I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

By the way, there is contemporary evidence for other historical figures at the time, like Caeser and Herod.

Special pleading again. Incomparable examples. Jesus was a peasant in Galilee, not Caesar. There were many magicians at the time, and this was nothing special. People who hadn't eyewitness experience of Jesus, and especially non-Jews, would likely confound Jesus with a magician, or an obscure sage, foolish Iudean, heretic, or any other number of things. As Graham Stanton says, "There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

']
We can conclusively know for a fact that they exist. Yet we cannot have contemporary evidence for someone who was supposedly known to have performed miracles and raise people from the dead? Absolutely none of his supposed apostles wrote anything down?

Well, this is a presupposition. Most scholars believe that there were earlier writings that the Gospel writers had at hand (Q and several other unknown earlier writings that have been attempted to be reconstructed), which have subsequently been lost.

As to why we could expect there would be little documentation outside of the Jewish, religious literature of the apostles; here are some of the reasons.

The non-Christian sources for the historical truth of the Gospels are both few and polluted by hatred and prejudice. A number of reasons have been advanced for this condition of the pagan sources:

* The field of the Gospel history was remote Galilee;
* the Jews were noted as a superstitious race, if we believe Horace (Credat Judoeus Apella, I, Sat., v, 100);
* the God of the Jews was unknown and unintelligible to most pagans of that period;
* the Jews in whose midst Christianity had taken its origin were dispersed among, and hated by, all the pagan nations;
* the Christian religion itself was often confounded with one of the many sects that had sprung up in Judaism, and which could not excite the interest of the pagan spectator.

It is at least certain that neither Jews nor Gentiles suspected in the least the paramount importance of the religion, the rise of which they witnessed among them. These considerations will account for the rarity and the asperity with which Christian events are mentioned by pagan authors. But though Gentile writers do not give us any information about Christ and the early stages of Christianity which we do not possess in the Gospels, and though their statements are made with unconcealed hatred and contempt, still they unwittingly prove the historical value of the facts related by the Evangelists.

We need not delay over a writing entitled the "Acts of Pilate", which must have existed in the second century (Justin, "Apol"., I, 35), and must have been used in the pagan schools to warn boys against the belief of Christians (Eusebius, Church History I.9; Church History IX.5); nor need we inquire into the question whether there existed any authentic census tables of Quirinius.

No historian bothered to mention a man who was executed for being the king of the Jews? I know it was 2 thousand years ago, but historians did exist at the time, why do we have absolutely no account of Jesus until 40 years after he is claimed to have died?

Again, that's the most pessimistic view. That's not needed, unless you really want it to be a pessimistic scenario, which of course you do. The account we have at hand can be said to have been written down as early as 15 years after his death even with the first versions of the first Gospel, and even earlier than that with Q and the first writings. In either case, the writings took place within the life of his Apostles and contemporaries.

[omjag86]

He told me nothing I haven't heard before or didn't already know of, so no, it has not been "debunked". You give only a continuous attestation to the fact that you will support anyone who supports your viewpoint by attacking mine. You provide no arguments, no refutation, yet anyone who supports your view is right.

I cannot present any type of logical argument to someone who is unaware of their own beliefs being fiction and not fact.
My hope in debating you would be to show you that your beliefs are just that, beliefs. You told us early on you were here to sharpen your skills, and forgive me if I'm not quoting you exactly, but what skills it seems you are sharpening here are how to overpower people with your beliefs.

I am not supporting anyone who supports my viewpoint by attacking you, I am attempting (and obviously I am failing miserably) to show you when, in the course of your debate, you attempt to assert your beliefs as a fact, for example that God is an intellegent being; I in my agnostisicm actually support your theory of a supreme intelligence pouring itself (as you say) into all life all the time, the difference between us is I know that this is a belief that try as I might, I cannot factually prove. (It makes me feel good to think it, but I know enough about how my brain works to know that it is how I've hardwired my system to think thoughts that make me feel good.) I can prove intelligence in nature but no matter how much I want to attribute it to evolving from a supreme intelligence, or a supreme intelligence creating evolution, try as I might there is nothing-no fact of any sort which I can present to you that proves my belief to be true. I know that my belief is just that-a belief.

