Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Ricky Spanish on November 05, 2015, 10:07:57 AM
-
This has been doing the rounds again on fb:
"Below are facts on How Jesus Died For You.
I do not think that we really understand how much Jesus did for us. Please share this post to spread the Good News of Jesus."
Crucifixion was invented by the Persians in 300 BC, and perfected by the Romans in 100 BC.
1. It is the most painful death ever invented by man and is where we get our term "excruciating."
2. It was reserved primarily for the most vicious of male criminals.
(Jesus refused the anesthetic wine which was offered to Him by the Roman soldiers because of His promise in Matthew 26: 29, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.")
3. Jesus was stripped naked and His clothing divided by the Roman guards. Psalm 22:18, "They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."
4. The Crucifixion of Jesus was a horrific, slow, painful death.
5. Jesus' knees were flexed at about 45 degrees, He was forced to bear His weight with the muscles of His thigh, you are not able to do this for more than a few minutes without cramping.
6. Jesus' weight was borne on His feet, with nails driven through them.
7. Within a few minutes of being placed on the Cross, Jesus' shoulders were dislocated. Minutes later Jesus' elbows and wrists became dislocated.
8. Jesus limbs were dislocated so that His arms were 9 inches longer than normal.
9. Prophecy was fulfilled in Psalm 22:14, "I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint."
10. After Jesus' wrists, elbows, and shoulders were dislocated, the weight of His body on his upper limbs caused traction forces on the Major muscles of His chest wall.
11. These traction forces caused His rib cage to be pulled upwards and outwards. In order to exhale, Jesus was physiologically required to force His body.
12. In order to breathe out, Jesus had to push down on the nails in His feet to raise His body, and allow His rib cage to move downwards and inwards to expire air from His lungs.
13. His lungs were in a resting position of constant maximum inspiration.
14. The problem was that Jesus could not easily push down on the nails in His feet because the muscles of His legs, bent at 45 degrees, were extremely fatigued, in severe cramp, and in an anatomically compromised position.
15. Unlike all Hollywood movies about the Crucifixion, the victim was extremely active. The crucified victim was physiologically forced to move up and down the cross, a distance of about 12 inches in order to breathe.
16. The process of respiration caused excruciating pain.
17. As the six hours of the Crucifixion wore on, Jesus was less and less able to bear His weight on His legs, as His thigh and calf muscles became increasingly exhausted. Jesus had shortness of breath.
18. His movements up and down the Cross to breathe caused excruciating pain in His wrist, His feet, and His dislocated elbows and shoulders.
19. The movements became less frequent as Jesus became increasingly exhausted, but the terror of imminent death by asphyxiation forced Him to continue in His efforts to breathe.
20. Jesus' lower limb muscles developed excruciating cramp from the effort of pushing down on His legs, to raise His body, so that He could breathe out, in their anatomically compromised position.
21. Jesus had pain from every movement.
22. Jesus was covered in blood and sweat.
23. The blood was a result of the Scourging that nearly killed Him, and the sweat as a result of His violent involuntary attempts to effort to expire air from His lungs. Throughout all this He was completely naked, and the leaders of the Jews, the crowds, and the thieves on both sides of Him were jeering, swearing and laughing at Him. In addition, Jesus' own mother was watching.
24. Physiologically, Jesus' body was undergoing a series of catastrophic and terminal events.
25. Because Jesus could not maintain adequate ventilation of His lungs, He was now in a state of hypo-ventilation (inadequate ventilation).
26. His blood oxygen level began to fall, and He developed Hypoxia (low blood oxygen). In addition, because of His restricted respiratory movements, His blood carbon dioxide (CO2) level began to rise, a condition known as Hypercritical.
27. This rising CO2 level stimulated His heart to beat faster in order to increase the delivery of oxygen, and the removal of CO2.
28. The Respiratory Center in Jesus' brain sent urgent messages to his lungs to breathe faster, and Jesus began to pant.
29. Jesus' physiological reflexes demanded that He took deeper breaths, and He involuntarily moved up and down the Cross much faster, despite the excruciating pain. The agonizing movements spontaneously started several times a minute, to the delight of the crowd who jeered Him, the Roman soldiers, and the Sanhedrin.
30. However, due to the nailing of Jesus to the Cross and His increasing exhaustion, He was unable to provide more oxygen to His oxygen starved body.
31. The twin forces of too little oxygen and too much CO2 caused His heart to beat faster and faster.
32. His pulse rate was probably about 220 beats/ minute, the maximum normally sustainable.
33. Jesus had drunk nothing for 15 hours, since 6 pm the previous evening.
34. He was bleeding from all over His body following the Scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails in His wrists and feet, and the lacerations following His beatings and falls.
35. Jesus was already very dehydrated, and His blood pressure fell alarmingly.
36. His blood pressure was probably about 80/50.
37. He was in First Degree Shock.
38. By about noon Jesus' heart probably began to fail.
39. Jesus' lungs probably began to fill up with Pulmonary Oedema.
40. This only served to exacerbate His breathing.
41. Jesus was in Heart Failure and Respiratory Failure.
42. Jesus said, "I thirst" because His body was crying out for fluids.
43. Jesus was in desperate need of an intravenous infusion of blood and plasma to save His life.
44. Jesus could not breathe properly and was slowly suffocating to death.
45. At this stage Jesus probably developed a Haemopericardium.
46. Plasma and blood gathered in the space around His heart, called the Pericardium.
47. This fluid around His heart caused Cardiac Tamponade (fluid around His heart, which prevented Jesus' heart from beating properly).
48. Because of the increasing physiological demands on Jesus' heart, and the advanced state of Haemopericardium, Jesus probably eventually sustained Cardiac Rupture. His heart literally burst. This was probably the cause of His death.
49. To slow the process of death the soldiers put a small wooden seat on the Cross, which would allow Jesus the "privilege" of bearing His weight on his sacrum.
50. The effect of this was that it could take up to nine days to die on a Cross.
51. When the Romans wanted to expedite death they would simply break the legs of the victim, causing the victim to suffocate in a matter of minutes.
52. At three o'clock in the afternoon Jesus said, "Tetelastai," meaning, "It is finished." At that moment, He gave up His Spirit, and He died.
53. When the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, He was already dead. Not a bone of His body was broken, in fulfillment of prophecy.
54. Jesus died after six hours of the most excruciating and terrifying torture ever invented.
55. Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to Heaven.
The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:
By Dr. C. Truman Davis
A Physician Analyzes the Crucifixion.
From New Wine Magazine, April 1982.
Originally published in Arizona Medicine,
March 1965, Arizona Medical Association.
"Will You Be With Me In Heaven?
All Jesus Asks You is to Love Him, Your Lord, Your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind."
But can you spot the fact from the fiction?
-
...... and here is a video to go with your OP. I don't know if this is the same doctor mentioned in the linked article though, as his name is not mentioned in the text beneath the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC9krDwjfZE
-
All very well Thrud - but there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus did this, Jesus suffeerd that.
Why, because there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, theer is no evidence, verifiable evidence, that Jesus ever existed for the Romans to have done anything to him.
You can believe whatever you like, as far as I am concerned the entire list in your post, relative to Jesus, is total fiction, as in my opinion, in all probability, so is Jesus.
-
Both Tacitus - a well-respected historian - and Josephus, attested to the reality of the Crucifixion. There are other references. Some people post in the most abject ignorance!
-
Both Tacitus - a well-respected historian - and Josephus, attested to the reality of the Crucifixion. There are other references. Some people post in the most abject ignorance!
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
-
Both Tacitus - a well-respected historian - and Josephus, attested to the reality of the Crucifixion. There are other references. Some people post in the most abject ignorance!
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
That particular line can be taken with respect to a huge amount of ancient history, and indeed for a lot of modern history. You have to, at some point, accept that what a historian says, if he is considered to be trustworthy, is accurate. Most modern historians consider the Crucifixion to have been factual. Most consider Tacitus, in particular, to be reliable.
-
I have to accept that it appears to be what Tactus believed but it isn't clear that he verified it beyond talking to Christians, so I don't see you can use the word 'attested' in any sensible fashion.
-
I have to accept that it appears to be what Tactus believed but it isn't clear that he verified it beyond talking to Christians, so I don't see you can use the word 'attested' in any sensible fashion.
We're talking semantics here. I think that what Tacitus reported - to use a different word - is accepted as correct history. I've not seen any credible argument otherwise, with the proviso that all history is open to debate of some kind.
-
Yes, we are talking semantics. I have never understood the attitude that doing so is not important. Happy with the word reported, it does not have the same meaning as attested.
-
The details of Crucifixion are just so appalling. The more I read of Roman history the more appalled I am by them - their pitiless cruelty makes them the Isis of their time.
-
In what sense were the Romans, the ISIS of their time? Surely you are marking them out then as being exceptionally cruel in comparison to every other culture at the time? In which case, you would struggle to make the case, I would suggest. The overall mores of the time were exceptionally cruel in our sense.
-
Thinking about it, I think BA's reaction is caused by the combination of cruelty and administrative efficiency of the Roman empire. In some ways, I would suggest the better comparison is with Nazi Germany as epitomized by the Wannsee conference with its administrative planning of genocide.
-
In what sense were the Romans, the ISIS of their time? Surely you are marking them out then as being exceptionally cruel in comparison to every other culture at the time? In which case, you would struggle to make the case, I would suggest. The overall mores of the time were exceptionally cruel in our sense.
The Romans used brute force and torture, unnessarily brutal treatment, to subjugate people, and horrific measures to maintain their hold. The treatment here in these islands of the Iceni, after Boudicca's revolt, was a case in point. They were the outstanding military power of their time, and no others were in a position to effectively challenge their supremacy and methods. I don't, for one minute, suggest that they were the sole exponents of such brutality. There were others before, and there have been plenty since; but in their era to describe them as the Isis of their time is no more than the reality of it.
-
ISIS are not the outstanding military force of our time so I don't see how that works as a comparison to ISIS, and I know of no military foe of the Romans who were any less cruel, at the time they were living in. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make comparing them to ISIS.
Edited because of the rather odd autocorrect of lesscruel to pedicures!
-
ISIS are not the outstanding military force of our time so I don't see how that works as a comparison to ISIS, and I know of no military foe of the Romans who were any pedicures, at the time they were living in. I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make comparing them to ISIS.
I'm not saying that Isis are an outstanding military force, I am simply saying that their excessive brutality, done for no gain, other than to terrify, is on a par as far as attitude and horrific practice is concerned, with the Roman attitude, as exemplified by crucifixion.
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned. The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned. The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
It is not the question as to why Jesus was crucified ("pain in the neck" or not, as you so crudely put it), but the brutality of the act of crucifixion.
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned. The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
It is not the question as to why Jesus was crucified ("pain in the neck" or not, as you so crudely put it), but the brutality of the act of crucifixion.
The brutality of the crucufixion had, to the Romans, an easily identifiable purpose - deterrence.
They were saying "if you break our laws this is what is going to happen to you" and, to a very large extent, the subjugated peoples were deterred from action likely to incur crucufixion.
This is fact - Jesus' crucufixion is not!
There is not, so far as can be ascertained, a single word about Jesus that was written at the time he was supposed to be doing the things attributed to him and the sooner Christians wake up to that fact and accept that their religion is as much based on faith and not fact as any other religiuous belief the quicker they will stop being the arrogant "we are the only ones who are right and the rest of you are going to Hell" bunch that they are now.
-
All very well Thrud - but there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus did this, Jesus suffeerd that.
Why, because there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, theer is no evidence, verifiable evidence, that Jesus ever existed for the Romans to have done anything to him.
You can believe whatever you like, as far as I am concerned the entire list in your post, relative to Jesus, is total fiction, as in my opinion, in all probability, so is Jesus.
Sorry, Matt, but the view of the majority of scholars is that someone called Jesus existed and that he was involved in the kind of extensive teaching and preaching activity that the NT Jesus is reported to have been involved in. Whether or not that particular Jesus was crucified continues to be open to debate, but there is contemporary and extra-Biblical evidence that someone known by the name 'Christ' was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jewish leadership sometime around 30AD.
"The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
The only 'important' issue that remains under serious scholarly debate is the resurrection.
-
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS. My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often. Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).
As for whether or not thay had checked the statements beyond talking to Christians, there is no evidence in either passage that they spoke to any Christians. In view of the attitude of society to Christians at the time (that they were of no consequence and potentially 'outlaws' - in the sense that they broke Imperial laws in refusing to worship the Emperor), is it likely that Tacitus or Josephus [the latter a Jew] would have spoken to them
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned.
