Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[CapnAwesome]

Without the superpowers or divinity, Jesus wouldn't have been Jesus.

I'm not so sure about that. If you stripped away all the supernatural from the story of Jesus you still have some preaching, a weak philosophical base. I'm not saying that it has any validity. I think the miracles are likely added to the story to add validity to what he was saying. Esspecially since he was claiming to be the son of God. Nobody is going to accept that without the claim of miracles. Despite that the Jesus in the gospels did a tremendous amount of preaching that had nothing to do with the supernatural. Adding supernatural elements was frequently done in the past. A good example is the story of Marco Polo, much of which describes supernatural creatures encountered while he was traveling the world. Nobody would seriously say that he didn't travel to Asia or his non-supernatural descriptions didn't happen just because he has embellishments about dragons and whatnot.

If you strip away the supernatural from Jesus you come away with a rather believable person from the 1st century with a rather believable story. I think the phenomenon of Atheists believing Jesus to be entirely mythical rather than a high fictionalized version of a real person has to do with the psychology that people are willing to believe anything negative about the people they already don't like. Like in the original video where the host of the show questions that Paul wrote certain letters.

I need to note that although I think a historical basis for Jesus is likely, I don't find his teachings to be valid, nor do I believe in anything supernatural about him. I actually don't think it really matters. Other than pissing off Christians for no real reason, I'm not sure why any Atheist should actually care.

[*Deidre*]

Why necropost instead of posting in a more recent thread?

I've read your posts as I've come across them on here Aractus, and while you are very smart and articulate, you come across condescending and berating. You started a thread in the off topic section essentially mocking fat people. Calling them dumb. You've called people trolls and dismiss people who don't know Bible history quite like you.

Wow, nice way to generalize.

Yes I think most people are unbelievably stupid - I've said this dozens of times already, so what? My brother, who's 28, is a smoker - our father died of cancer at 48 and he is waiting for his own cancer? His best friend got Leukaemia a couple of years ago and nearly died, and he also smokes - I told him he should stop smoking, he says to me "why, I already had cancer" - and I said - "yes, but it doesn't mean you can't also get lung cancer". Hell I would have thought that going through that much pain and suffering would have scared him to death of getting cancer again, but I guess I was wrong.

Waiting for bad things to happen to you is not a good plan in life.

Anyone can quote Scripture. Anyone can do extensive research relating to the history of Christianity. According to Christians, Satan himself can! lol So, what does your faith actually mean to you? That would be a more powerful testimony than scolding us and ridiculing our lack of Bible history knowledge.

A lot of the atheist response on this forum towards certain matters of history are completely ignorant of the facts - of course I'm going to call people out on that. It's not because they "don't know" their history, but rather that they actually deny accepted history like say Holocaust Denial. As I've said many times, if you are going to present an alternate history to an event which is generally accepted by historians you need to present evidence.

St. Francis of Assisi was noted as saying, "Preach the gospel, use words if necessary." Otherwise, why bother? People should be able to tell that your faith means something without you uttering a word. That is one of the reasons non believers get turned off.

Not judging you, not my place. But you are certainly not in a place to judge anyone who doesn't believe as you do. Just my two cents FWIW.

So? Not everything has to be politically correct. Just because I say some things that people may not want to hear doesn't mean that it's because I hold them in contempt or anything of the sort.

I appreciate your reply, here.

Re: the Holocaust, that has historical evidence to support it. The Biblical 'story' is just that, a story. Historians are guessing at 'what might have actually taken place,' based on using the Bible as their main reference. Without the Bible, there is no story.

And if you lined up 100 historians in a room, and asked them to decipher the Bible and give their best guess as to what might have happened, if Jesus actually existed, etc...you'd get 100 different answers. Taking the Bible and making wild assumptions and historical guesses out of it doesn't build a credible historical case for it.

It is still 'just a story,' and it is only relevant in a religious sense. The Holocaust has bona fide evidence to support it. I wouldn't use that as your argument to support your assertion that the Bible has historical merit as well.

A man named Jesus 'might' have existed. A man named Adolf Hitler really did exist. A man named Jesus 'might' have been executed. A man named Adolf Hitler spearheaded the Nazi party which diabolically killed millions of Jews, during WWII. WWII really happened. Jesus being executed 'might' have happened. Jesus might have taught a lot of things relating to a god.

During that timeframe, it was not uncommon for people to believe that ''gods'' were impregnating mere mortals. Hmmm...then, the fantastic story emerges about Jesus being born of a ''virgin.'' Coincidence?

