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.
Indeed, although the refutation of Alexandre's claims apparently have been published.
I'm not surprised. Trowel in one hand, Bible in the other and calling herself an archaeologist whilst not publishing her academic qualifications. Pfffft!
Early, independent sources attesting to many of the same things about this man. Compared to most figures of his time, he's apparently very well documented.
And all the others? Lol. I'm sorry, this is amusing, how many conspiracy theories do we have to come up with to explain this, that, the other thing, and pretty much everything away...
What is that suggesting? Are we going to appeal to as as-yet-to-be-constructed alternative historical document now?
And the letters from Paul. And keep in mind that all of these are reasoned by NT scholars to pull from earlier sources. But even without any of that, it's already more documentation than most people from that time period.
See that's where you go off the rails. The evidence isn't that some person named Jesus was crucified. It's that a particular person named Jesus was crucified, and the vast majority of scholars agree that we can know additional things about him.
I would instead challenge you to give evidence there were hundreds of men named Jesus claiming to be the Messiah! And I think it's pretty clear that the four gospels and Paul are talking about the same man.
You mean, later accounts? Like Josephus? If we're trying to get in touch with the historical method, why are we favoring later accounts over the earlier ones?
You didn't understand me. I had to change your argument to make it logically airtight, but the result was just an argument that "if a god wanted us to believe now that Jesus was his son, etc., he would have left us evidence (well, actually, absolute proof) of that." But it's no part of Christianity that god wants everyone to believe Jesus was his son immediately. Indeed, about 25% of Christians hold to Universalism and so they might not even believe god wants us to believe it any time before we die.
They would only be using that possibility to refute an argument against Christianity. Obviously, Christians believe in their god for entirely different reasons.
1. Well, the earliest gospel is dated to A.D. 70 (or earlier), neverminding the preMarkan passion narrative which is obviously earlier still.
2. The letters from Paul are said to be earlier than the gospels, with the four-line formula about Jesus' death and alleged resurrection possibly being written within five years of his passing.
3. Even if all of these writings were in fact written 100 years after Jesus' death, they would still be mined for historical facts. Again, we've got examples such as Alexander the Great's biographies that were written much later than that.
what are you arguing VIC? any knuckle head can see that it doesn't matter. if he existed or not is only relevant to a certain type of person.
It is totally reasonable to say he existed. it is totally reasonable to say there isn't much evidence that he did. neither has any real legs to base a weeks pay check on.
...and of course, where your 'Jesus house' collapses is that REAL archaeologists date it to the Early Roman period which could be anytime in the first 200 years so your attempts to tie it to around 1 - 30CE, to fit in with the Nazareth that you want your Jesus to have come from, is laughable.
Well you wouldn't. Theists don't care about facts...only about what supports their belief. All I know is, from a previous discussion on the subject that I was involved in here, is that my research showed that Yerdena Alexandre had not at that time, submitted her work for peer review. I couldn't even find, try as I may, any note of her qualifications. The best I can find is that she is an author Perhaps they exist now and she has now submitted her findings. I'm sure you will be quick enough to present them if they exist.
Seems to me that was the point, that we should look at the evidence and not think that the presence of "supernatural stuff" undermines it.
And the fact that his biographies were written some 400 years after his death doesn't affect the reliability of those biographies.
That the church renamed a collection of documents "The New Testament" doesn't magically strip them of their reliability, at least on certain points. As Ehrman and others have said, there's more evidence that Jesus existed than most figures of antiquity. That's just the fact; and it doesn't matter that the church later claimed that evidence as its own for the purposes of constructing "The Holy Bible".
You know that isn't what people normally mean by "Jesus never existed". I don't know why you keep wording it that way when you know it's misleading.
That would be the man they call "Jesus of Nazareth". And we've plenty of evidence for him, far more than to stop at "Oh it's possible a man named Jesus existed"
I would actually agree with this, with some minor alterations. I think it follows logically that if a god wanted us to believe now that Jesus was his son, etc., he would have left us evidence (well, actually, absolute proof) of that. But you can see that when we take that statement and make it logically airtight, you don't have much of an argument there against Christianity...
And of course, it's not being convinced that god exists and Jesus was his son that would save us (on the hell doctrine), it's coming to accept god and Jesus and follow them, etc. Some argue that it's possible the maximal number of people are coming to Christianity (and being saved) with the way the world is arranged now, and that making god's existence/Jesus' relation to god more obvious wouldn't increase that number. They don't have to prove that is the case, mind you, just that it's possible, and that draws out the failure of this sort of anti-theistic argument.
And naturally, if Universalism is true, there's no reason to demand that we know the full truth about Jesus before we die either way.
I agree that that's a bad (or "idiotic") argument. But I feel the same way about a lot of what the anti-theists have to say.
Yes! Sort of like the mythicists. They deny evidence and marginalize themselves unnecessarily, for the sake of an agenda that's actually harmed by their arguments (not helped).
