Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

[wizard]

So tell us who you think the leader was, or do you propose god created the gospel accounts himself? :shrug:

what does this have to do with the validity of the bible

 

[Woody]

what does this have to do with the validity of the bible

I asked who the leader was. Somebody was. You tell me who was. Our best evidence says Jesus was. Do you have better evidence? Where?

 

[Woody]

Gday,



Pardon?
What is your point?

Yes, Joseph Smith existed - so what?

He was the only person that saw the so-called "golden tablets" and he was the leader. He wrote the book of mormon and proposed it as fact. If the book were written two thousand years ago, what would make it different from the gospel accounts? The gospel has four different accounts which don't entirely agree with each other -- the kind of thing we would expect from more than one author.

Yes, all documents have authors - so what?

Did Bacchus exist?

Did somebody write a book about him that said he existed? Who?

Did Hercules exist?
Did Osiris exist?
Did Xenu exist?
Do the Ascended Masters exist?

ditto for the rest, with only one author.

Every text has an author, and every religion has a leader. Joseph Smith was the mormom leader. Who was the Christian leader? The gospel accounts have more than one author.

 

[wizard]

I asked who the leader was. Somebody was. You tell me who was. Our best evidence says Jesus was. Do you have better evidence? Where?

according to your logic, our best evidence that leprechauns exist is the existence of gold coins... so we should believe leprechauns exist

it doesn't work that way

and jesus probably didn't exist btw. at least not even close to the description in the bible. he might've been the pothead that wrote it though

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

He was the only person that saw the so-called "golden tablets" and he was the leader. He wrote the book of mormon and proposed it as fact. If the book were written two thousand years ago, what would make it different from the gospel accounts?

But what is your POINT man?
Spit it out!
You keep preaching in this holier-than-thou tone as if your point is oh-so-obvious and oh-so-right. When in fact it's almost impossible figure out what the point actually IS.

Are you saying the Gospels are as fraudulent as the Book of Mormon?
I agree.

The gospel has four different accounts which don't entirely agree with each other -- the kind of thing we would expect from more than one author.

It all started with ONE Gospel - G.Mark, and the others largely copied from that while making changes they saw fit. And not one of them had ANY first hand knowledge of the people places or events.

So yes,
the Gospels are just like the multiple sources for the Greek myths, or multiple versions of the Hindu scriptures, or the stories of the ascended masters - contradictory, and full of supernatural legends.

Did somebody write a book about him that said he existed? Who?

Are you kidding?
How about "The Bacchantes" by Euripides - where Bacchus appears directly (as Dionysus.) Numerous ancient authors wrote about Bacchus as if he existed - they all believed such beings existed back then.

ditto for the rest,

'ditto' what?
You didn't actually SAY anything !
You just asked a question showing your ignorance of ancient Greek legends.
This is like debating a cloud.

with only one author.

What nonsense. One author?
Here is a list of authors who wrote about Hercules as if he was real :

The Illiad, Sophocles, Moschus, 2 Maccabees, Marcus Porcius, Plautus, Polybius, Cornelius Nepos, Catullus, Lucretius, Cicero, Flaccus, Sallust, Propertius, Virgil, Livy, Ovid, Paterculus, Lucan, Petronius, Philo, Seneca, Statius, Josephus, Elder Pliny, Plutarch, Epictetus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Appian, Aulus Gellius, Celsus, Clement of Alexandria, Galen, Justinus, Melito of Sardis, Tatian.

That's 38 sources who wrote about Hercules as if he was real - that's nearly ten times the quantity of Gospels, making Hercules almost ten times more true than Jesus - at least according to your bizarre theory about numbers of books.

Every text has an author,

How many texts did Jesus author?

and every religion has a leader... Who was the Christian leader?

You keep saying "leader", when I think you mean "founder".
Christian had a founder(s) - Paul, (and then the author of Mark.)
Jesus himself made NO MARK at all on history in any way.
(But belief about him did, and believers can't tell the difference.)

There is no historical evidence what-so-ever that Jesus ever lead, or founded any religion. Just BELIEVERS who AFTERWARDS made many claims, and wrote many books, about Jesus.

Joseph Smith was the mormom leader.

A con-man and a fraud who wrote a fraudulent 'Gospel' - why do you keep bringing him up ?

The gospel accounts have more than one author.

We all know that.
But you keep saying that obvious statement as if it means something.
What?
Why?


Kapyong

 

[Woody]

according to your logic, our best evidence that leprechauns exist is the existence of gold coins... so we should believe leprechauns exist

Jesus isn't on a gold coin.

it doesn't work that way

I know.

and jesus probably didn't exist btw. at least not even close to the description in the bible. he might've been the pothead that wrote it though

I look at this as a legal case. You take the best evidence you have and make a decision. The authors are witnesses. The could be false witnesses, but never-the-less, they are witnesses.

