can you be a "moral" person...

[Conscious Z]

By the way writings about Julius Caesar were done 800 years after he was around yet these writing are excepted. Witnesses for the Holocaust were up to 50 years after the events but they were accepted by the war trials. The people remembered like it was yesterday. It seems when it comes to Jesus people suddenly change all the criteria and make it 10 times as strict. It seems there maybe a bit of bias because some are letting their atheism get in the way.

The example of Caesar and the holocaust are not analogous because they do not make claims that are contrary to massive bodies of scientific research and daily experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a friend tells me that the supermarket has bread on sale, I'll believe him at his word. If he tells me that dragons are breathing fire while riding unicorns around the parking lot of the supermarket, his word is no longer sufficient evidence.

That is an epistemic standard that is practiced by every one of us almost every single day of our lives. That's not a bias, that's being a good epistemic agent. Even if the scriptures we have really were written by witnesses to the events, it is far more likely that they were either mistaken or delusional than that Jesus actually performed the miracles claimed.

 

[madaz]

If Christ is accepted by most scholars and there was this man who has had such a big impact on our history then surely something would have been captured about his life.

Precisely my point steve, we have zero evidence except the ramblings of bronze aged hebrew tribesmen decades (at best) after the supposed events.

Or are you saying everything was completely made up.

Im not saying everything, I'm saying any supernatural event (miracles) attributed to Jesus was fabricated. Im denying the divinity not the existence. Same as your Islamic counter parts.

 

[Euler]

The example of Caesar and the holocaust are not analogous because they do not make claims that are contrary to massive bodies of scientific research and daily experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a friend tells me that the supermarket has bread on sale, I'll believe him at his word. If he tells me that dragons are breathing fire while riding unicorns around the parking lot of the supermarket, his word is no longer sufficient evidence.

That is an epistemic standard that is practiced by every one of us almost every single day of our lives. That's not a bias, that's being a good epistemic agent. Even if the scriptures we have really were written by witnesses to the events, it is far more likely that they were either mistaken or delusional than that Jesus actually performed the miracles claimed.

THWACK!! That one's outta here!

 

[stevevw]

How can you be sure the text is 99% of the originals, if the originals not only do not exist, but we only have copies starting over a century after when the gospels were actually penned? It is impossible to know what impact passing on how oral tradition changed the stories, for decades before the gospels were penned and then another century of potential changes before we even have any copies.

Who are these thousands of eye witnesses?

I thought Id just throw in a number seeming that you and other are making assertions without any support. Anyone can do that and say whatever they like. When you said there was absolutely no witnesses that was a definite statement that you were saying was the truth without any evidence. So I just played along the same rules.

But to be honest like many say unless you were there yourself then you have to rely on eye witness accounts. Its a bit like in court and the judge/jury has to decide if the witnesses are credible. Here we have a man who was prominent enough to affect a lot of people and history. We have some non biblical support that there was a man named Jesus Christ who was a preacher of some sort in those times. Most scholars including non religious ones dont dispute that at least Jesus was baptized by John the baptist and He was condemned to be crucified by Pilate.

So its a case of how much do you believe about the rest of the details. But to say that no one spoke or wrote down nothing about this man is unfair. To say it is all made up has no proof as much as evidence needed to show its true. But logic tells you that He must have had some people close to Him that could tell what had happened. Paul writes and supports what others have said even though he didn't see Jesus in the flesh. But he did know people who knew him or knew people who knew Him. After Christs death there was a big movement and the Christian church grew fairly quickly. People became courageous and many were persecuted.

So something inspired them. If Jesus was seen by many and the word got around then this would have consolidated what Jesus was saying and the holy spirit was moving among the people. The thing is what the disciples had said and taught was something that was talked about all the time within the Christians. It was then passed to 2nd generation disciples who did write down some things about this which match the bile today. So from the very beginning almost we have written evidence that is consistent, Those who knew the disciples became disciples of the original and passed on that knowledge. There wasn't time for myths and forgeries to happen. There may have been some different views and exaggerations or even misunderstandings. But the basic story is true.

 

[GenetoJean]

Yes a non-religious person can be moral. They may not follow your morals but they can still be moral.