Trying my best not to attack you here,(and also trying my best not to enter into an intellectual debate with you here as I have already admitted I am no match for you) I stated that there was no historical record or evidence of there being a Jesus Christ, in following your thread, and reading through your debates with others you did admit that you cannot prove any such written evidence, but that you can prove that people with the same beliefs as you did make written record of their beliefs sometime in the first 100 years after the death of Christ. Then you insist that the written beliefs of these people that may or may not have been around during or after or long after Christ are factual evidence that I/We can't possibly grasp because we are Atheists.

In my opinion you have certainly sharpened your debate skills. However, if you were here for anything else, such as an open debate on whether or not a Supreme intellegence exists you have yet to prove that any beginning to anything, say for example what a particle appears out of or back into, is such an intelligence.

In that sense the onus is on you, that was your invitation to us; I'm an Orthodox Christian ask me a question, the question is, no matter how stated or by whom, Can you prove God is anything more than your power of Faith in your beliefs? (Or in other words-IS God anything other than the thoughts and feelings of passion you feel inside you when the subject of God arises?) You placed the burden of proof upon yourself and all I am saying is you haven't done it and forgive me if I have used others arguments in my attempt to show you this but it is because they know much more factual information than I do.

I would love for you to prove that the intelligence at work in all living things to be the work of a God. I have seen you present a whole lot of theory stating scientific facts as evidence of a Supreme Intelligence and then when your theory is proven to you to be theory, you admit that there is no factual evidence but insist that your argument is still proof.

THat's why so many are throwing up their hands in frustration with you-you think your beliefs are facts. But the only facts you have presented are scientific studies of process then you slide into scientific theory about the process, then you slide into your belief that God is behind it all and say "I have shown you that God is behind it all when I presented the scientific facts about a process."

Your beliefs are not fact. Presenting scientific fact and mixing scientific theory with theological writings as proof of God being behind it all does not prove that God is behind it all. Showing me an equation that neither one of us can answer and then saying , "God is the answer because there's an equation," does not prove God it proves your belief in God.

That's all for me, you have shown me that reason has no chance against your beliefs.
Peace In

[Eilonnwy]

Special pleading again. Incomparable examples. Jesus was a peasant in Galilee, not Caesar. There were many magicians at the time, and this was nothing special. People who hadn't eyewitness experience of Jesus, and especially non-Jews, would likely confound Jesus with a magician, or an obscure sage, foolish Iudean, heretic, or any other number of things. As Graham Stanton says, "There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

You wouldn't know special pleading if it smacked you upside the head. You think you know the logical fallacies but you apply ones you think sound like what you want and apply them. Special pleading requires a lack of criticism, a lack of standards of evidence. I, on the other hand, am applying a rigorous standards of evidence, in fact demanding better evidence. Learn the logical fallacies before you attempt to say anyone is using them.

As to why we could expect there would be little documentation outside of the Jewish, religious literature of the apostles; here are some of the reasons.

The non-Christian sources for the historical truth of the Gospels are both few and polluted by hatred and prejudice. A number of reasons have been advanced for this condition of the pagan sources:

* The field of the Gospel history was remote Galilee;
* the Jews were noted as a superstitious race, if we believe Horace (Credat Judoeus Apella, I, Sat., v, 100);
* the God of the Jews was unknown and unintelligible to most pagans of that period;
* the Jews in whose midst Christianity had taken its origin were dispersed among, and hated by, all the pagan nations;
* the Christian religion itself was often confounded with one of the many sects that had sprung up in Judaism, and which could not excite the interest of the pagan spectator.

