For Athiests, answer a question? (Isaiah, disciple, prophecy, priest)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a solid record of Socrates how he thought and what he wrote, unlike Jesus that has no record of even his existence other than in holy books written long after his death...
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
― Socrates
Well, I tend to see both of them in a similar light. Socrates does have abit more going for him, as he has contemporary references during his lifetime from critical voices as well as praise from his students. Just like your reference points out, one cannot take Plato's assesment of Socrates as some sort of paragon of virtue at face value. There appears to be elements of the real Socrates mixes with a mythic version, especially when compared with Xenophon's accounts.
In the same way, it would not surprise me if Jesus existed. However none of the account we have are contemporaneous, and virtually all our material is theologically motivated and uncritical. Like Plato's description of Socrates, one has to try separate the mythic version of Jesus from the man. I like Arequipa's distinction. Jesus in the man, the apocalyptic Jewish teacher. Christ is the mythic figure, the miraculous divine figure.
The other issue here is what is claimed. If we cannot take Plato's glowing descriptions of Socrates at face value how much more should we examine the biblical writes claims? Plato is not promoting Socrates as divine and claiming no miracles, yet we must take his enthusiasm for his teacher with a grain of salt. How can we not approach the claims of anonymous writers transcribing oral tradition decades after the death of Jesus with any less scrutiny.
I, like many others, have doubts he existed in the form that the New Testament says he did.
Yes, you can point to the absence of references to him in other contemporary writings. But, to me, the most damning argument is one of pure common sense.
Do people really expect others to believe that the supposed Creator Of The Universe - the "entity" that created quasars and pulsars, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, trillions upon trillions of stars in a trillion galaxies in a "space" so big that it defies true comprehension - decided to appear in frail human form on an exceedingly tiny little planet??? And then only in a desert backwater, mess around for three years with 12 guys (never really making a mark beyond a land area no larger than New Jersey) and then get killed by a motley crew of hinterland Romans???
Really??? Read that again.Really???
I think that people who swallow the fable, hook, line and sinker, have absolutely no comprehension of anything beyond their little world view. They have NO perspective on just how big this universe is. What role do humans really play in this grandiose myth? We are really that important to a creator of trillions of worlds? You could throw the entire Earth into the sun with little side effects. And the sun itself is a middling, ordinary star among billions in the galaxy.
For me, the jury is still out on whether Jesus existed. I know many of the books of the Bible were written well after his alleged death. I've heard varying accounts as to the timeline of those books having been written with the earliest at 30 years after his death and the latest up to 130 years after his death. I'm 30 years old so, at best, that'd be like me trying to write a book about someone in the year I was born (1982) utilizing only word of mouth and little in the way of written record. The details would surely be obfuscated.
At worst, that'd be like me writing about someone like, say, Mark Twain having only word of mouth, rumored speculation, and little to nothing in the way of written record. The details would not just be obfuscated but probably dead wrong at best.
That being said, I might be able to get Mark Twain's name right and I might be able to convey that he was influential but other than that there wouldn't be a whole lot of stuff to go on. Taking that into consideration, I have a hard time believing that if Jesus existed that most of the things written about him have been considerably "fluffed."
I, like many others, have doubts he existed in the form that the New Testament says he did.
Yes, you can point to the absence of references to him in other contemporary writings. But, to me, the most damning argument is one of pure common sense.
Do people really expect others to believe that the supposed Creator Of The Universe - the "entity" that created quasars and pulsars, gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, trillions upon trillions of stars in a trillion galaxies in a "space" so big that it defies true comprehension - decided to appear in frail human form on an exceedingly tiny little planet??? And then only in a desert backwater, mess around for three years with 12 guys (never really making a mark beyond a land area no larger than New Jersey) and then get killed by a motley crew of hinterland Romans???
Really??? Read that again.Really???
