if people in living memory could have said "I was in Jerusalem, and that never happened", or "I worked for the prefect around that time and remember no such incident". I'm not saying that they are perfect accounts - they aren't, but they are as reliable as ancient source materials as stuff we cite all the time.

Troy

[Jessica]

It's interesting that the references to Jesus in Tacitus and Josephus are largely taken to be forgeries or interpolations and their references to Tacfarinas and Herod aren't.

The thing to remember with Tacitus is that he wrote the passage in question in 120 AD, when it was a widely accepted oral tradition among Christians that Pilate ordered Jesus' execution. That's where the interpolation comes from; it is thought that Tacitus was simply interpolating from common wisdom, not reciting history (those that don't dispute the authenticity of that Tacitus document itself; opinions seem to run aboiut 50/50). Your mileage may vary.


From the Roman point of view, Jesus would have been little more than a minor local disturbance so I wouldn't expect reams of documents anyway, but even assuming that the Romans were inveterate record keepers, these records would be 2000 years old. For example, almost all of our knowledge of the late Republic comes from the writings of Cicero and (more importantly) commentaries on his writing. Plutarch refers to sources lost in the barbarian invasions, of course, but we have nothing now that confirms his accounts.

Good points. One could make the case that the Christians and Jews (actually more like one religion at the time, and treated as such by the Romans) were such a sore spot at the time and rebellions treated so harshly by the Roman overlords, that this would not be considered a small local problem. Perpetrators were made examples of, and it seems unlikely that a foiled insurrection would go without some official notice throughout the land, and that such notice would be recorded somewhere by contemporary sources.


The Gospels are no worse as historical records of a man existing than Sallust's account of the Jugurthine War - the only contemporaneuos account we have of Marius - a key figure in Roman history. Mark was written in the first century, and would likely not have been much good for evangelizing if people in living memory could have said "I was in Jerusalem, and that never happened", or "I worked for the prefect around that time and remember no such incident". I'm not saying that they are perfect accounts - they aren't, but they are as reliable as ancient source materials as stuff we cite all the time.

Troy

Good points again. Let me just state that that that doesn't make those other ancient source materials particularly reliable, either.

I should also state I am NOT an expert, just an interested layperson with a tendency to argue, <g>.

-Jess

[Jessica]

He was definitely white, though....right? :wink:

It is amazing you haven't yet been hung by some group or other. :D

[voltaic]

Contemporary Roman records don't mention him, and the Romans were inveterate recordkeepers; it seems strange that Roman historians, of which there were many, would not mention someone crucified or who led a rebellion against Roman rule, as that was the Roman punishment for rebels and Palestine was a hot spot during this period.


Perhaps I'm a bit rusty... where/when did Jesus lead anything resembling insurrection against the Romans?

[Tyjenks]

He was definitely white, though....right? :wink:

It is amazing you haven't yet been hung by some group or other. :D

I used to try to convince my Baptist friends in high school that Jesus did not quite look like the pictures they had seen. I gave up as my head cracked before the brick wall I was dashing it against did.

The power of blissful ignorance is astounding. :)

[Jack]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Rome's occupation of Jerusalem had the Jews looking for the messiah under every stone. Jesus wasn't the only messiah to come along. Zoroaster, anyone? Yet another messiah among the Jews probably wouldn't make much of a historical rippled among the Romans.

[Mark Asher]

"The Gospels are no worse as historical records of a man existing than Sallust's account of the Jugurthine War...."

Sure they are if you want to use them to establish a historical basis for Jesus. The authors of the Gospels promote the words of Jesus. It's in their interest to claim he existed.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

"The Gospels are no worse as historical records of a man existing than Sallust's account of the Jugurthine War...."

Sure they are if you want to use them to establish a historical basis for Jesus. The authors of the Gospels promote the words of Jesus. It's in their interest to claim he existed.

"It's in their interest?" What interest? These guys just got together and decided to invent a Messiah figure so they could form a persecuted religion and get executed for their troubles? It's not like there was any money in it, like Scientology. And no single revelation to one person only, like Joseph Smith and Mohammed. I'm not arguing in favor of Christianity, but it's pretty hard to imagine inventing a real life God who gets humiliated and executed by officials and public leaders everyone had heard of and respected - Caiaphas, for example - from not too distant memory. Maybe that's why I'm not an apostle.

Luke and John are late Gospels and clearly full of symbology and Hellenism - maybe they could be written off as a cult trying to justify itself. But Mark - the least mystical of the Gospels - is 85-110 AD. The Romans were a superstitious lot, but quite careful about their official history.

Jessica, I take your point about Tacitus and the interpolations. It would be unusual, though, for Tacitus to rely on Christian oral tradition regarding an imperial execution, especially since he refers to them as "anti-social", "degraded and shameful" and "guilty" as Christians but not as arsonists (the discussion of Christians occurs in the context of the burning of Rome). Tertullian trusted these statements enough to condemn Tacitus for them, though this was a couple of hundred years after The Annals was written.

Oh, and a correction to my earlier post - Caesar makes passing references to Marius in his histories, but not enough to gauge his character by. So my comments on Sallust and Marius, though not factually correct, still kind of fit.

Troy

[Anonymous]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Rome's occupation of Jerusalem had the Jews looking for the messiah under every stone. Jesus wasn't the only messiah to come along. Zoroaster, anyone? Yet another messiah among the Jews probably wouldn't make much of a historical rippled among the Romans.

um, Zoroaster, or Zardusht and/or Zartusht in the Persian, aka Zarathustra, had absolutely nothing to do with the Jews and scholars are currently debating whether such an individual ever existed (it's a tenet of the religion that he did; however, the only references are in scripture and don't even really refer to him as a prophet. Some are saying he was a spiritual/mythological figure). Even if he did exist, we're talking way before Jesus - the religion was practiced by the Achaemenids - 550-330 BC.