I don't know many people who hang their hats on historical evidence based off of 'maybes' and 'might have happened.' But, many allow religion to get away with it. Historians are guessing, based on how people lived back during Biblical times. But, that doesn't prove Jesus existed, let alone the tall tale that the NT paints. My thought is that Jesus (the man) may have existed, and the NT story (attaching Divinity to him, etc)was a fabrication of his existence, in order to 'create' a religion designed to dominate.

This is just my opinion, but I think this because if you believe any of the NT, it would seem that Jesus was a Socialist, dead set against religion. Why would he want a religion BUILT AROUND him? Logically, that doesn't make sense.

On another note, I hear you about being politically correct. But, I remember when I was following Christianity, and it bothered me how there seemed to be a superior attitude amongst those who follow it. It really is why Christianity has such a hard time at this point in history. There's just not enough Mother Teresa's...so onlookers to the faith don't see any relevance if it's just a label people wear to set themselves apart from the rest of the herd. Not saying this is you, just sharing my view on it. Reciting Bible passages, and such...it falls on deaf ears/eyes if the person behind the words lacks humility. If we are to believe Jesus existed, he was an example of humility. Since he is the 'leader' of who Christians supposedly follow, might be wise if more mirrored him. Atheists aren't really a threat to Christianity, but rather Christians are; Christians are destroying what is left of Christianity, slowly but surely. It's rather ironic. But, not surprising.

Re: your brother, I'm sorry to read that. You can only plant seeds, people have to do the rest. It is frustrating to watch people we care for purposely (?) not try to help themselves. But, it is more perhaps that they are overwhelmed by their mess, and truly don't know how to clean it up...so they 'give up.'

[Confused Ape]

When I advocated the Jesus Myth, I held Jesus to a higher standard on the grounds of extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. A philosopher like Socrates or a conqueror like Alexander are ordinary enough. A miracle working godman who brought back the dead on three occasions and performed public miracles should have gotten a write up at some point.

In an earlier post I provided a link to the the Jewish view of Jesus as an ordinary human man who annoyed the Romans with his preaching and got executed. It isn't established fact but I think that it's possible and that he got myths and legends attached to him afterwards. I'm glad you mentioned Alexander the Great because he had myths and legends attached to him.

Alexander As Myth

His life and deeds, as well as his death and burial, became a legend for future generations, far beyond the lands he had conquered. He was remembered in legend1 from Iceland to China and is still invoked as their ancestor or patron by tribesmen in Afghanistan.

In fact, until the Renaissance, it is the legend of Alexander that prevailed, as reliable historical sources were practically unknown.

and

The legend of Alexander started spreading right after Alexander's death and overshadowed his real life. Alexander became a mythical figure, a theme for folk-songs, epics and anecdotes. Even his name was modified or distorted.

Alexander's personality was adapted according to the use each nation or tribe made of the conqueror's fame. He became a local hero. Even the Persians, whose empire Alexander had conquered, made of him a Persian hero, son of Darius.

Ehrman advocates for a moral, non-supernatural Jesus. The problem is that the story of Jesus IS the miracles. Strip all that away and you have an empty shell barely recognizable to the Gospel tale.

The Christian story of Jesus is the miracles etc. The Jewish story of Jesus isn't and, if there was an historical Jesus, his real story wouldn't have any miracles in it either. This is why I'm surprised that Christians who believe in a supernatural Jesus are using Ehrman's work as proof that Jesus really existed.

Can you write the story of Dr. Who without the TARDIS or the time travel? How about the story of Merlin but without the magic? Spiderman but without the mutant powers?

It's certainly possible to write the story of Merlin without real magic the same as it's possible to write the story of King Arthur without the Lady Of The Lake and the search for the Holy Grail. All that would have been needed for a real Merlin to be regarded as a magician was a belief in his claims to be one. People have believed that some individuals can do magic for thousands of years and many still believe it today.

Without the superpowers or divinity, Jesus wouldn't have been Jesus.

He wouldn't have been the Jesus of the Christian religion but he might have been something on the lines of the Jewish view of Jesus.

[xpastor]

Like in the original video where the host of the show questions that Paul wrote certain letters.

???

I didn't see this video, but Paul almost certainly did not write half the letters attributed to him in the New Testament. And this is not an opinion intended to piss off Christians, although it certainly would have that effect on some of them.

[Confused Ape]

Edited because I finally found the post.

