Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…4647495152…327

Comments

  • Options
    #1442
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The same program featured another discussion appropriatly entitled Did Jesus Exist? between Ken Humphries who flatly denies the existence of Jesus and J.P Holding who was arguing that he was talking rubbish. Sparks flew if memory serves correctly.

    BTW, the format of the show has changed somewhat since the this program was aired in 2009. Back then they began the show with about 15 minutes of feedback (it's the other way around now). So perhaps you might want to skip to the main course.


  • Options
    #1443
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Why are you shoe horning the debate into the "something from nothing" argument? Much of contemporary cosmology is based on the theory that this universe originated from the collapse of a previous universe and that universe originated from the collapse of an earlier universe and so on.

    Not really. It isn't contemporary and it isn't what "much " believe or spend their time thinking about.



    I actually met Stephen Hawkings ( and Saliman Rushdie) . I wanted to ask Hawkings about his marriage and how he developed a relationship with his nurse but there were to many people around looking over his shoulder reading the screen. Rushdie was easier. I exposed his "public school" background by asking about cricket. :)

    Anyway i remember Hawkings had a serious doubt about that.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/osci.html
    The idea that Bangs follow Crunches in a never-ending cycle is known as an oscillating universe. Though no theory has been developed to explain how this could ever happen, it has a certain philosophical appeal to people who like the idea of a universe without end.


  • Options
    #1444
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    To quote Stephen Hawking, "It's turtles all the way down."

    I have to look into that. I had thought it was more related to Sagan. I do recollect some eminent scientists ( and I have met lot) saying about he was giving a lecture about in wiich creationism and first causes were discussed and and mentioned the idea of the world being on a turtle. So he posed butwhatwould that me on another turtle and that on another and so on? Some woman yelled "you cant fool me. It's turtles all the way down."


  • Options
    #1445
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Sorry Fanny Craddock, you are rolling two issues into one , very few reputable historians that I knew of deny the existance of jesus as a man.
    In fact most of them just don't care.

    The idea of Jesus as God is a completely separate issue. I don't know of one reputable historian that treats the resurrection as fact . Do you ?


  • Options
    #1446
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    This whole debate on the historicity of Jesus is a bit pointless really, I notice it comes up every couple of hundred post or so and agreement will never be reached.

    It reminds me of the creationism debate in that the objective seems to be to have creationism taught along side the theory of evolution in science class.

    Is that the objective here ? to have genesis etc taught in a regular history class along with Alexander Napoleon etc ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1447
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    Sorry Fanny Craddock, you are rolling two issues into one , very few reputable historians that I knew of deny the existance of jesus as a man.
    In fact most of them just don't care.

    Firstly, I was expressly talking about Biblical scholars. Namely those interested in Biblical matters. Obviously for them the existence of Jesus is an issue of importance. Historians, like doctors, physicists and computer scientists, specialise. We obviously aren't talking about a historian whose focus is on the the politics of Ukraine from 1987-91. We are talking about historians who specialise in Biblical history, specifically New Testament history.

    You asked the question and requested sources. I gave an answer and provided further information, including links to sources that outline in detail both perspectives of this discussion. I don't understand your objection.
    marienbad wrote: »
    The idea of Jesus as God is a completely separate issue. I don't know of one reputable historian that treats the resurrection as fact . Do you ?

    Try reading my post again. I specifically drew a distinction between the search for the historical Jesus and the question as to whether Jesus was divine or not. See below for clarification.
    ME wrote:
    "The consensus amongst scholars nowadays is that Jesus did exist. This is true even of men like Bart Ehrman who is no friend of Christianity (though admittedly this is not his area of expertise). Whether Jesus was God is an entirely different question."
    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't know of one reputable historian that treats the resurrection as fact . Do you ?

    I do know reputable historians who believe that the resurrection was fact. Richard Bauckham would be one example. He appears opposite James Crossley in the two-part show I linked to. Of course, if "reputable" is really just a weasel word for anybody who rejects resurrection then we are playing a game I have no intention of playing.


