Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 02-08-2002, 11:13 AM

I posted this about 24 hours ago in RR&P, and it has already grown to 3 pages, much of which is off-subject bickering and, of course, good-natured ripping, courtesy of QoS. However, I think the gentleman who wrote this to me is honest in his misconceptions, and he deserves more than sarcastic dismissal.

Although he says he's attempting to explain why he believes in God, he never gets around to it, so I thought the post would fit better here.

I didn't see a single argument/misconception he listed in this interminable diatribe that I haven't heard so many times that it doesn't bore the hell out of me. I have taken the liberty of dividing his sermon into paragraphs as best I could, to ease readability.

Quote:

Dear Ms. Black,

I've read with interest on your website some of the debates you've had over the years with various Christians, and the reasons you do not believe. You challenged anyone to challenge you, so here goes, but hopefully in a friendly, civilized manner. One of your main tenants in your previous debates, seems to be the lack of proof, evidence. Since you like to debate, and I'm of the same nature (enjoy debating), I thought I'd perhaps answer your standard question to Christians "why do you believe?" or "what caused you to believe?". Here are some of the reasons "I was lead", which may answer some of your questions, or at least give you a good run for your money.

First off, I agree with you that there are several instances in the Bible, especially the King James Version, that appears to not be logical, appears to contradict itself, appears a little fuzzy, or appears not to be truthful. I too, at one time was skeptical...but then began to discover some things for myself.

Right off, I'll concede that one of the problems is probably due to traslations over the years. I too know how to speak a little of a couple of different languages, and know how easy it is to mess up a translation. So it is more than likely that some things have been mistranslated from the original...but is that in itself a reason to condemn all of religion? Would it not be more logical to search out the real meaning?

I find the Bible an amazing document, that not only promotes God, but also contains stories of murder, greed, adultery, fornication, incest, sex, love, hate, mystery, prophecy, honor, dishonor, healing, miracles, tragedy, slavery, freedom from bondage, wars, and peace...sort of just "telling it like it is". If someone doesn't teach some of the sordid stuff, is that God's, or the Bibles fault? Should ALL Christians be judged by the actions of a few?

OK - My experiences...First, I looked into the scientific world to see if there was evidence that seemed to prove the accuracy of the biblical accounts. Here are a few items I found, that may interest you (on subjects you and others have tried to condemn.)Yes, I realize that you can come up with probably as many that proves otherwise, ah..debating is fun...is it not???

1. Creation of the Universe: Genesis account says that God created the Universe, and that at first in was without form and void. Then he said "Let there be light" at there was. Notice that it does not say exactly HOW, it just says it did when God said so. The description in Genesis seems to be REAL close to the latest scientific "big bang" theory. The Bible also states that God made all of the fish, creatures, etc...again, it does not say how. If you go in the order of the Bible, the Bible does not dispute "evolution theory" much, if at all, For the most part, I think it just explains "how" God did it, and neither disproves the other. Different view is it not?

Man, on the other hand, the Bible says was made by God, and the Bible infers "how" he did it. As far as Adam is concerned, I concede that this is a purely "faith" thing...no evidence that a living creature could be made in this fashion. But I personally believe, as God, that he would have the ability to do so (an admitted assumption on my part), but if you think about it, when we die, we do turn back into dirt...eventually.(ok - slim, I admit it). Woman, on the other hand, could have been made as the Bible states...scientifically it would come into the realms of cloning, gene splitting, DNA, etc. So to me, this seems plausable. Again, no real evidence so far, except that in DNA research, there is evidence that all WOMEN, came from one common WOMAN. Hmmmmmmm.

In this section of the Bible though, the Bible describes God as saying "let us make man"...etc., as in plural. Remember that as Christians we believe in a Triune God...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three separate entities, three separate personalities, One God. The best way to explain this, is to see a triangle, three separate sides, put together to make one triangle. In humans, we have the physical body, the thoughts of your mind, then that invisible thing that keeps the two going, being alive, we sometimes call a spirit. This belief in a triune God is what separates Christianity from all similar faiths such as the Hebrews, and the Muslems, both believing in one singular entity, but actually the same God. This plural "us" is found throughout the old testament, but only the new testament names the three entities.

In addition, the Bible, both testaments (and the Torah)mentions the Angels also being called gods, princes, etc. (from mens viewpoint)ie: Satan is the god of the air, the gods came down and married the daughters of men.

Up until Noah, men lived 900+ years...seemingly impossible. BUT, scientists today have reported that they have found a gene(s) that controls aging, and if they could just alter them... They haven't figured out how to alter it to make us all immortal, but it stands to reason, that if scientist can find this gene at all, or figure out WHY we age, could not God, if he was the one who made the gene to start with, reprogram that gene at will? (Hint:we are reprogramming genes ourselves, even now, scientifically). The Bible says he reprogrammed it after Noah so at most, we would only live to 120 years (approximately), but averaging 70 years. This is fact even today, as to the length anyone ever lives...funny how people back then knew that medical fact, isn't it? Oh yea, the Bible mentions around this time period that "in those days there were giants in the land"...a reference to dinosars perhaps, something we take as a known fact. I find that a little curious, don't you?

Speaking of Noah, and the worldwide flood. Virtually every civilization across the globe has legends of a world flood, and most has a family, an ark, and all of the animals escaping the flood in the ark. (Flood traditions throughout the world, Morris, Henry M. "Science and the Bible")

Archeologists have found 12 large tablets (discovered late 19th century dating 600bc, others found dating all the way back to 2000bc)that relates a story (poem)called "the story of Gilgamesh" that, except for Noah's name, relates the flood account almost exactly as the Genesis account. NOW we have SOME evidence.

In addition, geologists throughout the world will tell you of a layer of silt, found globally, at the same geological level, which has NO fossil remains in it. Extremely strong evidence of a world flood.

