Malaclypse the Younger

gixxer750

Good for you.

Yes, well, we are who we are, and we make no secret of it. We will evaluate all statements critically, and if critical examination of an idea shows it to be inane, it will be met with sarcasm.

People obviously have the right to simply not post here at all.

Koy is a smart guy. I suggest you read his post very carefully.

Withdrawn.

Bias is just one of the many factors. Overall, they do not appear to fulfill objective criteria for ascribing truth to an historical claim. The authors are not only biased with an obvious agenda for creating fictional propaganda, but also have little independent corroboration, they they make fantasic claims with no corroboration at all.

Certainly it matters. Your obvious bias would lead me to investigate the matter a bit more carefully, and be a little less inclined to take your words at face value.

Good. It's a terrible argument.

I know almost nothing (or rather I can make no rational inferences) about the "man" Jesus. I know only about what is probably a fictional character depicted in the gospels. And, all in all, some things this fictional character does or says are a little interesting, but nothing really life-changing. And some things are simply too ludicrous to believe at all.

Forgiven. Actually, it's not clear that Paul deified a man at all, but rather a "spirit".

You've received several substantive replies; determining the precise question you're asking is nontrivial and not "nitpicking".

Jesus the man? I know almost nothing--perhaps nothing at all. Jesus the fictional character? I'm frankly unimpressed.

You are not claiming (I don't think) that you have actually spoken or communicated directly with a real person, no? It is thus arguable that "Christ" as a person did not affect your life at all. What has affected your life (objectively speaking) are stories about a christ have affected your life.

The skeptical position inverts your standards of proof. I would need to be persuaded with the degree of confidence you describe above of the resurrection before I would even consider believing in christianity.

Ron Garrett

Great! The reverse is true at the Baptist Board believe me, and we are often banned and deleted. The problem for Christians here is they pop off doctrinal verbatims as though they are established and agreed upon facts, and they assume we all know these things are true, but out of some deep perversity we are tryig to keep the truth from the world. It gets insulting after a while to be told you are a spawn of Satan by someone who knows less of their religion than you do. Not necessary. Whoever youname here it would still be a subjectie opinion subject to dispute. It's for several reasons, but mostly because they are not written as histories, but rather as theological illustrations. Luke claims to be a history, but his account is perhaps the most provably fantastic. He creates a census during the reign of Herod the Great and misses Quirinius' peiod in office by more than a decade to create a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem as the Messiah wa expected to be. He and Matthew create independent and contradictory genologies to trace Jesus back from Joseph to David. Both cannot be right, but more likely both are pure fiction. We have very thorough records of the census taken by the Romans, and none were taken during Herod the Great's reign, nor did any require one to return to the their place of birth, which in fact defeats the purpose of census. Luke credits Herod the Great with a massacre of male infants in Bethlehem that is recorded nowhere else, though Herod's many detractors record his atrocities in great detail, but never mention this most glaring offense. We could go on about the invention of childhood details, angelic visits etc. Mark's version was obviously the first and the least shaped by theology. By the time John is written teh church and its theology are well developed and stroies are created to illustrate the doctrine. It's clear to the academic world that these works are in no wise histories, nd there aren't that many Christian scholars even still trying to defend them as such.

The biggest problem as I see it is that despite the supposed empowering of the Holy Spirit, Christians cannot even agree with each other let alone perform miracles that cannot be proven to be shams. We have all manner of religious mythologies about the dead rising and healings and such, before and after Jesus,down to modern wonders like Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff, in and out of Christianity, yet none have proven genuine so far. So, I don't discount the dead rising because Christians say it, or even because Canadian Christians say it, but I discount it because it contains supernatural claims of events that in fact do not happen, but are easily faked when the crowd is gullible and suggestible and con artist moderately skilled. Moeny, ego, power, who knows. Paul seems to talk a lot about who is and who isn't sending him money. I personally wonder if the donations for the saints in Jerusalem ever made it there. I remember sending my donations for the chuches in Hungary that in fact did not exist that I sent to Larry Lea. I've personally seen how the money got spent with the Crouches and Hinn, so Paul wouldn't be the first religious leader to benefit financially from "the ministry." My pastor in California was a multi-millionaire with houses all around the wealthy areas, including Catalina. Even Billy Grahams performances are completely funded locally even though his "Evangelical Association" receives millions a year from people who mistakenly think the donations pay for his events. I don't suppose you've noticed any of the modern scandals in the, but if you had why would you think they are a new phenomenon. You know the Catholic church still has an office of indulgences? I actually saw one issued in exchange for lands donated to the church in the Puyallup Valley of Washington. It's an old story amigo.

Queen of Swords

gixxer,

I think my rather negative feelings towards the Jesus of the bible are due to :

1. the fact that I have been told/ordered throughout my life to love him, worship him, give him my life, sacrifice my thoughts and hopes for him, etc, etc. It becomes a heavy burden after a while.

2. Eventually I started really reading the bible, and found aspects of the character Jesus that I did not like and could not respect, not to mention contradictions that made me doubt he had actually existed, lived for me, died for me, etc. So not only was I being exhorted to love someone, that "perfect person" turned out to be a myth, and all that was left was a man who had his faults, who might have been a good teacher but who was subsequently airbrushed into unreality.

In other words, I don't often think of Jesus any more, and when I do, I have to really suppress my feelings in order to be as complimentary as, say, Koy.

gixxer750

well, thank you everyone for your replies.

