"The God who wasn't there"

[Wildalaska]

Historically, both Tacitus and Josephus confirm the existence of a man named Jesus.  I will comment no more than that

WildicouldbewontAlaska â„¢

[Jim147]

Actually, the great library in Alexandria came after his time. Alexander had little time for creating relics to his reign as he was busy conquering.

In fact, all the great references to Alexander came AFTER him- by those who had followed him because he was so greatly revered.

As for THOUSANDS of sources, this too is mistaken.

http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=alexander-the-great-2
 

I chose Alexander and Hannibal both because of their rather extensive impact on history and their proximity to Jesus in time.

In all three cases, there is evidence that they exist- however, you accept the existence and exploits of Alexander and Hannibal without question (or with few questions). It is Jesus who gets the greatest skepticism: why is this?

I may be because he is the only one to rise from the dead.

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, the "existence implies (demands) creator" argument.  Problem is, no one ever offers to explain the existence of the creator.  To me, the basic argument leads to the infinite onion,

existence=>creatorⁿ=>creatorⁿ⁺¹

and the question of whether this universe is the heart of the onion or merely (!) one layer with, perhaps, an infinity of layers within as well as without.  Also, who or what will create the layer stemming from our existence.

I don't disagree that matter could (conceivably) have always existed.  But, at least with the Christianity, there is no infinite regress.  The Christian concept is of a God that exists.  That is why He is called The I Am.  He didn't create Himself from nothing, nor did He even start existing.  To speak of His having origins or being created is a non sequitur, to Christian theology. 

[Kyle]

I am not talking about books written about Alexander when I say thousands. I am talking about all the many times he was mentioned by the writings of people he conquered and ruled. I am talking about the absolute fact that there is no reasonable way to argue that his empire did not exist. It existed, hence, someone had to be emperor. And whether this emperor was named Alexander the Great or Joe the Plumber does not change the fact that the man existed historically. And whether this man went all the way to India at the head of his army, or sat in the West while his generals did all the work for him has no bearing on his existence.

The fact that we are even having this discussion is ridiculous.

And why does Jesus get the greatest skepticism? Well there are a number of reasons:

-That is what this topic is about
-Compared to Alexander, records of Jesus are almost non-existent
-And most importantly, over A BILLION PEOPLE base their core beliefs about the Universe, the afterlife, this world, morality, and social behavior on the assumption that he did indeed exist. Which makes it more important and more exciting to examine critically.

I have never met anyone to whom the existence of Alexander means so much to them. However, Jesus means that much to almost everyone I have ever met. This is why it is a hot topic. Did this really need explaining?


But lets say Jesus has just as much evidence supporting his historicity as Alexander. Even then, the most we can reasonable assume is that a man named Jesus, an intinerate Jewish preacher, lived in the first century AD and traveled around preaching and healing people. This makes him no different from all the other people who did that back in the day.

What makes him different is that he was the God of the Old Testament incarnate, was crucified as a martyr for our sins and was resurrected. There is clearly no HISTORICAL evidence for this. None whatsoever.

Thats why we call it FAITH. Christians have FAITH that Jesus existed, was God made flesh, dies for their sins and was resurrected. And that is FINE. Why do you try and justify it historically? This is a modern phenomenon. I assume it is a reaction to the attacks made on religion post-enlightenment from philosophers and scientists. Fundamentalism and Christian Apologetics are modern creations.

All evidence suggests that ancient Jews werent concerned with finding records of Moses or the flood, or wether or not the first man was REALLY names Adam. It didnt matter to them, because their FAITH was more important and did not rely on trying to find a RATIONAL basis for their beliefs. Depending on or borrowing from REASON to support FAITH is useless and misguided, and it results in a weaker faith.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Why do you try and justify it historically? This is a modern phenomenon.

Not at all.  Paul used historical fact to justify faith.

I Corinthians, Chapter 15

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The modern innovation is the idea that something that can't be justified by evidence deserves our faith.  Faith not supported by reason is stupid and dangerous. 

[Ron]

The modern innovation is the idea that something that can't be justified by evidence deserves our faith.  Faith not supported by reason is stupid and dangerous. 

Like the faith so many have that life and sentience derived from inanimate matter/energy?

[MechAg94]

-Compared to Alexander, records of Jesus are almost non-existent

I believe you are mistaken about that.  I think you are just prejudiced and value historical texts more than religious texts. 

[MechAg94]

Thats why we call it FAITH. Christians have FAITH that Jesus existed, was God made flesh, dies for their sins and was resurrected. And that is FINE. Why do you try and justify it historically? This is a modern phenomenon. I assume it is a reaction to the attacks made on religion post-enlightenment from philosophers and scientists. Fundamentalism and Christian Apologetics are modern creations.

