New christianity post (others are way too long)

[thalbergmad]

If a belief in God comes from a faith NOT A DELUSION, then this belief will strengthen one mentally. You will be able to deal with stress in life you otherwise would not be able to deal with. Ask any Jew who survived the holocaust and they will tell you that without God they would have perished even though they physically survived.

1. I guess one could argue that faith is a form of delusion.
2. Personally, i was LESS capable of dealing with stress when i did have a strong faith than i do now, when i have but very little. My experience is that i am not alone in this.
3. I do not know any Jews that survived the holocaust.
4. Where was God when 6 million of his followers were executed?

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

You got me wrong completely there. I did not state that "God exists but he can do nothing about it thus nothing to worship" as being something I think real, but merely as one of three possibillities. As in a) there is a God and he is all-powefull, or b) there is a God and he is not all-powerfull or c) there is no God. I go for c). You were therefor not developing my logic, but rather twisting it around. Something the religious are quite good at, I might add.

Your very words where:  2) God(s) exists, but cannot do anything about it. Little to worship there too, I think.

What is your definition of God? If God exists, then we accept that he created everything. Thus I said to worship the maker there is many reasons and gave a real world example of how we hold makers in high regard. I think you are a little over reacting saying that I am twisting what you say, we are merely having a discussion. I don't say what you say is twisting what I say merely restate my stance.

Each religion prescribes how to behave in this life in order to get the heavenly afterlife. I(f) you rid yourself of the idea of an afterlife, you then understand that you should behave in your life in a way that is decent in this life with regards to everybody else.

What is decent however? We are fortunate to live in a morally progressive period, go back a hundred years or so and things where very different. Religion highlights a way in which we should live our lives now, a moral standard set by a perfect God. To underestimate the moral teachings of Christianity for instance is easy to do nowadays because most of us automatically believe in living in a "free" world. If one draws all their inspiration to worship through a reward in an afterlife then their actions in worship will be insincere. It is like saying "Oh I love my parents because they give me a home to live in and feed me."

As is "please God make my harvest good", or "please God make me win this game", or "please God let Obama win/loose", or "please God cure my disease", etc etc. Or do you
never ask anything from your God?

God is not the God of the material world. Look at the face that is on a coin or on a dollar note, the material world belongs to the human powers, the governments, the $. To ask God for material things is a pointless act, giving thanks for what we have has a point, praying to have enough to live also. We don't ask for things to be done, we ask for the ability to deal with what he places before us and pray that we don't have too much of a burden but also remember there are others that are much worse off than ourselves so we shouldn't feel too selfish.

There is no answer to death, which means that the only chance you get is this life, and that means that what you do with or in your life regarding yourself or your realtion with others is your responsabillity and nobody else's. You cannot use some religion's rules or whatever to justify whatever it is you do or don't do, the choices you make are yours and nobody elses.

There certainly is no answer to death on human terms and we are certainly responsible for our own lives. But it goes to far to say that a religion's rules is used to brainwash your choice in how to live life and to make choices for you in your life. It goes too far to say that if you are religious your actions are make in a zombie state of mind with no personal decision making.

Oh so very wrong, EVERY religion aims to explain EXACTLY what he/she/it/they ia or are like. Or do you attent a church (mosk, synagogue, temple, whatever) where the preaches starts with saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about"?

If ALL religions aim to explain EXACTLY what God is then why does the Bible state that God is mysterious?

You've got me wrong completely (again), I do not question the existence of the Devil; rather I do not question the fact that there is no Devil or any other diety, supernatural being or whatever. If YOU believe in a God, than you have to explain why you believe he allows the Devil to exist too.

Well thats fine I do have my reasons for why the devil exists, but for YOU? You who don't believe in a God ask questions about the devil, this is obviously taking a step too far in my opinion. It is irrelevant you to understand why I accept the devil being in action because you first of all do not believe in a God to start with. It is like someone believes in dragons and I think they are crazy and ask them, then how do dragons breath fire? If I don't believe in dragons why on earth do I want to know why they breath fire? Why wouldn't I try to determine if dragons really exist in the first place.

You seem to say here that, since people worship god(s) they must be right in that believe. That is, frankly, nonsense. If god(s) exist, his/there existence would not depend on whether people worshipped them or not. If god(s) don't exist no matter how many people worship him/them would make them real.

Well my friend the people who do not believe in a God are in the MINORITY. They are marginalized from mainstream society. If this was a WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONARE show and you had to poll the audience, most people would be saying, Lock in A: He exists. Thus because a lot of people believe in God he probably does exist. If God did not exist there might be only a few crazy people believing in him not the majority. It seems pretty logical doesn't it?

Yes and yes. Especially if you exchange $ greed and money making schemes for power greed and dominance making schemes. For which $ is the main thing of course.

But you have yet to show that $ is the sole aim of all religions. And what do they spend the money on that they raise? A flashy sports car for the minister?

Such data would rather give an argument against the existence of God, and the fact that belief in god is a mental disease.

Unfortunately for you, you will find that most people with a reverence for God can deal with death in a family a great deal better than one who has no faith at all.

In fact, it has been proven that if you stimulate a certain part of the brain the subject will experience a strong religious feeling. You may perhaps say that this proves the existence of God, I will say that it proves that religious feelings are part of our basic psychological makup, since it has been biologically benificial for the evolutional developement of mankind.

I think using this evidence doesn't point us in a direction to believe God. A belief in God and a relationship with God is not just a feeling, it is a real relationship of differences, challenges, struggles and ultimately love. To say that it is one isolated feeling in the human mind simplifies the entire relationship in my opinion.

Religions have always been very good in regulating these things ("They worship the wrong gods, and our gods demand their obliteration, and our gods will give everything they have to us, and the best part to his temples, by the way.')

Governemnts encourage war too does that mean that they are wrong? Don't we have to fight for what is right? Or should we all sit in a neutral state not helping or hindering each other? I hardly think that relgion nowadays is about my god will conquer your false one. Christianity was never spread by the sword for instance.

Not met very much people with serious depression, now have you? It are especially religious people who are vulnerable to depression and the like. Of course, the cosy idea of "god loves me" may help someone counter the effects of depression and such, but so can drugs.

I make no claim to be an expert on depression, I would have to suffer it to know it well enough. Your assumption that I do not know people with serious depression is useless and wrong. Are you claiming that deep depression is rare? Go to a church and ask them how God makes them deal with tragity in their life, I assure you probably every single one of them who has lived a life will have a testament to tell you.

Whether you think they are delusional or not is unimportant, you are studying the effects of a belief of a God, you are trying to look at something you cannot see, almost like studying Quantum mechanics, trying to see particles collide. You cannot see it, but you can see the effect. If this faith in God has allowed so many to deal with tragic circumstances in their life, why wouldn't someone want some of that?

I said:
"Most people can control depression with a relationship with God. Now you might say, oh this is delusional thinking to control yourself, people making things up etc. Well then what evidence do you want?"

To which you responded,

At least here you understood me correctly. Some people need to fool themselves some of the time, but most people need to fool themselves all of the time.

Whether they are fooling themselves or not is not important. Why not measure the benefits that their belief has in dealing with tragic circumstances?

No they are not. They are just, and happily so, beyond my reach of thinking nonsense things sane.

I don't say anything you say is nonsense, anyone who says what someone else believes is wrong and useless is not open to wisdom.

The first part of this sentence is nonsense, the second part is wrong. I have looked quite deep into religions actually, that is WHY I have come to the conclusion they are all based on bogus.

I am still waiting for your findings which make you believe the things you believe. So far all you have said is what the others believe is fantasy and ridiculous. Well then, why not tell us exactly what you believe and how it is more benefitial than believing in a God? That would make us understand exactly why worshiping yourself is the better way.

[thalbergmad]

If God did not exist there might be only a few crazy people believing in him not the majority. It seems pretty logical doesn't it?

No it is not logical.

It is like saying that sh*t smells nice as most flies love it.

I wonder how many of your so called majority believes God exists because it was drummed into them from birth & force fed to them at schools.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Well my friend the people who do not believe in a God are in the MINORITY. They are marginalized from mainstream society.

Thats what you Christians want is it not?

If you don't become one of us we will have nothing to do with you and you won't go to heaven.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

I wonder how many of your so called majority believes God exists because it was drummed into them from birth & force fed to them at schools.

In the end a belief in a God is a choice. And much more people believe in God than those that do not. So it is not wrong to say those that do not believe in God are in the minority.

Thats what you Christians want is it not?

If you don't become one of us we will have nothing to do with you and you won't go to heaven.

I have constantly said that only focusing in a reward in an afterlife is useless to gain a respect for God. It is a fact that those that do not believe in God are a minority. It is impossible to say otherwise without lying.

[thalbergmad]

And much more people believe in God than those that do not.

There can often be a huge difference between what people are prepared to say and what people actually believe. Therefore, neither you nor i or anyone else knows for certain that the majority do believe.

This "God exists as most people believe in him" is nonsense. The minority are not always wrong.

Thal

[go12_3]

Each and everyone has the free agency to chose what to believe.  No religion should be forced to anyone, and yet we need to respect those of other faiths and beliefs.  No one likes to be preached at, nor be told what to do.  It is up to us to find within ourselves what path to chose and purpose.  We have a purpose on this earthly life to progress as intelligent human beings, with imperfections.  We are being tested in our mortality on whether we will have the faith and hope to endure this  life.  There will always be trials and tribulations that come along our way and it is how we meet those challenges by our attitudes and beliefs.  We have to remember that love is is the strongest force of earth, be it from God or elsewhere.  Why are we on earth?  What is our pupose here?  It is to gain knowledge and wisdome in all things, and that will take a lifetime to achieve.

The remark about depression in one of the threads is not feasible. It has nothing to do with God.  However, it may ease the burden or suffering of a depressed person to receive relief and comfort from God through prayer and meditation.  Depression is a serious medical illness in which requires medication and treatment; it depends upon whether a person is "feeling sad" temporary or not, in which needs the required treatment. And the sad thing is, there are millions of people that do suffer with depression, be it a medical reason or just experiencing life itself. 

I think that empathy need to be practiced among humanity or we could not survive without it.  Apathy is the oppose of empathy.  Empathy is love.  Without love there is no God, for God is love.  And we have that capacity to love and hate, which ever we chose to feel in our lives.  It's all about choices, on whether to believe in God or not.  If we chose to do something that won't be benifical in our lives and to those around us, then the consequences will occur.  It is a matter of choice and accountability.  We have a conscience to know from right and wrong, or some do not have conscience to pick the right from the wrong.  Either way, it is up to the individual to make the choice. And who are we to judge one another just because we feel we may be better than someone else?  No, that is not necessary to do, to me it is a waste of energy and time.

