Some Questions for the Theists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(14-08-2015 08:01 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 07:54 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  While I am not a "myther"....some of the new evidence and critical analysis is thought provoking.....closed minds don't discover new truths.....now that being said, I personally lean towards a man named jesus of nazareth physically existed, he may have even been a charismatic, yet delusional fellow who drew in people who exaggerated his doings with each retelling....but there are some very intruiging different angles out there. Just because the majority accept the systemic construction of jesus historicty, and history, does not mean it could not have predicated on a cleverly constructed story...people love stories don't they? Remember...at one point the vast majority of the world thought it was flat.....and when a minority purported a different view, that the world is spherical, they were met with derision, and even threats of death due to heresy. Alas eventually this minorities view was accepted as the overwhelming supportive evidence could no longer be ignored.

Again, I am not a myther, but I am open minded to new and different perspectives, and always hungry for more information...I suggest you open your mind as well pops, a closed mind doesn't work very well.....like a parachute...
Thanks for your concern but believe me its wide open buddy. Thank you.

mmmm yes...yet you believe in fairy tales as an adult...., so then I imagine you also believe in bigfoot?

“my belief is based on very strong and credible direct testimony from reliable eyewitnesses” .... mmm, wait, no actually it's not. What you mean to say is My belief is based on the copies of the translations of the copies of the translations of the copies of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of the oral retelling of a tale that may or may not have been originally told by apostles who may or may not actually have ever existed and may or may not have witnessed the events and may or may not have told them accurately.

Why is it that you believe claims which have overwhelming, almost conclusive, evidence against them and very weak circumstantial historical evidence for them, but you don't believe claims which have only somewhat strong evidence against them, and confirmed eyewitness testimony of interviewable witnesses as evidence for them?

For example, why don't you believe in bigfoot?

Unlike the resurrection, which violates absolutely everything we know about almost every branch of science, the existence of bigfoot doesn't violate the laws of physics, doesn't violate the laws of chemistry, it just seems to violate some of what we know about biology. Furthermore, unlike the resurrection, which is supported by the copy of the translation of the copy of the translation of multiple layers of verbal hearsay by anonymous sources, the existence of bigfoot is supported by direct eyewitnesses alive today, with names, addresses, social security numbers, etc. You yourself can go and interview a bigfoot expert who has seen bigfoot multiple times, and he will share the first hand eyewitness testimony with you directly.

It seems that if you were in the business of believing unlikely stuff and were gonna be consistent rather than biased, there are loads of claims which, though unlikely, are several orders of magnitude more probable than a 30AD flying corpse…like bigfoot.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
14-08-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(14-08-2015 08:01 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Thanks for your concern but believe me its wide open buddy. Thank you.

The Buddha is universally accepted to have been a real historical figure.

Saṃsāra is still nonsense.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:35 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(14-08-2015 08:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:01 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Thanks for your concern but believe me its wide open buddy. Thank you.

The Buddha is universally accepted to have been a real historical figure.

Saṃsāra is still nonsense.
My belief system aligns with Buddhism very well for the most part they do not claim a god but they do claim existence and I claim the existence and its creator are God. The teachings of John the Baptist arias and Jesus of Nazareth are all quite ascetic and follow Jainism to some extent. Unfortunately most Christians will call that heresy and blasphemy. Thank you. I do not know what that last name was that you typed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:37 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
Arius. Arianism is another very descriptive term of what I believe. Thank you. Please do the Aryan Brotherhood or white supremacy in any way because that is not what I'm speaking of at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:39 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
Okay big typo. What I was trying to say is please do not associate Arianism with the Aryan Brotherhood or white supremacy thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:40 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(14-08-2015 08:35 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:04 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The Buddha is universally accepted to have been a real historical figure.

Saṃsāra is still nonsense.
My belief system aligns with Buddhism very well for the most part they do not claim a god but they do claim existence and I claim the existence and its creator are God. The teachings of John the Baptist arias and Jesus of Nazareth are all quite ascetic and follow Jainism to some extent. Unfortunately most Christians will call that heresy and blasphemy. Thank you.

That's wonderful.

It's still nonsense.

(14-08-2015 08:35 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I do not know what that last name was that you typed.

Saṃsāra is the Buddhist name for the cycle of reincarnation.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 10:16 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(14-08-2015 08:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Okay big typo. What I was trying to say is please do not associate Arianism with the Aryan Brotherhood or white supremacy thank you.

Fear not; we are all fluent at reading and writing in Typonese.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-08-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(14-08-2015 07:54 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 07:09 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Historicity of Jesus
The historicity of Jesus concerns whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, whether the episodes portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life.[1][page needed][2]:168–173 Historicity is the historical actuality[3] or authenticity[4] of a person or event, as opposed to being a myth, legend, or fiction.

The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[5][6][7]

Since the 18th century, scholars have attempted to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, developing historical-critical methods for analysing the available texts. The only sources are documentary; in conjunction with Biblical texts such as the Pauline epistles and the synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.