It is at least certain that neither Jews nor Gentiles suspected in the least the paramount importance of the religion, the rise of which they witnessed among them. These considerations will account for the rarity and the asperity with which Christian events are mentioned by pagan authors. But though Gentile writers do not give us any information about Christ and the early stages of Christianity which we do not possess in the Gospels, and though their statements are made with unconcealed hatred and contempt, still they unwittingly prove the historical value of the facts related by the Evangelists.

We need not delay over a writing entitled the "Acts of Pilate", which must have existed in the second century (Justin, "Apol"., I, 35), and must have been used in the pagan schools to warn boys against the belief of Christians (Eusebius, Church History I.9; Church History IX.5); nor need we inquire into the question whether there existed any authentic census tables of Quirinius.

Doesn't matter. Jesus is not even mentioned as "That annoying fuck", so to speak. The Bible claims he had massive sermons, people followed him, he performed many miracles in front of people. And none of that, NONE was recorded at all.

You can't speculate about evidence if it isn't there. If it isn't there then you must come to the conclusion that either it never existed or was destroyed. Sucks if it was destroyed, but you can presume because you think there was destroyed evidence that any assertion you make is true, because the truth is, you don't know. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. If you want to tell me that a dude named Jesus walked around, maybe did some preaching, etc... That's believable and not really of any consequence either. But if you're going to claim your messiah existed at specific times and did miracles and had hordes of Jews listening to his sermon, there needs to be far more evidence than a few gospels 40 years after he died. This is basic standards of evidence.


[quote='Jon Paul' pid='26812' dateline='1250563247']
Again, that's the most pessimistic view. That's not needed, unless you really want it to be a pessimistic scenario, which of course you do. The account we have at hand can be said to have been written down as early as 15 years after his death even with the first versions of the first Gospel, and even earlier than that with Q and the first writings. In either case, the writings took place within the life of his Apostles and contemporaries.

Once again, I'm requiring evidence. Doesn't matter if you think I'm pessimistic, good for you. I, on the other hand, would rather have proper hard evidence for believing something is true. And you know what? If you were in a court of law today, innocent and being accused of murder, you would too.

[Kyuuketsuki]

... is that YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY POST AT ALL!

What fucking good are you?

I answered your post sincerely, from my point of view. Maybe I missed something? I just read your post again, I can't see it. But I do apologise if my answer did something to offend you.

So ... disingenuousness is a typical theist trait eh? I put an immense level of effort into that response explaining to you EXACTLY why quantum physics does not dismiss reality and your answer was little more than, oh yes it does!

I can only conclude you know even less about quantum physics than I do but at least I am willing to admit my limitations ... metaphysics and philosophy (at least the kind you advance) are not sciences, quantum physics does not disprove reality but, more to the point, denials and psychobabble are neither big nor clever.

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

I cannot present any type of logical argument to someone who is unaware of their own beliefs being fiction and not fact.

Begging the question.

In that sense the onus is on you, that was your invitation to us; I'm an Orthodox Christian ask me a question,

There is (obviously) a limit to my ambitions with the thread. I never imagined close to 50 pages.

You wouldn't know special pleading if it smacked you upside the head. You think you know the logical fallacies but you apply ones you think sound like what you want and apply them. Special pleading requires a lack of criticism, a lack of standards of evidence. I, on the other hand, am applying a rigorous standards of evidence, in fact demanding better evidence. Learn the logical fallacies before you attempt to say anyone is using them.

