<strong>Yes, he was a historian. That's what historians usually do - write about events that happened before they were born. We don't discount the other things he wrote about just because they didn't happen during his lifetime, why make a special exception for this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But his words are an adaptation of someone else's. His value as a historian is questionable as he offers nothing of value from contemporary records, merely repeats the words of another.
[quote]<strong>Yes, that controversy is addressed in the link I provided.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, and that alone is enough to discredit his value.
<strong> [quote]Let's back up here a minute. The New Testament is a single text today but in truth it is a compliation of texts by a number of different authors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter. It's a collection of texts from authors who also cannot be proven to have existed, and how do you know they were written by those they are credited to?
Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources.
<strong>I am not well enough studied in bilical history to make a good go at the truth of the matter but with this guy seemingly batting 0 I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, he seems to have an agenda that the facts are not backing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>So, like, he must have been making it all up? Come on, Noah, that's not an answer. This is an internationally published book - ten years' research, one author a PHD. You can't just make stuff up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait a minute... NoahJ, are you questioning the value of a text because some of it seems improbable, and none of it can be adequately proven?
So Noah's true colours are showing again. Anything he doesn't agree with "blasphemous" Is this 2002 or 1502?
Until you have actually read the book in question, you have no legitimate right to dismiss it out of hand. I'm not saying "The Holy Blood" is necessarily true in its entirety, but it does at least present some evidence.<hr></blockquote>
My "true colors"? Have I ever hidden what I think? If I have then I am sorry. But you sir take it too far. What is the definition of blasphemy?
blasphemous
\\Blas"phe*mous\\, a. [L. blasphemus, Gr. ?.] Speaking or writing blasphemy; uttering or exhibiting anything impiously irreverent; profane; as, a blasphemous person; containing blasphemy; as, a blasphemous book; a blasphemous caricature. ``Blasphemous publications.'' --Porteus.
To say that that Christ lied about being the Son of God and that he would rise again, and that he ascended to Heaven is by definition blasphemous. I have not called for her head or an inquisition. I am merely saying that what she was proposing was by definition blasphemous. It is not just what I believe in or agree with is blasphemous and you should be a bit more careful with your broad brushing it like that.
[quote]Maybe Man has no need of redemption when we die? If the whole concept of Jesus "saving" humankind is bogus, then we don't have a problem. <hr></blockquote>
Hope that you are right, if you are wrong you will have eternity to think about it and no chance to change what has happened. If I am wrong however and you are right what harm has occurred? I am not missing out on anything. You on the other hand may be.
So, like, he must have been making it all up? Come on, Noah, that's not an answer. This is an internationally published book - ten years' research, one author a PHD. You can't just make stuff up.
If you don't have an answer to these allegations, but choose to continue believing that the Bible is the literally inspired word of God anyway, then of course, that's fine. I wouldn't want to knock you for that. But at least be big enough to admit it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I did not say that. I said I put no faith in the assertions he puts forth based on what seems to be a bias. I will agree that I have not read the entire book, but the small passage posted here did not appear to have any solid points in it. And he did not make up the facts, he made up his conclusions, which any researcher will do. The draw their own conclusions and then put forth the facts to back u their conclusions. I however disagree with his conclusions and have put forth my assertions that back up my opinions. Just because one has a PhD does not mean that they know more or less than anyone else, it just means they have put a lot of time and energy into schooling and hopefully came out smarter because of it.
Hope that you are right, if you are wrong you will have eternity to think about it and no chance to change what has happened. If I am wrong however and you are right what harm has occurred? I am not missing out on anything. You on the other hand may be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now that is a perfect example of why I stated that all humans are selfish. When I say selfish, I do not mean like a selfish immature child, I mean primarily concerned with ones own well being.
Your statement says to me that you may believe in God because you fear that there could me more to lose (for ones-self) by not believing.
