Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[bhsmte]

What is it about you unbelievers that you always think you have some stunning unknown material that we have either dismissed or do not know about? The links (two of which are on my bookmarks) are completely in line with what I've said. Yes, the authors are not named, however the church has long felt they were who they said they were. While there is no evidence either way as to the proof of the authors identity, there are mention of the gospels which attribute the gospels to the said authors in out side sources some 25 years after the fact. There is a multitude of reasons to believe that these people are who they say they are or they are reporting the actual information given by them to supply the information.

Bart Ehrmann is regurgitating what his mentor examined prior to him. It is nothing new and in fact makes no difference to the doctrinal integrity of the gospels.

The church has long felt?

Well, of course the CHURCH is going to say that. Do you think they might have a reason to be bias? Remember, they are the church and they have motivation to keep people believing what they want them to believe. That is the equivalent of asking tobacco companies 20 years ago whether cigarettes were bad for you.

In regards to Bart Ehrmann, he is arguably the most highly credentialed NT scholar around. The problem with him is, he went from a fundamentalist christian and a pastor, to a more liberal christian, to an agnostic and that raises all kinds of hairs on the neck of conservative scholars who don't like anyone raising the obvious issues he has with the credibility of the NT.

So, don't read Ehrman, read moderate scholars who are neither conservative or liberal and they will raise many of the same issues that Ehrman does and they will virtually all say the same about the unknown authors of the gospels (disagreeing with your church) and they will be in the same ballpark in regards to dates.

Lastly, their are only 3 areas that the vast majority of historians/scholars have consensus on when it comes to Jesus:

-He was a real person
-He was baptized
-He was crucified

Beyond that, they are all over the place in disagreement and many have serious doubts as to what Jesus did or said, as explained in the gospels.

Back to my double standard. Many christians kick and scream when objective criticism of their holy book is pointed out and they put their fingers in their ears, or go running to the church's view or anyone that will tell them it is all bunk, but they have no evidence or logic to support their claim, while historians doing proper work, rely on evidence. Then, they spend time trying so desperately to split every hair in scientific findings, to discredit the same (at least in their own mind), all while crying foul when their book is looked at objectively.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This page provides a boatload of references to scholars/historians in regards to the gospels.

You will find, that the vast majority of these scholars (christian or not) will agree on the following:

-the authors of the 4 gospels are anonymous and the names attached to them were added centuries after they were written

I would have to see the majority's assessments to conclude that they agree that the names were added centuries after they were written. I don't think for one that is in evidence (we don't have earlier documents that didn't have the names to compare them to) and we have no questioning of the authors in the earliest church writings.

-Mark was the first gospel, written about 40 years after Jesus died and John was the last, finished about 70 years after Jesus died.

Actually there is disagreement over the date of Mark. It is dated many times after 70 AD but it is considering other elements not likely to be that late. Due to Paul dying probably around 67 AD it would have been written before that and knowing that Matthew and Luke used some of his information it would push that back even farther.

-Matthew and Luke, basically copied much of Mark and John is a gospel that gives historians and scholars the greatest pause and they feel is the least reliable

Irenaeus (130-200) writes,

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”




​

He felt it was accurate and reliable and that wasn't thousands of years later as it is with the modern scholars.

-The NT was written in Greek and Jesus' followers spoke aramaic and were illiterate

See above.

Do your own research into these opinions. Read conservative, moderate and liberal scholars/historians and look to what they use as their support for their claims (is it theologically based, or based on facts supported by the evidence).

You seem to think I haven't. I have been debating for over fifteen years. I am not new to all this.

 

[biggles53]

What is it about you unbelievers that you always think you have some stunning unknown material that we have either dismissed or do not know about? The links (two of which are on my bookmarks) are completely in line with what I've said. Yes, the authors are not named, however the church has long felt they were who they said they were. While there is no evidence either way as to the proof of the authors identity, there are mention of the gospels which attribute the gospels to the said authors in out side sources some 25 years after the fact. There is a multitude of reasons to believe that these people are who they say they are or they are reporting the actual information given by them to supply the information.