So HOW did it come about?Scientifically, geologically, there's a current theory that states at one time the earth had a crust over a layer of water (which was under extreme pressure and tension). A meteor striking this plate, would have broken it, creating a crack in the plate that would have circled the globe in a matter of minutes. This would have sent a stream of high pressure, super heated water into the air (stratosphere)causing it to rain like the world has not seen before or since. A shift of the globe itself, caused by the striking meteor, combined with the fallout of the stream of water, would have created a world wide flood. The biblical account of the time period describes exactly what the computer models describes it would have been like before the flood, ie: little if any rain, but water spraying up from the ground from small fissures(the pressurized water below the plate?).

Further evidence of the historical nature of the Bible? Moses as an Egyptian: An ancient historian (non-Christian BTW)by the name of Josephus, wrote that Moses was mentioned in ancient manuscripts as having lead an Egyptian army against Kush, (now Ethiopia), for his father-in-law, a Pharoah named Khaneferre. This account is confirmed by a stela (located in the British Museum BTW)which tells of a Pharaoh Khaneferre campaigning into that area (13th Dynasty). Note that neither of these writings come from the Bible, or the Torah, but rather are independant sources, non-religious in nature.

Now, for further proof, a writer named Artapanus records that Moses was the step-son of Pharaoh Khaneferre, again cooinciding with Biblical accounts. Then in the early 1900's, a statue of Khaneferre was found at Kerma on the Nile. Good evidence in my opinion that Moses existed, and was the step-son of a Pharaoh, like the Biblical account. Archeologist have recently found evidence of the Hebrews escaping from the Egyptians, again, as in the Biblical accounts. This seems to confirm this particular biblical account. Check it out:

<a href="http://www.greatdreams.com/moses.htm" target="_blank">http://www.greatdreams.com/moses.htm</a>

Biblical Joseph is mentioned by several ancient historians including Josephus, Eusebius, and Africanus. Some of the rulers mentioned by all of these independant writers during the Egyptian second Intermediate periods XIII and XIV, include Hebrews named Yakobaam (Jacob), and Ishpi (Joseph?)- both Biblical characters and leaders. The Ishpi mentioned was second only to the Pharaoh in Egypt, as also described in the Bible, and was also called Yusef (Joseph). Note also that a canal from that period has been found by archeologists, and the name of the canal is Bahr Yusef (Joseph's canal) [I'm sorry...I can't help it... ].

There is also written archeological evidence of a major drought in Egypt during the XIII and XIV periods...yep, just like the biblical accounts. So when exactly does evidence become proof? When somone invents a time machine and takes you personally there?

There are many, many more "stories" and accounts of the Bible, that has physical evidence in science and archeology. Science has shown there was a major volcanic eruption around the time of Moses, which could have accounted for each of the "plagues of Egypt" from Moses (except the deaths of the first born)...what would make it a miracle is how could Moses have known, and timed them so perfectly? Science explains that the sea could have dried up due to a tsuname caused by said volcano, then when the tsuname came, it would have been sufficient enough to destroy an Egyptian army...again, how could Moses timed it so exactly...unless planned by God (supreme being, supernatural designer, whatever)?

Jericho has been found, Bethlehem, David, Soloman, and the like, evidences which have been found. David killed Goliath, by first hitting him in the head with a stone according to biblical accounts. As a martial artist, you should know that it would not take THAT big of a stone, and it does not have to go THAT hard to stun someone hit at the right spot(s) on the head (you did say you were a black belt, right? Were you not taught anything about pressure points? [Again... ] ). Slings of those days were common hunting weapons, capable of killing, and accurate to those skilled in their use. As I recall, the stone struck hard enough to stick in the head, a good possibility to those familiar with weapons...sounds like a good stunning blow to me, a potential knockout. The Bible then says that David killed Goliath by cutting off his head with Goliath's own sword
(someone forgot to mention that fact when trying to shoot down this story).

Goliath did NOT die by being struck by a stone, and this story is physically plausible.

So, there was enough evidence I found, that I could logically believe that the old testament Bible is the one of, if not THE most accurate of any of the "other" religions documents, except perhaps the Torah of the Jews. I was convinced.

True, there are some things that do not make sense, until you look at Jewish, and ancient traditions, or find a more accurate translation of a term, or word, or if you realize that because of the age of the original documents, that there are probably pieces of missing documents, that used to fill in the holes. Catholic Bibles have a few more "books" in them that the Protestant Bible does not, as an example. That cannot be blamed on God, or religion in general, or Christianity in general. The Biblical gospels also ring true in that there has been found evidence of the existance of Pontius Pilate, Barabas, and many of the traditions mentioned in the New Testament. Too many to discount the Bible all together. So I decided to accept the accuracy of those I knew of, and reasoned that if they were true, there is the probability of the rest being true as well. I also figured on researching, and trying to find out more instead of chucking everything out because of some inconsistancies).

Writers during the times of Jesus, mention him extensively. No archeological scientist today doubts that there was a physical person, a Jewish prophet, named Jesus. Face it, that name has influenced more things than anything else in this world. There is more evidence of his existance than there is of Plato, Socrates, Ramses, or Helen of Troy combined. Yet, no one doubts their existance. Even the Muslems recognise his existance.

The leap of faith is then whether he is really the "Son of God", the Messiah. One set of evidence on the Bibles accuracy concerning Jesus, is it's description of his death, and burial. The Roman crucifixion is perhaps the most painful of all deaths. It's designed to torture and suffocate the victim, if he cannot hold himself up. The description of the nails,their placement, the breaking of legs custom, the whipping, etc., all ring true as things historically done during that time period.

one of the best, is when the soldier thrust his spear into Jesus side, the Bible describes water and blood coming out. Medically, that is the order, and appearance that would happen. Also, the earthquake, and darkened sky has also a written historical account by an independant historians of that time - non-Christians.

