- This topic is empty.
- Posts
“Why are you all debating whether Jesus pre-existed? Shouldn't you be validating whether or not he existed in the first place?”
–Oct 24, Pre-existence thread, TOWSHAB.
I believe this was your first or one of your very first comments. You shouldn't have made it if you didn't really believe it.
Quote (david @ Nov. 15 2007,11:37) NOT3IN1, MANDY,
ETC,
OR ANYONE WHO has started to question anything based on what this guy has been saying: SNAP OUT OF IT!
Perhaps we have humored him far too much. This idea is a ridiculous one. And while it's fun to delve into conspiracy theory type stuff, this is apparently causing some to actually fall into this realm of delusion.
The idea that Jesus never existed has been around in the areas of Gospel research for centuries but never been able to become an accepted theory.
WHY?
This is because it is simply a bad hypothesis based on arguments from silence, special pleading and an awful lot of wishful thinking.
We have a very convenient situation for the Jesus Mythologists:
Until Christianity had spread no one except Christians would be interested in Jesus but all later records are ruled out as they are tainted by association with Christianity. This sort of special pleading (a fallacy in reasoning) is one of the reasons that modern historians have no time for these theories as they are set up to be impossible to disprove.
In fact, Christian evidence for a human Jesus who was impaled is trustworthy because it ran counter to the myths of the time and suggested that he had suffered a humiliating death. If they made it up and then suppressed the truth with clinical efficiency, why did they come up with a story which even the Christian apologist, Tertullian, admitted was absurd?
Sometimes Jesus Mythologists will produce long lists of writers none of whom have the slightest reason to mention an obscure Jewish miracle worker and somehow think this strengthens their point.
This is sheer deceptive tactics. Don't be fooled by them.
In fact, it has all the relevance of picking fifty books off your local library shelf and finding that none of them mention Carl Sagan. Does that mean he did not exist either?
The people in that list have little reason to mention Jesus, except for one.
Jesus was not even a failed military leader of the kind that Romans might have noticed – especially if he had been defeated by someone famous.
The only historian who we might expect to mention Jesus is Josephus, a Jew who wrote a history of his people up to 66AD, which is called 'Jewish Antiquities'.
In fact, Josephus does mention Jesus twice and so Jesus Mythologists have to devote a lot of attention to attacking the relevant passages.
Their job is made easier because Josephus, a Pharisee probably felt nothing but contempt for Jesus which meant later Christians tried to 'correct' his negative wording.
As far as I can tell, today, the question of Jesus' historicity is effectively dead in the scholarly community.
It's remaining proponents tend to be amateurs who evangelize their creed on the internet. Anyone who disagrees will be labeled an apologist.
Robert Van Voorst, notes that Jesus Mythologists have failed to “explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it.” (“Jesus Outside the New Testament” (2000) p 15 )
Claims that the Jesus Myth has never been seriously refuted by mainstream scholarship are false.
(R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus; Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament; Maurice Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene; Shirley Case's The Historicity of Jesus; Smith, Morton “The Historical Jesus” in Jesus in Myth and History (ed. R. Joseph Hoffman and Gerald A. Larue), Buffalo, 1986; Marshall,I. Howard I Believe in the Historical Jesus Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977; Conybeare, Fred C. The Historical Christ London, 1914; Wood, Herbert Did Christ Really Live? London, 1938)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis:
““The idea of Jesus as a myth is rejected by the majority of biblical scholars and historians. In 2004, Burridge and Gould stated that they did not know of any “respectable” scholars that held the view today. (Burridge, R & Gould, G, Jesus Now and Then, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004, p.34.)
The classical historian Michael Grant writes:
“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.” (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. Scribner, 199.)”
Excellent David.
Tim
I note that Christians love to 'argue from silence' when it suits their needs. Such as working out the various resurrection conflicts. But when it is used against them? Oh no that can't happen
.Quote (david @ Nov. 14 2007,22:19) “Why are you all debating whether Jesus pre-existed? Shouldn't you be validating whether or not he existed in the first place?” –Oct 24, Pre-existence thread, TOWSHAB.
I believe this was your first or one of your very first comments. You shouldn't have made it if you didn't really believe it.