Anyhow, that is my input here for today.....

best wishes,

go12_3

[thalbergmad]

However, it may ease the burden or suffering of a depressed person to receive relief and comfort from God through prayer and meditation. 

I am sure glad you used the word "may".

Thal

[timothy42b]

1. I guess one could argue that faith is a form of delusion.


Thal

Of course faith is a form of delusion.  It requires one to believe something for which there is no evidence.  Were there evidence, it would not be faith.  This is made clear by the story of Thomas, among other things.  There is a theological position that there cannot be evidence, because that would mean removing our free will, and God would not want that.  Faith is an unusual delusion in that people without other symptoms of mental illness often exhibit faith. 

But delusions can be true - we might believe in something without any evidence and accidentaly be right.  The mere fact that something is a delusion does not necessarily make it false.  Nor can we conclude that something is true merely because a large number of people share that delusion. 

It can also happen that the action of believing in God may help one cope with personal crises.  That doesn't prove there is supernatural intervention.  So it doesn't add or subtract evidence for existence. 

[ahinton]

I hate to spoil the fun here, but should not some consideration now be given to an amendment to that part of the thread topic that is between brackets, given that certain responses here have also been immensely lengthy?

Best,

Alistair

[go12_3]

I hate to spoil the fun here, but should not some consideration now be given to an amendment to that part of the thread topic that is between brackets, given that certain responses here have also been immensely lengthy?

Best,

Alistair

Indeed, yes, lol.  Say, Alistair, I got bored early this morning and thought, oh, just write a little of my input here.   

best wishes,

go12_3

[ahinton]

Indeed, yes, lol.  Say, Alistair, I got bored early this morning and thought, oh, just write a little of my input here.   

best wishes,

go12_3

Fine, but it was not, of course, your contribution to which I sought to refer when making my point about "way too long" posts here!

My other point is that there is no new or old Islam thread, Buddism thread, Hindu thread, Zoroastrian thread, etc., etc. on this forum; why is it that some people here get so particularly worked up about Christianity in particular, to the proportionate exclusion of other faiths? I have less than no idea. This is not in any sense to seek to undermine genuine Christian faith, but its treatment does seem pretty unbalanced here. I'm afraid that I have less than no patience with those who obsess in taking the Bible literally, word for word, especially since it is, as I have observed before, a multi-author work written over the course of several decades, presented without any evidence of overall editorial control or supervision and it is a part-historical, part-literary-fantasy work with probably quite a few parts missing which has to be read in the context of the wholly different world of societal, scientific and other parameters applicable to its time and place (what we now think of as a part of the Middle East) of which little would at that time have been known far outside it. As to the creationists who wilfully seek to ignore years of scientific evidence contrary to their beliefs, what can be said? Additionally, those so-called Christians who claim that their faith is "right" and everyone else's is not do neither themselves nor genuine Christian practice any favours whatsoever.

Sorry for the length of this post!

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

alastair,

You are 100% right. 

The annoying paranoia of the fundagelics doesn't make them wrong about existence vs nonexistence.  It does make them hard to talk to, and scarey.  What if they were in power?  We'd be starting wars, the economy would crash, th.................  oh never mind. 

[thalbergmad]

Now that Bush & Blair have gone, there is a greater chance of peace (hopefully).

People with strong religious convictions should not be in positions of power.

Thal

[ahinton]

People with strong religious convictions

ought surely in any democratic society to have been arrested, charged and tried first...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

a
This "God exists as most people believe in him" is nonsense. The minority are not always wrong.

I didn't say that because most people believe in God he exists, I said probably. It is a good measuring stick to validate what is correct when we see what the majority believes. Sure in the majority have been wrong, I am sure at one time you would have been in the minority if you believed the world was round. But in the age of information that we live in now, a lot of myths have been revealed, however the God myth (as atheists might put it) has not vanished. Because god cannot be proven on human terms we will never be able to write down in words a way to prove that God exists. It is like trying to prove that Love exists, you cannot show what love is but you can demonstrate its effect.

...why is it that some people here get so particularly worked up about Christianity in particular, to the proportionate exclusion of other faiths?

It is because Christianity is the most difficult form of worship to debunk.

I'm afraid that I have less than no patience with those who obsess in taking the Bible literally, word for word, especially since it is, as I have observed before, a multi-author work written over the course of several decades,

No doctrine in the Bible is under threat of being misinterpreted because the Bible is written in such a way, almost a poetic way, which cycles through recurring themes and patterns, contrasts and similarities. It is incorrect to read single passages of the Bible to make a decision, when we question a single line of a doctrine we often search for other places of the Bible with the same manner of explaination highlighting the same point. Like connecting the dots, not just looking at one dot and making the decision.

Let me just use one example of the bible to highlight how we can read it. I wont be trying to highlight a doctrine of Christianity that would require more detail, I just want to highlight small passages and show how multiple ways to read it does not really influence the end result.


1 Kings chapter 17 no4+6:

4: And it shall be, thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.

6: And the ravens brough him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.


This passage is talking about Elijah, who represented almost the Christ we see in the New Testament. God has commanded ravens to send him food and feed him while he was without while in Cherith.

There are three modes of interpretation of these passages.

1) It could be simply a highly poetic expression, a metaphor conveying the lesson that the prophet Elijah was maintained by workings of the supernatural provided by God.

2) The words may be taken literally. That actual ravens brought Elijah food, that God worked a miracle through the lines of nature.

3) It is possible that the word is wrongly translated and does not mean ravens at all. This is a more complicated issue to deal with but lets suffer the process for a moment.

The original wirtten ancient Hebrew has consonants only and no written vowels, however the vowels where supplied vocally from tradition. A thousand years or more after these stories where written some scribes called Masoretes, wrote under the consonants the vowels points which represented the traditional sound. However now and then there where for sure difference of opinion as to the best pronunciation.

The Masoretes decided on the word to mean Raven in our example however we notice that there are several other consonants which mean raven such as: gadfly, Arabian, wolf, evening, a name of a villiage. It is like three english consonants G-R-T it could mean great, greet, grit etc etc. So it is totally possible to say that Arabians brought Elijah food, or a gadfly!

But really whatever happened Elijah was provided with food, it doesn't really matter what exactly gave it to him it, God set up the circumstances that he was provided for.




The earliest old testament scripture was written somewhere in the 1400BC. When considering the historical accuracy or value of ancient texts we have to know which time bounds are acceptable. Text written even 200 years after an event is considered historical fact when dealing with Ancient history. The New Testament Letters were written where there still where 1st and 2nd hand witnesses to Christs Ressurection still alive. Jewish tradition of passing on stories to maintain their history is very well known and even 10th hand witnesses to the Ressurection would be quite accurate. This social structure of passing on stories of ancestors life and observation is more than just a Chinese whisper, it was a way in which the people socialized, passed on knowledge, it was like their form of our TV News media. The fact that the Ressurection caused such a rip and change in Jewish religious structures has NEVER been seen before in any part of history, this certainly prompts us to think about what gave the Christian movement such strength? And it certainly makes us consider the New Testament value.

There certainly where other cults trying to break out and make a statement throughout Jewish history but they all faded and where forgotten, why did Christianity survive? The answer is more complicated that most expect but points towards the witness to the Ressurection. If this is all a hoax it certainly is the greatest hoax ever.

Any doubt cast in upon the Bible has been scrutinized for hundreds of years already and the result we have is that the Bible has no doctrine misconstrued. No one will come up with something new to debate. Any bible scholar or ancient Jewish historian will highlight that the Bible is the most accurate historical document of ancient Jewish history mankind has.

Additionally, those so-called Christians who claim that their faith is "right" and everyone else's is not do neither themselves nor genuine Christian practice any favours whatsoever.

I don't like to judge people, I think to say who is right or wrong is unimportant, we should be worried about what we think ourselves not what others think. I for one am very open to talk to any person from any religion or non-religion. Humans are afterall my favorite animal... ^_^

Sorry for the length of this post!

I should say the same. oops.

[thalbergmad]

Why did Christianity survive? The answer is more complicated that most expect but points towards the witness to the Ressurection. If this is all a hoax it certainly is the greatest hoax ever.

Any doubt cast in upon the Bible has been scrutinized for hundreds of years already and the result we have is that the Bible has no doctrine misconstrued. No one will come up with something new to debate. Any bible scholar or ancient Jewish historian will highlight that the Bible is the most accurate historical document of ancient Jewish history mankind has.

The sword has gone some way to ensure that Christianity survived, albeit as you say, the answer is complicated. As to being a hoax, i have not dismissed the possibility that it is the biggest of all time.

Parts of the old Testament have been shown to be incorrect. Almost certainly, Ramsees  was not the pharoah of the Exodus, but i guess this could have been a later addition. In addition, there is NO Pharoah called Shishak that the Bible mentions sacked Jerusalem and carried away the treasure from Solomans Temple.

It might be the most accurate we have, but people who take it at 100% are delusional.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

It might be the most accurate we have, but people who take it at 100%  are delusional.

I don't think that anything written about history is ever 100% correct in any book we read I think the errors in the Bible are so miniscule they are irrelevant.

[ahinton]

Christianity is the most difficult form of worship to debunk.

Not only do you offer no evidence in support of that contention but, in any case, I was not seeking to "debunk" any religion in my remarks, nor even to draw attention to others' apparent attempts to do so; you seem therefore to have missed my point entirely and answered it by referring to something that I had not mentioned.

No doctrine in the Bible is under threat of being misinterpreted because the Bible is written in such a way, almost a poetic way, which cycles through recurring themes and patterns, contrasts and similarities. It is incorrect to read single passages of the Bible to make a decision, when we question a single line of a doctrine we often search for other places of the Bible with the same manner of explaination highlighting the same point. Like connecting the dots, not just looking at one dot and making the decision.

Again, I was not suggesting or advocating that Biblical doctrine is or should be under threat as such; my points about the work are as follows.

1. What we have today is likely an incomplete version.
2. The language in which each of its extant chapters was written has undergone many transformations over the two millennia of its existence.
3. The social, scientific, communicational and many other factors in the present day world would have been largely unrecognisable to the Bible's authors or any of their contemporaries.
4. What we have of the Bible was written in a particular part of what we now call the Middle East at a time when knowledge of the world beyond that area was relatively scant; its intended readership can thus presumably be defined in terms of the location of its multiple authorship rather than the largely worldwide one that has come about in far more recent times.
5. What we have of the Bible was written by a number of authors over a considerable period of time but without any one single editor-in-chief supervising and co-ordinating the whole; its fragmentary nature is thus perhaps inevitable.
6. There are some contradictions as well as factual historical errors within the work.
7. The difficulties of "interpreting" the Bible in terms of doctrinal statement are compounded by the fact that parts of it read far more like a historical chronicle than others; the mix of reportage and fantasy serves only to complicate matters for its readers, especially in today's world.

