(September 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: Generally, when there is a consensus, I tend to accept it unless I find reasons to have doubts.

Except when it comes to the existence of Jesus, then you simply have doubts for no good reason.

There are a multitude of sources that contribute to the "doubt" of Jesus, from the lack of historical verifiability to the breakdown of where the NT got its inspirations from. You have one errancy-filled book, loaded with unfulfilled prophecies to back up your faith. Sounds like a good reason to doubt him to me.

Quote: Instead he offered, "I can prove it to you, and then I can prove it again, and then I can prove it some more."

I wonder how he did that when science doesn’t deal with proof.
[/quote]

What world do you live on? Science is not perfect, and yeah, a lot of it deals in theories, but it proves far more than the Bible does. Scientific theories make guesses using confirmable information. Religious theories try to explain everything supernaturally, which cannot be verified Why is there no geological evidence of a great flood? Why is there no historical record of the Jews ever existing in Egypt? Science has a lot more proof to it than religion. You need to go back to school. You've forgotten what a "fact" is.

(September 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: There are a multitude of sources that contribute to the "doubt" of Jesus, from the lack of historical verifiability to the breakdown of where the NT got its inspirations from. You have one errancy-filled book, loaded with unfulfilled prophecies to back up your faith. Sounds like a good reason to doubt him to me.

Are you talking about doubting Christ’s divinity or doubting his existence? Let’s not conflate the two. You have provided no reason to doubt his existence.

Quote: What world do you live on? Science is not perfect, and yeah, a lot of it deals in theories, but it proves far more than the Bible does. Scientific theories make guesses using confirmable information. Religious theories try to explain everything supernaturally, which cannot be verified Why is there no geological evidence of a great flood? Why is there no historical record of the Jews ever existing in Egypt? Science has a lot more proof to it than religion. You need to go back to school. You've forgotten what a "fact" is.

On the contrary, what world do you live in? Science is based upon inductive reasoning; it therefore does not deal with proof. Only logic and mathematics deal in the realm of proof. You cannot scientifically prove anything; to think that you can is nothing more than a layman’s misconception.

Read up!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...ific-proof

(September 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 6:24 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: There are a multitude of sources that contribute to the "doubt" of Jesus, from the lack of historical verifiability to the breakdown of where the NT got its inspirations from. You have one errancy-filled book, loaded with unfulfilled prophecies to back up your faith. Sounds like a good reason to doubt him to me.

Are you talking about doubting Christ’s divinity or doubting his existence? Let’s not conflate the two. You have provided no reason to doubt his existence.

Quote: What world do you live on? Science is not perfect, and yeah, a lot of it deals in theories, but it proves far more than the Bible does. Scientific theories make guesses using confirmable information. Religious theories try to explain everything supernaturally, which cannot be verified Why is there no geological evidence of a great flood? Why is there no historical record of the Jews ever existing in Egypt? Science has a lot more proof to it than religion. You need to go back to school. You've forgotten what a "fact" is.

On the contrary, what world do you live in? Science is based upon inductive reasoning; it therefore does not deal with proof. Only logic and mathematics deal in the realm of proof. You cannot scientifically prove anything; to think that you can is nothing more than a layman’s misconception.

Read up!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...ific-proof

Um, I'm not going to spend all day spewing evidence that Jesus wasn't historically significant or even divine until the Gospels interpolated Pagan ideals into their little cult. I don't have enough time to tell you all those things. Doubt me? Look them up on a site that isn't religiously biased.

And, basically, science is reasoning and logic, not blind speculation like religion is. Next time you are stumped with a problem, remember that you have two choices: use reasoning and logic to find the answer, or just pray to God for the answer. Which one do you think will get you a better result?

Interesting how you totally ignored my questions...

(September 19, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Um, I'm not going to spend all day spewing evidence that Jesus wasn't historically significant or even divine until the Gospels interpolated Pagan ideals into their little cult. I don't have enough time to tell you all those things. Doubt me? Look them up on a site that isn't religiously biased.

Yes, I doubt you. No such evidence exists.

Quote: And, basically, science is reasoning and logic, not blind speculation like religion is. Next time you are stumped with a problem, remember that you have two choices: use reasoning and logic to find the answer, or just pray to God for the answer. Which one do you think will get you a better result?

No, science is not the same thing as deductive logic, that’s flat out wrong. There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Quote: Interesting how you totally ignored my questions...

