Hi, I'm a Christian. Help Me Disprove My Religion!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Tell the mods to get the "big hammer", someone call Thor.

Is using one god to take out another god something like "the best weapon against a sniper is another sniper"?

[robvalue]

It depends how much collateral damage you're happy with. I find the best weapon against a sniper is to nuke the whole country.

This does also take out the sniper's target who I'm meant to protect, but you can't have everything.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

It depends how much collateral damage you're happy with. I find the best weapon against a sniper is to nuke the whole country.

This does also take out the sniper's target who I'm meant to protect, but you can't have everything.

[Aractus]

Sorry to upset you, but you literally did ask. As for DNA I would compare it to his lineage like they are doing in Russia with the Romanovs. You weren't asking about the ancient world. But the case for the existence of historical figures is uncertain. For example there is no actual evidence that Socrates was a real person and there are some who posit that he was a figure made up by Plato to illustrate a point. ( I saw a documentary the other week on the BBC about Socrates and this was mentioned).

There has been some question about whether Socrates really existed or was only ever a creation of Plato. Just about everyone agrees that the Socrates in the later dialogues is a creation, but what about the earlier ones? The differences between the two figures is one reason to think that a real Socrates existed, There are also a few references made by other authors. If Socrates didn’t exist, however, that wouldn’t affect the ideas attributed to him.

 
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosopherb...crates.htm

Real historians call (most) history documentaries "History Porn". And your terminology "there is no actual evidence" is wrong. We have writings from other people that provide evidence for his existence, so there is evidence. As to whether there is enough evidence to establish his historicity, that's a question you need to ask historians not some documentary you saw.

Denying the science of history and archaeology - as you clearly do - is no different to denying the sciences of medicine, geology, and astronomy.

As for Jesus explain to me how James's theology is so well aligned to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels when the book of James was written before any of the gospels - and if the gospels were written late (around 85 AD) then the Epistle of James is around 35-40 years older than the gospels. How did he possibly get his teachings so tightly aligned to what Jesus is reported to have said in the gospels if Jesus never existed, never said anything, and somebody made up what he said in 85AD?

Furthermore, Paul's teachings are less aligned to Jesus's teachings in the gospel. How is this possible without a real Jesus? If the sayings attributed to Jesus were all made up in 85 AD why wouldn't they agree more with what Paul had to say?

Why did they need to hold a council in 50AD to decide whether to keep the custom of circumcision? If everything that Jesus is reported to have said was made up in 85AD how come he doesn't say "you no longer need to keep the custom of circumcision" - and instead is quoted as saying something completely contradictory in Matthew 5:17-18?

[downbeatplumb]

The documentary was by Bethany Hughes for the BBC not a production for the "history" Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettany_Hughes

Hughes has taught at Bristol, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge universities. She is currently a Research Fellow of King's College London, a tutor for Cambridge University's Institute of Continuing Education,[5] an Honorary Fellow of Cardiff University, and the recipient of an Honorary Doctorate from the University of York.[6]

The basic idea is that writings by other people are not evidence for the person but evidence that someone was writing. So for example it was possible that Plato was writing about a "type" of person and Socrates was a gestalt entity made of the figure and similarly the figure parodied in a play which mentions Socrates could be parodying the figure invented by Plato.

Personally I think there was a Socrates and so did Mrs Hughes BUT the lack of direct evidence for him makes it possible he was a fiction, this is a valid argument that was addressed in the documentary which covered all of Socrates life, research into him and debates about meanings of his work.

I also think there was a David Koresch type charistmatic charlatan who the "jesus" character was based on. But this my own opinion and the historicity of jesus is far from proven.
By the way is aligning of writings proof for or against a historical jesus? you are arguing both ways at the same time.

[Redbeard The Pink]

No, it's far more likely that it was ...

Provide a scholarly reference please.

No thanks. Have fun in church on Sunday.

[Aractus]

---

The documentary was by Bethany Hughes for the BBC not a production for the "history" Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettany_Hughes

Hughes has taught at Bristol, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge universities. She is currently a Research Fellow of King's College London, a tutor for Cambridge University's Institute of Continuing Education,[5] an Honorary Fellow of Cardiff University, and the recipient of an Honorary Doctorate from the University of York.[6]

The basic idea is that writings by other people are not evidence for the person but evidence that someone was writing. So for example it was possible that Plato was writing about a "type" of person and Socrates was a gestalt entity made of the figure and similarly the figure parodied in a play which mentions Socrates could be parodying the figure invented by Plato.

Personally I think there was a Socrates and so did Mrs Hughes BUT the lack of direct evidence for him makes it possible he was a fiction, this is a valid argument that was addressed in the documentary which covered all of Socrates life, research into him and debates about meanings of his work.

I also think there was a David Koresch type charistmatic charlatan who the "jesus" character was based on. But this my own opinion and the historicity of jesus is far from proven.
By the way is aligning of writings proof for or against a historical jesus? you are arguing both ways at the same time.