I understand that the historical records back both this opinion and the fact that other Jewish rebels were executed for this reason.
The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
This only applies if the person is human and only human. Since science only deals in the physical, there is no way that it can prove (or disprove) the existence of any additional elements of reality.
-
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS. My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often. Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).
Are you claiming that you witnessed your father suffering a hernia even though you weren't alive at the time? Or are you claiming that you witnessed him recounting the story at a later date? There's a difference.
As for whether or not thay had checked the statements beyond talking to Christians, there is no evidence in either passage that they spoke to any Christians.
There's no evidence in either passage that they spoke to anybody. In fact, you can make a case for the passages to have been interpolated by later Christians.
In view of the attitude of society to Christians at the time (that they were of no consequence and potentially 'outlaws' - in the sense that they broke Imperial laws in refusing to worship the Emperor), is it likely that Tacitus or Josephus [the latter a Jew] would have spoken to them
I assume you have a "not" missing here. What other source would you claim for Tacitus and Josephus?
-
This only applies if the person is human and only human. Since science only deals in the physical, there is no way that it can prove (or disprove) the existence of any additional elements of reality.
If you are going to claim a supernatural aspect to Jesus, please stop pretending to be using historical argument.
-
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS. My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often. Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).
As for whether or not thay had checked the statements beyond talking to Christians, there is no evidence in either passage that they spoke to any Christians. In view of the attitude of society to Christians at the time (that they were of no consequence and potentially 'outlaws' - in the sense that they broke Imperial laws in refusing to worship the Emperor), is it likely that Tacitus or Josephus [the latter a Jew] would have spoken to them
Disagree on attest - you can report the story but you cannot really attest to the event. Attest has a specific meaning and wouldn't really be used of an historian. Note I don't think that calls into doubt Tacitus or has any promoting the idea of mythicism with which I have little truck.
Interesting point on Tacitus, in particular, I don't think it applies quite so much to Josephus because he was a Jew (I think that makes him more likely to have talked to Christians). Also in Josephus' case leaving aside any parts that may be a forgery is a more positive portrayal of Christians. The problem with Tacitus is I'm not sure the word messiah would make sense unless he had talked to Christians - it's not something that would make sense in teh Roman world. The only other question, I have about the accuracy, leaving aside the really abstruse stuff, is the idea of there being multitudes of them in Rome at the time of Nero but that may in a sense not mean quite the same as we might think of it and has more of a meaning of a noticeable number rather than a huge number.
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned.
I understand that the historical records back both this opinion and the fact that other Jewish rebels were executed for this reason.
The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
This only applies if the person is human and only human. Since science only deals in the physical, there is no way that it can prove (or disprove) the existence of any additional elements of reality.
Just to note that history as a study only deals in the material as well.
-
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS. My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often. Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).
As for whether or not thay had checked the statements beyond talking to Christians, there is no evidence in either passage that they spoke to any Christians. In view of the attitude of society to Christians at the time (that they were of no consequence and potentially 'outlaws' - in the sense that they broke Imperial laws in refusing to worship the Emperor), is it likely that Tacitus or Josephus [the latter a Jew] would have spoken to them
Tacitus was not born until 56CE, twenty-five years after the death of Christ, and except for his service in the army lived in Rome, so the likelyhood of him having ever met anyone who met Christ is remote.
Josephus wrote about early Christianity in 94CE and had lived in Rome since 67CE and never mentioned having met Christ or anyone who had.
.
-
There is not, so far as can be ascertained, a single word about Jesus that was written at the time he was supposed to be doing the things attributed to him and the sooner Christians wake up to that fact and accept that their religion is as much based on faith and not fact as any other religiuous belief the quicker they will stop being the arrogant "we are the only ones who are right and the rest of you are going to Hell" bunch that they are now.
Sorry Matt but, like so many, you write (note the action described in that verb) from a literary tradition aspect, forgetting that whilst a lot of the 1st Century Roman Empire required literacy to survive, many of its inhabitants weren't literate. Instead they relied on oral tradition which had a very defined way of ensuring the accuracy of what it transmitted. In fact, I suspect that more change took place to historical records in the early days of the written word and everything relied on scribes than it did through oral transmission. Even if that is over-pessimistic, I doubt whether the early days of literacy had a better track-record than orality.
-
Just to check what sense you are using 'attested' in. They cannot be hearing witness to it as they weren't born and it isn't clear in either passage that they have checked the statements beyond talking to Christians.
One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS. My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often. Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).
As for whether or not thay had checked the statements beyond talking to Christians, there is no evidence in either passage that they spoke to any Christians. In view of the attitude of society to Christians at the time (that they were of no consequence and potentially 'outlaws' - in the sense that they broke Imperial laws in refusing to worship the Emperor), is it likely that Tacitus or Josephus [the latter a Jew] would have spoken to them
Disagree on attest - you can report the story but you cannot really attest to the event. Attest has a specific meaning and wouldn't really be used of an historian. Note I don't think that calls into doubt Tacitus or has any promoting the idea of mythicism with which I have little truck.
Interesting point on Tacitus, in particular, I don't think it applies quite so much to Josephus because he was a Jew (I think that makes him more likely to have talked to Christians). Also in Josephus' case leaving aside any parts that may be a forgery is a more positive portrayal of Christians. The problem with Tacitus is I'm not sure the word messiah would make sense unless he had talked to Christians - it's not something that would make sense in teh Roman world. The only other question, I have about the accuracy, leaving aside the really abstruse stuff, is the idea of there being multitudes of them in Rome at the time of Nero but that may in a sense not mean quite the same as we might think of it and has more of a meaning of a noticeable number rather than a huge number.
Messiah would have probably been used in the sense that the Jews named the Messiah as being their saviour and to this day do not acknowledge that Jesus was THE messiah.
-
There is not, so far as can be ascertained, a single word about Jesus that was written at the time he was supposed to be doing the things attributed to him and the sooner Christians wake up to that fact and accept that their religion is as much based on faith and not fact as any other religiuous belief the quicker they will stop being the arrogant "we are the only ones who are right and the rest of you are going to Hell" bunch that they are now.
Sorry Matt but, like so many, you write (note the action described in that verb) from a literary tradition aspect, forgetting that whilst a lot of the 1st Century Roman Empire required literacy to survive, many of its inhabitants weren't literate. Instead they relied on oral tradition which had a very defined way of ensuring the accuracy of what it transmitted. In fact, I suspect that more change took place to historical records in the early days of the written word and everything relied on scribes than it did through oral transmission. Even if that is over-pessimistic, I doubt whether the early days of literacy had a better track-record than orality.
Tacitus and Josephus whom you are climing as proof of the Jesus story's truth WERE literate!
-
Tacitus was not born until 56CE, twenty-five years after the death of Christ, and except for his service in the army lived in Rome, so the likelyhood of him having ever met anyone who met Christ is remote.
Josephus wrote about early Christianity in 94CE and had lived in Rome since 67CE and never mentioned having met Christ or anyone who had.
Thanks for that, Matt. So, are you suggesting that they both got their information from the Roman authorities, rather than from any Christians - though it is likely that Christianity had reached Rome long before 56AD?
-
Tacitus and Josephus whom you are climing as proof of the Jesus story's truth WERE literate!
A comment that, when taken in conjunction with your post that I have just responded to, seems to indicate that the Jesus story has far more evidence for it than you wanted us to believe earlier in the thread.
-
Messiah would have probably been used in the sense that the Jews named the Messiah as being their saviour and to this day do not acknowledge that Jesus was THE messiah.
But given Tacitus is a Roman that doesn't really apply.
-
Tacitus was not born until 56CE, twenty-five years after the death of Christ, and except for his service in the army lived in Rome, so the likelyhood of him having ever met anyone who met Christ is remote.
Josephus wrote about early Christianity in 94CE and had lived in Rome since 67CE and never mentioned having met Christ or anyone who had.
Thanks for that, Matt. So, are you suggesting that they both got their information from the Roman authorities, rather than from any Christians?
Yes - unless you can show that there were Christians in Rome at the time that these learned men were writing!
It is impossible to have a "discussion" on the subject of Jesus and Christianity with you as you do not "discuss" anything; you just state everything baldly as being fact and accepting no rebuttal. This is due to the flat refusal of Christians to accept that their religion is as much a matter of faith as every other religion.
Yes, I am repeating myself, why should I not, you do it all the time! The same statements of faith posing as facts again and again.
-
In view of the attitude of society to Christians at the time (that they were of no consequence and potentially 'outlaws' - in the sense that they broke Imperial laws in refusing to worship the Emperor), is it likely that Tacitus or Josephus [the latter a Jew] would have spoken to them
I assume you have a "not" missing here. What other source would you claim for Tacitus and Josephus?
No - where are you suggesting it should be? I assume that you think that it would be somewhere amongst 'would have spoken to them'. Are you suggesting that Tacitus and Josephus would have hunted out domestic servants and slaves (who made up the bulk of the church in the first 100 years or so of Christianity) to ask them about the founder of their faith. In view of who they were and who they wrote for, I'd suggest that their main sources would have been other Romans, especially those in authority.
-
Yes - unless you can show that there were Christians in Rome at the time that these learned men were writing!
Well, Paul wrote his letter to the church in Rome during the 50s, so there is no problem showing that fact. Remember too, that the great fire of Rome (64 AD) was attributed - at least by Nero - to the activities of Rome's Christians.
The majority of scholars writing on Romans propose the letter was written in late 55/early 56 or late 56/early 57. Early 58 and early 55 both have some support, while German New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann argues for a date as early as 51/52 (or 54/55) following on from Knox, who proposed 53/54. Lüdemann is the only serious challenge to the consensus of mid to late 50s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans#Dating
It is impossible to have a "discussion" on the subject of Jesus and Christianity with you as you do not "discuss" anything; ...
The problem with this viewpoint is that so much of what you post is provably wrong - look at the historical inaccuracies in your last few posts.
It has nothing to do with you just state everything baldly as being fact and accepting no rebuttal. This is due to the flat refusal of Christians to accept that their religion is as much a matter of faith as every other religion.
It has to do with the FACTS that exist within the historical record. The only part of Christianity that is really under dispute by anyone who is serious about the issue is the reesurrection - and that, I would agree, is largely down to faith, but with some of the written evidence you are so keen on to support it.
-
If you are going to claim a supernatural aspect to Jesus, please stop pretending to be using historical argument.
That's an interesting complaint, jeremy. Never heard it put in quite that fashion!! I will use what historical argument exists as and where it's appropriate - so I will refer to literary records that refer to the crucifixion of someone deemed by the Jewish leaders to be dangerous to the Jews, and point out that other literary records associate that death with a reported resurrection that occurred on the 3rd day after said crucifixion.
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned.
I understand that the historical records back both this opinion and the fact that other Jewish rebels were executed for this reason.
The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
This only applies if the person is human and only human. Since science only deals in the physical, there is no way that it can prove (or disprove) the existence of any additional elements of reality.
That guy Jesus was human just like the rest of us, he had some very human characteristics. He had a temper, he was attention seeking, he was arrogant. If he had been any sort of deity I think it might have been obvious to all not just his sycophantic followers.
Of course no one deserved to die the sort of death Jesus did even if he was a right pain in the rear end.
-
It has to do with the FACTS that exist within the historical record. The only part of Christianity that is really under dispute by anyone who is serious about the issue is the reesurrection - and that, I would agree, is largely down to faith, but with some of the written evidence you are so keen on to support it.
And it was all going so well - written evidence works with a methodlogy such as history which is materialistic. As said many many times before for something to be evidence for a supernatural claim, you would need a supernaturalistic methodology. I know it's probably a forlorn 'hope' but do you have one? If not then you have no evidence
-
If you are going to claim a supernatural aspect to Jesus, please stop pretending to be using historical argument.
That's an interesting complaint, jeremy. Never heard it put in quite that fashion!! I will use what historical argument exists as and where it's appropriate - so I will refer to literary records that refer to the crucifixion of someone deemed by the Jewish leaders to be dangerous to the Jews, and point out that other literary records associate that death with a reported resurrection that occurred on the 3rd day after said crucifixion.
So you haven't read any of the many posts I've written on here about history as a study being methodologically naturalistic? Well I've added 2 this morning and this will be a third. History is a set of methods in terms of evidence and it assumes naturalism. To have evidence for a supernatural claim you would need a set of methods that is not currently part of historical study - have you got one? If not then the use of the word evidence in relation to how we use it in history, or indeed law, is barely even wrong.
