My Insight On Christianity..

**Dreamcaster** · 07-16-2008 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Historians haven't confirmed that jesus was real. There's no credible archaeological evidence to support his existance(not that you would expect any), and contemporary historical references to him are either later forgeries(as in Josephus' account), very vague and probably not referring to the same person, or refer to his followers or to 'Christ' which is a generic greek religious term not a name.

The gospels were written 40 years after Jesus' death at the earliest and most of them were written later. In the meantime Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and Palestine was wracked by war. There was already a sizeable and diverse religious movement of Jews(judaism was a popular minority religion throughout the Eastern Mediterranean at the time) and pagans surrounding a 'Christ' figure when the gospels were written. The vast majority of the religious ideas and concepts behind were already developed within jewish messianic cults or pagan cults in the hellenistic world prior to the time Jesus was alleged to have lived including some very specific details about his life and preaching.

So did Jesus exist?

I must admit it is possible, and it would seem a bit unusual for a cult to invent a random guy named Jesus to center their religion around, but at same time it's very possible that they could have. In any case the modern religion of Christianity and the accounts of Jesus in the bible have little or nothing to do with the real man Jesus if he did exist.

The the quotes below pretty much refutes your claims. I mean the theory that Jesus was a myth has been postulated, but they generally aren't accepted in the historical community. Do you scrutinize all of history or do you just make a special acceptation for Christian history.

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by authors such as George Albert Wells and Robert M. Price. Additionally, The Jesus Puzzle and The Jesus Mysteries are examples of popular works promoting the non-historical hypothesis. Nevertheless, non-historicity is still regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians.[

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[81]

**bcomp** · 07-16-2008 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

John the Baptist was a good man and Job was definately a righteous man but according to the scriptures neither will enter the heavens. I'm a Christian and Im certain I'm not going to heaven when I die as a matter of fact you, I, Atheist and other faiths will utimately have the same outcome at the time of death.

Wait what?

**Serkat** · 07-16-2008 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

Historians have confirmed that Jesus was real; deal with it. It's interesting how atheists can conveniently use science and academics to prove an argument when it coincides with their own beliefs, but the minute something academia says supports a Christian idea, suddenly it's not credible. The Bible is a legit doc.

That doesn't have anything to do with it. Thanks for generalizing. I know the Wiki article, no need to quote it.

**Dreamcaster** · 07-16-2008 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Serkat

That doesn't have anything to do with it. Thanks for generalizing. I know the Wiki article, no need to quote it.

What does that mean? You're implying that I left something out that is integral to this conversation. Would you prefer I quote the entire text? I simply focused on the points that are most significant to this argument. I didn't "generalize".

Simply put the quotes point out, yes there are theories that suggest that Jesus was a myth, but those theories generally aren't accepted by the historical community. I think that sums it up. I mean, is there something I should have added that would contradict this?

These points have everything to do with "this". They just aren't convinient for you.

**Scatterbrain** · 07-16-2008 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

Historians have confirmed that Jesus was real; bananas

Not really.

Did they confirm Jesus actually turned water into wine? Cured the sick? Confirmed he had the same disciples as it says in the bible? Proof he was crucified? Proof he was crucified in the same circumstances as described in the book? Did he come back to life after three days? Etc etc...

Let's imagine superman's creators now revealed they based the character on an old friend of them, a reporter named Clark Kent. Would you say superman was real?

At best, they confirmed the existence of the man on which Jesus' myth was based on.

**bluefinger** · 07-16-2008 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Not really.

Did they confirm Jesus actually turned water into wine? Cured the sick? Confirmed he had the same disciples as it says in the bible? Proof he was crucified? Proof he was crucified in the same circumstances as described in the book? Did he come back to life after three days? Etc etc...

Let's imagine superman's creators now revealed they based the character on an old friend of them, a reporter named Clark Kent. Would you say superman was real?

At best, they confirmed the existence of the man on which Jesus' myth was based on.

This.