[sellthekids]

ok i know this is pretty generic as far as specific information, but i seem to remember reading these texts in college and there being some pretty specific information about non-biblical sources mentioning/dealing with/confirming the validity of at least Jesus existing. unfortunately, i don't remember the exact sources...look i just needed the "A."

Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Harris, Stephen. The New Testament: A Student's Introduction.. Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

of course i sold these texts when the class was done too...sorry.

[Jack]

Zoroaster had a very similar mythology. He claimed that he would someday return from the dead -- and his presence did have an effect on Jewish belief. It's believed by some scholars that the "wise men" in Matthew were followers of Zoroaster. But then, it's easy enough to find a scholar for every argument -- like the Bible being used to support nearly any political movement. :)

[Mark Asher]

""It's in their interest?" What interest? These guys just got together and decided to invent a Messiah figure so they could form a persecuted religion and get executed for their troubles?"

I didn't say or imply that they invented Jesus, just that they are naturally biased towards promoting their beliefs, which makes them unreliable witnesses.

Let me put it another way. If you want to accept their writings as proof of the existence of Jesus, don't you also have to accept their recounting of the miracles? So the historical Jesus did walk on the water, did feed the masses, did raise Lazurus from the dead, and did himself return after death? The Apostles are either good witnesses or not, it seems to me, and I'm not making a judgement one way or the other. You can't accept just part of what they wrote if you want to use their writings as proof, can you?

[Michael Fortson]

I don't know... it's easier for me to imagine someone exaggerating or even inventing dramatic, convincing incidents than it is for me to imagine the same person making the entire existence up. I don't really see being required to accept all of it at face value due to accepting any of it as supportive. Not proof, sure. But supportive evidence.

[Anonymous]

Zoroaster had a very similar mythology. He claimed that he would someday return from the dead -- and his presence did have an effect on Jewish belief. It's believed by some scholars that the "wise men" in Matthew were followers of Zoroaster.

Ah, from your original post, I thought you were saying Zoroaster was a contemporary of Jesus. Many Zoroastrian beliefs certainly influenced Judaism and Christianity, although I think the extent to which this is true is over-emphasized by proponents of the religion. None of this, of course, proves Zoroaster ever existed - that's what this thread is about, right? Because really the argument among Western scholars boils down to this: the Gathas are so beautiful and full of personality that they must have been composed by a single individual. I'm being only slightly facetious. And when I say "scholars" disagree with the historical Zoroaster, I'm not talking about the fringe.

[Toddy]

Contemporary Roman records don't mention him, and the Romans were inveterate record keepers; it seems strange that Roman historians, of which there were many, would not mention someone crucified or who led a rebellion against Roman rule, as that was the Roman punishment for rebels and Palestine was a hot spot during this period.

That's not even remotely true. Jesus is mentioned in Roman history within a couple of generations of his death. Tacitus is the most important source. He refers to a "Christus" in the Annals, 15.44, which was written any time from the 90s through 130 or so (some critical opinions vary widely). Here's the relevant section, taken from an awful translation I found on the web just now:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

Of course, there are skeptics who believe that this reference was inserted at a later date, but that seems ridiculous considering the nature of the work itself, and the negative impression of Christianity given by Tacitus. Also, there were not "many" Roman historians in this time period. Tactius is the only Roman historian whose work on this time period is relatively extant (and there are of course huge sections missing in both the Annals and the Histories). We've got Suetonius, who mentions Christianity briefly in the same context as Tacitus, but he wrote imperial biography, not history, and Christianity simply wasn't important or scandalous enough to warrant much effort. There's also a famous reference in the letters of Pliny to Trajan around the same time, but there is no specific mention of Christ. Others who wrote on the period considerably later have only survived in epitome, like Cassius Dio, and a few others wrote (Eutropius, etc.) in such brief passages that there is no room for digressions on a minor/hated/derided figure in the pagan world.

Nobody was much interested in the religion in the first century, really, as it was a minor cult at best. Only Nero's apparent use of Christians as scapegoats for the fire in Rome gets them any notice in Tacitus and Suetonius, as it served to outline the hideous nature of the emperor for the former and make the latter's work more salacious (as was the nature of imperial biography).

Most of all, though, Christ wouldn't have been a big deal to Romans. Nobody outside of Judaea would have heard of him. He was just another Jewish radical who had to be executed, and unlike some of his "followers" like Bar Kochba in the 120s and 130s, he accomplished virtually nothing in terms of revolt. He only became prominent during the reign of Nero, when the new cult had spread to Rome. So it's not logical to cite the absence of on-the-scene historical reports as evidence that Christ wasn't a real person. I personally think that there is enough in the early sources to state with fairly good certainty that there was a person named Jesus Christ.

[Bub, Andrew]

Forgive my ignorance, but did any of Pilate's records survive? Or Herod's? Meaning anyone writing for Herod?

[Toddy]

Oh, one more thing. It's nowhere near 50/50 on the reliability of Tacitus' reference; it's more like 90/10 in favor of it being accurate. Virtually everyone today sides with Syme--or they did seven years ago when I was still doing classical grad work. The passage only makes sense if you consider it as Tacitus' own work. A Christian surely wouldn't have been so nasty. If you're going to insert something, why not put something in that was positive, or at least somewhat neutral? Also, the section reads like Tacitus. And how would a monk copyist from the 11th century know that Pontius Pilate was in charge of Judaea at this time? That's been proven by epigraphical evidence, I believe.