Which questions? About the flood and Egypt? What does the flood have to do with Jesus? Secondly, what sort of evidence would you expect from Egypt? Hotel receipts?

(September 19, 2013 at 7:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 7:13 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Um, I'm not going to spend all day spewing evidence that Jesus wasn't historically significant or even divine until the Gospels interpolated Pagan ideals into their little cult. I don't have enough time to tell you all those things. Doubt me? Look them up on a site that isn't religiously biased.

Yes, I doubt you. No such evidence exists.

Quote: And, basically, science is reasoning and logic, not blind speculation like religion is. Next time you are stumped with a problem, remember that you have two choices: use reasoning and logic to find the answer, or just pray to God for the answer. Which one do you think will get you a better result?

No, science is not the same thing as deductive logic, that’s flat out wrong. There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Quote: Interesting how you totally ignored my questions...

Which questions? About the flood and Egypt? What does the flood have to do with Jesus? Secondly, what sort of evidence would you expect from Egypt? Hotel receipts?

So, basically, if you don't agree with it, it has no merit, and you'll never let yourself be convinced otherwise. I don't know if that's more ignorance or arrogance, but it certainly puts a damper on your potential for spiritual growth.

Best of luck. You're gonna need it.

(September 19, 2013 at 12:35 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

Quote:Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.

It's not a matter of liking. It's a matter of what we can know.

So what do you think would constitute an authentic source for actually knowing that Jesus existed?

What about the earliest followers, the earliest writers, and the closest disciples who all testified to his existence? They were just lying about it?

If your answer is yes to the last question, then the next question is, do you really know that they lied?

I don't think it's a matter of knowing, but a matter of which is more likely.

(September 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: In order to discredit Tacitus you’d have to prove there were other supposed Messiah’s sentenced to death by Pontius Pilot whose followers were known as Christians and who were blamed for the fire in Rome by Nero.

I'm sorry, Stat, but that particular spelling is just not going to fly.

(September 19, 2013 at 7:21 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Then you must accept the proclamations of David Icke with the same vigor that you accept the proclamations in the Bible. Otherwise you are left with claiming, without science, a nose so accurate that you can differentiate between aromas of bullshit; only then to choose one to wallow in.

Me? I simply smell bullshit and choose not to step in it.

(September 19, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 12:35 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: It's not a matter of liking. It's a matter of what we can know.

So what do you think would constitute an authentic source for actually knowing that Jesus existed?

Any record earlier than 48 CE, which we do not have

What about the earliest followers, the earliest writers, and the closest disciples who all testified to his existence? They were just lying about it?

We don't know what the earliest followers believed, because, again, we have nothing before 48 CE, almost 20 years after Jesus died. If you study the Epistles of Paul, not once does he say he learned anything from the apostles or early Christians. He always says his info is from scripture (which we do not have anymore) and revelation (which can not be verified). What did the apostles teach him? Who knows?

If your answer is yes to the last question, then the next question is, do you really know that they lied?

I don't know if they were lying, but the story of Jesus greatly changes over time. What Paul wrote about has little in common with what the Gospel of John says, for example.

I don't think it's a matter of knowing, but a matter of which is more likely.

If you analyze the historicity of the Christian faith, you will see its stories become less and less the "likely" truth. Jesus was of no concern to the Jews or the Romans while he was alive, he only grew in importance with the spread of Christianity to the pagans, and the adaptation of Pagan myths (such as the virgin birth and rising on the 3rd day) and fantasy into the story of his life.

(September 19, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Rayaan Wrote: So what do you think would constitute an authentic source for actually knowing that Jesus existed?

What about the earliest followers, the earliest writers, and the closest disciples who all testified to his existence? They were just lying about it?

If your answer is yes to the last question, then the next question is, do you really know that they lied?

I don't think it's a matter of knowing, but a matter of which is more likely.

You're creating a false dichotomy, Rayaan. It's entirely possible that these people never even existed and are nothing more than fanciful characters. When looking at historical documents, you have to see what other historians were saying at the time. Someone of the stature that Jesus rises to in the bible would have been written about by many different writers, but all we can find to substantiate Jesus' existence are the bible and a few very questionable external sources.

What appears to be most likely is that either no Jesus existed, or the Jesus that did exist was so vastly different from what the bible describes that it's barely valid to say Christ was based on a real person.