Bart Ehrmann is regurgitating what his mentor examined prior to him. It is nothing new and in fact makes no difference to the doctrinal integrity of the gospels.

I would also recommend the books written by Raphael Lataster and John W. Loftus....these have been excellently researched. But, they're both atheists so I guess you'd be worried about your fingers being burnt by the hellfire.......

 

[Oncedeceived]

The church has long felt?

Well, of course the CHURCH is going to say that. Do you think they might have a reason to be bias? Remember, they are the church and they have motivation to keep people believing what they want them to believe. That is the equivalent of asking tobacco companies 20 years ago whether cigarettes were bad for you.

Why would they not be the most informed and have the most information to the earliest documentation of the gospels. It would stand to reason that if they felt the gospels were authoritative that they would have had reason to believe who wrote them.

In regards to Bart Ehrmann, he is arguably the most highly credentialed NT scholar around. The problem with him is, he went from a fundamentalist christian and a pastor, to a more liberal christian, to an agnostic and that raises all kinds of hairs on the neck of conservative scholars who don't like anyone raising the obvious issues he has with the credibility of the NT.

Really? Why do you think he is more highly credentialed than other equally credentialed Scholars?

He did indeed go agnostic, however, his mentor who co-authored some of the work remains a Christian and doesn't feel the problems addressed are enough to give up His Christianity and in fact, is as highly regarded as Ehrmann.

So, don't read Ehrman, read moderate scholars who are neither conservative or liberal and they will raise many of the same issues that Ehrman does and they will virtually all say the same about the unknown authors of the gospels (disagreeing with your church) and they will be in the same ballpark in regards to dates.

I've read Ehrman. I've read a number of different scholars. Most modern scholars do not believe in prophecy and so the dates they ascribe to Mark are due to that.

Lastly, their are only 3 areas that the vast majority of historians/scholars have consensus on when it comes to Jesus:

-He was a real person
-He was baptized
-He was crucified

According to Wikipedia.

Beyond that, they are all over the place in disagreement and many have serious doubts as to what Jesus did or said, as explained in the gospels.

Depends on who you are talking about.

Back to my double standard. Many christians kick and scream when objective criticism of their holy book is pointed out and they put their fingers in their ears, or go running to the church's view or anyone that will tell them it is all bunk, but they have no evidence or logic to support their claim, while historians doing proper work, rely on evidence. Then, they spend time trying so desperately to split every hair in scientific findings, to discredit the same (at least in their own mind), all while crying foul when their book is looked at objectively.

Oh what bunk. Many Christians are up to date with with criticisms and find that many times these criticisms are the ones that have been refuted for years. Many new so called modern scholars use their own biases (for instance that prophecy is not true) to determine "their evidence".

Perhaps there are those that do the double standard on our side of the fence but there are equally those on yours that do the same.

 

[bhsmte]

Why would they not be the most informed and have the most information to the earliest documentation of the gospels. It would stand to reason that if they felt the gospels were authoritative that they would have had reason to believe who wrote them.

Your kidding me right? You have to have more desire to be objective then to rely on the churches interpretation, just as you wouldn't rely on the tobacco companies saying their product is safe.


Really? Why do you think he is more highly credentialed than other equally credentialed Scholars?

Moody bible, very conservative school, Wheaton College and a PHD from Princeton in which he studied under one of the most highly regarded NT scholars in the 20th century. Has has written countless peer reviewed papers and also books on the NT and Jesus. The dude learned numerous languages so he could read various texts and has studied this stuff full time for 30 years. On paper, few compare with his CV.

He did indeed go agnostic, however, his mentor who co-authored some of the work remains a Christian and doesn't feel the problems addressed are enough to give up His Christianity and in fact, is as highly regarded as Ehrmann.

I believe his mentor (Metzger) has been dead for a while and yes his mentor was a christian, so what, the vast majority of NT scholars and historians are, which is no surprise.