And it seems equally tenuous that Tacitus was simply wrong. Yes, he could have been mistaken. But this was one of most tenacious historians in the ancient world, and it seems unlikely that he would have included the specific reference to Christus if he wasn't nearly certain that such a person existed. Anyways, it'll always remain an interesting subject for debate.

[Toddy]

There was no serious Roman civil service in the first and second centuries. I mean, records were kept, but things were incredibly slip-shod in comparison with what developed in the third and fourth centuries--when things became so regimented and autocratic that the feudal system was essentially born (it's actually quite remarkable--the Roman world went from one without an organized legal system to one where you were bound by law to your parent's occupation in just two centuries). What papyrus records were kept have not survived, except in parts of Egypt and in bizarre circumstances like that cache in Britain and the burned family records from late antiquity found in Petra (which involves an incredible story of restoration; I got to see them working on the carbonized fragments in Amman in 1997). There is epigraphical evidence, of course, but there would never have been a reason to erect a monument or plaque to an executed criminal. I'm pretty sure there is epigraphical proof that Pilate was running Judaea for Tiberius, but that's as close to Christ as we're probably ever going to get.

[JeffL]

I was about to post some things that Brett has already posted. From my readings, even most atheists who are historians of the era agree that Jesus existed. Whether he is who he said he was, or who many today say he is, can be questioned, but when I was studying this stuff in college (and in later readings) I don't think anyone without an agenda argues that Jesus didn't exist. In fact, I'm in the middle of a Roman history binge, and at least a couple mention other historical references to Jesus, and all of them speak of Jesus the man as a historical fact. The one here on the end table (Colin Well's The Roman Empire, Harvard Press) discusses the New Testament as a very good historical document for many of the details of the time. There's also some independent writings that relate to the martyrdom of some of the apostles.

Even my atheist ancient history prof in undergrad, who had a wonderful time trying to convince me of the folly of Christianity, did state that Jesus as a man who lived and was executed and was the source of what evolved into Christianity was something most historians accepted as fact.

FWIW

[Jason Cross]

What Jessica said - it's incredibly hard to find any scientific fact about Jesus' life (or not). The best most people can find is scientific fact about his legend, typically written (as she said) around 80-100 years after his death or more.

Bear in mind, at this point in history people lived pretty short lives, married young, and had children at a young age. 80 years would see four generations come, and at least two of them go. Most people didn't live past 40.

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that the four gospels were written by other hands - the earliest documents were untitled and not signed in any way, and most of the apostles were illiterate (as most of the general populace was at the time).

Certainly there was enough "talk" about this Jesus fella 2000 years ago that it was written about in by many people in both religous and secular documents. But then again, in 2000 years such "proof" would lead our descendants to believe there was a Santa Claus. ;)

The point, of course, is moot. If you're just looking to learn from Jesus' teachings, well you can do that whether he was real or not -- the teachings are still there. And if you're a Christian and it is therefore important for your salvation that he DID exist (so he could die for your sins), then you don't need proof. That's what faith is for, and indeed the very reason they call it "faith" and not "fact." If it could be proven, you wouldn't need to believe.

[Met_K]

If Jesus was fact, then Bush would have him arrested.

Think about it.

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

If Jesus was fact, then Bush would have him arrested.

Think about it.

LMAO!!!!

Its just amazing how many scholars we have here. Especially Jessica, who never ceases to amaze.

At any rate, while I believe that Jesus exists, I believe it with the same notion that with all the crap I've gone through, it had to take divine intervention to sort out. :D

Anyway, all I know is that, a thousand years from now - after the great apocalypse - nobody will be debating my existence. I intend to make sure of that. :D

[AIM]

I can't believe in todays technological age that people still believe that Jesus was this supernatural being.. and I can't believe that people still believe in a God. Stop kidding yourselves! They don't exist. Evolution is the only answer as any body with half a brain will tell you.

Look at it this way.. Poor people believed in Jesus because they wanted to believe that a better life was waiting for them when they died. And how about when lighting striked the ground or they had a massive flood. The people of that time thought God was punishing them. Now we know better... It's not God, but acts of nature that caused the massive flooding.

As I stated earlier... I can't believe that the people of this forum are debating whether or not Jesus existed. If Jesus did exist he was a con man who fooled a lot of people in his time. He was probably a drunk also...

So... Let's clear this up. God doesn't exist and Jesus was an average human being like us today. That's it...

There is no afterlife.. So stop fooling yourselves and anyone who is educated will also come to this conclusion. Live life to the fullest today because when you die that's it!

[Murph]

So...I'm an unintelligent, uneducated idiot because I believe in God? Interesting...

[JeffL]

There is no afterlife.. So stop fooling yourselves and anyone who is educated will also come to this conclusion.

Ph.D. Chemistry, graduate training in Physics and Biochem. 19 years working in advanced physical chemistry, physics, chemistry, and for the last few years quite a bit in Biotechnology. During my educational sojourn both in academia and industry I've worked with two Nobel Prize laureates and many who have been nominated. Another couple of pages in my CV of similar background.

If you'd care to go head to head in "educated" or engage in some debate in any number of scientific fields, I'd be happy to oblige.

Oh - I do believe in God. With both heart and mind. I've been a scientist far too long to believe in something that violated my intellect. I went through a phase in undergrad where I challenged that belief quite strongly, but as I went through more scientific training and studies, I came back to that belief. I'm not going to retread the various debates we've had here, but I just wanted to let you know that your blanket statement regarding "anyone who is educated" is hence disproved. (BTW - many of my co-workers, most of whom are at least as educated as I, also believe in God. As well as a fellow I've recently done some work with who is one of the folks who broke the human genome puzzle.)