  • Options
    #1448
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    marienbad wrote: »
    This whole debate on the historicity of Jesus is a bit pointless really, I notice it comes up every couple of hundred post or so and agreement will never be reached.

    It reminds me of the creationism debate in that the objective seems to be to have creationism taught along side the theory of evolution in science class.

    Is that the objective here ? to have genesis etc taught in a regular history class along with Alexander Napoleon etc ?

    Mercy!

    And just when I thought you were actually interested in having a debate. I'm beginning to think you are are only here to pose fatuous questions. Which is all well and fine until you realise that people are actually giving up their time to pen responses that you evidently have no intention of engaging with.

    Now that is pointless.


  • Options
    #1449
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Mercy!

    And just when I thought you were actually interested in having a debate. I'm beginning to think you are are only here to pose fatuous questions. Which is all well and fine until you realise that people are actually giving up their time to pen responses that you evidently have no intention of engaging with.

    Now that is pointless.

    Get down off of the High Horse Fanny ! I am doing more that having a debate , I am trying to understand your your point of view. I would appear to be the bigger fool.

    You came in on a thread section where we are discussing Alexander Socrates Tiberius Pearl harbour etc , what kind of historian did you think I was talking about ?

    I can never understand this obsession with proving the historicty of Jesus to unbelievers , Otherwise it would not be faith would it ?? So I am just posing a question comparing it to the creationism debate. Is there a further motive ?


  • Options
    #1450
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I answered one question in relation to the existence of Jesus. I never mentioned Alexander, Socrates, Tiberius, Pearl Harbour or anyone else. I take no responsibility for a discussion you had before that.

    I don't see an obsession about proving the existence of Jesus. Certainly no more than then those out to imply that he didn't exist. But perhaps we are looking at different people.

    I also have no idea what you are talking about with respect to faith. To you faith seems to be synonymous with blind faith. That we should just take things on faith no matter what. I disagree. Truth is defensible. The claim is that Christianity is evidence based and rational and we trust the reliability of the the evidence.

    Finally, I have no idea what the motives of YECs are. You'll have to ask one.


  • Options
    #1451
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah , but my point is that without 'something ''that is all just more speculation and not history. Your own point about Paul I think is the correct one in that we dont have to accept what he wrote , but we do have to accept that he wrote. Same I would suggest wirh all the gospels.
    Sure. I would never suggest to anyone that they must accept anything simply because it is written in a book with "Bible" in gold letters on the spine.

    But, just as it is irrational to treat, say, the gospels as a reliable newspaper of record, it is equally irrational to treat them as fantasy fiction. We neither accept uncritically everything the texts say and treatin it as 100% reliable, nor dismiss out of hand everything the texts say and assume that they are not reliable at all. Both of these approaches are basically acts of faith.

    The discipline of history involves critically examining the text. Who wrote it? We may not know his name, but do we know anything about him? (We can usually deduce a good deal about him from the text itself, and of course there may be external evidence.) When did he write it? Why did he write it? Who was he writing for? What literary genre did he employ? What do we know of how the text was received by its intended audience? What criticisms were made of it? And so forth; there are a thousand similar questions that we can ask.

    I've seen - not in this thread - the claim that the Romans were meticulous bureaucrats and obsessive record-keepers, and that if a Jesus of Nazareth had actually been crucified by the Roman authorities, we would know because an official record would survive, and since no record survives, the crucifixion is probably a fiction.

    The methodology being employed here is basically sound, but the underlying premise is false, and easily discerned as false. We know, in general terms, that the Romans crucified at least hundreds, and probably more than a thousand, during the period when Palestine was ruled a province. Not a single official record naming any crucifixion victim survives. We know the names of only a handful of individual crucifixion victims, all from external sourceds. Of these, by far the best attested is Jesus of Nazareth. The plain fact is that the Romans rarely bothered to record the names of crucifixion victims; if they had been important enough to have their names recorded, they would have been far too important to crucify.