Let me just use one example of the bible to highlight how we can read it. I wont be trying to highlight a doctrine of Christianity that would require more detail, I just want to highlight small passages and show how multiple ways to read it does not really influence the end result.


1 Kings chapter 17 no4+6:

4: And it shall be, thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.

6: And the ravens brough him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.


This passage is talking about Elijah, who represented almost the Christ we see in the New Testament. God has commanded ravens to send him food and feed him while he was without while in Cherith.

There are three modes of interpretation of these passages.

1) It could be simply a highly poetic expression, a metaphor conveying the lesson that the prophet Elijah was maintained by workings of the supernatural provided by God.

2) The words may be taken literally. That actual ravens brought Elijah food, that God worked a miracle through the lines of nature.

3) It is possible that the word is wrongly translated and does not mean ravens at all. This is a more complicated issue to deal with but lets suffer the process for a moment.

The original wirtten ancient Hebrew has consonants only and no written vowels, however the vowels where supplied vocally from tradition. A thousand years or more after these stories where written some scribes called Masoretes, wrote under the consonants the vowels points which represented the traditional sound. However now and then there where for sure difference of opinion as to the best pronunciation.

The Masoretes decided on the word to mean Raven in our example however we notice that there are several other consonants which mean raven such as: gadfly, Arabian, wolf, evening, a name of a villiage. It is like three english consonants G-R-T it could mean great, greet, grit etc etc. So it is totally possible to say that Arabians brought Elijah food, or a gadfly!

But really whatever happened Elijah was provided with food, it doesn't really matter what exactly gave it to him it, God set up the circumstances that he was provided for.

Your broadmindedness here is welcome and you are clearly seeking to take this whole matter a good deal more seriously than some of the more Biblically obsessed do; that said, however, do we really know that your last sentence here is the unequivocal truth that you claim it to be? - after all, the very purpose of your first numbered point seems to be to allow for the possibility of fantasy and imagination rather than hard fact!

The earliest old testament scripture was written somewhere in the 1400BC. When considering the historical accuracy or value of ancient texts we have to know which time bounds are acceptable. Text written even 200 years after an event is considered historical fact when dealing with Ancient history. The New Testament Letters were written where there still where 1st and 2nd hand witnesses to Christs Ressurection still alive. Jewish tradition of passing on stories to maintain their history is very well known and even 10th hand witnesses to the Ressurection would be quite accurate. This social structure of passing on stories of ancestors life and observation is more than just a Chinese whisper, it was a way in which the people socialized, passed on knowledge, it was like their form of our TV News media. The fact that the Ressurection caused such a rip and change in Jewish religious structures has NEVER been seen before in any part of history, this certainly prompts us to think about what gave the Christian movement such strength? And it certainly makes us consider the New Testament value.

I cannot share the extent of your apparent certainty here. A few decades or a few hundred years can be very different from another such, depending on historical events during the period concerned; civilisations sometimes change more rapidly and fundamentally at some times than they do at others and it is therefore not feasible to assume that, as you write, "Jewish tradition of passing on stories to maintain their history is very well known and even 10th hand witnesses to the Ressurection would be quite accurate". Word of mouth, whilst important as a means of communication over time in days when there were few if any others, is inevitably unreliable; apart from linguistic and social changes during those 10 generations, consider (albeit in English, but the point still holds, I think), the difference of emphasis that occur when placing the principal accent on just one of some of the words in the phrase
"today is a very cold day"
in the sense that an accent on the first might suggest comparison with previous days' temperatures, one on the second might imply argument with someone suggesting otherwise, (we'll pass over the indefinite article!), one on the fourth might seek to distinguish the day's temperature from those of other days that are cold bu not so much so as today, one on the fifth would seem to distinguish today's tempertaure from warmer ones (and we'll ignore "day"). Furthermore, the mood, the memory facility, the possible desire to dissemble and a whole host of other factors applpicable to each individual teller can bend a story unrecognisably over less than 10 generations.

There certainly where other cults trying to break out and make a statement throughout Jewish history but they all faded and where forgotten, why did Christianity survive? The answer is more complicated that most expect

Indeed, but surely a major part of its was marketing and PR.

but points towards the witness to the Ressurection. If this is all a hoax it certainly is the greatest hoax ever.

Perhaps it was - and then again, perhaps scientific research might one day prove that the Resurrection actually did happen or at least could have happened, with due explanation; the fact that assumptions continue to be made in its absence is purely down to someone's idea that it might help Christianity to survive if this story is held onto almost as though some kind of article of faith in itself.

Any doubt cast in upon the Bible has been scrutinized for hundreds of years already and the result we have is that the Bible has no doctrine misconstrued. No one will come up with something new to debate. Any bible scholar or ancient Jewish historian will highlight that the Bible is the most accurate historical document of ancient Jewish history mankind has.

I do not wish to soud rude but I do think that this is nonsense. Far more is known today about what we understand to be the Bible than was the case 500 or even 50 years ago; reaearch continues and our knowledge will no doubt continue to improve as a consequence. Errors, inconsistencies and misconstruings have indeed been identified and no doubt will continue to be as more research with more advanced tools helps to throw more light on these texts and the events of their time and place.

I don't like to judge people, I think to say who is right or wrong is unimportant, we should be worried about what we think ourselves not what others think. I for one am very open to talk to any person from any religion or non-religion.

No, but you must surely have come across the type that is indeed judgemental in such issues.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on Today at 01:45:00 AM
I don't like to judge people, I think to say who is right or wrong is unimportant, we should be worried about what we think ourselves not what others think. I for one am very open to talk to any person from any religion or non-religion.

No, but you must surely have come across the type that is indeed judgemental in such issues.

Best,

Alistair

As proven in your notion that

So far all you have said is what the others believe is fantasy and ridiculous. Well then, why not tell us exactly what you believe and how it is more benefitial than believing in a God? That would make us understand exactly why worshiping yourself is the better way.

which you base on nothing whatsoever and therefor is rather insulting.
I have merely stated that the belief in any god(s) is, from my point of view, delusionary. I do not know on what you base that such means that I worship myself, but the notion is not only wrong, but rather insulting, if I found your judgement about my little person of any value whatsoever (which I don't).

[ahinton]

No, but you must surely have come across the type that is indeed judgemental in such issues.

Best,

Alistair

As proven in your notion that which you base on nothing whatsoever and therefor is rather insulting.
I have merely stated that the belief in any god(s) is, from my point of view, delusionary. I do not know on what you base that such means that I worship myself, but the notion is not only wrong, but rather insulting, if I found your judgement about my little person of any value whatsoever (which I don't).

I must confess (and I'm not even a Roman Catholic!) that I didn't understand this rather abrasive-sounding "invitation" either. For me, I do not care to have religious people braying at me, whatever their particular religion may be, especially if what is brayed comes across as of the "we're right and you're not" variety; I did not suggest that "lostinidlewonder" does that kind of fundamentalist judgemantalist thing but that I'm sure he will have encountered it in others. Furthermore, I did not find his "invitation" very Christian-sounding, for what that view may or may not be worth...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I don't think that anything written about history is ever 100% correct in any book we read I think the errors in the Bible are so miniscule they are irrelevant.

I think the ones i pointed out are relevant, but i do also accept that they could be due to bad translations and over optimistic editing.

Thal

[gep]

I wouldn't call Genesis 1 an error so miniscule as to be irrelevant. Or some of the more barbaric laws somewhat furtheron.

[lostinidlewonder]

I wouldn't call Genesis 1 an error so miniscule as to be irrelevant.

That the world was created in 6 days? It could be metaphorical, but if scientists observe the order in which the world was created in the Bible  they will agree that it is in the right order, that is the world was first a water planet then the land formed as they dried out etc.

Not only do you offer no evidence in support of that contention but, in any case, I was not seeking to "debunk" any religion in my remarks, nor even to draw attention to others' apparent attempts to do so; you seem therefore to have missed my point entirely and answered it by referring to something that I had not mentioned.

You did say:
...why is it that some people here get so particularly worked up about Christianity in particular, to the proportionate exclusion of other faiths?

To which I replied, because Christianity is the hardest religion to debunk. I didn't remark that you where attacking Christianity at all just highlighting why many people like to argue about it.

Of the 7 points you listed casting some doubt on the 100% accuracy of the bible, these points do make sense. However they are not in action so much so to make the Bible a book of confusion. You see in Sorabji's own works a  lot of errors in the score but this does not lose the message behind his music, we can fill in the gaps if we really need to. The same goes for the bible, any things which do not add up and make sense can be solved by understanding the Bible as a whole, not get confused over the leaves but appreciate the entire tree.

...do we really know that your last sentence here is the unequivocal truth that you claim it to be? - after all, the very purpose of your first numbered point seems to be to allow for the possibility of fantasy and imagination rather than hard fact!

The first point means that what was said was metaphoric, not that God actually sent a raven but it is used as a traditional symbol. It is like in Proverbs (30:17) The eye that mocketh at his father... the ravens of the brook shall pick it out. Ravens won't actually come pick it out, it is used as a symbol to teach with. Also like how Christ said "their worm dieth not" There is not actually a worm that is dying it is a metaphor.

Whether it is truth or not, what is written is that Elijah was provided with food from God. It is unimportant if we think it is fantasy or made up, this is just how we read the text with no personal feelings.


On another point, most people hold the exaggerated idea that the Old testament is filled with miracles. There are only fifty, and these occured when most needed, at the three great periods of Israel's history, that is the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan(24), the struggle with Idolatry under the Kings(19) and the seven remaining are chiefly connected with the Captivity.

There are a few points one should think about when it comes to miracles.

1: That to assert that God cannot interfere with the order of nature would be to subject the Creator to his creation.

2: That the order of nature is itself everywhere and miraculous. The grape for example turns water into wine as Christ did at Cana, only more slowly.

3: That a miracle does not set aside the order of nature, but temporarily moves upon it by a higher power, as when a man catches a falling apple.

4: That God evidently does not often thus change the regular order of nature, only on the three great occasions in the Old Testament and during the establishment of the Christianity in the New. But we can ourselves see that those where pre-eminently critical times.

5: That there is no need of miracles in modern times, since we have lessons of the past, and yet it would be presumptuous to say that God may not again see it fit to use this instrumentality.