Wait a minute... NoahJ, are you questioning the value of a text because some of it seems improbable, and none of it can be adequately proven? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I question the value of this portion of his text because in 10 minutes I was able to adequately disprove or cast in doubt all the conclusions he had drawn just by going to the passages in question and reading them. The entire book may be good overall, but this portion was not. Also, the Bible has been researched, studied, nitpicked, quibbled over and in general read for many, many, many more years than this mans book has been around and indeed than this man has been alive and no scholar before him has put enough question in the minds of the people reading it that it is somehow contradictory in the way he is stating. Sorry, not the same thing as you are trying to point me to.
Now that is a perfect example of why I stated that all humans are selfish. When I say selfish, I do not mean like a selfish immature child, I mean primarily concerned with ones own well being.
Your statement says to me that you may believe in God because you fear that there could me more to lose (for ones-self) by not believing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, but thank you for playing. I was answering his assertion specifically. In answer to his question my post was made, but that is not the only reason why I believe in God.
However, that does not mean that I am not selfish, or that people are not selfish.
Nope, but thank you for playing. I was answering his assertion specifically. In answer to his question my post was made, but that is not the only reason why I believe in God.
However, that does not mean that I am not selfish, or that people are not selfish. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Im sure it wasn't the only reason, care to tell me your other reasons for believing?
But his words are an adaptation of someone else's. His value as a historian is questionable as he offers nothing of value from contemporary records, merely repeats the words of another.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think the problem stems from the way others adapted his words.
[quote]<strong>Doesn't matter. It's a collection of texts from authors who also cannot be proven to have existed, and how do you know they were written by those they are credited to?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, so nobody existed?
[quote]<strong>Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You simply do not know that. There is a theory about a so-called "Q" document that perhaps served as a primary source for the synoptic Gospels. If there was a "Q" document, that would certainly push the antiquity of the story back even farther. But that still doesn't explain the rest of the New Testament.
Im sure it wasn't the only reason, care to tell me your other reasons for believing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now that is a loaded question isn't it. There are many reasons. The main reason is that I have experienced the reality of God in how my life has been blessed and changed by following him. Just believing to believe is one thing, but I do so for more personal reasons than that.
A complete absence of evidence gives infinite scope for possibilities.
An abundance of evidence gives proof within our knowledge.
A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?
</strong><hr></blockquote>Hmm, maybe it's just me, but it still sounds an awful lot like you're saying affirmatively that Jesus didn't exist, rather than simply saying you don't believe because it hasn't yet been conclusively proven to you.
The former would require some proof on its own, like a document revealing that it was all made up. The latter would require just an absence of conclusive evidence.
If you're saying the latter, fine. If the former, we'll have to have some words. [edit: And by now I've already forgotten which was the former and which the latter.]
Also, you're taking a kind of Aristotlean either/or approach to belief. But don't you ever take a Bayesian approach, where you would have some degree of belief in something, that would change a little with new evidence one way or the other? (I'm completely making up these terms as I go along, BTW.)
I would place my belief that Jesus existed maybe at 95%. By reading some of these discussions, my belief has dropped, because I wasn't aware of some of the controversy. But I doubt there's anything at all that I believe or disbelieve with 100% certainty.
<strong>I question the value of this portion of his text because in 10 minutes I was able to adequately disprove or cast in doubt all the conclusions he had drawn just by going to the passages in question and reading them. The entire book may be good overall, but this portion was not. Also, the Bible has been researched, studied, nitpicked, quibbled over and in general read for many, many, many more years than this mans book has been around and indeed than this man has been alive and no scholar before him has put enough question in the minds of the people reading it that it is somehow contradictory in the way he is stating. Sorry, not the same thing as you are trying to point me to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You shouldn't really have answered. It was a cheap shot born of frustration - I'm using CPAN to install a bunch of modules, and it's driving me to distraction.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Actually, I think the problem stems from the way others adapted his words.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. His words before translation bear a remarkable resemblance to other texts.
And the point is moot - would you really trust a historian that provided word as fact without contemporary evidence?
[quote]<strong>Okay, so nobody existed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's right, we're all just a figment of the imagination of a small snapping turtle living in a puddle on the dark side of X-265.
Clearly many characters in the bible probably existed - at least we have contemporary evidence to suggest that's so. For example, there seems to be a reference to Solomon in Egyptian records.