Pontius Pilate, the Jewish king, the chief Pharasee, all have been mentioned in other historical accounts of that period, and cannot be disputed as historical figures. So why is Jesus?

But wait, assuming the gospel (New Testament) and old testament accounts were true as far as historically, what evidence that Jesus was truly the Messiah?

Checking out the prophecies of the old testament, I could find where Jesus, the person, fulfilled all of the prophesies of the Messiah, that I could personally find, enough to convince me. So that would mean that Jesus WAS the messiah, would it not? So I believed, and took on faith the rest I could not explain. This is how I became a Christian. I have some evidence, but there is some I take on faith.

Now, not to put you down, your family, nor your families church or faith, may I ask of you a couple of questions, and see how honestly YOU answer them.

1. Is it possible that your church was TOO strict, and made all or most of those "rules" out of tradition, NOT on what the bible really says, and THAT perhaps is your real problem with religion of any kind?

2. Is it possible that you are basing a good part of your unbelief on the doctrine of that church, and not necessarily on what scripture really is saying? Could it be that you too are missing some of the evidence, or are just not wanting to acknowledge it?

3. Yes, God is a God of War, also a God of Justice, also a God of Love, etc. Yes, God can be sad, happy, angry, hate, love, cry, laugh, boast, kill, heal, and any other emotion/action you can attribute. In fact, to my knowledge, the only thing he cannot do is sin (ok - we could get into stupid "can God make something he couldn't lift" type arguements...my answer is I do not know, but why would he in the first place? Why is this not possible that he is, or can do ALL of these? Do you never get angry, then happy, then sad, do you not love, but also hate? Does not the Bible say we are in HIS image? He can be just to judge, can, and will fight to defend himself and his own, and will love and protect his children. He will also punish them for disobediance...did (does)not your father,(or your government for that matter)do the same?

4. Is it possible that you do not have all of the answers, and perhaps some of what seemingly has no evidence, just hasn't been found yet?

5. Is it possible that the seemingly contradictory items may be contributed to differing viewpoints, or because it was written by men, humans, although inspired by God?

6. Is it possible that some of the things that you (and others) use to say that the Bible is lying, is really only how primative man is trying to describe something he has had no experience with, has never seen before, and really doesn't understand. If I was from back then, I would perhaps describe a helicopter as looking like a large grasshopper, or locust...wouldn't you?

7. Is it possible that the Bible may really be true, but you would rather just dismiss it, and put it down, rather than to admit you could be wrong?

Finally, what if your wrong, are you just condemning religion in general, and Christian in particular just because you've been hurt, or just don't understand? You seem to be well read in the Bible (and other works). I certainly do not understand everything. Gospel means good news, and I think many times good meaning Christians become too enthusiastic, and make too many rules, supposing that it would please God. What if it's not supposed to be that way?

I find no where in the Bible that prohibits drinking an alcoholic drink...Jesus himself made wine from water - only against getting drunk (anyone who has had a hangover knows the why to that one - duh).

I see where a person is not supposed to make themselves out as one of the opposite sex, in dress or otherwise but other than modesty, it does not say what fashion we are to dress to. I personally would not be caught dead in womens slacks...they don't fit, and I don't look good in them! Reality is, sexual perversion holds the possiblity of getting hurt, or hurting someone. So don't do it.

Even cussing, I don't personally like to hear it, but the only reference I find against cussing is to not take Gods name in vain, the rest is man's rule, not God's.

I think God wants us happy, and the message is a message of freedom, not slavery. God, I think, wants to lift us up, not put us down. The rules that were put down by God, were for our protection, and for the benefit of all...nothing more. Jesus sais it can be summed up to the golden rule, and to love God with all of your heart, then the others just happen. Don't kill, steal, commit adultry, etc., because you would not like it if it was done to you. All of the things forbidden, are hurtful things, to yourself, or to others. I'd say that was a good thing, is it not? The other rules, I think are from men, and God should not be blamed for them.

So, I doubt if I could change your mind on atheism, nor could you change mine from Christianity [so what's the point, if you already admit that you won't change your stance no matter how mistaken you are proven to be?]. But pehaps I've expressed a little better debate than you're used to [or maybe not, Ron], and maybe you might rethink some of your suppositions.

Maybe, we can just have a friendly debate.

Best Regards,
Ron van de Sandt

He still hasn't answered my "Why do you believe in God?" question, but I give him an E for Effort in browbeating. I don't think I've ever seen such a dense collection of vague scientific "facts," convenient misreadings of the bible, general insults in what he assumes I've never heard (he seems to have read one or two of my pieces on religion and decided to "educate" me at that point), and subtle intertwinings of Xn myths about why people are atheists in a single post. This is a first.

I'll drop by occasionally to watch the bloodbath, as time allows.

d

Amazon · 02-08-2002, 11:21 AM

As requested, I have moved this from the original thread:

Hi everyone.
I'd like to take a stab at answering/contradicting a few of Mr. van de Sandt's statements that may not yet have been addressed.
1. "Biblical Joseph is mentioned by several ancient historians including Josephus, Eusebius, and Africanus. Some of the rulers mentioned by all of these independant writers during the Egyptian second Intermediate periods XIII and XIV, include Hebrews named Yakobaam (Jacob), and Ishpi (Joseph?)- both Biblical characters and leaders."

First, lets look at the Josephus passage:
"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time." (Nathaniel Lardner's translation from 1838)

Why should we suspect that this passage is a forgery? First because, although the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages which supported Christianity, and though these early church fathers were quite familiar with the works of Josephus, not one of them quotes this passage in defense of Christianity until Eusebius does in the fourth century. We also know Eusebius to be the man who said that lying for the advancement of the church was quite acceptable. He was probably the one who inserted this suspect passage into Josephus' works. Origen, the famous early Christian apologist, even quotes from other parts of Josephus, but somehow neglects to quote our passage. Origen wrote his book Contra Celsus in about 220 A.D.