6: That science is disclosing to us the power and wisdom of God more wonderfully than miracles could, for example, TV, internet etc. And we always have before us the truly miraculous phenomenon of conversion and regeneration, the transformation from spiritual death to spiritual life.

[ahinton]

That the world was created in 6 days? It could be metaphorical, but if scientists observe the order in which the world was created they will agree that it is in the right order, that is the world was first a water planet then the land formed as they dried out etc.

But the crucial (sorry!) fact remains that no scientist would claim that the planet "was created in six days", let alone that its single "creator" rested on the day after that.

You did say:
...why is it that some people here get so particularly worked up about Christianity in particular, to the proportionate exclusion of other faiths?

To which I replied, because Christianity is the hardest religion to debunk. I didn't remark that you where attacking Christianity at all just highlighting why many people like to argue about it.

I know that you didn't, nor did I suggest otherwise; the fact remains, however, that you have still offered no corroborative evidence to support your assertion that Christianity is the "hardest religion to debunk" and I have to add that, given the sheer number of factions into which that religion falls, that assertion looks particularly hard to justify.

Of the 7 points you listed casting some doubt on the 100% accuracy of the bible, these points do make sense. However they are not in action so much so to make the Bible a book of confusion.

I did not suggest that it was a book of confusion; I was far more sepfici in citing the various different caveats that one needs to observe when seeking to arrive at conclusions about certin of its contents.

You see in Sorabji's own works a  lot of errors in the score but this does not lose the message behind his music, we can fill in the gaps if we really need to.

This is true but, although Sorabji is no longer alive, he has been dead for a mere 20 years, so solving these problems is nowhere near as difficult as would be the case had his work een composed 2,000 years ago.

The same goes for the bible, any things which do not add up and make sense can be solved by understanding the Bible as a whole, not get confused over the leaves but appreciate the entire tree.

For one thing we cannot guarantee having "the Bible as a whole" or even be certain as to what that should actually be, since it never benefited from the work of an overall supervising editor. For another, all too many people cannot see the wood for those trees in any case - not so much a case fo "confusion" per se but more one of gaps, anomalies, translation losses and a number of other factors to which I have already sought to draw attention.

The first point means that what was said was metaphoric, not that God actually sent a raven but it is used as a traditional symbol. It is like in Proverbs (30:17) The eye that mocketh at his father... the ravens of the brook shall pick it out. Ravens won't actually come pick it out, it is used as a symbol to teach with. Also like how Christ said "their worm dieth not" There is not actually a worm that is dying it is a metaphor.

Whether it is truth or not, what is written is that Elijah was provided with food from God. It is unimportant if we think it is fantasy or made up, this is just how we read the text with no personal feelings.

Indeed - at least you make allowances for the possibility of metaphor, fantasy, symbolism, etc. - but thse things can and will convey different meanings and nuances as time progresses, to say nothing of what any of them might mean to people from different cultures who had no experience of the times and places in which the various extant Bible chapters were written.

On another point, most people hold the exaggerated idea that the Old testament is filled with miracles. There are only fifty, and these occured when most needed, at the three great periods of Israel's history, that is the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan(24), the struggle with Idolatry under the Kings(19) and the seven remaining are chiefly connected with the Captivity.

Is that so? In the absence of certainty, I'll take your word for what "most people hold", except to say that you will not have spoken to "most people" in order to establish this as a fact.

There are a few points one should think about when it comes to miracles.

1: That to assert that God cannot interfere with the order of nature would be to subject the Creator to his creation.

How would that affect "miracles" and anyone's view of these things which are by definition subject to the prior application of some kind of faith at least until they become scientifically proven?

2: That the order of nature is itself everywhere and miraculous. The grape for example turns water into wine as Christ did at Cana, only more slowly.

I cannot disagree with that in principle, but that does not mean that anyone is responsible for such miracles unless one believes that "God" created everything, including "the order of nature itself"; we're back to faith here again, in that some believe this, others don't, others still are unsure yet that order remains.

3: That a miracle does not set aside the order of nature, but temporarily moves upon it by a higher power, as when a man catches a falling apple.

Your definition of "miracle" seems to be getting a tad looser here, compared to that in 2. above.

4: That God evidently does not often thus change the regular order of nature, only on the three great occasions in the Old Testament and during the establishment of the Christianity in the New. But we can ourselves see that those where pre-eminently critical times.

If God changed "the regular order of nature" one must assume that He came to consider it fallible and therefore in need of some kinds of change. Your assertion that such changes are but four in number throughout the whole of history can apply to our planet only and, in any case, how could the Middle Eastern Biblical authors from whose writings you derive this idea have known about what might have happened in places other than those with which they were familiar or at earlier times?

5: That these considerations distinguish sharply between Bible miracles and those of the false religions, which are not connected with worthy reasons not supported by evidence.

I don't see that they do anything of the kind and, if you consider the above reservations about your remarks on this, I wonder how you could continue to claim such a thing. Where, in any case, is the evidence for the four miracles of which you write?

6: That there is no need of miracles in modern times, since we have lessons of the past, and yet it would be presumptuous to say that God may not again see it fit to use this instrumentality.

That would have to depend on each individual's definition of "miracles" and by whose hand or otherwise they may have occurred.

7: That science is disclosing to us the power and wisdom of God more wonderfully than miracles could, for example, TV, internet etc. And we always have before us the truly miraculous phenomenon of conversion and regeneration, the transformation from spiritual death to spiritual life.

Again, there is no such thing as a universally applicable and accepted definition of the term "miracle", which fact once more undermines part of what you claim here; as to the last part, I do agree with you in principle, though in what form this might manifest itself is open to question.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

On another point, most people hold the exaggerated idea that the Old testament is filled with miracles. There are only fifty, and these occured when most needed, at the three great periods of Israel's history, that is the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan(24), the struggle with Idolatry under the Kings(19) and the seven remaining are chiefly connected with the Captivity.

All of the OT is transactional, I thought we already hashed that out.

The Exodus is not one of the great periods of Israel's history (leaving aside the distinction between Northern and Southern Kingdoms.)  Modern Israeli archaeology has disproven the Exodus. 

[thalbergmad]

Modern Israeli archaeology has disproven the Exodus. 

Unless i am very much mistaken, there is not very much in Egyptian archaelogy that would help substantiate the Exodus story either.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

but if scientists observe the order in which the world was created in the Bible  they will agree that it is in the right order, that is the world was first a water planet then the land formed as they dried out etc.

I thought it was a big ball of gas.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Thal

[ahinton]

I thought it was a big ball of gas.

Are you referring to a vital stage in the earth's creation or to "lostinidlewonder"'s post on the subject?

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

...as God himself said when He was bored one day and then suddenly had what He thought might be a really great idea which resulted in His creation of the banjo - which proves, if nothing else, that God was probably rather less perfect than some might make out...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You see in Sorabji's own works a  lot of errors in the score but this does not lose the message behind his music, we can fill in the gaps if we really need to.

Indeed, but different editors might have different ideas and that can lead to an entirely different message.

Thal

[ahinton]

Indeed, but different editors might have different ideas and that can lead to an entirely different message.

"Might", perhaps, but may I draw your attention to my own response to this question? The comparison with the question of dealing with literary writings by a largely disparate clutch of Middle Eastern people some 2 millennia ago is hardly one that holds water, methinks...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

But the crucial (sorry!) fact remains that no scientist would claim that the planet "was created in six days", let alone that its single "creator" rested on the day after that.

There is no need to prove or show that the world was created in the "days" mentioned in the Bible. It makes perfect sense to consider the word "day" in a symbolic notion. Those that refuse to think that way AND consider it an error in the bible are doing so pig headed.

I know that you didn't, nor did I suggest otherwise; the fact remains, however, that you have still offered no corroborative evidence to support your assertion that Christianity is the "hardest religion to debunk" and I have to add that, given the sheer number of factions into which that religion falls, that assertion looks particularly hard to justify.

It is called opinion, not something one can PROVE again. It would be unintelligent to measure which religion is tougher to debunk than the other, just like it is not intelligent to work out what the most difficult piano piece is. The fact that there are so many denominations and offshoots of Christianity is one factor which increases the complexity when trying to understand Christianity. Thus understanding what causes a difference in worship approach between all the Christian denominations is a major task and not really valuable for a piano forum (of which most people would not understand and/or be interested in what would be said). However some grasp hold of one idea of a Christian offshoot and uses it to proclaim that Christianity is a sham.

This is true but, although Sorabji is no longer alive, he has been dead for a mere 20 years, so solving these problems is nowhere near as difficult as would be the case had his work een composed 2,000 years ago.

True, but Sorabji was only one man and with less influence over society. The Bible was written over 1,500+ years, many authors and which was passed down generations through strict tradition. This strict tradition would be better appreciated if one studies Ancient Jewish tradition and culture, how they passed on knowledge etc. It is why Jews exist now but we don't have many of the other tribes described in the Bible. The way in which the Jews maintained their language and religion kept them becoming assymilated and their religious structures changed by the dominating political power throughout history. Also look at how they kept their bible, without any vowel sounds. The tradition of keeping the Word was so great that they memorized the correct pronunciations of words.  It was only 1000+years later that they decided they better put the vowel sounds in.

For one thing we cannot guarantee having "the Bible as a whole" or even be certain as to what that should actually be, since it never benefited from the work of an overall supervising editor. For another, all too many people cannot see the wood for those trees in any case - not so much a case fo "confusion" per se but more one of gaps, anomalies, translation losses and a number of other factors to which I have already sought to draw attention.

The bible is written in a fantastic way in which the same things always happen but in a different way however essentially teach the same notion. As a matter of relevance to our lives today, if we find some certain details are perhaps not completely correct it does not change the method in which we understand the text or learn from its message. It is like taking "The Boy who cried Wolf! fable and changing it to "The Boy who cried Lion!" The message still remains even through the props used to explain it are changed.

Indeed - at least you make allowances for the possibility of metaphor, fantasy, symbolism, etc. - but thse things can and will convey different meanings and nuances as time progresses, to say nothing of what any of them might mean to people from different cultures who had no experience of the times and places in which the various extant Bible chapters were written.

You have hit on the point exactly. I personally do not read everything in the bible as representations of metaphor. It is actually very difficult because one needs to study Ancient Jewish metaphors and symbolism. It is not required to understand the bible, however those who are interested to do so always can but it makes our task a lot more difficult and would only be a venture if that type of understanding is useful and helpful to you. It is mostly left to the Jewish experts

Is that so? In the absence of certainty, I'll take your word for what "most people hold", except to say that you will not have spoken to "most people" in order to establish this as a fact.

