<strong>If you find no evidence that Jesus as a man existed you are not looking very hard. Show me contemporary evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, or any other figure that was known to exist around the time of Jesus. Most of your "evidence" would be based on writings or possibly artifacts claimed by archeologists to have belonged to them. The same can be said about Jesus, except of course for the Artifacts (he did not own much after all being a poor carpenter )
I followed the two links you provided, and read the articles, and not one offers any contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. Most just try to justify biblical events by what is currently known about society at that time.
Many historical characters are assumed to have existed because contemporary evidence comes from two undiluted and non-interfering sources - for example, you can find Roman and Egyptian writings which mention people, places and events which seem to cross-match.
Yet there are absolutely no contemporary writings which mention anything about some guy claiming to be the "Son of God.
I'd love to show you evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, but just like Jesus, he's probably a fictional character in a text first written some years after he supposedly existed.
I followed the two links you provided, and read the articles, and not one offers any contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. Most just try to justify biblical events by what is currently known about society at that time.
Many historical characters are assumed to have existed because contemporary evidence comes from two undiluted and non-interfering sources - for example, you can find Roman and Egyptian writings which mention people, places and events which seem to cross-match.
Yet there are absolutely no contemporary writings which mention anything about some guy claiming to be the "Son of God.
I'd love to show you evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, but just like Jesus, he's probably a fictional character in a text first written some years after he supposedly existed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by contemporary I assume you mean at the time it happened, say 30 AD or so?
Jeez, even Hebrew scholars who don't beleive Jesus is the son of God beleive he existed. They have the evidence of his existance (and beleive me, they research more than I would be interested in doing for you) Just because I can't hand you a film of him healing the sick, or a polaroid of him on the cross, I think you are being quite closed minded to even deny he existed. For a "fictional character" that sombody wrote down once and made up stuff about there has been a huge effect on the world. Name me one fictional character that has had a similar effect and has the added bonus of being believed to have truly existed. (And no, Santa Clause does not count, how have you changed your life for Santa calsue after 6 years old?)
<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm"; target="_blank">Here's a pretty good link</a> from my favorite religious website that discusses both sides of the issue of the existence of Jesus and provides many links to sources.
Who here has heard of the above mentioned before today? I have not. hands up. Before Appleinsider? Before you used a computer? I bet almost no hands on all three.
Ok, now who here have heard of Jesus before this thread? Before Appleinsider? Before you used a computer? I bet nearly all hands are up on all three. With the least (still likely more than 2/3) on the third and nearly all on the first and second.
I was making a flippant joke: Rrose Selavy (prnced: eros c'est la vie) is an alter-personality for teh arch Avant Garde artist Marcel Duchamp.
Though there is also a serious point behind my choosing him because of what his art revealed about 'art' and discourse. He showed that art is indissoluably linked to the discursive practices that constitute its object and that the object's life as a work of art is related to the crossing of focus that is mobilized on its behalf.
Now, this seems to be somewhat what you are saying about Jesus, namely, that he lives because there is a huge community that creates an object through its collective focus: this is a very interesting point that brings up issues of "the Word" and, the notion of the "Body Of Christ" as seen as a sociological body made of the collective of shared interests (iner -ess =within essence = within God) a membrane that lives through its church as a collective centered around a focus point.
However, Duchamp's genius lay in the fact that he revealed how the object itself is not dependant upon physical characteristics and does not have a-temporal (timeless) characteristics but is a function of the focus: what some outhors have called a 'baptizing' of teh object with the status of artwork. Perhaps this is how the object of a religion works as well: it truly lives but as a community function.
<strong>And by contemporary I assume you mean at the time it happened, say 30 AD or so?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, anything between then and 90AD (which I believe is supposed to be the time at which the stories entered circulation, though that wasn't reported until around a millenium later).
[quote]<strong>Jeez, even Hebrew scholars who don't beleive Jesus is the son of God beleive he existed. They have the evidence of his existance (and beleive me, they research more than I would be interested in doing for you) Just because I can't hand you a film of him healing the sick, or a polaroid of him on the cross, I think you are being quite closed minded to even deny he existed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Closed minded? All I'm asking is for proof he existed before I accept that he did. I'd do the same for anyone or anything. To do otherwise is "blind faith".
If people have irrefutable evidence, where is it?