-
Are you claiming that you witnessed your father suffering a hernia even though you weren't alive at the time? Or are you claiming that you witnessed him recounting the story at a later date? There's a difference.
Obviously, the latter, but I am able to attest to the veracity of his attestation as a result of certain verbal and physical evidences. My point to NS was that one doesn't HAVE to have been present in order to attest to something's veracity.
There's no evidence in either passage that they spoke to anybody. In fact, you can make a case for the passages to have been interpolated by later Christians.
That is only partially true, jeremy. Scholars have only pinpointed certain passages within their reports as possibly having been interpolated by later Christians, and those passages don't include all the references to Christ. Furthermore, I don't think that anyone has come up with any evidence that it was DEFINITELY added at a later date, which is why the debate over this continues amongst scholars.
-
So you haven't read any of the many posts I've written on here about history as a study being methodologically naturalistic? Well I've added 2 this morning and this will be a third. History is a set of methods in terms of evidence and it assumes naturalism.
And, of course, the scholars who assert that there was a historical Jesus use this method, NS - as do I. The only aspect that has to rely on something beyond naturalism is the resurrection.
To have evidence for a supernatural claim ...
Interestingly, the topic of this thread has nothing to do with the supernatural. We know that, over time, the Romans crucified 1000s of people - all of whom would have suffered in a way very similar to that laid out in the OP.
To repeat, for the 4th or 5th time on this thread alone, the only aspect of the Christian story that definitely can't be proven by the use of naturalistic, historical evidence is the resurrection.
-
And it was all going so well - written evidence works with a methodlogy such as history which is materialistic. As said many many times before for something to be evidence for a supernatural claim, you would need a supernaturalistic methodology. I know it's probably a forlorn 'hope' but do you have one? If not then you have no evidence
Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?
I know that the Christian story includes 2 supernatural events - Jesus' birth and resurrection - but when you remember what Jesus taught about the purpose of his being born as a human being, one only needs to categorically disprove the resurrection to disprove both.
-
Both Tacitus - a well-respected historian - and Josephus, attested to the reality of the Crucifixion. There are other references. Some people post in the most abject ignorance!
Tacitus attested to the reality of Christians, suggesting people who beleived the crucifixion but not saying very much about the crucifixion itself.
Josephus' personal history is one of self-service rather than impartial adherence to truth. Josephus birth was after the purported death of Jesus, so again his commentary is at best 2nd hand and attests to early Christianity rather than to anything actually about Christ.
To return to the original post for a moment, I don't think anybody questions that crucifixion is a brutal, horrendous way to die, and we feel for anyone that was put through it as much as we can from our purely academic understanding of the experience. People don't doubt that crucifixions happened, and it's entirely reasonable to suppose that the figure the idea of Jesus is based upon may well have been crucified, may even have believe that he was the son of God, or the incarnation of God and was doing it for mankind as a whole.
What we question isn't whether crucifixion happened, but whether there's a god that created an avatar in the first place.
O.
-
... but whether there's a god that created an avatar in the first place.
Not sure that even Christians believe that this took place, O, so I think its a bit of a red-herring. I think that, as naturalistic beings, humanity will find it hard to disprove the existence of a deity.
-
Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?
No, we're suggesting there's a difference between 'The Historical Jesus' and the myth of Jesus depicted in scripture.
I know that the Christian story includes 2 supernatural events - Jesus' birth and resurrection - but when you remember what Jesus taught about the purpose of his being born as a human being, one only needs to categorically disprove the resurrection to disprove both.
It involves many more supernatural events than that - the exorcism of spirits into pigs, walking on water, turning water into wine etc.
We don't, though, have any obligation to 'disprove' the resurrection, as it's only been asserted. There's no reason to think it's true. There's no more obligation on us to disprove the resurrection of Jesus than there is to disprove the resurrection of Osiris, or the events of Ragnarok, or the chaining of Prometheus to the rocks.
O.
-
... but whether there's a god that created an avatar in the first place.
Not sure that even Christians believe that this took place, O, so I think its a bit of a red-herring. I think that, as naturalistic beings, humanity will find it hard to disprove the existence of a deity.
I'm sorry, I thought Jesus was God incarnated in human form? That's an avatar of a deity - that might be an expression from a different superstitious tradition, but it's essentially the same claim.
As naturalistic beings, humanity would indeed find it difficult to disprove the existence of a deity... or unicorns, or demons or celestial teapots or intangible floating spiritual monkey testicles on a string.
That's why humanity generally doesn't work on the presumption that there's an onus on people to disprove every random unsupported assertion that's made - you have to make a case for your claims, or we can just do the academic version of 'whatevs', and return to the serious work of determining which biscuit is superior*.
O.
* That's not really much of a discussion, it's obvious chocolate hob-nobs because no-one can disprove the claim.
-
. . . and return to the serious work of determining which biscuit is superior*.
O.
* That's not really much of a discussion, it's obvious chocolate hob-nobs because no-one can disprove the claim.
Rubbish! Garibaldi's by a country mile! With Custard Creams a close second, maybe Chocolate Hob-Nobs third!
-
. . . and return to the serious work of determining which biscuit is superior*.
O.
* That's not really much of a discussion, it's obvious chocolate hob-nobs because no-one can disprove the claim.
Rubbish! Garibaldi's by a country mile! With Custard Creams a close second, maybe Chocolate Hob-Nobs third!
Custard creams should be banned they are YUCK! ;D
-
... but whether there's a god that created an avatar in the first place.
Not sure that even Christians believe that this took place, O, so I think its a bit of a red-herring. I think that, as naturalistic beings, humanity will find it hard to disprove the existence of a deity.
There's a name for that fallacy, children. All together: one ... two ... three ...
-
So you haven't read any of the many posts I've written on here about history as a study being methodologically naturalistic? Well I've added 2 this morning and this will be a third. History is a set of methods in terms of evidence and it assumes naturalism.
And, of course, the scholars who assert that there was a historical Jesus use this method, NS - as do I. The only aspect that has to rely on something beyond naturalism is the resurrection.
To have evidence for a supernatural claim ...
Interestingly, the topic of this thread has nothing to do with the supernatural. We know that, over time, the Romans crucified 1000s of people - all of whom would have suffered in a way very similar to that laid out in the OP.
To repeat, for the 4th or 5th time on this thread alone, the only aspect of the Christian story that definitely can't be proven by the use of naturalistic, historical evidence is the resurrection.
Actually the existence of Jesus cannot be proven by naturalistic evidence either, strongly suggested but not proven. However my post was last relation to your statement that there was evidence for the resurrection. You have ignored that and your lack of methodology so I take it you are dropping the claim?
-
And it was all going so well - written evidence works with a methodlogy such as history which is materialistic. As said many many times before for something to be evidence for a supernatural claim, you would need a supernaturalistic methodology. I know it's probably a forlorn 'hope' but do you have one? If not then you have no evidence
Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?
I know that the Christian story includes 2 supernatural events - Jesus' birth and resurrection - but when you remember what Jesus taught about the purpose of his being born as a human being, one only needs to categorically disprove the resurrection to disprove both.
In what way might anything in this post or any other indicate I am am mythicist. The above post was written in relation to your claim that there is evidence for the supernatural claim of the resurrection. Not in historical studies sense, there isn't. I note yet again that in asking a supernaturalist for a method to describe evidence, I get no answer and in this case a heap of straw about what I have said. Why is that? Why are you refusing to engage with the issue? Why are you misrepresenting what I have said?
Anyway once more with feeling, what is your methodology to evaluate evidence for a supernatural claim?
-
Both Tacitus - a well-respected historian - and Josephus, attested to the reality of the Crucifixion. There are other references. Some people post in the most abject ignorance!
No they didn't.
Neither was contemporaneous with the events, let alone an eye witness. Josephus was born perhaps a couple of years after Jesus' death while Tacitus was born 20 years later again.
Tacitus, writing in around 116 briefly mentions christians, mostly referring to the ongoing persecution of them at the time, with particular reference to their supposed role in the great fire in Rome. The only mention to Jesus himself is a very brief allusion to his death with no detail whatsoever:
'Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus'
That's it.
Josephus was writing in about 90 and some of the sections attributed to him are largely accepted to be later additions by scholars. But even if we accept it as authentic all it says about his death is:
'He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease.'
So indeed there is a mention of a cross, but that's it. And that's even if this passage is accepted as genuine, which may scholars doubt. And really he is referring to what the early christians believed rather than providing a historically accurate description.
-
This has been doing the rounds again on fb:
"Below are facts on How Jesus Died For You.
I do not think that we really understand how much Jesus did for us. Please share this post to spread the Good News of Jesus."
Crucifixion was invented by the Persians in 300 BC, and perfected by the Romans in 100 BC.
1. It is the most painful death ever invented by man and is where we get our term "excruciating."
2. It was reserved primarily for the most vicious of male criminals.
(Jesus refused the anesthetic wine which was offered to Him by the Roman soldiers because of His promise in Matthew 26: 29, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.")
3. Jesus was stripped naked and His clothing divided by the Roman guards. Psalm 22:18, "They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."
4. The Crucifixion of Jesus was a horrific, slow, painful death.
5. Jesus' knees were flexed at about 45 degrees, He was forced to bear His weight with the muscles of His thigh, you are not able to do this for more than a few minutes without cramping.
6. Jesus' weight was borne on His feet, with nails driven through them.
7. Within a few minutes of being placed on the Cross, Jesus' shoulders were dislocated. Minutes later Jesus' elbows and wrists became dislocated.
8. Jesus limbs were dislocated so that His arms were 9 inches longer than normal.
9. Prophecy was fulfilled in Psalm 22:14, "I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint."
10. After Jesus' wrists, elbows, and shoulders were dislocated, the weight of His body on his upper limbs caused traction forces on the Major muscles of His chest wall.
11. These traction forces caused His rib cage to be pulled upwards and outwards. In order to exhale, Jesus was physiologically required to force His body.
12. In order to breathe out, Jesus had to push down on the nails in His feet to raise His body, and allow His rib cage to move downwards and inwards to expire air from His lungs.
13. His lungs were in a resting position of constant maximum inspiration.
14. The problem was that Jesus could not easily push down on the nails in His feet because the muscles of His legs, bent at 45 degrees, were extremely fatigued, in severe cramp, and in an anatomically compromised position.
15. Unlike all Hollywood movies about the Crucifixion, the victim was extremely active. The crucified victim was physiologically forced to move up and down the cross, a distance of about 12 inches in order to breathe.
16. The process of respiration caused excruciating pain.
17. As the six hours of the Crucifixion wore on, Jesus was less and less able to bear His weight on His legs, as His thigh and calf muscles became increasingly exhausted. Jesus had shortness of breath.
18. His movements up and down the Cross to breathe caused excruciating pain in His wrist, His feet, and His dislocated elbows and shoulders.
19. The movements became less frequent as Jesus became increasingly exhausted, but the terror of imminent death by asphyxiation forced Him to continue in His efforts to breathe.
20. Jesus' lower limb muscles developed excruciating cramp from the effort of pushing down on His legs, to raise His body, so that He could breathe out, in their anatomically compromised position.
21. Jesus had pain from every movement.
22. Jesus was covered in blood and sweat.
23. The blood was a result of the Scourging that nearly killed Him, and the sweat as a result of His violent involuntary attempts to effort to expire air from His lungs. Throughout all this He was completely naked, and the leaders of the Jews, the crowds, and the thieves on both sides of Him were jeering, swearing and laughing at Him. In addition, Jesus' own mother was watching.
24. Physiologically, Jesus' body was undergoing a series of catastrophic and terminal events.
25. Because Jesus could not maintain adequate ventilation of His lungs, He was now in a state of hypo-ventilation (inadequate ventilation).
26. His blood oxygen level began to fall, and He developed Hypoxia (low blood oxygen). In addition, because of His restricted respiratory movements, His blood carbon dioxide (CO2) level began to rise, a condition known as Hypercritical.
27. This rising CO2 level stimulated His heart to beat faster in order to increase the delivery of oxygen, and the removal of CO2.
28. The Respiratory Center in Jesus' brain sent urgent messages to his lungs to breathe faster, and Jesus began to pant.
29. Jesus' physiological reflexes demanded that He took deeper breaths, and He involuntarily moved up and down the Cross much faster, despite the excruciating pain. The agonizing movements spontaneously started several times a minute, to the delight of the crowd who jeered Him, the Roman soldiers, and the Sanhedrin.