A lot of people who do not believe in the Bible say to me, "I just can't believe all these miracles that they talk about in the Bible!" To which I show them the reality that there is not that many miracles in the bible compared to the number of pages! So lets ignore miracles because it does not constitute a great deal of the Bible, the only one we have to really believe in is the miracle of the Resurrection, of which the sudden and sweeping change Christianity had on Ancient Jewish culture and worship structure, of which has never been observed in history ever before, is the largest bit of circumstantial evidence supporting our belief.

How would that affect "miracles" and anyone's view of these things which are by definition subject to the prior application of some kind of faith at least until they become scientifically proven?

When we talk about miracles we must assume that God exists and has power to do what he likes. If we are open to that knowledge then we can develop an idea of what miracles are, in the few points I have discussed.

Your assertion that such changes are but four in number throughout the whole of history can apply to our planet only and, in any case, how could the Middle Eastern Biblical authors from whose writings you derive this idea have known about what might have happened in places other than those with which they were familiar or at earlier times?

God certainly might have performed miracles elsewhere, but when we consider the Bible he only did so on the special periods I mentioned. Because the Bible is the platform of which we are given a window into how God and when God performs miracles, observing the times that he did perform them can be instructional.

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on April 20, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
3: That a miracle does not set aside the order of nature, but temporarily moves upon it by a higher power, as when a man catches a falling apple.

Your definition of "miracle" seems to be getting a tad looser here.....

An apple is designed to eventually fall off the tree and rot on the ground (unless it has been eaten by an animal, in that case it will fall to the ground in another way ). So God can perform a miracle in such a way that he can be in between the natural movement of nature.

The Exodus is not one of the great periods of Israel's history (leaving aside the distinction between Northern and Southern Kingdoms.) 

One would think that say Moses and the 10 Commandments in the Exodus where keystones to the teachings in the Bible. Jews hold religion as the most important aspect of their life, thus this is a very important part of their history. The fact is that Exodus highlights an increased activity of miracles described in the Bible.

I thought it was a big ball of gas.

And we can go back even further and further. Where the bible starts off is verifiable as the correct order by theory of science.

[lostinidlewonder]

I would like to present some scientific evidence related to the Bible. This is going to be a little long but I will try to keep it as short as possible.

Archaeology has made important contributions which enhance the New Testaments reliability, although it certainly CANNOT prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God. If there is a dig in Israel and they find ancient sites that are consistent with where Bible said we would find them this simply shows that there is a historic and geographical accuracy. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries.

So instead of a 1 0 approach right or wrong, lets ask, does archaeology affirm or undermine the New Testament? There is no question that the evidence enhances the New Testament, lets see why and start with Luke.

The physician and historian Luke authored the Book of Acts and obviously, Luke. This represents at least 1/4 of the New Testament. Did Luke get things right or was he careless? Both liberal and conservative scholars will admit that Luke was very accurate as a historian. There have been several instances where scholars first thought that Luke had got it wrong.

Luke 3:1 refers to Lysanias as being  the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For years scholars pointed out that Luke was wrong since everyone knew that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis half a century earlier. If Luke couldn't get this basic fact right then nothing he wote could be trusted.

This is where archeology stepped in since an inscription was found from the time of Tiberius from A.D. 14 to 37, which names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus, just as Luke had written. It turned out that there where two government officials named Lysanias.

Acts 17:6 Luke refers to "politarchs" which is translated to as city officials, in the city of Thessalonica. For a long time people believed Luke was wrong because no evidence of the term "politarchs" has been found in any ancient Roman document. However an inscription on a first century arch was later found that begins "In the time of the politarchs..." They have these in the British Museum, archaeologists have found more than 35+ inscriptions that mention politarchs, several of these in Thessalonica from the same period Luke was referring to. Again the critics where wrong and Luke was right.

There is also in the gospel a part where Luke says that Jesus was walking INTO Jericho when he healed the blind man Bartimaeus, while Mark says he was coming OUT of Jericho. This seem as a clear-cut contradiction that casts doubt on the reliability of the New Testament, however this is not the case at all. It only appears to be a contradiction because we think in contemporary terms, in which cities are built and say put. But this was not necessarily the case in ancient times. Jericho was in at least 4 different locations as much as a quarter mile apart in ancient times. The city was destroyed and resettled near another water supply or a new road or nearer a mountain or whatever. The point is you can be coming out of one site where Jericho existed and be going into another one. Like moving from one part of a suburb in a city to another part of the suburb. So Mark and Luke are both right.

A large portion of the New Testament is written by Luke and historians have analyzed him in even the smallest details. Luke's references to 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands have no errors and no historians can find mistake with them. If Luke was so accurate in historical reportings  on what logical basis may we assume he was inaccurate in his reportings of matters which where far more important, not only to himself but others as well? Matters such as the resurrection of Jesus which LUke says was firmly established by "many convinving proofs" Acts 1:3.


What about John and Mark? There have been several discoveries that have shown John and Luke to be very accurate. John 5:1-15 records how Jesus healed and invalid by the Pools of Bethesda. John provides the detail that the pool had 5 porticoes. For a long time people said that this is an example of John being inaccurate because no such place has ever been found. But we have now, almost 50 feet under the earth, archaeologists have uncovered the Pool of Bethesda. Sure enough they found five porticoes, whcih means walkways and porches exactly as john had described. There are also other discoveries, Pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacob's Well John 4:12, the probable location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus appeared before Pilate in John 19:13, even Pilate's own identity, all of which have lent historical credibility to John's gospel.


Anyone who says the gospel of John was written so long after Jesus that it cannot be accurate has a lot to work through. Archaeologists found a fragment of a copy of John 18 that leading papyrologists have dated to about AD 125. By demonstrating that copies of John existed this early and as far away as Egypt, archaeology has effecitvely dismantled speculation that John had been composed well into the 2nd century, too long after Jesus life to be reliable.


The existance, or their belief of the non-existance of Nazareth has had skeptics excited for a long time. One atheist Frank Zindler noted that Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, by the apostle Paul, by the Talmud (although 63 other Galilean towns are cited), or by Josephus (who listed 45 other villiages and cities of Galilee, including Japha which is located just over 1 mile from present day Nazareth). No ancient historians or geographers mention Nazereth before the beginning of the fourth century. The name first appeares in Jewish literature in a poem written about the 7th century AD. This absense of evidence paints a suspicious picture so is there any archaeological confirmation that Nazareth was in existence during the 1st century?

Dr James Strange of the Univeristy of South Florida is an expert on this area, so lets see what he said. Strange notes that when Jerusalem fell in A.D 70 priests where no longer needed in the temple because it had been destroyed, so they were sent out to various other locations, even up into Galilee. Archaeologists have found a list in Aramaic describing the 24 families of priests who where relocated, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth. This shows that this tiny villiage must have been there at the time.
   In addition there have been digs that have uncovered 1st century tombs in the vicinity of Nazereth which would establish the villiage's limits because by Jewish law burials had to take place outside the town. Two tombs contained objects such as pottery, lamps, vases etc from the 1st, 3rd and 4th century. From the tombs it can be concluded that Narareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period. But Nazareth was such a small insignificant place so much so that we can understand Nathanael's musings in John 1:46 "Nazareth! he said "Can anything good come from there?"


Let me finish with the Dead sea scrolls. Do they tell us anything directly about Jesus? The answer is no, Jesus is not specifically mentioned in any of the scrolls. The documents give us insights into Jewish life and customs. However there is a very interesting development involving a manuscript called 4Q521.

The gospel of Matthew describes how John the Baptist, imprisoned and wresting with doubts about Jesus' indentity sent his follows to ask Jesus this monumental question: "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" (Matt 11:3) He was seeking a straight answer about whether Jesus really was the long awaited Messiah.

Through the centuries Christians have wondered about Jesus rather enigmatic answer. Instead of directly saying Yes or No, Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor" (Matt 11:4-5)

Jesus' response was an allusion to Isaiah 61. But for some reason Jesus included in the phrase "THE DEAD ARE RAISED," which is conspicuously absent from the Old Testament text.

This is where 4Q521 comes in. This non-biblical manuscript from the Dead Sea collection, written in Hebrew, dates back to 30 years before Jesus was born. It contains a version of Isaiah 61 that does include this missing phrase, "the dead are raised." This phrase in 4Q521 is unquestionably embedded in a messianic context. It refers to the wonders that the Messiah will do when he comes and when heaven and earth will obey him. So when Jesus gave his response to John, he was not being ambiguous at all. John would have instantly recognized his words as a distinct claim that Jesus was the Messiah. 4Q521 makes it clear that appeal to Isaiah 61 is indeed messianic. In essence, Jesus is telling John through his messengers that messianic things are happening. So that answers John's question, Yes he is the one who is to come.

[iroveashe]

I'd consider changing the topic title to "New christianity post (others are way too short)".

[lostinidlewonder]

Compared to Plague of the Mind, this thread is still a baby

[ahinton]

There is no need to prove or show that the world was created in the "days" mentioned in the Bible. It makes perfect sense to consider the word "day" in a symbolic notion. Those that refuse to think that way AND consider it an error in the bible are doing so pig headed.

Symbolic it may be in that context, but of what? A notion cannot simply be symbolic in vacuo. I am not calling it an "error" in the Bible but stating instead that the idea that someone created the earth in however many days it might have been does not of itself accord to what we know so far of such matters (and i am the first to admit that even this knowledge is far from complete as yet).

It is called opinion, not something one can PROVE again. It would be unintelligent to measure which religion is tougher to debunk than the other, just like it is not intelligent to work out what the most difficult piano piece is.

Yes, but "opinion" that you appeared (at least until now) to seek to present as fact; in any case, even opinions, if they are to be worth having, should be based on something, whereas yours on the comparative debunkability of Christianity are either based on nothing or based on something that you have carefully omitted to declare even in the paragraph from which I have just quoted.

True, but Sorabji was only one man and with less influence over society. The Bible was written over 1,500+ years, many authors and which was passed down generations through strict tradition. This strict tradition would be better appreciated if one studies Ancient Jewish tradition and culture, how they passed on knowledge etc. It is why Jews exist now but we don't have many of the other tribes described in the Bible. The way in which the Jews maintained their language and religion kept them becoming assymilated and their religious structures changed by the dominating political power throughout history. Also look at how they kept their bible, without any vowel sounds. The tradition of keeping the Word was so great that they memorized the correct pronunciations of words.  It was only 1000+years later that they decided they better put the vowel sounds in.

But it was you who raised the comparison with Sorabji, which is they only reason why I responded to it; no one is suggesting that he left all the sharps out of his scores, only for wise editors to caome along later and insert them as appropriate...

