|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Yes, it did throw doubt. In my opinion, there is a motive to distract people from the truth. You call it a myth, I know. Lack of evidence, you say. I try and explain that faith comes by hearing and believing. You cite evidence to dismiss the story.
My irritation arises because people seem to want to not believe rather than to believe. You would perhaps say that you prefer reality over fantasy. I would tell you that reality is not always how it appears and that belief will be helpful. You may ask how. I'm still thinking how to answer you.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why is it that believers are skeptical about evidence but not about unevidenced beliefs?
Im not sure I believe any of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
This so called evidence is far from conclusive. My beliefs, in contrast, have been talked about by billions of people for hundreds of years. If this evidence turned out to be valid, few people would give it so much as a nod.
What gets me is how much some people want to jump at evidence as if it could tell them anything that could actually help them.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9513 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: My irritation arises because people seem to want to not believe rather than to believe. I think it more likely that some people who do not believe are keen to find disproofs of religious stories so they can show that they are right. As you say, if it could be conclusively shown that Jesus's body was buried, the main plank of the Jesus story disintegrates. Of course this wouldn't bother most Christians, a linguistic work-around would be found. "It was metaphorical not real" etc.
You would perhaps say that you prefer reality over fantasy. Indeed
I would tell you that reality is not always how it appears and that belief will be helpful. Well you say any number of things that I find utterly meanigless Phat - and that's one of them :-).
You may ask how. I'm still thinking how to answer you. I'm sure you'll find some language. I'm equally sure I won't have a clue what it means and that I'll be reasonably certain that it's just a pulpity mash-up. But I'm all ears. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2122 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined:
|
Even if you had evidence of a Jesus ever existing, the whole story is deeply flawed and absurd.
An omnipresent god that needs his own blood to fix his own screw ups? It's probably been posted here before but here is the best summery of the Jesus myth I has seen.
Mageth writes:
God himself created man and woman and placed them in a garden, in his own image, but got righteously angry at them when they ate, against his wish, and after being tempted by a talking serpent that god himself had somehow allowed to slither about in the garden, a tasty, beautiful fruit, though he himself had placed it there but neglected to instill in his creations the knowledge of good and evil so that they would know it was wrong to eat it. Being omniscient, of course, he knew all this before he started, but was apparently unable to do anything about it because he had planned it this way from the beginning, and apparently god cannot change anything he already knows, in spite of the fact that he’s omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Later, God himself impregnated a virgin so that he himself could be born a human, a ManGod. This was necessary, apparently, because only his own ManGod blood could appease himself and deliver humans, who he created, and who he knew would muck things up by eating the fruit, from his own righteous anger. Of course, he waited several thousand years to implement this divine plan, in the meantime taking the righteous action of drowning every creature on the planet except a few he could stuff on a boat. Not to mention handing down a Law that served to further condemn every one of us, and in which Law he himself had them frequently sacrifice animals to appease himself, though he knew the blood of animals didn’t really appease himself. Much later, god, in a garden, prayed to himself to take this cup away from himself, though he himself knew that he himself had planned the coming events from the beginning and knew that not even he himself could save himself, even though he was god and omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Accepting this, he said, in effect, Not my will, but my will. God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really) Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself. He himself, being dead, then raised himself from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he himself had said he’d be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he himself pulled himself up into heaven where he himself apparently already was, and where he himself is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself. He himself then sent himself (or a ghost of himself, if you please) back to earth to be a comfort to us, though he himself is still sitting at the right hand of himself. And, glory hallelujah, he himself promised that he himself will return someday, though he himself is already here, and will still be there, to snatch up those who believe the god blood sacrifice story he himself told us, and kill the rest of us who don’t believe the god blood sacrifice story, no matter how nice we were otherwise. But, since killing us isn’t enough to appease his righteousness, he himself will then judge us, though according to ManGod he himself will also not judge us, and being a god of love will cast most of us into hell for an eternity of suffering. He has to, of course, because he is a righteous, just god, and can’t figure out a way to save anyone who hasn’t been redeemed by god-blood, even though he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and loves us all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: But what were people talking about back then. There were 2 (very different) Gospels called the "Gospel of the Hebrews" in early times. The first one is one scholars call the "Gospel of the Ebionites" to avoid confusion
quote: The article quotes all the fragments and explains that they are a harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Harmonies of those 3 were popular before 150 AD. But notice the divergent views. here is text on the Wikipedia article for 'ebionites""Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning "the poor" or "poor ones"), is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.[3] They used only one of the Jewish—Christian gospels, revered James the brother of Jesus (James the Just), and rejected Paul the Apostle as an apostate from the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on voluntary poverty" Here is an early 2nd century Gospel called Gospel of the Hebrews by scholars and ancients alike.
quote: They quote the texts available. Here is one line
quote: Kerygmata Petri was quoted a lot in the 2nd centry. It has reincarnation concepts. Clement of Alexandria like the text. Just Martyr said this
quote: Christians with different views in 150 AD The Premillennialism of Justin Martyr [/quote] Google
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
And I answered that I thought it more likely than not No, you did not answer the question. What you said was that more likely than not somebody back then was named Jesus. "Historical Jesus" implies somebody both named Jesus and at least tied to the stories in the Bible. In fact, your current post implies that the question cannot be answered at all. Historical Jesus - Wikipedia
quote: Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9513 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: What you said was that more likely than not somebody back then was named Jesus. "Historical Jesus" implies somebody both named Jesus and at least tied to the stories in the Bible. Ffs. What are you on? Do you really think I might not be aware that the name Jesus is not unique to the mythical son of god? Do you really think that when I'm answering a question about Jesus(TM) I'm referring to some other random Jesus that I've deliberately not informed you of? Pull your head out of your arse, Phat has already accepted my point - you're away with your own fairies.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Do you really think I might not be aware that the name Jesus is not unique to the mythical son of god? Here is what you actually said, Tangle.