What's your take on Genesis? Is it an allegory? If it is, what's to say that much of the rest of the bible isn't?
[quote]<strong>You simply do not know that. There is a theory about a so-called "Q" document that perhaps served as a primary source for the synoptic Gospels. If there was a "Q" document, that would certainly push the antiquity of the story back even farther. But that still doesn't explain the rest of the New Testament.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, it's all about a sphere of knowledge. You aren't seriously using the possible existence of the Q document as a defense? There's no proof it ever existed, so it's hardly valid evidence.
Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place.
<strong>Hmm, maybe it's just me, but it still sounds an awful lot like you're saying affirmatively that Jesus didn't exist, rather than simply saying you don't believe because it hasn't yet been conclusively proven to you.
The former would require some proof on its own, like a document revealing that it was all made up. The latter would require just an absence of conclusive evidence.
If you're saying the latter, fine. If the former, we'll have to have some words. [edit: And by now I've already forgotten which was the former and which the latter.]
Also, you're taking a kind of Aristotlean either/or approach to belief. But don't you ever take a Bayesian approach, where you would have some degree of belief in something, that would change a little with new evidence one way or the other? (I'm completely making up these terms as I go along, BTW.)
I would place my belief that Jesus existed maybe at 95%. By reading some of these discussions, my belief has dropped, because I wasn't aware of some of the controversy. But I doubt there's anything at all that I believe or disbelieve with 100% certainty.
Heh, yes I have got a sliding scale, and if my language suggests otherwise then I apologize.
The degree of belief is tied to the degree of satisfactory evidence supporting the fact.
For me, there just isn't enough evidence that Jesus existed, and the degree of belief I have in many aspects of the bible (Genesis, miracles, etc.) throws into question the validity of the texts as a whole.
Like I said, it's all about a sphere of knowledge. You aren't seriously using the possible existence of the Q document as a defense? There's no proof it ever existed, so it's hardly valid evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not a defense. You wrote about limited sources. I was speculating about what you meant.
[quote]<strong>Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean? There are plenty of events that can be confirmed. For example: we know when the Emporer Tiberius reigned and so we know when Jesus was crucified.
<strong>What do you mean? There are plenty of events that can be confirmed. For example: we know when the Emporer Tiberius reigned and so we know when Jesus was crucified.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That information still isn't contemporary. The first evidence of the existence of Jesus is dated to the late first century.
There is no information dated to the time these events are supposed to have occurred.
We have some contemporary information about Tiberius, enough to give us a good guess at when he lived. None of it can tie him to the events of the testaments, only the testaments themselves.
If you had Roman records of Tiberius' reign that mentioned Jesus, then you'd have some evidence.
Poor Noah is once again fighting against impossible odds. Oh well, he's quite good at it
Maybe Man has no need of redemption when we die? If the whole concept of Jesus "saving" humankind is bogus, then we don't have a problem.
I cant remember who said this, and its not an actual quote, but...
If given the choice between beleiving in God and not beleiving in God, make sure that you do. If you do and your wrong, then it doesnt matter, but if you dont and your wrong then your damned eternally to hell.
Where are all the Zen Buddhists, the Jainists, devotees of the White Goddess, the Neopagans, the Sufists, the Qabbalists?
Off living lives away from their computers
I know though eh? I always thought that thered be a wealth of religion here. Oh well, it actually makes me happy that there isnt because then theres no way that AI could be representative of the general thoughts of the US populace
Oh and dont forget the voodooites, Satanists (damn rebillious christians!), and most of all Jedi Knights
That information still isn't contemporary. The first evidence of the existence of Jesus is dated to the late first century.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's some dispute about that. I've read (somewhere, I don't remember where - not online) that the first New Testament books can be dated to sometime around 60 A.D. which would put them within 30 years of Jesus' death (approx. 35 A.D.). Do you think a broad outline (which is all the Bible gives us about Christ) of Martin Luther King's life written today would be reasonably accurate? There are people alive you could consult. And there are enough people to cross check the stories. Or, accepting your date, how about Sun Yat-sen's story? Also, it's important to remember that 1st century people didn't rely on the written word to the same extent we do today. They may not have started writing things down until they began to feel a need.
