An Atheist Myth of Historical Evidences

I do see where you're coming from. Now consider this: every nation or culture construes experience in a way that makes sense out of them - it's called "codified experience". When cultures overlap or intermingle, they borrow some of these codes from each other, and connect them in different ways to their own experiences. As long as they still make sense, they are applied, borrowed or adapted. In the end, the test of the validity of these codes is how they endure. Would stronger, more established cultures overwhelm weaker more recent beliefs? Would the powerful city states - the Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans - squash or assimilate the belief in other gods than their own? Would a code that was valid in one set of cirmcumstances still be valid and supportable in unfavourable (or most likely, more favourable) circumstances?

We can learn a lot from what is unique to every culture's codes. The similarities actually aid us to see what has been changed, added or interpreted differently. And if we are not careful, our own interpretations of those codified experienes are sometimes "edited" unconsciously. If we do not consciously keep in mind what the mind-set of the culture was, we could automatically reject certain aspects that don't make sense to us - like ConsequentAtheist did with the case of demon-possession. We have to find out what were valid ways of codifying experience in their context.

Where the Bible is useful is that it is constantly conscious of one particular God - the God they came to know from many sources. He was at that time, of course, nothing more than just another god - the "God of the Israelites". You'll therfore see many accoutns where God "proved Himself", and establish His superiority. But whether from myth or fact, we consistently get the interpretation out of a real, valid (who are we to say it was invalid?) relationship with this God. And what makes the Biblical histories so unique, is that this relationship was confirmed and reinstated at regular intervals. Their religion was "resurrected" quite a few times in its history, but never to a more acceptable, more human God - it was to a stricter, less tolerant, less amused God, but the same God nontheless. As far as the search for God went, they seem to have hit solid rock at various places. The uniqueness of the nomadic Hebrews' God was that He persisted, and not only that, His people gained an identity closely associated with Him.

The people were conforming to the original revelation of their God, not the other way around as would be expected. The relationship became so ingrained that even today people have difficulty distinguishing Jewish culture from Jewish religion (even though it hasn't been the same thing since the destruction of the second temple).

From the New Testament perspective, the religion began to "overcompensate" - the laws became more important than the reason for the laws. The religious way of life became what it is still viewed as today: an excuse to do what you wanted, in stead of what God wanted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Second Temple Period stretches from 536 BCE to 70 CE. That there would be translations into Aramaic sometime during that period is an underwhelming assumption. Just when is another question entirely. Emanuel Tov, for example, writes: "Although tradition ascribes the first Targum to Ezra, it is not clear when the first Targumim were produced." (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, pg. 149) You have zero evidence that The Old Testament was translated into Aramaic by 400BC. You quite simply made it up.

What I see is another case of fabrication. Where did the figure "400" come from? As you can see, you haven't a clue what your talking about.

Your "informing" rarely reaches the threshhold of "knowledge", and I obviously don't ignore you on any grounds. What, then, are you talking about?

You make things up, Jenyar, i.e., you fabricate things. I have no doubt that you believe them to be true. You speak of a 400 BC Targum with no evidence. Why 400? Why not 500, or 300, or 200, or ... ? You simply don't know. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that you've neither seen nor read a translation from a Targum.

And what of the LXX representing "70 books". That was not a mistranslation. It was a fabrication. You simply made it up. That someone would be so ignorant as to suggest such a thing and then offer to "inform" other is near pathetic.

You do a serious disservice to Judeo-Christian apologetics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Greetings all,

Jenyar wrote:

Rubbish.

No-one recorded Jesus' life - even those who SHOULD have - there is NO MENTION of the Gospel story of Jesus' life by even CHRISTIANS until the 2nd century - nearly a century after the alleged events.


Consider the list of early works which have NO MENTION of Jesus' life :


Justus of Tiberias wrote a history of Galilee in the first century - he made NO MENTION of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Philo Judaeus wrote at length (in the VERY SAME PERIOD of the alleged Gospel events) about the Jews, their sects, their history and beliefs - and makes NO MENTION of Jesus or the Gospel events.