Just to insert a data point for your hypothesis.

[AIM]

Guys...

I didn't mean to offend anyone by what I said, as I was in a very cranky mood. Working midnights and attending college full time is sometimes difficult and tends to put me in a bad mood.

But what I'm trying to say is.....

Why is it if I believed in faries and dragons I would be committed to a funny farm, but yet people can say that they have seen God and are taken seriously. Aren't the two similar? Let's see...

A Farie is a mythological figure that has wings, etc. etc... A God susposedly flies around and sends people to hell.

C'mon.... I doubt you believe in faries and dragons? Why should I believe in God then?

:D

[Jason McCullough]

So...I'm an unintelligent, uneducated idiot because I believe in God? Interesting...

Your belief in god has nothing to do with it. :wink:

[Sharpe]

I suppose I may be opening up a fairly major can of worms here, but I do wonder what the basis is for someone with a great deal of scientific knowledge to believe in God. Is it a purely intellectual decision; you've studied the ideas and concluded that there must be a God? Or is it a social/cultural/moral decision; you've decided that it is better socially or morally to believe in God? Or is it an emotional decision; you just feel a strong need to believe in God and the universe feels unfulfulling and coldhearted without God? Some combination of the above? Or some other reasoning?

As for myself, I am an atheist who believes the world makes sense without belief in any Deity. With no evidence to directly support the existence of a Deity, I simply don't believe. However, I do respect the opinions of others who do believe: I believe there is a separation between personal religious beliefs and people's ability to reason, participate in dialogue, and play games with me :). But when I look at the scientific explanations of the world I do sometimes wonder why a knowledgeable person would continue to believe, for purely intellectual reasons.

Dan

BTW, I just started reading a very interesting book called The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, the fellow who wrote How the Mind Works. Its interesting (if somewhat dense) so far. Although not directly related to religious issues, its a very interesting discussion of the great nature/nurture debate. Quite good so far.

[Brad Grenz]

AIM, prove it. Prove God doesn't exist. I can't prove he does, but you'll have no better luck proving he doesn't.

[wumpus]

Does God exist? Does it matter? Don't we have better things to do than discuss this old chestnut-- like play games?

[Ben Sones]

I can't believe that obvious troll created such a long thread so quickly. Funny. Maybe I'll try to roust up a good "PC vs. console" debate. Since we're all posting, however...


Prove God doesn't exist. I can't prove he does, but you'll have no better luck proving he doesn't.

Unless you put stock in faith (which by definition operates independently of reason), there is no need to prove god's non-existence, any more than there is a need to prove that the sun doesn't turn green when I close my eyes. By claiming that god exists, a claim that cannot be supported (or at least has not been supported) by observation or deduction, you bear pretty much all the burden of proof in that particular argument. Good luck.

[Kevin Perry]

Evolution is the only answer as any body with half a brain will tell you.

But taken out of context, that is one great quote.

[Brad Grenz]

By claiming that god exists, a claim that cannot be supported (or at least has not been supported) by observation or deduction, you bear pretty much all the burden of proof in that particular argument. Good luck.

Actually, I don't care. AIM is the one making claims he can not support. I've no interest in convincing anyone either way. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. That's fine by me. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with AIM, as he is the one making an argument.

[Jason McCullough]

By claiming that god exists, a claim that cannot be supported (or at least has not been supported) by observation or deduction, you bear pretty much all the burden of proof in that particular argument. Good luck.

Actually, I don't care. AIM is the one making claims he can not support. I've no interest in convincing anyone either way. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. That's fine by me. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with AIM, as he is the one making an argument.

.....except it's impossible to prove a negative.

[voltaic]

I can't believe in todays technological age that people still believe that Jesus was this supernatural being.. and I can't believe that people still believe in a God. Stop kidding yourselves! They don't exist. Evolution is the only answer as any body with half a brain will tell you.

Look at it this way.. Poor people believed in Jesus because they wanted to believe that a better life was waiting for them when they died. And how about when lighting striked the ground or they had a massive flood. The people of that time thought God was punishing them. Now we know better... It's not God, but acts of nature that caused the massive flooding.

As I stated earlier... I can't believe that the people of this forum are debating whether or not Jesus existed. If Jesus did exist he was a con man who fooled a lot of people in his time. He was probably a drunk also...

So... Let's clear this up. God doesn't exist and Jesus was an average human being like us today. That's it...

There is no afterlife.. So stop fooling yourselves and anyone who is educated will also come to this conclusion. Live life to the fullest today because when you die that's it!

It's a good thing you appeal to nothing but one single biological theory as the foundation of your statements. How many ways are there to trounce nearly everything you said? I hardly know where to begin.

Let's start with evolution and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. You use this and the fact that we know what physical processes causes lightning to equate that there is not now nor ever has been any form of supernatural deity? Wow. Truly insightful and persuasive at the same time.

Don't start me on (macro)evolution. I'm not too hot on any theory which is based entirely on one set of observations (in this case, comparitive anatomy) and absolutely nothing else, and yet claims to answer entire classes of questions in many disciplines.

[Ben Sones]

Actually, I don't care. AIM is the one making claims he can not support. I've no interest in convincing anyone either way. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. That's fine by me. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with AIM, as he is the one making an argument.