Secondly, the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities- which have befallen the Jews. This would not be a calamity. Thirdly, the passage has Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, saying that Jesus was the Christ. That is a highly unlikely statement for him to have made. The whole passage reads as if it had been written by a Christian. Josephus is made to call the Christian religion "the truth." He would hardly have said that. Although Josephus reports the miracles of a number of other "prophets," he is silent about the miracles attributed to Jesus. Again, this makes no sense when compared to Josephus' known genuine writings. The last phrase in the quotation, ". .. subsists to this time," referring to the Christians, would not make any sense unless it were written quite some time after Jesus had died. Josephus, on the other hand, wrote the Antiquities in about 90 A.D.

The above critique of the Josephus passage is from a paper written by Gordon Stein, Ph.D., called "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell". Mr. van de Sandt may be the type who would read Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and accept his scholarship at face value. The entire rebuttal can be found

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html" target="_blank">here.</a>

And I offer this from atheist columnist Judith Hayes:
"The following Jewish and pagan writers, living at the time of Jesus' life or during the first century, handed down to us enough of their writings to fill a small library. Yet not one of them mentioned Jesus. These writers are: Josephus, Seneca, Philo-Judaeus, Pliny the Elder, Seutonius, Juvenal, Martial, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Phlegon, Theon of Smyrna, Persius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Statius, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucanus, Quintilian, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Favorinus, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias and Appion of Alexandria.

Not one of these writers mentioned Jesus, or his supposed miracles, or his possible insurrection-leading; or the fact that when he died the sun stopped shining at midday, there were earthquakes, and graves opened up allowing corpses to emerge from them alive. You'd think someone would have noticed. These writers were writing about the time and place where Jesus supposedly worked his miracles and died so dramatically. And except for a few obvious Christian interpolations inserted clumsily a couple of centuries later, and universally acknowledged by scholars to be interpolations, these writers are silent about Jesus. How can this be?"

2. "Jericho has been found, Bethlehem, David, Soloman, and the like, evidences which have been found."

There is new scholarship on the market in the form of a book called, "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text." written by Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian and journalist Neil Asher Silberman.
I have not read it. I have seen a television program outlining the book, so I offer it up as contradictory scholarship. Here are some relevant points raised by the book, copied from the Salon.com article:
"...a controversial group of European biblical scholars, sometimes called the Copenhagen School, who have insisted that since there is, to their minds, so little corroborative evidence supporting the stories in the Old Testament, the scriptures should be regarded as a collection of legends, and figures like David and Solomon considered "no more historical than King Arthur."
and,
"archaeology has shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel … and the world described in the Bible to suggest that the Bible was … fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all."
and,
"the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire.
Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public -- a very painful dent. They challenge many of the Old Testament stories central to Israeli beliefs about their own national character and destiny, stories that have influenced much of Western culture as well. The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea)."

So, since I have not visited these sights, nor been part of the teams who do the actual research, whose scholarship should we believe? Should I take the word of believers who desperately want to make the evidence fit their beloved scriptures, or the word of archeologists who simply dig up facts, assign dates and purposes based on objective information, then let the world see their findings regardless of the theological consequences?

3. "Writers during the times of Jesus, mention him extensively. No archeological scientist today doubts that there was a physical person, a Jewish prophet, named Jesus."

I addressed the first part under point number 1. The second part is obviously false to anyone who watches the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. There are PLENTY of archeological scientists today who do not believe that "Jesus of Nazareth", any way you want to define him, existed. Next time, wait until the commercial break before you go get the Doritos. You miss the best stuff.

More later, if I have time.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Amazon ]

Amazon · 02-08-2002, 11:26 AM

I'm back!
I'll try to make this a little shorter.
Mr. van de Sandt asked some questions of Diana at the end. While everyone's answers are a little different, I'll provide some of mine.

1. Is it possible that your church was TOO strict, and made all or most of those "rules" out of tradition, NOT on what the bible really says, and THAT perhaps is your real problem with religion of any kind?
None of my churches were strict. Actually, my churches have concentrated more on how we as humans treat each other than on the bible itself. But if the god-concept doesn't make sense, how can Christianity, based on the presupposition of a god and supernaturalism, be true? Nothing against the churches, necessarily, nor the lovely people who attend them. There just simply is no evidence for any gods - biblical, new age, specialized pagan, or any other.

2. Is it possible that you are basing a good part of your unbelief on the doctrine of that church, and not necessarily on what scripture really is saying? Could it be that you too are missing some of the evidence, or are just not wanting to acknowledge it?
Is it possible that you suffer from the prejudice that I must believe before I can understand? I can read english, and I own a concordance, so I can research the definitions of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words so as to avoid twisting of meanings. As to the evidence - we're all missing some, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

3. Yes, God is a God of War, also a God of Justice, also a God of Love, etc... He can be just to judge, can, and will fight to defend himself and his own, and will love and protect his children. He will also punish them for disobediance...did (does)not your father,(or your government for that matter)do the same?
This is a common problem in discussing the god-concept - every theist has his own version of god. You think yours is capable of all sorts of human-like emotions, where others will insist that he is above it all, or other combinations thereof. It's great you think he is capable of judgment of us, but obviously not during our lifetimes, or we wouldn't have an Earthly justice system on top of it. So, we just have to wait for the afterlife for him to judge us - except that no one has reported back that there actually IS an afterlife. So, what good is that judgment? Who does he need to defend himself from? I thought he was omnipotent. Can't he just clap the little offenders out of existence? He may love and protect his children, but my own human parents did a much better job of it. Maybe he can't keep up with all of us...oops! No, he's omnipotent. I keep forgetting. Punishment for disobedience is an interesting concept when he supposedly made us all. Are we just a game to him (let's see how many of them can follow my rules, BWA HA HA HA) or did he just make us defective?

