Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Quantum Quack, Jan 11, 2009.

  1. Iasion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    348
    Gday,

    Easy.
    Some people DO believe in leprachauns Woody.
    Some people DO believe in Jesus Christ.
    But, there is no evidence for EITHER.

    None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


    We don't have a witness, Woody.
    We have several BOOKS, not witnesses.
    Can you tell people from books, Woody?

    We have a set of books preaching religious beliefs, from unknown hands. Books which are full of magic that is impossible. Books that have been largely created from earlier myths. Books that copy each other, yet make changes for different reasons.

    None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


    Wow.
    You CAN'T tell people from books.

    Woody -
    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are BOOKS, mate ! They aren't people, they are books.
    There are NO witnesses at all. They are all dead. All we have is old BOOKS.

    None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


    You lack evidence that invalidates the Greek myths.
    You lack evidence that invalidates the Hindu Scriptures.

    None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


    The bible is as much historical evidence as the Greek myths or the Hindu scriptures.

    None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


    The writings about Hercules include THIRTY EIGHT authors - you only have four Gospels!
    Pfft !
    Hercules is 9 times more true than Jesus.

    None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


    Iasion
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ggazoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    320


    Can you guys please explain here?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    I got the point. You likened Jesus Christ to a leprechaun. The point was to make you feel good about your opinion while loading your statement with sarcasm against the opposing view.


    My father is dead to. His last will and testament is still in effect. He had to die first before the will could have value.

    it doesn't mean they are false either. It does mean there was a phenomena that may have been misinterpreted.

    Most historians accept the historicity of the bible. It is very specific about where the events occured, who the rulers were, etc etc. It's not about odysseus in the magical land of the cyclops.

    It says that simplifying the problem is good, but oversimplifying the problem is bad.

    I suggest you read it since you brought it up. It's a good idea to reduce a problem to it's simplist form, but oversiplifying produces confounding errors.

    The bible is 66 books mostly by different authors. They just happen to be bound together and called a "bible."

    Harry Potter books only have one author, and that author doesn't claim Harry Potter is a real person or wizards for that matter.

    I presented my evidence, which is the bible. You have nothing to disprove it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,305
    No but it also doesn't validate them.
    No, they're simply a compendium of fictional books.
    Do they! care to posit up a link or two.
    Yes just like any book, it needs a bit of truth to give it authenticity, We know there's a real place called New York, and we also know that the fictional Spiderman lives there according to the stories. Spiderman must be real using your logic. And James Bond as he's known in London, Paris, and New York. lol..
    But very similar.
    A thousand and one nights is a collection of books/stories by numerous authors, this must then make it as valid as the bible.
    Then James Bond, must most definitely be real, since Flemings death several authors have written the Bond stories.
    No, Only common sense and other books of myths and legends. No theres nothing to disprove it, lol.
     
  8. Iasion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    348
    Gday,

    Sure,
    scholars agree G.Mark was not written by an eye-witness, but by an unknown person, probably in Rome, who knew little of the culture or geography. See details here :
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

    Then, the unknown authors of G.Luke and G.Matthew copied from G.Mark. G.John follows later with a different story.
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

    The Gospels were originally anonymous, from unknown sources who never met any Jesus - that's what modern NT scholars agree. But faithful believers are the last to know what experts agree if it disagrees with their faith.


    Iasion
     
  9. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: Most historians, archeologists, and biblical scholars DO NOT accept the historicity of the bible. It's just that you don't know who these scientists are, you have never read their work, nor what they have discovered to no longer be true according to bible authors.
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    And, you have, what, to prove the bible?
     
  11. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    Wher eis your proof that invalidates them?

    Fictional to you but functional to me and billions of other people. It works in our lives to make us happier, healthier, and less self-centerred.

    Surely you accept that Jerusalem existed two thousand years ago, as well as Ceasar.

    So what are you expecting as proof, a DVD?


    Actually you made a straw man for yourself. Have fun with him.

    Does anyone honestly believe he is a real person? Billions of people believe Jesus Christ was a real person. We all have the same information. So what are you going to say now, that we must be dumber? The funny thing is, most atheists I run into are employed in some pseudoscience like anthropology, or biology, or pshychiatry that's rife with humanistic philosophy. In the hard sciences I'd say we are about equally split. I'm a degreed engineer myself, with a pretty rigorous education in the physical sciences, as are many of my co-workers who also believe God exists.

    Does anyone honestly believe there is a cyclops?

    Do they claim any of the characters are real?

    Several actors have played the character as well, and I don't really see the point of this game. Who believes James Bond is a real person?

    Even a child can figure it out God exists. So why can't you?

    you have no counter-testimony. That's a crying shame for you.

    indeed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  12. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    Let's find what we can agree on.

    Do you believe for example that Jerusalem existed 2000 years ago?
    Do you believe Ceasar was the emporer of Rome?

    Where do you begin to start disagreeing?

    Secondly I don't have to prove the bible. If it didn't work in my life and in the lives of other people then we'd have no use for it even as you.