**Dreamcaster** · 07-16-2008 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Not really.

Did they confirm Jesus actually turned water into wine? Cured the sick? Confirmed he had the same disciples as it says in the bible? Proof he was crucified? Proof he was crucified in the same circumstances as described in the book? Did he come back to life after three days? Etc etc...

Let's imagine superman's creators now revealed they based the character on an old friend of them, a reporter named Clark Kent. Would you say superman was real?

At best, they confirmed the existence of the man on which Jesus' myth was based on.

Now your just being specific. But your still wrong. So I guess Newton isn't real also; based on your logic? There's the Newton who invented Newtonian Physics through the scientific process and then there's the Newton who was inspired because an apple fell on his head. Just because one of these stories about Newton is a myth doesn't mean that Newton is a myth also.

Jesus is real, regardless of whether or not you believe he did miracles or not. So technically your comparison to Superman is an inaccurate, because Superman isn't based on a real person.

**bluefinger** · 07-16-2008 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

Now your just being specific. But your still wrong. So I guess Newton isn't real also; based on your logic? There's the Newton who invented Newtonian Physics through the scientific process and then there's the Newton who was inspired because an apple fell on his head. Just because one of these stories about Newton is a myth doesn't mean that Newton is a myth also.

Jesus is real, regardless of whether or not you believe he did miracles or not. So technically your comparison to Superman is an inaccurate, because Superman isn't based on a real person.

Possibilities of who Jesus was:

Another preacher of the time who managed to gather enough of a following to start the sect off. After his death, followers deify him and go on to spread elaborate tales about their messiah, etc.
Jesus was everything that was said in the Bible, or close to that of what is detailed by the Bible.

Now, both scenarios are lacking in factual evidence and historical accounts (outside of the Bible). However, the first scenario is very likely because any lack of evidence would be understandable in the context of the impact the person had (very local, and around a circle of people). The second scenario has Jesus practically causing an uproar amongst the Jews and Romans, and yet there is virtually nothing from the Romans (who were very fastidious at keeping records). If he really caused that much of a stir, then there should be plenty of historical documents from sources in the Roman Empire to verify the claims the Bible is making.

Scenario 2 is highly unlikely considering the claims that are made. Analogy can be compared to this:

Friend comes over from next town, tells me his house burned down. Though there is nothing on the news or newspapers about it, I would believe him because in the context of the society that we're present in, houses burning down is not a noteworthy occurrence. It may affect the individual gravely, but as the event occurs reasonably often, it isn't significant in the eyes of the media and historians.
Friend then claims his house and neighbouring houses were not only burned down, but were destroyed by UFOs. Now, though I may have not been there to survey the damage or witness the event, but the fact that such an occurrence is not being reported is suspicious. Such an event would be of very great interest to the media, and would spark a huge furore, so it would be reasonable to expect a lot of attention being drawn to such an occurrence. In the context of the scenario, it is reasonable to be sceptical of such a claim as there is nothing being reported about it.

Hence the scepticism on the existence of Jesus, or at least the validity of the myth around Jesus. More modern examples of the deification of a leader is how Scientology portrays L. Ron. Hubbard. They try to portray him as being an amazing adventurer and discoverer, having done all these things in his life, and being wise beyond words. However, the reality rarely matches up to the elaborations.

**Ne-yo** · 07-16-2008 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by bcomp

Wait what?

I know right? But it is what it is, there is no getting around that.

**Belisarius** · 07-17-2008 04:52 AM

Quoting a wikipedia article that claims that my arguments have been refuted doesn't ammount to a refutation of my arguments. Furthermore I am not making an "accpetation" for Christianity. We have to accept a degree of uncertainty when dealing with history, especially ancient history, and especially when we are dealing with a very limited number of sources.

**Universal Mind** · 07-17-2008 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Serkat

Ghandi thought blacks were sub-human with no rights and should be used as slaves for Indians which he considered to be the supreme race.

