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.
I totally agree. It should come out fairy early whether they are Bible -litralist Christians, Christians who would rather donate a kidney than ry o argue for the Bible as true but try to give i some spurious worth like how many languages and editions and so many different versions they have to burn them all except KJV, or the cafeteria Christians who ignore all the stuff they don't think is defensible and got in to fight to the last bullecks for what they haven' seen through yet.
So every time - we ailor the argument - and the ferocity of it - to whatever claim is being presented. It isn't fo us to tell you what you believe: tell us, and we'll argue hat claim. That's if we don't simply say.
Possible creaor of everything, but you don't know dor sure? We don't have anything to argue about
Even the Bible is strictly academic. Heck does it really matter who really won Waterloo or whether Bligh was a the bullying sadist or that was simply misrepresented. really, my Gospel study is One Of Those Mysteries, Like Waterloo, Bounty, Mongkut and Arthur -real of legend. I have no personal stake in it - were it not that there are Christian who want to make it personal.
This is nearly always Bible -based - literally, substantially, or even just morally. And the argument is the same 'you should for your own good, believe this'.
As will be no secret by now, I reject that and it is not done for my benefit, but theirs - they have a personal sake in the belief - and it doesn't even have to be Bible- based or a society -dominating organization. As we have seen - UR removes the ONLY threat they have, and there is no reason WHY we should believe a claim that has not valid evidential support. And those who believe in a sorta -god of any religon or none, get very fired up when we explain why we reserve belief.
Why? What the heck difference does it make? I suggest that the personal stake in faith is what is doing it -even though the rationale for the personal stake has gone.
Forgive the discusrsive discurcivity...it's a bad habit of the old, drooling and nearly senile Lucky I'm not, eh
But, all that out the way, the influence of organized religion rather than what they believe, is what the campaign is really all about, and has been ever since we got the Internet (deserves a place in the atheist hall of fame, that does )and whether they are ok with evolution, or Creationists, liberal christian or Fundy, religious intent to dominate society for its own benefit (or sawing our souls" as they call it) is the serious threat, whether Fundy forefront or liberal laggers. And the rationale for imposing their will and authority on us all is
T H E B I B L E
Without that, they have nothing. And having nothing mandates - logically - disbelief. We'll debate (if needed - we could even agree) on whatever claim - bu the Bible ius is the Big Basis, so that's what we have to deal with. One little Book -whether it makes us look crazy or not.
Such a great guy with more common sense than is bestowed on most people.....Clearly there is much that doesn't make any common sense when you have so many people representing Christianity from so many different views, and that is the problem.
The first Christianity was Judaism, once you leave Judaism, you are trying to rationalize your own chosen belief against the belief of the bible, and all these translations are not helping.
If people were really honest with themselves, to look at things with common sense, and then admit what was true and what is not, there would not be so many problems.
People can't do what the New Testament says they can do, but they don't understand how you can not understand they that have a power from on high, and yet they can do nothing with it.
You can quote scripture to them to prove where you stand and when they don't agree with it, they wont admit that they don't agree with their own scripture.
You can quote contradiction after contradiction and people are just fine living with these contradictions while they call curse after curse on your head with some false sense of righteousness.
On the other hand, it's more difficult to defend atheism from a philosophical standpoint. You could not have won the argument with someone like Plato.
What do you think?
Considering the majority of professional philosophers are atheists, and the strongest arguments in favor of atheism are philosophical arguments, I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
Because there is no corroborating evidence that anything within the Bible actually took place, .
That is not true. In "Jewish Antiquities" Josephus devotes several pages to telling the story of John the Baptist. The saga is more or less the same as the story found in the New Testament, the major difference being the motives assigned to Herod for killing John.
Some Biblical scholars have argued that the Baptist story in Antiquities is an insert, added much later by someone other than Josephus, but it remains argument, not proof. Some Biblical scholars argue that the New Testament writers linked Jesus to the Baptist as a way of legitimizing him, and that there never was an actual meeting of the two men.
If we accept the story as being one written by Josephus, then we must acknowledge that John the Baptist made a much bigger splash than did Jesus during their time on Earth.
That is not true. In "Jewish Antiquities" Josephus devotes several pages to telling the story of John the Baptist. The saga is more or less the same as the story found in the New Testament, the major difference being the motives assigned to Herod for killing John.
Some Biblical scholars have argued that the Baptist story in Antiquities is an insert, added much later by someone other than Josephus, but it remains argument, not proof. Some Biblical scholars argue that the New Testament writers linked Jesus to the Baptist as a way of legitimizing him, and that there never was an actual meeting of the two men.
If we accept the story as being one written by Josephus, then we must acknowledge that John the Baptist made a much bigger splash than did Jesus during their time on Earth.
I don't have much evidence for this, so its just a hypothesis at best. I believe John the Baptist existed as a revolutionary, fighting against the occupation of the Romans and invented the Jesus story as a means of rallying his fellow rebels against the occupiers.
I don't have much evidence for this, so its just a hypothesis at best. I believe John the Baptist existed as a revolutionary, fighting against the occupation of the Romans and invented the Jesus story as a means of rallying his fellow rebels against the occupiers.
John was more anti-Temple than he was anti-Roman. His message was that the Sanhedrin had forfeited their positions as spiritual leaders by making common cause with the Roman occupiers. Baptizing people was his notion of how they could be born again as righteous Jews, without the need for priests and temples.