The bible is written in a fantastic way in which the same things always happen but in a different way however essentially teach the same notion. As a matter of relevance to our lives today, if we find some certain details are perhaps not completely correct it does not change the method in which we understand the text or learn from its message. It is like taking "The Boy who cried Wolf! fable and changing it to "The Boy who cried Lion!" The message still remains even through the props used to explain it are changed.
You have hit on the point exactly. I personally do not read everything in the bible as representations of metaphor. It is actually very difficult because one needs to study Ancient Jewish metaphors and symbolism. It is not required to understand the bible, however those who are interested to do so always can but it makes our task a lot more difficult and would only be a venture if that type of understanding is useful and helpful to you. It is mostly left to the Jewish experts

Again (and, I hope, for the last time), I am not knocking the Bible in the sense of claiming it to be an irrelevant, incomplete and poorly translated shambles; I am merely trying to place in realistic context what can be got from it in today's societies all over the world and, in so doing, pointing out that its contents are almost certainly - and, indeed, inevitably - more meaningful to certain anthropologists and Biblical experts than to the majority of people who fall into neither category.

A lot of people who do not believe in the Bible say to me, "I just can't believe all these miracles that they talk about in the Bible!" To which I show them the reality that there is not that many miracles in the bible compared to the number of pages! So lets ignore miracles because it does not constitute a great deal of the Bible, the only one we have to really believe in is the miracle of the Resurrection, of which the sudden and sweeping change Christianity had on Ancient Jewish culture and worship structure, of which has never been observed in history ever before, is the largest bit of circumstantial evidence supporting our belief.

OK, fine - but let's remember that many people cannot believe in the Resurrection because they have no evidence for its occurrence and I do not have a problem with that, any more than I have a problem with the possibility that, as i mentioned previously, its occurrence might one day be proved. It's all about faith or lack thereof rather than Biblical data that we are as present in any position to regard as factual.

When we talk about miracles we must assume that God exists and has power to do what he likes. If we are open to that knowledge then we can develop an idea of what miracles are, in the few points I have discussed.
God certainly might have performed miracles elsewhere, but when we consider the Bible he only did so on the special periods I mentioned. Because the Bible is the platform of which we are given a window into how God and when God performs miracles, observing the times that he did perform them can be instructional.

I though that you had said that you'd ignore miracles!...

Quote from: lostinidlewonder on April 20, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
3: That a miracle does not set aside the order of nature, but temporarily moves upon it by a higher power, as when a man catches a falling apple.An apple is designed to eventually fall off the tree and rot on the ground (unless it has been eaten by an animal, in that case it will fall to the ground in another way ). So God can perform a miracle in such a way that he can be in between the natural movement of nature.
One would think that say Moses and the 10 Commandments in the Exodus where keystones to the teachings in the Bible. Jews hold religion as the most important aspect of their life, thus this is a very important part of their history. The fact is that Exodus highlights an increased activity of miracles described in the Bible.
And we can go back even further and further. Where the bible starts off is verifiable as the correct order by theory of science.

You seem disinclined to let go of the "miracles" business! Whatever the Bible may say, metaphorically, symbolically or otherwise, about the earth's creation was not and could not be based upon anything other than the poetic imaginations of those who wrote about it therein.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I would like to present some scientific evidence related to the Bible. This is going to be a little long but I will try to keep it as short as possible.

Archaeology has made important contributions which enhance the New Testaments reliability, although it certainly CANNOT prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God. If there is a dig in Israel and they find ancient sites that are consistent with where Bible said we would find them this simply shows that there is a historic and geographical accuracy. Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries.

I am not going to answer all the points that you make here, interesting as many of them are; I will instead confine myself to your observation that no research yet undertaken can "prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God"; whilst agreeing with you here, is that factor not a most fundamental one?

I agree that bona fide research may well have thrown light on certain of the Bible's contents, that it will no doubt continue to do so in future and that the likelihood is that the results of such research may prove or disprove certain Biblical texts; a little pragmatism of attitude might not come amiss in considering suc research.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The long posters have killed off my interest in this thread.

I am outta here.

Thal

[go12_3]

The long posters have killed off my interest in this thread.

I am outta here.

Thal

*amen*

[gep]

Well, I am not going to add another 20 feet of message to this thread, other than stating the lostinidlewonder has given THE reason why not to believe in (a) God, or at least not worship him if he turns out to exist after all, when he wrote that

That science is disclosing to us the power and wisdom of God more wonderfully than miracles could, for example, TV, internet etc.

TV and Internet are examples of the "power and wisdom of  God"? Hmmm, 80% or so of the Internet is pornography, the remaining 19,9999% is yaddayaddayadda. No wonder then preachers are usually either boring the pants of sensible people or (but usually and) exeedingly preoccupied with sex.
Now, lostinidlewonder's additions here are not pornographic, but at places so very yaddayaddayadda that I almost would wish he put some pornography between it.... That too is more and more of the same, but at least it gives the eyes something to do while the brain solidifies...

[lostinidlewonder]

... no research yet undertaken can "prove whether the New Testament is the Word of God"; whilst agreeing with you here, is that factor not a most fundamental one?

God is impossible to prove in a way which will be accepted as a truth to everyone. It is not like a mathematical proof. So too is it impossible to prove that what a prophet writes is God inspired. However we can collect information which directs us to an answer, we can study the effects, validate certain bits of information. If one does not want to do this then they will never be able to come to an inference, their answer just only be a prediction and stab in the dark.

Well, I am not going to add another 20 feet of message to this thread, other than stating the lostinidlewonder has given THE reason why not to believe in (a) God, or at least not worship him if he turns out to exist after all, when he wrote that

 What I wrote does not PROVE that God exists, it merely validates the Bibles historical and geographical accuracy (although what I have discussed does not even start to introduce this issue, you could write hundreds of pages more). These are used as evidence to push us to one side or the other, not answer the question for us. Unfortunately if you think what I write is too long then the real study of any deep issue is beyond you. The bible, or any other religious book for that matter, are certainly a great deal longer than anything I've written on pianostreet.

TV and Internet are examples of the "power and wisdom of  God"? Hmmm, 80% or so of the Internet is pornography, the remaining 19,9999% is yaddayaddayadda. No wonder then preachers are usually either boring the pants of sensible people or (but usually and) exeedingly preoccupied with sex.

They have been used as tools in which the Word has been heard. In terms of the ancient world, this achievement in information sharing is a real miracle and wonder. I severely doubt that 0.00001% of what is on the internet is useful info, or that 80% is porn. Probably 90% is porn! But the small % that exists is greater than all the libraries put together in this world with access to what you need at ur fingertips, something unheard of even 5 decades ago.

[michel dvorsky]

Christopher Hitchens > Bible

[lostinidlewonder]

Hitchens? What is so great about him? He was CRUSHHHHHEDDD in a debate (Hitchens/Craig) on God somewhat recently. He is quite weak at arguing a point as an Atheist and let Criag get away with a lot which could have been pounced on.

https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/live-blogging-the-william-lane-craig-vs-christopher-hitchens-debate/

https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

[ahinton]

God is impossible to prove in a way which will be accepted as a truth to everyone. It is not like a mathematical proof. So too is it impossible to prove that what a prophet writes is God inspired.

Fine. I think that we can almost all agree on that much.

However we can collect information which directs us to an answer, we can study the effects, validate certain bits of information. If one does not want to do this then they will never be able to come to an inference, their answer just only be a prediction and stab in the dark.

One may do all of this as much as one may wish, but since, as you rightly observe, there is no such thing as such proof, one might be forgiven for assuming that all the information collection, study and validation will no more bring any about than will the avoidance of these activities; where your submission here fails is in its assumption that this kind of activity will "direct us to an answer" on this, when it is, as you have already stated correctly, a matter of faith and faith alone.

What I wrote does not PROVE that God exists, it merely validates the Bibles historical and geographical accuracy (although what I have discussed does not even start to introduce this issue, you could write hundreds of pages more). These are used as evidence to push us to one side or the other, not answer the question for us. Unfortunately if you think what I write is too long then the real study of any deep issue is beyond you. The bible, or any other religious book for that matter, are certainly a great deal longer than anything I've written on pianostreet.

That last remark is very rude to "gep", who is simply noting that such in-depth analyses as you mention are far too lengthy for posts on pianostreet - which is indeed the case. Some research may indeed validate "the Bibles historical and geographical accuracy" whereas other such research may call previously held assumptions on such issues into question; in all such cases, however, even you are stating here not only that such research results will "not answer the question for us" but that they "are used as evidence to push us to one side or the other", thereby widening an already large gulf of what can only be continually regarded as opinions based upon different interpretations of different facts, different combinations of facts and different assumptions based upon both, all in combination or otherwise with the aforementioned faith.

Furthermore, you do not bring into the arena the rôles of similar works of religious literature such as the Talmud, or the Qu'ran in this context, preferring instead to concentrate on the Bible as we know it; now whilst this may be because you have not had space to do it (and, let's face it, you haver taken up vast swathes of space with what you have written here, it may be thought (even if incorrectly) that your continued emphasis on the Bible to the exclusion of other such works is some kind of indicator of how you value it in comparison with these.

They have been used as tools in which the Word has been heard. In terms of the ancient world, this achievement in information sharing is a real miracle and wonder. I severely doubt that 0.00001% of what is on the internet is useful info, or that 80% is porn. Probably 90% is porn! But the small % that exists is greater than all the libraries put together in this world with access to what you need at ur fingertips, something unheard of even 5 decades ago.

Whilst there can be no doubt that the internet has made possible all manner of information to all manner of people who would otherwise not have had access to it, it does not actually create information, nor does it create faith, so I think that its rôle here needs to be put into proper perspective.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

..... one might be forgiven for assuming that all the information collection, study and validation will no more bring "any about" than will the avoidance of these activities; where your submission here fails is in its assumption that this kind of activity will "direct us to an answer" on this, when it is, as you have already stated correctly, a matter of faith and faith alone.

What do you mean by "bring any about"? Does that mean make people believe that there is a God or that the Bible is true? In any case, to assume that non-study of facts concerning the Bible will not cause any difference to ones position, is a highly passive ideology.

We must have faith that Christ rose from the dead and the Resurrection is true, but we can satisfy our need for evidence by studying the effect Christ had on Ancient Jews when he lived and died. NO ONE can certainly disprove that Christ lived in fact the proof overwhelmingly supports that Christ lived. What tastes so good for the Chrisitan mind is that the Christ of History is the same as the Christ of Faith when we measure up the evidence. Notice I said "when we measure" the evidence, the evidence is not something that has enough power to say right or wrong, just like in a court room when bits of evidence are used in a case.