Are you serious? If that is a fact, it is a liberal's worst nightmare. Damn, Ron Paul and Ghandi hate black people, as does Robert Byrd. The heroes of the left keep turning out to be the "r" word, of all things. It is hard to imagine Ghandi thinking anybody should be a slave. I am going to really look into that one. Wow.

**Ne-yo** · 07-17-2008 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Serkat

Dude, it says right there. Don't you read sentences before commenting on them? Ghandi thought blacks were sub-human with no rights and should be used as slaves for Indians which he considered to be the supreme race.

First, link that Ghandi reference you keep stating. Also I asked you why do you think he would go to hell? I didn't ask you what he did.

**bcomp** · 07-17-2008 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I know right? But it is what it is, there is no getting around that.

Wait why do you think that though?

**Ne-yo** · 07-17-2008 05:51 AM

Well when you die that's it, you cease to exist completely, in the exact same way that you never existed before you were born.

**Scatterbrain** · 07-17-2008 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

Now your just being specific. But your still wrong. So I guess Newton isn't real also; based on your logic? There's the Newton who invented Newtonian Physics through the scientific process and then there's the Newton who was inspired because an apple fell on his head. Just because one of these stories about Newton is a myth doesn't mean that Newton is a myth also.

Jesus is real, regardless of whether or not you believe he did miracles or not. So technically your comparison to Superman is an inaccurate, because Superman isn't based on a real person.

Wow. Nice way to not make any sense.

Newton is admired for his achievements in science. The veracity of his existence (or anyone's for that matter) quite obviously can't be based on a trivial thing such as 'whether or not an apple falling to the ground helped him with describing gravitation'.

Jesus on the other hand, according to the bible, was the messiah. His whole life supposedly was full of miracles and divine phenomena. You can't possibly say the bible's Jesus existed if most of the things that describe him and his life are false.

And the superman example is perfectly valid. As far as we know he wasn't based on a real person, but that's why I said "Let's imagine...".

**Dizko** · 07-17-2008 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Teeliumtrozzle

Christians believe they get to Heaven by Jesus being crucified.This is just soo unfair..He never did anything to deserve this, and they just take advantage of his bloodshed.

Exactly.

The bible says that Jesus IS God, so he could have stopped those who were killing him at any time. But he chose not to, taking the punishment for OUR wrong doings, not his own - because he didnt have any.

**Dreamcaster** · 07-17-2008 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Wow. Nice way to not make any sense.

Newton is admired for his achievements in science. The veracity of his existence (or anyone's for that matter) quite obviously can't be based on a trivial thing such as 'whether or not an apple falling to the ground helped him with describing gravitation'.

Jesus on the other hand, according to the bible, was the messiah. His whole life supposedly was full of miracles and divine phenomena. You can't possibly say the bible's Jesus existed if most of the things that describe him and his life are false.

And the superman example is perfectly valid. As far as we know he wasn't based on a real person, but that's why I said "Let's imagine...".

Try using your brain, then it might make sense. That's the WHOLE point! We know Newton existed. Just because there's a myth around him doesn't suddenly make him any less real. The same holds true with Jesus. I'm not saying his miracles were a myth, but for the sake of argument, even if they were part of some myth just because there is a myth around him doesn't "suddenly" mean he didn't exist.

Do me the favor of not insulting me, and I'll try and do you the same favor. Let's keep this argument in the arena of debate, shall we.

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Quoting a wikipedia article that claims that my arguments have been refuted doesn't ammount to a refutation of my arguments. Furthermore I am not making an "accpetation" for Christianity. We have to accept a degree of uncertainty when dealing with history, especially ancient history, and especially when we are dealing with a very limited number of sources.

I think quoting a wiki article that's as well referenced as the Jesus wiki is perfectly acceptable. I mean Wiki does a pretty good job of labeling articles it feels have insufficient references and that are heavily disputed in terms of accuracy. Besides, one of those quotes was actually an excerpt from this book not the wiki:

M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200

I mean, believe it or not; but I'm taking the historians word over yours on this one.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Possibilities of who Jesus was:

Another preacher of the time who managed to gather enough of a following to start the sect off. After his death, followers deify him and go on to spread elaborate tales about their messiah, etc.
Jesus was everything that was said in the Bible, or close to that of what is detailed by the Bible.