Technically, he's not. He is merely refuting your argument (or the argument for god in general, if you have no wish to argue). You cannot simultaneously claim that AIM's argument is false or unsupportable and that you are not arguing for the existence of god. Either god exists or he doesn't. If AIM's argument is false, then god exists.

In any event, the onus of providing proof in a logical argument is not assigned solely by virtue of whomever speaks first. Generally, by initiating a claim one takes on a greater degree of the burden of proof than the same position would warrant otherwise. In most arguments, however, it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo--in this case, supporting the argument that cannot be correlated by fact or observation--which has most of the burden of proof. To use my previous example, the burden of proof in my "does the sun turn green" argument does not shift to you if you initiate the argument by saying "I think the sun remains yellow even when I close my eyes and cannot see it." The argument that the sun turns green is still the less likely and less supportable argument, and still bears the greatest burden of proof.

[voltaic]

Technically, he's not. He is merely refuting your argument (or the argument for god in general, if you have no wish to argue). You cannot simultaneously claim that AIM's argument is false or unsupportable and that you are not arguing for the existence of god. Either god exists or he doesn't. If AIM's argument is false, then god exists.

AIM's argument could be wrong but his conclusion could be true. That is, he may have used completely fallacious reasoning to still support the notion that there is no God. In that case, his argument is false and God does not exist.
He is refuting the argument for God using specific premises which frankly are quite "fast and loose".

[Michael Fortson]

Sorry to bump a page-2 topic, but I came across this today on CNN.com and thought of this thread.

Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A limestone burial box, almost 2,000 years old, may provide the oldest archeological record of Jesus of Nazareth, experts announced Monday.

edit: love this quote:
The collector, who is Jewish, was not aware that Jesus had a brother. He discovered the interest in the object only when he met Lemaire at a dinner party last spring and asked him to decipher some Aramaic written on a number of collectibles, Shanks said.

The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"

[Sean Tudor]

I personally think a belief in God (or a god) is similar to the concept of Love. Love has no physical manifestation apart from a bunch of hormonal chemicals which alter the mind and give one a sense of well-being.

Belief in God is similar although it is strongly based on the feeling one gets belonging to a like-minded group. Belief gives one a sense of security in the group mind where all the individuals are constantly re-assuring one another. Basically a form of rapture.

You only have to walk in to a church to see a group re-canting the same passages and lines week after week. It is also a form of mass hypnotism. Of course people want to have to believe in God otherwise they won't have that feeling of rapture.

It is similar to people who can not be hypnotised (like myself). I also do not have a belief in God nor have I ever been able to gain a feeling of rapture when I have occasionally attended church services. I find myself sitting there looking at other peoples faces and studying their actions - people who are quite content yet IMO don't seem to be able to look at the big picture.

There are greater things than God - the natural world and the cosmos. These are the things that I believe in.

[Brad Grenz]

Uhh, God, by definition would be greater than the natural world and the cosmos. You've got a serious superiority complex, Dundee, you know that?

[Sean Tudor]

Uhh, God, by definition would be greater than the natural world and the cosmos.

And who's definition is that ?


You've got a serious superiority complex, Dundee, you know that?

Indeed - and I am not even an American.

[Brad Grenz]

And who's definition is that ?

The generally accepted definition for God as being the creator of that natural world and those cosmos of yours. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but those who do are going to be completely unimpressed with your insistance that the natural world and cosmos are greater than that which created them.

[Anonymous]

Well, here's the thing that scares me - even if God does exist, it doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference. On an individual level, who's to say that someone acting in an unselfish, moral manner is doing it because of their religion or because of a philosophy such as humanism (unless you're going to argue that an atheist could never act in such a way)? On an institutional level, what organized religion has really been effective in instituting change without resorting to violence? You know, there was one thing that would have made me convert to Christianity - if after September 11, George Bush, a professed Christian, had addressed the terrorists by saying "I forgive you." Now, that may be based on my admittedly slight understanding of Christian belief. If so, I take back the part about ever converting.

[Sean Tudor]

The generally accepted definition for God as being the creator of that natural world and those cosmos of yours. I'm not saying you have to believe it, but those who do are going to be completely unimpressed with your insistance that the natural world and cosmos are greater than that which created them.

Ah but there's the paradox - Man is claiming this fact therefore is Man greater than God ?

Who is Man to be able to make such claims ?

I am sure God can speak for him/herself ? That is if God exists.

I am sure you are aware that there is more than one religion in the world all claiming their own slice of the spiritual sky.

[Anonymous]

edit: love this quote: The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"

Ha! That's a great quote. It seems to require reading with a yiddish accent. When I first heard this on the news last night, I turned to my wife and said something similar. Who knew God had a brother?

[T Elhajj]

duh! that was me, forgot to log in.

[Michael Fortson]

Yup, seems almost straight from a Seinfeld episode :)

[Tom Chick]

You know, there was one thing that would have made me convert to Christianity - if after September 11, George Bush, a professed Christian, had addressed the terrorists by saying "I forgive you." Now, that may be based on my admittedly slight understanding of Christian belief. If so, I take back the part about ever converting.

Interesting scenario, Matt, but do you really want the head of the executive branch of government, whose responsibilities include executing the laws of the land, preempting the duty of his office with his personal religious beliefs?

However, if that's really the mindset you need to convert, you don't have to look any further than Pope John Paul II forgiving the Turk who tried to assassinate him.

I expect you to see you in church bright and early this Sunday morning. :)

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

I am sure God can speak for him/herself ? That is if God exists.

That's pretty much the point of any given relgion, Sean: that God did indeed speak for Himself. I'm not aware of any culturally significant religion that doesn't involve God coming to man with some information about how great He is.*

It's usually followed by instructions. Stuff like don't be a jerk, don't worship other gods, feed the poor, and don't eat meat on Fridays.