 

[Woody]

Gday,



But what is your POINT man?
Spit it out!

I made my point in the previous post. History isn't decided in a science lab. History is decided much in the same way that law is decided. In a legal proceeding you have witnesses. The witness testimony is evaluated and corroborated.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Iasion,

Ah,
so you already know Josephus is worthless as evidence - but you are going to keep citing it, and put "refuted" in scare quotes so you can pretend it hasn't really been refuted ? Does that sound reasonable to you ?

Though this may be a correct assessment of the Testimonium, we should note that an Arabic version (10th Century) of the Testimonium (translated into English) is in basic agreement with the existing Josephus account:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

If I’m correct muslims do not believe in the resurrection, and as such would have no reason to fabricate, or invent documents in support of it.
So what do you make of this?

Jan.

 

[ggazoo]

Not that such a thing invalidates Christianity; it's of no consequence to me as to what others believe. I mean, my beliefs (polytheism, nature worship) has been persecuted for over a millennia; it'd be hypocritical of me to discriminate the beliefs of others.

Cheers. :thumbsup:

I'd like to through in my two cents on the evidence argument that's happening here. Prominent disbelievers in Christianity today - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens - insist that sufficient reasons do not exist for the existence of God, and many here are obviously in that camp. Dawkins, for example, says that the claim of God's existence is a scientific hypothesis that should be open to rational demonstration. He and his co-skeptics want a logical or empirical argument for God that is airtight and therefore convinces almost everyone. They, like many on these forums, won't believe in God until they get it.

Is there anything wrong with that? I think so. These authors are evaluating Christian arguments by what some have called "strong rationalism". Its proponents laid down what was called the 'verification principle", namely, that no one should believe a proposition unless it can be proved rationally by logic or empirically by sense experience. What is meant by the word "proved"? Proof, in this view, is an argument so strong that no person whose logical faculties are operating properly would have any reason for disbelieving it. Atheists and agnostics ask for this kind of "proof" for God, but are not alone in holding to strong rationalism. You tend to believe that many Christians claim that their arguments for faith are so strong that all who reject them are simply closing their minds to the truth out of fear or stubbornness.

Despite all the books calling Christians to provide proofs for their beliefs, you won't see philosophers doing so, not even the most atheistic. The great majority think that strong rationalism is nearly impossible to defend. To begin with, it can't live up to it's own standards. How could you empirically prove that no one should believe something without empirical proof? You can't, and that reveals it to be, ultimately, a belief. Strong rationalism also assumes that it is impossible to achieve "the view from nowhere", a position of almost complete objectivity, but virtually all philosophers today agree that is impossible. We come to every individual evaluation will all sorts of experiences and background beliefs that strongly influence our thinking and the way our reason works. It is not fair, then, to demand argument that all rational people would have to bow to.

Basically, it comes down to this. In Is there a God? Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne argues powerfully that belief in God can be tested and justified (but not proven). The view that there is a God, he says, leads us to expect the things that we observe - that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousness and with indelible moral sense. The theory that there is no God, he argues, does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, belief in God offers a better empirical fit, it explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative account of things. No view of God can be proven, but that does not mean that we cannot sift and weigh the grounds for various religious beliefs that some or even one is the most reasonable.

Ok, so that was more than two cents.

 

[wizard]

Jesus isn't on a gold coin.

you are very good at avoiding the point

or you just have horrible reading comprehension

I know.

no, i don't think you do

I look at this as a legal case. You take the best evidence you have and make a decision. The authors are witnesses. The could be false witnesses, but never-the-less, they are witnesses.

false witnesses cannot be legally used to determine truth in any legal case, and should never be used to determine truth in ANY case. that's why they're called "false" witnesses. currently our best "evidence" is the lack of evidence. so we say "i don't know." we don't make extraordinary claims without the evidence to back it up

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I asked who the leader was. Somebody was. You tell me who was.

Paul started it.
And he made clear he got his teaching from NO man, but from the Holy Spirit.
Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Herod, Pilate, Judas, the trial, the miracles etc.
Paul never met Jesus.

G.Mark was written by an unknown person who never met Jesus.
The other Gospels were copied from G.Mark by unknown person who never met Jesus.
The other NT epistles were also largely forged by persons who never met any Jesus.

Our best evidence says Jesus was.

What evidence?
Modern NT scholars agree that NOT ONE SINGLE book in the NT was written by anyone who ever met any Jesus.

i.e. there is no evidence that Jesus "lead" anyone at all !

Do you have better evidence? Where?