I judge others by judging if their actions harm other people. If the action doesnt harm another person then it is either moral or is at least morally neutral. If the action does harm a person then a lot more question come in to play that I dont feel like fleshing out at this time because the list could go on for a long time, ie self defense or really convoluted stories about runaway trolleys going to hit a work crew of 4 or a single person and you have to decide.

 

[madaz]

Paul writes and supports what others have said even though he didn't see Jesus in the flesh. But he did know people who knew him or knew people who knew Him.

That is notably different from "thousands of firsthand eye witnesses" steve, surely even you have to admit that.

There wasn't time for myths and forgeries to happen.

Im curious, what does Paul tell us about Jesus' miracles?

 

[Conscious Z]

But to be honest like many say unless you were there yourself then you have to rely on eye witness accounts. Its a bit like in court and the judge/jury has to decide if the witnesses are credible. Here we have a man who was prominent enough to affect a lot of people and history. We have some non biblical support that there was a man named Jesus Christ who was a preacher of some sort in those times. Most scholars including non religious ones dont dispute that at least Jesus was baptized by John the baptist and He was condemned to be crucified by Pilate.

So its a case of how much do you believe about the rest of the details. But to say that no one spoke or wrote down nothing about this man is unfair. To say it is all made up has no proof as much as evidence needed to show its true. But logic tells you that He must have had some people close to Him that could tell what had happened. Paul writes and supports what others have said even though he didn't see Jesus in the flesh. But he did know people who knew him or knew people who knew Him. After Christs death there was a big movement and the Christian church grew fairly quickly. People became courageous and many were persecuted.

So something inspired them. If Jesus was seen by many and the word got around then this would have consolidated what Jesus was saying and the holy spirit was moving among the people. The thing is what the disciples had said and taught was something that was talked about all the time within the Christians. It was then passed to 2nd generation disciples who did write down some things about this which match the bile today. So from the very beginning almost we have written evidence that is consistent, Those who knew the disciples became disciples of the original and passed on that knowledge. There wasn't time for myths and forgeries to happen. There may have been some different views and exaggerations or even misunderstandings. But the basic story is true.

Steve, this sort of evidence would possibly hold up if we were discussing some ordinary historical or political event. But the events in question are so extraordinary that they demand incredible evidence. We are expected to believe that, contrary to all modern medical evidence, a baby was born of a virgin. We are expected to believe that a man walked on water, raised people from the dead, etc. based on the incredibly weak support you've listed here.

Again, if my friend tells me the supermarket has a sale on bread, I'll take him at his word. If he tells me a dragon is breathing fire while riding a unicorn around the parking lot, his word is no longer sufficient evidence.

 

[Euler]

And we are expected to believe that this master magician was performing all of these amazing supernatural feats, all over the countryside, but nobody noticed it!! Outside of the people who wrote down the legends generations after they supposedly occurred, and at a time when the region was dominated by Roman occupation, not one Roman historian or chronicler saw fit to go investigate these amazing happenings!

I mean, one of the phenomena claimed was that, at the hour of Jesus' supposed death, the graves of saints opened and they walked the streets of Jerusalem and were "seen by many". But not so "many" that anyone cared to take a note of it!

How about we grow up.

 

[Strathos]

I don't know. I'm unaware of all your actions? That list I gave you wasn't necessarily meant to include yourself. They were examples of people acting on their faith wherein I challenged your claim that those faith-based actions were the "opposite of sin". Have you lost track?

And, again, was Joshua "incorrect" when he followed the supposed word of his god to the letter?

No, I said faith in God was the opposite of sin. Of course you do know that the Bible was compiled by many authors over the centuries and various things may have been added in or left out. Nonetheless, it is clear that the pagans of those times practiced rampant rape, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, child sacrifice, and all manner of other crimes and atrocities. If you really want to learn more about this rather than just following stereotypes and believing half-truths and indictments you may have read on atheist websites, try a site like this. (This is a Wesleyan site so I don't completely agree with everything they say but they have many good points).

 

[stevevw]

That is notably different from "thousands of firsthand eye witnesses" steve, surely even you have to admit that.