Paul wrote at length arguing for Christianity - but makes NO MENTION of any specific historical details, no dates, places, times, names, context - Paul's Iesous Christos is no more than a spiritual or distant figure.

Hebrews records no details of Jesus' life.

Colossians records no details of Jesus' life.

James records no details of Jesus' life.

1 John records no details of Jesus' life, but does show evidence of Christians who did not believe in the Son of God.

2 Thessalonians records no details of Jesus' life.

1 Peter records no details of Jesus' life.

Revelation records no details of Jesus' life.

1 Clement records no details of Jesus' life (but does give 2 sayings of Jesus' which are similar to later Gospel passages)

Jude records no details of Jesus' life.

The Didakhe records no details of Jesus' life.

2,3 John record no details of Jesus' life - and specifically mention those who don't agree Jesus ever came "in the flesh"

The Pastorals record no details of Jesus' life.

2 Peter records no details of Jesus' life.


We have now reached the 2nd century without any mention of historical details of Jesus life.

Jenyar - when, where, how do YOU claim Jesus' life was recorded?



Gospel Stories arose in 2nd century

The earliest Christians make NO MENTION ANYWHERE of :
* Mary, Joseph,
* Bethlehem, Nazareth
* Herod, flight to Egypt
* the birth stories, the Magi
* the teachings of Jesus
* the baptism in Jordan, the Baptist
* the Sermon
* the miracles of Jesus, Lazarus
* the triumphal entry
* the temple cleansing
* the trial of Jesus, Pilate
* etc, etc, etc...

How do YOU explain that NO early Christian shows ANY knowledge of all of these crucial incidents and people and places of Jesus' life?

Only in early-mid 2nd century do we find the first references to any of the Gospel stories, along with evidence the Gospels were recent at this time :

In the 120s Aristides of Athens, wrote an Apology and refers to "... the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them".

Note well -
Aristides,
a Christian,
describes a "Gospel" (singular),
which has only been preached
"a short time".

The total LACK of mention of any details of Jesus' life, even by CHRISTIANS, until 2nd century - coupled with the evidence from Aristides - shows that the Gospels were totally unknown until early-mid 2nd century.

The first Gospel on record was Marcion's from the 140s - it has no genealogy, no "seed of David" and no title other than "the Gospel"

Justin Martyr in the 150s mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles" which "are called Gospels" - his quotes are not quite like modern Gospels and he gives NO NAMES to the Gospels, nor numbers them.

Finally in the 180s Irenaeus is the FIRST to name all four modern Gospels, before this time the 4 evangelists were unknown as such to Christians.

Note well -
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown provenance, un-named until a century and a half after the alleged events.

Furthermore, the early Christians agreed the Gospels were NOT by eye-witnesses -
Papias notes Mark was NOT an eye-witnesses and implies Matthew wasn't either.
Clement agrees Mark was not an eye-witness.
Tertullian agrees Mark was not an eye-witness.



Early Christians with NO BELIEF in Jesus

Even as late as 2nd century, some Christians still had no knowledge of, or belief in, Jesus of Nazareth :

To Diognetus, early 2nd century, responds to "close and careful inquiries" about Christianity, answering in rather neo-platonic ways, without ONCE mentioning the name Jesus.

Minucius Felix wrote the Octavius in mid 2nd century, he explicitly DENIES that Christians believe in a crucifixion or an incarnation:

"he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"


Tatian wrote Address to the Greeks in mid 2nd century - he expounds at length in neo-platonic tones about the Logos, but never ONCE mentions Jesus in any way. He also compares the Gospels to Greek myths :“Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”.

Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned even once.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote To Autolycos in the 170s, without once mentioning Jesus.

How do YOU explain that these 5 early Christian Fathers write about Christianity at length, but show NO KNOWLEDGE of Jesus, or even argue AGAINST a belief in Jesus?