Yes.
Read some expert NT scholars for a change Woody.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I look at this as a legal case. You take the best evidence you have and make a decision.

It's not a legal case at all !
Why do you keep saying this ?!

The authors are witnesses. The could be false witnesses, but never-the-less, they are witnesses.

Well that just says it all -
Woody admits it could all be false, but he still believes it !


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

I made my point in the previous post. History isn't decided in a science lab.

But no-one ever said it was !
Woody - your posts are so confused and bizarre, that 1/2 the time we can't even figure out what you are saying.

So now when asked to be clear about your point you DODGE the question!
Are you so ashamed of your point that you can't even say it?

History is decided much in the same way that law is decided.

No it isn't.

In a legal proceeding you have witnesses. The witness testimony is evaluated and corroborated.

It's not a legal proceeding.
We don't have witnesses.

We have some anonymous religious books which preach some new beliefs.
For some reason, you think these are "witnesses".
Why?

Are the Greek myths "witnesses" to Hercules, Woody?
Are the Hindu scriptures "witnesses" to Krishna, Woody?

I clearly showed you claims were nonsense above, you just snipped it all out and now act like it never happened.

How dishonest.
Your claims were shown false, and that won't go away by ignoring it, Woody.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

Iasion,
If I’m correct muslims do not believe in the resurrection, and as such would have no reason to fabricate, or invent documents in support of it.
So what do you make of this?
Jan.

The "Muslims" did not fabricate it.
This is just a late copy (of an earlier fabrication) by some person, not the "muslims".


Iasion

 

[TheVisitor]

how do you know there aren't two true gods, or none at all?

Now that is a good question, and if you're sincerely asking for an answer I'd like to be able to give it to you.
I'm not going to quote from two thousand year old texts or ask you to choose the most rational answer from scholars and theologians.
It's something you will know if your meant to, made clear personally to you.
Can you believe if there is a real God, He is capable of dealing with you personally? Don't take my word for it.
My words are just the words of a man like you.
If the Bible is the word of God, make God prove His words to you. Then you'll know.

 

[Woody]

you are very good at avoiding the point

or you just have horrible reading comprehension

I'd say you have a horrible way of making a point. What has a leprachaun (that no one takes seriously), got to do with a book like the bible that has more than 50 different authors that billions of people take quite seriously?

Perhaps you can explain the connection because I just don't see it.

false witnesses cannot be legally used to determine truth in any legal case,

Nobody said they could, however someone must decide if the witness is lying. They do it by comparing to other witness accounts.

and should never be used to determine truth in ANY case.

The witness must take the stand before you can make the call. If you have other witnesses that can contradict the false witness testimony, then you clearly have a convincing case worth considering. You haven't won your argument, but at least you have data for your point of view. So do you have any eyewitness accounts from 33 AD, that say something like, "I was here in Jerusalem, and this Jesus guy wasn't."

that's why they're called "false" witnesses.

and that's why they go to jail for perjury in a courtroom.

currently our best "evidence" is the lack of evidence.

You are correct in that you lack evidence that invalidates the gospel accounts.

Currently the best historical evidence available is a bible. It might not be correct, but it is the best evidence available.

so we say "i don't know." we don't make extraordinary claims without the evidence to back it up

I don't think you understand how the bible was put together. It is the codification of several independent writings. Every "book" in the codification has a different author.

This isn't Homer (one author) and the Odessy (one book). It is a collection of several different authors.

 

[wizard]

I'd say you have a horrible way of making a point. What has a leprachaun (that no one takes seriously), got to do with a book like the bible that has more than 50 different authors that billions of people take quite seriously?

Perhaps you can explain the connection because I just don't see it.

it has to do with the validity of your "evidence"

Nobody said they could, however someone must decide if the witness is lying. They do it by comparing to other witness accounts.

The witness must take the stand before you can make the call. If you have other witnesses that can contradict the false witness testimony, then you clearly have a convincing case worth considering. You haven't won your argument, but at least you have data for your point of view. So do you have any eyewitness accounts from 33 AD, that say something like, "I was here in Jerusalem, and this Jesus guy wasn't."

there is no "witness" we can gather reliable information from. the people that wrote the bible are dead and could very well have been writing what they knew to be fiction. because of this, their work cannot be used as evidence.

You are correct in that you lack evidence that invalidates the gospel accounts.

i am also correct in saying that you lack the evidence to differentiate history with the bible being the word of god with history where the bible is fiction. and going by occam's razor, we ignore the claim that assumes more.

Currently the best historical evidence available is a bible. It might not be correct, but it is the best evidence available.

you cannot use the bible to prove the bible's claims. duh

 

[Woody]

it has to do with the validity of your "evidence"

leprecahun = bible. I don't think so. I can show you a real bible. Can you show me a real leprechaun?

there is no "witness" we can gather reliable information from.