4. Is it possible that you do not have all of the answers, and perhaps some of what seemingly has no evidence, just hasn't been found yet?
I definitely don't have all the answers, and I'm glad Mr. van de Sandt doesn't think he does either. The second part of this sentence, I could not have phrased better myself. Instead of assigning a supernatural reason to things we don't understand, why can't we just wait for the correct answer?

5. Is it possible that the seemingly contradictory items may be contributed to differing viewpoints, or because it was written by men, humans, although inspired by God?
Anything is possible. However, with the enormous - no make that limitless - powers attributed to the god of the bible, it seems that he would have been able to make his own creations do a little better job of being thorough and accurate.

6. Is it possible that some of the things that you (and others) use to say that the Bible is lying, is really only how primative man is trying to describe something he has had no experience with, has never seen before, and really doesn't understand. If I was from back then, I would perhaps describe a helicopter as looking like a large grasshopper, or locust...wouldn't you?
See number 5. If I was on my own - no divine intervention - then sure, I would describe a helicopter as looking like a giant grasshopper.

7. Is it possible that the Bible may really be true, but you would rather just dismiss it, and put it down, rather than to admit you could be wrong?
This is just an attempt to make non-believers feel guilty. Admitting I'm wrong is not one of my inadequacies. If the bible is true, then we will find PROOF that it is true via our scientific capabilities. If you can't prove something objectively, then you can't prove it at all. When there is proof, we will examine it, and we will do our human best to be honest with that proof. Until then, we have the evidence at hand, and it does not come close to being adequate to conclude that the bible is real, that Christianity is true, that any other religion has truth, or that god exists.

Vorkosigan · 02-08-2002, 04:33 PM

Yet not one of them mentioned Jesus. These writers are: Josephus, Seneca, Philo-Judaeus, Pliny the Elder, Seutonius, Juvenal, Martial, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Phlegon, Theon of Smyrna, Persius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Statius, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucanus, Quintilian, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Favorinus, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias and Appion of Alexandria.

Not one of these writers mentioned Jesus

Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny all mention Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christians (indisputably in one passage, possibly in the disputed Chrestus passage). Lucian does not mention Jesus by name, but gives a description that can apply to no one else.

Many of these authors had no interest in topics like Christianity. Aulus Gellius lived in Athens and wrote in Greek on Greece; his works are useful as a storehouse of quotes from lost works. Valerius Flaccus is an obscure epic poet who died about 90, before Christianity became widespread. Valerius Maximus died about 50 and his works were writtin 14-37. Too early again. And so on.

More damaging are Justus of Tiberias, because he was from Galilee and wrote of Jesus' supposed era, and people like Seneca, who was very interested in religion, and Martial, who loved to spoof the Jews but had nothing to say about Christianity. Juvenal too.

I suggest you search these names. It's not at all clear that all of them would have been interested in Christianity, or bothered to write about it.

Michael

Amazon · 02-08-2002, 04:46 PM

Hi Michael.

Actually, I was quoting a Judith Hayes article from Freethought Today. The way I interpret it, she listed all those authors from the time period surrounding the supposed existence of Jesus of Nazareth, who had the opportunity (by being alive at the time and literate) to write about something as fantastic as the events surrounding the crucifixion. Her point was not necessarily that these authors specialized in the subject of Jewish prophets, but that they might have been around and near this awe-inspiring event, yet mentioned nothing about it.

I admit to not delving deeply into the study of the authors listed in the quote. I submitted the scholarship of others to show that Mr. van de Sandt wasn't getting all sides of the story.

I'll have to put it in the "to read" queue.

Photocrat · 02-08-2002, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:

Yet not one of them mentioned Jesus. These writers are: Josephus, Seneca, Philo-Judaeus, Pliny the Elder, Seutonius, Juvenal, Martial, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Phlegon, Theon of Smyrna, Persius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Statius, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucanus, Quintilian, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Favorinus, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias and Appion of Alexandria.

Not one of these writers mentioned Jesus

Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny all mention Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christians (indisputably in one passage, possibly in the disputed Chrestus passage). Lucian does not mention Jesus by name, but gives a description that can apply to no one else.

Many of these authors had no interest in topics like Christianity. Aulus Gellius lived in Athens and wrote in Greek on Greece; his works are useful as a storehouse of quotes from lost works. Valerius Flaccus is an obscure epic poet who died about 90, before Christianity became widespread. Valerius Maximus died about 50 and his works were writtin 14-37. Too early again. And so on.

More damaging are Justus of Tiberias, because he was from Galilee and wrote of Jesus' supposed era, and people like Seneca, who was very interested in religion, and Martial, who loved to spoof the Jews but had nothing to say about Christianity. Juvenal too.

I suggest you search these names. It's not at all clear that all of them would have been interested in Christianity, or bothered to write about it.

Michael

For once, I basically agree with turtonm...

Is there a blue moon tonight or something? :] Oh, wait... it's impossible to have one on the 8th... oops :]

Pantera · 02-08-2002, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diana's correspondant:
There is more evidence of his existance than there is of Plato, Socrates, Ramses, or Helen of Troy combined. Yet, no one doubts their existance.

Helen of Troy? No one doubts the existence of Helen of Troy? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

aikido7 · 02-08-2002, 10:10 PM

The gentleman is obviously choking on the pretzel of his own logic and if he faints and falls he will get up battered and bruised and immediately proclaim himself fine.

An uninformed literal mind is a terrible thing to waste on religion.

lpetrich · 02-08-2002, 11:34 PM

Quote:

RvdS:
I too, at one time was skeptical...but then began to discover some things for myself.

Interesting that many skeptics say just the opposite -- that it was reading the Bible that turned them off of it. Personally, I found very appalling that story of Jesus Christ cursing a certain fig tree for not bearing fruit when he was hungry when it was supposedly out of season.

Quote:

RvdS:
Right off, I'll concede that one of the problems is probably due to traslations over the years. ...