I've read Ehrman. I've read a number of different scholars. Most modern scholars do not believe in prophecy and so the dates they ascribe to Mark are due to that.



According to Wikipedia.

Read the sources and their work, that is were the meat is.

Depends on who you are talking about.



Oh what bunk. Many Christians are up to date with with criticisms and find that many times these criticisms are the ones that have been refuted for years. Many new so called modern scholars use their own biases (for instance that prophecy is not true) to determine "their evidence".

Prophecies can be debunked with logic and they have been. Are you familiar with William Lane Craig (likely the most well known christian apologist)? I have watched probably 10 of his debates in regards to supporting christianity and he is an excellent debater. I have never heard him once, use prophecy as evidence to support the christian story. You know why, because he is smart enough to know, they would be tossed back in his face, with a logical explanation and he does not want to be put in that position, so he stays away from it.

Perhaps there are those that do the double standard on our side of the fence but there are equally those on yours that do the same.

There are goofballs on both sides, but the faith (and confirmation bias) that is put into declaring the christian story as told in the NT as reliable, is light years above non-believers decision to look at objective evidence in reaching conclusions.

 

[biggles53]

In many respects, arguing these points with Once is futile because, regardless of the bulk of research that can be brought to bear casting doubt on the authenticity of the gospels, ultimately her conclusions will be based on faith, not facts. I am of the school that advocates the tack of showing that faith itself is a very poor means of establishing a reliable world view, rather than primarily focusing on the products of faith...

 

[Oncedeceived]

In many respects, arguing these points with Once is futile because, regardless of the bulk of research that can be brought to bear casting doubt on the authenticity of the gospels, ultimately her conclusions will be based on faith, not facts. I am of the school that advocates the tack of showing that faith itself is a very poor means of establishing a reliable world view, rather than primarily focusing on the products of faith...

Bulk of research? Please. You haven't even provided a miniscule of evidence of anything of the sort. I would not have to take anything on faith considering that you haven't even presented anything that is casting doubt on the gospels reliability.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are goofballs on both sides, but the faith (and confirmation bias) that is put into declaring the christian story as told in the NT as reliable, is light years above non-believers decision to look at objective evidence in reaching conclusions.

I have yet to see all this objective evidence that you keep talking about. How is someone suppose to reach conclusions with what you have presented so far.
Everything so far is far from objective.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In many respects, arguing these points with Once is futile because, regardless of the bulk of research that can be brought to bear casting doubt on the authenticity of the gospels, ultimately her conclusions will be based on faith, not facts. I am of the school that advocates the tack of showing that faith itself is a very poor means of establishing a reliable world view, rather than primarily focusing on the products of faith...

Bulk of research? Please. You haven't even provided a miniscule of evidence of anything of the sort. I would not have to take anything on faith considering that you haven't even presented anything that is casting doubt on the gospels reliability.

Well first lets get clear that no one in the scholarly world doubts Jesus existed, except a few fanatics that won't accept anything about the Bible.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

So lets put any such claims to rest before we even start.

And here, plenty of sources for doubters to look up, don't ask me to do it for you, I have already read them, perhaps you should try sometime.

The Bible and history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

references are at the bottom, please fell free to look them up and actually read them. Instead of making vague claims how it is not historically accurate.

If one goes by your rules for casting doubt on the Bible, then we might as well throw out half the histories of ancient cultures, and be left with nothing beyond the 12th century.


But of course you have no problem divining the entire history of the universe 13 billion years ago, the start of life and it's entire evolutionary history. But then claim we can't trust anything from a mere few thousand years ago. Hypocrite.

 

[stevevw]

Dark matter and dark energy is dying the death of SUSY theory.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qu...mmetry-fails-tests-physicists-seek-new-ideas/

"But there is little to build on. So far, no hints of “new physics” beyond the Standard Model — the accepted set of equations describing the known elementary particles — have shown up in experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, operated by the European research laboratory CERN outside Geneva, or anywhere else. (The recently discovered Higgs boson was predicted by the Standard Model.)"