Doubts about Jesus' life story

The Gospel stories were doubted from the earliest times :

Celsus wrote in On The True Doctrine in the 170s: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Porphyry, 3rd century, wrote in Against the Christians : " the evangelists were inventors – not historians."

Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was a fraud : "why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "



The evidence is clear -
Jesus was not a historical figure.

More details can be found on my site :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/index.html

Iasion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you saying Jesus never existed, or that he was not the Christ? Your argument seems to be that evidence of absence is absence of evidence.

Who do you think paid the most attention to Jesus' life - those who thought he was real or those who thaught he was a fraud? Would Christians refer to their leader as Jesus, son of Joseph (as he is in the gospels), identifying him clearly to those who would kill him, or as the Logos - the Word - as in the earliest fragment of John or Son of God, as Athenagoras also later called him?

You mention the epistles that don't mention Jesus, but you don't mention those such as Romans and 1 Corinthians that mention him frequently. That Christ was not a divine concept, but a real person:

1 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
1 Corinthians 2:2
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle–sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead


How frequently do people write in a culture where writing is reserved for the educated elite, and how frequently even then about a person you know well? Paul was imprisoned more than once for this man he did not know, yet he could build this whole theology consistent with everything that was written down afterwards. How is that possible? Especially since he does not mention any events from which a life could be artificially "constructed".

There are many websites that address your objections.

 

Jesus Saves--Fact or Fiction?

Originally posted by Iasion
----------
No-one recorded Jesus' life - even those who SHOULD have - there is NO MENTION of the Gospel story of Jesus' life by even CHRISTIANS until the 2nd century - nearly a century after the alleged events.
----------
(First, let me say "welcome" to sciforums. You have some interesting contributions. I have edited your post a bit to reply to parts of it.)
----------
Paul wrote at length arguing for Christianity - but makes NO MENTION of any specific historical details, no dates, places, times, names, context - Paul's Iesous Christos is no more than a spiritual or distant figure.
----------
(This is true. Paul NEVER knew Jesus (if he even existed!). Paul didn't live at the same time as Jesus.)
----------
We have now reached the 2nd century without any mention of historical details of Jesus life.
----------
(There were no Xians following Jesus. They "appeared," like you said much later--200-300 AD). Xianity was an invention of Paul.)
----------
Gospel Stories arose in 2nd century
----------
(Paul created the Gospel stories. His friend, Luke, transcribed what Paul wrote. It's questionable if Mark, Matthew and John even knew Jesus. Mark was written around 70 AD. I don't know about the others.)
----------
The earliest Christians make NO MENTION ANYWHERE of... Only in early-mid 2nd century do we find the first references to any of the Gospel stories, along with evidence the Gospels were recent at this time....
The total LACK of mention of any details of Jesus' life, even by CHRISTIANS, until 2nd century - coupled with the evidence from Aristides - shows that the Gospels were totally unknown until early-mid 2nd century.
----------
(Xians didn't exist then anyway. They didn't appear the time you suggest after being created by Paul.
----------
The first Gospel on record was Marcion's from the 140s - it has no genealogy, no "seed of David" and no title other than "the Gospel"
----------
(I assume "Marcion" is "Mark?")
----------
Even as late as 2nd century, some Christians still had no knowledge of, or belief in, Jesus of Nazareth...
----------
(True.)
----------
Minucius Felix wrote the Octavius in mid 2nd century, he explicitly DENIES that Christians believe in a crucifixion or an incarnation....
----------
(That's because Paul invented the whole shebang.)
----------
Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise On The Resurrection Of The Dead arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ! He also composed In Defense of the Christians - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned even once.
----------
(First, the word "resurrection" was mistranslated from the Aramaic to the Greek. The original word was "resuscitation" not "resurrection!" Another trick by Paul.)
----------
The Gospel stories were doubted from the earliest times...

Celsus wrote in On The True Doctrine in the 170s: "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction."