You are not applying rigorous or correct historical methodological standards, when we are speaking about a Jewish peasant who became, then, only an obscure Jewish religious teacher, marganialised by Jews and gentiles alike; considered a heretic who should be suppressed by the prevailing Jews who were _not_ his followers; and unknown and completely irrelevant to non-Jews. You are comparing a Jewish peasant to Caesar. This is not a correct approach, but is special pleading because you don't apply the same standard to all other first or second century Jewish (or even pagan!) religious leaders in a remote province of Rome on it's border even, with ministries as short as 3 years as in the case of Jesus, not to mention radical and marginal ones. You are not taking into account, either the reputation of the Jews among gentiles as marginal and obscure (especially in their obscure religious belief in some radically transcendent and non-anthropic god) nor the general changing situation in Iudea in this historical period, nor the view of even Jews at Galileans such as Jesus as aliens, and a fortiori what their view of would be Jesus considering his specific religious stance.

Special pleading again. Incomparable examples. Jesus was a peasant in Galilee, not Caesar. There were many magicians at the time, and this was nothing special. People who hadn't eyewitness experience of Jesus, and especially non-Jews, would likely confound Jesus with a magician, or an obscure sage, foolish Iudean, heretic, or any other number of things. As Graham Stanton says, "There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

Doesn't matter. Jesus is not even mentioned as "That annoying fuck", so to speak. The Bible claims he had massive sermons, people followed him, he performed many miracles in front of people. And none of that, NONE was recorded at all.

First of all, there is no reason to think his existence would be recorded outside of the Jewish literature of his followers, unless his followers were actually of a notable amount and his existence would thus be widely known by spreading the word (something which happened much later in Rome). Yet more was recorded by his followers than about most or even any first/second century religious teachers, pagan or Jewish, that we know of. It was recorded, both in the Q and the earliest versions of the first Gospel, which may have been as early as within 15 years of his death, and clearly in the time of his contemporaries. Later dates are usually predicated because the historian in question believes the Gospel predicts the fall of Jerusalem, and must thus be written after it. First of all, it is debatable whether it requires a supernatural explanation to vaguely prophesy something; it's quite plausible naturalistically even to say that it might have been a coincidence; second, it is a naturalistic presupposition to say that a supernatural prophesy is impossible, which obviously a Christian would not agree with - on top of the presupposition, that what turns out as a prediction, must be false and written after the event in question, rather than being a naturalistic coincidence. Therefore, many scholars believe the first Gospel to be written much earlier than the dates which are held to only because of the fall of the Jerusalem being an impossible prediction-presupposition, while it is far from impossible, even if the explanation is natural. It's a matter of what philosophical presuppositions one brings to the material.

The non-Christian historians, both the Jews and gentiles alike, had absolutely no loyalty to or brotherhood with this obscure teacher or his followers, but were rather his enemies whose only interest was to suppress and contain the movement and prevent the word from spreading. Even in the rare occasion that they were willing to record something about Jesus or his followers, it was not because of Jesus himself, but because of their despise and hatred of anyone who would follow him; rather a warning and statement of propaganda against the movement, because it would not "disappear" by simply ignoring it.

You can't speculate about evidence if it isn't there. If it isn't there then you must come to the conclusion that either it never existed or was destroyed.

The evidence is there, in the writings we have, both the Gospels and Epistles, of earlier texts which are lost, and which have been reconstructed. This is the mainstream position, that there were earlier written records of Jesus' existence, which the authors had at hand (like the two-source hypothesis). Second, the writings we do have are from as early as within 15 years of Jesus death, thus in the time of his contemporaries.

Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. If you want to tell me that a dude named Jesus walked around, maybe did some preaching, etc... That's believable and not really of any consequence either. But if you're going to claim your messiah existed at specific times and did miracles and had hordes of Jews listening to his sermon, there needs to be far more evidence than a few gospels 40 years after he died. This is basic standards of evidence.

Actually, no. Because you don't have to accept that Jesus is a messiah, or accept Jesus teachings, or accept his divinity, to accept that he historically existed. There is simply no reason to dispute his historical existence except an extreme pathos going beyond the necessary.

I don't dispute the historical existence of any other religiously significant person or leader, just because I don't agree with their teachings, and the teachings of their followers. Neither ancient or modern ones. Nor with ideological leaders, for that matter; not with Hitler, either, just because I don't agree with his views or the views of his followers such as they have been presented to me.

