Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[pavlosmarcos]

Oh, I think I get what you're saying pav... but your interpretation does not sit well with me.

You are saying to lack anything (creativity in this case) would be to be imperfect... flawed. Agreed. To have creativity would fit within the definition of perfect. Agreed. To express that creativity would demonstrate imperfection because, according to you, the expression of creativity equates to need... I disagree.

then do you care to enlighten us, as to how, you are not giving a reason why it is wrong, your simply denying it.
perfection is not compatible with having needs or wants, Perhaps god lacked nothing essential, if creation merely resulted by accident, This might be effective, but its logical conclusion is that, as far as god is concerned, this universe is rendered trivial and unessential — even irrelevant.

 

[TW Scott]

Greetings,



We have no reason to conclude Jesus was real.
The Bible was written by people who never met any Jesus, written long after his alleged life, crafted from the OT and pagan literature.

There are no contemporary Judaic records.
The Koran is many CENTURIES afterwards - it means nothing.
There are no supporting factors.

There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus - just later legends by people preaching a new religion about Jesus.




The Bible has been shown wrong about many things - the Flood, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan - all myths.

Joseph is a myth.
Moses is a myth.
Elijah is a myth.
Solomon is probably a myth.
David is probably a myth.
The Bible is LEGENDS and MYTHS in it's early layers.




Rubbish.
The REED Sea was never parted (it's not the "Red Sea".)
The plagues never happened.
Solomon is UNKNOWN to history.
The crucifixion is UNKNOWN to history.




The existance of OTHER people has no baring on Jesus.
Jesus existance stands and falls on EVIDENCE for Jesus.
There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus, even where we would expect it (e.g. Philo, Seneca, Justus.)
There IS evidence that the Jesus story was crafted from the OT, with elements of pagan literature as well - e.g. the empty tomb theme, which is known in ancient novels of the time, but oddly totally MISSING from the early Christian writers.



There is no reason to conclude Jesus existed,
and many reasons to conclude he was a myth.

No-one mentioned "conspiracy to create a fiction" - apologists love to bash this strawman.

Was there a conspiracy to create a fictional Odysseus?
Many ancient people thought he existed.
And Osiris, and Beowulf - etc.

Many ancient stories about many ancient heroes exist - many people thought they were real - so what?

What makes you think YOUR ancient religious myth is true, but others are false?

The fact that it's YOURs - and you have FAITH in it.

But sadly,
no-one can come up with any "scientific evidence" for Jesus.

All we get is "UN-scientific evidence" - preaching and hand-waving.


Iasion

Ignorance is normally not a tangible thing, but in your case I couldn't cut it with a lasersaw.

Start looking at the Bible then start looking at science and new things we are discovering everyday. Look at history, not just on the internet but get your lazy arse down to a library. Call places, do actual research not googling.

In the end it comes down to this we have legal and anecdotal proof of Jesus of Nazareth. We have no scientific evidence of his nonexistance and belief me in this case it would be easy. We don't even have anecdotal evidence of his nonexistance. So it comes down to Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified. We don't know if he was the son of god, but that is not what was asked.

 

[(Q)]

Start looking at the Bible then start looking at science and new things we are discovering everyday.

I'm curious as to what you're trying to say here? Yes, science IS discovering new things everyday, but I fail to see what that has to do with the bible? In fact, those who tend to support the bible usually try to suppress science.

Look at history, not just on the internet but get your lazy arse down to a library. Call places, do actual research not googling.

In the end it comes down to this we have legal and anecdotal proof of Jesus of Nazareth.

Well, if armies of historians can't find any evidence, how is it you're aware of legal evidence?

Please share those sources and references?

So it comes down to Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified.

We need to see your evidence before making that determination.

 

[SkinWalker]

Look at history, not just on the internet but get your lazy arse down to a library. Call places, do actual research not googling.

Based on the details provided by Iasion, I'd call him anything but "lazy." But, since you brought it up, I spend a fair amount of time in libraries. What citations have you that I should invest my time in?

In the end it comes down to this we have legal and anecdotal proof of Jesus of Nazareth.

Anecdotal "evidence" is the poorest kind. Indeed, most prosecutors and defenders are hesitant to rely on such "evidence" unless there is corroborating physical evidence. So, in a court of law, the only way the case of Jesus would be decided is by appealing to the preconceived biases and beliefs of the jury. Science, however, would rule that the character "Jesus" of the myths of Christianity is a mythical god and probably not one that actually existed.

This is easily inferred from the mere fact that "Jesus" is a near mirror replica of the Dionysus god of the much earlier Greek culture, the same culture that provided the language and much of the iconography of the New Testament (i.e. angels modeled after nikes).