But they will ignore the data for as long as possible, continuing to believe in their beloved fantasies as long as they can.

"“It’s a difficult question that most of us are trying not to answer yet,” said Adam Falkowski, a theoretical particle physicist from the University of Paris-South in Orsay, France, who is currently working at CERN."

There is no Fairie Dust dark matter, merely electrical currents in plasma, what 99% of the universe is made of.

Even NASA understands this.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

"Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don't generally carry electricity and they don't stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

It is these what mainstream theorists term halos of "hot gas" that surrounds every galaxy that is responsible for galactic rotation curves, not Fairie Dust. It is mainstream theorists refusal to accept Plasma for what it is, instead calling it a hot gas, which it certainly is not.

Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter."

It is mainstreams constant refusal to treat plasma like plasma, and instead treat it like nothing more than a gas, that it has properties quite unlike, so unlike in fact it is considered a distinct state of matter, that causes you to invent Fairie Dust in order to fudge the math.

What your scientists are telling you is that there is a force at work that they do not understand, and while ignoring this electrified gas, plasma, invent Fairie Dust in an attempt to explain their observations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/s...ound-nothing-scientists-say-proudly.html?_r=0

yes, only in Dark Matter research would a negative result be considered a success. A clean signal just means that they do not even have background noise to check in an attempt to find what does not exist. The real success is that you continually let them dupe you out of billions of tax dollars in the search for nothing.

Huge Dark Matter Experiment Finds Nothing but More Mysteries - Wired Science

"“Basically, we saw nothing. But we saw nothing better than anyone else so far,” said particle physicist Daniel McKinsey of Yale, a member of the LUX collaboration."

The most ignorant scientific statement to date. Slapping themselves on the back for finding absolutely nothing. Sounds like a good time to ask for more funding. Look, we have found nothing, so now we need a few billion more to find more nothing.

"When astronomers look out in the universe, they see dark matter everywhere. Ok, they don’t see it directly (it’s dark after all). But they know how gravity works and their equations suggest that in order for stars to spin around in galaxies at the speeds they do, there must be a whole bunch of invisible mass tugging on them. Furthermore, simulations of the universe show that dark matter is necessary for the cosmos to have the large-scale structure that it does."

No, it just needs astronomers to actually take a course in plasma physics, since 99% of the universe they are studying is plasma. Being so-called scientists, one might think it would be a good idea to learn something about what you are studying is made up of.

But at least plasma is now NASA's next science target. It's about time we started studying plasma in space, considering it makes up 99% of the universe. better late than never I guess.

Wake up already, mainstream cosmology with all their Fairie Dust died years ago. Let it rest in peace. Move on and accept reality.

But scientist need dark energy and dark matter as its saying that nothing is not really nothing. How else will they be able to explain how the universe started out of darkness and nothing. Now they can develop a theory that can explain that something came from nothing because there was some sort of activity happening in what looks like empty space. The only problem is what made that empty space.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well first lets get clear that no one in the scholarly world doubts Jesus existed, except a few fanatics that won't accept anything about the Bible.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

So lets put any such claims to rest before we even start.

And here, plenty of sources for doubters to look up, don't ask me to do it for you, I have already read them, perhaps you should try sometime.

The Bible and history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

references are at the bottom, please fell free to look them up and actually read them. Instead of making vague claims how it is not historically accurate.

If one goes by your rules for casting doubt on the Bible, then we might as well throw out half the histories of ancient cultures, and be left with nothing beyond the 12th century.


But of course you have no problem divining the entire history of the universe 13 billion years ago, the start of life and it's entire evolutionary history. But then claim we can't trust anything from a mere few thousand years ago. Hypocrite.