Porphyry, 3rd century, wrote in Against the Christians.... "the evangelists were inventors – not historians.
----------
(Guess who??? Paul.)
----------
Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was a fraud.... "why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice."
----------
(To whom was Julian addressing this?)
----------
The evidence is clear - Jesus was not a historical figure.
----------
(You are right. He was the invention of Paul. Being a Jew, Paul believed that their was a Messiah coming. That's expressed in the OT. Paul conveniently created the Messiah myth based on Jesus. He knew a good business venture when he saw it.)

 

Although true, it seems to me that The Son of God/God would have seen to it that someone would have been written something down. Just one little contemporary thing. Yes, I can forgive lack of evidence for say Alexander or the linage of Brutus etcetera. But when the creator of the universe makes a pit stop by your puny planet and then offers to crucify himself – then I’d say someone would have been “inspired” to write something down. Add to it that there were historians there on the ground writing about the events happening at the time and they even missed the whole Jesus event and the logic will lead you to say it’s all made up. Which of course it is.

I was curious as to what your answer to this would be other than - "There is none"?

 

Athena! What a hotty she was back in the day!

On the side, there are a couple contemporary statues of Athena in the British Museum. I think if I were an ancient Athenian I'd have worshipped her as well. Such a hotty! The Greeks - now there was a people who knew how to create a God!

 

i would just like to ask, based on what christians are saying in here- why are other (earlier or contemporary) religions not credible to you? there is plenty of evidence, plenty of written documents that justify different beliefs just as well (not that is actually saying much) as christ or christianity. if for some reason egyptian thought conquered the world i don't think we'd be talking about christ, instead perhaps horus. there may have been a historical figure called christ, there just as easily may not have been. that he performed miracles is an entirely different thing (walking on water was walking around water, relative to the time it was written down). if people have never made stories up in their life; i could understand how they might believe in miracles. if they have never exagerated a story told to them by another; i could understand how they believe in miracles. BUT all this is human nature. the stories of christ would not be exclusive to human treat.

the other beef that i have is that an all powerful god would not sacrifice his only son to show people that "hey, here i am to save you now, in this vague and entirely un-all powerful-god-like way", or the fact that god would have a son. i mean, that would imply biological goings on, not an all powerful god.

most people here argue from a scripture stance, i would not take anyone of those people up on a debate about what any of it meant, my ass would be black and blue from the thorough whipping it just received. instead, my proofs i get from around me. human nature, nature itself, and the universe. if you can't be open to the idea that jesus christ might have been a fictional chracater, catapulted to glorydom by some hundreds of years of chinese whisper to become the roar it is today, then i can't count you a rational person. that chain of events is all too easily a reality to discount it. such things have happened all throughout humanities self awareness and a study of cultural evolution has to be one of the most revealing sources of our inbuilt imaginations prevailing on our perceptions of this world.

 

Nobody else ever credibly made the same claims as Christ. Nowhere else has a new religion started on the foundations and prophesies of a far older one. The Jews are still waiting for a messiah, you can't deny that. Even if the old Egyptians gods were the angels mentioned in the Bible, they never survived to be remembered as who they claimed (or were believed) to be. Show me one person who still trusts their life to Horus or Osirus. It is "unfortunate" that Jesus didn't seize the throne as the Jews expected, or became a great figure during his time so that historians and kings would pay pages and pages of tribute to him. Instead he lived in relative obscurity, revealed himself to common people "so that our faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." Whatever Jesus achieved, he did not do by political or social recognition, but from a position of humility and "weakness". Think about it: God could have easily made Jesus the Caesar himself, someone like Augustus, but we would then be able to say God forced his authority on us, making us slaves without a choice, just like so many Roman dictator "gods" before him - and God would be just another Roman god 2000 years later.