    Reading and interpreting the source texts, and arriving at a likely historical truth, is not an exact science. It is, nevertheless, a science, and it can produce a reasonable consensus. With respect to Jesus, the academic historical consensus is probably something like this:

    - Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure
    - He came from Nazareth.
    - He had a mother called Mary, and a brother called James, and other siblings. He probably had a father called Joseph.
    - His early life was unremarkable.
    - He was initially a follower of John the Baptist (who is likewise a historical figure).
    - After being baptised by John, he began an independent ministry as an itinerant preacher. This probably did not indicate a "split" in John's movement; it was an offshoot, but an amicalble one.
    - The teachings attributed to Jesus in the gospels, by and large, probably are rooted in what he actually taught, though the gospels (especially John) also reflect some theological reflection and development) and all of them are the product of a good deal of editing. They are "selected teachings" of Jesus, selected and presented according to the criteria of the author.
    - He built up a small group of committed followers (and a larger and less committed following also).
    - He was crucified in Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
    - Within a short time after his death there was a movement in Jerusalem, led by some of his committed followers, seeking to propagate and follow his teachings, as remembered by that group. The leaders of the group included his brother James.
    - Within a short time after his death, his followers were claiming (a) that he was born of a Virgin, and (b) he had risen from the dead, and (c) that he was "Son of God".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1452
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Sorry, but what has that got to do with anything?

    That depends on when it was written.


  • Options
    #1453
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I answered one question in relation to the existence of Jesus. I never mentioned Alexander, Socrates, Tiberius, Pearl Harbour or anyone else. I take no responsibility for a discussion you had before that.

    I don't see an obsession about proving the existence of Jesus. Certainly no more than then those out to imply that he didn't exist. But perhaps we are looking at different people.

    I also have no idea what you are talking about with respect to faith. To you faith seems to be synonymous with blind faith. That we should just take things on faith no matter what. I disagree. Truth is defensible. The claim is that Christianity is evidence based and rational and we trust the reliability of the the evidence.

    Finally, I have no idea what the motives of YECs are. You'll have to ask one.

    Ok then , but for it to be so tou will have to call on the historians I am talking about and not the kind you are talking about..

    By the way what are YECs ?


  • Options
    #1454
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    By the way what are YECs ?
    Young Earth Creationist.
    Horrible stupid non Christian theory, American in origin I believe, although all this literalistic thinking started with some Scottish teenager in the 1800 AFAIK.
    Oh and the 'turtles all the way down' is Terry Pratchet
    Happy Xmass, have a good one :D


  • Options
    #1455
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You asked:
    "So when did all this start then ? and what are they denying ? the historicity of jesus the man or the god or both ? And while we at it and on this thread that so loves its sources, can we have a few names and examples."

    I did not mention the numbers or quality of historians who believe that Jesus was a myth. I simply answered your questions to the best of my knowledge.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok then , but for it to be so tou will have to call on the historians I am talking about and not the kind you are talking about..

    I have no idea what historians you are talking about. What is the "it" you are talking about? What is your point exactly because I really don't understand what you are objecting to.

    The fact is that there are a very small number of historians who believe that Christ the man never existed. There are many more of the internet atheist types who buy into this unhistorical theory. Do a search on line and you will see what I am talking about - example. That is all I am pointing out.
    marienbad wrote: »
    By the way what are YECs ?

    Young earth creationists. I have no interest in a 6,000 year old earth being taught in school. I'm happy for people to believe such things. But I'm also keen to point out that there are other understandings of Genesis. None of this has much, if anything, to do with the claim that Jesus never existed.


  • Options
    #1456
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I did not mention the numbers or quality of historians who believe that Jesus was a myth. I simply answered your questions to the best of my knowledge.