-Tom

* As usual, Buddhism doesn't really «x"¶in with everyone else.

[Sean Tudor]

That's pretty much the point of any given relgion, Sean: that God did indeed speak for Himself. I'm not aware of any culturally significant religion that doesn't involve God coming to man with some information about how great He is.*

It's usually followed by instructions. Stuff like don't be a jerk, don't worship other gods, feed the poor, and don't eat meat on Fridays.

-Tom

Well he hasn't spoken to me Tom - I am still waiting. If you mean the Bible or some priest well that doesn't count. I want the man himself to speak to me !

8)

[T Elhajj]

Sean: Cut the crap. I'm gettin pissed.

[T Elhajj]

Ah, well. So much for me trying to post as God. :oops:

It would have been cuter had I been succesful logging out first, but I give myself points for trying.

[Sean Tudor]

Sean: Cut the crap. I'm gettin pissed.

You've turned to the bottle ?! Repent thy sins Tim ! God is listening - to some of us. :wink:

[voltaic]

edit: love this quote: The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"

Ha! That's a great quote. It seems to require reading with a yiddish accent. When I first heard this on the news last night, I turned to my wife and said something similar. Who knew God had a brother?

It doesn't seem unreasonable that Mary and Joseph would have had kids post-Jesus. The Bible doesn't say either way, so who are we to assume either way?

[Tom Chick]

It doesn't seem unreasonable that Mary and Joseph would have had kids post-Jesus.

But, but...that would mean the Virgin Mary...had sex. Eew.

-Tom

[Murph]

It doesn't seem unreasonable that Mary and Joseph would have had kids post-Jesus. The Bible doesn't say either way, so who are we to assume either way?

It doesn't say? I thought the Bible made reference to Jesus' brother. I know it's generally accepted that he did have at least one brother, and I think several, throughout "the church" (both Protestant and Catholic), so I have to assume there's Biblical evidence somewhere. (And now, I resist every urge to make some snide remark about Catholicism. :))

Edit: Luke 8:19.

Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

Now, whether those were actual brothers, or just fellow believers, might be arguable, but I think it safe to assume that Mary and Joseph did have other children.

[Murph]

You know, there was one thing that would have made me convert to Christianity - if after September 11, George Bush, a professed Christian, had addressed the terrorists by saying "I forgive you."

Even Biblically, there's a difference between the leader of a nation and an individual person. The same God who said "Thou shalt not kill" led nations into war, and, under the law, said prostitutes must be put to the death.

So war, and possibly (depending on who you're talking to) something like capital punishment, are different from murder, because they're carried out through the government, not on an individual basis.

So, really, going to war isn't against Bush's religous beliefs, either.

[William Harms]

Now, whether those were actual brothers, or just fellow believers, might be arguable, but I think it safe to assume that Mary and Joseph did have other children.

Catholics hold that Mary was a virgin her entire life; James was a "step brother". Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born, but later in life her and Joseph had other children.

[Murph]

You're right -- I do remember that now. My apologies. Thanks for correcting me.

[Brad Grenz]

Wow, Catholics must have hated poor Joseph, chaining him to a prude for the rest of his life.


Ah but there's the paradox - Man is claiming this fact therefore is Man greater than God ?

Who is Man to be able to make such claims ?

I am sure God can speak for him/herself ? That is if God exists.

Clearly you have little understanding of what the word "paradox" means. Nor do you have any concept of what the whole Judeo-Christian Creation is all about. You've heard of Satan, yes? The story goes he had his ass ridden out of heaven for suggesting God do things in the manner you're suggesting. That, and well, you just aren't important enough for God to go out of his way to talk to. I think he thinks you're a prick.

Brad Grenz

[Jason McCullough]

You've heard of Satan, yes? The story goes he had his ass ridden out of heaven for suggesting God do things in the manner you're suggesting.
Brad Grenz

How very convenient.

[Murph]

In truth, the way I remember it, Satan was kicked out of Heaven for trying to "overthrow" God.

[Jack]

Imagine the sibling rivalry knowing your brother is the son of God. It's a wonder James didn't end up being an infamous sociopath. :)

[Brian Rucker]

Not that I've got a dog in this race but...

They talked to some experts last night on The News Hour and the breakdown goes something like this: Orthodox believe James was Jesus step-brother. Catholics believe he was a cousin and that the old Hebraic term for 'brother' merely indicates close kinship. Protestants believe James was a younger brother.

[Anonymous]

But, but...that would mean the Virgin Mary...had sex. Eew.

Well, sure... but only once.

[Anonymous]

She had sex?! The Holy Virgin would never partake in such filth!

[Anonymous]

"Interesting scenario, Matt, but do you really want the head of the executive branch of government, whose responsibilities include executing the laws of the land, preempting the duty of his office with his personal religious beliefs?"

No, but then I'm an atheist. Really, that just proves my point that God is irrelevant. So does this:

"Even Biblically, there's a difference between the leader of a nation and an individual person. The same God who said "Thou shalt not kill" led nations into war, and, under the law, said prostitutes must be put to the death."

So I can conceive of a being, even a human being, more compassionate and loving than God. Therefore, God is just another person, more or less. As such, he has my utmost respect.
Bush was kind of a metaphor for just about any Christian in the US after 9/11. The prevalent theme was not "Well, our religion suggests that we forgive and show mercy to our enemies. And there's something in there about turning the other cheek." Although, it's funny, my mom, a devout Christian, said exactly the same thing about Bush, a week or two after I had thought it myself. And I didn't say he had to base policy on his personal belief. Plenty of government officials said "God bless America." So either God is irrelevant or God is in favor of war.