A miracle 2000 years ago would still be called a miracle today. Even without scientific reasons, people would be well aware that walking on water was not natural. There were many other people who performed or were believed to perform miracles, but Jesus performed specific miracles - natural ones (such as calming the storm) and other ones expected from the messiah, since they were prophesied but were never performed. All this, among other things, contributed to some Jews to believe that Jesus was the messiah - and later that he was the Son of God - while others were threatened by him. That a Jerusalem church existed before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is undeniable (The First Hebrew church)

I advise you to read up on the reason Jesus was born. The Jews had been doing fine "being saved" for thousands of years before then. Jesus came entirely to initiate God's new kingdom and establish God as ruler over life and death. That it happened is what should concern us, not to whom it happened - because the event was valid for past, present and future. The event made that much more an impression because the living Almighty God had become a servant to his creation - nobody can say that God is unreachable anymore, or have any excuses for not believing He could save us. Even suffering, sin and death cannot be used as excuses anymore after Jesus. You say "un-all-powerful" but at the same time you deny that God could become flesh and blood while remaining holy. He did not "have" a son - Jesus was the word of creation. He was always God and with God, but only became known when we were created. Jesus is the only person of God we can associate with while on earth, and now only spiritually, through God's Spirit.

"that chain of events is all too easily a reality to discount it." It is just as easily discounted as any reality. There is always evidence for and lack of evidence for anything. But there is no evidence against Jesus' life on earth. Iason even mentioned a few Christian who supposedly had no knowledge of Jesus - why would they call themselves "Christian"? The Christ is by defintion the anointed one - the messiah, a physical king from the lineage of David. And it is evident from the OT that a "son of God" is also a man. They would have known this - but like Paul, they were more concerned with the misconceptions about God and doctrine, than about Christ. Most Christians didn't know Jesus in the flesh, but that was much less important than knowing God in the Spirit. When you are provided a bridge over a raging flood, you hardly think about it once you're over, but the experience stays with you.

If Jesus never were a real person, it would be an even greater miracle that half the world put their trust in the God who promised a Saviour, because of him. Think about it: we love and trust God because of God. Or if it makes you happy, then simply look at Christians as Jews who have experienced a love and victory so convincing, that they believe that the promised king has already come. The promise and hope is so real and tangible that it is as good as arrived.

Since you mentioned "arguing from scripture", here is the totality of what I am saying. I don't use it as "proof", but as my foundation. You'll remember that 1 Corinithians is one of the oldest epistles.

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

 

from what i've read i wasn't aware christ made a claim to being god at all. calling yourself a saviour does not necesarily imply being linked to god either. he could've seen the need for a drastic rethinking of society and for that reason he was a saviour, he did what was needed (perhaps).

nowhere else has a new religion started on the foundations and prophecies of a far older one? lol, you do realise you just described every religion in existance. and why is the new religion anymore valid for uspurping anothers prophecies? my point about the egyptian gods was that if they, the egyptians, had dominated the world their school of thought would be the prevailing one, not christianity. i was just implying that if they had had the ambition, your beliefs wouldn't be what they are today.

you believe entirely what you just said? without once traveling back in time to see if you were at all right? i'm not entirely sure how revealing himself to common people asserts god's power. god would have been smart to place jesus at the throne, from there his humility would've been far more effective, even more so under god's protection. once again though, the creator of us seems to be inept at dealing with us. if jesus had been placed at the throne, and he had true humility, the last thing it would've seemed was that god was enforcing his will upon us- instead from his position he could have done far more wonderous things than the excuses for miracles you'll find in the bible.

i said that him walking on water wasn't a miracle as it was a figure of speech for walking "around water". it's documented. therefore your interpretation of him "walking on water" is inaccurate and the event itself was never a miracle. infact anything he did does not seem all together convincing as miracles, i said chinese whipers because i meant it.

does it actually matter? the point was why would an all powerful god have to have a son to sacrifice when he is all powerful? he wouldn't. why then does he do it? is he a perverse bastard? one could think so.

and you know all this how? how can an all mighty god become a servant to his creation when he is all powerful? you're speaking in oxymorons. once again i didn't think jesus claimed to be "god's son" ever. you sure as hell think you know a helluva lot for someone who can't be sure of anything they just said.