I believe Mark may be the first New Testament book. It is the first Gospel that was written. I know you want to just set aside the NT because well, just because, but these are precisely the kind of documents that one might expect to find if you were interested in the story of a carpenter from Galilee. As a consequence of his life, a Jewish cult arose that took as it's symbol a tool of execution. This was also a time of tremendous persecution in Judea culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Out of this emerges the NT. I don't know why you'd expect more documentation than we have. And why the NT texts should be excluded from consideration seems more than a little arbitrary. The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text. The problem has always been an over-abundance of documents. That's where the argument over the canon comes in. I just don't know how you can believe that there is more textual evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar than there is for the NT. Or that the textual evidence is limited.
<strong>There's some dispute about that. I've read (somewhere, I don't remember where - not online) that the first New Testament books can be dated to sometime around 60 A.D. which would put them within 30 years of Jesus' death (approx. 35 A.D.).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read the same, but it still doesn't help. Any historian will tell you that you need contemporary evidence. Are you getting as fed up with those words - and "corroboratory" - as I am?
[quote]<strong>Do you think a broad outline (which is all the Bible gives us about Christ) of Martin Luther King's life written today would be reasonably accurate? There are people alive you could consult. And there are enough people to cross check the stories. Or, accepting your date, how about Sun Yat-sen's story?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A broad outline of the life of Martin Luther King would be just great for a high school paper. It would probably be very accurate, because it would be based on material written by others which would cite contemporary evidence. Try writing a history book about Martin Luther King without providing that evidence and see if you're taken seriously.
Same goes for Sun Yat-sen. There's a great deal of information about Sun Yat-sen that's been gleaned from Chinese state records. The Romans were incredibly fastidious in keeping records, and yet no contemporary evidence can be found, despite these apparently remarkable events occurring under their rule in Judea.
<strong> [quote]Also, it's important to remember that 1st century people didn't rely on the written word to the same extent we do today. They may not have started writing things down until they began to feel a need.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians kept incredibly detailed records of events.
<strong> [quote]I believe Mark may be the first New Testament book. It is the first Gospel that was written. I know you want to just set aside the NT because well, just because, but these are precisely the kind of documents that one might expect to find if you were interested in the story of a carpenter from Galilee. As a consequence of his life, a Jewish cult arose that took as it's symbol a tool of execution. This was also a time of tremendous persecution in Judea culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Out of this emerges the NT. I don't know why you'd expect more documentation than we have. And why the NT texts should be excluded from consideration seems more than a little arbitrary. The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text. The problem has always been an over-abundance of documents. That's where the argument over the canon comes in. I just don't know how you can believe that there is more textual evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar than there is for the NT. Or that the textual evidence is limited.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are your sources for this potted history? I've not said the New Testament should be excluded from consideration, just that their value as historical records is very questionable.
The over-abundance of texts to support biblical events was mostly generated centuries after the events, and from very, very limited source material.
We're still digging contemporary stuff out the ground with Caesar's name upon it.
Can you point me towards some of the non-biblical texts and archeological finds supporting the events of the New Testament?
Poor Noah is once again fighting against impossible odds. Oh well, he's quite good at it <hr></blockquote>
Just having a bit of fun and sharing my beliefs at the same time. Glad you are getting some enjoyment out of it.
[quote]I cant remember who said this, and its not an actual quote, but...
If given the choice between beleiving in God and not beleiving in God, make sure that you do. If you do and your wrong, then it doesnt matter, but if you dont and your wrong then your damned eternally to hell.<hr></blockquote>
"Pascal's wager" says that to believe in God is the best bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell. If you don't believe in God, you might lose all this. If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose. So it's better to believe in God than not to.
Comments
<strong>Yes, he was a historian. That's what historians usually do - write about events that happened before they were born. We don't discount the other things he wrote about just because they didn't happen during his lifetime, why make a special exception for this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
But his words are an adaptation of someone else's. His value as a historian is questionable as he offers nothing of value from contemporary records, merely repeats the words of another.