Unfortunately not many people are capable of this investigative process, not everyone is interested in it. It does go to say that those who do not investigate AND claim faith in Christianity is dubious have little firepower to argue with if they haven't even bothered to understand a microscopic part of the the mass of evidence that is out there.

That last remark is very rude to "gep", who is simply noting that such in-depth analyses as you mention are far too lengthy for posts on pianostreet - which is indeed the case.

I didn't know I was being rude, is it any ruder than what people have said to me about the length of my posts? I can verify have no personal emotion attached to my responses, if my writing was open to that interpretation I am sorry. I hope you don't get too upset over what people say to other people.

I am being quite modest in saying that if you all think what I write is long when I write about Christianity in a more serious fashion, you must notice that I am not even scratching the surface of the mystery. If what I say is beyond your care or ability to understand, then perhaps debating whether Christianity is all make believe or not, is not for you. Just be a quiet agnostic. The atheists however have no exuse, they have to be drawn into these discussions as it is the grounds in which the debate can start, it is not up to the atheists to come up with evidence to debunk Christianity they merely need to be able to cast doubt on the things we have found. The atheist can only say, "Oh this is 'mumbo jumbo' " so many times until that response highlights someone without a well thought out response.

Some research may indeed validate "the Bibles historical and geographical accuracy" whereas other such research may call previously held assumptions on such issues into question;]....

"Other" evidence that has cast doubt on the bible is dwarfed by the evidence that supports the bible.

...you are stating here not only that such research results will "not answer the question for us" but that they "are used as evidence to push us to one side or the other", thereby widening an already large gulf of what can only be continually regarded as opinions based upon different interpretations of different facts, different combinations of facts and different assumptions based upon both, all in combination or otherwise with the aforementioned faith.

That measuring the evidence is done alongside faith is not correct. One can measure the evidence with no emotion attached, rather with an investigative mind. We can come to a conclusion that probably this is making sense or probably it is suspicious. Just as a police would investigate a crime scene, you have no idea what exactly happened but you have bits of info, some very important, others not so much, but you can come to an inference as to what happened.

People should investigate the difference between prediction and inference then they will value more the investigative processes when we try to determine something we do not know for sure. Police, Lawyers, Investigators this is what interests them a great deal. It also interests Ancient Historians who deal with the unknown their whole life, and their science is held in very high regard.

Furthermore, you do not bring into the arena the rôles of similar works of religious literature such as the Talmud, or the Qu'ran in this context, preferring instead to concentrate on the Bible as we know it;

Since the thread is about Christianity I have only talked about the Bible. Putting the other books into this context would confuse matters. Also I am a lot more skilled at talking about the Bible than other relgious books.

...it may be thought (even if incorrectly) that your continued emphasis on the Bible to the exclusion of other such works is some kind of indicator of how you value it in comparison with these.

Exclusion of other works doesn't highlight my respect for them. I hold the Bible in more regard than other religious books only because it is verified more through our science and investigation than any other religious book. I have seen evidence of other books which place a lot of doubt in what they say because no places or people can be verified. But I am not here to pull down other religions.  Also I have faith in the Resurrection which the Bible is all about and no other religion knows about this.

Whilst there can be no doubt that the internet has made possible all manner of
information to all manner of people who would otherwise not have had access to it, it does not actually create information, nor does it create faith, so I think that its rôle here needs to be put into proper perspective.

I think it would be very presumptious to say that the internet hasn't causes changes in our world as a whole. In my research into theology I have found the internet a fantastic ground in which to set your basis for study, I have met with experts on the topic whom I would never know otherwise. Knowledge is power. I also deal with a lot of opposition from those who do not believe, and I otherwise wouldn't meet many of them if the internet didn't exist. I am sure through our discussions (although it is a minute drop in this internet ocean of knowledge) some of us being challenged with what we normally think about, find new knoweldge and understanding of this complex world we live in.

[thalbergmad]

Jesus Christ

[ahinton]

What do you mean by "bring any about"?

Please read it in conjunction with the sentence of your own to which my phrase occurs in reply; it means "bring any answer about".

We must have faith that Christ rose from the dead and the Resurrection is true, but we can satisfy our need for evidence by studying the effect Christ had on Ancient Jews when he lived and died. NO ONE can certainly disprove that Christ lived in fact the proof overwhelmingly supports that Christ lived. What tastes so good for the Chrisitan mind is that the Christ of History is the same as the Christ of Faith when we measure up the evidence. Notice I said "when we measure" the evidence, the evidence is not something that has enough power to say right or wrong, just like in a court room when bits of evidence are used in a case.

That's fair enough, as long as there is no suggestion that evidence from research affects that faith one way or another; facts are one phenomenon, faith is another and we "must" have the faith that you mention above only if we so choose.

Unfortunately not many people are capable of this investigative process, not everyone is interested in it. It does go to say that those who do not investigate AND claim faith in Christianity is dubious have little firepower to argue with if they haven't even bothered to understand a microscopic part of the the mass of evidence that is out there.

I am not suggesting that everyone is or should be capable of conducting such investigative research, but there may be differences of opinion between those who at least read the results thereof and those who are not interested in doing so. Faith, as I have said, remains outside this.

I didn't know I was being rude, is it any ruder than what people have said to me about the length of my posts? I can verify have no personal emotion attached to my responses, if my writing was open to that interpretation I am sorry. I hope you don't get too upset over what people say to other people.

It read to me more rudely than what people have written about the length of your posts yes, although I accept your word that no such rudeness was intended.

I am being quite modest in saying that if you all think what I write is long when I write about Christianity in a more serious fashion, you must notice that I am not even scratching the surface of the mystery. If what I say is beyond your care or ability to understand, then perhaps debating whether Christianity is all make believe or not, is not for you. Just be a quiet agnostic. The atheists however have no exuse, they have to be drawn into these discussions as it is the grounds in which the debate can start, it is not up to the atheists to come up with evidence to debunk Christianity they merely need to be able to cast doubt on the things we have found. The atheist can only say, "Oh this is 'mumbo jumbo' " so many times until that response highlights someone without a well thought out response.

You have once again missed the point. What is being suggested is not that what you write is overly lengthy per se but simply that it is so in the specific context of forum posts. I am not interested in Christians or atheists who stick their respective heads in the sand and wilfully ignore the results of bona fide archćological and anthropological research or indeed the existence and rationale (or otherwise) of faith; that kind of closed-minded complacency gets none of us anywhere. Atheists are by no means the only people who cast doubt on findings; development of research tools and accreting knowledge and understanding can sometimes undermine past assumptions, which is surely all part of the knowledge gathering process rather than something to be regarded as though mere point-proving exercises.

"Other" evidence that has cast doubt on the bible is dwarfed by the evidence that supports the bible.
That measuring the evidence is done alongside faith is not correct. One can measure the evidence with no emotion attached, rather with an investigative mind. We can come to a conclusion that probably this is making sense or probably it is suspicious. Just as a police would investigate a crime scene, you have no idea what exactly happened but you have bits of info, some very important, others not so much, but you can come to an inference as to what happened.

People should investigate the difference between prediction and inference then they will value more the investigative processes when we try to determine something we do not know for sure. Police, Lawyers, Investigators this is what interests them a great deal. It also interests Ancient Historians who deal with the unknown their whole life, and their science is held in very high regard.

This is all very well but, since you mention investigators in the field of law, the very existence of DNA technology to the extent that it is currently available has overturned and undermined numerous past convictions from times when it was not even in its infancy as part of theinvestigative toolbox, so this illustrates how increasingly advanced knowledge can change our understanding of how things work and what may have happened in the past. I am not for one moment suggesting that the Bible is all fable by any means, but the balance between fact, fiction, fantasy, metaphor, etc. is an inherent part of that work as we now have it and that balance will inevitably change in the future as more discoveries are made.

Since the thread is about Christianity I have only talked about the Bible. Putting the other books into this context would confuse matters. Also I am a lot more skilled at talking about the Bible than other relgious books.
Exclusion of other works doesn't highlight my respect for them. I hold the Bible in more regard than other religious books only because it is verified more through our science and investigation than any other religious book.

If that is indeed so, might it not be partly beuase there has been more research on the Bible than those other works?

I have seen evidence of other books which place a lot of doubt in what they say because no places or people can be verified. But I am not here to pull down other religions.  Also I have faith in the Resurrection which the Bible is all about and no other religion knows about this.

The Bible is not "all" about this, although in so saying I am not at all seeking to undermine your faith.

I think it would be very presumptious to say that the internet hasn't causes changes in our world as a whole. In my research into theology I have found the internet a fantastic ground in which to set your basis for study, I have met with experts on the topic whom I would never know otherwise. Knowledge is power. I also deal with a lot of opposition from those who do not believe, and I otherwise wouldn't meet many of them if the internet didn't exist. I am sure through our discussions (although it is a minute drop in this internet ocean of knowledge) some of us being challenged with what we normally think about, find new knoweldge and understanding of this complex world we live in.

I didn't suggest that the internet has not btrought about such changes where it is used intelligently and profitably; what I did say is that it has made facts more easily available but that this is not the same thing as actually creating facts.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

What tastes so good for the Chrisitan mind is that the Christ of History is the same as the Christ of Faith when we measure up the evidence. Notice I said "when we measure" the evidence, the evidence is not something that has enough power to say right or wrong, just like in a court room when bits of evidence are used in a case.

Goodness, what planet do you live on?

The Christ of history is a couple of quoted lines in Josephus, some of which may even be forgeries.  There is essentially zero corroborative extraBiblical history.  Whether or not there should be, provide he existed and the stories are true, is a matter of debate.  There is certainly nothing about message or character. 

The Christ of the Bible is very very different.  We have some of his life history, some of his teachings, with a lot of similarities and some vast differences between authors.  The Christ of the Q document and Synoptic Gospels is very different theologically from that of John, and very different again from that of Paul, who never met him. 

And the Christ of Faith?  Astoundingly, what most people believe doesn't come very close to what the Bible says.  That is true across denominations, but more so at the fundamentalist end.  It is hard to say where you fall, which is a good thing, but certainly you are closer to the fundamentalist end than the center. 

We have three very separate pictures of Christ here.  And the one you hold to in 2009 would clearly be rather alien to the early church in the 1st century. 

[timothy42b]

That measuring the evidence is done alongside faith is not correct. One can measure the evidence with no emotion attached, rather with an investigative mind. We can come to a conclusion that probably this is making sense or probably it is suspicious. Just as a police would investigate a crime scene, you have no idea what exactly happened but you have bits of info, some very important, others not so much, but you can come to an inference as to what happened.

In my experience you are quite wrong about this.