"However, if that's really the mindset you need to convert, you don't have to look any further than Pope John Paul II forgiving the Turk who tried to assassinate him."

An individual act. An atheist could have done the same thing. He practiced what he preached and kudos for him, but really all you can argue from that is that even if God didn't exist, people can still act in a moral manner. And I'm sure you're familiar with at least one example of a Christian acting in an extremely un-Christian manner. Futhermore, there are examples of Christianity harming people on a macro scale - the Crusades, for instance (by the way, replace Christianity with whatever organized religion you feel like bad-mouthing).

"I expect you to see you in church bright and early this Sunday morning."

Only my wife can do that and that's under the agreement that I won't believe anything I'm told.

[Reeko]

So I can conceive of a being, even a human being, more compassionate and loving than God.

The difficulty lies in your frame of reference. What you see as "bad" appears bad because you do not see the other outcomes.

As a Christian, I believe that history boils down to God reconciling humans to Himself after we abandoned Him in the Garden of Eden. Where God is concerned, we are His creations and therefore His to do with as He sees fit for the greater good. That good being retrieving us from our own disobedience and bringing us to Him.

[Sean Tudor]

You've heard of Satan, yes?

Of course - now there is someone I can respect. None of this touchy feely let's be nice to each other God shit.


That, and well, you just aren't important enough for God to go out of his way to talk to. I think he thinks you're a prick.

You're a legend in your own mind Brad. I am sure you repeat that to yourself every night at home when you gaze wistfully at your reflection in the mirror for hours and hours.

[T Elhajj]

You've turned to the bottle ?! Repent thy sins Tim ! God is listening - to some of us. :wink:

LOL, pissed. I forgot it doesn't mean the same thing down there.

[Brad Grenz]

In truth, the way I remember it, Satan was kicked out of Heaven for trying to "overthrow" God.

Sort of. The war was over his plan which involved sending humans to earth, forcing God's will upon them and bringing everybody back safely. Satans way would have had a 100% success rate, would have made Satan the hero and also would have deprived mankind of free will. Jesus' plan was to send people down, give them free will, drop some hints about what they should be doing and let them choose. Sure people would sin, but Jesus would take ownership of that burden so people could find their way back to God. Those that did will have done so out of their own free will, out of a desire to be with God. See, Jesus' plan gave God the glory. It's what God wanted, and was looking for anyway. Satan and his supporters were afraid of failing so they decided to fight for their plan. They lost and Satan gets the boot.

At least, that's how I learned it.


You're a legend in your own mind Brad. I am sure you repeat that to yourself every night at home when you gaze wistfully at your reflection in the mirror for hours and hours.

I don't have that kind of time, and we've already settled who it is with the superiority complex here. Legend? No, I like to think of myself as an internet folk hero. Mostly I just know what I'm talking about (IE, the meaning of 'paradox', Judeo/Christian theology), before I start condeming things I don't understand or belittling people who I disagree with. Hopefully with lots of pithy quips or dead on zingers.

[voltaic]

Satan got the boot for claiming "I will be like the most-high God". Basically the sin of pride. Since then he's been trying to be like the most high God, because if he does then he was right.

[Sean Tudor]

I don't have that kind of time, and we've already settled who it is with the superiority complex here. Legend? No, I like to think of myself as an internet folk hero. Mostly I just know what I'm talking about (IE, the meaning of 'paradox', Judeo/Christian theology), before I start condeming things I don't understand or belittling people who I disagree with. Hopefully with lots of pithy quips or dead on zingers.

Well I am simply speechless ... gobsmacked ... utterly shattered ... will never be able to wake up ever again and face this horrible horrible world ...

... the horror ... the horror ...

[Brad Grenz]

Man, if I were wumpus or Met K or something I'd be saying "yawn" by now.

Did you have any subsantive refutations of my argument? 'Cause I'm starting to get the feeling you've run out of gas.

Can you say ad hominem abusive?

[Anonymous]

Aw, you guys got me all wrong. I'm on your side. I punish the bad people!

I'm just a different kind of good. I'm a good guy with teeth.

I really need a better agent.

[Anonymous]

Man, if I were wumpus or Met K or something I'd be saying "yawn" by now.

Did you have any subsantive refutations of my argument? 'Cause I'm starting to get the feeling you've run out of gas.

Can you say ad hominem abusive?


yawn

I'm not wumpus but wump(ass). Get it? I'm an ass!!!

hahahahahahhahahaha

:shock:

[Anonymous]

James: MOOOMMMMM!!!! JESUS IS PICKING ON ME!
Jesus: Am not!
Mary: Jesus! Stay on your side of the donkey!
James: I'm thirsty!
Jesus: I need to pee...
Mary: Jesus, stop whining, turn your pee into kool-aid and give it to your brother.

[Sean Tudor]

Man, if I were wumpus or Met K or something I'd be saying "yawn" by now.

Did you have any subsantive refutations of my argument? 'Cause I'm starting to get the feeling you've run out of gas.

Can you say ad hominem abusive?

I will have the last word Brad - even if it makes no sense. :wink:

As for my comment in this thread - I don't feel the need to refute anything. I wasn't even arguing against anyone but instead was simply making some personal observations.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs regardless of what I think about them.

But you are right I have tended to focus on your posts. Ever since you started beating the cliched patriotic US wardrums I have been interested to see if there was more than just an apparent red neck behind the person posting as Brad Grenz. If you feel that I am unfairly victimising you then I will stop now.