[quote]<strong>Yes, that controversy is addressed in the link I provided.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yup, and that alone is enough to discredit his value.
<strong> [quote]Let's back up here a minute. The New Testament is a single text today but in truth it is a compliation of texts by a number of different authors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't matter. It's a collection of texts from authors who also cannot be proven to have existed, and how do you know they were written by those they are credited to?
Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources.
<strong>I am not well enough studied in bilical history to make a good go at the truth of the matter but with this guy seemingly batting 0 I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, he seems to have an agenda that the facts are not backing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>So, like, he must have been making it all up? Come on, Noah, that's not an answer. This is an internationally published book - ten years' research, one author a PHD. You can't just make stuff up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wait a minute... NoahJ, are you questioning the value of a text because some of it seems improbable, and none of it can be adequately proven?
So Noah's true colours are showing again. Anything he doesn't agree with "blasphemous" Is this 2002 or 1502?
Until you have actually read the book in question, you have no legitimate right to dismiss it out of hand. I'm not saying "The Holy Blood" is necessarily true in its entirety, but it does at least present some evidence.<hr></blockquote>
My "true colors"? Have I ever hidden what I think? If I have then I am sorry. But you sir take it too far. What is the definition of blasphemy?
blasphemous
\\Blas"phe*mous\\, a. [L. blasphemus, Gr. ?.] Speaking or writing blasphemy; uttering or exhibiting anything impiously irreverent; profane; as, a blasphemous person; containing blasphemy; as, a blasphemous book; a blasphemous caricature. ``Blasphemous publications.'' --Porteus.
To say that that Christ lied about being the Son of God and that he would rise again, and that he ascended to Heaven is by definition blasphemous. I have not called for her head or an inquisition. I am merely saying that what she was proposing was by definition blasphemous. It is not just what I believe in or agree with is blasphemous and you should be a bit more careful with your broad brushing it like that.
[quote]Maybe Man has no need of redemption when we die? If the whole concept of Jesus "saving" humankind is bogus, then we don't have a problem.
Hope that you are right, if you are wrong you will have eternity to think about it and no chance to change what has happened. If I am wrong however and you are right what harm has occurred? I am not missing out on anything. You on the other hand may be.
<strong>
So, like, he must have been making it all up? Come on, Noah, that's not an answer. This is an internationally published book - ten years' research, one author a PHD. You can't just make stuff up.
If you don't have an answer to these allegations, but choose to continue believing that the Bible is the literally inspired word of God anyway, then of course, that's fine. I wouldn't want to knock you for that. But at least be big enough to admit it.
I did not say that. I said I put no faith in the assertions he puts forth based on what seems to be a bias. I will agree that I have not read the entire book, but the small passage posted here did not appear to have any solid points in it. And he did not make up the facts, he made up his conclusions, which any researcher will do. The draw their own conclusions and then put forth the facts to back u their conclusions. I however disagree with his conclusions and have put forth my assertions that back up my opinions. Just because one has a PhD does not mean that they know more or less than anyone else, it just means they have put a lot of time and energy into schooling and hopefully came out smarter because of it.
And you were right about the Greek it seems. Look <a href="http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm"; target="_blank">Here</a> For more on that part. A quite interesting and long read.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>
Hope that you are right, if you are wrong you will have eternity to think about it and no chance to change what has happened. If I am wrong however and you are right what harm has occurred? I am not missing out on anything. You on the other hand may be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now that is a perfect example of why I stated that all humans are selfish. When I say selfish, I do not mean like a selfish immature child, I mean primarily concerned with ones own well being.
Your statement says to me that you may believe in God because you fear that there could me more to lose (for ones-self) by not believing.
<strong>
Wait a minute... NoahJ, are you questioning the value of a text because some of it seems improbable, and none of it can be adequately proven?