Yes but this is in reference to the GT Jesus not the Jesus that probably lived in whatever time he lived. The Jesus sans pagan mythological insertions such as virgin birth, cannibalism, death-rebirth, being felt inside his followers, dying for the sins of others, etc. You know, all of the things that find no support in the Tanakh.Jesus the nondescript Jewish messiah wannabe was too dull for Gentiles. But Jesus the Jewish reborn god-man who was Mithra in disguise made a pleasing package for the very superstition Gentiles of the 1st century. And for 20 centuries after that too it seems!
Quote I note that Christians love to 'argue from silence' when it suits their needs. Such as working out the various resurrection conflicts. But when it is used against them? Oh no that can't happen Seriously?
Tow, you were the one arguing from silence with the resurrection accounts.
You, were the one saying that those obvious things didn't happen because they're not stated! (This is arguing from silence)A LESSON IN BETTER THINKING:
Account #1
1. Guy enters a house.
2. Guy drives away from house.
3. Guy buys something at Walmart.Account #2 (has more detail)
1. Guy goes into house.
2. Guy stays a while.
3. Guy leaves the house.
4. Guy drives to Walmart.These two accounts both represent the truth and both represent what happened. The first account leaves out the fact that the “guy leaves the house.”
But of course, this is obvious and to the first account writer, not very relevant.You can't say this sort of a thing is a conflict because it's obvious to clear thinkers that one person just added more information than the other.
This is not a contradiction or even a conflict in any sense of either word.
And to say that one of the accounts is wrong because it doesn't contain that added detail is an argument from silence!
To some up, this is ridiculous and absurd:
Quote I note that Christians love to 'argue from silence' when it suits their needs. Such as working out the various resurrection conflicts. But when it is used against them? Oh no that can't happen david
David
I got the argument from silence when I asked the question “What is the Theory of Divine Creation?”
To be fair, to this question silence is the best response.Stuart
I just did a search on this “Gamaliel” guy. What I found was shocking! Out of the hundreds of threads on this site, the thousands of pages, he only appears on this one. His name is nowhere on any other thread! I know, I was shocked too. Can you believe that? I couldn't either at first. But then I got to thinking: What does this all mean?
What's even more shocking–Even though this thread is about him, he's barely mentioned at all, and, what's more, he's really only mentioned by one guy–me. What does it all mean?
Oh, that's right! It means nothing. Even though there's so many other threads, these other threads have no real reason to mention him!
Anyway, now that it's abundantly apparent that everyone here believes Jesus existed (Although stu and Towshab hold that he wasn't the Christ) let's move on to discuss that.
First, what are the possibilities regarding Jesus?
1. He was who he claimed to be, the Christ.
2. He was just another guy who lied and somehow tricked much of the world into thinking he was the Messiah.
3. He was just another guy who did some interesting things and inspired his followers to lie and convince many that he was the Messiah.I think these are the only real options. Let's focus on 2 and 3.
I think #2 is very unlikely, at least, compared with #3, since he would have had to lied and deceived on such a grand scale, it's hard to imagine. He would have had to convinced people he walked on water, somehow fed thousands. He would have had to have been the greatest magician ever, but not just that, also someone who could inspire and teach, and talk. To pull on this off, to trick all these people, seems very unlikely.So, let's focus on #3. The idea that he was a guy who actually existed and was killed. But his followers were the ones who lied, and wrote or crafted this story of the Messiah.
The thing that troubles me about this idea is that if these ones were lying, if they knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, but they were making others believe it for some purpose (what purpose, I'm not sure) why would they defend this lie at the cost of their lives?
When suicide bombers die, it's for a cause they believe in. If these ones knew this was a lie, that they had created, why suffer scorn for it?I'd like to discuss this idea.
Quote David I got the argument from silence when I asked the question “What is the Theory of Divine Creation?”
To be fair, to this question silence is the best response.Stuart
Stu, an argument from silence is an argument or conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.
You propose that if there is no “theory” of divine creation, then there is no divine creation.
This I believe is an argument from silence. At the very least, it's just illogical.My theory of divine creation is the same as your theory of creation.
We're not really interested in the “how” You can figure out God's math as well as I can, better no doubt.