---

Bethany Hughes has written books on Socrates, she doesn't doubt his historicity:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/be...62/?no-ist

I already pointed out to you there is evidence don't be disingenuous and say there isn't. Ancient writings by other people are evidence for the existence of the person they're writing about. You can build a strong case from such evidence.

In any case, the case for the existence of Jesus is much stronger than that for Socrates. As I've pointed out to you, scholars such as Ehrman and Hurtado have both said on multiple occasions there is direct evidence for the existence of Jesus. That's because Paul know the family of Jesus. It's one thing to say that the gospel writers didn't - but Paul did. He couldn't know the family of someone that isn't real.

By the way is aligning of writings proof for or against a historical jesus? you are arguing both ways at the same time.

Then perhaps you should understand the argument. James is, in my opinion, THE earliest Christian writing that exists in the New Testament. It is written before 50AD. Paul's writings begin around 52-54 AD, AFTER the Jerusalem Council. We know from both Paul and Luke that the council discussed theological matters - in particular whether Christians would need to keep the custom of circumcision, and they decided against it. James is writing before this - his Epistle is so Jewish that it could almost pass for being a Jewish text instead of a Christian text. Paul's theology is less directly based on Jesus's teachings, and for that reason it's more evolved. It started in 29AD with Jesus's teachings - by the time James writes his epistle it's clear from the content that the church is still following his theology quite closely. Paul's theology is different and moves further away from the church's theology of the 30-40's as the non-Jews have begun being converted, and after 50AD they are main people being converted to the religion.

So as you see the chronology agrees perfectly with a real Jesus who delivered the teachings recorded in the gospels. There are at least 16 direct parallels between James and the Sermon on the Mount (), and there are at least another 10 direct parallels to other teachings of Jesus. Sometimes what James says is nearly word-for-word identical to what Jesus is quoted as saying in the gospels. Yet the gospels hadn't been written yet - even by the earliest reckoned date - and James never directly quotes Jesus.

So the Sermon on the Mount already exists in 49AD for James to learn from. And not just that, but the other things Jesus said as well.

So again, how is this possible if someone simply invented what Jesus said in 85 AD? How does James have specific intimate detailed knowledge of the teachings of Jesus before they're written?

If Jesus didn't exist then who came up with the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of Good Samaritan, and the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

[Redbeard The Pink]

The point we're making (or the point I'm making, anyway) is that it does not matter one fucking bit what real person/people originally told those stories and offered those teachings, even if it was a guy named Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph son of Thrane son of Eventually King David and Adam.


The fact still remains that the magical action-figure zombie version that's actually in the Bible stories did not exist as is written in those stories because humans do not have magical powers or rise from the dead, and because it's a completely nonsensical premise that the Creator God of the Universe birthed himself onto Earth to sacrifice himself to himself to asuage his own anger over the inherent spiritual stain of humans butt-fucking each other, but he can't be bothered to say in the Bible that slavery is actually wrong.


If the OP wants an argument against Christianity, that is one general tack I routinely use. Even if a guy named Yeshua Yosef von Nazareth really did exist, the Bible version did not exist in the same sense that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter did not exist.


What amazes me is that atheists who positively believe in a historical Jesus are willing to sweep aside the magical/miraculous portions of the Gospels as garbage, but will then try to parse out what a historical Jesus might have actually said from the same second- and third-hand, partially forged, religious testimonials that fabricated the stories of the miraculous behavior. It sounds exactly like any cherry-picking Theist. "Ok, I don't necessarily believe in this, this, this, or this, but come ooooon...some part of this has to be true, right? I mean, a lot of people really, really think so, and there's all this writing and stuff, and are you just gonna dismiss all historical evidence for everyone's existence? Do you think John F. Kennedy didn't exist? Are you stupid?"


If I treat the authors of other fairy tales as historians, I can make the same general argument about, say, Hansel and Gretel. Ok, maybe witches with magic aren't real, and maybe she didn't live in a candy house, and there are so many versions of the story it's hard to tell exactly what happened, but most of those stories have in common that there were two children, a boy and a girl, that they snuck away from their father, and that they met an old woman in the woods who eats little children, and that the boy tried and failed to use bread crumbs to find their way home, so those things probably did happen. Oh, and everything Hansel said during the story was definitely said by an actual boy named Hansel, because who but a boy named Hansel could come up with those things to say? Are you suggesting that some mere author or storyteller just made all that up? Do you think fiction just comes from inside people's heads out of thin air or something? Cite your sources, please.


Really, Rake? Get ahold of yourself.

[downbeatplumb]

---

The documentary was by Bethany Hughes for the BBC not a production for the "history" Channel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettany_Hughes


The basic idea is that writings by other people are not evidence for the person but evidence that someone was writing. So for example it was possible that Plato was writing about a "type" of person and Socrates was a gestalt entity made of the figure and similarly the figure parodied in a play which mentions Socrates could be parodying the figure invented by Plato.

