Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[spiritual_spy]

God dosent exist but this is assuming he does.
He created man innocent aswell as ignorant. Instead of giving us full insight of what would happen if we sinned he just said "If you eat from this tree you will surely die". Now do you think if God would have shown Adam and Eve what would happen if they sinned that they would have even thought of disobeying. But God in all his Wisdom decided to keep them in the dark. They sinned out of ignorance. Who is responsible for that ignorance? God.

 

[TheVisitor]

God did allow it to happen. And it led into a plan He had from before the foundation of the world. Thats true.
It allowed Him to express all of His attributes, some of which would not have been expressed had man not fallen.
Attributes of Healer, Saviour and more.
But He did not make man fall.
Or was man created ignorant.
Man, created in the image of God actually could not even be deceived.
The woman was not in the original creation though.
She was a by-product taken from man, and could be deceived.
Adam crossing over knowing what he was doing, was a perfect type of Christ coming to Earth to die to redeam His bride.
Its a glorious drama thats playing out.
All things work together for the good of them that have the love of God.

 

[spiritual_spy]

Thats right, blame it on the woman. The fact is that God is supposed to be perfect. He is supposed to be Absolute. A perfect God with absolute power would not allow his creations to fall into such suffering. His "plan" has involved the butchering of billions of people across the ages. And i can not fathom that a "perfect" God with abolute power would allow that. So there is three possible cuases. 1.God Is perfect but not all powerful
2.God is absolute but not perfect (EVIL) and 3.God dosent exist at all and all this suffering is cuased by us and can only be cured by us.
If god is either 1 or 2 he isnt worth worshipping and i rather burn in hell before i kiss his ass.

If you cant understand what perfect and absolute means i will put it in simpler terms. If a perfect and absolute God existed Evil couldnt exist becuase a perfect and absolute God wouldnt allow it.

 

[Cris]

TheVisitor,

LOL - it is contrived gibberish, a fairy tale, that makes no sense.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Thats right, blame it on the woman. The fact is that God is supposed to be perfect. He is supposed to be Absolute. A perfect God with absolute power would not allow his creations to fall into such suffering. His "plan" has involved the butchering of billions of people across the ages. And i can not fathom that a "perfect" God with abolute power would allow that. So there is three possible cuases. 1.God Is perfect but not all powerful
2.God is absolute but not perfect (EVIL) and 3.God dosent exist at all and all this suffering is cuased by us and can only be cured by us.
If god is either 1 or 2 he isnt worth worshipping and i rather burn in hell before i kiss his ass.

If you cant understand what perfect and absolute means i will put it in simpler terms. If a perfect and absolute God existed Evil couldnt exist becuase a perfect and absolute God wouldnt allow it.

I agree with you to an extent, heres why
1.God Is perfect but not all powerful ( this cannot be, because a perfect being would need for nothing, thus it would not create, it would be flawed if it did, not perfect.) so no 1 is irrelevent
2.God is absolute but not perfect (EVIL) (I agree with this, as it cant possibly be perfect, it must be evil, as evil exists) therefore the only logical course of action must be, a god does not exist, answer 3

 

[spiritual_spy]

True. Thanks for correcting me

 

[Cris]

Marcac,

And Cris effectively declares the Christians faithless - they use inductive reasoning.

No, try again. Christians specifically do not use inductive reasoning. Religious faith has no evidential precedence to call upon so induction is excluded. Religious faith is simply blind.

Christians believe that the Bible is a compilation of text written by men who believed in the existence of God (Creator, Sustainer).

Well Duh!! But you are conveniently forgetting the major claim of Christians that these authors were INSPIRED (supernaturally derived) directly by this god, that’s why it’s called THE WORD of GOD, and not the word of man.

Why believe in God?

F’ing good question. Haven’t see any decent answer to that here in the past 6 years.

You have absolute purpose and a destiny.

That’s predestination, i.e. people are puppets. Definitely not attractive and a good reason not to follow such a god

You're of more worth than the computer you're typing on, and more valuable than a single ion of the solar wind. You're here for a reason and you can appreciate that.

Irrelevant. I’m alive; nothing else is of any greater value. My purpose is whatever I choose.

It's a worthwhile way to live.

There is nothing that holding a religious belief can achieve that can’t be achieved by not believing.

If one considers him/herself to be endowed with all of the above and shares the reasoning then a belief in God is also justifiable.

That’s simply perverse.

It effectively becomes self evident that God must be.

