The stumbling block for atheists.

[LittleLambofJesus]

The whole "lack of evidence" is the real stumbling block for atheists.

Fair enough.
Do you believe Jesus was at least a real historical person that lived during the 1st century as the Jews and Muslims also believe?

A Jewish View of Jesus - The Neshamah Center

But what do we believe? Who was this Jew, Jesus?

I believe Jesus was a historical figure. The earliest gospels are thought to have been written down only 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. It seems unlikely that he was made up out of whole cloth.

Jesus was a rabbi – a teacher of Torah (the picture at right is a picture of “Rabbi Barry” at “Rabbi Jesus’s” synagogue in Capernaum). I think he trained as a rabbi, and had a falling out with his teachers, because, like the great prophets of the Jewish tradition, he was disgusted by the hypocrisy of the upper class authorities, who he saw as being more concerned with shows of piety than with either real piety or concern for their fellow man.........

It is a little uncanny that the Muslims also accept that Jesus was born of a virgin and view him as a great Prophet sent mainly to the Jews, tho they view Mohammed as the last great prophet that was sent to all mankind.

https://www.quora.com/Do-Muslims-accept-or-reject-the-notion-of-Jesus-as-the-Messiah-or-Christ
Do Muslims accept or reject the notion of Jesus as the Messiah or Christ?
I'm aware that Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, believe in the Virgin Birth but deny that he was crucified. But what about the specific notion of Jesus being the Messiah or redeemer?

So when a Muslim hears: was Jesus the Messiah -- the anointed, the selected, the prophesied -- that was predicted in ancient revelations such a the Torah? The answer is absolutely yes. The Qur'an calls him the Messiah no less than 9 times (complete list: المسيح - Qur'an Search - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم). One verse to give the flavor:


.

 

[bhsmte]

Fair enough.
Do you believe Jesus was at least a real historical person that lived during the 1st century as the Jews and Muslims also believe?

A Jewish View of Jesus - The Neshamah Center

But what do we believe? Who was this Jew, Jesus?

I believe Jesus was a historical figure. The earliest gospels are thought to have been written down only 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. It seems unlikely that he was made up out of whole cloth.

Jesus was a rabbi – a teacher of Torah (the picture at right is a picture of “Rabbi Barry” at “Rabbi Jesus’s” synagogue in Capernaum). I think he trained as a rabbi, and had a falling out with his teachers, because, like the great prophets of the Jewish tradition, he was disgusted by the hypocrisy of the upper class authorities, who he saw as being more concerned with shows of piety than with either real piety or concern for their fellow man.........

It is a little uncanny that the Muslims also accept that Jesus was born of a virgin and view him as a great Prophet sent mainly to the Jews, tho they view Mohammed as the last great prophet that was sent to all mankind.

https://www.quora.com/Do-Muslims-accept-or-reject-the-notion-of-Jesus-as-the-Messiah-or-Christ
Do Muslims accept or reject the notion of Jesus as the Messiah or Christ?
I'm aware that Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, believe in the Virgin Birth but deny that he was crucified. But what about the specific notion of Jesus being the Messiah or redeemer?

So when a Muslim hears: was Jesus the Messiah -- the anointed, the selected, the prophesied -- that was predicted in ancient revelations such a the Torah? The answer is absolutely yes. The Qur'an calls him the Messiah no less than 9 times (complete list: المسيح - Qur'an Search - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم). One verse to give the flavor:


.

I believe jesus was likely a real historical person, with about an 80% confidence level. In regards to all the claims or quotes of jesus in the NT, that is were historical credibility goes off the rails.

 

[Freodin]

The stumbling block for atheists

Jesus is also a stumbling block for both both the non-Christian Jews and Muslims to this days
They all need JESUS...........

Considering that Jews and Muslim DO believe in God, all kind of other people believe in their respective deities... and atheists do not believe in any of them, I don't see how "Jesus" could be any kind of "stumbling block" in this regard.