You keep asserting that if there is no “theory” then it never happened or is implausible.
A theory is just an idea. Ideas don't make something real or not. They just express the “why” and “how” of those things.
I have no idea or no theories as to why or how you became so interested in Evolution. Yet, I know you did. Just because I don't have a theory on it, doesn't mean it isn't real or didn't happen. I know you're interested in it. I don't need a theory on how that came about for that to be real.
David
Quote Stu, an argument from silence is an argument or conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. Yes, the silence in response to the request for the scientific creation alternative to evolutionary theory is good evidence that there isn’t one.
Quote You propose that if there is no “theory” of divine creation, then there is no divine creation.
This I believe is an argument from silence. At the very least, it's just illogical.No, it’s perfectly logical. If no-one proposes a theory of divine creation, then there is no such theory. To not have a theory of your own is either to give provisional assent to the mainstream theory, or to make special pleadings. I’m prepared to wait until everyone has been silent before I conclude logically that “creation science” is less respectable than hot air. So far, only silence.
Quote My theory of divine creation is the same as your theory of creation. My theory of creation is that those who propose it are telling lies from a position of ignorance, delusion or intent to deceive. I think the evidence that my theory explains and that supports it is pretty strong, too. Is that your theory too?
Quote We're not really interested in the “how” You can figure out God's math as well as I can, better no doubt. You keep asserting that if there is no “theory” then it never happened or is implausible. A theory is just an idea. Ideas don't make something real or not. They just express the “why” and “how” of those things. Your definition of theory is wrong. You would have to accept astrology and unicorns on the word of people if you persisted with this line. Do you accept the truth of these things without question? At least unicorns are mentioned in the bible.
Yes I do think that having a good explanation is important, and I think that for all purposes of credibility if it cannot be described scientifically then it did not happen. I challenge you to give a real example that disproves this assertion. The lack of a plausible theory makes creationism a scientific laughing stock, which is the status it enjoys overwhelmingly in the scientific community. Your statement is just another silence on the question.
Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 15 2007,14:36) Quote I note that Christians love to 'argue from silence' when it suits their needs. Such as working out the various resurrection conflicts. But when it is used against them? Oh no that can't happen Seriously?
Tow, you were the one arguing from silence with the resurrection accounts.
You, were the one saying that those obvious things didn't happen because they're not stated! (This is arguing from silence)A LESSON IN BETTER THINKING:
Account #1
1. Guy enters a house.
2. Guy drives away from house.
3. Guy buys something at Walmart.Account #2 (has more detail)
1. Guy goes into house.
2. Guy stays a while.
3. Guy leaves the house.
4. Guy drives to Walmart.These two accounts both represent the truth and both represent what happened. The first account leaves out the fact that the “guy leaves the house.”
But of course, this is obvious and to the first account writer, not very relevant.You can't say this sort of a thing is a conflict because it's obvious to clear thinkers that one person just added more information than the other.
This is not a contradiction or even a conflict in any sense of either word.
And to say that one of the accounts is wrong because it doesn't contain that added detail is an argument from silence!
To some up, this is ridiculous and absurd:
Quote I note that Christians love to 'argue from silence' when it suits their needs. Such as working out the various resurrection conflicts. But when it is used against them? Oh no that can't happen david
You're right. You weren't arguing 'from silence' because where there was nothing instead of silence you inserted all sorts of assumptions. That's how the Christian 'arguing from silence' works.Since none of the stories DIDN'T say Peter went to the tomb twice he must have to make the conflicts work. Since Mary didn't experience the earthquake in John and see the angel on the stone therefore it happened some other time but it still happened.
Just like Christians assume the genealogy in Luke is Mary's just because it doesn't agree with Matthews. Or when they assume that Joseph adopted Jesus in Matthew.
In other words, the Christian 'silent spots' can be filled in with all sorts of suppositions.
By the way what 'silent position' works for the Synoptics having Jesus crucified on Passover while John has him dying on the eve of Passover?
Quote (david @ Nov. 16 2007,01:41) I just did a search on this “Gamaliel” guy. What I found was shocking! Out of the hundreds of threads on this site, the thousands of pages, he only appears on this one. His name is nowhere on any other thread! I know, I was shocked too. Can you believe that? I couldn't either at first. But then I got to thinking: What does this all mean? What's even more shocking–Even though this thread is about him, he's barely mentioned at all, and, what's more, he's really only mentioned by one guy–me. What does it all mean?