I question the value of this portion of his text because in 10 minutes I was able to adequately disprove or cast in doubt all the conclusions he had drawn just by going to the passages in question and reading them. The entire book may be good overall, but this portion was not. Also, the Bible has been researched, studied, nitpicked, quibbled over and in general read for many, many, many more years than this mans book has been around and indeed than this man has been alive and no scholar before him has put enough question in the minds of the people reading it that it is somehow contradictory in the way he is stating. Sorry, not the same thing as you are trying to point me to.
<strong>
Now that is a perfect example of why I stated that all humans are selfish. When I say selfish, I do not mean like a selfish immature child, I mean primarily concerned with ones own well being.
Your statement says to me that you may believe in God because you fear that there could me more to lose (for ones-self) by not believing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, but thank you for playing. I was answering his assertion specifically. In answer to his question my post was made, but that is not the only reason why I believe in God.
However, that does not mean that I am not selfish, or that people are not selfish.
<strong>
Nope, but thank you for playing. I was answering his assertion specifically. In answer to his question my post was made, but that is not the only reason why I believe in God.
However, that does not mean that I am not selfish, or that people are not selfish.
Im sure it wasn't the only reason, care to tell me your other reasons for believing?
<strong>
But his words are an adaptation of someone else's. His value as a historian is questionable as he offers nothing of value from contemporary records, merely repeats the words of another.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I think the problem stems from the way others adapted his words.
[quote]<strong>Doesn't matter. It's a collection of texts from authors who also cannot be proven to have existed, and how do you know they were written by those they are credited to?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, so nobody existed?
[quote]<strong>Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You simply do not know that. There is a theory about a so-called "Q" document that perhaps served as a primary source for the synoptic Gospels. If there was a "Q" document, that would certainly push the antiquity of the story back even farther. But that still doesn't explain the rest of the New Testament.
<strong>
Im sure it wasn't the only reason, care to tell me your other reasons for believing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now that is a loaded question isn't it. There are many reasons. The main reason is that I have experienced the reality of God in how my life has been blessed and changed by following him. Just believing to believe is one thing, but I do so for more personal reasons than that.
<strong>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BRussell:
Wait a sec. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right? (Who is it that said that?) Or do you know of some evidence that he didn't exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Read my other posts.
A complete absence of evidence gives infinite scope for possibilities.
An abundance of evidence gives proof within our knowledge.
A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?
</strong><hr></blockquote>Hmm, maybe it's just me, but it still sounds an awful lot like you're saying affirmatively that Jesus didn't exist, rather than simply saying you don't believe because it hasn't yet been conclusively proven to you.
The former would require some proof on its own, like a document revealing that it was all made up. The latter would require just an absence of conclusive evidence.
If you're saying the latter, fine. If the former, we'll have to have some words. [edit: And by now I've already forgotten which was the former and which the latter.]
Also, you're taking a kind of Aristotlean either/or approach to belief. But don't you ever take a Bayesian approach, where you would have some degree of belief in something, that would change a little with new evidence one way or the other? (I'm completely making up these terms as I go along, BTW.)
I would place my belief that Jesus existed maybe at 95%. By reading some of these discussions, my belief has dropped, because I wasn't aware of some of the controversy. But I doubt there's anything at all that I believe or disbelieve with 100% certainty.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>I question the value of this portion of his text because in 10 minutes I was able to adequately disprove or cast in doubt all the conclusions he had drawn just by going to the passages in question and reading them. The entire book may be good overall, but this portion was not. Also, the Bible has been researched, studied, nitpicked, quibbled over and in general read for many, many, many more years than this mans book has been around and indeed than this man has been alive and no scholar before him has put enough question in the minds of the people reading it that it is somehow contradictory in the way he is stating. Sorry, not the same thing as you are trying to point me to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You shouldn't really have answered. It was a cheap shot born of frustration - I'm using CPAN to install a bunch of modules, and it's driving me to distraction.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>Actually, I think the problem stems from the way others adapted his words.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. His words before translation bear a remarkable resemblance to other texts.
And the point is moot - would you really trust a historian that provided word as fact without contemporary evidence?
[quote]<strong>Okay, so nobody existed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's right, we're all just a figment of the imagination of a small snapping turtle living in a puddle on the dark side of X-265.