Of course you might say that only Jesus is the real god, and thus anything non-jesusy is atheistic.
But this still wouldn't make Jesus the stumbling block... not any more than Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Osiris, etc. etc... are the stumbling blocks.

 

[Freodin]

Fair enough.
Do you believe Jesus was at least a real historical person that lived during the 1st century as the Jews and Muslims also believe?

A Jewish View of Jesus - The Neshamah Center

But what do we believe? Who was this Jew, Jesus?

I believe Jesus was a historical figure. The earliest gospels are thought to have been written down only 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. It seems unlikely that he was made up out of whole cloth.

Jesus was a rabbi – a teacher of Torah (the picture at right is a picture of “Rabbi Barry” at “Rabbi Jesus’s” synagogue in Capernaum). I think he trained as a rabbi, and had a falling out with his teachers, because, like the great prophets of the Jewish tradition, he was disgusted by the hypocrisy of the upper class authorities, who he saw as being more concerned with shows of piety than with either real piety or concern for their fellow man.........

It is a little uncanny that the Muslims also accept that Jesus was born of a virgin and view him as a great Prophet sent mainly to the Jews, tho they view Mohammed as the last great prophet that was sent to all mankind.

https://www.quora.com/Do-Muslims-accept-or-reject-the-notion-of-Jesus-as-the-Messiah-or-Christ
Do Muslims accept or reject the notion of Jesus as the Messiah or Christ?
I'm aware that Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet, believe in the Virgin Birth but deny that he was crucified. But what about the specific notion of Jesus being the Messiah or redeemer?

So when a Muslim hears: was Jesus the Messiah -- the anointed, the selected, the prophesied -- that was predicted in ancient revelations such a the Torah? The answer is absolutely yes. The Qur'an calls him the Messiah no less than 9 times (complete list: المسيح - Qur'an Search - The Noble Qur'an - القرآن الكريم). One verse to give the flavor:


.

You are aware that atheists do not believe in any of the jewish or muslim theologies either?

 

[KCfromNC]

You examine things that display organization towards purpose and immediately tag them as designed by an mind. Then you turn around and see a far more compelling examples of it

No I don't.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would say that the refusal to admit that there is indeed evidence is the cause.

Why would you say that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fair enough.
Do you believe Jesus was at least a real historical person that lived during the 1st century as the Jews and Muslims also believe?

I don't have a belief one way or the other on that one. Whether Jesus was a real person or not is irrelevant to the larger theistic claims.

As a parallel, I would assume that you accept the fact that Joseph Smith was a real historical person. I would also assume that this fact does not convince you that the Book of Mormon was handed down to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni.

 

[Radrook]

I don't have a belief one way or the other on that one. Whether Jesus was a real person or not is irrelevant to the larger theistic claims.

As a parallel, I would assume that you accept the fact that Joseph Smith was a real historical person. I would also assume that this fact does not convince you that the Book of Mormon was handed down to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni.

Remove that final letter from that angel's name and he's out of business.

 

[Radrook]

Another old and often used theist tactic: claim that you have the evidence / truth / ultimate proof... and when you are asked to show it, refuse and claim that the other side wouldn't accept it regardless.

Calling it old, often-used, and a tactic doesn't prove it untrue.

 

[Kylie]

Calling it old, often-used, and a tactic doesn't prove it untrue.

But when there is nothing to distinguish it from the myriad false claims that have been presented over the years, it's rational to make the same conclusion...

 

[Radrook]

It's not a flaw, it's just the way things are. We define everything which exists against the benchmark of what can be comprehended by the senses. Such things exist, everything else doesn't. This isn't a problem if Genesis is understood correctly but becomes a stumbling block when it is misconceived by both Christians and atheists.

We have to concede that even by biblical standards, God doesn't "exist". Why? because we know this from Genesis. God created everything but he didn't create himself. He was also not created by anyone else. God, therefore, remains uncreated, unmade, not part of his creation.