You are so right! The Bible is great as a history of antiquity and yet so many like to make unsubstantiated claims and then call us for it. They claim that they give us all this "objective evidence" yet it is rarely provided. If asked for it they claim we want them to do the work for us. Little do they know that some of us have researched the research. They like to say that Christians and those of the church are biased yet if you look into most of the people they say have researched so objectively you find that it is rarely true. Some may be but many are not.

 

[stevevw]

Absolutely right, there may well be a God, but surly you don't believe in everything that MAY exist?
It has absolutely nothing to do with closed minds and everything to do with evidence, just because you can imagine a God that's no reason to believe it actually exists, if it was you would end up believing in everything you could imagine just because you could imagine it being real.

The very idea of believing in a God calls for an element of faith in an entity that is beyond this world. So applying rules that require evidence for proof is self defeating. The nature of belief is based on letting go of those things. So you cant apply a scientific approach to faith in the first place. But that doesnt mean you cant test and see if that faith stands up.

Yes people can be fooled and believe with all sorts of things. Investment scams, love, all the latest movies and interest in para normal activity, Scientology ect. You still need to grow as a person and develop your senses. You still need to come to terms with things in your life that hold you back and you need to face up to yourself and others and become a better person. Some can hide behind the guise of a religion but they can also do that in many walks of life.

Faith in God needs to be tempered with what Christ has taught. Those who inject all sorts of things into their religion are using it as a way to mask other motives of fear and hatred. If you stop and look at what they are doing and compare it to what the belief is actually saying it is easy to see.
This is how you tell the difference. Christ said you can tell by the fruit that they bear. So in the end the proof is in the pudding.

People tend to focus on the negative side of this and dont see that belief can make you a better person. A christian accepts Christ and follows his teachings. We are weak in the flesh and prone to sin but in Christ we are given the strength and a way to overcome that sinful nature. It doesn't mean we become perfect but it does mean we can overcome sin and have forgiveness. Just as Christ gave us the example when he came to die for our sins and overcame the power of sin. If a person is sincere then they should become a better person and this should be shown in their life.

Faith in God is a personal thing and a relation with God. So it is like having a relationship with someone. Only when you choose to accept Jesus into your heart will you know and see the reality of God. You may receive personal assurances in many ways and forms that are personal to you. It maybe the strength to overcome something that you have tried in other ways to defeat. It maybe the way you see things. It maybe something that made sense and you know it wasn't your imagination because other things supported that view.

The fact is if it makes you a better person what does that matter. There is enough misery and hatred in this world as it is. People try all sorts of ways to make themselves a better person and the diet industry is just one example of how people can believe that one way is better than another. If it make s you a better person and you feel happier and empowered to face life and you are not hurting others what does it matter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
Why would they not be the most informed and have the most information to the earliest documentation of the gospels. It would stand to reason that if they felt the gospels were authoritative that they would have had reason to believe who wrote them.

Your kidding me right? You have to have more desire to be objective then to rely on the churches interpretation, just as you wouldn't rely on the tobacco companies saying their product is safe.

In your humble opinion.


Really? Why do you think he is more highly credentialed than other equally credentialed Scholars?


Lost your quote of course. Anyway, credentials. There are many very impressive credentialed scholars that disagree with Ehrmann.

He did indeed go agnostic, however, his mentor who co-authored some of the work remains a Christian and doesn't feel the problems addressed are enough to give up His Christianity and in fact, is as highly regarded as Ehrmann.

I believe his mentor (Metzger) has been dead for a while and yes his mentor was a christian, so what, the vast majority of NT scholars and historians are, which is no surprise.

What I meant was that even though Ehrmann lost his faith, Metzger didn't see the problems that Ehrmann did in his research.




I've read Ehrman. I've read a number of different scholars. Most modern scholars do not believe in prophecy and so the dates they ascribe to Mark are due to that.



According to Wikipedia.

Read the sources and their work, that is were the meat is.

You assume I haven't.

Depends on who you are talking about.