Oh, that's right! It means nothing. Even though there's so many other threads, these other threads have no real reason to mention him!
Anyway, now that it's abundantly apparent that everyone here believes Jesus existed (Although stu and Towshab hold that he wasn't the Christ) let's move on to discuss that.
First, what are the possibilities regarding Jesus?
1. He was who he claimed to be, the Christ.
2. He was just another guy who lied and somehow tricked much of the world into thinking he was the Messiah.
3. He was just another guy who did some interesting things and inspired his followers to lie and convince many that he was the Messiah.I think these are the only real options. Let's focus on 2 and 3.
I think #2 is very unlikely, at least, compared with #3, since he would have had to lied and deceived on such a grand scale, it's hard to imagine. He would have had to convinced people he walked on water, somehow fed thousands. He would have had to have been the greatest magician ever, but not just that, also someone who could inspire and teach, and talk. To pull on this off, to trick all these people, seems very unlikely.So, let's focus on #3. The idea that he was a guy who actually existed and was killed. But his followers were the ones who lied, and wrote or crafted this story of the Messiah.
The thing that troubles me about this idea is that if these ones were lying, if they knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, but they were making others believe it for some purpose (what purpose, I'm not sure) why would they defend this lie at the cost of their lives?
When suicide bombers die, it's for a cause they believe in. If these ones knew this was a lie, that they had created, why suffer scorn for it?I'd like to discuss this idea.
Hey and I bet that no one discusses Jesus on an adult swingers forum either.You know with each silly idea you throw out you dig a deeper hole don't you? You keep wanting people to come up with evidence for some rabbi who influenced many people to show that not having any does not mean he didn't exist. Can you therefore show me where Gamaliel ever did anything that
(1) drew multitudes from many cities (20 or more in some accounts)
(2) caused the whole land to go dark for 3 hours
(3) caused not one but 2 earthquakes (at death and when the stone was rolled away)
(4) caused dead people to raise and visit many
(5) tore the temple veil in two
(6) caused Herod to commit infanticide
(7) turned a ruthless Pilate into a man with a soft side
(8) raised people from the dead
(9) healed many people
(10) cast out demons
(11) calmed storms
(12) walked on water
(13) Fed 5000 with a little food
(14) fed another 4000 with a little food
(15) had a one-on-one rap session with the man in the red suit
(16) died as 'king of the Jews'
(17) was swapped out for a murderer
(18) rose from the dead
(19) ascended into heaven.Nah, Gamaliel was just a plain ol' rabbi. Who'd want to write anything about someone that boring when you had Jesus to not write about?
David
Quote First, what are the possibilities regarding Jesus? 1. He was who he claimed to be, the Christ.
2. He was just another guy who lied and somehow tricked much of the world into thinking he was the Messiah.
3. He was just another guy who did some interesting things and inspired his followers to lie and convince many that he was the Messiah.I think these are the only real options. Let's focus on 2 and 3.
I think #2 is very unlikely, at least, compared with #3, since he would have had to lied and deceived on such a grand scale, it's hard to imagine. He would have had to convinced people he walked on water, somehow fed thousands. He would have had to have been the greatest magician ever, but not just that, also someone who could inspire and teach, and talk. To pull on this off, to trick all these people, seems very unlikely.But under #2 he could have tricked a few people, who passed on their faith in him, which spiraled out of proportion like intergenerational chinese whispers. I agree though, I don’t give this much credit, even though Derren Brown is among those who have demonstrated how it could be done.
Quote So, let's focus on #3. The idea that he was a guy who actually existed and was killed. But his followers were the ones who lied, and wrote or crafted this story of the Messiah.