I think that people who swallow the fable, hook, line and sinker, have absolutely no comprehension of anything beyond their little world view. They have NO perspective on just how big this universe is. What role do humans really play in this grandiose myth? We are really that important to a creator of trillions of worlds? You could throw the entire Earth into the sun with little side effects. And the sun itself is a middling, ordinary star among billions in the galaxy.
Just who the hell do we think we are?
That's something Hollywood couldn't make up.
Kind of like Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time" - Bertrand Russell
I have sometimes wondered whether Socrates really existed or was an invention of Plato. I have to think that he really did as there is an independent mention in a play of Aristophanes - and a rather hostile one.
That said, some of Plato is clearly invented - like the nonsensical Symposium scenario. How much of what he has Socrates say is Socrates and how much Plato? Reasonably, while some of the biographical details may be questioned, the bulk of the sayings must be based on what Socrates taught.
However, thus far, it can also be asked, if Socrates never existed - or was not as Plato wrote him, so what? The rules of logical argument, whether invented by Plato or Socrates are valid on their own terms,not just because Socrates said them. Just as Television is what it is, never mind who actually invented it.
The same is not true of Christianity. If Jesus never existed or was not the person depicted in the Bible, then the Claims, rationale and the whole tottering edifice of Christianity comes crashing down and, once that happens, I see no way it will ever get its head above rubble level ever again.
for non believers, do you believe that a man named Jesus was real and if so, was he just a self claimed profit? If so, how to you explain all the stories about him and his preachings?
I honestly do not know if such a person existed. Even if he did one has to remember that he would have existed in a time during which word of mouth way by far the method for hearing and collecting stories. As there were many self proclaimed prophets and preachers around in those days one can expect that many stories got mixed up, collated, swapped around and anything we know of "Jesus" is likely to be the amalgamation of many stories about many people.
One important distinction between theists and atheists is that for a Christian Jesus really did need to exist. They have to believe there was such a person and he had magical powers and more.
The atheist does not. The teachings... the useful ones anyway.... stand alone from the actual existence of the person teaching them. We can evaluate the parables, the moral opinions and view points without worrying whether this was a real person or not.
Take for example Socrates and Plato. It is often discussed whether one or both of them existed or whether one was a total invention of the other in order to facilitate certain types of philosophical discourse. But does it matter? "Their" wisdom and philosophies are now part of our discourse and are no less useful to us even if it turned out the existence of one or both is false. If neither of them ever existed it takes nothing away from the usefulness and relevance of the philosophies we have written down under their names.
The Talmud says God refused the sacrifices of the high priests
immediately following the Crucifixion, for 40 years straight up
to the destruction of the Second Temple. http://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...acrifices.html
....
I was rather interested in this. I had a quick look at the sources and the Jewish explanation why the temple was destroyed varies from hatred and infighting between the Jews (when was there not?) poor 'Judges' (hardly their fault when Rome was running the place) to a truly pettifogging blemish in an animal sacrifice.
I can see why Bar Serapion could repeat (long after the event) the suggestion that the reason the Temple was destroyed was because Jesus was killed. I don't doubt that Christians had been putting that story about from the end of the Jewish war. But is it true?
I have heard that there were signs recorded in the Talmud that the Temple itself showed predictions of its own destruction. So are these signs no more than indicating that the Shekinah had packed up and left? That is certainly what is indicated by the tearing of the temple veil in the Synoptics. But is it really coincident with the (supposed) date of Jesus' crucifixion?
These references suggest that the signs were during 30 or 40 years up to the start or end of the Jewish war and destruction of the temple (70 A.D.) The case is really that around 30 AD was when these signs began.
I shall try to find out,but comments from any Talmud experts would be welcome.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-26-2013 at 10:28 AM..
Let me ask you a question: why do you deny Mohammed? Joseph Smith? L Ron Hubbard?
They never fulfilled prophetic statements about them like were given concerning Jesus thousands of years prior to His appearance. Their grave is with us today but Jesus' is empty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