[quote]<strong>For a "fictional character" that sombody wrote down once and made up stuff about there has been a huge effect on the world. Name me one fictional character that has had a similar effect and has the added bonus of being believed to have truly existed. (And no, Santa Clause does not count, how have you changed your life for Santa calsue after 6 years old?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some fictional characters who've had a similar effect in the past - Apollo, Juno, Zeus, Loki... oh wait, we're not talking gods... how about Hercules? The only reason that Jesus has become a worldwide phenomenon is that at the time the fictional accounts of his existence were put into print, people of different races were beginning to travel and relate. Also, if you didn't believe in it, some guys riding horses and wearing armor would come round and hit you repeatedly with sharp swords until you did.
As I said, there's contemporary evidence for the existence of many characters at that time, and long before - even many biblical characters - like King Solomon, who's mentioned in Roman and Egyptian scripts.
So if the arrival of Jesus had such an almighty importance for this world, how come nobody saw fit to mention it?
I know it's not easy to provide this kind of proof, but as I said, I'm very scientific minded, and will choose not to believe in something until I'm offered real evidence it exists.
The only explanation I can offer you is that at the time Jesus came, he was an insignificant peon in the eyes of the Romans and no one else outside the local empire would have paid him any attention, nevermind write about him. Only after his death did he get attention.
Some fictional characters who've had a similar effect in the past - Apollo, Juno, Zeus, Loki... oh wait, we're not talking gods... how about Hercules? The only reason that Jesus has become a worldwide phenomenon is that at the time the fictional accounts of his existence were put into print, people of different races were beginning to travel and relate. Also, if you didn't believe in it, some guys riding horses and wearing armor would come round and hit you repeatedly with sharp swords until you did.
As I said, there's contemporary evidence for the existence of many characters at that time, and long before - even many biblical characters - like King Solomon, who's mentioned in Roman and Egyptian scripts.
So if the arrival of Jesus had such an almighty importance for this world, how come nobody saw fit to mention it?
I know it's not easy to provide this kind of proof, but as I said, I'm very scientific minded, and will choose not to believe in something until I'm offered real evidence it exists.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have timefor a full rebuttle now, but to answer some of your questions, not only had a big influence in their times, but continues to have a huge influence. Who beleives still the Hercules and Zeus and Loki and the like existed now? I know there arfe some, but they are very few and far between. There is really NO evidence at all that they existed in reality. Even less then the exsitance of Jesus.
And as far as why would he not be mentioned in Roman writings or something like that. Who was he in their eyes? Just another Jew that was put to death on a cross. Happened all the time there. All the time. Why would they care? I know I am not going to change your mind, so i am not sure why I keep writing, but I am enjoying the back and forth of it I guess.
Religions deals with metaphysics and not science.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right on. People who try to prove the existence of Jesus CHRIST don´t have a clue about what religion is and what purpose it serves IMHO. Didn´t Jesus say something about proof and beliefs?
Just a little story about the difference between science and religion.
Many , many years ago, Napoleon assist to a demonstration of Foucault whit his famous pendulum. Napoleon ask Foucault " et dieu dans tout ça : and where is god in that (very approximate translation) Foucault reply : god is not an hypothesis.
More recently , Lemaitre who was a famous belgium churchmen from the catholic church, and accessorily nobel prize in physics and inventor of the big bang Theory, like to repeat what Foucault was saying, he just add, after god is not an hypothesis, i have to many respect for him. Lemaitre a very interesting and open man, was pointing out the fact , that science and religion hare to differents matters that should be never mixed together.
Poeple syaing they are Christians and do not live by the book are not christians. So those of you with morals stop using that as an excuse. As for proof...ummm, lets see, how de we typically prove something, does the story stand the test of time? how much was it circulated, and of course the hard proof(the proof we can touch). Okay, well the bible has been around since man can remember, there are far more copies of the bible than any of Socrates, aristotles, or any other persons thinking and yet we say those are true, and we have the dead sea scrolls. Sure that may not be enough. But there has been many studies, (a simple search on the internet) from many different scholars and beliefs about the creation of the earth. and ALL agree that while many things could have happened to make our world possible, it is impossible for all of them to happen at just the right time. And because you do not believe(does not apply to those who do) does not give me the right to call you out and say you are wrong. And I apologize for anyone that has. But if you REALLY want to know the truth then do the research yourself..that is what another man did and while i cant remember his name the books title is"who moved the stone" He absolutely believed that there was no man named Jesus and that there was no God, and he set out to prove it only to convert himself. The truth is, if you truly don't believe then do the research yourself, dont rely onn another MAN to do your thinking. Put work into it, quit accepting what you hear and have been told and on your own intelligence, learn to teach yourself.