Is this because people are just unreliable and can't be trusted? Yet a courtroom uses eyewitness accounts all the time. How do you know they are reliable?

the people that wrote the bible are dead and could very well have been writing what they knew to be fiction.

But it came from more than one author. That would require some type of conspiracy wouldn't it? Got evidence there was a conspiracy from a reliable source?

because of this, their work cannot be used as evidence.

History is the work of people that are dead now.. Their work is used as evidence. It's taught in history classes. Yet you say it should not. That doesn't sound very intelligent.

i am also correct in saying that you lack the evidence to differentiate history with the bible being the word of god with history where the bible is fiction.

In other words I can't prove to you that God exists. Neither can you prove that he doesn't.

and going by occam's razor, we ignore the claim that assumes more.

Going by occam's razor we can not throw out the only real data we have -- which is the written text of the bible. The data might not be correct but the bible is real. Mine is brown in color, it weighs a couple of pounds, and it has a leather binding.

you cannot use the bible to prove the bible's claims.

Without opposing testimonies from real eyewitnesses that lived back then, you have no way to disprove the bible's claims.

duh

 

[wizard]

leprecahun = bible. I don't think so. I can show you a real bible. Can you show me a real leprechaun?

again, you are missing the point, which i explained in the last post if you read it in context

Is this because people are just unreliable and can't be trusted? Yet a courtroom uses eyewitness accounts all the time. How do you know they are reliable?

it's cause they're dead

But it came from more than one author. That would require some type of conspiracy wouldn't it? Got evidence there was a conspiracy from a reliable source?

so what if it came from more than one author? lots of societies had legends which were passed down for generations. each time someone told the story it would be altered. it doesn't mean the legends are true

History is the work of people that are dead now.. Their work is used as evidence. It's taught in history classes. Yet you say it should not. That doesn't sound very intelligent.

historians follow(ed) specific procedures in coming up with what they believe happened in the past. theists just say "cause the bible says so." which one is more reliable? (actually, i'd prefer is a theist didn't answer this question)

In other words I can't prove to you that God exists. Neither can you prove that he doesn't

i never said she doesn't

Going by occam's razor we can not throw out the only real data we have -- which is the written text of the bible. The data might not be correct but the bible is real. Mine is brown in color, it weighs a couple of pounds, and it has a leather binding.

occam's razor says nothing about throwing away observations. look it up. and the bible being real has nothing to do with its validity. harry potter books are real but it doesn't mean wizards exist.

Without opposing testimonies from real eyewitnesses that lived back then, you have no way to disprove the bible's claims.

you have the burden of proof, not me.

 

[Iasion]

Gday,

leprecahun = bible. I don't think so. I can show you a real bible. Can you show me a real leprechaun?

Leprachaun = Jesus.
No actual evidence for either.
Just beliefs, and stories.
None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

Yet a courtroom uses eyewitness accounts all the time. How do you know they are reliable?

Woody -
we don't have eye-witness accounts,
we have stories from unknown hands, who copied from each other.
The Gospels were anonymous until mid-late 2nd century.
Not one single NT book was written by anyone who met Jesus.
None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

But it came from more than one author.

So did the Greek myths, so do the Hindu scriptures, etc. etc.
Sure, then must have been one to start with - so what?
There was ONE Gospel to start with too - G.Mark
The others COPIED from G.Mark while making changes they wanted.

The situation with the Gospels is EXACTLY the same as for the Greek myths, or Hindu scriptures etc.

Myths and legends that grew over time, but no actual historical evidence.
None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

That would require some type of conspiracy wouldn't it?

No, why would it?
Many authors writers wrote about Hercules,
Many authors wrote about Krishna.
Several authors wrote about the ascended masters.
Several authors have written about Luke Skywalker too.
Are they all conspiracies, Woody?

History is the work of people that are dead now.. Their work is used as evidence. It's taught in history classes. Yet you say it should not. That doesn't sound very intelligent.

Are the Greek myths evidence of Hercules?
None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

Going by occam's razor we can not throw out the only real data we have -- which is the written text of the bible. The data might not be correct but the bible is real.

You're right !!
The bible IS real, but the data in it is NOT correct.
Just like the Greek myths and the Hindu scriptures etc.
None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.

Without opposing testimonies from real eyewitnesses that lived back then, you have no way to disprove the bible's claims.

We have plenty of ways to disprove the bible's claims :
* it has impossible magical events in it
* its stories have errors of history and culture and geography
* we can see it's largely copied from earlier myths
* the origins are unknown, author's un-named
* the myths grew over time
* the Gospels stories are completely contradictory


None of the Gospels were by eye-witnesses.


Iasion