Why the bible?

[SkyWriting]

And jezus was an alien.
Good job on missing the point and even piling on...

Yes, he certainly fits most definitions of an alien. Good observation.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, the vast majority of the time, it is that simple. Which is why we can pretty accuratly deduce someones religion by looking at their parents or geographic location. Do you deny this?

Not if they are naked, no.

 

[SkyWriting]

You can remove every single page of the bible and only keep the generic concept "god", and still you have nothing but a faith-based claim that is unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupported and even unsupportable.

Most of which can be verified, has been.
Support is worldwide.
No errors in the content have been substantiated.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, his family were extremely gifted musicians and they encouraged him to join the choir in order to learn how to appreciate music. He wrote the book called the Language of God.

An atheist household would not send their child to a religious cathering for that. There are enough secular options like music schools.

But setting that aside, you "forgot" to answer the questiob. What is your point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not if they are naked, no.

Try addressing the point instead of posting juvenile one liners. That don't even make sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the bible denies the divinity oh Hercules

Hercules has little or no historical reality, other than being a pure mythical entity, like the Hulk or Superman. Jesus on the other hand can't be reduced down to a pure myth. He was--at the very, very least--a regular joe like you and me. Or, are you of the Robert M. Price Camp that denies that Jesus was at least a real person. If so, do you deny that John the Baptist and/or James the Disciple were real people as well? (Not that you care either way, but I'm just asking while we're at it.) Do you also deny that Josephus was a real person?

The answers to these questions produce a historically contextual bearing on the personage of Jesus. The other issue of whether He was divine or not is a separate issue, subject to whether or not you're willing to accept biblical prophecy. (Of course, I'm already confident you don't, but I'm just saying.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, the vast majority of the time, it is that simple. Which is why we can pretty accuratly deduce someones religion by looking at their parents or geographic location. Do you deny this?

Do I? Where do I start? The possible contingencies of real life in any nation or society are numerous.

The main question isn't how are people affected by their culture in their initial, juvenile belief development, but rather what and how did their beliefs form and change over time, from birth until death, taking in the entirety of an individuals life experiences and encounters.

On top of this, if we adapt the Reformer's Dilemma from its contention with Cultural Relativism's moral argument and apply it to the issue of cultural influence and religious development, I think we can see that there isn't a whole lot--other than fear--than prevents people from wanting to introduce 'better' ideas in any society, even the one they live in.

Additionally, we could also take Muslims as a case. Muslims have the 'Negative Gospel' loaded into their Qu'ran. They know what Christians believe because it is stated in the Qu'ran; however, the Qu'ran explicitly denies Jesus' divinity, that He died on the cross, and that He was one person of a Trinity. It is possible that a Muslim, in the course of a lifetime, to eventually consider that maybe the Qu'ran got Jesus wrong.

I'm just saying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hercules has little or no historical reality, other than being a pure mythical entity, like the Hulk or Superman.

Or Jesus. Or Moses. Or David. Or....

Jesus on the other hand can't be reduced down to a pure myth.

Neither can any of the above. Hercules and Jesus both have 0 contemporary and independ evidence backing their historical existence.

I have no problem assuming both men were historical figures that caused a stir which then got blown out of proportion though.
But that wasn't the point I was making when I said that the bible denies the divinity of Hercules.

He was--at the very, very least--a regular joe like you and me

I'ld rather say: "at most".

Or, are you of the Robert M. Price Camp that denies that Jesus was at least a real person

I have no particular opinion on the matter one way or the other. I have yet to see any contemporary independend evidence that jesus existed as a historical person that kickstarted a religious movement.

If so, do you deny that John the Baptist and/or James the Disciple were real people as well? (Not that you care either way, but I'm just asking while we're at it.) Do you also deny that Josephus was a real person?

Josephus, the roman historian? No, he's most likely real given the evidence.
Don't know about the others.

The answers to these questions produce a historically contextual bearing on the personage of Jesus.

Disagree.

The other issue of whether He was divine or not is a separate issue, subject to whether or not you're willing to accept biblical prophecy. (Of course, I'm already confident you don't, but I'm just saying.)

There's no such thing as "biblical prophecy". Just like you agree that there is no such thing as "quranic prophecy".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do I? Where do I start? The possible contingencies of real life in any nation or society are numerous.

The main question isn't how are people affected by their culture in their initial, juvenile belief development, but rather what and how did their beliefs form and change over time, from birth until death, taking in the entirety of an individuals life experiences and encounters.

On top of this, if we adapt the Reformer's Dilemma from its contention with Cultural Relativism's moral argument and apply it to the issue of cultural influence and religious development, I think we can see that there isn't a whole lot--other than fear--than prevents people from wanting to introduce 'better' ideas in any society, even the one they live in.

Additionally, we could also take Muslims as a case. Muslims have the 'Negative Gospel' loaded into their Qu'ran. They know what Christians believe because it is stated in the Qu'ran; however, the Qu'ran explicitly denies Jesus' divinity, that He died on the cross, and that He was one person of a Trinity. It is possible that a Muslim, in the course of a lifetime, to eventually consider that maybe the Qu'ran got Jesus wrong.