    We believe it because it works. What's the point in proving it?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2009
  13. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    The ones you listen to anyway.

    Specifically in the first century, what examples??? I've heard your rants before, and none of it is ever substantiated. Show me a university that teaches it in a degreed curriculum.
     
  14. ggazoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    320
    Just because some scholars agree doesn't mean that they all do. And I don't think that the faithful are the last to know anything if they are in fact educated in what the Bible is saying.

    Mark says that the man who helped Jesus carry his cross to the calvary "was the father of Alexander and Rufus" (Mark 15:21). There is no reason for the author to include such names unless the readers know or could have access to them. Mark is saying, "Alexander and Rufus vouch for the truth of what I am telling you, if you want to ask them."
     
  15. wizard Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    no

    off topic

    it doesn't mean it's true either, so we shouldn't assume it is

    no they don't. stop making stuff up

    this is somewhat correct, but not a good description at all

    and leaving out the "facts" in the bible is not oversimplification

    so?

    the number of authors has nothing to do with the book's validity. and it doesn't matter what the authors claim. you look at the evidence.

    and the bible isn't evidence. the fact that it can't be disproven it its problem

    ezpz, although you misunderstanding everything is getting boring
     
  16. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    I'm not making it up, rather this forum has a bunch of Jesus myth kooks on it.

    Here's what the general populace agrees on:

    Historicity of Jesus

    [1] Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A. Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.


    History of Jesus

    Jesus Myth Hypothesis

    So some 1700 years after the gospel accounts appeared, this Jesus myth hypothesis comes along. Why did it take 1700 years? It appears real obvious to anyone with an inkling of intelligence that this teacher named Jesus existed. Maybe the bible made him bigger than life, but he existed.
     
  17. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,305
    Simply, lack of evidence, eye witnesses, writings by a jesus, roman recorded evidence, etc...
    And more likely to kill or harm.
    Yes, but how does that prove a jesus person existed.
    The 1001 nights has Babylon and the Kalif, whats your point.
    No, just something to show jesus is not a fictional concept. Your yet to show that.
    Lol, how so. just because a jesus person is named in the bible, it does not prove he was real. He's about as real as Spiderman, which is my point.
    Appeal to popularity, Huge Fail: It doesn't make him real.
    I dare say theres someone, after all the world does have two thirds of it's population believing in gods/devil, angels/demons, cockatrices/satars, talking snakes and donkeys.
    Thats the point, without any evidence it would be foolish to, wouldn't it.
    The point is James Bond, is fictional in a factual enviroment, giving him authenticity, all authors do this, to give there characters some realism, and now the same character(James Bond) has been written about by several authors, just like this jesus character.
    Yes children can, once they have been indoctrinated, However I have deprogramed myself and reverted back to the norm. Thus I know it's all BS, children unfortunately accept the BS spewed to them from the religious, because they know no better. It's a kind of child abuse.
    The fact that it cannot be verified, is testimony enough, lol.
     
  18. mustafhakofi I sa'id so Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    599
    So they agree, that it is likely jesus never existed. or at least it is dubious that he ever lived. Ok.
    Ah so here, their still on a quest to prove jesus exists. Ok.
    And here they are, still not sure.
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Do I blindly, faithfully believe in those things? Of course, not. Can I find oodles of evidence to support their existence? Yup.

    The very instant you begin to claim the magical and mythical exist.

    Good point, Woody. That's fine that the bible gets you through life, most weak minded people need such a crutch.

    But, if you start claiming gods, angels, imps and demons actually exist, you'll fall flat.
     
  20. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Nothing was written about Jesus while he was alive but only after 100 years after he died! How can anyone remember what went on after 3 or 4 generations and so vividly as well?
     
  21. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    This is typical for history of that period and earlier. It is usual that historical facts during that time (and earlier) aren't very well circulated until more than a hundred years later, because there weren't any printing presses. In addition the person writing the document usually spent many years collecting and verifying the accounts of several people. Transportation was slow.

    This is standard for history in that period of time, and the gospel passages are no exception. I suggest you read how history was verified by the 150 something scholars for that period of time:

    Jesus Seminar

    I might add there is no credible historical evidence for the "Jesus myth hypothesis". It's the work of some kooks some 1700 years later, using a comparative religion analogy. Analogy is a very poor from of argument.

    This approach is equivalent to the false claim that human embryonic development is "proof of evolution" because the fetus goes through various developmental stages resembling the evolutionary steps. However, the so-called "gill slits" on the side of the fetus neck ended up being ears, not lungs.

    Analogy is a very poor form of argument.
     
  22. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    I haven't made that claim in this thread.

    Thanks for all your respect, but I don't see it that way. I admit I can't control some things that influence my life, and I think that's being honest with myself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I haven't made such claim, rather I admit that I have limitations as a human.
     
  23. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,419
    That's how you see it.

    Children are more open-minded than adults, and don't have prejudices or a personal agenda to defend -- that's the way I see it.
     

Share This Page