30. However, due to the nailing of Jesus to the Cross and His increasing exhaustion, He was unable to provide more oxygen to His oxygen starved body.
31. The twin forces of too little oxygen and too much CO2 caused His heart to beat faster and faster.
32. His pulse rate was probably about 220 beats/ minute, the maximum normally sustainable.
33. Jesus had drunk nothing for 15 hours, since 6 pm the previous evening.
34. He was bleeding from all over His body following the Scourging, the crown of thorns, the nails in His wrists and feet, and the lacerations following His beatings and falls.
35. Jesus was already very dehydrated, and His blood pressure fell alarmingly.
36. His blood pressure was probably about 80/50.
37. He was in First Degree Shock.
38. By about noon Jesus' heart probably began to fail.
39. Jesus' lungs probably began to fill up with Pulmonary Oedema.
40. This only served to exacerbate His breathing.
41. Jesus was in Heart Failure and Respiratory Failure.
42. Jesus said, "I thirst" because His body was crying out for fluids.
43. Jesus was in desperate need of an intravenous infusion of blood and plasma to save His life.
44. Jesus could not breathe properly and was slowly suffocating to death.
45. At this stage Jesus probably developed a Haemopericardium.
46. Plasma and blood gathered in the space around His heart, called the Pericardium.
47. This fluid around His heart caused Cardiac Tamponade (fluid around His heart, which prevented Jesus' heart from beating properly).
48. Because of the increasing physiological demands on Jesus' heart, and the advanced state of Haemopericardium, Jesus probably eventually sustained Cardiac Rupture. His heart literally burst. This was probably the cause of His death.
49. To slow the process of death the soldiers put a small wooden seat on the Cross, which would allow Jesus the "privilege" of bearing His weight on his sacrum.
50. The effect of this was that it could take up to nine days to die on a Cross.
51. When the Romans wanted to expedite death they would simply break the legs of the victim, causing the victim to suffocate in a matter of minutes.
52. At three o'clock in the afternoon Jesus said, "Tetelastai," meaning, "It is finished." At that moment, He gave up His Spirit, and He died.
53. When the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, He was already dead. Not a bone of His body was broken, in fulfillment of prophecy.
54. Jesus died after six hours of the most excruciating and terrifying torture ever invented.
55. Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to Heaven.
The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion:
By Dr. C. Truman Davis
A Physician Analyzes the Crucifixion.
From New Wine Magazine, April 1982.
Originally published in Arizona Medicine,
March 1965, Arizona Medical Association.
"Will You Be With Me In Heaven?
All Jesus Asks You is to Love Him, Your Lord, Your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind."
But can you spot the fact from the fiction?
Firstly most of this is pure conjecture as there isn't sufficient contemporary and non-partial evidence to be certain any of this happened.
But lets assume it did - i.e. he was executed by crucifixion - yes I agree that it was almost certainly a horrible death and a barbaric way to execute someone. But he was, of course, not the only person to have been executed in this manner, plenty of others were too. And I'm not sure that this (however) barbaric was the worst type of execution. Not sure I'd want to stack this up in a kind of grisly ranking of execution methods, but many of those used in ancient times (and more recently) have also been pretty inhumane.
-
If Jesus was crucified and popped up alive three days later, then his fate was not as bad as those who were crucified and stayed dead!
-
If anybody thinks Tacitus is reliable, they should read what he said about the Jews.
-
If anybody thinks Tacitus is reliable, they should read what he said about the Jews.
Interestingly Josephus also writes about a crucifixion involving three people where two of the victims died but the third was revived following the crucifixion. Christians are very quick to cite Josephus when it suits them but rather more reticent to report that he also indicated examples of victims considered to be dead following crucifixion that subsequently turned out to have been alive and survived. Hmm, perhaps there is a more believable explanation for the purported resurrection.
-
Firstly most of this is pure conjecture as there isn't sufficient contemporary and non-partial evidence to be certain any of this happened.
But lets assume it did - i.e. he was executed by crucifixion - yes I agree that it was almost certainly a horrible death and a barbaric way to execute someone. But he was, of course, not the only person to have been executed in this manner, plenty of others were too. And I'm not sure that this (however) barbaric was the worst type of execution. Not sure I'd want to stack this up in a kind of grisly ranking of execution methods, but many of those used in ancient times (and more recently) have also been pretty inhumane.
I am sure there are specific websites that the ranking is discussed
-
Firstly most of this is pure conjecture as there isn't sufficient contemporary and non-partial evidence to be certain any of this happened.
But lets assume it did - i.e. he was executed by crucifixion - yes I agree that it was almost certainly a horrible death and a barbaric way to execute someone. But he was, of course, not the only person to have been executed in this manner, plenty of others were too. And I'm not sure that this (however) barbaric was the worst type of execution. Not sure I'd want to stack this up in a kind of grisly ranking of execution methods, but many of those used in ancient times (and more recently) have also been pretty inhumane.
I am sure there are specific websites that the ranking is discussed
Perhaps, but not sure I'd want to find them!
-
As Josephus and Tacitus weren't supposed to have been born until well after Jesus died, they only had hearsay to go on!
-
Most modern historians consider the Crucifixion to have been factual. Most consider Tacitus, in particular, to be reliable.
But Tacitus, as far as I am aware, never mentions the crucifixion. Is this just another example of the kind of muddle headed thinking where people try to make the 'evidence' fit to their pre-conceived convictions.
-
Most modern historians consider the Crucifixion to have been factual. Most consider Tacitus, in particular, to be reliable.
But Tacitus, as far as I am aware, never mentions the crucifixion. Is this just another example of the kind of muddle headed thinking where people try to make the 'evidence' fit to their pre-conceived convictions.
That is what would appear to be the case.
-
Vlunderer,
Below are facts on How Jesus Died For You.
Say what now?
First, I have no reason to suppose that the medical details of how anyone would die by this means are accurate enough.
Horrific isn't it?
Second, whether "Jesus" existed at all is moot. There were though many itinerant mystics/soothsayers/street conjurors playing to credulous audiences in that credulous time so it doesn't matter much for this purpose whether or not there was an actual Jesus (or several such whose stores were later amalgamated). Let's agree that it's entirely possible that one or many who'd roughly fit the description were indeed crucified.
Third, for all I know this person/these persons really did get it into their heads that they were dying because they were the son of a god who was unable to think of a better way to save the people he'd created broken. There have been many such over the centuries - Jim Jones, David Koresh etc - so it's not an unusual phenomenon.
Fourth though - and this is where you career of the rails - none of the above means that Jesus or anyone else actually did "die for me". That may well be the story, and you may happen to believe it as an article of your personal faith but none of that takes you one jot closer to demonstrating it actually to be true.
Which is just as well really given what an immoral construction it would be - why on earth should not I or anyone else take responsibility for our own actions rather than rely on a brutal blood sacrifice by a third party to get us off the hook?
Thanks and all that, but no thanks.
-
One can attest/hear witness to something without having been alive at the time, NS. My father, born in 1922, suffered a hernia whilst working as a porter in the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford during the 2ndWW, something that my siblings and I used to (rather callously, looking back) get him to recount rather too often. Apart from a picture of him in his uniform taken by a friend and a verbal record from the person who became my godfather when I was born, I doubt whether there is much other easily available evidence to this effect (though if I was to burrow through wartime records for the hospital, I'd probably find something).
But this is, in proximity terms, much closer than Josephus/Tacitus to 30AD. Both because presumably when you were younger and getting your father to recount the story it happened relatively recently, rather than perhaps 80 years earlier. Also of course you were getting the information directly - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
But even then massive errors in transmission of information from generation to generation occur. So let me give a father example too. My dad lived in west london as a child during the war. He had a best friend who was a year or so younger than him. They remained best friends and met very regularly up until their deaths in 2013 and 2014 respectively. They always recounted a tale of how John (the friend) was taught to read by my father. This became simply accepted within both families and neither claimed anything else. So everyone in the family would attest to the 'fact' that Tony taught John to read.
But it wasn't true - it was a great story and had an element of 'truth' to it, in that it was testament to their lifelong friendship and their importance to each other, but it never happened. How do I know - because shortly before his death my father wrote a kind of memoir of his life in which he revealed the tale to be apocryphal. But the point is that although it wasn't actually true we kind of wanted it to be true, and no doubt both families will continue to tell the tale after their deaths. Yet without the actual memoir we would all have actually believed it to be true.
And again that's a tale with much greater proximity than Josephus/Tacitus to 30AD.
[/quote]
-
Hope,
Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?
Which "Jesus" - the man or the man/god?
For the former, it no more matters whether he really existed than it matters whether Aristotle really existed. If the words and deeds attributed to him still have merit on their own terms, then fair enough; if not, they can be discounted and we move on.
For the latter, "scholars" of what? Theology? Then yes, and wrong they must remain until one of them comes up with a method of any kind to show them to be correct.
Of history? There aren't historians who claim the man/god story to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of historicity. That's why the story isn't taught as fact in history lessons, at least not in mainstream schools and colleges.
Doesn't that bother you at all by the way - that academic history does not think to be fact your belief that the man/god Jesus is a fact? What do you know that they don't exactly, and how do you know that you know it?
-
Hope,
Are you suggesting that the huge number of scholars who say that there was a historical Jesus are wrong?
Which "Jesus" - the man or the man/god?
For the former, it no more matters whether he really existed than it matters whether Aristotle really existed. If the words and deeds attributed to him still have merit on their own terms, then fair enough; if not, they can be discounted and we move on.
For the latter, "scholars" of what? Theology? Then yes, and wrong they must remain until one of them comes up with a method of any kind to show them to be correct.
Of history? There aren't historians who claim the man/god story to have sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of historicity. That's why the story isn't taught as fact in history lessons, at least not in mainstream schools and colleges.
Doesn't that bother you at all by the way - that academic history does not think to be fact your belief that the man/god Jesus is a fact? What do you know that they don't exactly, and how do you know that you know it?
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
And there is a big problem too with those that believe the stories. If the stories happen as described - with miracles witnessed by thousands then why did the Jesus cult not explode there and then amongst the broader population that apparently witness it. But it didn't - the early cult was not accepted by those that purportedly witnessed the miracles, merely by his very close followers. And of course we only get the stories second, third or more hand and filtered through existing believers.
Put it this way if the resurrected Jesus was witness by 500 people all at once (as is claimed) surely they'd have accepted his claims there and then and started a groundswell of belief there and then. But they didn't. Hmm, makes you think.
The problem is that the more incredible the claim, the less convincing it becomes if those whom apparently witness the miracles seemed largely unmoved by them.
-
Just a note for bluehillside, Thrud isn't Vlad
-
Just a note for bluehillside, Thrud isn't Vlad
Thanks NS - my apologies to those concerned.
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
A good analogy.
-
As Josephus and Tacitus weren't supposed to have been born until well after Jesus died, they only had hearsay to go on!
Did they? And churchill's acclaimed World History was devoid of hearsay, was it?
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
A good analogy.
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
A good analogy.
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.
How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.
Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!
You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions.
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
A good analogy.
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.
How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.
Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!
You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions.
Did somebody say something, or was I hearing the kids next door, babbling? :)
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
A good analogy.
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.
How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.
Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!
You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions.
Did somebody say something, or was I hearing the kids next door, babbling? :)
Such an adult response. NOT! But then what else did I expect!
Why do you not go back to wherever you have been for the past week or so! The level of posting has risen exponentially diring your absence and has, on you return, dropped like a stone.
-
I think Jesus was probably crucified for being a total pain in the backside where the religious mob of the day were concerned.
I understand that the historical records back both this opinion and the fact that other Jewish rebels were executed for this reason.
The resurrection, if the guy was truly dead, is complete fantasy! No one comes back to life once they are dead.
This only applies if the person is human and only human. Since science only deals in the physical, there is no way that it can prove (or disprove) the existence of any additional elements of reality.
Just to note that history as a study only deals in the material as well.
citation?
-
Hi Prof,
I think the point here is that it is perfectly plausible, based on the evidence, to make a case that Jesus never existed, even as a person as described in the bible (if you take out the mystic bits) - there is simply too little evidence to be certain. Now that is not to say that he didn't exist, but the lack of evidence, sufficient to allow some scholars to conclude he didn't exist really makes it difficult to accept all the icing on the cake stuff.
If we can't even be sure he actually existed then the notion that he acted as he did (the miraculous stuff) is very much less credible again.