Oh what bunk. Many Christians are up to date with with criticisms and find that many times these criticisms are the ones that have been refuted for years. Many new so called modern scholars use their own biases (for instance that prophecy is not true) to determine "their evidence".

Prophecies can be debunked with logic and they have been. Are you familiar with William Lane Craig (likely the most well known christian apologist)? I have watched probably 10 of his debates in regards to supporting christianity and he is an excellent debater. I have never heard him once, use prophecy as evidence to support the christian story. You know why, because he is smart enough to know, they would be tossed back in his face, with a logical explanation and he does not want to be put in that position, so he stays away from it.

Prophecy is very complex and in a debate it would be extremely difficult to debate about prophecy due to this. It doesn't mean that it isn't true. The only prophecy that is a problem that I have found is the Tyre one. It can be explained but has to be stretched to do so. However, most unbelievers just have no clue about.



I don't want to sound rude but could you please learn how to do the quotes. You continue to quote your responses in mine and so I can't just go to your post and respond.

 

[stevevw]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived


I don't want to sound rude but could you please learn how to do the quotes. You continue to quote your responses in mine and so I can't just go to your post and respond.

How do you quote. I looked in the forums and none really tell you how. I wrap a quote around what i say and it will make it a separate quote. But i noticed when you said it is within your quotes thats what happens to mine. Only the last part of what i write is not wrapped in a quote as it wont allow you to and the text is different. There are other symbols like wrap tags around text that im not sure what they are for either. Maybe if someone can point us to where we can find out or show how it is done it would be of a great help.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you quote. I looked in the forums and none really tell you how. I wrap a quote around what i say and it will make it a separate quote. But i noticed when you said it is within your quotes thats what happens to mine. Only the last part of what i write is not wrapped in a quote as it wont allow you to and the text is different. There are other symbols like wrap tags around text that im not sure what they are for either. Maybe if someone can point us to where we can find out or show how it is done it would be of a great help.

When you press quote on the post that you are wanting to comment on it brings up the quote completely. So the way I do it, is to go to the first response and go to the end of it. I then type: I put the bracket/quotebracket. This makes the quote from the top to the place where you are going to comment so that the name is still in the quote and you don't lose it. Then the next paragraph or comment that you want to respond to you will highlight it and then go to the top and hit the quote and it will bracket the comment you highlighted. You do this throughout the post until the end and then you must remember to delete the original end bracketed quote. Anyway that is what I've always done. There might be an easier way but I always did it that way. You can preview your post to see if you got it right.

As you can see you were not shown as the original poster and I was in your post.

 

[stevevw]

The church has long felt?

Well, of course the CHURCH is going to say that. Do you think they might have a reason to be bias? Remember, they are the church and they have motivation to keep people believing what they want them to believe. That is the equivalent of asking tobacco companies 20 years ago whether cigarettes were bad for you.

In regards to Bart Ehrmann, he is arguably the most highly credentialed NT scholar around. The problem with him is, he went from a fundamentalist christian and a pastor, to a more liberal christian, to an agnostic and that raises all kinds of hairs on the neck of conservative scholars who don't like anyone raising the obvious issues he has with the credibility of the NT.

So, don't read Ehrman, read moderate scholars who are neither conservative or liberal and they will raise many of the same issues that Ehrman does and they will virtually all say the same about the unknown authors of the gospels (disagreeing with your church) and they will be in the same ballpark in regards to dates.

Lastly, their are only 3 areas that the vast majority of historians/scholars have consensus on when it comes to Jesus:

-He was a real person
-He was baptized
-He was crucified

Beyond that, they are all over the place in disagreement and many have serious doubts as to what Jesus did or said, as explained in the gospels.

Back to my double standard. Many christians kick and scream when objective criticism of their holy book is pointed out and they put their fingers in their ears, or go running to the church's view or anyone that will tell them it is all bunk, but they have no evidence or logic to support their claim, while historians doing proper work, rely on evidence. Then, they spend time trying so desperately to split every hair in scientific findings, to discredit the same (at least in their own mind), all while crying foul when their book is looked at objectively.