[Brad Grenz]

Ever since you started beating the cliched patriotic US wardrums I have been interested to see if there was more than just an apparent red neck behind the person posting as Brad Grenz.

What, so if I don't automatically take up the cliched, down with America attitude, all of a sudden I'm a paragon of jingoism? You talk about how arrogant, and closed minded and insensitive Americans are, but as far as you're concerned, I'm just another stereotypical American asshole. Well guess what, and I hope this doesn't blow your mind, I'm not some Christian Coalition, NRA diehard, Ozarks residen hillbilly. I'm not mindlessly pro American. You, however, seem to be mindlessly anti-American. I don't even remember you articulating anything resembling a legitimate greivance with America. Basically it was the usual, jealousy bourne whining, no? Unilateral this, blah blah blah. Nagasaki that, blah blah blah. I'm not sure what they put in the World History books down under, but the US has been one of the greatest forces for good in the world over the last century, and I expect it to continue to act as such in the future. I'm a citizen, a voter, I've even served my jury duty, and I do these things to ensure that that will always be the case. Perhaps it would help you if I provided some kind of cheat sheet of my political views? Something to help you more easily pigeonhole my ideology?

Hell, I'm not even a practicing Christian, I only jumped into this thread 'cause you were talking out of your ass. I have this pet peeve about atheist who look down their nose at people who believe in God. Who laugh at their beliefs based on their erroneous, preconcieved notions about them. Who think they are some how superior, having evolved beyond the "need to believe in God". It's that kind of elitist bullshit that led to the extermination of so many indigenous people around the world, resulted in the enslavement of millions and saw to the rise of the Nazis. Go ahead and think you're smarter, or better educated or more skilled than whoever you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're better than anyone.

Look, I'm not afraid to reveal my beliefs, but I try to show cause when I do so. You have no compunction either, but sometimes I'm going to call you on it when I think your reasoning is fallacious. If you disagree with me about it, feel free to further argue your point.

Brad Grenz

[Sean Tudor]

All points noted Brad and thank you for the response. I will stand down as any further comments would merely inflame you for no good reason. I am not here to cause trouble simply for the sake of causing trouble and for that I apologise.

What I will say - and this is directed at all in general and not you in particular Brad - is that I will not stand here and tolerate people stating that Nagasaki or Hiroshima were necessary. Genocide is never necessary and no argument can ever justify the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

This hit a particular nerve with me and that is basically what set me off in that thread. I'd have a hard time explaining to my wife that the Hiroshima event was justified in killing two of her aunts because it was necessary.

That is all I will say as that topic is now old.

Back to games.

[Jason McCullough]

All points noted Brad and thank you for the response. I will stand down as any further comments would merely inflame you for no good reason. I am not here to cause trouble simply for the sake of causing trouble and for that I apologise.

What I will say - and this is directed at all in general and not you in particular Brad - is that I will not stand here and tolerate people stating that Nagasaki or Hiroshima were necessary. Genocide is never necessary and no argument can ever justify the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

This hit a particular nerve with me and that is basically what set me off in that thread. I'd have a hard time explaining to my wife that the Hiroshima event was justified in killing two of her aunts because it was necessary.

That is all I will say as that topic is now old.

Back to games.

Right, it was just the best alternative out of a shitty set of options.

[Desslock]

All points noted Brad and thank you for the response. I will stand down as any further comments would merely inflame you for no good reason. I am not here to cause trouble simply for the sake of causing trouble and for that I apologise.

What I will say - and this is directed at all in general and not you in particular Brad - is that I will not stand here and tolerate people stating that Nagasaki or Hiroshima were necessary. Genocide is never necessary and no argument can ever justify the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

This hit a particular nerve with me and that is basically what set me off in that thread. I'd have a hard time explaining to my wife that the Hiroshima event was justified in killing two of her aunts because it was necessary.

That is all I will say as that topic is now old.

Back to games.

Right, it was just the best alternative out of a shitty set of options.

and the only justifiable one.

[Jessica]

All points noted Brad and thank you for the response. I will stand down as any further comments would merely inflame you for no good reason. I am not here to cause trouble simply for the sake of causing trouble and for that I apologise.

What I will say - and this is directed at all in general and not you in particular Brad - is that I will not stand here and tolerate people stating that Nagasaki or Hiroshima were necessary. Genocide is never necessary and no argument can ever justify the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

This hit a particular nerve with me and that is basically what set me off in that thread. I'd have a hard time explaining to my wife that the Hiroshima event was justified in killing two of her aunts because it was necessary.

That is all I will say as that topic is now old.

Back to games.

Right, it was just the best alternative out of a shitty set of options.

and the only justifiable one.

Amen.

My uncle George was the radioman on duty on the North Carolina on the day that the word was radioed in that the war was over. My other uncle, his brother, was a soldier preparing to land on the Japanese Islands. Uncle George once told me what that day was like; he'd spent all of it thinking of his brother Don, who had been listed as MIA until two weeks before, he'd mourned his brother and dreaded going home to Methow, Washington and telling his Mom and two sisters that he'd let his little brother get killed, and now here he was alive but getting ready to make another amphibious landing, the most dangerous of the war that the Japanese had started. He said over and over, "We didn't want to go fight, none of us did. We just had no choice."

When that message came in and he knew that his brother would live, he broke down and cried.

So it hits a nerve with ME, too. I'd have made the same decision as Truman, had I been in his shoes.

[Anonymous]

.....except it's impossible to prove a negative.

I dunno. I think I can prove pretty decisively that there are no elephants in my room right now.





oh. Wait. Maybe a couple.