I don't mean that there is no God - that is a very different proposition.

So think it through. Everything we can comprehend with our senses is the creation, including ourselves. By default, it's not God, unless we wish to reduce the divine to an instance of existence, which is a kind of idolatry and very unsound. Cars, trees, people, whatever are all instances of "existents". God doesn't fall into this category.

“For in him we live and move and have our being.” is a bit more comprehensive. I would say that rather than being an existent, God sustains existence itself, without which there could be nothing - well at least not sentient life.

There is no way that eternal existence is equivalent to non-existence. Your are seriously contradicting yourself and then doing semantic somersaults to get out of the totally unnecessary self-contradiction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You examine things that display organization towards purpose and immediately tag them as designed by an mind.

We've been over this.
This is not correct.

Then you turn around and see a far more compelling examples of it and immediately explain it away by saying that mindless chemicals did it.

We have identified the process by which "mindless chemicals" get "organized towards a purpose". It is testable and supported by all the facts.

 

[Radrook]

We've been over this.
This is not correct.



We have identified the process by which "mindless chemicals" get "organized towards a purpose". It is testable and supported by all the facts.

Your claim that mindlessness produces a brain is nonsensical.
Obviously there is a mind that is behind the whole process whether you acknowledged it or not.
Being illogical has NOTHING to do with science. In fact, being illogical is the antithesis of being scientific and is typical of quackery.

 

[Freodin]

Your claim that mindlessness produces a brain is nonsensical.
Obviously there is a mind that is behind the whole process whether you acknowledged it or not.
Being illogical has NOTHING to do with science. In fact, being illogical is the antithesis of being scientific and is typical of quackery.

How does "a mind" work?

 

[Radrook]

How does "a mind" work?

Playing dumb isn't a refutation. It is merely playing dumb.

 

[Cearbhall]

Obviously there is a mind that is behind the whole process whether you acknowledged it or not.

...the brain.

 

[bhsmte]

Calling it old, often-used, and a tactic doesn't prove it untrue.

You can always clear things up by providing evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your claim that mindlessness produces a brain is nonsensical.

"mindlessness" produces nothing. "mindlessness" is not a process.

Evolution is a process.

Obviously there is a mind that is behind the whole process whether you acknowledged it or not.

Obviously, it's not that obvious to just about all biologists, worth their salt.

Being illogical has NOTHING to do with science.

Indeed.
Positing stuff without testable evidence, like intelligent designers, is not logical nore scientific.

In fact, being illogical is the antithesis of being scientific and is typical of quackery.

Indeed.

 

[Paul uk]

There is no way that eternal existence is equivalent to non-existence. Your are seriously contradicting yourself and then doing semantic somersaults to get out of the totally unnecessary self-contradiction.

Hi Radrook, Thanks for responding. I'm not actually equating the two, though it may initially look that way. I have equated existence with creation as a whole. "Eternal" as a concept is also part of the creation, as the word only takes on meaning within the context of time and time is relative to creation. Eternal therefore has nothing to do with non-existence.

I spotted this quote from an early Church Father on another thread (in regard to the doctrine of the trinity). Some lines however touch on this topic quite nicely.

"And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coequal with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called governing principle' (arche), because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.' And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'" Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, II:10 (c. A.D. 181).

 

[Freodin]

Playing dumb isn't a refutation. It is merely playing dumb.

Refutation? I just asked a question.

And, just like theist tactic I explained before, I get an insult instead of an answer.

See, I have an idea of how "a mind" works. It is quite "obvious" to me... and I dare say that it totally contradicts your version.

So I have two options now: I can pout and declare that I am "obviously" right, and everyone not accepting that is "obviously" playing dumb.

Or I can present my idea, and hope that this will result in a discussion rather than a simple dismissal, evasion, or a declaration of "obvious" victory of your (unpresented) idea.
That hope is small... because I have already seen you dismiss, evade and mock just right here.