    It's all getting rather bizarre. Someone asks a question, you try your best to answer it, and then you're accused of wanting to have Genesis taught in schools. :confused:

    Meanwhile people are seeing rape in passages that don't mention rape, inventing stories about ugly women being killed, and seeing angels in passages that don't mention angels.

    Too much brandy in the Christmas pudding? Speaking of which, I hear my wife calling that the pudding is ready .......


  • Options
    #1457
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Indeed! Enjoy the pudding. Happy Christmas to the PDN household.


  • Options
    #1458
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    PDN wrote: »
    Meanwhile people are seeing rape in passages that don't mention rape, inventing stories about ugly women being killed, and seeing angels in passages that don't mention angels.

    This is something that ended mid-discussion. I was under the impression that such treatment of women in the Bible wasn't in dispute.

    In Deuteronomy, for example, how are we to interpret the permission to take a captive as a wife, giving her a month of mourning for her family (presumably killed by her new husband) before sleeping with her, and only setting her free if she does not please her husband?

    This is not a rhetorical question.


  • Options
    #1459
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Morbert wrote: »
    This is something that ended mid-discussion. I was under the impression that such treatment of women in the Bible wasn't in dispute.

    In Deuteronomy, for example, how are we to interpret the permission to take a captive as a wife, giving her a month of mourning for her family (presumably killed by her new husband) before sleeping with her, and only setting her free if she does not please her husband?

    This is not a rhetorical question.

    Why on earth would you presume that her new husband had killed her family? :confused:

    Moving on from that, there is no mention of rape. The woman was to mourn her family, and after that could be married to her captor. If she didn't marry him she would remain as a slave/domestic servant.

    If she did marry him, and then did not please her husband, then he did not have the right to divorce her, with her reverting to the status of a servant. If he divorced her then she had to be released as a free woman.

    The issue of her consent or otherwise is not mentioned. The passage appears to make equal sense linguistically and contextually with either a consensual or a non-consensual interpretation.


  • Options
    #1460
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    It's all getting rather bizarre. Someone asks a question, you try your best to answer it, and then you're accused of wanting to have Genesis taught in schools. :confused:

    Meanwhile people are seeing rape in passages that don't mention rape, inventing stories about ugly women being killed, and seeing angels in passages that don't mention angels.

    Too much brandy in the Christmas pudding? Speaking of which, I hear my wife calling that the pudding is ready .......

    Rubbish PDN why don'y you try reading posts in the spirit in which they are written.

    And if you want to rehash the rape issue- no probs, though again you will be bested except or course to your own chorus


  • Options
    #1461
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Rubbish PDN why don'y you try reading posts in the spirit in which they are written.
    Marien, I'm really being serious here, how am I supposed to have a clue what 'spirit' you are writing in?

    Your question about teaching Genesis in school comes across as being sneering and totally irrelevant to anything anyone else had posted. I'm sorry that I don't possess an awesome spiderman sense that detects some other spirit that you apparently intended.

    We can respond to the words you write - that's all we have to go on. And, quite frankly, it's disappointing when one of the few atheist posters that appears willing to engage in discussion suddenly comes out with something so silly that it's hard to see any 'spirit' other than a desire to smear.
    And if you want to rehash the rape issue- no probs, though again you will be bested except or course to your own chorus

    Again, quite seriously, I don't think anyone is 'bested' when others make unsupported assertions and then refuse to back them up.

    Let's remind ourselves as what has happened in 'the rape issue'.

    Wicknight (aka Zombrex) has made assertions that the Bible commanded rape. I pointed out that the passages he was quoting had a perfectly plausible interpretation where no rape is involved. He has offered no reason, other than his preference that it be so, why his interpretation is the correct one.

    Then Recedite made claims about the Old Testament which included three outright lies. I have repeatedly challenged him on this, and he has refused to retract his untruths or to offer a shred of evidence to substantiate them. In fact all he offered was a weasely excuse that the text (in his opinion) might be translated dodgily - so maybe it once ssupported his claims even if it doesn't now. On that reasoning, of course, lies a mad scenario where we can all claim absolutely anything, no matter how outrageous, and then blame the translation.