Doesn't look like anybody ever provided this link:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

It goes over in extenstive detail the evidence.

I cannot say I am certain or not that a man claiming to be a prophet of the the Jewish diety wandered the galilee during the early Roman empirial period. However, the idea that there is TONS of archeological evidence and it lines up on the side of the of a Jesus existing as a historical personage is false.

Most of the accounts (such as Josephus) that are non-biblical are a reference to the fact that christians exist, not to the historocity of their belief set. I will say that I am 100% certain that the religion of chrisitianity exists....

That website is a fascinating place to explore if you have a lot of time to spare. Kenneth Humphreys throws in everything including the kitchen sink with a lot of the information being contradictory. He also has a habit of presenting snippets of information with leads so readers have to do research themselves if they want to know what he's really talking about.

My conclusion is that he wants people to evaluate everything for themselves rather than just accepting somebody's word for it. That somebody includes himself because he says one thing in one section and says something contradictory in another.

[Belev2Know]

but that's just it ; and no convincing by way of the simplest posed argument ever seems accredited to more than the science in empirical knowledge by what Peter was questioned about which occurs continuing to build : What ever side one believes -to not- or believe there is one answer to (source as it is) recorded Jesus/Yeshua asking "Who do YOU say that I am?"

About all the history in a range to about to other's doubting's of historical “records sources" to back to believers stating "the word is the power of God unto salvation"

all that , in that range, if it were
seems

Ehrman has more than a couple boo-boos:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ehrman%2...s&ie=UTF-8

then I searched one I have read since 1976…
seems a bit more scholarly by any comparison:

https://www.google.com/search?q=derek+pr...h&ie=UTF-8

still will only come down to how the recorded Jesus' Q is answered... not apologetic's, anyways...

[Aractus]

About his life and death, we can say only that he probably created a disturbance in the temple and he was probably crucified as a troublemaker.

That's not accurate at all, you know that. The facts not in dispute are that Jesus lived, that he called disciples, was baptized by John and that he died by crucifixion. Furthermore, it's also not in dispute that his body went missing three days after his crucifixion, and many atheists have come up with interesting theories as to explain why or how. Some other facts generally accepted are that Paul knew the family of Jesus and that he wrote at least 7 of his Epistles, and furthermore consensus is that Luke-Acts was written by a single Author.

I know you're aware of all this, but I'm reminding you since you made it seem as if any and all of the details of Jesus' life are in dispute among the critical scholars, when in fact many are not.

I don't even think much of his moral teaching is useful. Because he thought the end was nigh, he advised extremes such as not being concerned about where your sustenance would come from, avoiding marriage, etc. One big exception, the parable of the good Samaritan, which can hardly be improved on.

Well that's your theory. I think we'll both agree on quality of the Good Samaritan parable.

What we can say is that he was a brilliant speaker, the parables and the wrong-headed moral teaching really catch your attention. He made a huge impact on his immediate followers, so much so that they could not accept his death, and they began to spread stories of his resurrection, probably after one deluded person had a hallucination.

This theory, as I've pointed out before, means you have to do a lot more explaining like how did Paul get converted to Christianity, and why does he record in 1 Corinthians that there are more than 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ, most of them still alive?

More to the point, why is this completely consistent?

• Matt 28:10: Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”
  
• Matt 28:16-20: Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
  
• Mark 16:7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”
  
• Luke 24:18-24: Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered (Jesus), “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”
  
• 1 Corinthians 15:3-8: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Paul writes 1 Corinthians c. 53-55AD, before Matthew or Luke wrote their Gospels and possibly before Mark too. He casually mentions the 500 as if it was common knowledge, although he names others - Cephas (Peter), the 12, James, the apostles (a larger group than the 12) and himself. Paul himself would have been an apostle, however when he meets Jesus he is not yet one, thus he distinguishes himself from the group.

Paul claims to have met the risen Christ, and he makes the explicit claim that the risen Christ appeared before 500 Christians at one time. One deluded person may have an hallucination, but 500 at once? All the disciples? All the apostles too? Mary and Mary? What would make your theory more credible is if one of the disciples or one apostle came out and said "hey these guys are deluded" - did that ever happen? Heck, not even someone from the laity of the period said it.

---

To underscore the plausibility of this scenario, just say one word.

Elvis.