There's too little to go on to have anything but a hunch, but mine is that it's entirely possible that the story was based at least on a real person - much as the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories may have been - and then much embellishment occurred with the re-telling. The difference though is that - for the religious - it matters. In fact it really, really matters that Jesus the man/god was real, which is why they set the evidence bar so low for that story but not for the others.
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
A good analogy.
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
If anyone knows what a cheap shot is you do - you have taken enough of them to be the Forum's expert on cheap shots, except for one other and you run him a very very close second.
How does it feel to have a cheap shot taken at you instead of you taking them at others.
Suck it up - if you bv can't take it don't dish it out!
You would also, from your reactions to posts that you don't like, be the expert on infantile reactions.
Did somebody say something, or was I hearing the kids next door, babbling? :)
Such an adult response. NOT! But then what else did I expect!
Why do you not go back to wherever you have been for the past week or so! The level of posting has risen exponentially diring your absence and has, on you return, dropped like a stone.
There was a guy on here, with a funny name, who said he would never post to me again. He didn't keep his word; but then I never thought he had enough control to. You seem a bit like him... :D
-
Citation to Vlad, every university history course in the UK.
You got a supernaturalistic method yet?
-
Instead they relied on oral tradition which had a very defined way of ensuring the accuracy of what it transmitted.
Which demonstrably didn't work in the case of Christianity (check out the differences between the synoptic gospels and John for evidence).
Even if that is over-pessimistic, I doubt whether the early days of literacy had a better track-record than orality.
And this is just wishful thinking on your part.
-
Are you suggesting that Tacitus and Josephus would have hunted out domestic servants and slaves (who made up the bulk of the church in the first 100 years or so of Christianity) to ask them about the founder of their faith.
First of all why not? Both of them where fairly good historians.
Second of all, "the bulk" is not everybody, It should be clear, even to you, that some Christians were well educated.
In view of who they were and who they wrote for, I'd suggest that their main sources would have been other Romans, especially those in authority.
Suggest away. How about some solid evidence for one of your suggestions?
-
I will use what historical argument exists as and where it's appropriate
History is a naturalistic discipline. Claiming that something is historical because Jesus is God is not doing history.
so I will refer to literary records that refer to the crucifixion of someone deemed by the Jewish leaders to be dangerous to the Jews, and point out that other literary records associate that death with a reported resurrection that occurred on the 3rd day after said crucifixion.
As long as you recognise that the said literary records lose all historical credibility by claiming that a dead man came alive again.
-
Are you claiming that you witnessed your father suffering a hernia even though you weren't alive at the time? Or are you claiming that you witnessed him recounting the story at a later date? There's a difference.
Obviously, the latter, but I am able to attest to the veracity of his attestation as a result of certain verbal and physical evidences. My point to NS was that one doesn't HAVE to have been present in order to attest to something's veracity.
You can only attest to what you have witnessed. You did not witness the hernia happening. You can attest to the fact that your father said he had a hernia. You can attest to the fact that he was generally truthful. You can attest to any physical symptoms you may have witnessed but you cannot attest to the original event because you weren't there.
In the case of a hernia, this is not a big problem. However, supposing all the other facts were the same but we were talking about your father's trip to heaven in 1940 riding on the shoulders of a blue pixie, what then?
Jesus resurrecting is more in the blue pixie realm than the hernia realm.
Scholars have only pinpointed certain passages within their reports as possibly having been interpolated by later Christians, and those passages don't include all the references to Christ.
Is that what you think? Clearly you haven't even read the passages in question.
-
. . . and return to the serious work of determining which biscuit is superior*.
O.
* That's not really much of a discussion, it's obvious chocolate hob-nobs because no-one can disprove the claim.
Rubbish! Garibaldi's by a country mile! With Custard Creams a close second, maybe Chocolate Hob-Nobs third!
No, plain chocolate hob nobs are the best excepting possibly bourbons.
-
I am sure there are specific websites that the ranking is discussed
It's November 6th so quite topical. Guy Fawkes was hung, drawn and quartered along with his co-conspirators. That could be pretty grisly depending how long the hanging lasted for. Generally, you hoped you would be dead or at least unconscious by the end of the hanging phase, otherwise, you would be fully conscious when they castrated and disemboweled you.
-
Dear Whatever,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI
Just saying like!! no sorry Erhman is saying, hey!! it makes a change from me quoting wee Albert ;)
Gonnagle.
-
I am sure there are specific websites that the ranking is discussed
It's November 6th so quite topical. Guy Fawkes was hung, drawn and quartered along with his co-conspirators. That could be pretty grisly depending how long the hanging lasted for. Generally, you hoped you would be dead or at least unconscious by the end of the hanging phase, otherwise, you would be fully conscious when they castrated and disemboweled you.
Pure, JeremyP
We love you for it Jezzer.........Respeck.
-
Dear Whatever,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI
Just saying like!! no sorry Erhman is saying, hey!! it makes a change from me quoting wee Albert ;)
Gonnagle.
And I would basically agree with Erhman here. However the debate on this thread seems to also revolve around the resurrection of Jesus. You may find Ehrman's views on this(and also whether Jesus saw himself as God) particularly interesting. The whole interview is only 15 mins. long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxiNy8mwHqM
-
Also of course you were getting the information directly - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
One or both of them might have spoken to the centurion on duty at the time, or one of his squad. We have no idea how old they were in c. 30AD, nor do we have any idea how old they were when they died.
-
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
In a sense, I would agree, Matt - as I too have said before; except that 1st Century 'Chinese Whispers' would have been have been a vastly different 'game to that played in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.
-
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
BA, I'd agree with the section I've underlined; I'd disagree with the other half though. It isn't a cheap shot - rather its a 21st century, highly literate poster judging a largely oral culture through the understanding of a literate culture.
-
Also of course you were getting the information directly - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
One or both of them might have spoken to the centurion on duty at the time, or one of his squad. We have no idea how old they were in c. 30AD, nor do we have any idea how old they were when they died.
Firstly that is pure conjecture, completely unevidenced.
Secondly this is exceptionally unlikely as the writings are from AD90-110 so even if the centurians were just 20 at the time of Jesus' death they would therefore be somewhere between 80 and 100 by the time of writing. Theoretically possible but very, very, very unlikely.
-
Are you suggesting that Tacitus and Josephus would have hunted out domestic servants and slaves (who made up the bulk of the church in the first 100 years or so of Christianity) to ask them about the founder of their faith.
First of all why not? Both of them where fairly good historians.
If you call propagandists 'good' historians. Most of their respective works is made up of the reporting of strategic events such as political situations, imperial and military events - ie not the everyday, life on the street things. Yes, not all the Christians in Rome were slaves and servants though Paul's letter to the Romans tends to imply this kind of person. The richer folk were the likes of Prisca and Aquila, who were tentmakers/traders, and generally non-Roman.
Second of all, "the bulk" is not everybody, It should be clear, even to you, that some Christians were well educated.
Actually, people can lead a group, run a business and do a whole host of complex things without being 'well-educated', jeremy. Educated, perhaps. Jewish children - male and female - were usually educated in basic life skills to the equivalent of our middle-school level. It was only the nhigh-flyers who went on to higher, generally theological and other areas of education.
Suggest away. How about some solid evidence for one of your suggestions?
Well, as I have already pointed out, much of their material relates to military, political and other issues. That suggests that their contacts and sources were from the higher eschelons of society.
-
Also of course you were getting the information directly - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.One or both of them might have spoken to the centurion on duty at the time, or one of his squad. We have no idea how old they were in c. 30AD, nor do we have any idea how old they were when they died.
Firstly that is pure conjecture, completely unevidenced.
But no more conjecture than anything you have written, PD. That is why I used the verb 'might have' as we simply have no knowledge of how they came about their information. However, I think that it is fair to assume that, since the Jewish situation had been ongoing for sometime before Vespasian sent the troops into Judaea in the 60s and 70s AD. As a result, matters Jewish and Judaean would have been a topic of discussion in these higher levels of society for some time, both before and after the fall of Jerusalem.
Secondly this is exceptionally unlikely as the writings are from AD90-110 so even if the centurians were just 20 at the time of Jesus' death they would therefore be somewhere between 80 and 100 by the time of writing. Theoretically possible but very, very, very unlikely.
I wouldn't disagree, but would any such meeting have to have been contemporaneous with the writing?
-
Also of course you were getting the information directly - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.
One or both of them might have spoken to the centurion on duty at the time, or one of his squad. We have no idea how old they were in c. 30AD,
. . . nor do we have any idea how old they were when they died.
Who? Tactitus, Josephus or the Centurion?
-
As I have said before, and firmly believe to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the bible is nothing more than a two thousand year old game of Chinese whispers.
In a sense, I would agree, Matt - as I too have said before; except that 1st Century 'Chinese Whispers' would have been have been a vastly different 'game to that played in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries.
No, it wouldn't, this mythologising of illiterate cultures' capacity for perfect recall is significantly overstated. Studies of non-literate cultures show that stories are conveyed in archetypes and poetry, but there is significant drift in detail in relatively short periods.
O.
-
It is not a good analogy at all: it is an infantile cheap shot.
BA, I'd agree with the section I've underlined; I'd disagree with the other half though. It isn't a cheap shot - rather its a 21st century, highly literate poster judging a largely oral culture through the understanding of a literate culture.
Nice one, Hope! If tne GREAT OWL should read it, he'll probably download it, and frame it - he's never had that said about him before (probably won't ever again!) ;D ;D
-
Dear Whatever,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI
Just saying like!! no sorry Erhman is saying, hey!! it makes a change from me quoting wee Albert ;)
Gonnagle.
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.
-
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
... the third option (which you omitted) being my own, namely that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus is a complete and utter irrelevance and really not worth anyone's head-room, since it matters not one jot to anything in anybody's life either way.
Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.
I have no need of that hypothesis.
-
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
... the third option (which you omitted) being my own, namely that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus is a complete and utter irrelevance and really not worth anyone's head-room, since it matters not one jot to anything in anybody's life either way.
Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.
I have no need of that hypothesis.
What, You mean Leicester is enough for anybody?
-
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
... the third option (which you omitted) being my own, namely that the existence or nonexistence of Jesus is a complete and utter irrelevance and really not worth anyone's head-room, since it matters not one jot to anything in anybody's life either way.
Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.
I have no need of that hypothesis.
What, You mean Leicester is enough for anybody?
See Leicester and die! :D
-
Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand ;)
-
Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand ;)
Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands." 8)
-
Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand ;)
Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands." 8)
A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? :D
-
Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand ;)
Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands." 8)
A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? :D
Just two very recent happenings: Nottingham, voted the country's leading sporting city, and Flowers in Bloom capital (or something) in the Midlands! It just goes on! :)
-
Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand ;)
Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands." 8)
A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? :D
Or as Julian Clary once said - Tight as a drum, never been done. I'm the Queen of the fairies!
He is never one to stand back from sending himself up.
-
Or see Nottingham and wish you'd died beforehand ;)
Nottingham, "Queen of the Midlands." 8)
A useless anachronism long past its sell-by date? :D
Or as Julian Clary once said - Tight as a drum, never been done. I'm the Queen of the fairies!
He is never one to stand back from sending himself up.
Nottingham, "Queen of the Fairies." That should make it must place to visit for you. :D
-
If you call propagandists 'good' historians.
You seem to be dissing your own evidence here.
Second of all, "the bulk" is not everybody, It should be clear, even to you, that some Christians were well educated.
Actually, people can lead a group, run a business and do a whole host of complex things without being 'well-educated', jeremy. Educated, perhaps. Jewish children - male and female - were usually educated in basic life skills to the equivalent of our middle-school level. It was only the nhigh-flyers who went on to higher, generally theological and other areas of education.
The New Testament is written entirely in Greek. The fact that it exists at all tells us that some Christians were well educated i.e. they could write.
Suggest away. How about some solid evidence for one of your suggestions?
Well, as I have already pointed out, much of their material relates to military, political and other issues. That suggests that their contacts and sources were from the higher eschelons of society.
Tacitus frequently tells us what his sources are. You don't need to speculate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Sources
It makes a refreshing change to the gospel writers.
-
If you call propagandists 'good' historians.
You seem to be dissing your own evidence here.
Second of all, "the bulk" is not everybody, It should be clear, even to you, that some Christians were well educated.
Actually, people can lead a group, run a business and do a whole host of complex things without being 'well-educated', jeremy. Educated, perhaps. Jewish children - male and female - were usually educated in basic life skills to the equivalent of our middle-school level. It was only the nhigh-flyers who went on to higher, generally theological and other areas of education.
The New Testament is written entirely in Greek. The fact that it exists at all tells us that some Christians were well educated i.e. they could write.