All evidence suggests that ancient Jews werent concerned with finding records of Moses or the flood, or wether or not the first man was REALLY names Adam. It didnt matter to them, because their FAITH was more important and did not rely on trying to find a RATIONAL basis for their beliefs. Depending on or borrowing from REASON to support FAITH is useless and misguided, and it results in a weaker faith.[/b]

Who are you arguing with?  The idea of the existence of Jesus was stated in the OP.  It was implied that we couldn't prove he existed. 

How can Fundamentalism be a modern creation?  Likely we see the meaning of that word differently, but to at least my ancestors, Christian Fundamentalism was simply fundamental to their beliefs.  People these days simply want to be able to ignore parts of the Bible that are inconvenient.  (I guess I would add that universal literacy and the Bible being available to the masses in their own language is also a modern creation.) 

Also, the pastor I grew up with taught from the original greek and hebrew texts and constantly re-translated sections of the Bible as he taught them.  There is a great deal of meaning and depth lost in translation often enough as well as a great deal of historical context that isn't clear when simply reading the English version.  A missing or added word can change the meaning a lot sometimes.  My pastor often said you could write paragraphs in English to represent the real meaning of a few words in other languages.  I don't think the Bible is contradictory, but I don't expect you to understand that. 

[Kwelz]

Yeah, anyway, I'm sure this film will be a no better and no worse contribution to the world than Expelled.

Is it possible to have a worse contribution to society than Expelled?

This movie looks pretty stupid, I personally am looking forward to Religiosity.  Even though I don't like BM the movie looks good.

Also to the people wondering why we want proof today when the people of the past have not...  The answer is really pretty simple.  Humanity has passed to a point where we can start to understand the universe.  We have both the tools and the drive to finally answer the question that our existence poses.  Hundreds and even thousands of years ago we did not have the ability to do this but now we do.  Therefore we no longer have to come up with stories of how we came to be.  We can look at what is around us with a scientific eye and evaluate it.  In other words we don't take things on "faith"

Take for instance the night sky.  Long ago there were numerous theories as to what stars were.  Small balls of fire hovering miles out, Holes in some great shroud that covered the earth, etc.  But today we know what they are.  Stars, many far brighter and grander than our own shining from all over the cosmos.  Yet it is just recently that we were able to prove what they were.  Before we had only theories and speculation.  Man at the time did his best but he was just groping in the dark. 

I in no way fault a person for their religious beliefs, we are free to believe what we wish to.  However I personally prefer to take a more critical view of our existence and look for the facts.  Not speculation based off an old book.  I would not argue that Jesus did not exist, nor would I argue that he was not a great man, perhaps even a man with some great power.  But to me he was just that, a man.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

It is hard to tell fable and myth from reality and truth when looking back at a time before events were documented like they are now.  Even today stories that are told to others change.  Legends grow and are crushed by the details that are forgotten and changed from one person to another talking about something.  It makes me wonder how we will be viewed in 2000 or even just 500 years.

The real problem as I see it is that people have taken religion to the point where they looks at the result they want and try to make the facts fit it instead of looking at the facts and determining the result.  That in no way encompasses all religion or all practitioners of any specific religion.  But it is a practice that has become far to common. 

[MikePGS]

Bowling for Columbine was a work of fiction, and Supersize Me only proved that eating only fast food isn't good for your health (shocking). Is that really a great pedigree to have?

[Chuck Dye]

Like the faith so many have that life and sentience derived from inanimate matter/energy?

Most science is based on strong inference:  "we have cause to believe."  When better evidence comes along, we have better cause to believe, or cause to change our belief.  Faith is, by definition, belief without cause (and usually unchangeable.)  Where science becomes religion (faith) it becomes as bogus as any other religion.

In trying to discuss religion with friends I value, I often point out that when one accepts one religion, one rejects all others.  I have only rejected one more than you have.

[Perd Hapley]

  Faith is, by definition, belief without cause. 

Actually no, that would only be one (very poor) definition of faith. 

[Chuck Dye]

Perhaps you can provide your (not necessarily better) definition?

[Matthew Carberry]

Define what you will accept as "cause".  If you disregard anything non-temporal/physical, then you won't accept the definition.

The meat of the matter is that Christianity (and many other religions) posits a reality beyond mere time and space, the natural world.

Self-evidently the existence of such a supernatural reality (or indeed the points at which it may interact with the natural) cannot be proven nor disproven by using methods constrained by the temporal and material (the scientific method).  Thus the evidence used to support such a "non-scientific" belief will always be insufficient for someone of a purely material mindset.

[Perd Hapley]

Chuck, I'm not talking about my definition.  I'm talking about what the word "faith" really means, as defined by usage.  If you think of faith as "belief without cause," you're not going to understand what other people are saying when they talk about faith, or what writers have meant by it (or its cognates) in the past two thousand years.