Which suggests that it is not the revelation of an omnipotent being, because such a being could easily implant the text in all our minds, getting around all the transmission and translation and interpretation problems. And that would get around the conundrum of all the people who had never heard of the Bible.

Quote:

RvdS:
1. Creation of the Universe: Genesis account says that God created the Universe, and that at first in was without form and void. ...

Lots of creation myths feature creation from formless matter, and Genesis 1 is consistent with that interpretation.

Quote:

RvdS:
Man, on the other hand, the Bible says was made by God, and the Bible infers "how" he did it. ... Woman, on the other hand, could have been made as the Bible states...

The Adam-and-Eve story has "fairy tale" written all over it; by contrast, it makes Genesis 1 look almost reasonable. That is because the two sexes are very much alike, with most of the physical differences being he result of different growth rates; thus some parts of one sex are much bigger than the corresponding parts of the other sex. Thus, if our species is some special creation, then it would be logical for both sexes to be created at the same time; this would support Genesis 1 but not Genesis 2.

Quote:

RvdS:
Again, no real evidence so far, except that in DNA research, there is evidence that all WOMEN, came from one common WOMAN.

Just the genomes of certain cell organelles called mitochondria, which are inherited along the female line the large majority of the time. These are the descendents of bacteria that had been swallowed by the ancestor of the rest of the cell some 1.5-2 billion years ago (the endosymbiosis hypothesis).

(long lifetimes...)

That's a trimming-down of an old Mesopotamian tradition, that there had once lived some very long-lived kings. However, the lifetimes of these kings extend well into the Paleolithic, when the most they could have ruled is tiny villages.

Quote:

RvdS:
Oh yea, the Bible mentions around this time period that "in those days there were giants in the land"...a reference to dinosars perhaps, something we take as a known fact. I find that a little curious, don't you?

That is too vague to be very meaningful.

Quote:

RvdS:
Speaking of Noah, and the worldwide flood. Virtually every civilization across the globe has legends of a world flood, and most has a family, an ark, and all of the animals escaping the flood in the ark. (Flood traditions throughout the world, Morris, Henry M. "Science and the Bible")

However, the details differ enormously, and are not as alike as Mr. Morris seems to think. Check out what <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org</a> has to say about flood stories some time.

Quote:

RvdS:
Archeologists have found 12 large tablets (discovered late 19th century dating 600bc, others found dating all the way back to 2000bc)that relates a story (poem)called "the story of Gilgamesh" that, except for Noah's name, relates the flood account almost exactly as the Genesis account. NOW we have SOME evidence.

Which indicates that the story of Noah's Flood was copied off of that flood story.

Quote:

RvdS:
In addition, geologists throughout the world will tell you of a layer of silt, found globally, at the same geological level, which has NO fossil remains in it. Extremely strong evidence of a world flood.

WHICH geologists? That's news to me. I'd be surprised if there was any such layer since the Cambrian, with the possible exceptions of the aftermaths of some mass extinctions. However, the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction was 65 myr ago, the Permian-Triassic mass extinction was 245 myr ago, and the beginning of the Cambrian was 544 myr ago. At those times, humanity's ancestors were squirrel-like creatures, reptile/mammal transitions, and amphioxus-like creatures, respectively. And what memories would they have transmitted of those times if they could? "The year of cold and darkness and death and barrenness" for K/T, which is nothing like Noah's Flood.

(a lot of theorizing on how Noah's Flood had happened...)

A pitiful waste of intellectual effort, since there was never any worldwide Noah's Flood.

(Moses and a certain Pharaoh...)

Seems like later mythmaking to me.

Quote:

RvdS:
Science has shown there was a major volcanic eruption around the time of Moses, which could have accounted for each of the "plagues of Egypt" from Moses (except the deaths of the first born)...what would make it a miracle is how could Moses have known, and timed them so perfectly? ...

The volcano is real -- Thera, which had a massive caldera eruption around 1600 BCE. However, Moses's involvement could have emerged from the imaginations of later storytellers.

Quote:

RvdS:
Catholic Bibles have a few more "books" in them that the Protestant Bible does not, as an example. That cannot be blamed on God, or religion in general, or Christianity in general.

As my sister would always say about things like that, that's not my problem. It's not my problem if Xtians can't agree on which holy books to use, or which translations, or ...

Quote:

RvdS:
The Biblical gospels also ring true in that there has been found evidence of the existance of Pontius Pilate, Barabas, and many of the traditions mentioned in the New Testament. ...

However, lots of fictional works feature real people, and the Gospels are apparently an example of that.

(a lot of stuff about Faith in JC as the Messiah...)

Quote:

RvdS:
5. Is it possible that the seemingly contradictory items may be contributed to differing viewpoints, ...

However, contradictions can mean other things; for example, the contradictions in the JC Resurrection accounts are most likely the write of the different Gospel writers filling in some blanks differently.

Quote:

RvdS:
6. Is it possible that some of the things that you (and others) use to say that the Bible is lying, is really only how primative man is trying to describe something he has had no experience with, has never seen before, and really doesn't understand. If I was from back then, I would perhaps describe a helicopter as looking like a large grasshopper, or locust...wouldn't you?

That's still different from being THE ABSOLUTE AND FINAL TRUTH.

Quote:

RvdS:
7. Is it possible that the Bible may really be true, but you would rather just dismiss it, and put it down, rather than to admit you could be wrong?

The Bible contains too many errors and contradictions to be absolute truth. And its "morality" is sometimes very bad, at least judging from our standards.

Jayhawker Soule · 02-09-2002, 04:24 AM

Quote:

From Mr. Ron van de Sandt: ... There is also written archeological evidence of a major drought in Egypt during the XIII and XIV periods...yep, just like the biblical accounts. So when exactly does evidence become proof? When somone invents a time machine and takes you personally there?