The "mythical Jesus" position is not the mainstream scholarly position; the mainstream scholarly position is that there was a historical Jesus, but with many disagreements as to his exact reconstruction; nevertheless, this does not mean that most historians in any accept Christianity, simply because Jesus existed. The mainstream position as to written record, also, is exactly that of the two-source hypothesis and similar, for an early and contemporary written record of Jesus available to the early Christians and Gospel writers.

What you have also completely ignored is that the New Testament (and the Old alike) contains historically verifiable data about real events and real locations in which the events it speaks of take place, and the timespace that they do. It demonstrates contemporary knowledge of the time and place in history in which it posites Jesus life which at the very least proves that the writers had access to a source of this knowledge which was contemporary with Jesus' existence. A review and verification of this contemporary and verifiable historical knowledge has been made by numerous mainstream scholars, in many different disciplines relevant to historical inquiry. I have recently read a great book in my own language on this topic, but there are also ones available in English, such as The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by C. Blomberg.

---

So ... disingenuousness is a typical theist trait eh? I put an immense level of effort into that response explaining to you EXACTLY why quantum physics does not dismiss reality and your answer was little more than, oh yes it does!

I don't know what you are talking about. Are we talking about the same post, here? I am talking about post #444, and there is nothing significant in that post, and nothing in it that I didn't address in my reply post #446.

I can only conclude you know even less about quantum physics than I do

What is it that I don't know?

quantum physics does not disprove reality

I've never said it does. I've specifically defended the marginalised, realist Bohmiam interpretation of quantum mechanics in this very thread. But the prevailing Copenhagist orthodoxy is far more radical, to the point of arealism in many cases.

[chatpilot]

JP you can't keep putting a date on the Q document and hanging all your arguments on how early this document existed because it is an hypothetical document.Its existence has not been proven but inferred.Now according to the N.T. Jesus had fed a multitude numbering about 5,000 and that does not include the women and children.If that is not a notable following then I don't know what is.Not to mention that when he supposedly floated up to heaven the bible states that there were 500 witnesses to this event.How they came about those numbers is beyond me since I don't think that every time Jesus preached one of his disciples went around counting the people in attendance and it's kind of hard to do that especially if you are illiterate.

[Kyuuketsuki]

So ... disingenuousness is a typical theist trait eh? I put an immense level of effort into that response explaining to you EXACTLY why quantum physics does not dismiss reality and your answer was little more than, oh yes it does!

I don't know what you are talking about. Are we talking about the same post, here? I am talking about post #444, and there is nothing significant in that post, no effort, and nothing in it that I didn't address in my reply post #446.

Bugger! Looks like I owe you an apology for that at least!

I can only conclude you know even less about quantum physics than I do

What is it that I don't know?

I got confused and was talking about another thread, non-existence!

quantum physics does not disprove reality

I've never said it does. I've specifically defended the marginalised, realist Bohmiam interpretation of quantum mechanics in this very thread. But the prevailing Copenhagist orthodoxy is far more radical, to the point of arealism in many cases.

Actually you did (say it does):

Post #128: It's not me making assumptions; I am only pointing out that you are yourself making assumptions, such as the assumption that you are conscious, the assumption that reality exists (!), the assumption that other minds exists, etc.

A post I answered in post #137

Again my apologies for sounding off in this thread (not that you don't deserve it in may ways but I know when I am in the wrong) and I await your reply in the relevant thread.