Explains that some people can misinterpret what they see - mind you most Elvis sightings were well after the first 40 days of his death. What it doesn't explain is why do we have all the disciples and all the apostles called as witnesses to the event, plus another 500 Christians? Surely you're not going to tell me that of all 11 disciples and however many apostles there were at that time that none of them would be recorded as saying "I never saw the risen Christ"?

[Belev2Know]

? Matthias, ? was not a 12th, and then?

[Aractus]

Doesn't look like anybody ever provided this link:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

It goes over in extenstive detail the evidence.

All I know about Kenneth Humphreys is that he isn't a New Testament scholar for one thing, so he has no expertise or authority in the matter, and that he was the clear loser of this debate against Prof. Gary Habermas (I haven't watched this debate, perhaps you can watch it and decide who you think the winner is):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93UyXGfYDG4

Why you would get your facts from someone not qualified to give them in the first place is beyond me.

---

Re: the Holocaust, that has historical evidence to support it. The Biblical 'story' is just that, a story. Historians are guessing at 'what might have actually taken place,' based on using the Bible as their main reference. Without the Bible, there is no story.

Once again, I see you've jumped to a conclusion without regard to the facts. Yes, historians often make "guesses", that's what they do - but historians that specialize in the life or the time of Jesus we call New Testament scholars. It doesn't mean they have to be a Christian - in fact some are Jewish, atheist, etc, but what it means they study the ancient Greek language, documents (like the books of the Bible, the Gnostic texts, the writings of Josephus, other ancient Roman documents, ancient Jewish documents, early church documents), artefacts and other materials from the time period. So your claim that "without the Bible there is no story" is false, in fact nearly the entire NT Bible could be recreated from the quotations found in ancient literature by the church fathers, even if you erased each and every ancient manuscript of the Bible. It's a moot point because we have the 27 NT books in their entirety, but the fact is that even if we didn't have the Bible we'd still have it and it'd still be studied by NT scholars.

And if you lined up 100 historians in a room, and asked them to decipher the Bible and give their best guess as to what might have happened, if Jesus actually existed, etc...you'd get 100 different answers. Taking the Bible and making wild assumptions and historical guesses out of it doesn't build a credible historical case for it.

Incorrect. As I've stated many times there is consensus among critical scholars (those'd be the non-religious or religious but non-Christian ones) that Jesus: 1. lived, 2. was baptized by john, 3. called disciples, 4. gave sermons/talks (eg sermon on the mount) 5. was crucified on a roman cross. There's a few other points they also agree on (eg that Paul wrote at least 7 of the epistles attributed to him, that he knew the family of Jesus, that Luke-Acts is written by the one author, etc). If you had 100 NT critical scholars in a room you'd be lucky to find one that doesn't think that Jesus actually existed, and if you did you'd have found someone with theories well outside general scholarly thought, he'd be the Halton Arp of NT scholarship.

It is still 'just a story,' and it is only relevant in a religious sense. The Holocaust has bona fide evidence to support it. I wouldn't use that as your argument to support your assertion that the Bible has historical merit as well.

Jesus has bona fide evidence too. Hell you'd easily find more Holocaust Deniers than fair dinkum NT scholars willing to say that Jesus didn't exist!

A man named Jesus 'might' have existed. A man named Adolf Hitler really did exist.

So you're more qualified to tell me that than the critical scholars that say Jesus certainly existed?

During that timeframe, it was not uncommon for people to believe that ''gods'' were impregnating mere mortals. Hmmm...then, the fantastic story emerges about Jesus being born of a ''virgin.'' Coincidence?

And what's your evidence for this assertion? (FYI I require evidence relevant to the beliefs of Palestinian Jews, not say Egyptians that lived 4,000 years before them).

---

I didn't see this video, but Paul almost certainly did not write half the letters attributed to him in the New Testament. And this is not an opinion intended to piss off Christians, although it certainly would have that effect on some of them.

I'm interested as to why you personally believe this? I'm going to assume you accept these ones: Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon and reject these: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus.

Scholarly thought is divided on this issue, seemingly pretty evenly, so why do you come down on the side against Pauline authorship of those 6 epistles? I don't even hear Ehrman saying that he "certainly didn't write those six" as you do...

[Mudhammam]

Why don't Christians just admit the elephant in the room? Their faith doesn't depend on evidence and citing written testimony from 2,000 years ago is merely grasping at straws. It demonstrates how little substance truly lies at the core of their beliefs. If there's one thing I've learned in my 26 years on Earth, it's to not take everybody's claims at face value until they the produce sufficient reasons why I should. Christianity UTTERLY FAILS at even this.