<strong>There is really NO evidence at all that they existed in reality. Even less then the exsitance of Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's about equal.
[quote]<strong>And as far as why would he not be mentioned in Roman writings or something like that. Who was he in their eyes? Just another Jew that was put to death on a cross. Happened all the time there. All the time. Why would they care?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it seemed at the time he made something of an impact, which would surely have been noted somewhere. The Romans were fanatical about recording these things.
<strong> [quote]I know I am not going to change your mind, so i am not sure why I keep writing, but I am enjoying the back and forth of it I guess. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm willing to have my mind changed! I saw Indiana Jones and Monty Python, I'd love to hear the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail actually existed. I just want some evidence.*
And you keep writing because unsolvable AppleOutsider threads are fun! As long as it remains a discussion, or argument, without degenerating into name-calling, it's fun.
* There's actually a possible reference to the Ark in some Egyptian hieroglyphs, which some historians believe depict the Ark being carried ahead of an army.
[quote]<strong>There is historical proof that JESUS has existed. But there is no scientifical proof that Jesus is the son of god.
Religions deals with metaphysics and not science.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I'm looking for historical proof more than scientific, and yet nobody seems to have any?
I think if you want a view of mercurial changing in peoples morality one has to look no further than mob mentality. LA Riots and such show you how quickly a law abiding citzen can become a degenerate in a blink of an eye. SUre it does not happen all the time, and it is an extreme example. But it has happened in more than one instance and in more than one place. (seattle for another example) </strong><hr></blockquote>
In order to exlain the mob mentality, I think we'd also need to go into a clinical examination of psychology and behavior, neither of which I'm qualified to do. I do think there's more going on than shakey morality there.
While I don't have any personal experience, I'd wager that many who participated in those riots would consider themselves to be religous and/or spiritual people. There's a difference between knowing what's right and doing what's right. Studying the Bible does not guarentee moral behavior. Granted, the idea of being damned for eternity can be a pretty big motivator, but so can spending 25-to-life in the state pen. (Or, for anyone with a conscience, having to deal with the consequences of their actions later.)
[quote]<strong>And finally, yes, it is not religion that is what does not change. It is the Bible I am referring to as the moral guideline. The Ten COmmandments and sermon on the mount and many of the parables of Christ. Just to name a few points where morality can be found written out in scripture in a fairly forthright manner.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But can you truly say that your understanding of the Bible does not change with time? Do you not see things in passages that you perhaps missed before, or gain a greater insight upon a second, third, or tenth reading of them?
Reading and comprehension is not a one-way street. Our understanding of what we read is influenced by the knowledge and experiences we have accumulated up to the point when we actually sit down and open the book. I would bet that if you wrote notes in the margins of a Bible that you read today, and then re-read that Bible and those notes 20 years from now, you would discover that you were not the same person. On the whole, of course, it would be the same. But I bet your older self would not agree with everything your younger self had written. Your older self may even find some things to be downright silly, and wonder how your younger self could have written them in the first place.
Everything changes, but change is not only entropy. It is also growth and understanding, things which cannot be acquired without the passage of time and the accumlation of experience.
Right on. People who try to prove the existence of Jesus CHRIST don´t have a clue about what religion is and what purpose it serves IMHO. Didn´t Jesus say something about proof and beliefs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus said that "This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.Â*For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation."
Also there are many refrences to those that saw and believe becasue they see, but how much greater is the blessing for those who did not see and do beleive.
But this overall has nothing to do with proving the existance of Christ. That is an academic endeavor, not spiritual. Proving he was the son of God requires more than academics, that requires faith. So there is nothing wrong with trying to point to the proof of His existance. In fact, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the proof that He is the son of God. If you cannot prove this to someone, why would they believe so in the first place? Just because you said so? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
But can you truly say that your understanding of the Bible does not change with time? Do you not see things in passages that you perhaps missed before, or gain a greater insight upon a second, third, or tenth reading of them?