Now, both scenarios are lacking in factual evidence and historical accounts (outside of the Bible). However, the first scenario is very likely because any lack of evidence would be understandable in the context of the impact the person had (very local, and around a circle of people). The second scenario has Jesus practically causing an uproar amongst the Jews and Romans, and yet there is virtually nothing from the Romans (who were very fastidious at keeping records). If he really caused that much of a stir, then there should be plenty of historical documents from sources in the Roman Empire to verify the claims the Bible is making.

Scenario 2 is highly unlikely considering the claims that are made. Analogy can be compared to this:

Friend comes over from next town, tells me his house burned down. Though there is nothing on the news or newspapers about it, I would believe him because in the context of the society that we're present in, houses burning down is not a noteworthy occurrence. It may affect the individual gravely, but as the event occurs reasonably often, it isn't significant in the eyes of the media and historians.
Friend then claims his house and neighbouring houses were not only burned down, but were destroyed by UFOs. Now, though I may have not been there to survey the damage or witness the event, but the fact that such an occurrence is not being reported is suspicious. Such an event would be of very great interest to the media, and would spark a huge furore, so it would be reasonable to expect a lot of attention being drawn to such an occurrence. In the context of the scenario, it is reasonable to be sceptical of such a claim as there is nothing being reported about it.

Hence the scepticism on the existence of Jesus, or at least the validity of the myth around Jesus. More modern examples of the deification of a leader is how Scientology portrays L. Ron. Hubbard. They try to portray him as being an amazing adventurer and discoverer, having done all these things in his life, and being wise beyond words. However, the reality rarely matches up to the elaborations.

I would have sided with option 2 myself. I believe the criteria that historians use to weigh the validity of events is a lot more detailed then the one your using, but for the sake of argument... Just because there are few references to a specific event in history doesn't suddenly mean that the said event didn't occur. I mean look at the city of Troy. Based on your logic, the city of Troy is a 'lie' as well.

Honestly I don't think your arguements have anyhting to do with historical accuricy, it has to do with an underlying views that make you bias. Why are you all so afraid of Christ anyway. Embrace Him.

**bluefinger** · 07-17-2008 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

I would have sided with option 2 myself. I believe the criteria that historians use to weigh the validity of events is a lot more detailed then the one your using, but for the sake of argument... Just because there are few references to a specific event in history doesn't suddenly mean that the said event didn't occur. I mean look at the city of Troy. Based on your logic, the city of Troy is a 'lie' as well.

Honestly I don't think your arguements have anyhting to do with historical accuricy, it has to do with an underlying views that make you bias. Why are you all so afraid of Christ anyway. Embrace Him.

Troy has been shown to exist thanks to Archaeology, but that does not make the tales of the Illiad and Odyssey true, as both were written as fictional stories and not factual accounts. If they were, we would also find additional historical accounts that would corroborate with the works of Homer. Very much like the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which though the main character is based on a historical king, the story itself is not written as a factual account. Also, the logic I used could have been implied that though the tales of the Illiad may not be accurate, one could still assume that some sort of conflict occurred which inspired the author to base a fictional story on. But as it is a work of fiction, you can't rely on such a source for factual evidence.

The Bible tries to paint itself as being a factual account, therefore it should be treated with the same scepticism that is applied onto anything that makes the claim of being based on fact. This means looking up on what it claims to be historical occurrences and checking with other documents of the period. If things don't match up with what is known, then you can be sceptical of what the Bible claims. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

As for accepting Christ, he could go suck on a choad for all I care. I worship Longcat, the longest being in existence.

**Dreamcaster** · 07-17-2008 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Troy has been shown to exist thanks to Archaeology, but that does not make the tales of the Illiad and Odyssey true, as both were written as fictional stories and not factual accounts. If they were, we would also find additional historical accounts that would corroborate with the works of Homer. Very much like the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which though the main character is based on a historical king, the story itself is not written as a factual account. Also, the logic I used could have been implied that though the tales of the Illiad may not be accurate, one could still assume that some sort of conflict occurred which inspired the author to base a fictional story on. But as it is a work of fiction, you can't rely on such a source for factual evidence.