There are many, many more "stories" and accounts of the Bible, that has physical evidence in science and archeology. Science has shown there was a major volcanic eruption around the time of Moses, which could have accounted for each of the "plagues of Egypt" from Moses (except the deaths of the first born)...what would make it a miracle is how could Moses have known, and timed them so perfectly? Science explains that the sea could have dried up due to a tsuname caused by said volcano, then when the tsuname came, it would have been sufficient enough to destroy an Egyptian army...again, how could Moses timed it so exactly...unless planned by God (supreme being, supernatural designer, whatever)?

I honestly do not understand the thought processes which enable this type of "argument".

News flash: there is substantial proof, not only that Kansas exists, but also that it is a land with many farms and occasional tornados; this is not likely a sufficient reason to believe in munchkins!

A suggestion: Read "Who Wrote the Bible" and "The Bible Unearthed" and then rejoin the debate. Perhaps we could start with you dating the "Exodus" to the time of Thera.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

02-08-2002, 11:21 AM	#2
Amazon Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chicago area Posts: 210	As requested, I have moved this from the original thread: Hi everyone. I'd like to take a stab at answering/contradicting a few of Mr. van de Sandt's statements that may not yet have been addressed. 1. "Biblical Joseph is mentioned by several ancient historians including Josephus, Eusebius, and Africanus. Some of the rulers mentioned by all of these independant writers during the Egyptian second Intermediate periods XIII and XIV, include Hebrews named Yakobaam (Jacob), and Ishpi (Joseph?)- both Biblical characters and leaders." First, lets look at the Josephus passage: "At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time." (Nathaniel Lardner's translation from 1838) Why should we suspect that this passage is a forgery? First because, although the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages which supported Christianity, and though these early church fathers were quite familiar with the works of Josephus, not one of them quotes this passage in defense of Christianity until Eusebius does in the fourth century. We also know Eusebius to be the man who said that lying for the advancement of the church was quite acceptable. He was probably the one who inserted this suspect passage into Josephus' works. Origen, the famous early Christian apologist, even quotes from other parts of Josephus, but somehow neglects to quote our passage. Origen wrote his book Contra Celsus in about 220 A.D. Secondly, the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities- which have befallen the Jews. This would not be a calamity. Thirdly, the passage has Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, saying that Jesus was the Christ. That is a highly unlikely statement for him to have made. The whole passage reads as if it had been written by a Christian. Josephus is made to call the Christian religion "the truth." He would hardly have said that. Although Josephus reports the miracles of a number of other "prophets," he is silent about the miracles attributed to Jesus. Again, this makes no sense when compared to Josephus' known genuine writings. The last phrase in the quotation, ". .. subsists to this time," referring to the Christians, would not make any sense unless it were written quite some time after Jesus had died. Josephus, on the other hand, wrote the Antiquities in about 90 A.D. The above critique of the Josephus passage is from a paper written by Gordon Stein, Ph.D., called "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell". Mr. van de Sandt may be the type who would read Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and accept his scholarship at face value. The entire rebuttal can be found <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html" target="_blank">here.</a> And I offer this from atheist columnist Judith Hayes: "The following Jewish and pagan writers, living at the time of Jesus' life or during the first century, handed down to us enough of their writings to fill a small library. Yet not one of them mentioned Jesus. These writers are: Josephus, Seneca, Philo-Judaeus, Pliny the Elder, Seutonius, Juvenal, Martial, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Phlegon, Theon of Smyrna, Persius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Statius, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucanus, Quintilian, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Favorinus, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias and Appion of Alexandria. Not one of these writers mentioned Jesus, or his supposed miracles, or his possible insurrection-leading; or the fact that when he died the sun stopped shining at midday, there were earthquakes, and graves opened up allowing corpses to emerge from them alive. You'd think someone would have noticed. These writers were writing about the time and place where Jesus supposedly worked his miracles and died so dramatically. And except for a few obvious Christian interpolations inserted clumsily a couple of centuries later, and universally acknowledged by scholars to be interpolations, these writers are silent about Jesus. How can this be?" 2. "Jericho has been found, Bethlehem, David, Soloman, and the like, evidences which have been found." There is new scholarship on the market in the form of a book called, "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text." written by Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian and journalist Neil Asher Silberman. I have not read it. I have seen a television program outlining the book, so I offer it up as contradictory scholarship. Here are some relevant points raised by the book, copied from the Salon.com article: "...a controversial group of European biblical scholars, sometimes called the Copenhagen School, who have insisted that since there is, to their minds, so little corroborative evidence supporting the stories in the Old Testament, the scriptures should be regarded as a collection of legends, and figures like David and Solomon considered "no more historical than King Arthur." and, "archaeology has shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel … and the world described in the Bible to suggest that the Bible was … fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all." and, "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire. Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public -- a very painful dent. They challenge many of the Old Testament stories central to Israeli beliefs about their own national character and destiny, stories that have influenced much of Western culture as well. The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea)." So, since I have not visited these sights, nor been part of the teams who do the actual research, whose scholarship should we believe? Should I take the word of believers who desperately want to make the evidence fit their beloved scriptures, or the word of archeologists who simply dig up facts, assign dates and purposes based on objective information, then let the world see their findings regardless of the theological consequences? 3. "Writers during the times of Jesus, mention him extensively. No archeological scientist today doubts that there was a physical person, a Jewish prophet, named Jesus." I addressed the first part under point number 1. The second part is obviously false to anyone who watches the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. There are PLENTY of archeological scientists today who do not believe that "Jesus of Nazareth", any way you want to define him, existed. Next time, wait until the commercial break before you go get the Doritos. You miss the best stuff. More later, if I have time. [ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Amazon ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2002, 11:26 AM	#3
Amazon Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chicago area Posts: 210	I'm back! I'll try to make this a little shorter. Mr. van de Sandt asked some questions of Diana at the end. While everyone's answers are a little different, I'll provide some of mine. 1. Is it possible that your church was TOO strict, and made all or most of those "rules" out of tradition, NOT on what the bible really says, and THAT perhaps is your real problem with religion of any kind? None of my churches were strict. Actually, my churches have concentrated more on how we as humans treat each other than on the bible itself. But if the god-concept doesn't make sense, how can Christianity, based on the presupposition of a god and supernaturalism, be true? Nothing against the churches, necessarily, nor the lovely people who attend them. There just simply is no evidence for any gods - biblical, new age, specialized pagan, or any other. 2. Is it possible that you are basing a good part of your unbelief on the doctrine of that church, and not necessarily on what scripture really is saying? Could it be that you too are missing some of the evidence, or are just not wanting to acknowledge it? Is it possible that you suffer from the prejudice that I must believe before I can understand? I can read english, and I own a concordance, so I can research the definitions of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words so as to avoid twisting of meanings. As to the evidence - we're all missing some, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. 3. Yes, God is a God of War, also a God of Justice, also a God of Love, etc... He can be just to judge, can, and will fight to defend himself and his own, and will love and protect his children. He will also punish them for disobediance...did (does)not your father,(or your government for that matter)do the same? This is a common problem in discussing the god-concept - every theist has his own version of god. You think yours is capable of all sorts of human-like emotions, where others will insist that he is above it all, or other combinations thereof. It's great you think he is capable of judgment of us, but obviously not during our lifetimes, or we wouldn't have an Earthly justice system on top of it. So, we just have to wait for the afterlife for him to judge us - except that no one has reported back that there actually IS an afterlife. So, what good is that judgment? Who does he need to defend himself from? I thought he was omnipotent. Can't he just clap the little offenders out of existence? He may love and protect his children, but my own human parents did a much better job of it. Maybe he can't keep up with all of us...oops! No, he's omnipotent. I keep forgetting. Punishment for disobedience is an interesting concept when he supposedly made us all. Are we just a game to him (let's see how many of them can follow my rules, BWA HA HA HA) or did he just make us defective? 4. Is it possible that you do not have all of the answers, and perhaps some of what seemingly has no evidence, just hasn't been found yet? I definitely don't have all the answers, and I'm glad Mr. van de Sandt doesn't think he does either. The second part of this sentence, I could not have phrased better myself. Instead of assigning a supernatural reason to things we don't understand, why can't we just wait for the correct answer? 5. Is it possible that the seemingly contradictory items may be contributed to differing viewpoints, or because it was written by men, humans, although inspired by God? Anything is possible. However, with the enormous - no make that limitless - powers attributed to the god of the bible, it seems that he would have been able to make his own creations do a little better job of being thorough and accurate. 6. Is it possible that some of the things that you (and others) use to say that the Bible is lying, is really only how primative man is trying to describe something he has had no experience with, has never seen before, and really doesn't understand. If I was from back then, I would perhaps describe a helicopter as looking like a large grasshopper, or locust...wouldn't you? See number 5. If I was on my own - no divine intervention - then sure, I would describe a helicopter as looking like a giant grasshopper. 7. Is it possible that the Bible may really be true, but you would rather just dismiss it, and put it down, rather than to admit you could be wrong? This is just an attempt to make non-believers feel guilty. Admitting I'm wrong is not one of my inadequacies. If the bible is true, then we will find PROOF that it is true via our scientific capabilities. If you can't prove something objectively, then you can't prove it at all. When there is proof, we will examine it, and we will do our human best to be honest with that proof. Until then, we have the evidence at hand, and it does not come close to being adequate to conclude that the bible is real, that Christianity is true, that any other religion has truth, or that god exists.

