KnightWhoSaysNi

(Magus and Badfish must be grinning from ear to ear reading this thread. )

Anyways. I have similar doubts and uncertainties too, depending on the claim.

On the matter of evolution, I have a high degree of certainty that Magus, Badfish, and other creationists are wrong. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. By arguing against evolution, they look like as if they are arguing the sun and stars revolve around the earth. I actually think they're doing Christianity a disfavour by opposing evolutionary science.

On theism, that's something I'm more open to. I don't think there's sufficient evidence for belief in a god, but there are some plausible arguments that at least seem tangible to me. I could not fault someone as irrational if they took a leap of faith to believe in a supreme being or some form of spirituality. This is where I'm just not sure.

On the matter of the divinity of Christ or Yahwist religious beliefs? I admit that a nagging doubt might come along. I see very intelligent people like Denis Lamoureux or William Craig who accept evangelical Christianity and it makes me wonder sometimes. Could they somehow be right? Could it be that I'm so protective of my self-autonomy that I somehow cognitively block out God? From my former theism, I have the occasional lingering thought of the transcendental blackmail of eternal torture in hell. But to choose a belief system based on fear and intimidation via Pascal's Wager is repugnant to me.

But overall, I have a reasonably high degree of certainty that fundamentalist Christianity is false. There's just so much stuff that's twisted, crazy, and absurd about it, that my mind can't possibly embrace it. For example, you're supposed believe that God is love, but at the same time (from a read of the OT) accept that it was okay to butcher children in genocidal wars or chop a woman's hand off because she touched a man's genitals in a fight.

Korihor (formerly, 'Nightshade')

Magus55

I'd say it requires dismissing common sense and logic to accept that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. There are other accounts of Him, and a mythical character does not become the most famous person in human history. Why do you not accept the Bible as a historical account? Its historical in all the places and people it talks about, so why wouldn't it be about Jesus? Very few historians or archaeologists would ever deny Jesus in fact walked the Earth.

Now, why do you assume he didn't live the life described in the Gospel. Do you believe that the Apostles made up the story? Again, you have to dismiss all common sense and human experience to say they make up a fictional book. First of all, the Apostles were cowards previously, and feared what they saw. When Jesus was ressurected, they completely turned around, and preached the Gospel to the Masses. Something caused that abrupt change. Now, if the story was fictional, why would the Apostles die to support something they knew to be a lie? No one gets crucified or dunked in boiling oil to promote a fictional book - thats rediculous.

Another convincing support is the spread of Christianity. First of all, Legends/myths don't start as fast as Christianity did. We have non biblical support from historians in the first and second centuries describing the persecution of Christians. A Legend could not come about that fast, as to fool so many people. It was also very common for leaders to claim they were gods or special (but they never proved it). Once those leaders were killed, their followers dispersed because they had nothing left to hold on to. Obviously if the leaders dead, he wasn't who he said he was. So why didn't the Apostles return to their Jewish roots? If Jesus died, and stayed dead - obviously He was lying, and they had no reason to follow His teachings. Yet they followed Him to their death. Something kept them believing after Jesus' death.

Now prophecies. Sure you can claim Jesus never fulfilled any, but the only way to do that is claim that Jesus read the OT and made sure He fulfilled it to look like the Messiah. Now, you could get away with that idea, until you come to prophecies which He can't control. Like, a detailed description of Jesus' crucifiction, 1000 years before crucifiction was ever invented. Jesus being betrayed by the Apostles, or being hated. Jesus being born in Bethlehem, etc. Jesus had no control over those kinds of prophecies, yet they are stated in the OT, and a thousand years later - recorded as happening by the Apostles. Now if the Apostles just took the OT prophecies and write them down as fulfilled in the new, what would be the point? Why spread a fictional story that is a crime of treason in the Roman Empire? Exalting anyone above the Emperor back then was high treason. They weren't dumb enough to get executed just to make a false story seem true.

Bree

Really? Can you provide some examples?

Philosoft

Magus, repost that whole thing in BC&A. Go ahead. I dare you.

Yellum Notnef

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magus55
I'd say it requires dismissing common sense and logic to accept that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

Metacrock couldn't even pull off this stunt and he was professionally trained in apologetics at a seminary.
But here you come as a brand new Christian still wet behind the ears and foolishly try it yourself.

You really do live in your own little world.

Celsus

Hello Magus,
Many questions, so little time. I do not accept the Bible as a historical account until evidence shows me that it is trustworthy. For example, I consider the Apocryphal books of 1 & 2 Maccabees to be historical--as far as the term can be applied to ancient works of history, for all their superstitious pronouncements and reports of hearsay. Likewise, I accept the existence of Biblical kings such as Omri, Ahab, and Jehu, simply because external corroboration has shown that they did exist. But, that doesn't mean I don't take the stories about them with a massive dose of salt, let alone believe the supernatural events written in Kings and Chronicles about them.
I don't accept the story of Jesus as reported in the Gospels, because of lack of evidence. Unfortunately, I don't think I could explain this to you without going into far too many technicalities. Do you know of the two-source hypothesis for the formation of the Synoptics? Do you know why Paul is so strangely silent about the life of Jesus? Do you know when the Gospels may be dated? Do you know when the first external mentions of the Gospels are made? Do you know what Jewish burial customs and Roman legislation were in the first century? There are many many factors that you haven't even begun to consider.