The Bible tries to paint itself as being a factual account, therefore it should be treated with the same scepticism that is applied onto anything that makes the claim of being based on fact. This means looking up on what it claims to be historical occurrences and checking with other documents of the period. If things don't match up with what is known, then you can be sceptical of what the Bible claims. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

As for accepting Christ, he could go suck on a choad for all I care. I worship Longcat, the longest being in existence.

No it isn't a difficult concept to grasp, but in the same right if there are things that match up with what is known, then it suggests that not everything the Bible claims is so dubious.

The bible isn't just a historical account. It's uses a number of literary devices in addition to history. This doesn't make that the accounts that are historical any less accurate. In the same way Troy was real despite the mythical accounts that revolve around it, in the same way Jesus is real. And his works are real.

And you still haven't answered my question, who is longcat. Regardless, longcat pales in front of the infinity that is Christ. Longcat would be fortunate to even be blessed with a fraction of His glory.

**bluefinger** · 07-17-2008 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

No it isn't a difficult concept to grasp, but in the same right if there are things that match up with what is known, then it suggests that not everything the Bible claims is so dubious.

O RLY? And what might those things be, if I may ask?

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

The bible isn't just a historical account. It's uses a number of literary devices in addition to history. This doesn't make that the accounts that are historical any less accurate. In the same way Troy was real despite the mythical accounts that revolve around it, in the same way Jesus is real. And his works are real.

So... where's the Book of Jesus in the Bible then? Also, the Bible does not distinguish allegory from literal fact almost all of the time, so in that regard, it is near impossible to have a commonly accepted interpretation that would paint a historically accurate picture of what Jesus did and who he was. If Jesus was as wise as the Bible claims, why did he not have the foresight to write down his ideas into his own book by which to perpetuate his teachings?

Also, where are those historical documents made by the historians of the time in regard to what was going on in Israel? Surely, if he made such an impact, there would be surviving documentation detailing such things.

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

And you still haven't answered my question, who is longcat. Regardless, longcat pales in front of the infinity that is Christ. Longcat would be fortunate to even be blessed with a fraction of His glory.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Longcat

Behold Longcat, for he is so long and wise. The Path of Longcat is a lengthy and windy path, stretching over the vast leagues of existence. To follow such a path will grant you the lengthy wisdom of Longcat. May he be very loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnngg and may you be blessed by his length.

**Ne-yo** · 07-18-2008 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Behold Longcat, for he is so long and wise. The Path of Longcat is a lengthy and windy path, stretching over the vast leagues of existence. To follow such a path will grant you the lengthy wisdom of Longcat. May he be very loooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnngg and may you be blessed by his length.

Now I'm confused, I thought you were an Atheist bluefinger. What's with you and your worship of a long cat?

**Scatterbrain** · 07-18-2008 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dreamcaster

Try using your brain, then it might make sense. That's the WHOLE point! We know Newton existed. Just because there's a myth around him doesn't suddenly make him any less real. The same holds true with Jesus. I'm not saying his miracles were a myth, but for the sake of argument, even if they were part of some myth just because there is a myth around him doesn't "suddenly" mean he didn't exist.

Do me the favor of not insulting me, and I'll try and do you the same favor. Let's keep this argument in the arena of debate, shall we.

For fuck sake.

The bible tells us of a 'Jesus the messiah'. That's clearly very different from a 'Jesus John Doe'.

You can't seriously expect the existence of the later to infer the existence of the former.

**bluefinger** · 07-18-2008 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Now I'm confused, I thought you were an Atheist bluefinger. What's with you and your worship of a long cat?

Because Longcat is so very fucking long, that's why. Also, there are actual pics of Longcat, how could I possibly deny the existence of such an almighty length?