Clearly many characters in the bible probably existed - at least we have contemporary evidence to suggest that's so. For example, there seems to be a reference to Solomon in Egyptian records.
What's your take on Genesis? Is it an allegory? If it is, what's to say that much of the rest of the bible isn't?
[quote]<strong>You simply do not know that. There is a theory about a so-called "Q" document that perhaps served as a primary source for the synoptic Gospels. If there was a "Q" document, that would certainly push the antiquity of the story back even farther. But that still doesn't explain the rest of the New Testament.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, it's all about a sphere of knowledge. You aren't seriously using the possible existence of the Q document as a defense? There's no proof it ever existed, so it's hardly valid evidence.
Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place.
<strong>Hmm, maybe it's just me, but it still sounds an awful lot like you're saying affirmatively that Jesus didn't exist, rather than simply saying you don't believe because it hasn't yet been conclusively proven to you.
The former would require some proof on its own, like a document revealing that it was all made up. The latter would require just an absence of conclusive evidence.
If you're saying the latter, fine. If the former, we'll have to have some words. [edit: And by now I've already forgotten which was the former and which the latter.]
Also, you're taking a kind of Aristotlean either/or approach to belief. But don't you ever take a Bayesian approach, where you would have some degree of belief in something, that would change a little with new evidence one way or the other? (I'm completely making up these terms as I go along, BTW.)
I would place my belief that Jesus existed maybe at 95%. By reading some of these discussions, my belief has dropped, because I wasn't aware of some of the controversy. But I doubt there's anything at all that I believe or disbelieve with 100% certainty.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, yes I have got a sliding scale, and if my language suggests otherwise then I apologize.
The degree of belief is tied to the degree of satisfactory evidence supporting the fact.
For me, there just isn't enough evidence that Jesus existed, and the degree of belief I have in many aspects of the bible (Genesis, miracles, etc.) throws into question the validity of the texts as a whole.
<strong>
Like I said, it's all about a sphere of knowledge. You aren't seriously using the possible existence of the Q document as a defense? There's no proof it ever existed, so it's hardly valid evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not a defense. You wrote about limited sources. I was speculating about what you meant.
[quote]<strong>Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean? There are plenty of events that can be confirmed. For example: we know when the Emporer Tiberius reigned and so we know when Jesus was crucified.
<strong>What do you mean? There are plenty of events that can be confirmed. For example: we know when the Emporer Tiberius reigned and so we know when Jesus was crucified.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That information still isn't contemporary. The first evidence of the existence of Jesus is dated to the late first century.
There is no information dated to the time these events are supposed to have occurred.
We have some contemporary information about Tiberius, enough to give us a good guess at when he lived. None of it can tie him to the events of the testaments, only the testaments themselves.
If you had Roman records of Tiberius' reign that mentioned Jesus, then you'd have some evidence.
Maybe Man has no need of redemption when we die? If the whole concept of Jesus "saving" humankind is bogus, then we don't have a problem.
I cant remember who said this, and its not an actual quote, but...
If given the choice between beleiving in God and not beleiving in God, make sure that you do. If you do and your wrong, then it doesnt matter, but if you dont and your wrong then your damned eternally to hell.
Where are all the Zen Buddhists, the Jainists, devotees of the White Goddess, the Neopagans, the Sufists, the Qabbalists?
Off living lives away from their computers
I know though eh? I always thought that thered be a wealth of religion here. Oh well, it actually makes me happy that there isnt because then theres no way that AI could be representative of the general thoughts of the US populace
Oh and dont forget the voodooites, Satanists (damn rebillious christians!), and most of all Jedi Knights
<strong>
That information still isn't contemporary. The first evidence of the existence of Jesus is dated to the late first century.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's some dispute about that. I've read (somewhere, I don't remember where - not online) that the first New Testament books can be dated to sometime around 60 A.D. which would put them within 30 years of Jesus' death (approx. 35 A.D.). Do you think a broad outline (which is all the Bible gives us about Christ) of Martin Luther King's life written today would be reasonably accurate? There are people alive you could consult. And there are enough people to cross check the stories. Or, accepting your date, how about Sun Yat-sen's story? Also, it's important to remember that 1st century people didn't rely on the written word to the same extent we do today. They may not have started writing things down until they began to feel a need.