I'm just saying.

And I'm "just saying" that anyone who denies that the vast majority of the time, one can deduce the religion of a person based purely on their geographic location and/or the religion of that person's parents, is simply not being honest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hercules and Jesus both have 0 contemporary and independ evidence backing their historical existence.

No martyrs either -- contemporary or otherwise -- right?

 

[lesliedellow]

No martyrs either -- contemporary or otherwise -- right?

It is normal for atheists to try and rubbish Josephus, but the consensus of scholarly opinion is not what atheists represent it as being. Almost all scholars agree that the passage in Antiquities has been doctored by a Christian scribe, but few think it is a complete fabrication.

After having a few scholars quoted to them, their next move is typically to say, "Oh well, Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus anyway." I wasn't a contemporary of Albert Einstein, but my parents and grand parents were.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is normal for atheists to try and rubbish Josephus, but the consensus of scholarly opinion is not what atheists represent it as being. Almost all scholars agree that the passage in Antiquities has been doctored by a Christian scribe, but few think it is a complete fabrication.

After having a few scholars quoted to them, their next move is typically to say, "Oh well, Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus anyway." I wasn't a contemporary of Albert Einstein, but my parents and grand parents were.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No martyrs either -- contemporary or otherwise -- right?

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[AV1611VET]

No martyrs either -- contemporary or otherwise -- right?

I'm not sure what your point is.

If you want to compare Hercules to Jesus, fine.

Show me Hercules' martyrs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you want to compare Hercules to Jesus, fine.

Show me Hercules' martyrs.

How would it make a difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

How would it make a difference?

Are you serious with this line of questioning?

Because if I suspect subterfuge, we're done.

For one thing, Wikipedia says:

Hercules was a multifaceted figure with contradictory characteristics, which enabled later artists and writers to pick and choose how to represent him.

But getting back to the main point:

Are you suggesting that martyrdom doesn't add weight to the veracity of the existence of Jesus over Hercules?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is normal for atheists to try and rubbish Josephus, but the consensus of scholarly opinion is not what atheists represent it as being. Almost all scholars agree that the passage in Antiquities has been doctored by a Christian scribe, but few think it is a complete fabrication.

A minority defends the hypotheses that it is authentic.
A minority defends the hypotheses that the entire section is a later addition.
The rest pretty much accepts that christian scribes tampered with it.
Even if authentic though, it's not surprising that it mentions something about it. We're talking decades after the fact here. Christianity is slowly gaining a foothold, preaching Judaism 2.0
In a book about jews, it's expected to be mentioned at some point. Just like you know the story of muhammed, surely non-christians heared and knew of the stories as well.

Again, I have no particular opinion about the existence of jesus as a historical person. It could be, it could not be. Josephus just isn't sufficient evidence to swing me over to the "yes" group.

After having a few scholars quoted to them, their next move is typically to say, "Oh well, Josephus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus anyway."

Well... he wasn't.

I wasn't a contemporary of Albert Einstein, but my parents and grand parents were.

And millions upon millions of people wrote about Einstein. And the guy didn't even turn water into something else.

Yet nobody wrote about jesus.

 

[Syd the Human]

Are you serious with this line of questioning?

Because if I suspect subterfuge, we're done.

For one thing, Wikipedia says:
But getting back to the main point:

Are you suggesting that martyrdom doesn't add weight to the veracity of the existence of Jesus over Hercules?

Why does the fact that people die for things add weight to any argument?

I see this argument a lot on here:

1. A lot of people followed Jesus when he was alive
2. People were willing to die for Jesus

Well, so do gangs. They are willing to die for their gangs, in fact I would say most know that they will die at a young age or end up in jail for their gang, does that mean that living the gang life is correct?

One woman actually put a hit out on her son because he was a threat to her, willing to kill her son for something she believed was right (sound slightly familiar to anyone?). I will say that following a god is a more noble path (hopefully) a gang, but I think that the mentality to follow it, to give up one's self to something greater than oneself and because so many others have done so as well, is not something that in unique to the Christian faith or any faith.

People like to give themselves up to something that is bigger than themselves. For some it is their country, their gang, their family, freedom, and in this case their faith. I think that it is healthy that a person devotes their time to someone or something other then themselves, it's just when they let this something have a negative impact on their life or on other lives.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, so do gangs.

Gangs aren't consider mythical, like Hercules is.

And while I personally believe Hercules existed, most don't; and I'm offended at the comparison.

If someone has to stoop to using such comparisons, I would say they are trying desperately not to believe.

 

[Syd the Human]

Gangs aren't consider mythical, like Hercules is.

And while I personally believe Hercules existed, most don't; and I'm offended at the comparison.

If someone has to stoop to using such comparisons, I would say they are trying desperately not to believe.

How so?

Besides,wasn't the point that people would die for what they believed in part of your argument of making Jesus a more valid figure to follow?