Suggest away. How about some solid evidence for one of your suggestions?
Well, as I have already pointed out, much of their material relates to military, political and other issues. That suggests that their contacts and sources were from the higher eschelons of society.
Tacitus frequently tells us what his sources are. You don't need to speculate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Sources
It makes a refreshing change to the gospel writers.
But the circumstances were hardly similar. Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines. The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities. The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.
-
this mythologising of illiterate cultures' capacity for perfect recall is significantly overstated. Studies of non-literate cultures show that stories are conveyed in archetypes and poetry, but there is significant drift in detail in relatively short periods.
Interesting point: I have just been listening to the In Our Time on the Empire of Mali. One of the things hey talked about was the Epic of Sundial, an orally transmitted poem that has come down to us in many different versions ins site of this mythical perfect recall. Not only that, the epic is often adapted for the audience. One of the scholars said it tells us more about the people who live in Mali now than during the time it describes.
We also know that Christian writers did exactly the same thing. Matthew and Luke both copied Mark to a large extent but both also made edits to suit their particular theology or audience. If these two authors can do it, who knows how many times it was done in the oral chain between Jesus and Mark.
-
But the circumstances were hardly similar. Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines. The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities. The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.
Good, so we can dismiss them as historical documents and put them where they belong in the fiction section.
-
But the circumstances were hardly similar. Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines. The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities. The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.
Good, so we can dismiss them as historical documents and put them where they belong in the fiction section.
It may be fiction to you, but you seem to have issues with religion; otherwise you wouldn't pursue this enmity to it with such obsessive fervour.
-
But the circumstances were hardly similar. Tacitus was a historian, and wrote with the historian's disciplines. The Gospel writers were attempting to relate a story and set of incidences, in times when they were in danger from both Roman and Jewish authorities. The niceties of academic scholarship were not really what they were about.
Good, so we can dismiss them as historical documents and put them where they belong in the fiction section.
The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.
But hey, that's just one of the many of the miracles of New Atheism......it makes theologians out of ethologists and scientists out of booksellers.
-
The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.
I don't think anybody is claiming that TGD is pop science. This is another of your straw men isn't it.
-
The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.
I don't think anybody is claiming that TGD is pop science. This is another of your draw men isn't it.
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
-
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.
The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).
-
Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real! ::)
-
Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real! ::)
Re-read your post: and try and appreciate the irony of it! ::)
-
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.
The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).
I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........
The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events. It is stuff like that that leads most historians....not just many......... to declare the historicity of Jesus. And why Jesus mythers have gone from Anchor to wanker.
-
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.
The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).
The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.
-
Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real! ::)
Well the personnel, the context, the gatherings and the discipleship are certainly accepted by most historians....mainly because they crop up in epistles.
Ravers and ranters such as yourself would certainly not be allowed on any jury because of your bias and you have demonstrated a generic bias against Christian and bias for any bollocks coming out the New Atheist stable.
-
Dear Whatever,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4q3WlM9rCI
Just saying like!! no sorry Erhman is saying, hey!! it makes a change from me quoting wee Albert ;)
Gonnagle.
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.
I agree completely with your first sentence. I've just finished reading Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'. Most interesting. :)
-
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.
The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).
I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........
And this thread is not meant to be about The God Delusion so why do you keep banging on about it? It's a very strange argument with which to try to counter the "gospels are fiction" point.
Me: The gospels are fiction
Vlad: This other book was wrongly classified in Waterstones, so there.
I mean WTF?
The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events.
Wonders will never cease. Vlad makes a relevant argument.
Interestingly, the epistles do not attest to the main gospel points at all, excepting that Jesus was executed and the obviously mythical resurrection. If you look for anything else, like the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the virgin birth, any of Jesus' miracles, you search in vain. How could this be? How is it that, when arguing that Jesus was resurrected, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb, preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?
The answer is because those stories hadn't been made up yet.
-
The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.
Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.
-
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.
The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).
I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........
And this thread is not meant to be about The God Delusion so why do you keep banging on about it? It's a very strange argument with which to try to counter the "gospels are fiction" point.
Me: The gospels are fiction
Vlad: This other book was wrongly classified in Waterstones, so there.
I mean WTF?
The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events.
Wonders will never cease. Vlad makes a relevant argument.
Interestingly, the epistles do not attest to the main gospel points at all, excepting that Jesus was executed and the obviously mythical resurrection. If you look for anything else, like the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the virgin birth, any of Jesus' miracles, you search in vain. How could this be? How is it that, when arguing that Jesus was resurrected, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb, preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?
The answer is because those stories hadn't been made up yet.
Get back on topic, or start a new thread.
-
Nope, it's been seen in branches of Waterstone's eg, Both Folkestone Branches and Both Canterbury and I should imagine it is or has been in the past, policy.
Nobody here is claiming it is pop science, Richard Dawkins wouldn't claim it is pop science.
The gospels are certainly not history and are probably best classified as mythology (to return to the subject).
I'm not talking about people here Jeremy I'm talking about Waterstone's and the people who don't mind that they miscategorise The God Delusion.....and if the cap fits...........
And this thread is not meant to be about The God Delusion so why do you keep banging on about it? It's a very strange argument with which to try to counter the "gospels are fiction" point.
Me: The gospels are fiction
Vlad: This other book was wrongly classified in Waterstones, so there.
I mean WTF?
The main Gospel points and personae are attested to in the Epistles which were written within a couple decades of the events.
Wonders will never cease. Vlad makes a relevant argument.
Interestingly, the epistles do not attest to the main gospel points at all, excepting that Jesus was executed and the obviously mythical resurrection. If you look for anything else, like the Lord's Prayer, the Sermon on the Mount, the virgin birth, any of Jesus' miracles, you search in vain. How could this be? How is it that, when arguing that Jesus was resurrected, Paul fails to mention the empty tomb, preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?
The answer is because those stories hadn't been made up yet.
Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.
-
preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?
In a universe of cause and effect......the invalidation of effect by you in that statement is just wank.
-
The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.
Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.
Nonsense. The thread is simply about what crucifixion was like, and it is not specifically related to the Gospel (capital "G" for Gospels) accounts, or reliant on Gospel testimony Your comment is redolent of all your views on Christianity: tenuous, at best.
-
Dear enki,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxiNy8mwHqM
Yes I did find it interesting, especially his description of Pilate, would Pilate have handed over the body of Jesus?
Well from Biblical evidence, yes, Pilate washing his hands, Pilate giving the crowd a choice, Pilate thinking Jesus was a innocent man.
Sorry but I don't think Mr Erhman has thought that one through properly.
Gonnagle.
-
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
And, equally, some Christians are so intellectually blunted that they think an historical assessment that there was probably an historical basis for Jesus means that history validates the idea of Jesus as the Son of God. It turns out there are a range of intellectual capacities on both sides.
Jesus Christ is the only way out of the matrix of this world. During his 'physical' time on earth he knew we were all caught in Satan's trap and came to tell us and show us the way out. There only is one way.... and that is through Him.
The fact that you made a valid point has just been completely undermined by your firing up the AssertatronTM and blurted out this unsubstantiated little nugget.
O.
-
Dear enki,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxiNy8mwHqM
Yes I did find it interesting, especially his description of Pilate, would Pilate have handed over the body of Jesus?
Well from Biblical evidence, yes, Pilate washing his hands, Pilate giving the crowd a choice, Pilate thinking Jesus was a innocent man.
Sorry but I don't think Mr Erhman has thought that one through properly.
Gonnagle.
As is your right, of course( to disagree with Prof. Ehrman, that is). It just shows however that when we quote someone(as you did, originally) it is a good idea to understand the range and details of that person's views, before giving them prominence. :)
-
Good for Bart Erhman, he always tries to be unbiased. The thing is, some atheists are so in denial of Jesus Christ they can hardly bear to think he existed and are quite prepared to believe that he didn't.
And, equally, some Christians are so intellectually blunted that they think an historical assessment that there was probably an historical basis for Jesus means that history validates the idea of Jesus as the Son of God.
That's a theological issue....I think most people get that.
-
The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.
Couldn't agree more - The God Delusion should be with the rest of the works of social commentary or philosphy.
But hey, that's just one of the many of the miracles of New Atheism......it makes theologians out of ethologists and scientists out of booksellers.
The arguments stand or fall on their own merits - you don't need to have studied philosophy or made philosophy your career to have a valid argument. By the same token, you can be William Lane Craig and making your living out of philosophy and still not have a single coherent argument in your playbook.
O.
-
Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real! ::)
Well the personnel, the context, the gatherings and the discipleship are certainly accepted by most historians....mainly because they crop up in epistles.
Ravers and ranters such as yourself would certainly not be allowed on any jury because of your bias and you have demonstrated a generic bias against Christian and bias for any bollocks coming out the New Atheist stable.
I doubt that very much!
I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?
-
That's a theological issue....I think most people get that.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you, but I'm not so sure.
O.
-
Anyone claiming the gospels are history need to get real! ::)
Well the personnel, the context, the gatherings and the discipleship are certainly accepted by most historians....mainly because they crop up in epistles.
Ravers and ranters such as yourself would certainly not be allowed on any jury because of your bias and you have demonstrated a generic bias against Christian and bias for any bollocks coming out the New Atheist stable.
I doubt that very much!
I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?
What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?
-
Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.
Which fictional nature, jeremy?
-
What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?
Well the OP was trying to go with some sort of 'argument from sympathy' idea that because crucifixion is an horrible way to die, therefore we owe Jesus devotion.
Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.
O.
-
Dear enki,
As is your right, of course( to disagree with Prof. Ehrman, that is). It just shows however that when we quote someone(as you did, originally) it is a good idea to understand the range and details of that person's views, before giving them prominence. :)
Am I being two faced about this :P :P most probably ;)
But Erhmans argument for a historical Jesus, most experts on the subject agree to there being a historical Jesus, but his argument regarding Pilate :o
But I am a Christian, so absolutely no bias in my posting ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?
Well the OP was trying to go with some sort of 'argument from sympathy' idea that because crucifixion is an horrible way to die, therefore we owe Jesus devotion.
Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.
O.
If Jesus was crucified his ghastly death was no worse than that of all the others who suffered the same fate.
-
What has this latest rant got to do with the OP?
Well the OP was trying to go with some sort of 'argument from sympathy' idea that because crucifixion is an horrible way to die, therefore we owe Jesus devotion.
Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.
O.
Too much belief in Jesus and the orthodox Christian view too soon after to meet a bias antitheists definition of myth I'm afraid.
-
I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?
Had he remained here, are you seriously telling us that you would accept the corollary of this - that there is a guy who is aged 2000+ years old, somewhere on the earth?
-
Too much belief in Jesus and the orthodox Christian view too soon after to meet a bias antitheists definition of myth I'm afraid.
On that basis then, Mormonism, Scientology and Islam are all equally as valid? No, millions of people not only can be wrong, but they can be wrong quickly.
How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.
O.
-
Therefore, being against the crazy made up stories of the Gospel means severing that link between the mythical divine nature of Jesus and the unfortunate circumstances of the deaths of many people of the time which may well have include an historical figure on which the myth of Christ is built.
O.
And you have evidence that 1) the Gospel stories were made up, and 2) that the divine nature of Jesus is mythical, O?
-
The Gospels have more right to be in the history section than the God Delusion has to be in the popular science section.
The God Delusion isn't popular science.
-
On that basis then, Mormonism, Scientology and Islam are all equally as valid?
Potentially, yes. That is where the next stage of the process of discernment comes in. Do they ring true with existing beliefs, for instance. Do they move humanity on from what other faiths teach?
Having studied all 3 to some degree or other, I'd say that the only one that satisfies the first criteria is Islam, but none of them satisfy the 2nd.
How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.
O.
Nor does it prove that what some regard as nonsense is actually nonsense.
-
I am biased against the crazy fantasy stories in the Bible, which have not one tiny bit of evidence to substantiate them. If Jesus was resurrected where the hell is he? Why didn't he stay around down here instead of flying up to heaven so very conveniently?
Had he remained here, are you seriously telling us that you would accept the corollary of this - that there is a guy who is aged 2000+ years old, somewhere on the earth?
No of course I wouldn't! Jesus was no more special than any other human, he died and remained DEAD!
-
And you have evidence that 1) the Gospel stories were made up, and 2) that the divine nature of Jesus is mythical, O?
You make the divine claim, I reject on the lack of effectiveness of your argument and your absolute lack of any evidence. It's not my obligation to disprove your claim any more than it's your duty to disprove Marduk's divinity.