Reading and comprehension is not a one-way street. Our understanding of what we read is influenced by the knowledge and experiences we have accumulated up to the point when we actually sit down and open the book. I would bet that if you wrote notes in the margins of a Bible that you read today, and then re-read that Bible and those notes 20 years from now, you would discover that you were not the same person. On the whole, of course, it would be the same. But I bet your older self would not agree with everything your younger self had written. Your older self may even find some things to be downright silly, and wonder how your younger self could have written them in the first place.
Everything changes, but change is not only entropy. It is also growth and understanding, things which cannot be acquired without the passage of time and the accumlation of experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did not catch the first part of you post in this quote but you can go up and read it if you want to know what you said.
Basically, as I posted, that was a very extreme way of making my point and as I wrote it I knew that your response would be what you said. Yes there is more than just the shakey morality, but that has a lot to do with it. Anyone who believes that becoming a Christian makes you instatnly moral and perfect are obviously either deluded, or completely oblivious to human nature. So sure, there may even be "good people" or "religious people" who get involved in those riots. But they only do so for a large part because they feel that they can get away with it at the time. A moral decision that was warped by the mob mentality. (once more, still a bit broad brush but I think it works.) Overall, it is a choice, and that is what it comes down to. Do the right thing, or not. Your morals and conscience usually point you in the right direction, but it is a choice to actually do the right thing once pointed.
For the second half of your post. Yes i agree, your understanding will deepen, but the basic moral guidelines and anchors will not change. Thou shalt not kill will still mean don't shoot your neighbor Frank for flipping you the bird. Thous shalt not steal will still mean don't take a candy bar from the corner 7-11. Just becasue the other passages will have a greater meaning in your relation to Christ will not change the underlying moral guidelines which you should follow.
I'm looking for historical proof more than scientific, and yet nobody seems to have any?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also missed the first parts of your post but I am not going to try to refute line by line. Just sort of go over all.
I diagree that the proof is about equal of the different persons existance, but I have nothing to put in front of you right now. As has been stated, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there are many old documents that I am sure you could find if you seached long enough.
For the rest of your post, I am glad you are willing to be convinced if the evidence is there. I just wish that I had the evidence you need. I will keep looking. This is probably one of the few times i have disagreed with you Belle and not been very upset about it. Maybe I am growing up...
<strong>For the rest of your post, I am glad you are willing to be convinced if the evidence is there. I just wish that I had the evidence you need. I will keep looking. This is probably one of the few times i have disagreed with you Belle and not been very upset about it. Maybe I am growing up... </strong><hr></blockquote>
It's a great thing to disagree about, because it can't be proved either way (Unless there's a second coming, or something). I can't prove he didn't exist, you can't prove he did.
Of course, if we were arguing the existence of the G5, I'd be beating you repeatedly round the head until you bleed.
Comments
<strong>If you find no evidence that Jesus as a man existed you are not looking very hard. Show me contemporary evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, or any other figure that was known to exist around the time of Jesus. Most of your "evidence" would be based on writings or possibly artifacts claimed by archeologists to have belonged to them. The same can be said about Jesus, except of course for the Artifacts (he did not own much after all being a poor carpenter
[edit] added some links
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html"; target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Jesuschrist.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Jesuschrist.asp</a>;
(only 2 sites that a lazy Google search found on the First page)
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I followed the two links you provided, and read the articles, and not one offers any contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. Most just try to justify biblical events by what is currently known about society at that time.
Many historical characters are assumed to have existed because contemporary evidence comes from two undiluted and non-interfering sources - for example, you can find Roman and Egyptian writings which mention people, places and events which seem to cross-match.
Yet there are absolutely no contemporary writings which mention anything about some guy claiming to be the "Son of God.
I'd love to show you evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, but just like Jesus, he's probably a fictional character in a text first written some years after he supposedly existed.
<strong>
I followed the two links you provided, and read the articles, and not one offers any contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. Most just try to justify biblical events by what is currently known about society at that time.
Many historical characters are assumed to have existed because contemporary evidence comes from two undiluted and non-interfering sources - for example, you can find Roman and Egyptian writings which mention people, places and events which seem to cross-match.
Yet there are absolutely no contemporary writings which mention anything about some guy claiming to be the "Son of God.