The thing that troubles me about this idea is that if these ones were lying, if they knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, but they were making others believe it for some purpose (what purpose, I'm not sure) why would they defend this lie at the cost of their lives? When suicide bombers die, it's for a cause they believe in. If these ones knew this was a lie, that they had created, why suffer scorn for it?Jesus may have been genuinely under the false impression that he was in some way divine. He could have convinced others of this without any miracles, his direct contacts then allowing their stories to be embellished for effect, including in their own perceptions and interpretations. The same evolution of dogma happens in religions all across the world today. Humans have a great natural tendency to be gullible and to inflate for a more convincing story. “Some heard he could feed 5000 with a single fish” becomes an established “fact” by the time it is ends up in a letter to someone. Do you dismiss the possibility that early christians who had not met Jesus (like the gospel writers) genuinely believed what they had been told? That would explain them defending lies at the cost of their lives. I assume people are genuine about their belief today. That’s where the chinese whisper hypothesis really comes into its own. In fact, the Catholic church has already been shown to be a whisper spin factory on a grand scale. The writers of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John wrote down the kinds of things they thought Jesus would have said, in the absence of a stenographic record.
Stuart
David I just don't get it, why talk to these Guy's. One is a Atheist and the other does not belief that Jesus was our Messiah. It makes me sick.
Peace and Love Mrs.Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 17 2007,03:57) David I just don't get it, why talk to these Guy's. One is a Atheist and the other does not belief that Jesus was our Messiah. It makes me sick.
Peace and Love Mrs.
You must meet face-to-face all the time people who do not believe in your messiah, or in your god. Do they all make you sick?Stuart
Quote I agree though, I don’t give this much credit, even though Derren Brown is among those who have demonstrated how it could be done. –stu
Explain. (I love his chess trick–it's genius) If you could provide a link.
Quote You must meet face-to-face all the time people who do not believe in your messiah, or in your god. Do they all make you sick? –stu
While conducting the preaching work Jesus fortold (Mat 28:19,20; Mat 24:14) I have very rarely met athiests or people who don't believe in God.
I've really only met a couple athiests. One told me she didn't believe in God essentially because he doesn't answer her prayers.
I've met a couple Jews as well. I can't decide who I prefer to talk to.
It's not the athiests that bother me nearly as much as the people who refuse to speak, who know they're right, but have no ability to prove it, or discuss it. These people bother me.
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2007,17:02) Quote I agree though, I don’t give this much credit, even though Derren Brown is among those who have demonstrated how it could be done. –stu
Explain. (I love his chess trick–it's genius) If you could provide a link.
I refer you to any of his television shows.Stuart
I don't get any of his television shows. All I have is youtube. If you look on some of his video's you may find me on there explaining to people how his tricks work.
But anyway, in what way did he demonstrate how “it” could be done:Quote But under #2 he could have tricked a few people, who passed on their faith in him, which spiraled out of proportion like intergenerational chinese whispers. I agree though, I don’t give this much credit, even though Derren Brown is among those who have demonstrated how it could be done. I know he has demonstrated that people are easily deceived. Thats a given. But I was thinking he demonstrated something more specific that you are referring to.
david
Quote (david @ Nov. 17 2007,17:06) Quote You must meet face-to-face all the time people who do not believe in your messiah, or in your god. Do they all make you sick? –stu
While conducting the preaching work Jesus fortold (Mat 28:19,20; Mat 24:14) I have very rarely met athiests or people who don't believe in God.
I've really only met a couple athiests. One told me she didn't believe in God essentially because he doesn't answer her prayers.
I've met a couple Jews as well. I can't decide who I prefer to talk to.
It's not the athiests that bother me nearly as much as the people who refuse to speak, who know they're right, but have no ability to prove it, or discuss it. These people bother me.
The gospels foretold that you, David, would do preaching work? What an astonishing prophecy!Typically non-believers make up to 25-30% of the population in Western countries. You can't be taking your evangelical obligations very seriously if you have only met a few of them!
Stuart
Quote The gospels foretold that you, David, would do preaching work? What an astonishing prophecy! Typically non-believers make up to 25-30% of the population in Western countries. You can't be taking your evangelical obligations very seriously if you have only met a few of them!
MATTHEW 24:14
“And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”I didn't say that it fortold that I specifically would be doing it!
If 25-30% don't believe in God, it's not where I live. I've spoken to hundreds of people, and only a few have told me they were athiests. Perhaps the hundreds who simply said “I'm not interested” had most of the athiests in them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