On a site for gun owners, it should be easy to illustrate the meaning of faith.  People often carry one gun over another because they have faith in that particular gun.  They trust it to be reliable, or accurate, or powerful, etc.  That is faith.  Whether they have "cause" for that faith will depend on the person.  They might have the sort of blind faith that comes from magazine articles or marketing.  Or they might have the sort of reasonable faith that comes from having fired the gun thousands of times, or a careful study of terminal ballistics and bullet performance.  True, the gun could still malfunction, or might fail to stop with one shot.  But the person whose faith is founded on fact has made a realistic, rational choice based on evidence.

But when that gun owner tells Chuck Dye that he has faith in his gun, Chuck doesn't know what he's talking about.  Because he's working with a flawed definition of faith, Chuck assumes it's a blind faith, based on tradition or personal preference. 

To be candid, I think most people rely on blind faith for most things they believe in.  But that doesn't mean one can't have reasonable faith in the same things, if they are supported by the evidence. 

[Antibubba]

My only comfort will be my waving to the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell.

Are you so certain you won't be standing next to them instead?  Were you true to your Christianity you would have said, "I'll draw no  comfort when I see the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell. But it's never too late, and I'll pray for them".

[Kyle]

Good call antibubba!

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us...

And lets jump all over anyone who tries to point out that American Christians often have a very shallow understanding of the religion!


Trivia: What is the one sin that can NEVER be forgiven?

[Perd Hapley]

White after Labor Day? 

[Manedwolf]

White after Labor Day? 

No, that's a sin year-round, now. You're supposed to feel guilty for being born that way.

[BridgeRunner]

deleted for incompleteness.  Somehow this posted before I was done writing it; I thought it hadn't posted at all.  Sorry.

[Perd Hapley]

MW, did you forget that I has been infected with teh white gilt?

[roo_ster]

Are you so certain you won't be standing next to them instead?  Were you true to your Christianity you would have said, "I'll draw no  comfort when I see the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell. But it's never too late, and I'll pray for them".

Good call antibubba!

Those most self-confident in their grasp of Christian theology have a tendency to be:
a. Non-Christians* attempting to lecture Christians on their faith
and
b. Ignorant of, well,  actual Christian theology, as opposed to the caricature erected by its historical opponents and pop culture.



FTR, there are several strains of Christian theology and some have  different views on salvation.  At least one of these strains emphasizes the certainty of salvation given particular conditions.  If the OP subscribes to this strain, he IS certain he won't spend eternity separated from God.



* Maybe, as a sideline, I'll start obnoxiously lecturing Jews, Hindus, atheists and the odd pagan on how they are not being true to their religion (or irreligion) in some fashion, not letting my ignorance of their particular religion (or irreligion) slow me in the least.  

Is orthodoxy to my misunderstanding of their (ir)religions too much to demand?

"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd have your son circumcised by a wild-haired old guy in the desert with a bit of sharp stone, not by some fancy-pants mumbler using sterilized surgical steel and wearing a nice suit."

"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd have shown that cow more deference."

"Hey, if you were true to your irreligion, you'd insist on a mathematical proof that when you turned your key and pressed the accelerator, you'd actually move your auto forward."

"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd kidnap a stranger, cut out his small & large intestine while still alive, drape them into the branches of a nearby oak, and dance buck nekkid to the sweet music of his death cries. "

[Viking]

"Hey, if you were true to your religion, you'd kidnap a stranger, cut out his small & large intestine while still alive, drape them into the branches of a nearby oak, and dance buck nekkid to the sweet music of his death cries. "

I'd do that, but there aren't many oaks near me, so I drape them over lamp posts. And it's too cold to dance around nekkid at this time of year. And death cries gives me a migraine, so I usually tape their mouths shut, and wear ear plugs. I'm sure whoever is watching will understand.
 

[roo_ster]

I'd do that, but there aren't many oaks near me, so I drape them over lamp posts. And it's too cold to dance around nekkid at this time of year. And death cries gives me a migraine, so I usually tape their mouths shut, and wear ear plugs. I'm sure whoever is watching will understand.
 

Heterodox!

   <--"OEO": Orthodoxy Enforcement Officer

[Don't care]

Are you so certain you won't be standing next to them instead?  Were you true to your Christianity you would have said, "I'll draw no  comfort when I see the guys who produced this film, over the deep chasm between where I will be in Heaven and their place in Hell. But it's never too late, and I'll pray for them".

Yes, I am.

I didn't imply that I would draw comfort from their separation from God and Heaven, but only my own place with Him and there, despite their trespasses that could have potentially dragged me there with them.

Unfortunately, I have little faith in most of my fellow men to do the right thing, even part of the time. However I still do pray for them, and now from the implied tone of your question, you as well.