You make the case; if you ever manage to get something valid then you can challenge me to disprove it.
As to the Gospel stories being at least partly fictional - does the magic not give it away?
O.
-
How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.
O.
Nor does it prove that what some regard as nonsense is actually nonsense.
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
O.
-
No of course I wouldn't! Jesus was no more special than any other human, he died and remained DEAD!
So, another of your arguments against Christianity bites the dust, Floo. You really do need to think about the potential consequences to your overall argument whenever you pontificate.
-
How quickly nonsense is accepted doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense.
O.
Nor does it prove that what some regard as nonsense is actually nonsense.
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
O.
This is an excellent example of the New atheist delusion that you can be ignorant of that which you oppose yet suddenly and instantaneously be expert in a swathe of disciplines.............I'm sorry Outsider, your knowledge has either appeared supernaturally or it isn't knowledge. I plump for the latter......
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.
Any evidence you have ever presented has been rebutted , so your continued acceptance of a God is through flawed thinking.
-
No of course I wouldn't! Jesus was no more special than any other human, he died and remained DEAD!
So, another of your arguments against Christianity bites the dust, Floo. You really do need to think about the potential consequences to your overall argument whenever you pontificate.
What do you mean?
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.
I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.
I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?
If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.
I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?
Adequate for the claim being made.
If any evidence you provide can be rebutted then the conclusion you have drawn from it is flawed.
If you have evidence for God or son of God just present it.
I remain confident it will be defeated.
-
If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?
Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.
I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?
Adequate for the claim being made.
If any evidence you provide can be rebutted then the conclusion you have drawn from it is flawed.
If you have evidence for God or son of God just present it.
I remain confident it will be defeated.
No evidence has ever been presented which stands up to any scrutiny.
-
No the fact that it's a story about a magician shows that it's nonsense - the fact that it was quickly accepted shows that cultures of the time had a propensity for superstition.
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course. Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc. My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
The problem is that you are completely wrong to accept a God without sufficient evidence.
I think he has it. What is your idea of sufficient evidence?
Adequate for the claim being made.
If any evidence you provide can be rebutted then the conclusion you have drawn from it is flawed.
If you have evidence for God or son of God just present it.
I remain confident it will be defeated.
No evidence has ever been presented which stands up to any scrutiny.
Indeed.
But some people cite it as reasons for believing which makes them wrong to do so
-
Get back on topic, or start a new thread.
Instead of whining to me, report my post to the mods and see if they think it's off topic.
I notice you are not whining equally as hard at Vlad in spite of his bringing a book by Richard Dawkins into a thread about crucifixion.
-
Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.
Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.
He never mentions the empty tomb once or the last supper or the Lord's Prayer or Jesus' last words on the cross or the guy with a spear or anything about Jesus' life as opposed opposed to his death at all.
He doesn't even mention the empty tomb in a situation where you would expect him to. He didn't know about it.
-
preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?
In a universe of cause and effect......the invalidation of effect by you in that statement is just wank.
Evasion of the point noted.
-
That assumes that it is a story about a magician, of course.
No, that's not an assumption, it's a description. Within the tale he raises the dead, expels demons, conjures food, transmutates liquids and walks on water - that's magic. That you call them 'miracles' to try to justify a grown up believing in magic is just special pleading.
Your fundamental understanding is that there is no such thing as a deity and therefore everything that points to the existence of one has to be deemed as magic, superstition, myth, etc.
No, my fundamental understanding is that reality behaves consistently, and that from that consistency we can deduce probable facts. One of those probable facts is that magic isn't real. I don't start from a position of 'no gods', I end there.
My fundamental understanding is that there is such a being as God, and what we hear in the Gospels fits with that understanding perfectly well.
But that 'fundamental understanding' is shaped by those gospels - which means it's not a fundamental understanding, it's a learnt (or trained) behaviour; outside of that self-referential circle there's no reason for presuming that any of it's real. If people believed in Voldemort they'd have exactly as much justification for that belief because of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban as you do for the mythic Jesus.
That is why I've regularly argued that discussions like this can never be resolved as we aren't even talking about the same thing, let alone starting on the same level of understanding.
Only one of us is talking about a level of understanding, me. You're talking about faith, which isn't understanding, isn't knowledge and isn't conclusions. It's the maintenance of a position in the absence of, or disregard of, any justification.
O.
-
The subject of the thread was to do with crucifixion.
Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.
Nonsense. The thread is simply about what crucifixion was like, and it is not specifically related to the Gospel (capital "G" for Gospels) accounts, or reliant on Gospel testimony Your comment is redolent of all your views on Christianity: tenuous, at best.
My apologies, I misread your post as saying the thread was about The Crucifixion.
The point still stands however. The gospels are the earliest documentation of Jesus' crucifixion and their fictionality is therefore relevant to the thread.
By the way, thanks for making the petty little point about capitalising the "G" in "gospels". I think I'll just continue writing it any way I like.
-
Which is first documented in the gospels. Therefore, their fictional nature is important to this thread.
Which fictional nature, jeremy?
That of the gospels, Hope.
-
preferring a ridiculous use of the fallacy of adverse consequences?
In a universe of cause and effect......the invalidation of effect by you in that statement is just wank.
Evasion of the point noted.
No all Paul is saying is that without the resurrection there would be no notion of salvation through Christ so we are left with the question. How would those who have enjoyed the salvation of Jesus ever come to know it if it weren't for the resurrection. How would people know about salvation in Christ if Christ wasn't saved himself.
-
Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.
Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.
He never mentions the empty tomb once or the last supper or the Lord's Prayer or Jesus' last words on the cross or the guy with a spear or anything about Jesus' life as opposed opposed to his death at all.
He doesn't even mention the empty tomb in a situation where you would expect him to. He didn't know about it.
Paul never mentions the last supper? Are you sure about that?
-
If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?
Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.
Yes, it's a powerful argument. I think that Schellenberg and others add the point that an all-loving God would inevitably make his presence clear. I suppose the counter-arguments are 1), he does, and we're too stupid and/or sinful to notice; 2), he has a very good reason not to appear clearly.
Both these arguments seem feeble. It's also called the argument from reasonable non-belief, although maybe that's a bit different.
-
If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?
Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.
Yes, it's a powerful argument. I think that Schellenberg and others add the point that an all-loving God would inevitably make his presence clear. I suppose the counter-arguments are 1), he does, and we're too stupid and/or sinful to notice; 2), he has a very good reason not to appear clearly.
Both these arguments seem feeble.
That's only opinion.
The counter to that is that most people through the ages have caught the divine and it's only those of a a philosophical materialist bent who demand signs and wonders. In fact I suppose philosophical materialism the equivalent of putting on spiritual blindfold
I think it's yer actual Dawkins who in one part of his jumbled corpus accuses the masses of jumping to conclusions about the universe having a creator....That is an admission that people see the divine quite naturally.
-
Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.
Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.
Well most of the audience of Paul's letters would be Christians who had experienced Jesus spiritually. But Paul, as you know, cites the 500 witnesses to resurrected Christ. Why talk about 500 witnesses if Paul actually thought that a spiritual experience of a spiritual resurrection was the end of the story. If every Christian has met with Christ spiritually why go on about a 500?
-
No all Paul is saying is that without the resurrection there would be no notion of salvation through Christ so we are left with the question.
Which is a really poor argument for the resurrection. It would absolutely be improved if Paul could have said "and there was the empty tomb". After all, Christians today don't seem shy of using it.
No, the best explanation is that Paul knew virtually nothing of Jesus' life.
How would those who have enjoyed the salvation of Jesus ever come to know it if it weren't for the resurrection. How would people know about salvation in Christ if Christ wasn't saved himself.
So it seems to me that it would be a good idea if you could find out if it were true or not. You seem to have a lot riding on the idea.
-
No all Paul is saying is that without the resurrection there would be no notion of salvation through Christ so we are left with the question.
Which is a really poor argument for the resurrection. It would absolutely be improved if Paul could have said "and there was the empty tomb". After all, Christians today don't seem shy of using it.
No, the best explanation is that Paul knew virtually nothing of Jesus' life.
How would those who have enjoyed the salvation of Jesus ever come to know it if it weren't for the resurrection. How would people know about salvation in Christ if Christ wasn't saved himself.
So it seems to me that it would be a good idea if you could find out if it were true or not. You seem to have a lot riding on the idea.
yes you do have to find out if the love of God which is ours through Jesus is true....but you can only find the truth of love yourself Jeremy.
-
Yes but Paul talks at length of the resurrection which kind of assumes an empty tomb.
Not necessarily. It might assume that Jesus' body was buried in an unmarked grave or that the resurrection involved getting a new body or that it was spiritual.
He never mentions the empty tomb once or the last supper or the Lord's Prayer or Jesus' last words on the cross or the guy with a spear or anything about Jesus' life as opposed opposed to his death at all.
He doesn't even mention the empty tomb in a situation where you would expect him to. He didn't know about it.
Paul never mentions the last supper? Are you sure about that?
Not in any detail. He never says who was there or what happened, other than enough to establish the Eucharist.
-
Well most of the audience of Paul's letters would be Christians who had experienced Jesus spiritually.
Well, Christians who thought they experienced Jesus spiritually, at any rate.
This is part of the point. Paul places much more emphasis on knowledge of Christ by revelation. It seems he,and the Christians at the time, didn't place much value on the events of Jesus' life. Revelation was considered much more legitimate. In the circumstances, it's understandable that the actual events of Jesus' life were largely ignored by Paul and his followers.
But Paul, as you know, cites the 500 witnesses to resurrected Christ. Why talk about 500 witnesses if Paul actually thought that a spiritual experience of a spiritual resurrection was the end of the story. If every Christian has met with Christ spiritually why go on about a 500?
Why indeed. It's a number he pulled out of his arse. Ninety five thousand people saw me score the winning goal for England in the 1966 World Cup. Do you believe that I did?
-
This is part of the point. Paul places much more emphasis on knowledge of Christ by revelation. It seems he,and the Christians at the time, didn't place much value on the events of Jesus' life. Revelation was considered much more legitimate. In the circumstances, it's understandable that the actual events of Jesus' life were largely ignored by Paul and his followers.
A slight misrepresentation, jeremy. The letters are all about day to day life as a believer - and would basically have been written to those who had already chosen that route. They were also written to groups that Paul had already had face2face contact with. In the case of new churches he planted, the letters make it clear that he made his listeners fully aware of the actual events of Jesus' death and his resurrection - after all, these were the seminal events of his life.
Let's take an example. Arsene Wengerr isn't going to spend all his time teaching his squad how to kick, trap or head a ball - the fundamental aspects of football. He is going to talking tactics, and on-pitch action.
Why indeed. It's a number he pulled out of his arse.
And you have evidence to support that assertion?
-
Well most of the audience of Paul's letters would be Christians who had experienced Jesus spiritually.
Well, Christians who thought they experienced Jesus spiritually, at any rate.
This is part of the point. Paul places much more emphasis on knowledge of Christ by revelation. It seems he,and the Christians at the time, didn't place much value on the events of Jesus' life. Revelation was considered much more legitimate. In the circumstances, it's understandable that the actual events of Jesus' life were largely ignored by Paul and his followers.
But Paul, as you know, cites the 500 witnesses to resurrected Christ. Why talk about 500 witnesses if Paul actually thought that a spiritual experience of a spiritual resurrection was the end of the story. If every Christian has met with Christ spiritually why go on about a 500?
Why indeed. It's a number he pulled out of his arse. Ninety five thousand people saw me score the winning goal for England in the 1966 World Cup. Do you believe that I did?
So let me get this straight Jeremy Paul believed in just a spiritual resurrection and that's why he went on about 500 witnesses to a physical resurrection............You certainly know about pulling stuff out of your arse.
-
A slight misrepresentation, jeremy. The letters are all about day to day life as a believer - and would basically have been written to those who had already chosen that route.
Are you telling me that Christians, when they talk to each other don't mention the events described in the Gospels because everybody already knows them? Bullshit. I used to go to church regularly and there was always a reading from the gospels.
They were also written to groups that Paul had already had face2face contact with. In the case of new churches he planted, the letters make it clear that he made his listeners fully aware of the actual events of Jesus' death and his resurrection - after all, these were the seminal events of his life.
And he frequently argues theology with them, but never does he refer to what Jesus may have actually said in real life. He never says "this is the right thing to do because Jesus said so as created to me by Cephas". Nor once in all his letters does he ever claim something Jesus said in life as authority for his ideas.