Pretty sound (But did Ehrman Really say that?) as a real Jesus that escaped notice (despite you suggesting that Ehrman no less says he didn't) is always a possibility and I have some arguments myself (not based on historical sources that don't really add up to much) why I think there was a real Jesus.
I think that Mythicists may be misinterpreted (perhaps by themselves). Just because Mythical elements have been added to the Jesus story does not mean that it is Mythical all the way down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
What do you mean ‘justification’ or ‘good case’ for anti-theism? We clearly aren’t on the same pitch - lol.
It would seem not. I can't see where you have anything to differ over, except Vic's odd ideas about what are valid or invalid arguments.
I'm arguing that we all three are either 'opposing' by offering reasons why we don't believe, or we aren't. I am. I don't know about you two. I have only heard from Vic. reasons why I'm wrong
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-03-2019 at 09:38 AM..
The early, independent sources were the documents later collected by the church, then put into the New Testament. These are the documents most discussed (because they're the earliest sources) and they consist of Paul's writings and the four gospels.
Straight out of the Bible, I knew it! But you have no INDEPENDENT sources apart from the Bible, right?
I have said this very thing many times, Thrill ...
And no, there is no difference.
First of all, Christianity lures you in with promises of love, peace, tolerance, compassion, empathy, and mutual respect - like any husband (or wife, for that matter).
But once you're in, once you've decided to give your life to him, you suddenly realize the horror of it. Almost immediately, you are commanded - yes, commanded - to put your husband ahead and infront of everyone else in the cosmos. Your desires, your goals, your hopes, your dreams are to come a very distant second. Yes, he might promise you to help you achieve those things. On his good day. But he never does. Rather, you must achieve those things on your own, but you are once again commanded to give him the credit. You could have done *nothing* without him of course. Without his love and support, you couldn't achieve getting out of bed in the morning.
Perhaps the most insidious comparison is that, through the religion itself, you are stripped of your pride, your self-worth, your dignity, your humanity. Only through the husband is your life valuable. Only though *him* are you worth anything at all. You are duped and bamboozled into thinking that you can't live with out him because, without him, you are worthless, lost, alone, hopeless, and bereft of purpose. *He* gives you those things - and because he does, you should worship, grovel, genuflect, and go into the world praising your husband's name.
And perhaps the worst crime of all? Blasphemy. Don't you dare say a bad thing about your husband or he will give you a beating you'll never forget - and then walk off and leave you in a corner, cold, alone, and desperate.
Should you decide to go it alone - should you threaten to leave him, he will torture you. Again and again and again. Your life is in *his* hands with the moral authority to end it if he wishes. In *his* universe, murder is perfectly just and moral if you become more trouble than you're worth. If he doesn't murder you, he may instead kick you out of the kingdom ... er, I mean, kick you out of the house.
One thing is for certain: You must remain meek, demure, submissive, and quiet. You are not allowed to have a contrary opinion, you must obey and follow without question the rules he has given you. There is no vote. There is no discussion. There is no negotiation. You just obey.
And if you don't, whole cities, civilizations, entire planets will be devoured in his wrath and anger - or, well, thankfully abusive husbands can't do that - but he *can* destroy your own life leaving you no choice than to crawl back to you and, unlike the real world, no police force in the world can stop a rampaging, immoral god from carrying out is wanton acts of cowardice.
Because at his heart, the abusive husband is a coward - preying on weaker beings with very little power to defend theirselves.
Yet I said very little power - not no power at all. Because the power we all have to escape from this trap that so many men and women fall into is - to stop believing this garbage, pick yourself up, and start living your life for *you* and those that you care about.
The worst thing about this is - this is what it would be like if god really existed. Fortunately he doesn't, and this trap is a prison of the mind.
One of the saddest chapters in this melancholy story is that the abused wife gets defensive, even angry, if someone *else* insults her husband. Because she still loves him. Despite the beatings, the cheating, the humiliation and scorn he shows her, she must always defend her husband against those who believe he is a monster. Why? Because once in awhile, the husband shows her a sliver of kindness, a shard of compassion, a mote of caring.
And besides, he said he would wisk me off somewhere - someday - to a fabulous place where he will no longer beat the living hell out of me (pun intended) and treat me like a queen. I don't know when the day will come, but ... I trust him!
And those looking from the outside inward can only shake their heads in bafflement - how someone so beautiful and intelligent can actually believe that. No, the beatings will continue ... on and on and on.
This is why I say of all the lies Christianity tells to new initiates, the biggest lie of all is that Jesus offers you the "FREE" gift of salvation. There's nothing free about it at all once you've said the magic prayer of accepting Jesus as your Lord. That's when they roll out the "fine print"
"Now about that "free gift" thing I was mentioning....well, it's not exactly "free". I mean, it's free in the sense it doesn't cost you any money....not right now, anyway. And there are a few rules you have to follow..."