    Now, you can make as many snide and sneering remarks about 'choruses' as you wish. But the simple matter remains that, if you claim the Bible says something, then you should be prepared to show where it says it. And if you don't, then I think it is unreasonable to somehow criticise us for wanting to discuss what the Bible actually says, rather than what some atheists might wish it said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1462
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    Why on earth would you presume that her new husband had killed her family? :confused:

    Moving on from that, there is no mention of rape. The woman was to mourn her family, and after that could be married to her captor. If she didn't marry him she would remain as a slave/domestic servant.

    If she did marry him, and then did not please her husband, then he did not have the right to divorce her, with her reverting to the status of a servant. If he divorced her then she had to be released as a free woman.

    The issue of her consent or otherwise is not mentioned. The passage appears to make equal sense linguistically and contextually with either a consensual or a non-consensual interpretation.

    I'm of the opinion that the worldviews of certain posters here actually prevent an absolute moral definition of rape. (I'd point to moral nihilism as one such example.) The moral definition changes over time and with cultural/ historical context. I'm reminded of a documentary I saw on BBC2 a couple of years back called Stolen Brides. Truth is stranger than fiction. I couldn't make up my mind if this was a distasteful cultural practice or an episode of Borat. It's well worth a watch.

    Given a modern interpretation - as opposed to a Chechen one (see the documentary) or a Hebrew one or whatever - I wonder if what we are discussing is not uncomfortably close to a system that enables rape?

    Maybe I'm jumping the gun here. First I would like to know if the woman could legally say no to the man. Whether this was accepted by the man is in certain respects a totally different question. For example, that people choose to murder is not a weakness of the law that prohibits murder. Blame ultimately falls on the individual.

    Any ideas? I'm popping in late to this thread and I've missed a great deal of the discussion to date.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Rubbish PDN why don'y you try reading posts in the spirit in which they are written.

    I don't know what you are saying your posts, marienbad. I gather that PDN is in the same boat. It might be that we are both slow on the uptake. Or possibly you aren't explaining yourself very well. Either way I don't think this is due to us not reading your posts. A more detailed explanation is required.


  • Options
    #1463
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Marien, I'm really being serious here, how am I supposed to have a clue what 'spirit' you are writing in?

    Your question about teaching Genesis in school comes across as being sneering and totally irrelevant to anything anyone else had posted. I'm sorry that I don't possess an awesome spiderman sense that detects some other spirit that you apparently intended.

    We can respond to the words you write - that's all we have to go on. And, quite frankly, it's disappointing when one of the few atheist posters that appears willing to engage in discussion suddenly comes out with something so silly that it's hard to see any 'spirit' other than a desire to smear.



    Again, quite seriously, I don't think anyone is 'bested' when others make unsupported assertions and then refuse to back them up.

    Let's remind ourselves as what has happened in 'the rape issue'.

    Wicknight (aka Zombrex) has made assertions that the Bible commanded rape. I pointed out that the passages he was quoting had a perfectly plausible interpretation where no rape is involved. He has offered no reason, other than his preference that it be so, why his interpretation is the correct one.

    Then Recedite made claims about the Old Testament which included three outright lies. I have repeatedly challenged him on this, and he has refused to retract his untruths or to offer a shred of evidence to substantiate them. In fact all he offered was a weasely excuse that the text (in his opinion) might be translated dodgily - so maybe it once ssupported his claims even if it doesn't now. On that reasoning, of course, lies a mad scenario where we can all claim absolutely anything, no matter how outrageous, and then blame the translation.

    Now, you can make as many snide and sneering remarks about 'choruses' as you wish. But the simple matter remains that, if you claim the Bible says something, then you should be prepared to show where it says it. And if you don't, then I think it is unreasonable to somehow criticise us for wanting to discuss what the Bible actually says, rather than what some atheists might wish it said.