We have no scientific evidence of his nonexistence

We have no scientific evidence of the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Are you suggesting this is reason to believe it exists?

The only thing we really have is a bunch of religious nutters that are all bent out of shape because their beliefs and assumptions are questioned. And probably because there are those that dare to call them "nutters." But I fail to see any other appropriate term. After all, we deride the believers in far-fetched notions like alien abductions, psychic surgery, flying carpets, and big foot. Each of these and more have their share of believers that cannot provide anything but anecdotal "evidence" for their claims. None have been able to show any testable evidence (the real kind of evidence).

The difference between these believers and religious believers are actually few, but important. One of the differences is that there are no known wars started that involve believers of alien abduction; there are no inquisitions imposed upon heretics of psychic surgery; and none who refuse to believe big foot was anything but a redneck's wife in a gorilla costume have been burned at the stake.

If we're willing to hold these nutters to a standard because they're unable to demonstrate evidence for their claims, then we would be intellectually dishonest to have a different standard for religious nutters simply because their numbers are far greater than alien abductees and their delusions more reaching than the believers of flying carpets.

At the end of the day, Jesus simply does not exist when examined scientifically. Indeed, the evidence (earlier mythical gods like Dionysus) suggests he is a myth.

 

[Iasion]

Ignorance is normally not a tangible thing, but in your case I couldn't cut it with a lasersaw.

So,
now the insults start.
Standard procedure for Christian apologists when they are losing an argument.

Clearly, you have no evidence - so you start insulting people when they challenge your faithful claims.
We are not fooled, you have no evidence, no case.

Start looking at the Bible

Ah yes,
more insults.
What a crock of ol' cobblers.

In the minds of Christian apologists - anyone who disagrees must have never read the Bible.

TW Scott seems to actually believe that everyone who reads the Bible agrees with him - what silly nonsense.

I, and many others, HAVE read the Bible - and we do NOT swallow it hook line and sinker like TW Scott did.

So, TW Scott - have YOU read the Koran?
If you had, you would know it was true.

So, TW Scott - have YOU read the Gita?
If you had, you would know it was true.

See how silly this is?

then start looking at science and new things we are discovering everyday.

What?
Are you pretending we discover things about Jesus everyday?
What ON EARTH are you on about?

Look at history, not just on the internet but get your lazy arse down to a library.

More insults.
My personal library includes nearly all the ancient writers - I have over 300 books from before the Dark AGes. Including the ancient Greeks, Romans, Persians, Jews, Babylonians, Church Fathers etc. I have read Brown, Ehrman, Metzger, Aland, Zindler etc. - I bet you don't even know who these people ARE!

Your rude insults are pathetic TW Scott - I have spent YEARS studying this subject, I have visited many libraries, I have studied the ancient myths, the Greek NT etc. etc.

You can see the results of my resarch on my web site:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/index.html

Such as my list of early writers:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html
Which shows that Jesus was UNKNOWN to the world in his time.

Or my analysis of Christian references
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Table.html
Which shows that even the early CHRISTIANS were unaware of the Gospel stories until mid 2nd century.

Or my page on Iasion, the Greek mythical "Jesus":
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/iasion.html


But it seems you have never studied this subject at all.
You just repeat faithful preaching you heard in church.

Well,
you aren't in church now - we won't be echoing "praise Jesus" when you preach your faithful beliefs.

Call places, do actual research not googling.

I have done years of research - you show no signs of ANY study at all.

For instance, you mentioned "Judaic records" - when I pointed out there are no such records, you responded with insults instead of information - do you still believe there are "Judaic records" of Jesus?

In the end it comes down to this we have legal

No we don't.
If YOU think we do - then produce the "legal" evidence.

and anecdotal proof of Jesus of Nazareth.

We have anecdotal proof of Sherlock Holmes.
So what?

We have no scientific evidence of his nonexistance and belief me in this case it would be easy.

You don't appear to understand how history works.

Evidence of EXISTANCE is needed to support a person's existance.
We do NOT look for evidnce of "non-existance" - how silly.

We have no evidence that Zeus was non-existant.
We have no evidence that Osiris was non-existant.
We have no evidence that Krishna was non-existant.
We have no evidence that Odysseus was non-existant.

Therefore, according to YOUR argument - these people were REAL - showing just how silly this argument is.

But,
we DO have many examples of early writers who DISAGREED that Jesus came to earth in the flesh :

2 John warns of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

That's a CHRISTIAN writer referring to CHRISTIANS who do NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh.


Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

“Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour..."


Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"


Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -


Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus wrote just as the Gospels were becoming known, and specifically attacked them as FICTION based on MYTH.


Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :

"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :

"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


The early record of Christianity is FULL of arguments and doubts about Jesus - some say he was a phantom, some say he never appeared in the flesh, some say the Gospels are complete FICTION.


The Christian father Felix even says explicitly that Christians do NOT worship a man crucified because Gods cannot become man !

So it comes down to Jesus of Nazareth existed and was crucified

So why can't you come up with any EVIDENCE?
Why don't you answer the points I raise?
Why do you stoop to insults when challenged?
Hmm?


Iasion

 

[TheVisitor]

Yes, science IS discovering new things everyday, but I fail to see what that has to do with the bible?

In fact, those who tend to support the bible usually try to suppress science.

Maybe the Catholic church did in the dark ages, like cults that claim to be Christian and other of the world's religions still do today.
That much is true, but the truth doesn't have to "suppress" anything.
It stands alone against everything that tries to suppress it.

True science will eventually - (If we don't annihilate ourselves with the knowledge first) - break into the great laboratory of God and discover the mechanics of how He created everything ....formed mater from energy or even from nothing at all.
I've always said that here on this site.

There is no conflict between true scientific discovery and true knowledge as revealed by God.
The conflict comes when "religious" people put a false interpretation to the scriptures without Divine revelation, or the "scientific community" which has in some cases just hijacked the name of science, comes against the Bible in their lack of understanding it.
They attempt to discredit it to stop something other than themselves from being used as an absolute authority.

Without a spiritual understanding of the scriptures, the natural man with carnal reasoning believes themselves justified in saving us all from the "Inquisition".
In reality both these groups are inspired by the same source.
One uses a false light to imitate the Gospel and bring a reproach on the name of Christ, and the other points out the error and champions their cause as saying all is error and the whole idea of God is false.
Can't you see it is Satan on both sides, playing "both ends against the middle" sort to speak.
Its just two horns on the same beast, left and right.

 

[spiritual_spy]

True science will eventually - (If we don't annihilate ourselves with the knowledge first) - break into the great laboratory of God and discover the mechanics of how He created everything ....formed mater from energy or even from nothing at all.

What are you talking about? More and More info is being shown that the universe formed naturaly and not by some supernatural force.

 

[Wilmet]

then do you care to enlighten us, as to how, you are not giving a reason why it is wrong, your simply denying it.
perfection is not compatible with having needs or wants, Perhaps god lacked nothing essential, if creation merely resulted by accident, This might be effective, but its logical conclusion is that, as far as god is concerned, this universe is rendered trivial and unessential — even irrelevant.

Hi pav,

From what I gather, you are saying that one who expresses their creativity is one who is in need. While that might be true in some cases, I do not think it's a given in all cases. For all we know, creative expression could very well be one aspect of perfection.

 

[TheVisitor]

True science will eventually - (If we don't annihilate ourselves with the knowledge first) - break into the great laboratory of God and discover the mechanics of how He created everything ....formed mater from energy or even from nothing at all.

What are you talking about? More and More info is being shown that the universe formed naturaly and not by some supernatural force.

They are just discovering the mechanics used.
There is no contradiction.
God brought everything into being by the power of His spoken words.
He still does that today.
I've seen it.

 

[spiritual_spy]

They are just discovering the mechanics used.
There is no contradiction.
God brought everything into being by the power of His spoken words.
He still does that today.
I've seen it.

Sure, keep deluding yourself into thinking that.

 

[Oli]

They are just discovering the mechanics used.
There is no contradiction.
God brought everything into being by the power of His spoken words.

Of course there is a contradiction - the processes being discovered are natural and do not require any word to be spoken.

or the "scientific community" which has in some cases just hijacked the name of science

Scientists have hijacked science? And I think it's ominous that taxi drivers drive taxis...

 

[Wilmet]

So,
now the insults start.
Standard procedure for Christian apologists when they are losing an argument.

Clearly, you have no evidence - so you start insulting people when they challenge your faithful claims.
We are not fooled, you have no evidence, no case.

Iasion

Hi Iasion,

I normally don't get involved in this type of discussion but from the time I started posted here recently, I have read more insults from you directed at other posters than from anyone else. If that's proof that one is losing an argument, then you have lost probably every argument you've been in... big time!!!

I understand that you are very passionate about your beliefs. You post information here for others to consider but there is a problem in that it tends to get lost in what I'll call "the noise".

Just an observation. Take from it what you want and leave the rest.

 

[Cris]

TheVisitor,

The believer never looks to the natural side.