oh really? especially when it falls inline with human nature and what has been repeated over and over again in human cultural evolution? i don't see how you can flick your head at the idea when as a nutral occurance, it is a much more likely set of events than your religion.

because that was simply the name of their religion, therefore the messiahs name was derived for the name of the belief. it's just like good and evil and god and devil. you think the words god and devil came before good and evil? i don't think so.

that would seem to support my idea, he was given the name christ afterwards

no christians no jesus in the flesh.

no, it would indicate a hopelessly romantic race looking for a semi viable purpose in this universe, so latching onto a self important belief.

proofs to myself. i will never be 100% sure of anything. neither should you be.

 

You're babbling. Jesus achieved no more than Kali.

 

It matter if it's true. You say you can't be 100% certain that it is, but then you can't be vertain that it's not, either. God is all-powerful, but we are not. God didn't "need" to sacrifice his Son, we needed him. That such love sounds perverse to you should be an indication of just how seriously you perceive injustice. From our perspective: if we think we are innocent - it makes God unjust for letting his son die unnecessarily. But when we realize that the injustice was ours, just like Hitler's holocaust was unjust, we realize we are either the victims or the perpetrators of injustice - and that we need deliverance from it. And Jesus died for that reason.

Christians didn't usurp the prophesies - they believed in their fulfillment. Many ancient nations had the ambition to rule the world - the Jews were the last and least capable to hold such an ambition. They were slaves in Egypt for a long time. During all that time their religion survived. Genesis flies in the face of all the Egyptian gods. The Hebrews were expecting God to establish His kingdom with an anopinted military leader. A conquering king like David. Instead they were dispersed by the Romans, who if you remember correctly, did rule the civilized world - along with Zeus and his pantheon. By human standards, Christ was no match for them.

Let me put it mildly: A king on a throne has no authority. What he has has been given by God, just like everyone else. Jesus at the throne of the Roman empire would have been the antithesis of everything God wanted to achieve. God's kingdom would have been a human one, and would have fallen as a human one. Instead, God become a model citizen of his own kingdom so that it would be built with foundations that would last forever. God's purpose was not to do wonderous miracles, walking on water and turning water into wine every chance he got - they had specific purposes. God created life and has power over death. Miracles are the least important part of what Jesus did. The greatest miracle doesn't compare to one person loving another, or God loving us. No miracle would make you believe in God, it would just make you doubt how much you know and do not know. This, apparently, has already happened to you.

If you look at history you would find more exceptions than rules, so I don't agree with you that everything we know is because it is consistent with everything before it. You wouldn't believe in Stonehenge, Nazca lines or the pyramids if they weren't there, larger than life.

 

Christian misuse of Isaiah 7:14 relects either arrogance or ignorance.

 

I find it quite convoluted (and a bit sick) to suggest "we needed Jesus to die for our sins". Its like you sometimes just throw this stuff out there. Hell, by means of that sort of logic (aka: none) god could just as easily had Jesus take a super big holy-shit on the side of the road for our sins, or blow bubbles for our salvation, piss in the wind, or have a really bad stomach ache, or this or that – that is if god can do anything. And in deaths’ place, someone would be here espousing that great big god-inspired poop Jesus took for us.

But, of course death is much more romantic isn’t it? :bugeye:

My point is dyeing to “save peoples souls” is no more “logical” than any other action. Then again – religious belief isn’t renowned for its rational aptitude.

 

I don't believe that it's is as simple as you are making it out to be. The only way God could overcome all of the evil within the world was to show us a greater good. And this greater good would also have to overcome all of the consequences of evil: pain, suffering, and death. While God could force everyone into heaven, it would not gain him anything. In the words of Paul, our voices serve nothing without love. If God's word does not have love, then it too is nothing at stoping evil; for it was evil in the beginning who exchanged the voice of love for a lie. Thus to actually save us He had to reach down and become man taking up all of our infermities even death.