02-08-2002, 04:33 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Yet not one of them mentioned Jesus. These writers are: Josephus, Seneca, Philo-Judaeus, Pliny the Elder, Seutonius, Juvenal, Martial, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Phlegon, Theon of Smyrna, Persius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Statius, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucanus, Quintilian, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Favorinus, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias and Appion of Alexandria. Not one of these writers mentioned Jesus Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny all mention Jesus. Suetonius mentions Christians (indisputably in one passage, possibly in the disputed Chrestus passage). Lucian does not mention Jesus by name, but gives a description that can apply to no one else. Many of these authors had no interest in topics like Christianity. Aulus Gellius lived in Athens and wrote in Greek on Greece; his works are useful as a storehouse of quotes from lost works. Valerius Flaccus is an obscure epic poet who died about 90, before Christianity became widespread. Valerius Maximus died about 50 and his works were writtin 14-37. Too early again. And so on. More damaging are Justus of Tiberias, because he was from Galilee and wrote of Jesus' supposed era, and people like Seneca, who was very interested in religion, and Martial, who loved to spoof the Jews but had nothing to say about Christianity. Juvenal too. I suggest you search these names. It's not at all clear that all of them would have been interested in Christianity, or bothered to write about it. Michael

02-08-2002, 04:46 PM	#5
Amazon Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Chicago area Posts: 210	Hi Michael. Actually, I was quoting a Judith Hayes article from Freethought Today. The way I interpret it, she listed all those authors from the time period surrounding the supposed existence of Jesus of Nazareth, who had the opportunity (by being alive at the time and literate) to write about something as fantastic as the events surrounding the crucifixion. Her point was not necessarily that these authors specialized in the subject of Jewish prophets, but that they might have been around and near this awe-inspiring event, yet mentioned nothing about it. I admit to not delving deeply into the study of the authors listed in the quote. I submitted the scholarship of others to show that Mr. van de Sandt wasn't getting all sides of the story. I'll have to put it in the "to read" queue.

02-08-2002, 10:10 PM	#8
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	The gentleman is obviously choking on the pretzel of his own logic and if he faints and falls he will get up battered and bruised and immediately proclaim himself fine. An uninformed literal mind is a terrible thing to waste on religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.