There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[8][9][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][15][nb 6][2]:168–173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[18][nb 8][20][21][22] Certain scholars, particularly in Europe, have recently made the case that while there are a number of plausible "Jesuses" that could have existed, there can be no certainty as to which Jesus was the historical Jesus, and that there should also be more scholarly research and debate on this topic.[23][24]

While I am not a "myther"....some of the new evidence and critical analysis is thought provoking.....closed minds don't discover new truths.....now that being said, I personally lean towards a man named jesus of nazareth physically existed, he may have even been a charismatic, yet delusional fellow who drew in people who exaggerated his doings with each retelling....but there are some very intruiging different angles out there. Just because the majority accept the systemic construction of jesus historicty, and history, does not mean it could not have predicated on a cleverly constructed story...people love stories don't they? Remember...at one point the vast majority of the world thought it was flat.....and when a minority purported a different view, that the world is spherical, they were met with derision, and even threats of death due to heresy. Alas eventually this minorities view was accepted as the overwhelming supportive evidence could no longer be ignored.

Again, I am not a myther, but I am open minded to new and different perspectives, and always hungry for more information...I suggest you open your mind as well pops, a closed mind doesn't work very well.....like a parachute...

Actually, there is good evidence in the NT itself to suggest that there probably was a historical man (now) referred to as Jesus. By the time Jesus hit the scene, there was a preexisting messianic expectation in Jewish circles. Those expectations demanded that the Jewish messiah have specific qualifications, and failure to meet each and every qualification would mean that the potential candidate could not be the messiah.

Jesus was likely a real person who writers of the NT realized didn’t meet the necessary qualifications for the messiah. People probably knew him, knew his family, and knew that he didn’t meet these qualifications. For this reason, NT writers have the family of Jesus going through some very bizarre gyrations (plot devices) in order to correct Jesus’s history and bring him more in line with the expectations for messiah.

If Jesus was totally fictitious, writers of the NT would have logically made him fit perfectly with messianic expectations. Doing so would have bolstered their claims, but that wasn’t an option for them. Because such effort was taken to repaint his history, it seems clear to me that they knew they were working with an invalid candidate and they wanted to hide his history.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
16-08-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(15-08-2015 09:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  If Jesus was totally fictitious, writers of the NT would have logically made him fit perfectly with messianic expectations.

Wouldn't messianic expectations have included an overturning of the Roman occupation and other physical and political changes that obviously had not happened? They could not write about a character that had accomplished that when it obviously hadn't happened. They could write about a "spiritual" version because that's not falsifiable. I don't see your argument being strong support for either side of the historicity debate.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Some Questions for the Theists
(16-08-2015 07:30 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Wouldn't messianic expectations have included an overturning of the Roman occupation and other physical and political changes that obviously had not happened? They could not write about a character that had accomplished that when it obviously hadn't happened. They could write about a "spiritual" version because that's not falsifiable. I don't see your argument being strong support for either side of the historicity debate.

Yes, an overturning of the Roman government from Jerusalem would have been a requirement for a potential messiah to have accomplished in order to be considered the messiah. This did not happen, so they invented the idea of the second coming. They forged his history and fudged his future.

Let me try giving you an example of what I mean by these strange plot twists that I believe are manufactured to bring the person, Jesus, in line with the messianic expectations held by the Jewish people.

I’m suggesting that Jesus was a real person who was known to be from Nazareth. I believe people probably knew him or knew of him. Trust me, his bubby was working very hard to find him a nice Jewish girl to marry. People knew of this guy either through his actual teachings, or from his grandmother blabbing her mouth to everyone about what a catch her grandson is.

Much later on, NT writers had this idea that the messiah had to be from Bethlehem. They were incorrect about that, but I believe that this is the assumption that they were operating with. So they invent this elaborate story to get him down to Bethlehem just in time to be born so they could say that he fulfilled this messianic prophesy.

The plot device used to get him to Bethlehem is very far fetched in my opinion. For what purpose do we have censuses? We have them so we know where people are living, and we know where to send services. The Romans weren’t interested in knowing a person’s ancestral home… that would mean that LITERALLY every person in the ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE had to pick up and temporarily relocate their entire families, pregnant women, infants, and their elderly and infirm to their ancestral homeland. The entire Roman Empire would have been completely disrupted while every person picks up and leaves their businesses, their military posts, their fields, and their animals.

What purpose would this serve the Roman Empire? How does ancestral homeland affect services that need to be provided in the present? And why are they travelling to the location of their ancestors 30 generations back? Why not 3 generations, or 50 generations? The answer to that question is because 30 generations is what it takes to trace Jesus back to Bethlehem.

Ancestry isn’t a part of census needs. They need to do a census so they know where to send tax collectors, where to send soldiers, and where to send political officials. They need to know where the empire’s resources were most needed at that time. The story of Joseph and Mary going down to Bethlehem is just a plot device to explain to people how this fellow, known to be from Nazareth, still met the (incorrect) qualification of being born in Bethlehem.

IF Jesus had been totally fictional, and no one was around to dispute his heritage, NT writers would have just written him as being from Bethlehem and that would have been the end of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: