|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of Jesus in the entire bible. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
hi,
What about a response to the 'soon' question?
Where's the proof? Eh, yeah exactly. Where is your proof?
Do you consider arts of the Bible to be false Well the theological claims can only be affrimed or denied, because there is no way to test them. I believe that the vast majority of the histrorical claims made in the Bible are false, and whats more, archaeology and history have preoven a lot of the Bible false. I believe especially that the historical claims made in the primary history books of the Bible (Genesis through 2 kings) are pure fiction. The more I study Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the Old Testament, the more convinced I am that there was no Patriarchs, no enslavement, no Exodus, no desert wanderings, no conquest of Canaan, no Saul, no David, no Solomon, no united monarchy. I would even go as far as to claim that since the advent of the 'New Archaeology' in the 1970's that EVERY archaeological find has undermined the Bible account of the primary history of Israel. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
"You said he would rule soon, an hour is soon but how can 2000 years be soon?"
Entertain the possibility of an infinite being; and determine the amounts of time that must elapse for that being to distinguish between which amounts are referred to as either "immediately" or "a while ago" (etc.) . It would seem, outwardly, that 2000 years may possibly fit the regiments of time relativity whereby an infinite being may constitute that amount of time as "soon". In reference to where one anothers proof is; assume since neither party can bring any remarkable proof to the table in order to substantiate this claim, one way or another, it will cause less circling by not requesting such evidence from one another. "Well the theological claims can only be affirmed or denied, because there is no way to test them." Cross that off the list also, agreed... It is possible for one, without regard for all supported and unsupported opinions and evidence, agreeable or arguable, to claim the possibility that not only did Jesus of Nazareth never exist, but that Israel has never existed either. Most mainstream religions today (Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism, etc.), educated disciples or non-educated, are reserved to the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was an influential teacher, compassionate healer, or a genuine prophet. It seems the debate very often resides in the Messianic claims...whether or not Jesus Christ (or whatever one calls him) is the "Son o' God". Such claims would be of little relevance to one who had no prior belief in a higher power. ------------------"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi, nice to meet you.
It would seem, outwardly, that 2000 years may possibly fit the regiments of time relativity whereby an infinite being may constitute that amount of time as "soon". It may be soon to God but why speak to your audience in terms that do not apply to them, why tell them 'soon' if the context ofthe word soon doesn't apply to them? Why not say, 'for me it will be soon but it will be long after you are dead and gone', you know something along the linesof telling the truth?
In reference to where one anothers proof is; assume since neither party can bring any remarkable proof to the table in order to substantiate this claim, one way or another, it will cause less circling by not requesting such evidence from one another. The person who posits the positive stance has the burden of proof, why should we go out of our way to disprove every unsubstantiated claim. If these people cannot prove these things happened then why are they surprised that cynics do not believe them?
It is possible for one, without regard for all supported and unsupported opinions and evidence, agreeable or arguable, to claim the possibility that not only did Jesus of Nazareth never exist, but that Israel has never existed either. I don't quite get this. I can visit Israel today, also, if you are speaking of the past, Israel is well-documented in external sources from the 8th century BCE onwards. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point?
Most mainstream religions today (Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism, etc.), educated disciples or non-educated, are reserved to the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was an influential teacher, compassionate healer, or a genuine prophet. It seems the debate very often resides in the Messianic claims...whether or not Jesus Christ (or whatever one calls him) is the "Son o' God". Such claims would be of little relevance to one who had no prior belief in a higher power. I think most arguments are over whether Jesus is actually God. As to his messianic claims, I really do not see where he has fulfilled any of the Jewish messianic prophecies. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Suppose the people whom which the prophecy was originally spoken to were but a vehicle to transport said prophecy to a future generation to which the subject spoken on would have relevance and meaning. It is not unheard of, in terms of general prophecy, for a prophecy to be fulfilled a generation or more after it was uttered....(although 2000 years certainly stretches a time line). If it was even said, maybe it was presented that way to them as to incite motivation and fervency, in the midst of questionable times and truths
Logically, it wouldn't be surprising that cynics have a hard time believing in anything that is not tangible. Atheists want proof as to the existence of God. Occasionally, the tables are turned and the atheist is required to furnish proof as to the non-existence of God. Both are equally reasonable requests; and yet both seem basically impossible as far as science is concerned to answer. And that leaves one with the Bible's claims being a "believer's" evidence of the existence of God and the authenticity of those same claims as an atheist's platform for their belief of God's nonexistence. The one has faith in the accuracy of the Bible and the other has faith in the fallacy of the Bible. So it is not really a scientific debate at all but, seemingly, a question of faith. "I think most arguments are over whether Jesus is actually God. As to his messianic claims, I really do not see where he has fulfilled any of the Jewish messianic prophecies...."- Sounds like the possible beginning to an interesting new thread, Brian ;o) ------------------"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Oh, by the way....greetings everyone and thank you for your welcoming me Brian....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Just to correct a couple of points. Firstly the prediction of the Second Coming as it appears in the Bible is addressed to the disciples and implies that some of them would live to see it. On the other hand there is no indication that it was intended as a message to a future generation at all. If your explanation is to be accepted there should at least be some positive indication that there could be a delay of many generations.
Secondly, demanding proof for the non-existence of an entity is not always equally as reasonable as demanding evidence or even a proof of existence. It is certainly not equally reasonable if the existence of the entity is non-falsifiable - but that is the whole point of demanding proof of the non-existence of God, is it not ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi again,
Could I just comment on this:
Atheists want proof as to the existence of God. Occasionally, the tables are turned and the atheist is required to furnish proof as to the non-existence of God. Both are equally reasonable requests; and yet both seem basically impossible as far as science is concerned to answer. I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone to disprove something that someone may have just made up. For example, could you disprove that last night I was visited by aliens from another planet and they told me that Jesus was an escaped prisoner from their civilisation and that they produced a double of him that was crucified by earthlings whilst they took the real alien Jesus back to their planet and they still have him in prison there? I could make up all sorts of nonsense to support my claim and you still couldnt disprove it, I think it is reasonable that the burden of proof is on me to prove that these things happened. If we have to accept that anything that we cannot disprove may be true then we wouldn't have time for anything else, we would be preoccupied with trying to disprove all sorts of nonsense. I think if someone says that something happened or that something exists then they have to bring the proof to the table. Perhaps, after they have brought that 'proof' then we can examine it for accuracy. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
I don't believe that dinosaurs had a spoken language, although someone else may believe that they did. Let's suppose, for a moment, that in prehistoric times dinosaurs did communicate in a spoken language...would the fact that there is no available proof in terms of recorded documents, eye witness, audio recordings (as of present) to substantiate the claim indicate the dinosaurs who did speak were any less audible to one another.
I'm questioning the infallibility of proof in general.More reasonably, hasn't electricity existed for thousands and thousands of years; although on a perspective time line we have only just begun to learn how to harness its potential. Would you have been correct in the year 1526 to state that electricity did not exist or that it had not been harnessed. Considering in 1752, Benjamin Franklin PROVED that lightning was electricity and that it could be guided by flying a kite during a thunderstorm (note-though he didn't kill himself doing this, two of his assistants were electrocuted, so never play with kites in thunderstorms...or near overhead electricity pylons), I think it would be more appropriate to state that the proper theory to prove the existence of electricity did not exist until the mid 1700's; being that it is apparent that the natural components that electricity consists of have been hard at work : long before it was "provably" discovered. Is the existence of any particular dictated by the availability of a successful theory(proof)? One can't always assume something has never come into existence based only on a lack of proof...... Look at OJ Simpson...he blatantly murdered two people, yet he was "proved" not guilty(lol) ------------------"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Hi, thanks for the reply, if indeed it is a reply to me!
I don't believe that dinosaurs had a spoken language, although someone else may believe that they did. Let's suppose, for a moment, that in prehistoric times dinosaurs did communicate in a spoken language...would the fact that there is no available proof in terms of recorded documents, eye witness, audio recordings (as of present) to substantiate the claim indicate the dinosaurs who did speak were any less audible to one another. Of course it doesn't prove that dinosaurs didn't speak to each other, but as I say, if the person is claiming that they did then they should have the burden of proof, what makes them think that the dino's spoke to each other? I know what you are saying, you mean that even if they cannot prove it that doesn't change the fact that they did speak to each other, but this just confirms my point. If we have to entertain the possibility that everything is possible, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, then how do we ever disprove something that sounds absurd. Did you know that yesterday I was videotaped running a three minute mile, unfortunately I have lost the tape and the cameraman has died in a car accident. Questions: 1. Do you believe that I ran a three minute mile?2. Why do you believe/disbelieve me? More reasonably, hasn't electricity existed for thousands and thousands of years; Well we have proof that it has.
although on a perspective time line we have only just begun to learn how to harness its potential. I don't think that harnessing its potential has any bearing on the fact of its existence, it exists whether we harness it or not, and it is observed in either state.
Would you have been correct in the year 1526 to state that electricity did not exist or that it had not been harnessed. But prior to 1526 people could still see 'electricity', they could still witness its effects on the environment. The word 'electricity' is just a name given to an already established phenomenon, the observation hasn't changed, all that has happened is that it now has a name.
Is the existence of any particular dictated by the availability of a successful theory(proof)? No, I agree it isn't, but the acceptance of a particular is dictated by proof. Why should I accept that there's a devil without any proof? Of course there may be a devil but the evidence hasnt been provided for me to accept this. As far as OJ goes, as a Scotsman, I have great faith in the American Justice system! Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This also supports Brian's point. The trial did not prove that OJ did not commit the crime. The trial was an attempt to prove that he did commit it. The jurors decided there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty. Not guilty does not mean innocent. Not guilty means 'not enough evidence to prove guilt.' There is a difference. In other words, we assume he didn't do it because there was not enough evidence to prove he did-- at least in the minds of the jurors. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Just to correct a couple of points. Firstly the prediction of the Second Coming as it appears in the Bible is addressed to the disciples and implies that some of them would live to see it. On the other hand there is no indication that it was intended as a message to a future generation at all. If your explanation is to be accepted there should at least be some positive indication that there could be a delay of many generations Firstly, there are a plethora of prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Jesus appearing in the Bible (not all directed towards the disciples*); Titus 2:13, *Revelation 19:16, Luke21:28, etc. What verse(s) are you referring to?
Secondly, demanding proof for the non-existence of an entity is not always equally as reasonable as demanding evidence or even a proof of existence. It is certainly not equally reasonable if the existence of the entity is non-falsifiable - but that is the whole point of demanding proof of the non-existence of God, is it not ? Deduct from what is left....
poke & hope Love,weary p.s. Evidence for Jesus in the entire Bible ------------------"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Try Mark 13 for a prediction of the Second coming.
As for my second point your answer seems to be that all guesses must be considered equally reasonable. But this is not the case. In fact given the absence of information non-existence should be the assumption for anything other than broad classes which cover so many possible entities that it is reasonabbel to assume that at least on example exists. I would add that complex ordered entities are sufficiently unlikely - as is often stated by people attempting to argue FOR the existence of God - that we can reasonably reject the existence of any such entity in the absence of relevant evidence that renders that existence more likely (e.g. we can legitimately propose the existence of an ordinary human since we know that humans exist - but we could not propose the existence of, say, a Klingon because our only acquiantance with Klingons is fiction).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Hi Paul (and everyone else,too),
Try Mark 13 for a prediction of the Second coming.
quote:Whether to inform or comfort them, Jesus explicitly told them to not be alarmed if they saw these things come to pass during their lifetime. They were told ''Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.''(still to come=not here yet). The anti-Xs', earthquakes, famines, and rumors of war are simulated to the beginnings of birth pangs. The fulfillment of said criteria was of no indication to the disciples that the end would be near. quote: All nations were not yet established during the lifetime of the disciples. Although, if it referred only to the nations in existence at the time of the disciples, it would have been obvious to them that the "gospel" could not realistically be "preached" to all the existing nations during only the remainder of their half spent lives(appr.30-40 yrs.). Most likely the disciples understood they were undertaking a new belief system that would presumably take a lot of organization,time,energy, and commitment to present to "all nations"...considerably longer than one half of a lifetime (especially when countered with great opposition.).
quote: Isn't the reader blatantly addressed in terms of witnessing the 'the abomination that causes desolation'. Although speaking to the disciples privately, there is an indication here that the message was also intended for some other people, hence; " let the reader understand". After all, he didn't say," Now pay attention guys, Mark, Matt, Luke...when you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong, run for the hills"
quote: In context, "this generation" seems to refer to the one that will witness the fulfillment of the *latter(ALL) of the prophecies. *One who is dead may no longer witness the prophecies fulfillment in its entirety, while the one who is alive to witnesses the latter prophecies fulfillments may also research the recorded fulfillment of the former (hence; "all these things"). One indication that the disciples weren't the intended generation is made by the advisory for the disciples to not be alarmed when they notice the beginning of the prophecies (anti-X, rumors of war, earthquakes, famines).
quote:
In fact given the absence of information non-existence should be the assumption for anything other than broad classes which cover so many possible entities that it is reasonabbel to assume that at least on example exists. An established theory (evidence) and science in general are based on facts....not reasonable assumptions. The absence of information in regards to the existence of any particular entity is not sufficient proof to make the assertion that such an entity exists or has never existed. Nor does it equate the former as a "default". The lack of evidence to support claims of such a being(s) only sets the stage for the reality that the proper theory to prove the existence of said being(s) does not exist .... as the world's consciousness is enlightened everyday by scientific breakthroughs and archeological discoveries, sometimes rendering evidence to support the most unlikely of truths. One, in actuality, would only be guessing (or opinionate) if one was to even say that "The proper theory to prove the existence of such being(s) has never existed.", if reserved to the possibility, although not necessarily the likelihood, that the evidence may exist and has not been discovered as of yet. ------------------love, weary "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Bailey Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 574 From: Earth Joined: |
Hi Brian,
If we have to entertain the possibility that everything is possible, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, then how do we ever disprove something that sounds absurd.
Through a process of deduction where existing knowledge and science can be utilized; and a process of individual acceptance/unacceptance otherwise.Better yet, since faith is based on spiritual enlightenment, how does one disprove the possibilities/absurdities of a personal revelation to themselves once one has had a "spiritual awakening"? Did you know that yesterday I was videotaped running a three minute mile, unfortunately I have lost the tape and the cameraman has died in a car accident. Questions: 1. Do you believe that I ran a three minute mile?2. Why do you believe/disbelieve me? 1. No 2. I am left with a strong reservation that you are saying this to strengthen your point in this forum, as opposed to sharing your accomplishments/ prevarications with me.
As far as OJ goes, as a Scotsman, I have great faith in the American Justice system! ouch!! ------------------love, weary "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I notice that you omit Mark 13:1-4
'3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple,Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"' And what are these things ? - the destruction of the Temple. '2 Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not onestone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."' You omit verse 9, clearly addressed to the disciples as is verse 11 - is verse 10 then to be understood as applying to the efforts of people centuries in the future ? Is not the "let the reader understand" best understood as an insertion by the author of the Gospel ? Jesus has not told anyone to write down the words, there is no writing or reader in the context of the actual discussion. Is not verse 21 instructing the disciples what they should do in those times ? And which generation saw the destruction of the Temple, that was in Jerusalem when Jesus lived ? Even if you take the questionable reading of implying that the generation which sees the signs will be the generation which sees the end (rather redundant when they are supposed to be signs of the end !) the generation appears to be that of the time when Jesus was speaking or shortly after. And, by the way, can you tell me where I stated that the non-existence of God was an established theory ? Or scientific ? All I stated was that assuming non-existence was more reasonable than assuming existence in the absence of significant evidence either way. And appealing to evidence or theories that MIGHT be produced is hardly a convincing argument to the contrary.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024