How many times have we been told we don't understand, because we don't have faith?  That if we don't read the Bible with faith, we won't get it?  That we are interpreting the evidence wrong, because we don't have faith? 

That is an extremely common theme among religious people.  Certainly susan has used that approach here, I'm not sure if you have.  Certainly your peers do, every day.  I don't see how you could have missed this, it is very typical. 

Those who measure the evidence dispassionately do not come to faith.
Those who measure the evidence dispassionately do not come to faith.

That was worth saying twice, I think.  You did not.  You came to faith first, and I doubt you are capable of measuring the evidence dispassionately.  But I will concede the possibility.  Then you looked for evidence later, and found none strong enough to contradict your faith;  not really the same as finding enough to support it. 

I will observe, however, that the overwhelming majority of those with no faith who measure the evidence dispassionately do not come to faith.

Further, a large percentage of those who come to the evidence WITH faith, and measure it dispassionately, drop their faith.  Or revise it drastically, removing concepts of a personal God and replacing it with a kind of universal truthiness. 

We have hundreds of anecdotal stories about athiests who "examined the evidence in an attempt to disprove God" and were convinced by the evidence and became Southern Baptist equivalents.  None of those stories have stood up to scrutiny. 

On the other side, we have scientists, most of them until very recently raised in religious homes with church attendance and Christian education, most of them leaving faith behind by Thanksgiving break of freshman year in college. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Goodness, what planet do you live on?

Earth. This question obviously is an attack on my sanity though because you know which planet I live on.

I don't know what you are on about that you cannot get faith through dispassionate observation of the evidence. How do the police investigate crimes, how does the court system sentence people? They do not know 100% what happened in cases because no one was there, anyone in the Jury who is emotionally attached to the case in the end would not be allowed to sit. So too we can observe evidence pertaining to Christianity and come to a result which is not controlled by our emotions.

The Christ of history is a couple of quoted lines in Josephus, some of which may even be forgeries. 

You need to restudy what the historical Christ is, I am not going to point out that what you say here is coming from another planet

There is essentially zero corroborative extraBiblical history.  Whether or not there should be, provide he existed and the stories are true, is a matter of debate.  There is certainly nothing about message or character. 

You deny that there is credible evidence of Jesus outside his biographies? I am sorry but your thinking is fantasy, opinion and not something studied.

Let me give some corroborating evidence.

People like to flippantly throw around ancient historian names without even knowing anything about them. Josephus was a very important Jewish historian, he defended his decision in the Jewish-Roman War which took place iin A.D 66-74. He had surrendered to the Roman general Vespasian during the siege of Jotapata, even though many of his colleagues committed suicide rather than give up. He became a defender of the Romans.

As you can imagine from his collaboration with the hated Romans, Josephus was extremely disliked by his fellow Jews. However he became very popular among Christians, because in his writings he refers to James, the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus himself.

In "The Antiquities" he describes how ahigh priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman govenor Festus, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, in order to have James killed. Josephus writes, "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transfressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."

There is no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage. L.H Feldman  noted that if this had been a later Christian addition to the text, it would have likely been more laudatory of James. So here you have a reference to the brother of Jesus, who had apparently been converted by the appearance of the risen Christ if you compare John 7:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:7, and corroboration of the fact that some people considered Jesus to be the Christ, which means "the Anointed ONe" or "Messiah"

Josephus had written an even longer section on Jesus which is called the Testimonium Flavianum. This passage is among the most hotly disputed in ancient literature because on its surface it appears to provide sweeping corroboration of Jesus' life, miracles, death and resurrection. But is it authentic?

Scholars have gone through three trends on this topic. For obvious reasons, the early Christians thought it was a wonderful and thoughtfhly authentic testament fo Jesus and his resurrection. However, the entire passage was questionined by at least some scholars during the Enlightenment.

However today, there is a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations. Such as: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." That phrase is not normally used of Jesus by Christians, so it seems authentic for Josephus. However the following phrase says "if indeed one ought to call him a man." This implies Jesus was more than a man which appears to be an interpolation.

I can highlight more interpolations but I don't want to make this too long. The bottom line is that this passage Josephus wrote was originally written about Jesus, although without the interpolations. But even with the identified additions removed Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus, that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilates at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders. This is quite a statment from a non-blblical source, as what would have caused Ancient Jews of that time to make such drastic change to their form of worship (the single most important thing in their life)?


What can we say about Tacitus? What does he corroborate? He recorded what was probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament. In A.D 115 he states that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that devasted Rome in A.D 64.

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstitution, thus checked for the moment, against broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of their crimes of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

A leading scholar J.N.D Anderson speculates that when Tacitus says this "mischievous superstition" was "checked for the moment" but later "again broke out," he was unconsciously bearing testimony to the belief of early Christians that Jesus had been crucified but then rose from the grave. This has been the interpretation of some scholars, they wonder, how can you explain the spread of a religion based on the worship of a man who had suffered the most ignominious death possible? Crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate that anyone could undergo, and the fact that there was a movement based on a crucified man has to be explained.

Of course Christians have the answer as the Resurrection. Others have come up with alternative theory if they do not believe that. But none of the alternative views, in my mind at least, are persuasive.

Tacticus writings on Christ is an important testimony by an unsympathetic witness to the success and spread of Christianity, based on a historial figure Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It is significant that Tacitus reported that an "immense multitude" held so strongly to their beliefs that they where willing to die rather than recant.


There is another Roman called Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia in northwest Turkey A.D 79), he also referred to Christianity in his writings. Much of his writings where to his friend Emperor Trajan and a lot of them have been preserved to the present time. In book 10 of his letters he specifically refers to the Chrisitans he has arrested.

I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...

They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultry..."

This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-women, whome they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths."


How important is this reference? It was probably written in A.D 111, and it attests to the rapid spread of Christianity, both int he city and in the rural area, among every class of person, slave women as well as Roman citizens, since he also says that he sends Christians who are Roman citizens to Rome for trial. And it talks about the worship of Jesus as God, that Christians maintained high ethical standards, and that they were not easily swayed from their beliefs.


The portrait of Pilate is interesting to note as well. Critics have questioned the accuracy of the gospels because of the way they portray this Roman leader. While the New Testament paints him as being vacillating and willing to yield to the pressures of a Jewish mob by excecuting Jesus, other historical accounts pictureh im as being obstinate and inflexible. Some people believe this represents a contradiction between the Bible and secular historians.

Study of Pilate shows that his protector or patron was Sejanus and that Sejanus fell from power in A.D 31 because he was plotting against the emperor. This loss would have made Pilate's position very weak in A.D 33 which is most likely when Jesus was crucified. So it would be certainly understandable that Pilate would have been reluctant to offend the Jews at that time and to get into further trouble with the emperor. That means the biblical description is most likely correct.



There are not many non-Christian Jews who wrote about Christ. Jews as a whole did not go into great detail on who they considered heretics. There are a few passages in the Talmud that mention Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also repeat the rumor that Jesus was born of a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting there was something unusual about his birth. So in a negative way these Jewish references do corroborate some things about Jesus.

Let me quote Professor M Wilcox:
The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had disciples (five of them), and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a "heretic" or "deceiver"


When people being religious movements, it is often not until many generations later that people record things about them. But the fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of ANY other ancient religion. That is a real statement, let me elaborate. For example, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000BC are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures where not put into writing until after the 3rd century AD. The most popular Parsi biography of Zoroaster was written in AD 1278. The scriptures of Buddah, who lived in the 6th century BC, where not put into writing until after the Christian era, and the first biography of Buddah was written in the first century AD.  Although we have the sayings of Muhammad, who lived from AD 570-632, in the Koran, his biography was not written until 767, more than a full century after his death.

So the situation with Jesus is unique - and quite impressive in terms of how much we can learn about him aside from the New Testament. If we pretend for a moment that there was no Bible or any other Christian writings, even without them could we be able to conclude something about Jesus from ancient non-Christian soures, such as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and others? We would know several things:

1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher.
2) Many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms.
3) Some people believed he was the Messiah
4) He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
5) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
6) Despite his shameful death his followers who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by AD 64
7) All kinds of people from the cities and countryside, men and women, slave and free, worshiped him as God.

This is an impressive amount of independent corroboration. Not only can the contours of Jesus' life be reconstructued apart from the Bible, but there's even more that can be leaned about him from material so old that it actually predates the gospel themselves.


The apostle Paul never met Jesus prior to Jesus' death, but he said he did encounter the resurrected Christ and later consulted with some of the eyewitnesses to make sure he was preaching the same message they where.He began writing his New Testament letters years before the gospels where written down, they contain extremely early reports concerning Jesus, so early that nobody can make a credible claim that they have been seriously distorted by legendary development. Luke Timothy Johnson, the scholar from Emory University contends that Paul's letters represent "valuable external verification of the 'antiquity and ubiquity' of the traditions of Jesus.

First Paul refers to the fact that Jesus was a descendant of David, that he was the Messiah, that he was betrayed, that he was tried, crucified for our sins, and buried, and that he rose again on the third day and was seen my many people, including James, the brother of Jesus who hadn't believed in him prior to his crucifixion. It is also interesting that Paul does not mention some of the things that are highly significant in the gospels, for instance, Jesus' parables and miracles, but he focuses on Jesus' atoning death and resurrection. Those, for Paul, where the most important things about Jesus and indeed they transformed Paul from being a persecutor of Christians into becoming history's foremost Christian missionary who was willing to go through all sorts of hardships and deprvation because of his faith.

Paul also corroborates some important aspects of the character of Jesus, his humility, his obedience, his love for sinners etc etc. The fact that Paul came from a monotheistic Jewish background and woshippsed Jesus as God is extremely significant. It undermines a popular theory that the deity of Christ was later imported into Christianity by Gentile beliefs. It's just not so. Even Paul at this very early date was worshiping Jesus as God.



Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch in Syria was martyred during the reign of Trajan before AD 117. What is significant about Ignatius is that he emphasized both the deity of Jesus and the humanity of Jesus, as against the docetic heresy, which denied that Jesus was really human. He also stressed the historical underpinnings of Christianity, he wrote in one letter on his way to being executed, that Jesus was truly persecuted under Pilate, was truly crucified, was truly raised from the dead, and that those who believe in him would be raised too. Putting this all together, Josephus, the Roman historians and officials, the Jewish writings, the letters of Paul and the apostolic fathers, and you have got a persuasive evidence that corroborates all the essentials found int he biographies of Jesus. Even if you were to throw away every last copy of the gospel, you'd still have a picture of Jesus and that is extremely compelling, in fact, it is a portriat of the unique Son of God and thus why the Christ of History is the Christ of Faith and vice versa.