The majority of scientists agree, and say that there is enough proof, That Jesus was...

[Eudaimonist]

If he was an actual, real person that existed around the time that the Bible says he did, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bible writers were NOT LYING about the things Jesus said and did as is written in the scriptures?

Simple, I have no good reason to believe in divine magic. A few old stories just aren't enough to make the beliefs credible.

The things Jesus did are possible, as recent discoveries in Quantum Physics are discovering...

Citation needed.

Why is this so hard to believe?

Because I would have to be dishonest with myself in order to believe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

History is not science??

History is normally considered one of the humanities, not science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you deny that QEM says that the seemingly impossible, can become possible, though the power of belief?

Yes, emphatically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lesliedellow]

History is not science??

Historians, and others, might like to cloak themselves in the prestige of modern science, but, since about the middle of the nineteenth century, the word "science" has referred exclusively to the physical sciences. Prior to that, it could be used to refer to any academic discipline which imposed some sort of intellectual rigour.

 

[Hieronymus]

Historians, and others, might like to cloak themselves in the prestige of modern science, but, since about the middle of the nineteenth century, the word "science" has referred exclusively to the physical sciences.

You mean they hijacked the term for their naturalistic church

Prior to that, it could be used to refer to any academic discipline which imposed some sort of intellectual rigour.

It still can.
And certainly for history.
Because "science" means knowledge (of knowable things).
And there's also the physical sciences.
Otherwise "physical science" would be a pleonasm.
But it's not a pleonasm.

 

[Michael]

Jesus may have very well been a real person. But that is no excuse to believe the magical claims of the Bible. In fact the original ending of Mark was thought to be with the empty tomb. There are serious scholars that claim the verse after that were added on. And that was the earliest of Gospels, written about 40 years after the fact.

On the bad side for believers in even a 'real Jesus' is the fact that there are no contemporaneous mentions of him. But nonetheless I will agree that Jesus existed. But that does not mean we need to believe the magical claims of his life.

FYI Neogaia777, this is a pretty "typical" response by most atheists/agnostics. There are a few "hard core" deniers of course in every group, but this is a more "mainstream" atheistic position. Most assume that Jesus was a historical figure. They simply question how much "embellishment" took place.

 

[lesliedellow]

You mean they hijacked the term for their naturalistic church It still can.

No, they didn't hijack it. In popular usage it came to mean exclusively the physical sciences, and that because of the latter's growing prestige.

Because "science" means knowledge (of knowable things).

The meaning of a word is determined by the way it is used, and that can change over time. For example, "meat" used to be a synonym for food, but now it means the flesh of an animal.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, they didn't hijack it. In popular usage it came to mean exclusively the physical sciences, and that because of the latter's growing prestige.

Popular usage can change most any term's actual meaning.

"Physical science" is not a pleonasm.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't know where to put this, I created it for doubters and non-believers and I know there is plenty of them here, admins can move it if they want...

The majority of scientists and educated people agree, and say that there is enough proof, That Jesus was an actual, real person that existed and walked the earth around the time the Bible says he did...

George Washington was definitely a real person, but the story of him chopping down a cherry tree is still a myth.

If he was an actual, real person that existed around the time that the Bible says he did, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bible writers were NOT LYING about the things Jesus said and did as is written in the scriptures?

Why is it a stretch that a person is a deity in the flesh who came back from the dead? Does that really need an answer?

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus existence for one, and Jesus being truthfully recorded as being a very wise man from God who could do the miraculous, and is no lie or some grand "conspiracy"

That would be a claim, not evidence.

Do you deny that QEM says that the seemingly impossible, can become possible, though the power of belief?

Just because the impossible could happen doesn't mean that it did happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

FYI Neogaia777, this is a pretty "typical" response by most atheists/agnostics. There are a few "hard core" deniers of course in every group, but this is a more "mainstream" atheistic position. Most assume that Jesus was a historical figure. They simply question how much "embellishment" took place.

I have a few problems with the wording that you used. First off when you use the word "denier" you are assuming that Jesus was proven to have existed and that has not happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second most atheists do not "assume", the proper term to use is either "conclude" or "surmise". And the fact that embellishment took place is rather obvious in several parts of the Gospels. The nativity stories are one example. Luke has Jesus being born both before 4 BC and circa 6 AD. The two nativity stories do not seem to agree with each other in certain details.

 

[Astrophile]

I didn't know where to put this, I created it for doubters and non-believers and I know there is plenty of them here, admins can move it if they want...

The majority of scientists and educated people agree, and say that there is enough proof, That Jesus was an actual, real person that existed and walked the earth around the time the Bible says he did...

If he was an actual, real person that existed around the time that the Bible says he did, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bible writers were NOT LYING about the things Jesus said and did as is written in the scriptures?

The things Jesus did are possible, as recent discoveries in Quantum Physics are discovering...

Why is this so hard to believe?

Comments?

God Bless!

It's quite plausible that Jesus was a real person, that he claimed to be the Messiah, that people believed that he could perform miracles, that Pontius Pilate had him crucified for sedition, and that his followers believed that he had risen from the dead and would come back to judge the world.

It is much less plausible that Jesus was the son of God, or the son of a virgin, that he really could perform miracles, or that he really did rise from the dead.