 

1) Are you suggesting that God does not have the power/ability to overcome all of the evil within the world using another way? Does this then limit god? (you did use only)
2) Please explain what you mean by: overcome all of the evil within the world.
3) Please explain what you mean by: was to show us a greater good.

1) Are you suggesting that good has a gradient?
2) Please explain what you mean by: And this greater good
3) Again with the “overcome” please explain: overcome all of the consequences of evil:
4) Please define evil? Were there “consequences” before this thing called “evil” or only after?
5) Why are there consequences? Is it possible that man can be created in such a way as to learn without these “bad consequences”? If so wouldn't it be better? If not then is god limited?

1) Explain what you mean by God could force everyone into heaven. Don’t you think that anyone given a glimpse of this wonderful heaven would not need to be coerced to go there? And if they do see heaven and don't want it - then whats wronge with letting them alone? It is their choice - right?
2) What does god gain? Does this mean that god is incomplete without this extra thing it gains? Does that mean that men change god in some way? If so does that mean that man has some control over god?

1) This suggests that in the OT when god acts in anger he is “nothing at stopping evil”?
2) Please expound upon: for it was evil in the beginning who exchanged the voice of love for a lie.. A) When did "evil" appear? How did it get there? Who made it? B) Alsom I don’t understand is the “voice of love for a lie". Does this mean that “lie” has a vocal sound? How can you exchange the sound of something for a lie? What do you mean "exchange"? Basically this sentence sounds flowery but doesn’t actually present any information that is meaningful (politicians could take a cue from “religious speak”)
please note starting a sentence with the preposition ”for” puts you in danger of sounding like Billy Graham – this is not a good thing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Lastly – none of this addressed my statement above which was this: dieing to “save peoples souls” is no more “logical” than any other action. Obviously an all powerful god could make even the action of "taking a poop" save souls - if he wanted it to. But taking a poop isn't as romantic as dieing huh?

 

Jenyar,

But then no one can show he said anything. The Christian meme at its formation seems to represent the start of a maturing population.

These had outworn their time and the time was right for religious ideas to evolve. These imaginary deities are now defunct which will be the likely fate of the imaginary Christian gods in the not too distant future as we evolve socially and culturally.

It’s a pity he didn’t reveal himself to any historians who might have recorded some of these claimed events.

But faith has no value; it is just an excuse when a reasoned explanation isn’t available. So it would seem that God’s power is very weak since over two thirds of the world population, after 2000 years, doesn’t believe the story.

Of course, but then that was why the miracle stories were created to encourage the gullible to believe a new replacement god. In those times it was expected that gods would perform miracles. The myths were inevitable if Christianity was to survive.

Or rather whether it happened, which no one show.

But at least two thirds of the world disagree with you.

But there is no claimed evidence for his existence that hasn’t been seriously questioned. There is indeed serious doubt that he ever existed.

Assuming we are talking current day then I make it only a third, and most of those only say they believe because of cultural heritage and not because of any meaningful conviction.

The statement makes no sense.

It only seems real to those like you who have convinced themselves it is true. The rest of us and the majority of the world simply don’t buy the story. If it was so real then why is that?

As for your bible quotes; you should be able to recognize them as simple propaganda.

 

Cris,

Speaking of faith and prophecy:

Zechariah 13
7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is close to me!"
declares the LORD Almighty.
"Strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered,
and I will turn my hand against the little ones.
8 In the whole land," declares the LORD ,
"two-thirds will be struck down and perish;
yet one-third will be left in it.
9 This third I will bring into the fire;
I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold.
They will call on my name
and I will answer them;
I will say, 'They are my people,'
and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.' "

 

Speaking of biblical redaction and the reverse engineering of prophesy ...

 

You are certainly aware that it is from these same prophets that the Jews themselves expect a messiah. Their expectation is not based on only those prophesies that have no historical contexts, since there are none. Isaiah himself said: "Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty". That the prophecy has a historical context is hardly surprising, but thanks for the information.