I think it is known that Jesus had some sort of ministry or he was a person who was stirring up the establishment. He was cruxified along with robbers but there were no real charges against him. As Pontius pilot was a real figure and so was Jesus there is no reason to question his involvement in the death of Christ as an innocent. Herod Antipas and pilot both found that Jesus had no charges to answer to but still he was crucified. So there is no reason to say there the events around his life and death are not real.

So we have a real person who is said to have been a person who was preaching a new way and had followers. He was seen as a threat and was crucified as an innocent. The details about what he preached the miracles he did and other events are told by either eye witnesses, people who knew those who witnessed the events or stories passed down from others who had been around at that time. There will be an element of variation and even incorrect information as these are people who will add their own personal perspective. But it doesn't take away from the fact that these events happened it is just some of the details.

You have to remember that after these events happened the Christians were persecuted and the Romans wanted to stub out this movement. Yet it survived and grew into the greatest movement the world has ever seen. It is interwoven in our societies it sets our calenders and is still going today. So these event if they were not true then the world has been fooled. But the fact that this man had such a big effect on our world is a testament that he must have been real and the events he was involved in were significant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is known that Jesus had some sort of ministry or he was a person who was stirring up the establishment. He was cruxified along with robbers but there were no real charges against him. As Pontius pilot was a real figure and so was Jesus there is no reason to question his involvement in the death of Christ as an innocent. Herod Antipas and pilot both found that Jesus had no charges to answer to but still he was crucified. So there is no reason to say there the events around his life and death are not real.

So we have a real person who is said to have been a person who was preaching a new way and had followers. He was seen as a threat and was crucified as an innocent. The details about what he preached the miracles he did and other events are told by either eye witnesses, people who knew those who witnessed the events or stories passed down from others who had been around at that time. There will be an element of variation and even incorrect information as these are people who will add their own personal perspective. But it doesn't take away from the fact that these events happened it is just some of the details.

You have to remember that after these events happened the Christians were persecuted and the Romans wanted to stub out this movement. Yet it survived and grew into the greatest movement the world has ever seen. It is interwoven in our societies it sets our calenders and is still going today. So these event if they were not true then the world has been fooled. But the fact that this man had such a big effect on our world is a testament that he must have been real and the events he was involved in were significant.

That is not a very strong test for believability. By that test Buddhism is true. Possibly Hinduism and Islam are true by that test too.

 

[stevevw]

That is not a very strong test for believability. By that test Buddhism is true. Possibly Hinduism and Islam are true by that test too.

I'm not sure there is any historical proof that [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Siddhartha Gotama who was the founder of Buddhism is real. It is very vague and there are no independent sources to verify his existence. I think you are misunderstanding what i am saying.

I am talking about historical proof not whether what he said was true or not. As i said the events around his ministry and death are historically known so he is a real person. What he represents is another story and this will be harder to prove.

I was speaking with Golan who i think was disputing that even Jesus didn't exist or there was any archeological proof for the bible. I was merely showing that Jesus was a real person in history.
[/FONT]

 

[46AND2]

Oi! I wish I wasn't limited to my phone right now. So much I want to respond to in the last page or so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure there is any historical proof that [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Siddhartha Gotama who was the founder of Buddhism is real. It is very vague and there are no independent sources to verify his existence. I think you are misunderstanding what i am saying.

I am talking about historical proof not whether what he said was true or not. As i said the events around his ministry and death are historically known so he is a real person. What he represents is another story and this will be harder to prove.

I was speaking with Golan who i think was disputing that even Jesus didn't exist or there was any archeological proof for the bible. I was merely showing that Jesus was a real person in history.
[/FONT]

Let's say "moderately real". And I don't think that the historicity of Jesus is any better than that of the Buddha. Though perhaps I should check. Granted there are some mythical aspects of his birth that I discard, but then there are mythical aspects of Jesus' birth that have been shown not to be the case by Roman records.