No one has shown there is anything else.

He looks to what God said, and that settles it.

There is no God – it’s a fantasy.

No matter what it looks like, he believes it anyhow.

I know, and that is really really dumb.

We look at the unseen, by the human eye.

??? If it is unseen then the human eye cannot see it. Are you simply confused?

Faith is not what you see;
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

No, no, no – faith is the mistake of believing a fantasy is real. Wake up – it’s all a fairy story.

When God makes a promise, He's duty bound to take care of that promise.

LOL. Imaginary figments can’t make promises.

"We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places."

Just like the Lord of the Rings – great fiction just like yours.

Evil spirits control the multitudes and they will attempt to control you every day in every thing you do.

You can’t be serious, can you? Does your delusion know no bounds? It’s A FAIRY STORY wake up.

If you haven't seen this yet, you have no idea what you are up against.

There is nothing to see, it’s not real.

Jesus said "who's not for me, is against me"

Yes the basis of Christianity – divisive, combative, warlike, racist, and intolerant. The very root of evil.

Now that would be a worthwhile battle – the fight to rid the world of religion and introduce rationality.

 

[Wilmet]

Anyone up for reading a critique of Meier's argument in A Marginal Jew?

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/meierCrt.htm

 

[TheVisitor]

TheVisitor,

There is no God – it’s a fantasy. and ect...

Chris, you really spent some time on that response didn't you?
That makes my day, because if you don't consider an adversary a worthy opponent you don't spend that kind of effort trying to defeat them.

A moderator should be impartial, unbiased, ect....
This being the "Religion" thread and all, even if it is Sciforums.
But, I understand your view and you can't be blamed for speaking as you see it.
I respect that, even if I have to disagree with you.
I have attempted to show the harmony in science and religion.
I don't believe a true understanding of the scriptures denies anything science has discovered at any time.
Only peoples misinterpretation of them conflicts with science and thats what skeptics always point at to discredit the Bible.
Its like a person misquoting something you've said, and then using that same false statement to say you lied.

I can't just stand idly by and watch it being done here, when there are young minds still unsure of what to believe.
There needs to be a "balance to The Force", especially here.

I'm having fun here, and really enjoy the challange...because for one you all are "keeping me one my toes" as to say, making me read and study more than ever.
I hope it works for you the same and if we all keep an open mind we will be illuminated to see things we never saw before.

 

[TW Scott]

Anecdotal "evidence" is the poorest kind. Indeed, most prosecutors and defenders are hesitant to rely on such "evidence" unless there is corroborating physical evidence. So, in a court of law, the only way the case of Jesus would be decided is by appealing to the preconceived biases and beliefs of the jury. Science, however, would rule that the character "Jesus" of the myths of Christianity is a mythical god and probably not one that actually existed.

Well, here is the deal, we have physical evidence, the record of his crucifixtion and the Shroud of Turin. Both exist and while the record is not in it's original form, it still exists. When there is anecdoctal evidence in such wide abundance science is hesitant to rule a noexistance without out at least as much physical ad anecdoctal evidence to the contrary. So a real scientist would claim that Jeshua more than likely existed. They would not rule him a myth, even though myths may surround him. That is the point here.


Would you rule that Julius Ceasar is fictional even though several stories told of him are little more than flight of fancy? Would you rule Billy the Kid and myth even with all the tall tales? Wuld you say Rasputin was a myth? No on all these parts but certain myths grew around them, or at least we assume they are. For all we know they might be literal truth.

 

[Oli]

A written record is not physical evidence, it's anecdotal, and

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

from http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm.
Re-read the posts above if you're claiming that anecdotal evidence is reason enough to conclude existence - Ulysses etc all become part of history. We have as much anecdotal evidence for Bilbo Baggins.

 

[TW Scott]

Radiocarbon which dates the US constitution at only 70 years old. It's unreliable in anything older than a couple weeks becuase they forget that measure thaken to preserve an object do slow radioactive decays and high pressure makes it go faster.

 

[baumgarten]

Ulysses etc all become part of history. We have as much anecdotal evidence for Bilbo Baggins.

What? Bilbo Baggins, along with the world he lives in, is presented as fiction. We have no anecdotal evidence for Bilbo Baggins.

Aside, I'm a little amused at this thread because, as we rightly (barring the discovery of remains) have no hard evidence for the existence of a man who lived in the first century, there is no way to take a scientific approach to the Jesus question. Like much ancient history, it's mostly conjecture and educated guesswork.

 

[§outh§tar]

TW,

Are you able to provide any corroboration for your claims about RCD and the Constitution?