Why indeed. It's a number he pulled out of his arse.
And you have evidence to support that assertion?
Don't be so fucking naive. Of course it is. A thousand people witnessed me levitating the Eiffel tower last week and many of them are still alive.
-
The counter to that is that most people through the ages have caught the divine and it's only those of a a philosophical materialist bent who demand signs and wonders.
Argumentum ad populum - we don't know how many of them genuinely felt touched by the idea of divinity, how many of them never questioned what they were told, how many of them pretended to be touched because of the consequences etc. You are presuming they were touched by the divine because the social norm of the times was blindly following the religious precepts.
In fact I suppose philosophical materialism the equivalent of putting on spiritual blindfold
Or taking one off... I suspect it will be some time before we have a definitive answer on that one.
I think it's yer actual Dawkins who in one part of his jumbled corpus accuses the masses of jumping to conclusions about the universe having a creator....That is an admission that people see the divine quite naturally.
I can't decide if you despise him or you're his biggest fan, certainly you seem to think that he's the singular focal point of all atheist arguments in history - you do realise we don't need a Jesus-figure any more than we need the actual Jesus figure, right?
Regardless of who raised the argument, part of the Abrahamic religion's description of the deity is as a creator, and modern science is increasingly calling into question the need for such a figure.
O.
-
Well most of the audience of Paul's letters would be Christians who had experienced Jesus spiritually.
What of all the Muslims who have experienced Allah spiritually? What of all the Shintoists who have walked in the company of the various nature spirits?
You don't know that anyone of that time had 'experienced Jesus spiritually'.
But Paul, as you know, cites the 500 witnesses to resurrected Christ. Why talk about 500 witnesses if Paul actually thought that a spiritual experience of a spiritual resurrection was the end of the story. If every Christian has met with Christ spiritually why go on about a 500?
When people lie they typically make up extraneous details as though it lends credence to the tale, that's a fairly widely reported phenomenon. I'm not saying it's definitively 'THE' reason, but it's a viable explanation. As you know, Joseph Smith was very detailed in his account of the appearance of the angel who helped him translate his Golden Plates...
O.
-
If the deity exists why can't it makes its presence clear in such a way that no one could ever disbelieve in it?
Without (presumably) being aware of it you've hit upon a very respectable argument for atheism (divine hiddenness) advanced by some top-flight philosophers - J. L. Schellenberg springs to mind.
Yes, it's a powerful argument. I think that Schellenberg and others add the point that an all-loving God would inevitably make his presence clear. I suppose the counter-arguments are 1), he does, and we're too stupid and/or sinful to notice; 2), he has a very good reason not to appear clearly.
Both these arguments seem feeble.
That's only opinion.
The counter to that is that most people through the ages have caught the divine and it's only those of a a philosophical materialist bent who demand signs and wonders. In fact I suppose philosophical materialism the equivalent of putting on spiritual blindfold
I think it's yer actual Dawkins who in one part of his jumbled corpus accuses the masses of jumping to conclusions about the universe having a creator....That is an admission that people see the divine quite naturally.
I think you're answering a different argument. This is asking why God is hidden.
If you take someone who has no belief in God, but is reasonably open to arguments and evidence, let's call her Claire, then in the Christian formulation, God is omniscient, so he knows what would convince Claire of his existence. He is omnipotent, so he can arrange this; he is all-loving, so he wants to be in a relationship with Claire.
So why does he not do this? Possible answers are that he does, (he is not hidden), that Claire is not persuadable, that God leaves space for faith, that God gives Claire free will, and so on, but for me, they don't answer the problem, which flows from the 3 omnis.
-
And if Claire is not persuadable that knocks omnipotence out for starters - for a genuinely omnipotent entity there's no such thing as unpersuadable.
-
Why would a reasonable deity makes its existence purely a matter of faith, if the downside of unbelief is a terrible punishment?
-
Why would a reasonable deity makes its existence purely a matter of faith, if the downside of unbelief is a terrible punishment?
Yes, it sounds like a definition of insanity, to say that here is something hidden, but if you keep saying that you can't see it, then you will be punished for ever.
I think one solution that some Christians have found is that they don't really believe this. I'm not sure that many of them really believe in the 3 omnis, although they pay lip service to it.
-
Why would a reasonable deity makes its existence purely a matter of faith, if the downside of unbelief is a terrible punishment?
Yes, it sounds like a definition of insanity, to say that here is something hidden, but if you keep saying that you can't see it, then you will be punished for ever.
I think one solution that some Christians have found is that they don't really believe this. I'm not sure that many of them really believe in the 3 omnis, although they pay lip service to it.
I think it is only the extreme 'Christians' who believe in the tortures of hell forever and ever. I wish they would explain how a reasonable deity could expect people to believe in it when there is no evidence to support its existence. If unbelief actually leads to torture in hell, surely the deity is playing an evil game with humans!
-
Why would a reasonable deity makes its existence purely a matter of faith, if the downside of unbelief is a terrible punishment?
Yes, it sounds like a definition of insanity, to say that here is something hidden, but if you keep saying that you can't see it, then you will be punished for ever.
I think one solution that some Christians have found is that they don't really believe this. I'm not sure that many of them really believe in the 3 omnis, although they pay lip service to it.
Not sure that there is anything related to punishment; after all, we choose our own destiny in this respect. As for 3 'omni's, I'm not sure that any Christian believes that there 3 of them; there is certainly no indication in the Bible that there are. They are 3-in-1 - so only one 'omni', but with 3 facets.
-
Why would a reasonable deity makes its existence purely a matter of faith, if the downside of unbelief is a terrible punishment?
Yes, it sounds like a definition of insanity, to say that here is something hidden, but if you keep saying that you can't see it, then you will be punished for ever.
I think one solution that some Christians have found is that they don't really believe this. I'm not sure that many of them really believe in the 3 omnis, although they pay lip service to it.
I think it is only the extreme 'Christians' who believe in the tortures of hell forever and ever. I wish they would explain how a reasonable deity could expect people to believe in it when there is no evidence to support its existence. If unbelief actually leads to torture in hell, surely the deity is playing an evil game with humans!
I forgot to say that the idea of divine hiddenness is sometimes called 'reasonable non-belief'. In other words, is it reasonable to not believe in God? Well, yes, unless you are a fanatical theist. But now we go back to the other argument - that since God is omniscient, he knows what would convince the reasonable unbeliever, he can arrange it, and he wants to, because he loves you. Cushti! Or maybe not.
-
I wish they would explain how a reasonable deity could expect people to believe in it when there is no evidence to support its existence.
As several of us have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence in the world around us, but none that satisfies the fairly limited definition of 'scientific' evidence.
If unbelief actually leads to torture in hell, surely the deity is playing an evil game with humans!
Floo, the only references to 'torture in hell' (if that's what they are) that occur in the Bible occur in passages that are clearly not meant to be taken literally - they occur in parables and allegorical writings. As I've pointed out several times, we get to choose our destiny and God respects those decisions. If you or I choose to spend eternity outside of the presence of God, then he doesn't ignore that choice. Note though that being outside of the presence doesn't mean out of the 'sphere of influence' of.
Its like the ex-military folk in the States who choose to go off grid: they are outside the presence of humanity, but they continue to be effected by what other humans do.
-
I wish they would explain how a reasonable deity could expect people to believe in it when there is no evidence to support its existence.
As several of us have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence in the world around us, but none that satisfies the fairly limited definition of 'scientific' evidence.
And, as has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, unless you have some sort of methodology for differentiating unjustified claims from justified claims you don't have evidence, you just have claims.
If unbelief actually leads to torture in hell, surely the deity is playing an evil game with humans!
Floo, the only references to 'torture in hell' (if that's what they are) that occur in the Bible occur in passages that are clearly not meant to be taken literally - they occur in parables and allegorical writings.
Yet there's no clear explanation of which parts are supposed to be taken literally and which aren't, that's a subjective decision which allows the vague nature of the writing to be used to justify pretty much any philosophy a reader might wish.
O.
-
I wish they would explain how a reasonable deity could expect people to believe in it when there is no evidence to support its existence.
As several of us have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence in the world around us, but none that satisfies the fairly limited definition of 'scientific' evidence.
If unbelief actually leads to torture in hell, surely the deity is playing an evil game with humans!
Floo, the only references to 'torture in hell' (if that's what they are) that occur in the Bible occur in passages that are clearly not meant to be taken literally - they occur in parables and allegorical writings. As I've pointed out several times, we get to choose our destiny and God respects those decisions. If you or I choose to spend eternity outside of the presence of God, then he doesn't ignore that choice. Note though that being outside of the presence doesn't mean out of the 'sphere of influence' of.
Its like the ex-military folk in the States who choose to go off grid: they are outside the presence of humanity, but they continue to be effected by what other humans do.
Hope there is NO verifiable evidence to support the existence of a deity, as much as you wish there was! Science is not limited, it is belief in a deity, especially the one featured in the Bible, which is very limiting!
-
As several of us have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence in the world around us, but none that satisfies the fairly limited definition of 'scientific' evidence.
So, what criteria does this non-scientific 'evidence' meet?
-
As several of us have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence in the world around us, but none that satisfies the fairly limited definition of 'scientific' evidence.
So, what criteria does this non-scientific 'evidence' meet?
Like billions of people believe in the deity, so it must be true! ;D
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
Could I repeat a sentence from the OP: 'Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to heaven'. Are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss this?
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
OK, but that discussion went like this:
OP- 'Description of horrific way to die'
Everyone else - 'Yep, that's horrific'.
Game over... the discussion came from the idea that this was some sort of 'argument from sympathy' that we should drop to our knees and pray because the claim is that Jesus volunteered for this to pre-emptively atone for the breaking of some rather arbitrary commandments that may or may not occur in his future.
O.
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
Could I repeat a sentence from the OP: 'Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to heaven'. Are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss this?
And what posts are there discussing that line? And as you full well know that is not the thrust of the OP anyway. The resident atheists simply use the thread as an excuse to belittle Christianity, in their usual, daily, diatribes - poor lot!
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
Could I repeat a sentence from the OP: 'Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to heaven'. Are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss this?
And what posts are there discussing that line? And as you full well know that is not the thrust of the OP anyway. The resident atheists simply use the thread as an excuse to belittle Christianity, in their usual, daily, diatribes - poor lot!
Well, it's nice that you are a mod now, I hope you enjoy it.
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
Could I repeat a sentence from the OP: 'Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to heaven'. Are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss this?
And what posts are there discussing that line? And as you full well know that is not the thrust of the OP anyway. The resident atheists simply use the thread as an excuse to belittle Christianity, in their usual, daily, diatribes - poor lot!
Given that I think we all agree that this form of execution is terrible.
The question I have is, So what?
-
Can I repeat, for the benefit of the poor readers on here: the OP is, "The Anatomical And Physiological Details Of Death By Crucifixion." Clear?
Could I repeat a sentence from the OP: 'Jesus died so that ordinary people like you and me could go to heaven'. Are you saying that we are not allowed to discuss this?
And what posts are there discussing that line? And as you full well know that is not the thrust of the OP anyway. The resident atheists simply use the thread as an excuse to belittle Christianity, in their usual, daily, diatribes - poor lot!
Well, it's nice that you are
I cannot see how that comment in any way reflects my post: then that's usual with your posts.
-
This has been doing the rounds again on fb:
But can you spot the fact from the fiction?
Thrud,
Can you.
I am not sure why you post these thing or what you think it really does for those who read.
Give us your reasons.. What is the fact and fiction.
-
Thrud,
Can you.
I am not sure why you post these thing or what you think it really does for those who read.
Give us your reasons.. What is the fact and fiction.
I am not sure there are any facts with regards to Jesus.
Just myth.
A bit like Robin Hood
-
I am not sure there are any facts with regards to Jesus.
Just myth.
A bit like Robin Hood
Should have read his post. I was referring to the fact and fiction of the Crucifixion and him asking could we see the fact from the fiction.
Who got rid of the quoting system....
Some people are too controlled by the one to realise the will of the many makes more sense...(not referring to you personally) Do you know a set up when you see one? ;D
Good God we have some silly people on here. I do not think you are one of them... :)
-
Should have read his post. I was referring to the fact and fiction of the Crucifixion and him asking could we see the fact from the fiction.
Who got rid of the quoting system....
Some people are too controlled by the one to realise the will of the many makes more sense...(not referring to you personally) Do you know a set up when you see one? ;D
Good God we have some silly people on here. I do not think you are one of them... :)
Well it takes one to know one as they say! ;D