Yes Paul did not see Jesus in the flesh. But he did go and stay with Peter who was the top apostle with Jesus and they would have discussed everything about Jesus. Paul also seen the apostle John and Jesus's brother James. So he had plenty of contact with eye witnesses who were the closest to Jesus. But even more so he was one of the lucky ones to have seen Jesus resurrected. Remember Paul who was Saul was persecuting the Christians. Then one day on the road to Damascus he has a revelation of seeing Jesus. His life is transformed and he goes from persecuting Christians to preaching the gospel and becoming the greatest evangelist for Christ. He is credited with turning more to God than any and especially the Gentiles which spread the church throughout the Roman empire.

But his testimony was that he was a witness to the resurrected Jesus. The other apostles acknowledged this and accepted Pauls testimony. So did those who were with Paul like Luke and Barnabas and the many who were there when Paul had seen Jesus. None of them dispute Paul's claims and he is accepted as becoming one of the apostles who witnessed Jesus after his resurrection.

Im curious, what does Paul tell us about Jesus' miracles?

Well I would say because Paul never seen the life of Jesus he wouldnt be going to much into detail about this. But he does talk about the miracle of Jesus rising from the dead. he does talk about how Jesus spoke to him and he was blinded and then healed later by Ananias. Paul himself does several miracles in the name of God which brings others to salvation. But he was more concerned about the resurrected Jesus. The holy spirit was at work and active then so this was a real presence among the people. Thats why Paul goes into the spiritual side of things a lot. He was constantly talking about living in the spirit and not giving into the flesh of this world.

 

[Euler]

No, I said faith in God was the opposite of sin. Of course you do know that the Bible was compiled by many authors over the centuries and various things may have been added in or left out. Nonetheless, it is clear that the pagans of those times practiced rampant rape, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, child sacrifice, and all manner of other crimes and atrocities. If you really want to learn more about this rather than just following stereotypes and believing half-truths and indictments you may have read on atheist websites, try a site like this. (This is a Wesleyan site so I don't completely agree with everything they say but they have many good points).

Was Joshua correct in following his god's orders to slaughter those women and babies?

Was his God correct in making him do it, when He could have done it with a flick of His fingers?

 

[stevevw]

The example of Caesar and the holocaust are not analogous because they do not make claims that are contrary to massive bodies of scientific research and daily experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a friend tells me that the supermarket has bread on sale, I'll believe him at his word. If he tells me that dragons are breathing fire while riding unicorns around the parking lot of the supermarket, his word is no longer sufficient evidence.

That is an epistemic standard that is practiced by every one of us almost every single day of our lives. That's not a bias, that's being a good epistemic agent. Even if the scriptures we have really were written by witnesses to the events, it is far more likely that they were either mistaken or delusional than that Jesus actually performed the miracles claimed.

So how then do you prove this from 2000 years ago without video and cameras. If one person came to you then you could say that it is suspect. But if many came from different walks of life, different areas and times and they were swearing and serious that this is what they saw then it starts to become different. If they are willing to die for those beliefs then you start to think they maybe a little mentally unstable or there is something going on. If that movement changes history and takes over the very Roman empire that tried to stop it then it begins to have momentum. If the stories are persistent and continue year after year then you may start to think what is going on here something has provoked these people.

But what else can you use to check out what is going on. We have two aspects here. One is saying there was a man named Jesus who was a preacher of some sort. There were plenty of people like this. Now with all that has happened and is written do we then say no there wasn't aman and he is made up. The other side is this man is said to have done some supernatural things and was the Son of God. He came back to life from the dead. Now these are extraordinary claims. But how do you prove this unless only by eye witnesses. Its like these witnesses are on trial and are being judged. Its like they are being charged as guilty before they have had a chance to prove themselves. It seems there is some bias here.

But if we just take the man Jesus without the supernatural people are still being harsh and placing a higher criteria on Him than any other person in history. Yet if we include the bible there is more written on him than any other. But also when you say that a person tells you the bread is on sale historians are accepting those people who have said that anyway without hardly any evidence. In some cases just from say so and 100s of years later. It seems its Ok to accept these things and use a less strict measurement. But when it comes to the bible just about everything is rejected because it is associated with God.