Personally I think there was a Socrates and so did Mrs Hughes BUT the lack of direct evidence for him makes it possible he was a fiction, this is a valid argument that was addressed in the documentary which covered all of Socrates life, research into him and debates about meanings of his work.

I also think there was a David Koresch type charistmatic charlatan who the "jesus" character was based on. But this my own opinion and the historicity of jesus is far from proven.
By the way is aligning of writings proof for or against a historical jesus? you are arguing both ways at the same time.

---

Bethany Hughes has written books on Socrates, she doesn't doubt his historicity:

Yes I know, but she also mentioned that his existence was not universally accepted. If you look at my earlier post you will notice that both she and I think there was a historical Socrates. the point is that there is an argument to be made for him being fictional.

I already pointed out to you there is evidence don't be disingenuous and say there isn't. Ancient writings by other people are evidence for the existence of the person they're writing about. You can build a strong case from such evidence.

But you cant prove it, just make a case. this is the point.

In any case, the case for the existence of Jesus is much stronger than that for Socrates. As I've pointed out to you, scholars such as Ehrman and Hurtado have both said on multiple occasions there is direct evidence for the existence of Jesus. That's because Paul know the family of Jesus. It's one thing to say that the gospel writers didn't - but Paul did. He couldn't know the family of someone that isn't real.

I disagree. The evidence I have seen for Jesus seems to be weak. But then I must repeat my position that I think there probably was a historical jesus, but this is just my opinion and I could not support his existence to my satisfatction.

By the way is aligning of writings proof for or against a historical jesus? you are arguing both ways at the same time.

Then perhaps you should understand the argument. James is, in my opinion, THE earliest Christian writing that exists in the New Testament. It is written before 50AD. Paul's writings begin around 52-54 AD, AFTER the Jerusalem Council. We know from both Paul and Luke that the council discussed theological matters - in particular whether Christians would need to keep the custom of circumcision, and they decided against it. James is writing before this - his Epistle is so Jewish that it could almost pass for being a Jewish text instead of a Christian text. Paul's theology is less directly based on Jesus's teachings, and for that reason it's more evolved. It started in 29AD with Jesus's teachings - by the time James writes his epistle it's clear from the content that the church is still following his theology quite closely. Paul's theology is different and moves further away from the church's theology of the 30-40's as the non-Jews have begun being converted, and after 50AD they are main people being converted to the religion.

So as you see the chronology agrees perfectly with a real Jesus who delivered the teachings recorded in the gospels. There are at least 16 direct parallels between James and the Sermon on the Mount (), and there are at least another 10 direct parallels to other teachings of Jesus. Sometimes what James says is nearly word-for-word identical to what Jesus is quoted as saying in the gospels. Yet the gospels hadn't been written yet - even by the earliest reckoned date - and James never directly quotes Jesus.

So the Sermon on the Mount already exists in 49AD for James to learn from. And not just that, but the other things Jesus said as well.

So again, how is this possible if someone simply invented what Jesus said in 85 AD? How does James have specific intimate detailed knowledge of the teachings of Jesus before they're written?

If Jesus didn't exist then who came up with the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of Good Samaritan, and the Parable of the Prodigal Son?

Someone else.

[Randy Carson]

Essentially the same that we see today and for this reason: Jesus founded an infallible Church which existed long BEFORE the NT was written or formally canonized. So, even without it, the Oral Tradition of the Church would be sufficient to pass along the core message just as it was long before the invention of the printing press.

However, if you are asking whether there are any doctrines that would be missing as a result of removing specific books from the Bible, again, I say that because the writings of the NT were a reflection of what the Church was preaching and teaching orally (ie, baptism of infants, confession of sins to a priest, the real presence in the Eucharist, etc.), everything that we have today was present in the Early Church before inscripturation.

IOW, the NT authors captured on paper what the Church was already preaching; they did not add to what the Church already knew.

yeah... but there were several alleged bishops/priests preaching a slightly different message, on several places.

<clipped for clarity>

how can we tell that the true teachings of Jesus are the ones preached by the catholic church?
The notion of the trinity comes well after the fact - would this view still be held, if the roman christians hadn't accepted Paul's teachings?

And yes, I know I'm mixing a bunch of stuff into one bag, but, like you know so well, it's a broad subject.

Simple enough, poca.

The bishops who disagreed with one another held councils to consider these matters. After much discussion and debate, some ideas were identified as orthodox and others were judged heretical.

It isn't like Rubio, Cruz, Trump and Bush all espousing slightly different variations of a "conservative" message that you can pick and choose from. In the case of theology, some things are right and some things are wrong. Others are uncertain and left as open questions.

When Arius put forth his ideas, Athanasius stood against him. It took awhile, but Athanasius' views ultimately carried the day.