Jesus then either lifted this idea from John, or was already in agreement with it when they supposedly met. It is what ultimately got him killed...challenging the authority of the Sanhedrin which ruled on behalf of the Romans.
That is not true. In "Jewish Antiquities" Josephus devotes several pages to telling the story of John the Baptist. The saga is more or less the same as the story found in the New Testament, the major difference being the motives assigned to Herod for killing John.
Some Biblical scholars have argued that the Baptist story in Antiquities is an insert, added much later by someone other than Josephus, but it remains argument, not proof. Some Biblical scholars argue that the New Testament writers linked Jesus to the Baptist as a way of legitimizing him, and that there never was an actual meeting of the two men.
If we accept the story as being one written by Josephus, then we must acknowledge that John the Baptist made a much bigger splash than did Jesus during their time on Earth.
Josephus wrote the Antiquities in 94 CE, about 60 years after the events of the New Testament. Leaving aside the possible issue that the Jesus passages were inserted by Christian scribes at an even later date, Josephus is still a secondary source.
Josephus' reference to Jesus have about as much corroborating value as does my references to the great doctor Hawkeye Pearce in my history of the Korean War.
Last edited by fishbrains; 06-10-2017 at 08:09 AM..
That is not true. In "Jewish Antiquities" Josephus devotes several pages to telling the story of John the Baptist. The saga is more or less the same as the story found in the New Testament, the major difference being the motives assigned to Herod for killing John.
Some Biblical scholars have argued that the Baptist story in Antiquities is an insert, added much later by someone other than Josephus, but it remains argument, not proof. Some Biblical scholars argue that the New Testament writers linked Jesus to the Baptist as a way of legitimizing him, and that there never was an actual meeting of the two men.
If we accept the story as being one written by Josephus, then we must acknowledge that John the Baptist made a much bigger splash than did Jesus during their time on Earth.
Correct, and I'm sure that Shirina will acknowledge that the Jesus story is se in a historical matrix involving real people - Herod, Augustus, Tiberius, Pilate and Joseph Caiaphas.
Damn it - Josephus (Thanks to Pneuma for that one) even confirms that the most Mystical of the lot - John - was probably recounting fact when he says that Jesus was bundled over to the High priest's house to be questioned by Ananus, once High priest and now godfather of the Boethius clan who had pretty much bossed the High Priestly job and control of the Temple and into which Caiaphas had gained entry by marriage.
The more I find out, the more there really seems to be a more True story underlying John than any of the synoptics, who have never heard of Ananus, who don't know that Jesus had supper and slept overnight at Bethany before going to the temple, first thing after breakfast.
That said, there is a lot of stuff that is Christian wallpapering over what is to a certain extent, historically validated, by Josephus, mainly and a bit by Tacitus. And that's about it.
Correct, and I'm sure that Shirina will acknowledge that the Jesus story is se in a historical matrix involving real people - Herod, Augustus, Tiberius, Pilate and Joseph Caiaphas.
Damn it - Josephus (Thanks to Pneuma for that one) even confirms that the most Mystical of the lot - John - was probably recounting fact when he says that Jesus was bundled over to the High priest's house to be questioned by Ananus, once High priest and now godfather of the Boethius clan who had pretty much bossed the High Priestly job and control of the Temple and into which Caiaphas had gained entry by marriage.
The more I find out, the more there really seems to be a more True story underlying John than any of the synoptics, who have never heard of Ananus, who don't know that Jesus had supper and slept overnight at Bethany before going to the temple, first thing after breakfast.
That said, there is a lot of stuff that is Christian wallpapering over what is to a certain extent, historically validated, by Josephus, mainly and a bit by Tacitus. And that's about it.
As fishbrains pointed out, we are absent a true primary source for any of the Jesus story. While much of what Josephus wrote may be confirmed, the most obvious example being the Roman ramp which was built to get at the Masada defenders, its remains...remain.
On the other hand much of what Josephus wrote cannot be viewed as reliable. An example of this is the multi-page speech he has Eleazar delivering to the Masada defenders where he convinces them that suicide would be better than waiting to be slaughtered or enslaved by the Romans. Josephus certainly was not there to hear the speech, and neither were the Roman besiegers. To have even a smattering of authenticity, there would have to have been some survivor among the defenders who related the speech to one of the Roman conquerors, who in turn would have related it to Jospehus at a much later date. But of course the speech is not presented by Josephus as an approximation of what Eleazar said, it is presented as though it came from a transcription by a witness.
And this complicates matters because if we are using Josephus to affirm the John gospel, we are confirming one unknown with another.
Unless some extraordinary new document is discovered, who Jesus was and what he was about, will remain a guessing game.
BTW....I had not ever imagined that the day would come where I would be writing an argument which begins..."as fishbrains pointed out.." No offense, fishbrains, but that is not the sort of name which inspires confidence when employed as a source.
Well, ya know, I'm stating the obvious here, but you guys could always go to the source and find out for yourselves if He existed and raised from dead. There is, after all, only way to prove it to anyone. Go "see" for yourself; He will make Himself know to those that seek Him. Peace
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.
)and whether they are ok with evolution, or Creationists, liberal christian or Fundy, religious intent to dominate society for its own benefit (or sawing our souls" as they call it) is the serious threat, whether Fundy forefront or liberal laggers. And the rationale for imposing their will and authority on us all is 