I'd love to show you evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, but just like Jesus, he's probably a fictional character in a text first written some years after he supposedly existed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And by contemporary I assume you mean at the time it happened, say 30 AD or so?
Jeez, even Hebrew scholars who don't beleive Jesus is the son of God beleive he existed. They have the evidence of his existance (and beleive me, they research more than I would be interested in doing for you) Just because I can't hand you a film of him healing the sick, or a polaroid of him on the cross, I think you are being quite closed minded to even deny he existed. For a "fictional character" that sombody wrote down once and made up stuff about there has been a huge effect on the world. Name me one fictional character that has had a similar effect and has the added bonus of being believed to have truly existed. (And no, Santa Clause does not count,
Rrose Selavy
<strong>I'll name one:
Rrose Selavy</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who here has heard of the above mentioned before today? I have not. hands up. Before Appleinsider? Before you used a computer? I bet almost no hands on all three.
Ok, now who here have heard of Jesus before this thread? Before Appleinsider? Before you used a computer? I bet nearly all hands are up on all three. With the least (still likely more than 2/3) on the third and nearly all on the first and second.
Though there is also a serious point behind my choosing him because of what his art revealed about 'art' and discourse. He showed that art is indissoluably linked to the discursive practices that constitute its object and that the object's life as a work of art is related to the crossing of focus that is mobilized on its behalf.
Now, this seems to be somewhat what you are saying about Jesus, namely, that he lives because there is a huge community that creates an object through its collective focus: this is a very interesting point that brings up issues of "the Word" and, the notion of the "Body Of Christ" as seen as a sociological body made of the collective of shared interests (iner -ess =within essence = within God) a membrane that lives through its church as a collective centered around a focus point.
However, Duchamp's genius lay in the fact that he revealed how the object itself is not dependant upon physical characteristics and does not have a-temporal (timeless) characteristics but is a function of the focus: what some outhors have called a 'baptizing' of teh object with the status of artwork. Perhaps this is how the object of a religion works as well: it truly lives but as a community function.
<strong>And by contemporary I assume you mean at the time it happened, say 30 AD or so?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, anything between then and 90AD (which I believe is supposed to be the time at which the stories entered circulation, though that wasn't reported until around a millenium later).
[quote]<strong>Jeez, even Hebrew scholars who don't beleive Jesus is the son of God beleive he existed. They have the evidence of his existance (and beleive me, they research more than I would be interested in doing for you) Just because I can't hand you a film of him healing the sick, or a polaroid of him on the cross, I think you are being quite closed minded to even deny he existed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Closed minded? All I'm asking is for proof he existed before I accept that he did. I'd do the same for anyone or anything. To do otherwise is "blind faith".
If people have irrefutable evidence, where is it?
[quote]<strong>For a "fictional character" that sombody wrote down once and made up stuff about there has been a huge effect on the world. Name me one fictional character that has had a similar effect and has the added bonus of being believed to have truly existed. (And no, Santa Clause does not count,
Some fictional characters who've had a similar effect in the past - Apollo, Juno, Zeus, Loki... oh wait, we're not talking gods... how about Hercules? The only reason that Jesus has become a worldwide phenomenon is that at the time the fictional accounts of his existence were put into print, people of different races were beginning to travel and relate. Also, if you didn't believe in it, some guys riding horses and wearing armor would come round and hit you repeatedly with sharp swords until you did.
As I said, there's contemporary evidence for the existence of many characters at that time, and long before - even many biblical characters - like King Solomon, who's mentioned in Roman and Egyptian scripts.
So if the arrival of Jesus had such an almighty importance for this world, how come nobody saw fit to mention it?
I know it's not easy to provide this kind of proof, but as I said, I'm very scientific minded, and will choose not to believe in something until I'm offered real evidence it exists.
<strong>
Some fictional characters who've had a similar effect in the past - Apollo, Juno, Zeus, Loki... oh wait, we're not talking gods... how about Hercules? The only reason that Jesus has become a worldwide phenomenon is that at the time the fictional accounts of his existence were put into print, people of different races were beginning to travel and relate. Also, if you didn't believe in it, some guys riding horses and wearing armor would come round and hit you repeatedly with sharp swords until you did.
As I said, there's contemporary evidence for the existence of many characters at that time, and long before - even many biblical characters - like King Solomon, who's mentioned in Roman and Egyptian scripts.