And as for the question "why would the Apostles die for a lie?": I ask you: show me evidence that the Apostles died for a lie.
Not at all. Christianity took some three centuries to get established as the religion of the Roman emperor. It didn't even get noticed in the first fifty years of its existence. The Scientologists have done better. Still, that doesn't prove anything. Secondly, the historian you are refering to is one Suetonius, refering to Jews stirring up trouble at the instigation of "Chrestus"--writing as if Chrestus was in Rome. Aside from that minor difficulty, Christos is a title, not a name, so it proves nothing except that someone claiming the messianic mantle (and there were many) was stirring up trouble. Doesn't sound like the lovely peaceful Jesus now does it? And as for your question, "Why didn't the Apostles return to their Jewish roots?" the answer is--perhaps they did! Because with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the fledgling Christian community there disappeared, and was not revived until the fourth century. Instead, Christianity survived only in the Roman Empire, but not in its original lands, and certainly not by Jews.
Firstly, straw man. You've failed the prophecy challenge, and you still wish to repeat your claim that the only way to do it is for Jesus working out a self-fulfilling prophecy? Secondly, I am not aware of any books of the Bible written 1000 years before the crucifixion. Please enlighten me. Or rather, do you know which book of the Bible is the earliest? If your answer is "Genesis" prepare to be disappointed.
Fiction was a crime of treason? Where do you pull these stories from Magus? You seriously believe that the Romans banned all religions other than Emperor worship? Please, oh please, do back up your claims, and not with more laughable assertions.

Joel

njhartsh

At the risk of being slightly off-topic in GRD...

On the evolution point, I find one of the introductory documents at http://www.talkorigins.org to be very useful: it's called "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution." I am very much a layperson where science is concerned, but I found it awfully comprehensive and comprehensible. Give it a try!

- Nathan

Gemma Therese

The fear of hell is not the purest motivating factor for following God -- rather, a desire to be with Him so we may love Him more perfectly is.

Gemma Therese

Mageth

I'd say it requires dismissing common sense and logic to accept that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. There are other accounts of Him, and a mythical character does not become the most famous person in human history.

Buddha!

You need to separate the man from the myth. JC (or one or more men on which the JC character is based) probably did exist, but the myth that grew around him is just that: a myth. History is full of such probably or absolutely "real" characters who have grown into mythical icons, e.g. Buddha, Jesus, George Washington, many Catholic saints, perhaps King Arthur, Charlemange, etc.

Why do you not accept the Bible as a historical account? Its historical in all the places and people it talks about, so why wouldn't it be about Jesus?

You make the common mistake of thinking that much of the bible was originally intended as an historical account, or that the bible must be taken as historically accurate. Many of the OT characters fit the archetypal heroic icons similarly found in Greek, Hindu, and other world writings. Their stories are not intended as history, but as myth.

Do you believe that the Apostles made up the story?

A large part of it, yes.

Again, you have to dismiss all common sense and human experience to say they make up a fictional book.

And you would have to do the same for many others, including Homer and the writers of the Hindu literature, for example.

Now, if the story was fictional, why would the Apostles die to support something they knew to be a lie? No one gets crucified or dunked in boiling oil to promote a fictional book - thats rediculous.

Interesting. You're supporting one myth with another - the myths of the Apostles all dying for their beliefs. Perhaps true for some, but probably mythical for others.

Another convincing support is the spread of Christianity. First of all, Legends/myths don't start as fast as Christianity did. We have non biblical support from historians in the first and second centuries describing the persecution of Christians. A Legend could not come about that fast, as to fool so many people. It was also very common for leaders to claim they were gods or special (but they never proved it). Once those leaders were killed, their followers dispersed because they had nothing left to hold on to. Obviously if the leaders dead, he wasn't who he said he was.

You seem to be missing obvious examples such as Joseph Smith and the LDS.

Now prophecies. Sure you can claim Jesus never fulfilled any, but the only way to do that is claim that Jesus read the OT and made sure He fulfilled it to look like the Messiah. Now, you could get away with that idea, until you come to prophecies which He can't control.

Not the only way. A possible, actually probable, explanation for this is that the myths were developed and recorded to incorporate those prophecies.

Now if the Apostles just took the OT prophecies and write them down as fulfilled in the new, what would be the point? Why spread a fictional story that is a crime of treason in the Roman Empire? Exalting anyone above the Emperor back then was high treason. They weren't dumb enough to get executed just to make a false story seem true.

Actually, the Roman Empire was quite adept at allowing or adapting other religions as a way of conquesting/controlling other cultures. Even Jesus allegedly said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." This is possibly an addition to the myth intending to placate the Romans.

And again with using one myth to support another.

Evil Milkman

This is my new favorite come-back. Thanks, Ronin!