I have to confess that I am out of my league and I really haven't got a reply to most of your comments. I would respond to some of the others, but I think I am going to look around for a more balanced forum. While you have all, for the most part, been very respectful and courteous, I received 20 replies, and they were all from an atheistic veiwpoint! I am a punk 22-year old with one year of post-secondary education. I have read McDowell and Lewis (as some of you guessed already), but have yet to go deeper than that. I am more than comfortable to discuss some things with one or two people at my own level, but I'm not about to try to take on 20 people with doctorate degrees! I hope this is reasonable, and I pray that I am not sacrificing my integrity - I have printed out a number of your comments to consider further. Also, I will check in a number of times again in the next couple of days, and I would be happy to exchange email addresses with anyone who would like to continue this in a different forum.

I apologize if I ever came off as arrogant or anything like that - you have helped me to realize that I have a lot of learning to do. If anyone wants to reccomend any good books I would appreciate it.

Hmmmm. Since I am going to check in a few more times anyway, I have one more question I would like to post -

Suppose for a moment that the stories recorded in the New Testament gospels are in fact true. Suppose (hypothetically, of course)that Jesus truly was the Jewish messiah, that he truly was "God in the flesh", that his death truly brought about means of reconciliation with God, and that he truly did rise form the dead. What written accounts would be necessary to convince you of its truth 2000 years later? If a number of people, 2000 years ago, witnessed a true miracle such as the resurrection, what would it take for them to be able to convince future generations of its truth? I hope you understand the question. What would it take for you to believe today?

Thanks again.

Kosh

A. Entirely perfect consistent "God inspired"
writings that don't require an apologist (such
as McDowell or Lewis) to explain them.

B. A weekly status meeting,where Jesus/God appears
visible to everyone on earth simultaneously,
removing the possibility of any doubt. You know,
he could start with something "Hi all, hope
everyone had fun with the 3 legged race at the
picnic, I know I sure did...". Such a thing would
be trivial to the Christian God if he really
existed, and it's the least he could do since he
wants me to dedicate my LIFE to him....

But neither of those is very likely....

Samhain

The problem with being a skeptic is that you must question everything.
I believe it would be hard to convince many here with one such document. It would require several histories, all of which coincide within the main points and are written objectively. The Bible could be the focus of these documents as long as there were several recorded histories to point that there were no contradictions within it, and that all that was stated could be believed to be true. Of course, over the span of 2000 years, and countless interpretations and language conversions, one could hardly say that the Bible itself is accurate, or even the histories themselves. But as long as you have several which all seem to follow along the same path of events, then it would at least be much harder for the atheist to disprove.
Of course, there would still be many atheists, who would have to experience it firsthand in order to put the kind of faith into it which many Christians today do. Being a skeptic, one might even question the speaking, burning bush: "Maybe something I ate?"

Eudaimonist

Thanks for your questions. You have been far more polite and mature than the average Christian who stops by here. We appreciate this.

I don't think that written accounts from 2000 years ago would be enough for me. There's simply far too much possibility of error. I'd need something far more scientific for a claim of this incredible magnitude, just as I need scientific evidence for ESP, Astral Travel, Psychic Healing, Spirit Guides, etc.

Arrowman

Thank you; as others have said your approach is refreshing and welcome.

Oh, an Koy - <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Now, to your question. My answer is in four parts:

1. Jesus as a man: Not a lot of convincing needed; perhaps some contemporary accounts, and by people other than his direct followers / believers would help.

2. Divine nature of Jesus, including supernatural acts: Without wanting to appear closed-minded, I find it difficult to conceive what sort of 2000-year-old written evidence would offer convincing proof of the reality of supernatural events - ie, events and phenomena the sort of which we have no convincing documentation of, since.

3. The next problem is the Old Testament. The NT has its problems, but they are nothing compared to the problems of inaccuracy, inconsistency, credibility etc in the OT. If we assume that a "real" Jesus is working off the back of the OT, as it were, then any documentation of him would need to include a lot of qualification on the OT. If the "real" Jesus just repeated the OT as "gospel", as it were, he's starting right behind the eight-ball credibility-wise.

4. Finally, there's the overall issue of logic. Given that we have some sort of cohesive evidence of Jesus and his divinity, we are still faced with the possibility that that evidence is faulty, either deliberately or otherwise, given that the events described therein are beyond our experience. PLUS - all these events together tell us of a divine being which supposedly created us, loves us, but will condemn us to hell if we don't follow Him - BUT - has, after several thousand years of direct and overt intervention in human affairs, has completely gone missing for the past 2000 years. On that basis, any evidence of the divine nature of Jesus, no matter how well documented, would still leave some major logical and theological gaps.

babelfish

Gixxer, I sort of hate to say this, but maybe you should stay away from atheist-run forums altogether if you wish to keep your faith strong. I know that the people here have been enjoying debating you, and it's true that we seldom get such polite and open-minded Christians here, but I think that if you stayed here much longer you may begin to question too many of the foundations of your faith.

This is why many fundamentalists home-school, and later send their children to a "Bible College." The more you get exposed to ideas that conflict with your deeply-held beliefs, the more you may start to question those beliefs.

Godless Dave

Shhh!

Actually, gixxer, I was going to suggest going to a public library and asking a reference librarian to help you find books about biblical scholarship. Many of them are written by Christian and Jewish scholars, who study who really wrote the Bible and when but still keep their faith. "Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible" is a little dated but still a great basic introduction to this field. Most of the things we discussed in this thread would be found in a non-fundamentalist seminary class.