Yet if you look into it the bible has been verified time and time again from archeological digs. The places, names, people, artifacts, customs, furniture have all been found that surround these stories. So if these people are correct about all these surrounding things then why suddenly start to throw out what they are saying with it. They go into intricate detail and often in the 1st person weaving their testimony around those times. Often it is to ridiculous to be made up and to petty at others. It doesn't fit the picture of being made up to impress as it often goes against what someone would use to bolster their story. Its just to real to be a fabrication. So I believe that there is something else at play here. Its the personal beliefs of each person at work and those who dont believe will go about trying to deny God and see things from a negative view. They will place a higher criteria on the bible because its associated with God and not because its true or not. They have already decided it cant be true so they will throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, this sort of evidence would possibly hold up if we were discussing some ordinary historical or political event. But the events in question are so extraordinary that they demand incredible evidence. We are expected to believe that, contrary to all modern medical evidence, a baby was born of a virgin. We are expected to believe that a man walked on water, raised people from the dead, etc. based on the incredibly weak support you've listed here.

Again, if my friend tells me the supermarket has a sale on bread, I'll take him at his word. If he tells me a dragon is breathing fire while riding a unicorn around the parking lot, his word is no longer sufficient evidence.

So how do we tell what is the truth. Extraordinary evidence would be like someone video taped it. But then with those who deny God they can say that this was forged even if it was shown to be real. Unless it happens to you or you see it happen to someone else next to you then it is impossible to prove. So we have to base it on faith. If Jesus knew that the way to be saved was by proving to everyone that God is capable of these things then He would have placed so much emphasis on faith. Like he said to Thomas when Thomas had seen the wounds of the Resurrection Jesus. You have seen and believed but greater is he that believes and hasn't seen.

So we are never going to have this evidence for the world to see until Jesus comes back. But then for many that will be to late. But when a person is saved and the holy spirit is working in their life they do see God working in their life and in others around them. Their eyes and heart is open to this. But it comes after faith not before. Otherwise this would be once again mans vanity and pride dominating things by saying I am not going to believe until you prove yourself. He is then calling the shots and demoting God as a magic show for his entertainment. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[stevevw]

Precisely my point steve, we have zero evidence except the ramblings of bronze aged Hebrew tribesmen decades (at best) after the supposed events.

They are not bronze aged tribesman and they are not ramblings. They are many mixed people from 2000 years ago and onwards and much of what they write is pretty straight forward recorded events. There is a lot of quotes about Jesus which mainly is about a good way to live. But other stuff is just matter of fact recordings of events in the life of Jesus and some others. From the apostles came the 2nd generation of disciples who then passed things on to the next. Each had stated what they knew and shared with the other. Paul writes and speaks with the disciples only a few years after Christ. These things would have been discussed and some things written for near to the death of Christ. The church grew fast and the main reason was the stories of Christ and his resurrection.

It wasn't until some decided to write a proper recording because there were not many who were literate as scribes then. This is exactly what some of the authors say. That they have decided to write things down to make a proper recording. There is some evidence that there was other written sources before the gospels. But certainly Paul's writings have been verified as being done very close to Christ soon when he was writing to the growing churches. He refers to Jesus and the disciples and the things that happened. But just because it wasn't officially written in a proper way doesn't mean that these things didn't happen and were not properly recorded and passed on within the christian movement.

I'm not saying everything, I'm saying any supernatural event (miracles) attributed to Jesus was fabricated. I'm denying the divinity not the existence. Same as your Islamic counter parts.

Fair enough. I can understand how some will maybe accept there was a man called Jesus and not accept the miracles. But some reject the lot and place a higher criteria on everything biblical. Yet I believe the bible is one of the greatest documents in history that we can refer to. If it wasn't for the early church we would not have so much early literature. Compared to other writings its massive considering we have so little generally. But if people are willing to accept the intricate detail of all these people writing in those times then they have to consider on face value if what they say about the other stuff is true are not. If we can give then credit for being right about the names and places then we have to consider are they telling the truth about the rest. So its a character judgement and taken on trust or not. Thats all you can do.

 

[God's Child]

Mod Hat On​

This thread is closed for staff review.​

Mod Hat Off


Edit - This thread is staying closed. The amount of blasphemy in this thread is too much to clean up.

As a reminder, the site rules include:

Blasphemy
It is considered blasphemy to insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christian Theology is allowed, but derogatory remarks are not.
​

​