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.
Just to be clear... I never mentioned the Gospels. However Jesus's existence is a true, verifiable, historically proven person. If you deny that then you deny history. Read "Killing Jesus : The History"
When we speak of goodness in competing philosophies we have to define what is good. I say and truly believe goodness is in every person. However human nature is easily corrupted, therefore many are taught to believe doing evil is good. Good is not relative. Secularists will tell you otherwise that what is good is a social construct, that different societies can define. Complete Total BS
We know as Christians the NT is not evil because the law is fulfilled and the law is based in one word... Love. There is nothing that is in conflict with the OT written in the NT. However that is for theologians to ponder. I've yet to discover anything. Are there conflicts of understanding? of course. Because the Bible is good, doesn't make the followers good. Because Love is good doesn't make people love... there is still free will. Clearly you know what free will is.
The US does follow the laws of the Bible, not all of them, but English Common law is faith based. It's is not enacted as absolutism, but "do you promise to tell the truth? so help you God" is still the primary affirmation is a court room. You can affirm if you do not believe in God.
Blind faith and presumption walk the same path. At some point the person meets a fork in the 'road'. This is why belief and knowing are profoundly different. Knowing comes from experiences, study and has an intellectual component. I'm sure we would both agree you never check your brain at the door. However this is usually the point where a person of faith moves ahead and the atheist stops. The place where eyes can not see. Is it blind faith? or is it a different vision? “I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” ~Albert Einstein~
Imagination is not seen with the eyes until it is manifested by the hand.
The first time you use insults I will move on.
"Killing Jesus: The History" is no more history that Bill O'Reilly's books about Killing Kennedy or Killing Lincoln.
Here's a review that illustrates some of the issues with that book:
[b]No, if you assert Jesus is a true, verifiable, historically proven person, you are not doing history.
That is hardly a rational position to take all things considered. The impact and imprint of Jesus on human history is profound. You can take some niggling quibble with the "historicity" (precision, verifiability, and accuracy) of His recorded "story," but His historical reality and existence have been enduring and is undeniably significant.
That is hardly a rational position to take all things considered. The impact and imprint of Jesus on human history is profound. You can take some niggling quibble with the "historicity" (precision, verifiability, and accuracy) of His recorded "story," but His historical reality and existence have been enduring and is undeniably significant.
One can just as well say that the Buddah's impact on history is significant, and he may have been partly or entirely myth as well. Or any other of the more popular deities for that matter. Historical impact (popularity) isn't the same thing as historicity, which is what we're talking about in this particular subtopic.
The author did not write the history published it, for the reader to decide. History is not dependent on the author... that is intellectually dishonest and you know it. History is either true or it isn't, either way one must prove or disprove it. Since we only have evidence and the evidence points to my assertion... guess what?
When anything has a preponderance of evidence that is over 2000 years old, I go with the evidence, irrespective of the author.
The author did not write the history published it, for the reader to decide. History is not dependent on the author... that is intellectually dishonest and you know it. History is either true or it isn't, either way one must prove or disprove it. Since we only have evidence and the evidence points to my assertion... guess what?
When anything has a preponderance of evidence that is over 2000 years old, I go with the evidence, irrespective of the author.
You are still talking about popularity, not historicity.
The Jesus mythos has been enduringly popular but that does not speak to its veracity.
History is indeed not dependent on Bill "tides come in and tides go out" O'Reilly or on any other author. But the bar is low for historians (almost as low as for authors of speculative history). Historians are willing to form consensus around something that hasn't been disproven, even if inconclusive. Which is what we have with Jesus -- very paper thin attestations coming from a very few sources, coupled with the relevant research being largely funded by people with skin in the game.
The author did not write the history published it, for the reader to decide. History is not dependent on the author... that is intellectually dishonest and you know it. History is either true or it isn't, either way one must prove or disprove it. Since we only have evidence and the evidence points to my assertion... guess what?
When anything has a preponderance of evidence that is over 2000 years old, I go with the evidence, irrespective of the author.
If the historical personhood of Jesus is denied... I can go no further. How can an honest discussion occur with history deniers?
There are over 30 independent accounts by 24 authors of Jesus as a living person of significance. I'm out.
First of all...you're out? Good. (But I doubt you're out).
However, if you were honest (there goes that commandment) you'd realize that most of us are not saying that Jesus did not exist. Most of us are not saying that -- at least in a small geographic area -- Jesus was not a living person of significance. What most of us are saying is that all the deeds attributed to Jesus have very little confirmed evidence, and many of those events are either exaggerated or made up.
You're just mad you got called out for sending all these people in here on a fool's errand.
Well you are posting here, so....
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.