So if the arrival of Jesus had such an almighty importance for this world, how come nobody saw fit to mention it?
I know it's not easy to provide this kind of proof, but as I said, I'm very scientific minded, and will choose not to believe in something until I'm offered real evidence it exists.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't have timefor a full rebuttle now, but to answer some of your questions, not only had a big influence in their times, but continues to have a huge influence. Who beleives still the Hercules and Zeus and Loki and the like existed now? I know there arfe some, but they are very few and far between. There is really NO evidence at all that they existed in reality. Even less then the exsitance of Jesus.
And as far as why would he not be mentioned in Roman writings or something like that. Who was he in their eyes? Just another Jew that was put to death on a cross. Happened all the time there. All the time. Why would they care? I know I am not going to change your mind, so i am not sure why I keep writing, but I am enjoying the back and forth of it I guess.
<strong>
If someone can show me some contemporary evidence that this Jesus guy ever existed, then I could perhaps be persuaded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is historical proof that JESUS has existed. But there is no scientifical proof that Jesus is the son of god.
Religions deals with metaphysics and not science.
<strong>
Religions deals with metaphysics and not science.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right on. People who try to prove the existence of Jesus CHRIST don´t have a clue about what religion is and what purpose it serves IMHO. Didn´t Jesus say something about proof and beliefs?
Many , many years ago, Napoleon assist to a demonstration of Foucault whit his famous pendulum. Napoleon ask Foucault " et dieu dans tout ça : and where is god in that (very approximate translation) Foucault reply : god is not an hypothesis.
More recently , Lemaitre who was a famous belgium churchmen from the catholic church, and accessorily nobel prize in physics and inventor of the big bang Theory, like to repeat what Foucault was saying, he just add, after god is not an hypothesis, i have to many respect for him. Lemaitre a very interesting and open man, was pointing out the fact , that science and religion hare to differents matters that should be never mixed together.
[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>There is really NO evidence at all that they existed in reality. Even less then the exsitance of Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's about equal.
[quote]<strong>And as far as why would he not be mentioned in Roman writings or something like that. Who was he in their eyes? Just another Jew that was put to death on a cross. Happened all the time there. All the time. Why would they care?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it seemed at the time he made something of an impact, which would surely have been noted somewhere. The Romans were fanatical about recording these things.
<strong> [quote]I know I am not going to change your mind, so i am not sure why I keep writing, but I am enjoying the back and forth of it I guess.
I'm willing to have my mind changed! I saw Indiana Jones and Monty Python, I'd love to hear the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail actually existed. I just want some evidence.*
And you keep writing because unsolvable AppleOutsider threads are fun! As long as it remains a discussion, or argument, without degenerating into name-calling, it's fun.
* There's actually a possible reference to the Ark in some Egyptian hieroglyphs, which some historians believe depict the Ark being carried ahead of an army.
[quote]<strong>There is historical proof that JESUS has existed. But there is no scientifical proof that Jesus is the son of god.
Religions deals with metaphysics and not science.<hr></blockquote></strong>
I'm looking for historical proof more than scientific, and yet nobody seems to have any?
<strong>
I think if you want a view of mercurial changing in peoples morality one has to look no further than mob mentality. LA Riots and such show you how quickly a law abiding citzen can become a degenerate in a blink of an eye. SUre it does not happen all the time, and it is an extreme example. But it has happened in more than one instance and in more than one place. (seattle for another example) </strong><hr></blockquote>
In order to exlain the mob mentality, I think we'd also need to go into a clinical examination of psychology and behavior, neither of which I'm qualified to do. I do think there's more going on than shakey morality there.
While I don't have any personal experience, I'd wager that many who participated in those riots would consider themselves to be religous and/or spiritual people. There's a difference between knowing what's right and doing what's right. Studying the Bible does not guarentee moral behavior. Granted, the idea of being damned for eternity can be a pretty big motivator, but so can spending 25-to-life in the state pen. (Or, for anyone with a conscience, having to deal with the consequences of their actions later.)
[quote]<strong>And finally, yes, it is not religion that is what does not change. It is the Bible I am referring to as the moral guideline. The Ten COmmandments and sermon on the mount and many of the parables of Christ. Just to name a few points where morality can be found written out in scripture in a fairly forthright manner.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But can you truly say that your understanding of the Bible does not change with time? Do you not see things in passages that you perhaps missed before, or gain a greater insight upon a second, third, or tenth reading of them?