 

[Neogaia777]

FYI Neogaia777, this is a pretty "typical" response by most atheists/agnostics. There are a few "hard core" deniers of course in every group, but this is a more "mainstream" atheistic position. Most assume that Jesus was a historical figure. They simply question how much "embellishment" took place.

So, they are calling the Bible writers "liars" then, how could they lie about so many, many events, I could see lying about one or a couple events but not as many as are spoken that Jesus did....

 

[Loudmouth]

So, they are calling the Bible writers "liars" then, how could they lie about so many, many events, I could see lying about one or a couple events but not as many as are spoken that Jesus did....

We are saying that their claims are not backed by evidence. We will happily withhold judgment until such evidence comes in.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

So, they are calling the Bible writers "liars" then, how could they lie about so many, many events, I could see lying about one or a couple events but not as many as are spoken that Jesus did....

It's pretty easy--just write down stuff that wasn't true.

 

[Michael]

So, they are calling the Bible writers "liars" then, how could they lie about so many, many events, I could see lying about one or a couple events but not as many as are spoken that Jesus did....

It's more like acknowledging that all historical accounts tend to be "skewed" toward some viewpoint or another. I think there's a logical middle ground there somewhere between the two extremes of suggesting that every word is accurate, and none of it is accurate. Most atheists fall somewhere between those two extremes.

 

[Michael]

I have a few problems with the wording that you used. First off when you use the word "denier" you are assuming that Jesus was proven to have existed and that has not happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think for the bulk of historians, his existence is accepted to have occurred beyond a "reasonable doubt". Some folks still deny that humans have any influence on climate change however.

Second most atheists do not "assume", the proper term to use is either "conclude" or "surmise". And the fact that embellishment took place is rather obvious in several parts of the Gospels. The nativity stories are one example. Luke has Jesus being born both before 4 BC and circa 6 AD. The two nativity stories do not seem to agree with each other in certain details.

Meh. I've seen too many mental gymnastics in terms of "interpretation" from theist and atheist alike.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think for the bulk of historians, his existence is accepted to have occurred beyond a "reasonable doubt". Some folks still deny that humans have any influence on climate change however.

I disagree. An honest historian would admit to a fair amount of doubt.

Meh. I've seen too many mental gymnastics in terms of "interpretation" from theist and atheist alike.

No real "gymnastics" are needed to show that Luke put Christ's birth at about 6 AD from his bogus census story. Of course that fails from the start since the purpose of that census was to tax people, and one taxes people based upon where they live, not where they came from ancestrally. But that is what happens when you base a story upon a prophesy that was mistranslated and that already came to pass long ago.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't know where to put this, I created it for doubters and non-believers and I know there is plenty of them here, admins can move it if they want...

The majority of scientists and educated people agree, and say that there is enough proof, That Jesus was an actual, real person that existed and walked the earth around the time the Bible says he did...

If he was an actual, real person that existed around the time that the Bible says he did, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the Bible writers were NOT LYING about the things Jesus said and did as is written in the scriptures?

The things Jesus did are possible, as recent discoveries in Quantum Physics are discovering...

Why is this so hard to believe?

Comments?

God Bless!

Scientists dont use their work to address this question, but historians and scholars do.

I would agree, most historians and scholars would agree, that jesus was likely a real person.

With that said, the historical argument that jesus is a mythical figure, is slowly gaining steam with historians.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have a point but your example of Kim Jong Il is, I suggest, misleading.

Yes, the claims made about Jesus are indeed extraordinary and it is perfectly natural to be suspicious about the veracity of these claims. But the claims about Kim Jong Il take on their comical air at least in part due to the nature of the man himself - whereas Kim Jong is seen, and likely will continue to be seen, as a decidedly negative figure, Jesus continues to be lauded as one of the greatest human beings who has ever lived. Do not misunderstand me: I am not saying this gives we Christians a "pass" with respect to needing to explain the miracles: I am simply pointing out that your example gains at least some of its rhetorical oomph due to the wrenching contradiction between the claims about Kim Jong and his image as a buffoon.

I would say this, too, in defense of believing the Jesus stories: Jesus emerged in a setting where his contemporaries were expecting something completely different from a Messianic figure than what we see in the gospel accounts. So one could argue that if people were going to invent stories, they would have invented very different stories (for example, they would never have their Messianic figure dying on a cross). So the general principle here is this: when one encounters extraordinary claims in a setting where there is a case to be made that such claims would hard to invent given the matrix of expectations, then the likelihood the claims are true is strengthened somewhat. Of course, I am aware the gospels were written decades after the alleged events and it is therefore plausible that the authors had time to re-work their worldview and "invent" the miracle accounts accordingly.

The world remains a mysterious place with profound mysteries still before us (e.g. the origin of the universe, the phenomenology of human consciousness). So while I agree it is a "stretch" to accept the Jesus accounts, I don't think we have warrant to dismiss them so easily as I suspect many do.

Actually, if they were going to invent a story about a messiah who didn't exist...they need to story to be unprovable so it cannot be disproved either. They needed a messiah who died on a cross and then got up and disappeared...because if they claimed that he was a regular man, people would ask where the corpse was. He needed to be a messiah who's kingdom was in heaven and not here on earth because people would easily point out that his kingdom doesn't exist lol.

When you think about it, if you're going to invent a story about a messiah who didn't exist in reality, you need a story like that of Jesus. Jesus left no trace of himself...so there's nothing to contradict the story.