Tangle writes: I think it is marginally more likely than not that someone called Jesus existed - but not, of course, that he was anything but human. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9513 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: Here is what you actually said, Tangle. So I have to repeat myself. You think that when I said.... "I think it is marginally more likely than not that someone called Jesus existed - but not, of course, that he was anything but human." ....I was referring to a random Jesus that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Jesus in the bible? To prevent this going on any further, I'm not. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: I'm sure you'll find some language. I'm equally sure I won't have a clue what it means and that I'll be reasonably certain that it's just a pulpity mash-up. But I'm all ears. I am thinking about this topic tonight...before i retire for the evening. I originally became a believer when I attended a church and after a couple of weeks answered an "altar call". Quite honestly I was unprepared for the change that I felt. Many people report the same "born again" transformation. Is there any ready explanation for it? Now...years have passed and I am learning a lot of how others think. (Particularly here at EvC) Few if any of my believing friends are interested in challenging or disproving their beliefs as I am. This is one red flag. The evidence that Christians, in general, are no more moral than non-believers is also of interest. So why do I keep it up?(This belief thing) The answer is that I honestly believe that I am in a communion with God. I dont believe that evidence apart from my subjective experience influences me that much.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9513 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: I originally became a believer when I attended a church and after a couple of weeks answered an "altar call". Quite honestly I was unprepared for the change that I felt. Many people report the same "born again" transformation. Is there any ready explanation for it? Belief is a brain function, neuroscience says that it's a function of memory. Memory is related to learning and it's really important to understand that your belief has been learnt.
Your believe was learnt. It didn't just pop into your head from God You can prove this to yourself by asking yourself why your belief is not in Hinduism or Janeism? There has never been anybody anywhere that independently became a Christian or a Hindu or a Janeite. They all had to have learnt of these things before it could happen. Your brain is programmed in such a way as to accept inputs if heard enough and in times of stress or anxiety some beliefs/delusions are triggered strongly. This is a bit of a starter. Where belief is born | Psychology | The Guardian
Now...years have passed and I am learning a lot of how others think. (Particularly here at EvC) Few if any of my believing friends are interested in challenging or disproving their beliefs as I am. This is one red flag. The evidence that Christians, in general, are no more moral than non-believers is also of interest. The way beliefs persist and propagate is by blocking inputs that question them and by constant reinforcement from those of similar minds - the echo chamber. They only change when they are exposed to different ideas over a long period. You should take it as a red flag that your believing friends won't entertain counter argument. And, by the way, and as you point out, it's a real fright that your beliefs make you superior moral beings. It should be clear that people that don't hold your beliefs are capable of at least equivalent morality and behaviour. And if you look at how fundamental belivers behave, you must recognise that their morality is at least questionable.
The answer is that I honestly believe that I am in a communion with God. I dont believe that evidence apart from my subjective experience influences me that much. And that is the literal definition of a delusion. No different than the people in the link above.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes, that's the mantra. The evidence for evolution isn't "conclusive" either, if you insist on believing in creationism. The point is that it IS evidence, as opposed to NO evidence for your belief.
This so called evidence is far from conclusive. Phat writes:
What else could "help" them? What gets me is how much some people want to jump at evidence as if it could tell them anything that could actually help them. Seriously. Have you ever heard of disease? Have you ever heard of cures for disease? Don't you think curing diseases "helps" people? How do you think diseases are cured without "jumping at evidence"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
It is complicated when one looks at certain issues.
Here is the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman talking about his 2015 book. quote: His comments remind me of Origen of Alexandria and his response to the pagan philosopher Celsus (who used arguments from a Jew against Christianity, who scholars always refer to as "Celsus' Jew", in addition to arguments of his own pagan opinion). The issue was raised (by Celsus but I forget if he was offering his own views or the view of his Jew) about hallucinations and he made issue of the fact that there were supposedly startled women who had the hallucinations. Origin remarked that the visions were in the daytime, where there were less likely to be false visions. Google Defending the Resurrection of Jesus: Yesterday, Today and Forever — Southern Equip The issue gets interesting if you consider the issue of the Gospel of Peter and how it might relate to the Koran's view of Jesus. Google Ehrman doesn't mention the Islamic issue though.
quote: He just talks about the stages of how Jesus became divine. The earliest, he says, came from the visions after the resurrection. The next earliest was the adoptionist Christology which had the divinity come just after the baptism. Like where Luke had God day "This day have I begotten you" right after the baptism in the Jordan river. Then the Virgin birth came after that chronologically. Ehrman doesn't mention the various gnostic views (or Islam), but there were some views that had a radical disjunction of Jesus with his body. He seems to have escaped the death on the cross via his spirit, which might have left his body, according to some interpretations of some gnostic gospels. There are lots of possibilities really. Paul said flesh and blood cannot inheret the kingdom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9200 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Can you please link to a source for this.
You might want to look at some great sources that deal with the academic arguments. Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier and Raphael Lataster. All three have well written, well researched and well argued books on the subject of the lack of historical evidence for a Jesus Christ. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024