Reading and comprehension is not a one-way street. Our understanding of what we read is influenced by the knowledge and experiences we have accumulated up to the point when we actually sit down and open the book. I would bet that if you wrote notes in the margins of a Bible that you read today, and then re-read that Bible and those notes 20 years from now, you would discover that you were not the same person. On the whole, of course, it would be the same. But I bet your older self would not agree with everything your younger self had written. Your older self may even find some things to be downright silly, and wonder how your younger self could have written them in the first place.
Everything changes, but change is not only entropy. It is also growth and understanding, things which cannot be acquired without the passage of time and the accumlation of experience.
<strong>
Right on. People who try to prove the existence of Jesus CHRIST don´t have a clue about what religion is and what purpose it serves IMHO. Didn´t Jesus say something about proof and beliefs?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus said that "This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.Â*For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation."
Also there are many refrences to those that saw and believe becasue they see, but how much greater is the blessing for those who did not see and do beleive.
But this overall has nothing to do with proving the existance of Christ. That is an academic endeavor, not spiritual. Proving he was the son of God requires more than academics, that requires faith. So there is nothing wrong with trying to point to the proof of His existance. In fact, I see nothing wrong with pointing out the proof that He is the son of God. If you cannot prove this to someone, why would they believe so in the first place? Just because you said so? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
But can you truly say that your understanding of the Bible does not change with time? Do you not see things in passages that you perhaps missed before, or gain a greater insight upon a second, third, or tenth reading of them?
Reading and comprehension is not a one-way street. Our understanding of what we read is influenced by the knowledge and experiences we have accumulated up to the point when we actually sit down and open the book. I would bet that if you wrote notes in the margins of a Bible that you read today, and then re-read that Bible and those notes 20 years from now, you would discover that you were not the same person. On the whole, of course, it would be the same. But I bet your older self would not agree with everything your younger self had written. Your older self may even find some things to be downright silly, and wonder how your younger self could have written them in the first place.
Everything changes, but change is not only entropy. It is also growth and understanding, things which cannot be acquired without the passage of time and the accumlation of experience.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did not catch the first part of you post in this quote but you can go up and read it if you want to know what you said.
Basically, as I posted, that was a very extreme way of making my point and as I wrote it I knew that your response would be what you said. Yes there is more than just the shakey morality, but that has a lot to do with it. Anyone who believes that becoming a Christian makes you instatnly moral and perfect are obviously either deluded, or completely oblivious to human nature. So sure, there may even be "good people" or "religious people" who get involved in those riots. But they only do so for a large part because they feel that they can get away with it at the time. A moral decision that was warped by the mob mentality. (once more, still a bit broad brush but I think it works.) Overall, it is a choice, and that is what it comes down to. Do the right thing, or not. Your morals and conscience usually point you in the right direction, but it is a choice to actually do the right thing once pointed.
For the second half of your post. Yes i agree, your understanding will deepen, but the basic moral guidelines and anchors will not change. Thou shalt not kill will still mean don't shoot your neighbor Frank for flipping you the bird. Thous shalt not steal will still mean don't take a candy bar from the corner 7-11. Just becasue the other passages will have a greater meaning in your relation to Christ will not change the underlying moral guidelines which you should follow.
<strong>[/qb]
I'm looking for historical proof more than scientific, and yet nobody seems to have any?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Also missed the first parts of your post but I am not going to try to refute line by line. Just sort of go over all.
I diagree that the proof is about equal of the different persons existance, but I have nothing to put in front of you right now. As has been stated, there is the Dead Sea Scrolls, and there are many old documents that I am sure you could find if you seached long enough.
For the rest of your post, I am glad you are willing to be convinced if the evidence is there. I just wish that I had the evidence you need.
<strong>For the rest of your post, I am glad you are willing to be convinced if the evidence is there. I just wish that I had the evidence you need.
It's a great thing to disagree about, because it can't be proved either way (Unless there's a second coming, or something). I can't prove he didn't exist, you can't prove he did.
Of course, if we were arguing the existence of the G5, I'd be beating you repeatedly round the head until you bleed.
Oh, wait, that growing up thing...