That's when they pull out Leviticus. "And homosexuals are an abomination to the Lord. If you are homosexual as you say you must never see your male companion again. It is sinful in the eyes of the Lord. And you! You cannot have sexual relations with your girlfriend anymore unless you both get married. And you! You must give 10% of your earnings to our church every month. Doesn't matter if you can't pay your food bill. Didn't Jesus say, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word, yada yada? Which is more important to you, your salvation or your children? Didn't Jesus say, "I have come to set a husband against his wife and children? Who is more important, Jesus your savior or your family?"
It would seem not. I can't see where you have anything to differ over, except Vic's odd ideas about what are valid or invalid arguments.
I'm arguing that we all three are either 'opposing' by offering reasons why we don't believe, or we aren't. I am. I don't know about you two. I have only heard from Vic. reasons why I'm wrong
Because you, Vic, and Raf go back and forth (continuously) restating the same facts/arguments (which have been noted by many others before you) and stating ‘correct’ to each other in an attempt to - what, exactly? If you want to discuss the Bible with each other or Jesus’ history, maybe a thread should be started about it?
I share your disbelief in God (for the very same reasons you and other atheists do). I don’t understand your point, other than perhaps your desire to discuss the Bible with each other. As an atheist, I don’t share that desire. It all comes down to your need to fight people with ‘facts’ (although usually you are just patting each other on the back). I’ve explained numerous times, I’m not anti-theist; I’m simply atheist. I don’t think sensationalistic thread titles (like this one) help our cause at all.
I have said this very thing many times, Thrill …
And no, there is no difference.
First of all, Christianity lures you in with promises of love, peace, tolerance, compassion, empathy, and mutual respect - like any husband (or wife, for that matter).
But once you're in, once you've decided to give your life to him, you suddenly realize the horror of it.
As have I (though not as poignantly as your post). It is apparent to anyone who is not still under the influence of those teachings. But no, many of us don't realize the horror of it when we're in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Almost immediately, you are commanded - yes, commanded - to put your husband ahead and infront of everyone else in the cosmos. Your desires, your goals, your hopes, your dreams are to come a very distant second. Yes, he might promise you to help you achieve those things. On his good day. But he never does. Rather, you must achieve those things on your own, but you are once again commanded to give him the credit. You could have done *nothing* without him of course. Without his love and support, you couldn't achieve getting out of bed in the morning.
Perhaps the most insidious comparison is that, through the religion itself, you are stripped of your pride, your self-worth, your dignity, your humanity. Only through the husband is your life valuable. Only though *him* are you worth anything at all. You are duped and bamboozled into thinking that you can't live with out him because, without him, you are worthless, lost, alone, hopeless, and bereft of purpose. *He* gives you those things - and because he does, you should worship, grovel, genuflect, and go into the world praising your husband's name.
And perhaps the worst crime of all? Blasphemy. Don't you dare say a bad thing about your husband or he will give you a beating you'll never forget - and then walk off and leave you in a corner, cold, alone, and desperate.
Should you decide to go it alone - should you threaten to leave him, he will torture you. Again and again and again. Your life is in *his* hands with the moral authority to end it if he wishes. In *his* universe, murder is perfectly just and moral if you become more trouble than you're worth. If he doesn't murder you, he may instead kick you out of the kingdom ... er, I mean, kick you out of the house.
One thing is for certain: You must remain meek, demure, submissive, and quiet. You are not allowed to have a contrary opinion, you must obey and follow without question the rules he has given you. There is no vote. There is no discussion. There is no negotiation. You just obey.
And if you don't, whole cities, civilizations, entire planets will be devoured in his wrath and anger - or, well, thankfully abusive husbands can't do that - but he *can* destroy your own life leaving you no choice than to crawl back to you and, unlike the real world, no police force in the world can stop a rampaging, immoral god from carrying out is wanton acts of cowardice.
Because at his heart, the abusive husband is a coward - preying on weaker beings with very little power to defend theirselves.
Yet I said very little power - not no power at all. Because the power we all have to escape from this trap that so many men and women fall into is - to stop believing this garbage, pick yourself up, and start living your life for *you* and those that you care about.
The worst thing about this is - this is what it would be like if god really existed. Fortunately he doesn't, and this trap is a prison of the mind.
One of the saddest chapters in this melancholy story is that the abused wife gets defensive, even angry, if someone *else* insults her husband. Because she still loves him. Despite the beatings, the cheating, the humiliation and scorn he shows her, she must always defend her husband against those who believe he is a monster. Why? Because once in awhile, the husband shows her a sliver of kindness, a shard of compassion, a mote of caring.
And besides, he said he would wisk me off somewhere - someday - to a fabulous place where he will no longer beat the living hell out of me (pun intended) and treat me like a queen. I don't know when the day will come, but ... I trust him!
And those looking from the outside inward can only shake their heads in bafflement - how someone so beautiful and intelligent can actually believe that. No, the beatings will continue ... on and on and on.
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.
gift of salvation. There's nothing free about it at all once you've said the magic prayer of accepting Jesus as your Lord. That's when they roll out the "fine print" 