I believe Mark may be the first New Testament book. It is the first Gospel that was written. I know you want to just set aside the NT because well, just because, but these are precisely the kind of documents that one might expect to find if you were interested in the story of a carpenter from Galilee. As a consequence of his life, a Jewish cult arose that took as it's symbol a tool of execution. This was also a time of tremendous persecution in Judea culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Out of this emerges the NT. I don't know why you'd expect more documentation than we have. And why the NT texts should be excluded from consideration seems more than a little arbitrary. The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text. The problem has always been an over-abundance of documents. That's where the argument over the canon comes in. I just don't know how you can believe that there is more textual evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar than there is for the NT. Or that the textual evidence is limited.
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>There's some dispute about that. I've read (somewhere, I don't remember where - not online) that the first New Testament books can be dated to sometime around 60 A.D. which would put them within 30 years of Jesus' death (approx. 35 A.D.).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read the same, but it still doesn't help. Any historian will tell you that you need contemporary evidence. Are you getting as fed up with those words - and "corroboratory" - as I am?
[quote]<strong>Do you think a broad outline (which is all the Bible gives us about Christ) of Martin Luther King's life written today would be reasonably accurate? There are people alive you could consult. And there are enough people to cross check the stories. Or, accepting your date, how about Sun Yat-sen's story?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A broad outline of the life of Martin Luther King would be just great for a high school paper. It would probably be very accurate, because it would be based on material written by others which would cite contemporary evidence. Try writing a history book about Martin Luther King without providing that evidence and see if you're taken seriously.
Same goes for Sun Yat-sen. There's a great deal of information about Sun Yat-sen that's been gleaned from Chinese state records. The Romans were incredibly fastidious in keeping records, and yet no contemporary evidence can be found, despite these apparently remarkable events occurring under their rule in Judea.
<strong> [quote]Also, it's important to remember that 1st century people didn't rely on the written word to the same extent we do today. They may not have started writing things down until they began to feel a need.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. The Romans, Greeks and Egyptians kept incredibly detailed records of events.
<strong> [quote]I believe Mark may be the first New Testament book. It is the first Gospel that was written. I know you want to just set aside the NT because well, just because, but these are precisely the kind of documents that one might expect to find if you were interested in the story of a carpenter from Galilee. As a consequence of his life, a Jewish cult arose that took as it's symbol a tool of execution. This was also a time of tremendous persecution in Judea culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Out of this emerges the NT. I don't know why you'd expect more documentation than we have. And why the NT texts should be excluded from consideration seems more than a little arbitrary. The NT has an enormous amount of textual and archeological data supporting it. Because of this, it is probable that we have not lost any of the original text. The problem has always been an over-abundance of documents. That's where the argument over the canon comes in. I just don't know how you can believe that there is more textual evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar than there is for the NT. Or that the textual evidence is limited.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are your sources for this potted history? I've not said the New Testament should be excluded from consideration, just that their value as historical records is very questionable.
The over-abundance of texts to support biblical events was mostly generated centuries after the events, and from very, very limited source material.
We're still digging contemporary stuff out the ground with Caesar's name upon it.
Can you point me towards some of the non-biblical texts and archeological finds supporting the events of the New Testament?
[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Poor Noah is once again fighting against impossible odds. Oh well, he's quite good at it
Just having a bit of fun and sharing my beliefs at the same time. Glad you are getting some enjoyment out of it.
[quote]I cant remember who said this, and its not an actual quote, but...
If given the choice between beleiving in God and not beleiving in God, make sure that you do. If you do and your wrong, then it doesnt matter, but if you dont and your wrong then your damned eternally to hell.<hr></blockquote>
"Pascal's wager" says that to believe in God is the best bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell. If you don't believe in God, you might lose all this. If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose. So it's better to believe in God than not to.