LOL – dream on kiddo.

Otherwise you're worth no more than a grain of sand - why should you believe any differently?

Value is entirely a personal subjective perspective whether gods exist or not.

 

[Cris]

Folks we are all drifting off topic. Please return to the subject.

 

[Wilmet]

I agree with you to an extent, heres why
1.God Is perfect but not all powerful ( this cannot be, because a perfect being would need for nothing, thus it would not create, it would be flawed if it did, not perfect.) so no 1 is irrelevent
2.God is absolute but not perfect (EVIL) (I agree with this, as it cant possibly be perfect, it must be evil, as evil exists) therefore the only logical course of action must be, a god does not exist, answer 3

Why do we assume that a perfect being would not create? Is lack of creativity a component of perfection? Why is creativity considered a flaw?

 

[spiritual_spy]

Becuase a perfect being needs nothing and wants nothing.

 

[Wilmet]

No God destroyed man. And it all comes down to god. It was God's mismanagement of his creations that lead them to sin. (This is assuming God exists)

Mismanagement...? Why do you assume that managerial control is necessary to avoid (what you are calling) sin?

 

[Wilmet]

Becuase a perfect being needs nothing and wants nothing.

Says who? What is imperfect about being in (what I will call) a close relationship or communicating with others? Why would you consider that an imperfection? How does creativity equate to imperfection? Lack of creativity, I think, would equate to imperfection more closely than creativity... What do you think?

 

[TW Scott]

Okay back on subject was jesus real?

Alright we have every reason to conclude that Jeshua (Jesus) was real based on the bible, Judaic records, the Koran, and other supporting factors.

First while the Bible may (or may not) stretched events it has universally been truthful about the people existing. Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Saul, David, Solomon, Ruth and countless others. Quite a few verifiable form the outside.

Second histories of other cultures have supported the stories of several events. Including the Red Sea parting, the plagues of Egypt, the foreign relations during Soloman's reign and the crucifixtion.

Now this is more circumstantial but it all we have, in fact it is all we have on several historical figures. We have even less than this on millions of people that had to exist. So in this case we have every reason to conclude Jesus did exist. that is until some one proves there was a conspiracy to create a fictional character.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Why do we assume that a perfect being would not create?

creation is not the problem, the fact a that a perfect being, would create or need to do anything is the problem, to be perfect means to be utter and absolutely without faults, errors or flaws, in need of absolutely nothing, complete and whole, exact, totally flawless.

Is lack of creativity a component of perfection?

to lack anything, means to be not perfect, creativity is'nt the issue.

Why is creativity considered a flaw?

it is'nt, a perfect being however is considered flawed, if it needs anything, therefore it can not be perfect.

Says who? What is imperfect about being in (what I will call) a close relationship or communicating with others?

nothing, but to need anybody or anything else, means you ar'nt perfect.

Why would you consider that an imperfection?

every dictionary in the world and every interpretation of perfect, states the same thing,

compact english dictionary

perfect

1 having all the required elements, qualities, or characteristics. 2 free from any flaw; faultless. 3 complete; absolute:


cambridge online

perfect (WITHOUT FAULT)

1 complete and correct in every way, of the best possible type or without fault:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=perfect&ls=a

How does creativity equate to imperfection?

again it does'nt, it is to do solely with a god/anything being perfect, to need anything else means it's not perfect, therefore flawed, sorry if it appears patronising and repetitive, but you dont seem to be getting it.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Okay back on subject was jesus real?

Alright we have every reason to conclude that Jeshua (Jesus) was real based on the bible, Judaic records, the Koran,

literally thousands of jesus'es have and do exist, but whether one was the son of a god and did the things atributed to him in the bible, is the problem, there is no evidence to date, for a jesus of this type.

and other supporting factors.

could you post a link please.

First while the Bible may (or may not) stretched events it has universally been truthful about the people existing. Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Saul, David, Solomon, Ruth and countless others. Quite a few verifiable form the outside.

some links would not go amiss, all books of fiction, use factual evidence to give there stories some reality.

Second histories of other cultures have supported the stories of several events. Including the Red Sea parting, the plagues of Egypt, the foreign relations during Soloman's reign and the crucifixtion.

chinese whispers anyone, stories get told and people move and stories get retold, do come on, a little more thought, please.

Now this is more circumstantial but it all we have, in fact it is all we have on several historical figures.

namely who, and again some links please.