Kyu

[Eilonnwy]

You are not applying rigorous or correct historical methodological standards, when we are speaking about a Jewish peasant who became, then, only an obscure Jewish religious teacher, marganialised by Jews and gentiles alike; considered a heretic who should be suppressed by the prevailing Jews who were _not_ his followers; and unknown and completely irrelevant to non-Jews. You are comparing a Jewish peasant to Caesar. This is not a correct approach, but is special pleading because you don't apply the same standard to all other first or second century Jewish (or even pagan!) religious leaders in a remote province of Rome on it's border even, with ministries as short as 3 years as in the case of Jesus, not to mention radical and marginal ones. You are not taking into account, either the reputation of the Jews among gentiles as marginal and obscure (especially in their obscure religious belief in some radically transcendent and non-anthropic god) nor the general changing situation in Iudea in this historical period, nor the view of even Jews at Galileans such as Jesus as aliens, and a fortiori what their view of would be Jesus considering his specific religious stance.

First off, you majorly fucked up your quoting in this post, might want to look into it.

But Dude, you're missing the fucking point. I'm not arguing whether a man named Jesus existed or not. I'm arguing why there is no contemporary evidence for a man who performed miracles that are claimed to have been widely known. Someone raises a guy from the dead in front of a crowd and no one...no one writes about it. I'm saying there is no evidence whatsoever for the "Son of God" Jesus, the one you believe in. Whether the myths are based on an actual person who existed or not is another argument.

First of all, there is no reason to think his existence would be recorded outside of the Jewish literature of his followers, unless his followers were actually of a notable amount and his existence would thus be widely known by spreading the word (something which happened much later in Rome).

OF COURSE there is if he's supposed to be the fucking Jewish messiah and what happened in the Bible ACTUALLY happened. The rest of your babbling doesn't matter, because that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that if Jesus existed as in the Bible, where is the evidence for the extraordinary claims in it?

Of course if Jesus was really a peasant who did nothing of consequence there wouldn't be evidence. But you don't believe that. You're a Christian, you have stated you believe in the Bible. So why is there no contemporary evidence of the events in the Bible? These are big claims in the Bible. They DO require more evidence that just the gospels. There's NOTHING. Here's an article I wrote if it helps you to understand what I'm talking about: http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-At...oof-of-God

And please don't assume things you know nothing about. Verifying the historical existence of a man and verifying the historical existence of a man who performed miracles and resurrections require a higher standard evidence. That's a fact. Verifying that a city exists where Jesus supposedly did some miracles does not verify that Jesus did some miracles. For instance, it is not known for certain whether Plato existed but it doesn't matter because the only thing that matters is what is attributed to Plato. However, the whole of Christianity does not solely depend on what Jesus said, it's also completely dependent on what he supposedly did, especially his miracles, death and resurrection. Needs more evidence. End of story.

BTW, you say you don't discount the existence of other historical religious figures...please tell me, do you discount Hercules or Achilles?

Fact is I apply a rigorous standard of evidence to the existence of historical figures and an even higher standard of evidence to the "miracles" they are claimed to have performed. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.

[Jon Paul]

Post #128: It's not me making assumptions; I am only pointing out that you are yourself making assumptions, such as the assumption that you are conscious, the assumption that reality exists (in spite of quantum physicists disagreeing!), the assumption that other minds exists, etc.

I said quantum physicists disagreeing. Not me (I am not a quantum physicist), and not Bohmists, but specifically Bohrists/Copenhagists.

---

BTW, you say you don't discount the existence of other historical religious figures...please tell me, do you discount Hercules or Achilles?

I don't know if those Greeks who believed in those myths believed in them as historical (human) persons. It seems unlikely to me.

If they did, I would have no reason to deny that such human persons existed. That doesn't mean I accept them as gods or accept their religious claims.

There are other religions that I do know look up to historical human persons, who are either both divine and human, or only human but with a special contact to the divine, according to them. I have no reason to deny their historical existence.

For instance, according to many, it's very likely that Odin was a historical person, a warrior/shaman, who came to be worshipped as a god.

[Tiberius]

If someone lives as a peasant without mention, and then suddenly 40 years after his death is claimed to have possessed supernatural powers, it just looks like those powers were made up on the spot.