The Bible. Myth or Reality?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Greatest I am, May 21, 2015.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Probably not much more evil than the other tribes around at that time.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Right. I was responding to the claim that "the bible is definitely a myth because there is no shred of evidence or proof that anything of what was written in the bible is actually true."
    Josephus, writing in 93AD, lists three known people named Jesus:

    Jesus, who was called Christ (i.e. ' Messiah')
    Jesus, son of Damneus
    Jesus, son of Gamaliel

    Tacitus, writing in 115AD, describes the arrest and execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate, as well as the general persecution of Christians of the time.

    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 superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,179
    I would say, fear of power in the hands of a psychopath, who has made no real effort to assure the citizenry that an auhocratic governments work better than a social/economical democracy.
    Symbiotic relationships has a well establihed reputation of being beneficial to both organisms Without a specific impact in local areas of the globe.

    It is where factual presentation of the importance of a minimizing human activity, which in a significant part affects the entire eco-sphere, becomes a valid subject for serious objective discussion.

    What trend are we witnessing? Human contribution to Global warming and adding to the greenhouse effect, which is beginning to disturb the seven headed natural monster, that is able to ecpress itself many forms, from an ice age to a planet which could only spport methane breating mutations, Which would most likely kill most larger species and the most adaptative species would have the greatest chance for survival, such as the the Tardigrades and Extremophiles which can maintain life in the most extreme and harshest possible conditions the earth could undergo. Evolution starting from cratch, with an already neurally developed program ......ironic.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
    ^^^
    Josephus' writing in 93CE is not contemporary with Jesus of the bible who died 30 or so CE & there is legitimate debate on probable christian meddling with copies of it. As is, it speaks of a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, not referencing any god or sonofagod or any supernatural entity.

    Tacitus, also not contemporary with Jesus of the bible, wrote of things he heard from christians. Not reliable in the least little bit.

    Nero persecuted christians as did others & as christians later persecuted many others. Christians were viewed by Romans as later & present christians view atheists & satanists. Christians were breaking the law & were seen as unruly nasty immoral mobs. So what.

    I think you could have found all this on your own instead of making unsupportable claims.

    <>

    <>
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Correct. It merely supports the premise that Jesus Christ existed.
    So that demonstrates that those portions of the Bible are historically accurate (as you mention.)
     
  9. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
    ^^^
    Perhaps as 1` brick supports a 40 story building. Christ was simply another name for messiah or anointed 1. There were very many anointed ones.


    ^^^
    What portion(s) of the bible is supported by Nero's persecution of christians???

    <>
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,008
    Perhaps more like there is clay in the river bed and bricks are made of clay.

    The implications of your point that Josephus wrote some sixty years after the alledged JC died seems to have been missed.
    His writtings must be regarded as useless.

    And sixty years probably represented two generations so it is doubtful he wrote having heard any accounts from an actual eye witness.

    I wonder if folk, who site the dubious evidence they present in support of the unsupportable notion of a Jesus of the bible, would be happy if they, having been accused of a crime punishable by death, were sentenced upon evidence of such a ridiculously low standard.

    The test for evidence in criminal matters is that it stand beyond a reasonable doubt.
    There is no evidence of a Jesus of the bible that comes anywhere close to such a standard... And the story came by word of mouth supposedly.. That is what is called hearsay which is for obvious reasons not admissable evidence.

    If evidence is presented in a civil matter the test becomes less... It becomes in effect.. What a reasonable man may accept... And again I doubt any reasonable man could accept as evidence writtings wrtten some sixty years after the death of the person being written about.
    But when we deal with evidence satisfactory for someone wishing to establish a notion key to their faith the test becomes.. Absolutely anything will do...

    If only folk could simply apply the same test to evidence that they would demand if they were accused of a crime or seeking recovery of property or damages in acivil action.

    Belief is mere opinion and should be held to tests of evidence equivalent to the standard of our law courts.

    Or do believers feel they should be above the standards of our law. Well obviously they do.

    Alex
     
  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
    ^^^
    I have known christians to claim "evidence" from the bible would stand up in court.

    LOL Most people do not apply the same test of evidence to anyone else accused of a crime as they would like applied if THEY were accused of a crime.

    Belief is not even opinion.

    <>
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,008
    Christians claim all sorts of stuff and one should never take them at their word, as given they are determined to rest upon such dubious evidence is one thing but to hold up such dubious evidence up as certain, acceptable, valuable or in the least part reasonable without question approaches dishonesty at worst or gulibility at best.
    I agree but I hate saying the word bullshit.
    Alex
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    No doubt. The contemporary (or to your point, contemporary + 60 years) accounts merely demonstrate that one of them was Jesus.
    Several parts. Acts 1, for example, describes the prevailing attitude of the Roman leadership towards Christians.

    "So they ordered them to leave the council while they discussed the matter with one another. They said, “What will we do with them? For it is obvious to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable sign has been done through them; we cannot deny it. But to keep it from spreading further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” So they called them and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus."
     
  14. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,163
    The only external source for Nero's persecution of the Christians comes from Tacitus, and that itself may be an interpolation. It is rather conspicuous that Tacitus is the only unbiased external source of the Neronian Persecution. All other claims of it derive from the Bible or from Christian hagiographies and legend. You'd think Suetonius, Nero's most venomous biographer, would have mentioned Nero's persecution of any kind of perceived enemy.
     
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
    +60 years is not contemporary.
     
  16. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    True.
    Uh...what?
     
  17. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    You don't expect to live to see 60?
    Man, that's some hard livin'.
     
  18. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
    I don't expect to be born 60 years after a person died and be a reliable eyewitness to his life.
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,008
    So today we want to talk to an eye witness of an event sixty years ago...me? I was 11 what would I know.
    Maybe interview an eighty year old...
    But it would be a difficult task 60 year old eveidence folks perceptions...
    Alex
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Which is why I said contemporary + 60 years.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
  22. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,380
    ^^^
    An account written 60 years later does not demonstrate that 1 of the messiahs was named Yeshua. Further, that account's authenticity is justifiably disputed. Even if it could be shown there was a messiah named Yeshua, that would be no evidence of the supernatural Jesus of the bible. The Jesus of the bible is not just someone named Jesus, it is a super being with super powers. Finding Clark Kent listed in the phone book would be no evidence of Superman.

    Similar accounts of Roman attitudes does not mean either of those supports the other in truthfulness or reliability.

    <>
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,518
    Of that I have no doubt. All historical material from that era has a lot of skepticism surrounding it, since recordkeeping was so unreliable.
    Agreed. It is merely evidence that someone named Jesus did actually exist, and that Christians founded a religion on the story of his life.
     

Share This Page