    I would say you are alone in finding my post ''snide and sneering'' PDN , maybe it is in the eyes of the beholder. If I wish to be sarcastic etc I can assure you you will know it.

    My question was simply a follow on to my query as to why believers are so obssessed with the historicity of the bible in its own right and I just wonder if there was something else at play and used creationism as an example - no more no less.

    Futhermore your constant taking of every comment literally is childish in the extreme, ignoring any irony, humour or exageration for effect displays a win-at-all-costs mentality with no regard for genuine discussion.

    any unbiased reading of the documents in question would indicate that rape not only happened but was accepted.

    This ''smoking gun'' demand of your is unresonable in the extreme- ''show me where God said ''rape that bitch and do it now !'' '' ( just in case you were in any doubt I was sneering just there:)) is not going to happen.

    In the same way that ISAW's convoluted acrobatics to evade the same conclusion won't wash either

    Consenting to a forced marriage is not consent- it is rape.


  • Options
    #1464
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    I would say you are alone in finding my post ''snide and sneering'' PDN , maybe it is in the eyes of the beholder. If I wish to be sarcastic etc I can assure you you will know it.
    So, if you weren't being sarcastic, then you were seriously suggesting that the Christian posters in this thread want Genesis taught as history in schools? :confused:

    Maybe if you expressed your thoughts more clearly, as Fanny Cradock has suggested, then we wouldn't have to try to fathom some 'spirit'?
    Futhermore your constant taking of every comment literally is childish in the extreme, ignoring any irony, humour or exageration for effect displays a win-at-all-costs mentality with no regard for genuine discussion.
    Marien, unfortunately, dealing with some of the atheists that post in this Forum, I have discovered that it is dangerous to assume that any comment, no matter how much it would be viewed as ironic or humorous, is not actually serious.
    any unbiased reading of the documents in question would indicate that rape not only happened but was accepted.
    I'm guessing that is an example of your humor? You aren't seriously suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is by definition biased?

    This ''smoking gun'' demand of your is unresonable in the extreme- ''show me where God said ''rape that bitch and do it now !'' '' ( just in case you were in any doubt I was sneering just there) is not going to happen.
    Well, just one reference to rape might help your case?
    Consenting to a forced marriage is not consent- it is rape.
    I certainly agree. Which is why I'm actually asking for any evidence that a marriage was indeed forced. Getting snarky with me doesn't mask your inability so far to produce that evidence.

    If you have evidence that the Bible commands rape then please point to it. If not, then don't attack me for asking for such evidence.


  • Options
    #1465
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Get down off of the High Horse Fanny ! I am doing more that having a debate , I am trying to understand your your point of view. I would appear to be the bigger fool.

    You came in on a thread section where we are discussing Alexander Socrates Tiberius Pearl harbour etc , what kind of historian did you think I was talking about ?

    I can never understand this obsession with proving the historicty of Jesus to unbelievers , Otherwise it would not be faith would it ?? So I am just posing a question comparing it to the creationism debate. Is there a further motive ?

    Ah now come marianbad.
    i brought up the point of Socrates and Alexander in order to illustrate that the same standards are not applied to them as to the historicity of Jesus so it is clearly the historicity of Jesus that was introduced by others!

    Second it isn't about "obsession with proving the historicity of Jesus to unbelievers" you have ti backwards! The obsession" is that of atheists who say " the bible/Jesus is all a made up story which doesn't stand up to scrutiny" I'm only p[pointing to the fact that they apply this to the Bible or Jesus but not to anything else in history. Why do you think that is? And having done so can't you see the flaws in such a position?

    The "contemporaneous evidence bit" began here :
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76131558&postcount=1359

    And you chimed in about "history" on my response to it here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76140047&postcount=1376


  • Options
    #1466
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Ah now come marianbad.
    i brought up the point of Socrates and Alexander in order to illustrate that the same standards are not applied to them as to the historicity of Jesus so it is clearly the historicity of Jesus that was introduced by others!