We have even less than this on millions of people that had to exist.

not every body can raise the dead, feed the multitudes. etc etc, but if they do, then there needs to be some substantial evidence.

So in this case we have every reason to conclude Jesus did exist.

jesus'es did, and jesus'es still do.

that is until some one proves there was a conspiracy to create a fictional character.

nobody says that it was deliberate, but as there no evidence to show that a jesus(son of god) existed, it must be deemed as fictional.

 

[SnakeLord]

Alright we have every reason to conclude that Jeshua (Jesus) was real based on the bible, Judaic records, the Koran, and other supporting factors.

No we don't. It's like saying you have every reason to conclude that Frodo was real based upon LotR, the movie, lunchboxes and plastic figurines.

First while the Bible may (or may not) stretched events it has universally been truthful about the people existing.

How do you establish that? Noah, Moses, Adam and Eve. Someone then reads of hears of these 'people' and repeats the story with the typically added chinese whispers, (much like the koran with concerns to jesus).

Second histories of other cultures have supported the stories of several events. Including the Red Sea parting, the plagues of Egypt, the foreign relations during Soloman's reign and the crucifixtion.

Where? I will agree that plagues and floods are commonly repeated - but that's because plagues and floods would have been commonplace events. Further to which, cultures always take stories from other cultures and add to them/ammend them. The Noah flood story comes from the Sumerian Utanpishtim story as an example. Who are we now saying is 'real'? Utnapishtim or Noah? Was there ever a man on a boat with loads of animals on an entirely flooded planet? Certainly not, and so these stories are fiction. The same goes with Adam and Eve, the serpent, god itself, Abraham, Moses and so on. The same is undoubtedly true of 'jesus' who's story matches those of earlier peoples.

So in this case we have every reason to conclude Jesus did exist.

No we dont.

that is until some one proves there was a conspiracy to create a fictional character.

Conspiracy? Don't be daft, people have always written fiction.

 

[TheVisitor]

No we don't. It's like saying you have every reason to conclude that Frodo was real based upon LotR, the movie, lunchboxes and plastic figurines.

Lord of the Rings was a work of fiction and has always been accepted as such.
The Bible is not a work of fiction, and has been passed down for millennia and accepted as such.
To compare it to a work of fiction is disregarding thousands of years of people, some much smarter than you or I that have studied, lived and proved the truths within it.
What you are saying flies in the face of any kind of logical reasoning even when looked at objectively.
All major religions have some truth, and many of them can be explained as coming from a world that after the flood descended from three men...the sons of Noah.
At that time the whole world believed in the God of the Bible they called Jove, for Jehovah.
Nimrod of Babylon split men up into fractional religions to use fanaticism for war and set the world on fire.
He was the instigator of polytheism....so when looked at in that light, Babylonian and Sumerian records and legends were recorded for the purpose of destroying the belief in the one God Jehovah.

As enemies of God their records were never based on truth to begin with and can't be used as historic fact no matter how much older than the Bible they can be shown to be.
Do you think millions of your forbears in the ages past were just idiots and wasted there lives on a work of fiction. Not very likely.
Far more likely is the event that it is you who have things confused, when you compare the Bible to a work of fiction.

However, I can see how one could conclude what your saying.
I'm not saying your an idiot for believing as you do.
Without taking the entire worlds history into account and looking at it as a whole, the multitude of religions that millions follow yet today make the choosing of one as absolute truth hard to accept.
Its kind of like a shell game to find the pea.
Thats why Nimrod was inspired to do it.
You'll have to find truth as its revealed to you in life and prove whats real, holding fast to whats good.
For me, the Bible has been proven real beyond the shadow of any doubt.
And I didn't come to that conclusion taking someone else's word for it, or blindly following some tradition.
It was proven to me personally.

 

[SnakeLord]

Lord of the Rings was a work of fiction and has always been accepted as such.

So is the bible.

To compare it to a work of fiction is disregarding thousands of years of people, some much smarter than you or I that have studied, lived and proved the truths within it.

Nonsense. Point in case the ten plagues - specifically the river turning red with blood. Yes or no answer only: Would these ancient people have been able to diagnose pfisteria?

What you end up with is an event that might by itself have a basis in reality, but a reason that is pure and utter fiction.

Second case: Adam and Eve. The only people/witnesses that would have been there at the time are Adam and Eve. As a result, the story is pure fiction.

What you are saying flies in the face of any kind of logical reasoning even when looked at as a whole.

Nonsense. But then again that's to be expected from the guy that says Eve was bonked by a large talking snake-humanoid just before someone set off a nuclear bomb that changed the planet's tilt which resulted in a bit of rain.

All major religions have some truth, and many of them can be explained as coming from a world that after the flood descended from three men...the sons of Noah.

Every single book has some truth. It is all the horseshit that surrounds that 'truth' that is in question here.

At that time the whole world worship and believed in the God of the Bible they called Jove, for Jehovah.

Wrong. as a bible man, even you should agree with me.

so Babylonian and Sumerian records and legends are recorded for the purpose of destroying the belief in Jehovah

They predate 'jehovah' belief by millennia. You are wrong again.

As enemies of God their records were never based on truth to begin with and can't be used as historic fact no matter how much older than the Bible they can be shown to be.

Now you're just being silly. That's like them saying you're an enemy of Tiamat and Marduk and as such no matter what you write it is because you're an enemy.

Do you think millions of your forbears in the ages past were just idiots and wasted there lives on a work of fiction.

Millions of people now are idiots. However, it's not about "wasting time", but life as they understood and saw it. You and I would call human sacrifice by fire as a waste of human life, but to people of old it was exceptionally important. You need to understand the difference.

 

[Cris]

TheVisitor,

The Bible is not a work of fiction, and has been passed down for millennia and accepted as such.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t fictional. At the time of writing, superstitions, legends, and myths were the norm and the bible stories were developed in that environment.

To compare it to a work of fiction is disregarding thousands of years of people, some much smarter than you or I that have studied, lived and proved the truths within it.

That says nothing about whether it was true or not. This is argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.

What you are saying flies in the face of any kind of logical reasoning even when looked at objectively.

Then look at it objectively. What actual historical facts support the existence of a real Jesus – none. Your argument still rests on the above logical fallacy that because so many now believe it true then it must be true. This is illogical.

All major religions have some truth, and many of them can be explained as coming from a world that after the flood descended from three men...the sons of Noah.

No religion has ever demonstrated any truth in any of their essential tenets – i.e. that the supernatural exists.

At that time the whole world believed in the God of the Bible they called Jove, for Jehovah.
Nimrod of Babylon split men up into fractional religions to use fanaticism for war and set the world on fire.
He was the instigator of polytheism....so when looked at in that light, Babylonian and Sumerian records and legends were recorded for the purpose of destroying the belief in the one God Jehovah.

You are conveniently ignoring other large population densities who developed entirely different mythologies, e.g. India, China, Japan, etc. What history shows is that people are very creative and many propose imaginative ideas that quickly become confused with truth in the absence of objective recording.

Do you think millions of your forbears in the ages past were just idiots and wasted there lives on a work of fiction. Not very likely.

Yes absolutely and that makes the whole farce of Christianity such an atrocious invention.

Without taking the entire worlds history into account and looking at it as a whole, the multitude of religions that millions follow yet today make the choosing of one as absolute truth hard to accept.

Even today there some 20,000 different identified sects within Christianity. Even within this one religion the adherents cannot agree. That’s what happens when a source is fictional and there are no objective facts to reference.

For me, the Bible has been proven real beyond the shadow of any doubt.

That is most unfortunate for you.

And I didn't come to that conclusion taking someone else's word for it, or blindly following some tradition. It was proven to me personally.

I am certain we can also find a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Buddhist, who will also assert the same thing for their own personal belief system. It is certain that not all can be right and possibly that all can be entirely wrong. What does that say for someone who claims they have been personally convinced? Their statement is entirely without value.

 

[TheVisitor]

.No religion has ever demonstrated any truth in any of their essential tenets – i.e. that the supernatural exists.

Wrong. The supernatural has been documented over and over the last few years.
Some just refuse to see it.
I could show you hundreds of newspaper articles about miracles done in modern time, and even a "Readers Digest" story about one if you could accept it.
But we know you don't have to.
Its entirely up to you what you accept as real.
That works both ways.
"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he."
Look up the article called the "Miracle of Donny Morton" published in the Reader's Digest in 1952.
It is just one of thousand of miracles that have been documented with doctors as witnesses.
But as I've said...no amount of evidence is enough for some people, and thats only to be expected.
Even when faced with undeniable evidence they will call it anything but God, even saying the its the devil.
I hope thats not your case, you don't strike me as the superstitious type.
This is real.
I'm not sure what month it was in 1952, but its easier than looking through newspaper articles.