    Second it isn't about "obsession with proving the historicity of Jesus to unbelievers" you have ti backwards! The obsession" is that of atheists who say " the bible/Jesus is all a made up story which doesn't stand up to scrutiny" I'm only p[pointing to the fact that they apply this to the Bible or Jesus but not to anything else in history. Why do you think that is? And having done so can't you see the flaws in such a position?

    The "contemporaneous evidence bit" began here :
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76131558&postcount=1359

    And you chimed in about "history" on my response to it here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76140047&postcount=1376


    Applying it to Jesus is one thing ISAW, I don't think anyone denys or cares of the existance of Jesus the man.

    Jesus the god and the bible are a completely different issues . Where is the historical evidence for the existance of Jesus the god ( and please don't say the bible etc).

    It is the constant conflation of these two strands that is the issue - to accept one is not to accept the other.

    And by the way they do apply the same standards to everything else in history- you just can't see it because your belief won't let you I presume.
    Why you care what others believe is the mystery to me .


  • Options
    #1467
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Applying it to Jesus is one thing ISAW, I don't think anyone denys or cares of the existance of Jesus the man.

    Wicknight reversing the argument:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60323743&postcount=9
    Robinch has a go the bible
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60327059&postcount=15

    Heres some in the history forum
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54591353&postcount=7
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54631675&postcount=8

    there are plenty of examples.
    Jesus the god and the bible are a completely different issues . Where is the historical evidence for the existance of Jesus the god ( and please don't say the bible etc).

    Without going into "proof of God" you might try the anti Nicean Fathers.
    And by the way they do apply the same standards to everything else in history- you just can't see it because your belief won't let you I presume.

    The lady doth presume to much. My belief has nothing to do with the logical consistency of an objective argument.
    Why you care what others believe is the mystery to me .

    Don't worry your head about it then.


  • Options
    #1468
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    I was hoping for less biased sources


  • Options
    #1469
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    The historical Jesus is widely regarded as having existing some 2000 years ago - and obviously this doesn't just include Christians. If you want unbiased sources that claim that he never existed then you wont find them because the claim in and of itself uses special pleading.

    Dan Barker is another one who apparently denies the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He's quite popular in certain atheist circles - though I can't imagine why. You can watch him throw an extraordinary hissy fit in a debate entitled Was Jesus a Myth (at about 24 minutes in). He objected to his written work being critiqued, specifically his writings that promoted Jesus as myth.


  • Options
    #1470
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    I was hoping for less biased sources


    Which is one of the points i was making those that " don't deny or cares of the existance of Jesus the man" tend not to be atheists nihilists anti Christians etc. It is usually the fundie atheists et al. with their agenda who try to make a joke about the historicity of Jesus or of the Bible having valid historical references or that the Bible teaches "evil" ( of course they don't use the word "evil" because ironically they don't accept the Biblical concept as valid :) )
    or Christianity being irrational as opposed to science which is presented as a coherent rational wholeist philosophy in which believers have no place. Just as they would like prayer to have no place in school.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1471
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Which is one of the points i was making those that " don't deny or cares of the existance of Jesus the man" tend not to be atheists nihilists anti Christians etc. It is usually the fundie atheists et al. with their agenda who try to make a joke about the historicity of Jesus or of the Bible having valid historical references or that the Bible teaches "evil" ( of course they don't use the word "evil" because ironically they don't accept the Biblical concept as valid :) )
    or Christianity being irrational as opposed to science which is presented as a coherent rational wholeist philosophy in which believers have no place. Just as they would like prayer to have no place in school.

    You keep conflating the two Jesus's , the historical Jesus and the God Jesus. I am not denying the historical Jesus.

    I am still waiting on unbiased sources for the God Jesus, documents that have a vested interests don't count.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement