NationStates Jolt Archive

no more posts! please, it's been finished, there's not enough words in the English language.

Latine ?

And, yet...

I like the posts on what would qualify as positive and negative evidence. That's the struggle with stories that are this old. How could any possibly conclusively evidence them either way? There is pretty good evidence in both directions considering the age of the story, but I don't think we'll ever get more sure than we are now without a time machine.

Conclusive proof of Jesus' historical existence would end the debate. I don't think it would be possible to prove the negative.

oh my

thats more yet than most threads ever go. i dont have much else to say about the subject.

this is brutal.

maybe if we started posting in dutch....

Sacré bleu! Mais naturellement il y avait un homme qui s'appellait Jésus: c'est dans les livres de M. Josephus et M. Tacitus. Si on doute qu'il y ait assez d'evidence pour nous convaincre de l'existence de Jésus, on devra douter l'existence de M. Alexandre et M. Caesar aussi!




























I sincerely apologise to any native French speakers for the above post. :p

probably

Conclusive proof of Jesus' historical existence would end the debate. I don't think it would be possible to prove the negative.

What about the discovery of St. Paul's Third Epistle to the Corinthians?

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,

To the suckers of the church of God in Corinth, Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ...

I really had you going there didn't I? God, you fell for that hook, line and sinker. You're nearly as gullible as that Thessalonian mob... etc.

:)

*raises hand*

Ooo!!

Um, becuase Paul was a lying bastard, who made whole fraggin thing up, as a way of sponging off the newly forming Church?

Well, Lucian of Samosata did write:

"It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue—he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his favorite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,—but without success. Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. Orphans and ancient widows might be seen hanging about the prison from break of day. Their officials bribed the jailers to let them sleep inside with him. Elegant dinners were conveyed in; their sacred writings were read; and our old friend Peregrinus (as he was still called in those days) became for them 'the modern Socrates.' In some of the Asiatic cities, too, the Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance, and legal advice. The activity of these people, in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense. Peregrinus, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. Now an adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon made; he plays with them.

Sacré bleu! Mais naturellement il y avait un homme qui s'appellait Jésus: c'est dans les livres de M. Josephus et M. Tacitus. Si on doute qu'il y ait assez d'evidence pour nous convaincre de l'existence de Jésus, on devra douter l'existence de M. Alexandre et M. Caesar aussi!


le lol!

Conclusive proof of Jesus' historical existence would end the debate. I don't think it would be possible to prove the negative.

It's absolutely possible. Non-existence can be evidenced as well. You have to show what evidence should be there if said thing exists and show there is no reasonable explanation for the lack of said evidence. For example, let's say you say there is an invisible horse in the room, normal in every other way. I simply check for a heat signature, and I've proven it doesn't exist. The thing about existence AND non-existence is that they both must be very specifically defined for the discussion, which is something we've talked about.

For example, I can prove that Mark Twain didn't exist.

Well, Lucian of Samosata did write:

nice quote!

so it wasnt profitable enough for him to continue with the christians or he felt too threatened by the authorities?

This thread is like a US bureaucracy. Once created, it creates its own momentum and can never be stopped.Would repeated mentions of free government cheese stop it? Even cutting off this threads funding wouldnt work. Garlic? Sunlight? Kryptonite? Wooden Stake thru the heart? Mormons? The Apocolypse? Any suggestions?

It's absolutely possible. Non-existence can be evidenced as well. You have to show what evidence should be there if said thing exists and show there is no reasonable explanation for the lack of said evidence. For example, let's say you say there is an invisible horse in the room, normal in every other way. I simply check for a heat signature, and I've proven it doesn't exist. The thing about existence AND non-existence is that they both must be very specifically defined for the discussion, which is something we've talked about.

For example, I can prove that Mark Twain didn't exist.

we might be able to find a negative proof that would satisfy US or secular historians.

i think it would be impossible to find proof of the non-existence of jesus that would ever satify the various established churches or the true believers.

This thread is like a US bureaucracy. Once created, it creates its own momentum and can never be stopped.Would repeated mentions of free government cheese stop it? Even cutting off this threads funding wouldnt work. Garlic? Sunlight? Kryptonite? Wooden Stake thru the heart? Mormons? The Apocolypse? Any suggestions?

i already explained it to you.

i understand not reading fromthe beginning of the thread but cant you read from the last time you posted today?

yes

and its interesting that in the early years of christianity people felt at ease with making up whatever version of jesus they felt best represented their take on the situation.

was that wrong of them? how would we ever know that the final version decided on by the council at nicaea was the right one? maybe it was just the most powerful faction but had the wrong stories.

We know that the council at Nicaea was basically the strongest faction... they had Constantine behind them, and they basically excluded anyone from the decision-making process that didn't already agree with their pre-established protocol.

Did they pick the right stories? Hard to say. They picked the ones they thought agreed most with one another, and with their chosen perspective...but it's hard to now how many scriptures were refused and now lost... or how 'accurate' the ones they chose really are.

As you point out - it's not like their was a 'unity' from the get-go - even the scripture we have devotes time to telling people not to be split by schisms, and feels the need to reinforce one version of the story. All of which is strong suggestion that there were a fair number of relatively potent sects operating fairly quickly.

But, there's another good point there... despite divine inspiration, the 'gift' of discernment, the everlasting intercessor, and an apparently active inner circle of followers... still, somehow, there are a considerable variety of texts...

are the words of acts the testimony of paul? they arent supposed to be are they? only what he wrote in his own letters should count (not that i would remember what he might have written)


The traditional view is that Paul's companion, Luke, wrote the Acts. That would suggest that either Paul isn't very good at dictating... or Luke isn't very good at listening.

Or... it wasn't written by Luke. Or... it never happened...


why should the stories of the vision and conversion of paul be more consistent than the gospels are?

none of which matters to me. im thinking that the stories of paul arent particularly accurate anyway. there are just as many problems with the details of pauls life as there are with jesus' life. the difference being that pauls' stories didnt steal from the god-man myths of other religions.

the biblical writers were very convinced by visions. not just paul's but the visitation of the holy spirit on the apostles at pentacost. peter was convinced that it was OK to preach to the gentiles because he saw that they were also being visited by the holy spirit.

paul could have made it all up but i really dont see WHY he would bother to wedge himself into a new religion that brought its believers nothing but trouble.

Christianity doesn't really seem to have brought 'nothing but trouble' to it's early adherents. There may have been instances, but in general, I think the suggestion is that they gained much more than they lost.

Paul might have wanted in on that.

This thread is like a US bureaucracy. Once created, it creates its own momentum and can never be stopped.Would repeated mentions of free government cheese stop it? Even cutting off this threads funding wouldnt work. Garlic? Sunlight? Kryptonite? Wooden Stake thru the heart? Mormons? The Apocolypse? Any suggestions?

If you have nothing to add, feel free to not add.

But... why so frustrated that others still have something to say?

Do you think any of them believed? When did the mythology take over and become the truth?

I think that for many people, wanting something very much to be true, eventually does.

King Arthur and his Knights didnt really exist, or, didnt exist as he appears in "Le Mort de Artur", yet the legend persists. The same of Robinhood, and so forth.

I wouldnt even go so far as to say none of the original collaborators on the Christian faith believed in what they were doing. They may have had good intentions, or thought they could actually do some good.
Who can say?

I do know, that most times, religions get started for money, and political power, and keeping the unwashed yokels in line.

I think that for many people, wanting something very much to be true, eventually does.

King Arthur and his Knights didnt really exist, or, didnt exist as he appears in "Le Mort de Artur", yet the legend persists. The same of Robinhood, and so forth.

I wouldnt even go so far as to say none of the original collaborators on the Christian faith believed in what they were doing. They may have had good intentions, or thought they could actually do some good.
Who can say?

I do know, that most times, religions get started for money, and political power, and keeping the unwashed yokels in line.

Well, people do just buy into good ideas, too. And, at first, I'm sure Christianity looked like a good idea. In it's purest form, it probably still is.

nice quote!

so it wasnt profitable enough for him to continue with the christians or he felt too threatened by the authorities?

Lucian isn't terribly clear. He was released from prison but wasn't welcome in his hometown so he went travelling, using his followers to cover his expenses. Lucian says that he did something to offend them (he isn't clear what, and doesn't seem to know himself, although he suggests that Peregrinus ate something which was forbidden by his followers' interpretation of Christianity).

There's a translation here (http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Peregrinus.html) but I don't know how good it is. The funniest part comes after Peregrinus' death, but I won't spoil it. It's worth noting that Lucian was a satirist, so his account isn't necessarily true, although it's probably based around a true story (now where have we heard that before? :p).

Well, people do just buy into good ideas, too. And, at first, I'm sure Christianity looked like a good idea. In it's purest form, it probably still is.

ya but what IS the purest form of christianity?

be nice to each other?

god loves you?

everyone has a chance for a good life in heaven?

I think that for many people, wanting something very much to be true, eventually does.

King Arthur and his Knights didnt really exist, or, didnt exist as he appears in "Le Mort de Artur", yet the legend persists. The same of Robinhood, and so forth.

I wouldnt even go so far as to say none of the original collaborators on the Christian faith believed in what they were doing. They may have had good intentions, or thought they could actually do some good.
Who can say?

I do know, that most times, religions get started for money, and political power, and keeping the unwashed yokels in line.

Amen to that.

I for one, welcome our new Jesus Overlord.

o.9

:D

What about resemblance to persons undead? :p

Guys im guessing that if 217 pages of posts didnt answer this question, nothing will. Can we please nail this thread to a cross and all pray that it doesnt return in three days?
*nods emphatically*
Baldy might attest that we've already copiously covered that nasty thrashy that Gibson expanded upon so throroughly.

On the other hand, it's not particularly good evidence that they *did* happen.

So - where is that line? What would be the smoking gun that would 'prove' the stories true? And what the silver bullet that would finally put the stories to rest?

I know. I'm just saying that what evidence we have (including the Scriptural account) still isn't enough to prove negative existence since there still is a believeable story that can be concoted and hasn't been demonstrably refuted.

so what WOULD be enough? at least enough to get secular historians to agree that jesus was not a real person in any meaningful way.

theologians and true believers wouldnt believe it if they found jesus' last will and testament willing his book of "how to dupe people into believing you are god" to his grandson.

Probably...the fundamentalists I'm not concerned about, since they won't believe anything anyway (see: "Creationism").

Conclusive proof of Jesus' historical existence would end the debate. I don't think it would be possible to prove the negative.

It is possible to prove non-existence: we know the Simpsons don't exist because we know who created the Simpsons (Matt Groening) and he said they're not real. Something similar- if ever found- could be applied to the New Testament stories.

ya but what IS the purest form of christianity?Complete submission under the Jewish god and/through adhering to Jesus.

ya but what IS the purest form of christianity?

be nice to each other?

god loves you?

everyone has a chance for a good life in heaven?

Personally, I'd say the 'purest' form of christianity would be that which most closely resembles the SPIRIT of the 'red text'. (Whether or not it is 'true', I think, is probably irrelevent).

That comes down to love, mainly - and looking out for each other.

It is possible to prove non-existence: we know the Simpsons don't exist because we know who created the Simpsons (Matt Groening) and he said they're not real. Something similar- if ever found- could be applied to the New Testament stories.

He could have been lying to protect his sources...

This current thrust is pathetic. We're only growing at like 5 posts a day.

You're correct GnI, you could say that he's lying, but we're talking about reasonable doubt, not 100% proved.

And why can't we find anyone to claim and defend that it mattered? How unfortunate.

It is possible to prove non-existence: we know the Simpsons don't exist because we know who created the Simpsons (Matt Groening) and he said they're not real. Something similar- if ever found- could be applied to the New Testament stories.

Then we would need a piece of text written by each of the authors of the gospels, including those thrown out at Nicea, explicitly stating the non-existence of the historical Christ.

Then we would have to definitely prove that these texts were written by the same people who wrote the gospels.

I don't think we're going to be able to do that.

Then we would need a piece of text written by each of the authors of the gospels, including those thrown out at Nicea, explicitly stating the non-existence of the historical Christ.

Then we would have to definitely prove that these texts were written by the same people who wrote the gospels.

I don't think we're going to be able to do that.

Just because evidence isn't likely to be forthcoming doesn't change the requirements. Meanwhile, it wouldn't even take that much. If we found the original texts that the current Gospels were made from and they turned out to speak to a man who lived after Paul began his ministry, we could be sure that Christianity is an amalgamation(sp?).

jesus did in fact exist, there is historically documented proof outside of the bible to attest. but these documents speciffically state that he was simply a prophet, not a demi-god or son of a god. to be more accurate he would better be classified as a saint; a person who dedicated his life to the betterment of others. in the time of roman emporer Augustus a meeting was held to decide what to due about his large following which was at odds with the roman ideology of multiple gods. it was there that it was decided that jesus was, as a mere prophet, not a strong enough figurehead to found a religion on and it was voted for him to become the direct offspring of a single god and also to incorporate both belief systems, roman and christian, explaining why pagan holidays are celebrated in the christian belief, and that is why chritmas is celebrated in december when jesus' birthday was actually in may, and so on.

as history goes, the winner of each conflict enjoys the privilage of writing that history as they see fit, explaining the crusades, the neglect of documentation concerning jesus' life from age 19 until mid thirties, the rejection of the dead sea scrolls as proof of his travels around the asian continent during this time and the suspicion of a possible wife or partner.

and as cristianity goes, it is undoubtedly the popular religion of modern times, but instead of being geographically centralized like the egyptian, norse, indian or mayan religions it was able to spread first through the roman empire, the largest of the time, and with tecnological advances eventually globally. this circumstance has produced a global mob mentality, an ignoring of facts and abandonment of reason, to the point where the commonly held idea of what jesus was/is universally accepted.

Personally, I'd say the 'purest' form of christianity would be that which most closely resembles the SPIRIT of the 'red text'. (Whether or not it is 'true', I think, is probably irrelevent).

That comes down to love, mainly - and looking out for each other.

nah

i think the purest form of christianity--at least the purest early form--is the gnostic part where if you know the right formula you get to live a perfect spiritual life in heaven with god.

jesus did in fact exist, there is historically documented proof outside of the bible to attest. but these documents speciffically state that he was simply a prophet, not a demi-god or son of a god. to be more accurate he would better be classified as a saint; a person who dedicated his life to the betterment of others. in the time of roman emporer Augustus a meeting was held to decide what to due about his large following which was at odds with the roman ideology of multiple gods. it was there that it was decided that jesus was, as a mere prophet, not a strong enough figurehead to found a religion on and it was voted for him to become the direct offspring of a single god and also to incorporate both belief systems, roman and christian, explaining why pagan holidays are celebrated in the christian belief, and that is why chritmas is celebrated in december when jesus' birthday was actually in may, and so on.


where did you get that story?

in the time of roman emporer Augustus a meeting was held to decide what to due about his large following which was at odds with the roman ideology of multiple gods. it was there that it was decided that jesus was, as a mere prophet, not a strong enough figurehead to found a religion on and it was voted for him to become the direct offspring of a single god and also to incorporate both belief systems, roman and christian, explaining why pagan holidays are celebrated in the christian belief, and that is why chritmas is celebrated in december when jesus' birthday was actually in may, and so on.

He had a large following in the time of Augustus? That's particularly impressive given that he would have been less than 18 (and possible less that eight...) at the time.

It must be a miracle!

He had a large following in the time of Augustus? That's particularly impressive given that he would have been less than 18 (and possible less that eight...) at the time.

It must be a miracle!

but its such a full story that he must have read it in some novel or something dont you think?

He could have been lying to protect his sources...

I don't know enough about Groening to be sure if he really did invent The Simpsons or "lied to protect his sources", but the bottom line is that it still is possible to prove non-existence. I could have just as easily inserted any number of other fictitious characters, like Arthur Dent, Shrek or Mario, in place of Groening's Simpsons, because for any of those characters there's not enough evidence to show that the authors didn't make any of those characters up.

He had a large following in the time of Augustus? That's particularly impressive given that he would have been less than 18 (and possible less that eight...) at the time.

It must be a miracle!

Not only that, but the Gospels are pretty clear Jesus began His Ministry in the last three years of His life, placing it during the reign of Tiberius, not Augustus. So unless he's suggesting the Gospels are wrong...

This current thrust is pathetic. We're only growing at like 5 posts a day.

You're correct GnI, you could say that he's lying, but we're talking about reasonable doubt, not 100% proved.

And why can't we find anyone to claim and defend that it mattered? How unfortunate.

"If you build it, they will come"

(Is that anywhere in the Bible or is that just a paraphrasing of "Field of Dreams"?)

I think you can. All you really need is for someone to trace the actual origin of the story of Jesus Christ and if it's shown that those stories are born out of someone's imagination then it doesn't matter how many other people wrote of Jesus. Let's not forget, the earliest writings that refer to Christ are Paul's- everything else (that we know, anyway) came much later.

That's true. In fact, most of the Gospel writers probably learned about Christ from Paul, so it would actually make more sense to examine his life, rather than that of the Evangelists or the people in the Gospels.

EDIT: Odd. This post is ahead of not only everyone who posted after me, but my own post. I've gone back in time!

He had a large following in the time of Augustus? That's particularly impressive given that he would have been less than 18 (and possible less that eight...) at the time.

It must be a miracle!

Jesus was a precocious little fellow. I'm sure all of his classmates were jealous as sin, perhaps literally.

Then we would need a piece of text written by each of the authors of the gospels, including those thrown out at Nicea, explicitly stating the non-existence of the historical Christ.

Then we would have to definitely prove that these texts were written by the same people who wrote the gospels.

I don't think we're going to be able to do that.

I think you can. All you really need is for someone to trace the actual origin of the story of Jesus Christ and if it's shown that those stories are born out of someone's imagination then it doesn't matter how many other people wrote of Jesus. Let's not forget, the earliest writings that refer to Christ are Paul's- everything else (that we know, anyway) came much later.

Not only that, but the Gospels are pretty clear Jesus began His Ministry in the last three years of His life, placing it during the reign of Tiberius, not Augustus. So unless he's suggesting the Gospels are wrong...

dont be silly

obviously its roman history that is wrong.

EDIT: Odd. This post is ahead of not only everyone who posted after me, but my own post. I've gone back in time!

*resists the urge to break out into that crappy song*

'Tis a phenomenon here at Jolt. I think it's because they run on several servers (in seperate continents if I recall correctly) that aren't all in sync, so you must be posting on a different server than I am, hence this occurance.

dont be silly

obviously its roman history that is wrong.

:eek:

Not the Creationism debate all over again! ;)

That's true. In fact, most of the Gospel writers probably learned about Christ from Paul, so it would actually make more sense to examine his life, rather than that of the Evangelists or the people in the Gospels.

Well, Paul is only the oldest writer that we know, and just about the only firm connection we have to establish the idea that "he started it" is because he's the earliest writer. Certainly if you read Acts it's clear the account says that he picked it up, although how much of that is interpolation is unclear. I certainly think if you read Acts- specifically the fact that Jesus came to Paul in a vision- there's a clear indicator of how Christianity originated, but every reference of that in Acts is different so even that idea might be a little sketchy.

*resists the urge to break out into that crappy song*
ThankyouthankyouthankyouTHANKYOU

'Tis a phenomenon here at Jolt. I think it's because they run on several servers (in seperate continents if I recall correctly) that aren't all in sync, so you must be posting on a different server than I am, hence this occurance.Sure it isn't that so much headway has been made on this thread, we're actually starting to take time backwards, to the beginning of all the fuckups with "scripture" and christianity? :eek:

The point is that Jesus does exist.

The point is that Jesus does exist.

*deep breath* Faaaaaaaaaaaaaail.

The point is that Jesus does exist.

yes but DID he exist?

there are original christian sects that did not believe in the human jesus.

The point is that Jesus does exist.

In a mythological context, yes.

Mind you, Yoda also exists in a mythological context, by providing a method of understanding our place in the world (stay away from the Dark side). Now, before you get huffy, I just want to point out that existing in a mythological context has nothing to do with objective and factual existence.

For example, most scientific theories are true in a mythological sense for most people. This is because most of us don't understand every single aspect of the natural world. But we know Science does. So we allow Science to explain something that we don't really understand. How does a plane fly? I'm not sure, but Science does!

So you can see that some things can be factually true, and also true in a mythological way, like aerodynamic engineering. Somethings can be totally made up and still be mythologically true, like Yoda. And then there are things that we're not quite sure, but probably fall somewhere between, like Jesus.

What? 220 pages?
Is that not enough? To talk about Jesus, while many satellite threads hover by nicking ideas from this one, even if this one has repeated God knows how many times. Why? WHY? surely it ends here, surely? No more Jesus, just pretend no-one ever knew him, just pretend everyone thinks the same as you, doesn't matter 220 pages takes the Michael.
It's not just beating a dead horse it's beating a guy who isn't even there that may or may not have existed and may or may not have been resurrected by another being who may or may not exist.
Aha i have an idea just think this thread is a miracle and chat about it there, or better yet leave poor Jesus out of any future threads.
*sobs uncontrollably*


Edit: 200 pages is a huge discussion. Trouble is some people have added more to it than others, meaning alot of repitition has occured. I don't understand why anyone would want to debate over 2000 years over a single person, it's not worth the effort when there are more important matters. Like working out the best way to live, or how to live longer etc...

What? 220 pages?
Is that not enough? To talk about Jesus, while many satellite threads hover by nicking ideas from this one, even if this one has repeated God knows how many times. Why? WHY? surely it ends here, surely? No more Jesus, just pretend no-one ever knew him, just pretend everyone thinks the same as you, doesn't matter 220 pages takes the Michael.
It's not just beating a dead horse it's beating a guy who isn't even there that may or may not have existed and may or may not have been resurrected by another being who may or may not exist.
Aha i have an idea just think this thread is a miracle and chat about it there, or better yet leave poor Jesus out of any future threads.
*sobs uncontrollably*

or you could just not bother with the thread. maybe be happy that it is sopping up some of the "who wants to talk about jesus?" energy that might otherwise become threads of their own.

or you could just not bother with the thread. maybe be happy that it is sopping up some of the "who wants to talk about jesus?" energy that might otherwise become threads of their own.

No! We need posts! The more the better!

(No. 10 is 179 posts away)

I'm wondering if I should start playing Devil's Advocate here just to keep this thread going...

No! We need posts! The more the better!

(No. 10 is 179 posts away)

I'm wondering if I should start playing Devil's Advocate here just to keep this thread going...

yeah i was thinking the same thing but i just cant do what baldy did.

besides do you know of some sources that we have overlooked? are you hiding something just so the negative side has the upper hand?

The point is that Jesus does exist.

You seem to be extraordinarily certain of that fact.

I assume you have some pretty convincing evidence?

What? 220 pages?
Is that not enough? To talk about Jesus, while many satellite threads hover by nicking ideas from this one, even if this one has repeated God knows how many times. Why? WHY? surely it ends here, surely? No more Jesus, just pretend no-one ever knew him, just pretend everyone thinks the same as you, doesn't matter 220 pages takes the Michael.
It's not just beating a dead horse it's beating a guy who isn't even there that may or may not have existed and may or may not have been resurrected by another being who may or may not exist.
Aha i have an idea just think this thread is a miracle and chat about it there, or better yet leave poor Jesus out of any future threads.
*sobs uncontrollably*

Surely it ends here?

This debate has been ongoing for 2000 years, and you think 200 pages is a lot of discussion?

If you really hate this thread so much, feel free to spam something else... you're really not contributing here.

yeah i was thinking the same thing but i just cant do what baldy did.

besides do you know of some sources that we have overlooked? are you hiding something just so the negative side has the upper hand?

Oh the things I know would make Dan Brown blush. :p

Seriously I did think I could play that role if we're discussing whether or not the historical Jesus needs to be proven true to validate the Faith...my brother is a devout Catholic and I do have a background in it.

You seem to be extraordinarily certain of that fact.

I assume you have some pretty convincing evidence?

My experience is that people who are certain rarely have convincing evidence. For example, "Jesus isn't the Son of God because God doesn't exist, duh."

Oh the things I know would make Dan Brown blush. :p

Seriously I did think I could play that role if we're discussing whether or not the historical Jesus needs to be proven true to validate the Faith...my brother is a devout Catholic and I do have a background in it.

Yes, that role then.

Oh the things I know would make Dan Brown blush. :p

Seriously I did think I could play that role if we're discussing whether or not the historical Jesus needs to be proven true to validate the Faith...my brother is a devout Catholic and I do have a background in it.

i feel that if jesus isnt real, the religion isnt real.

why should the made up shit of guys who lived 2000 years ago be any more correct than any other religious theorizing?

i feel that if jesus isnt real, the religion isnt real.

why should the made up shit of guys who lived 2000 years ago be any more correct than any other religious theorizing?

So do you honestly believe that or are you trying to kick-start that end of the discussion?

So do you honestly believe that or are you trying to kick-start that end of the discussion?

that is pretty much what i believe.

im an atheist because none of the stories about god (or whatever replaces god in a specific religion) are TRUE.

if you want to follow a PHILOSOPHY of passive agressive-ism where you turn the other cheek to piss off the guy who smacked you, FINE, but there is no religious benefit to following the teachings of a nonexistent son of god.

that is pretty much what i believe.

im an atheist because none of the stories about god (or whatever replaces god in a specific religion) are TRUE.

How can you be so sure?

Just as there is no historical proof of an actual Jesus, there is an equal amount to "prove he/they/whatever didnt".

Dont base your atheism on a blanket statement, that you cannot verify.

Base it on what you believe.
If you do not believe any of the stories of God are true, thats entirely different.

i feel that if jesus isnt real, the religion isnt real.

why should the made up shit of guys who lived 2000 years ago be any more correct than any other religious theorizing?

Why not?

Isn't it possible the creators of the Jesus story got everything right? Well, except for the 'being based on a real person' bit?

A religion based on an accident of data, could still be correct - could be the path closest to 'god' (if there is one)... in the same way that stopped clocks are sometimes more accurate than their ticking companions. Maybe?

that is pretty much what i believe.

im an atheist because none of the stories about god (or whatever replaces god in a specific religion) are TRUE.

if you want to follow a PHILOSOPHY of passive agressive-ism where you turn the other cheek to piss off the guy who smacked you, FINE, but there is no religious benefit to following the teachings of a nonexistent son of god.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Different people benefit differently from religion. Those who use it as a moral compass would still benefit in that way if the Jesus myth turned out to be historically inaccurate. Same for those who use religion as a way of socialising and creating community bonds. Also, many religious rituals provide benfits for those who partake in them or witness them. I am not sure that this would be affected if Jesus turned out to be made up.

You seem to be extraordinarily certain of that fact.

I assume you have some pretty convincing evidence?

If by "pretty convincing evidence" you mean blind, rabid faith, then probably yes. Otherwise, I'd say no.

How can you be so sure?

Just as there is no historical proof of an actual Jesus, there is an equal amount to "prove he/they/whatever didnt".

Dont base your atheism on a blanket statement, that you cannot verify.

Base it on what you believe.
If you do not believe any of the stories of God are true, thats entirely different.

when you can show me that ANY story of ANY god is true, ill be happy to believe it. until then, why would i be bothered with the ones that are obviously false?

sure, there MIGHT have been some figure that got transformed into the christian jesus, but what do we know about him? NOTHING. honest, its NOTHING. once you take out the obviously false details of his life and remove the miracles, we have a guy who may or may not have said some nice things about how to deal with other people. considering that most of those are not unique to jesus, you are left with nothing.

Why not?

Isn't it possible the creators of the Jesus story got everything right? Well, except for the 'being based on a real person' bit?

A religion based on an accident of data, could still be correct - could be the path closest to 'god' (if there is one)... in the same way that stopped clocks are sometimes more accurate than their ticking companions. Maybe?

what did they get right?

if we believe in jesus do we go to heaven when we die?

should he be made up or exaggerated into messiahdom does it make sense that his creators accidentally got the recipe for everlasting life correct? does it make sense that i have to accept a fictional figure as my personal lord and savior in order to curry favor with an unknowable diety?

I am not sure what you mean by that. Different people benefit differently from religion. Those who use it as a moral compass would still benefit in that way if the Jesus myth turned out to be historically inaccurate. Same for those who use religion as a way of socialising and creating community bonds. Also, many religious rituals provide benfits for those who partake in them or witness them. I am not sure that this would be affected if Jesus turned out to be made up.

those are societal or psychological benefits. as you see from my bolded remark, i said RELIGIOUS benefits.

if jesus is made up his followers either waste their time with a false path to heaven or waste their time trying to get into a heaven that doesnt exist.

Honestly, I'm new here, but I have seen these threads before; and every time again, I wonder how people can be attaching a judgement on the teachings to the person that is said to have brought them.

Take many didactic dialogues, and count how many of them have real characters in them. Does it change the message or the value of it?

And perhaps the message of religion is not about getting to heaven but about bringing that heaven to earth, about living together in harmony.

One need not believe in the figure, to believe that the way they acted in the story is a good way to act.

(As such, the concept of the world as a linguistic construct could question a lot.)

It is not always problematic to pursue a false ideal, or to walk in error, as even some scientific works prove- or the discovery of the Americas.

Honestly, I'm new here, but I have seen these threads before; and every time again, I wonder how people can be attaching a judgement on the teachings to the person that is said to have brought them.

Take many didactic dialogues, and count how many of them have real characters in them. Does it change the message or the value of it?

And perhaps the message of religion is not about getting to heaven but about bringing that heaven to earth, about living together in harmony.

One need not believe in the figure, to believe that the way they acted in the story is a good way to act.

(As such, the concept of the world as a linguistic construct could question a lot.)

It is not always problematic to pursue a false ideal, or to walk in error, as even some scientific works prove- or the discovery of the Americas.

While that's well and good for someone who believes in the message and the "spirit" of it, it's unfortunately not adequate for those who feel the need to believe out of a desire to be saved through no real effort on their part. It's great for people who are willing to follow its Golden-Rulish aspects, much like how one can derive wisdom from the Tao of Pooh without necessarily believing in the 100 Acre Wood. Unfortunately for those who, deep down, need for him to exist because of their own oft-twisted sense or morality, an interpretation of the text from a purely philosophical outlook simply doesn't work.

Hope that wasn't too rambling.

Like I said in my previous post, I am not sure what you mean by that.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'religious benefit'.

Your second paragraph is only true for certain definitions of the word 'heaven', i.e. a literal place where you spend the afterlife in bliss. Not all religious people feel that this is an appropriate definition.

Aye, for instance people like the fellow a few posts above, talking about bringing "heaven to earth." To people who a view like that, the message has more benefit than the reality, even from a purely theological perspective.

those are societal or psychological benefits. as you see from my bolded remark, i said RELIGIOUS benefits.

if jesus is made up his followers either waste their time with a false path to heaven or waste their time trying to get into a heaven that doesnt exist.

Like I said in my previous post, I am not sure what you mean by that.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'religious benefit'.

Your second paragraph is only true for certain definitions of the word 'heaven', i.e. a literal place where you spend the afterlife in bliss. Not all religious people feel that this is an appropriate definition.

To people who a view like that, the message has more benefit than the reality, even from a purely theological perspective.How is a lie a benefit?

Like I said in my previous post, I am not sure what you mean by that.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'religious benefit'.

Your second paragraph is only true for certain definitions of the word 'heaven', i.e. a literal place where you spend the afterlife in bliss. Not all religious people feel that this is an appropriate definition.

my second paragraph explains what i mean by religious benefit.

if one's religious belief involves an afterlife expedited by jesus, then his actual existence is crucial.

Of course he did! If the world's Christians all say he existed, and was the one true Son of God, and the Muslims state that he existed, but his message was mangled, then we have a majority supporting his existence. And anybody in favor of democracy will realize that this ends the argument. BAM!!! Problem solved. :D

my second paragraph explains what i mean by religious benefit.

if one's religious belief involves an afterlife expedited by jesus, then his actual existence is crucial.

So, by 'religious benefit', you mean some sort of reward for the soul. Okay.

Now, what do you mean by 'heaven'?

Honestly, I'm new here, but I have seen these threads before; and every time again, I wonder how people can be attaching a judgement on the teachings to the person that is said to have brought them.

Take many didactic dialogues, and count how many of them have real characters in them. Does it change the message or the value of it?

And perhaps the message of religion is not about getting to heaven but about bringing that heaven to earth, about living together in harmony.

One need not believe in the figure, to believe that the way they acted in the story is a good way to act.

(As such, the concept of the world as a linguistic construct could question a lot.)

It is not always problematic to pursue a false ideal, or to walk in error, as even some scientific works prove- or the discovery of the Americas.

the thing is ...

when the message is supposed to have come from GOD, you must follow it. its not just a "slow but steady wins the race" kind of lesson but a "the wages of sin is death" kind of lesson. if you dont do things right, you are punished for eternity for it.

some people take the message of the bible to be "be nice to each other" and that is fine. but what about those who read "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or "a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination" or "no one comes to the father except through me" and push an ugly hateful way of life? they have the backing of GOD on this one eh?

in my mind there is a huge difference between reading a bible story and taking a moral lesson from it and reading a bible story and considering it the command of god.

So, by 'religious benefit', you mean some sort of reward for the soul. Okay.

Now, what do you mean by 'heaven'?

the spiritual afterlife that includes being in the presence of god.

if one's religious belief involves an afterlife expedited by jesus, then his actual existence is crucial.not just that. his existence as christianity postulates it would be crucial. although, i am not sure if the belief would have anything to do with it then.

Of course he did! If the world's Christians all say he existed, and was the one true Son of God, and the Muslims state that he existed, but his message was mangled, then we have a majority supporting his existence. And anybody in favor of democracy will realize that this ends the argument. BAM!!! Problem solved. :Dsince when does democracy have anything to do with reality? or truth?

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Historical evidence (eg Roman and Jewish historians) show that he did exist.
However, there have been many lunatics claiming to be the Son of God, so maybe he was just another one

No it doesn't matter

since when does democracy have anything to do with reality? or truth?

Since some idiot came up with the idea of voting. Now the dumb masses can, in fact, control what is true. See case study: Bush, George W, Entire life of.

not just that. his existence as christianity postulates it would be crucial. although, i am not sure if the belief would have anything to do with it then.


thats a whole different problem eh? getting jesus "right". many christian denominations believe that theirs is the only true theology and that the rest of christianity is going to hell for incorrect belief.

If he didn't then were gonna have too change our whole calendar system...No BC before Christ or AD after death....isn't it just better to believe he was here,rather than mess with my DAYS OFF?

Historical evidence (eg Roman and Jewish historians) show that he did exist.Show it.

How is a lie a benefit?

A source doesn't need to be empirically real for it to have value in imparting wisdom.

After all, as I said, one could just as easily learn from the character's experiences in Sartre's No Exist despite those characters not being real, and from books like The Tao of Pooh, which deal with verifiably nonexistent characters.

If he didn't then were gonna have too change our whole calendar system...No BC before Christ or AD after death....isn't it just better to believe he was here,rather than mess with my DAYS OFF?

Actually a lot of places, especially in academia, use BCE and CE to signify calendar "eras," instead of BC and AD.

So, fail.

Right. Because you automatically defined heaven as such, and religious benefits as you did, you have constructed the question in such a way that you could only get one answer. The one you wanted.

But there are many other ways of looking at things and defining things. If we define heaven as some sort of zen or mystical experience, then it wouldn't matter if Jesus was real or not, as long as following 'his' teachings allowed you to attain such an experience. Such experiences could also be examples of religious benefits.

well when we find a christian denomination that defines heaven as a zen or mystical experience, we can talk about whether or not the existence of jesus is important or not.

the thing is ...

when the message is supposed to have come from GOD, you must follow it. its not just a "slow but steady wins the race" kind of lesson but a "the wages of sin is death" kind of lesson. if you dont do things right, you are punished for eternity for it.

This is entirely based on your interpretation of the Bible and Christianity. You are assuming that the Bible is literally true about certain aspects. However, there is no reason to believe that these are true, or that the majority of Christians believe it to be true.

some people take the message of the bible to be "be nice to each other" and that is fine. but what about those who read "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or "a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination" or "no one comes to the father except through me" and push an ugly hateful way of life? they have the backing of GOD on this one eh?

No, they do not have the backing of God. Nor do I think the other poster was suggesting that.

in my mind there is a huge difference between reading a bible story and taking a moral lesson from it and reading a bible story and considering it the command of god.

Yes. Most Christians can make this distinction as well. What is your point?

the spiritual afterlife that includes being in the presence of god.

Right. Because you automatically defined heaven as such, and religious benefits as you did, you have constructed the question in such a way that you could only get one answer. The one you wanted.

But there are many other ways of looking at things and defining things. If we define heaven as some sort of zen or mystical experience, then it wouldn't matter if Jesus was real or not, as long as following 'his' teachings allowed you to attain such an experience. Such experiences could also be examples of religious benefits.

How about one of the Gnostic churches?

Or any of the Christian mystics throughout history like Francis of Assisi or Hildegard of Bingen?

There's also the Benedictine monks, and the Carmelite nuns.

These are the first ones that I thought of. Will this do? Or do you need more?

only if you give me quotes showing that they didnt believe in a spritual afterlife

well when we find a christian denomination that defines heaven as a zen or mystical experience, we can talk about whether or not the existence of jesus is important or not.

How about one of the Gnostic churches?

Or any of the Christian mystics throughout history like Francis of Assisi or Hildegard of Bingen?

There's also the Benedictine monks, and the Carmelite nuns.

These are the first ones that I thought of. Will this do? Or do you need more?

Why? That makes no sense. One can believe in a spiritual afterlife and still believe you can attain union with god in this life. One has no bearing on the other.

one can believe anything one has a mind to believe.

one's belief, however, might not fit with christian doctrine.

Frankly my life isnt affected one iota one way or the other if he lived or not. So. Who. really. cares.


Well, mine is. As a Christian, I care. And I believe he did exist.

Tell me this- what would be the difference if Jesus were merely an inspirational legend? Even if the stories aren't true that doesn't mean they can't provide life lessons that Jesus teaches.

because if jesus is just an inspriational legend believing in him has no effect on your chances of a good afterlife. should such an afterlife exist.

only if you give me quotes showing that they didnt believe in a spritual afterlife

Why? That makes no sense. One can believe in a spiritual afterlife and still believe you can attain union with god in this life. One has no bearing on the other.

what did they get right?

if we believe in jesus do we go to heaven when we die?

should he be made up or exaggerated into messiahdom does it make sense that his creators accidentally got the recipe for everlasting life correct? does it make sense that i have to accept a fictional figure as my personal lord and savior in order to curry favor with an unknowable diety?

Tell me this- what would be the difference if Jesus were merely an inspirational legend? Even if the stories aren't true that doesn't mean they can't provide life lessons that Jesus teaches.

That's nice.

Anyways, as I was saying, the lack of a historical Jesus would not nullify all the religious benefits of Christians. The Benedictines would still get their mystical union with the godhead.

supposing that that IS the godhead.

one can believe anything one has a mind to believe.

one's belief, however, might not fit with christian doctrine.

That's nice.

Anyways, as I was saying, the lack of a historical Jesus would not nullify all the religious benefits of Christians. The Benedictines would still get their mystical union with the godhead.

Well, mine is. As a Christian, I care.

Why?

Too many facts prove Jesus exsisted. If he didn't, then the Romans lied and made all that fuss about no-one. All those who hated the Romans also lied then? You might as well wipe out 2000 years of history if you think he didn't. Simple fact is Jesus did exsist. At the end of the day its your own deep down belief that will make you choose if you want to believe or not. We all have choice. We all have that freedom of will.

supposing that that IS the godhead.

Again, this is only relevant if we assume that your definitions of 'religious benefits' and 'heaven' are the only correct ones.

If you watch south park you would know imaginary characters are real.

Again, this is only relevant if we assume that your definitions of 'religious benefits' and 'heaven' are the only correct ones.

no

only relevant if we assume that the christian definition of heaven is the correct one.

if jesus is made up by someone in the first century then the benedictines are living in delusion. there IS no way to know just what they are experiencing in mystic moments.

and since you asked me to define religious benefits i dont see why we arent using that definition. did you propose a different one?

no

only relevant if we assume that the christian definition of heaven is the correct ones.

Wrong. Your post upthread is only relevant if we assume that your definition is the only correct one for Christians.

if jesus is made up by someone in the first century then the benedictines are living in delusion. there IS no way to know just what they are experiencing in mystic moments.

These two sentences contradict each other. If there is no way to know what they are experiencing, it is impossible to say the Benedictines are living in delusion.

and since you asked me to define religious benefits i dont see why we arent using that definition. did you propose a different one?

Actually, you didn't define it. I defined it for you based on the context of what you wrote. And it's fine, if we assume the existence of a soul.

It's your definition of 'heaven' that limits the conversation. It assumes that heaven can only be experienced in the afterlife. There is no reason to assume this.

Why?

Because if He did not, then my faith is based on nothing.

Because if He did not, then my faith is based on nothing.

this is what i am saying. if jesus didnt exist what is there to believe in in christianity and why WOULD anyone believe it?

this is what i am saying. if jesus didnt exist what is there to believe in in christianity and why WOULD anyone believe it?
Christianity is not just a system of belief. It is also a forum for discussion of matters spiritual. The teachings of the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Apostles' letters are a basis upon which consideration of modern-day personal, ethical, social and philosophical issues can be talked about through a series of communally recognised definitions and concepts.

Do you really need to believe in order for this to be of value? I mean, it's all fine and good if you do have faith that these things are "historical" and "real" (whatever those terms mean), but you don't need to in order to consider and utilise the ideas that they contain as part of the terminology you use in exploring the questions of Life, the Universe and Everything and engaging in dialogue with others who are trying to do the same.

Of course he did! If the world's Christians all say he existed, and was the one true Son of God, and the Muslims state that he existed, but his message was mangled, then we have a majority supporting his existence. And anybody in favor of democracy will realize that this ends the argument. BAM!!! Problem solved. :D

Majority voting is a pragmatic political system, not an epistemological basis for knowledge.

Christianity is not just a system of belief. It is also a forum for discussion of matters spiritual. The teachings of the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Apostles' letters are a basis upon which consideration of modern-day personal, ethical, social and philosophical issues can be talked about through a series of communally recognised definitions and concepts.

Do you really need to believe in order for this to be of value? I mean, it's all fine and good if you do have faith that these things are "historical" and "real" (whatever those terms mean), but you don't need to in order to consider and utilise the ideas that they contain as part of the terminology you use in exploring the questions of Life, the Universe and Everything and engaging in dialogue with others who are trying to do the same.

i didnt ask if it had any use, i asked why would anyone believe it if jesus didnt exist? there are many many other theological systems and belief paradigms that might fit one's concept of the spiritual universe better if you cut yourself loose from christianity. or maybe better philosophies for your life.

its fine to have a common system for discussing certain things but it is only so useful when (if) it is false at it core.

If he didn't then were gonna have too change our whole calendar system...No BC before Christ or AD after death....isn't it just better to believe he was here,rather than mess with my DAYS OFF?

But even if the Biblical Jesus did exist BC and AD don't correspond to before and after his birth: Luke's chronology has the Nativity occuring during a census of Judea, carried out while Quirinius was governer; this was in 6AD. Matthew is very clear in saying that Herod the Great was still alive when Jesus was born, which places the birth at some point in or before 4BC.

So, whichever way you look at it, our calendar can't be based around the Nativity...

This contradiction is one of the main reasons why I'm so fiercely opposed to Nativity Plays in schools: it's unethical in the extreme for teachers to present unsupported religious-assertion to their pupils as fact, but for a teacher (charged with the education of their students) to teach as fact a story which we know for certain to be false is just plain sick.

Actually a lot of places, especially in academia, use BCE and CE to signify calendar "eras," instead of BC and AD.

So, fail.

Not to mention that Hindus, Jews, Muslims and the Chinese all have their own independent Calendars...

Personally I tend to use AD and BC purely because they're impossible to mix up: when you're frantically typing an essay at four o'clock in the morning it's too easy to type BC instead of BCE...

Too many facts prove Jesus exsisted. If he didn't, then the Romans lied and made all that fuss about no-one. All those who hated the Romans also lied then? You might as well wipe out 2000 years of history if you think he didn't. Simple fact is Jesus did exsist. At the end of the day its your own deep down belief that will make you choose if you want to believe or not. We all have choice. We all have that freedom of will.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you:

-what do you mean by 'If he didn't, then the Romans lied'?
-by 'all that fuss' are you refering to the persecution of the early church?
-what do you mean by the next sentence 'All those who hated the Romans also lied then?'?

i didnt ask if it had any use, i asked why would anyone believe it if jesus didnt exist?
I'm turning the point on its head, which is that even if Jesus didn't exist, we might very well be in the same position we're in now. We exist at a point in time where the question of Jesus' reality is an uncertainty told to us through our forerunners. This would be the case whether 2000 years ago Jesus was there and did some awesome stuff or whether 1700 years ago a series of mythological narrations were compiled to refer to a single constructed entity.

It is not necessarily because of its verifiable truth that it has survived this long; its adoption as a useful social construct would seem to contribute much more to its continued existence (and also because it seems to gel well with spiritual experience, though this is not a unique property of Christianity). Similarly, whether true or not, if the Church had been unsuccessful, no-one would believe it today.

What is there to believe in within Christianity if not Jesus? The effectiveness of the paradigm is one possibility, and it's certainly one that people tend to gain more day-to-day evidence for.

there are many many other theological systems and belief paradigms that might fit one's concept of the spiritual universe better if you cut yourself loose from christianity. or maybe better philosophies for your life.

its fine to have a common system for discussing certain things but it is only so useful when (if) it is false at it core.
This is all true, but I would point out that we are not restricted to a single paradigm. The only thing stopping us using the language and ideas of as many religious organisations that might possibly exist is the notion that we have to believe one or other among them to be absolute; a notion which can, in practice, be ignored in favour of being able to engage with a much wider sample of the human condition.

I'm turning the point on its head, which is that even if Jesus didn't exist, we might very well be in the same position we're in now. We exist at a point in time where the question of Jesus' reality is an uncertainty told to us through our forerunners. This would be the case whether 2000 years ago Jesus was there and did some awesome stuff or whether 1700 years ago a series of mythological narrations were compiled to refer to a single constructed entity.

It is not necessarily because of its verifiable truth that it has survived this long; its adoption as a useful social construct would seem to contribute much more to its continued existence (and also because it seems to gel well with spiritual experience, though this is not a unique property of Christianity). Similarly, whether true or not, if the Church had been unsuccessful, no-one would believe it today.

What is there to believe in within Christianity if not Jesus? The effectiveness of the paradigm is one possibility, and it's certainly one that people tend to gain more day-to-day evidence for.


This is all true, but I would point out that we are not restricted to a single paradigm. The only thing stopping us using the language and ideas of as many religious organisations that might possibly exist is the notion that we have to believe one or other among them to be absolute; a notion which can, in practice, be ignored in favour of being able to engage with a much wider sample of the human condition.

i do concede your point that christianity has great value in our society. having a religion pretty-much in common does simplify the discussion and minimizes the fighting between those who dont want to fight.

what do you mean by the effectiveness of the paradigm? are you talking on a religious or societal level?

i do concede your point that christianity has great value in our society. having a religion pretty-much in common does simplify the discussion and minimizes the fighting between those who dont want to fight.

what do you mean by the effectiveness of the paradigm? are you talking on a religious or societal level?
In a sense, I'm talking on both levels. Abrahamic mythology (I hope you don't mind me calling it that; I'm referring to the 'hypothetical historical tale' meaning rather than the 'work of fiction' understanding of the word 'myth') is quite expressive in terms of the theological concepts it provides, but more importantly it's not overly complicated or contrived. Compared to some other systems of mythology, it's relatively easy for the casual reader to engage with the text, since although the stories feature God, they are really about how the everyday people respond to Him. God is portrayed in a way they can envisage a relation to, and this forms the basis for a very rich dictionary for the issues of personal spirituality.

( It's not perfect, of course. I have always thought that the portrayal of Christianity et al. of God as primarily being close to home is partly to blame for a very ego- or ethno-centric attitude of many who use it as their only spiritual vocabulary. But there is certainly something there that perhaps other faiths grounded in the more abstract theologies (Buddhism being my main target here) could learn from in terms of engagement with divinity rather than explicit separation from it. )

In addition to this, of course, is the idea that Christianity is socially widespread (whether by fair or foul means). Almost everyone in the world would recognise the name of Jesus, whether they hold it with skepticism or reverence. This in itself gives the Christian construct almost unparallelled power when it comes to connecting with humanity as a whole. If what you want is a spiritual forum where a broad range of opinions, thoughts and concerns can be voiced, it is hard to imagine a more potent hook than the question of "Who is/was Jesus Christ?". In fact, that's just given me an idea; cue another religion thread!

Basically, whether or not it can be said to be succeeding as a system of belief, in terms of opening up channels through which people can discuss and consider these matters, Christianity has been very effective indeed, and that's something I think you could get a great many people to agree on.

In a sense, I'm talking on both levels. Abrahamic mythology (I hope you don't mind me calling it that; I'm referring to the 'hypothetical historical tale' meaning rather than the 'work of fiction' understanding of the word 'myth') is quite expressive in terms of the theological concepts it provides, but more importantly it's not overly complicated or contrived. Compared to some other systems of mythology, it's relatively easy for the casual reader to engage with the text, since although the stories feature God, they are really about how the everyday people respond to Him. God is portrayed in a way they can envisage a relation to, and this forms the basis for a very rich dictionary for the issues of personal spirituality.

( It's not perfect, of course. I have always thought that the portrayal of Christianity et al. of God as primarily being close to home is partly to blame for a very ego- or ethno-centric attitude of many who use it as their only spiritual vocabulary. But there is certainly something there that perhaps other faiths grounded in the more abstract theologies (Buddhism being my main target here) could learn from in terms of engagement with divinity rather than explicit separation from it. )

In addition to this, of course, is the idea that Christianity is socially widespread (whether by fair or foul means). Almost everyone in the world would recognise the name of Jesus, whether they hold it with skepticism or reverence. This in itself gives the Christian construct almost unparallelled power when it comes to connecting with humanity as a whole. If what you want is a spiritual forum where a broad range of opinions, thoughts and concerns can be voiced, it is hard to imagine a more potent hook than the question of "Who is/was Jesus Christ?". In fact, that's just given me an idea; cue another religion thread!

Basically, whether or not it can be said to be succeeding as a system of belief, in terms of opening up channels through which people can discuss and consider these matters, Christianity has been very effective indeed, and that's something I think you could get a great many people to agree on.

surely for this purpose it would be better if jesus WERE a construct of first century mystic judaism. far too often people use the words of the bible to prove their ugly contentions about other people--god hates fags, for example.

if everyone understood that its just a freaking metaphor then the words would not hold so much weight.

surely for this purpose it would be better if jesus WERE a construct of first century mystic judaism. far too often people use the words of the bible to prove their ugly contentions about other people--god hates fags, for example.

if everyone understood that its just a freaking metaphor then the words would not hold so much weight.
The thing is, we shouldn't need to assert fact or fiction as a prerequisite to appreciating and learning. Yes, it is entirely possible that Jesus wasn't a real person, but we shouldn't need to categorically state that this is true or false in order to appreciate the metaphor and allegory that the less literal perspective provides.

Christianity has responded to the problems of postmodern skepticism by and large as it always has to changes in society; by splitting itself up into two camps, where one is radically liberal and the other stubbornly conservative, and leaving a lot of confused Christians stuck somewhere in the middle, wondering where their loyalties lie. However, I think we're reaching a stage now where the people in the middle are finding their own voice that is neither a half-hearted compromise nor a rejection of both sides. Whether factual or mythical, Jesus died for our sins, and it's up to us to respond to that by acknowledging it as the selfless sacrifice it was.

It's a rather neat little solution to the problem, ne? Plus, it means I get to have some very interesting chats with committed Christians. :D

The thing is, we shouldn't need to assert fact or fiction as a prerequisite to appreciating and learning. Yes, it is entirely possible that Jesus wasn't a real person, but we shouldn't need to categorically state that this is true or false in order to appreciate the metaphor and allegory that the less literal perspective provides.

Christianity has responded to the problems of postmodern skepticism by and large as it always has to changes in society; by splitting itself up into two camps, where one is radically liberal and the other stubbornly conservative, and leaving a lot of confused Christians stuck somewhere in the middle, wondering where their loyalties lie. However, I think we're reaching a stage now where the people in the middle are finding their own voice that is neither a half-hearted compromise nor a rejection of both sides. Whether factual or mythical, Jesus died for our sins, and it's up to us to respond to that by acknowledging it as the selfless sacrifice it was.

It's a rather neat little solution to the problem, ne? Plus, it means I get to have some very interesting chats with committed Christians. :D

when you run that idea past the conservative fundamentalists are they OK with it?

Too many facts prove Jesus exsisted. If he didn't, then the Romans lied and made all that fuss about no-one. All those who hated the Romans also lied then? You might as well wipe out 2000 years of history if you think he didn't. Simple fact is Jesus did exsist. At the end of the day its your own deep down belief that will make you choose if you want to believe or not. We all have choice. We all have that freedom of will.

Show them then

Simple fact is Jesus did exsist. At the end of the day its your own deep down belief that will make you choose if you want to believe or not. :p
We all have choice. We all have that freedom of will.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif
That's the difference. Do you understand?

Because if He did not, then my faith is based on nothing.

Is it? So the Golden Rule means nothing without a historical Jesus? The Parable of the Prodigal Son? The Beatitudes? The text of the New Testament does not change with or without a historical Jesus- all the historicity question will do is whether or not Christians are led by an actual historical person or an inspirational figure created by a group of authors whose Message exceeded their wildest dreams. That's it- the Message itself loses no meaning.

This contradiction is one of the main reasons why I'm so fiercely opposed to Nativity Plays in schools: it's unethical in the extreme for teachers to present unsupported religious-assertion to their pupils as fact, but for a teacher (charged with the education of their students) to teach as fact a story which we know for certain to be false is just plain sick.

That's one of the things that always got me- the birth narratives in the Gospel are completely contradictory of each other, yet the Nativity Story we know so well combines both stories as if the actual accounts would allow that to happen. It's where I started to actually think about what we do know of the historicity of Jesus, since once I actually saw what's in the Gospel I realized there's a lot more questions to ask, not less.

It's amazing how much we take the Bible for granted after allowing others to tell us what it says, even though these "others" haven't got a clue about what it actually says.

Too many facts prove Jesus exsisted.

OK, so let's see your evidence then.

If he didn't, then the Romans lied and made all that fuss about no-one.

I don't recall a source saying the Romans made a fuss about Him at all. In fact, the earliest Roman source mentioning Jesus only does so tangentially (if at all) and that is Tacitus. Tacitus wrote that Nero blamed Christians (by the way, the first historical record for the term "Christian") for the Great Fire of Rome, and stated these Christians were followers of a person named Chrestus. Some have assumed "Chrestus" is really a misspelling of "Christus" (Christ, but *not necessarily Jesus* as "Christ" is a title), but "Chrestus" was also a common name at the time. The next earliest source is Pliny the Younger writing to Trajan about what he should do with the Christians in the province of Bithynia, to which Trajan replied "don't do anything unless they openly practice". Regardless, it's clear Roman sources made a fuss about the Christians, but not about Jesus. It's even clear in the Bible, since Pontius Pilate wanted no part of Him. So I don't see much of an argument here.

All those who hated the Romans also lied then?

I don't see Ardashir I or Simon bar Kokhba using Jesus to hate the Romans, do you?

You might as well wipe out 2000 years of history if you think he didn't.

Really? So the voyages of Christopher Columbus never happened? Odoacer never dethroned his own puppet of a Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus? The Crimean War never happened? The Incan Empire never came into being? The Srivijayan Empire never existed? The Guptas never ruled? Do I need to provide any other examples? Seriously, as influential as Jesus may be in history, the events of the past still happened even if the figure is shown not to have been historical.

It is not necessarily because of its verifiable truth that it has survived this long; its adoption as a useful social construct would seem to contribute much more to its continued existence (and also because it seems to gel well with spiritual experience, though this is not a unique property of Christianity). Similarly, whether true or not, if the Church had been unsuccessful, no-one would believe it today.

You're right, but I would like to point out much of the Church's success can also be rooted in oppression when it held unabashed control over the European continent for over 1,000 years. It was impossible until the 17th century (after the Treaty of Westphalia extinguished the Holy Roman Empire as a practical state), really, to *not* be a Christian (because then the Church would arrest you), and even now despite the Church being in obvious decline, it still holds considerable influence on our own society (our holidays are Christian, for one) so Christianity today gets adopted simply because we're "surrounded" by it. However, the Church as an institution is losing followers, and more and more people are "switching out" of Christianity because the message is no longer appealing to them. Thus, I don't know how much stock I'd put in how successful the Church really is.

Personally I tend to use AD and BC purely because they're impossible to mix up: when you're frantically typing an essay at four o'clock in the morning it's too easy to type BC instead of BCE...

I use "AD" and "BC" more because I think the move to change to "CE" and "BCE" is rooted in nothing more than political correctness and I think that's a poor reason to use a term (unless it's obscene, but I don't see how "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are "obscene").

I use "AD" and "BC" more because I think the move to change to "CE" and "BCE" is rooted in nothing more than political correctness and I think that's a poor reason to use a term (unless it's obscene, but I don't see how "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are "obscene").yeah, but why explicitly refer to the focus person of religious nutjobbery if you can avoid it?

I use "AD" and "BC" more because I think the move to change to "CE" and "BCE" is rooted in nothing more than political correctness and I think that's a poor reason to use a term (unless it's obscene, but I don't see how "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are "obscene").

i use ad and bc because the others are a silly affectation that pretends that they dont refer to what they DO refer to.

Do I exist?

Is it? So the Golden Rule means nothing without a historical Jesus? The Parable of the Prodigal Son? The Beatitudes? The text of the New Testament does not change with or without a historical Jesus- all the historicity question will do is whether or not Christians are led by an actual historical person or an inspirational figure created by a group of authors whose Message exceeded their wildest dreams. That's it- the Message itself loses no meaning.

ya but if you leave out the religious parts you are left with a dubious moral code that no one follows. when was the last time anyone turned the other cheek or gave a thief his coat? (or was it his shirt?)

the golden rule isnt an article of faith. the story of the prodigal son isnt about how to treat your kids. the beatitudes are about who god likes best--why would we assume that something made up whole cloth 1900 years ago represents the opinion of GOD?

the message --which is mostly about creating a personal relationship with god through jesus, his son--doesnt hold up at all if jesus didnt exist.

what did they get right?

if we believe in jesus do we go to heaven when we die?

should he be made up or exaggerated into messiahdom does it make sense that his creators accidentally got the recipe for everlasting life correct? does it make sense that i have to accept a fictional figure as my personal lord and savior in order to curry favor with an unknowable diety?

I doubt the recipe is right if it's the 'believe this' version. But I don't think that's the main point of Jesus-ian theology, anyway. Looking at the words attributed to Jesus, almost all of it is about love, caring for each other, and following guidelines that feel right, rather than laws that try to apply without consideration for circumstance.

That sounds common to a lot of religions... and could well be 'right' no matter which name you attach to it. It's certainly the 'right' way, if not the 'Right' way. :)

How is a lie a benefit?

How is it not?

Since some idiot came up with the idea of voting. Now the dumb masses can, in fact, control what is true. See case study: Bush, George W, Entire life of.

The majority cannot decide what is true, only what they HOLD to be true.

Too many facts prove Jesus exsisted. If he didn't, then the Romans lied and made all that fuss about no-one. All those who hated the Romans also lied then? You might as well wipe out 2000 years of history if you think he didn't. Simple fact is Jesus did exsist. At the end of the day its your own deep down belief that will make you choose if you want to believe or not. We all have choice. We all have that freedom of will.

That's nice, dear.

Of course, free will enables us to choose, but doesn't make our choice 'right'.

Actually... can you actually PROVE the 'free will' part, even?

this is what i am saying. if jesus didnt exist what is there to believe in in christianity and why WOULD anyone believe it?

Because, like many of those 'morality plays', the message can be 'right', even if the scenario is false, and the characters fictitious.

Do I exist?

Now that you've asked, i can't get you and your one post off my mind.
I wonder how long 'til the confabulation.
Are you running for prez?

It's amazing how much we take the Bible for granted after allowing others to tell us what it says, even though these "others" haven't got a clue about what it actually says.

Even more amazing that people will fight over wording and meaning of a text they insist is THE most important document ever... but don't consider it worthwhile to spend the time it would take to learn to read the text as written, so they can corroborate the translation for themselves.

ya but if you leave out the religious parts you are left with a dubious moral code that no one follows. when was the last time anyone turned the other cheek or gave a thief his coat? (or was it his shirt?)

the golden rule isnt an article of faith. the story of the prodigal son isnt about how to treat your kids. the beatitudes are about who god likes best--why would we assume that something made up whole cloth 1900 years ago represents the opinion of GOD?

the message --which is mostly about creating a personal relationship with god through jesus, his son--doesnt hold up at all if jesus didnt exist.

Isn't the underlying Message of Christianity to mold yourself in Christ's image? Given that, why is it important if the Christ figure is an actual historical person or a legendary figure? The image is still there.

Even more amazing that people will fight over wording and meaning of a text they insist is THE most important document ever... but don't consider it worthwhile to spend the time it would take to learn to read the text as written, so they can corroborate the translation for themselves.

That is true as well. When you really get down to it, it's astounding how much of the Bible just isn't known.

A thought occurred to me last night:

Considering there's people who exist thinking the Ninja Turtles, Sherlock Holmes, the Star Wars Universe, etc. exist, I'm wondering if "Jesus being real" ever grew out of a misconception like that- someone thought that the legend was so good to be true that it had to be true, even though "those in the know" (i.e., the author and his immediate listeners) dissented because they know the original story is nothing but a work of fiction. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

Also, what happened to Jocabia?

Jocabia is just reading along and see what develops. So far, I'm enjoying it. Ignoring the ravings of fanatics, of course.

Jocabia is just reading along and see what develops. So far, I'm enjoying it. Ignoring the ravings of fanatics, of course.

Thanks. :) I hadn't seen you for a while so I got worried you'd left the thread...

Isn't the underlying Message of Christianity to mold yourself in Christ's image? Given that, why is it important if the Christ figure is an actual historical person or a legendary figure? The image is still there.

no i dont think so.

the underlying message of christianity is that you too can enter into this groovy new heaven that was thought up in the centuries surrounding 1AD. christ is the conduit and gives you the key notions of what it takes to get there.

the suggestions of how to behave that are contained in the gospels are not particularly appropriate for a secular life in any age. be meek. put up with any crap that anyone dishes out to you. sell all your stuff and wander the world. forgive anyone anything no matter how many times he wrongs you as long as he asks for forgiveness. love your enemies and be kind to those who do you wrong. even the classic "love your neighbor as yourself" is not great advice. "give your neighbor the respect he deserves" maybe but thats not what it says.

and in the end, virtually no christian ever follows the actual example of christ or follows his rules for living. not that sacrificing yourself for strangers is much called for these days but...well OK i was going to pull out a more reasonable example but i cant THINK of one. how did christ live that anyone would use as a guide for life? he was nice to kids, maybe. he was a charismatic street preacher who ended up dead. not much to mold yourself after.

no i dont think so.

the underlying message of christianity is that you too can enter into this groovy new heaven that was thought up in the centuries surrounding 1AD. christ is the conduit and gives you the key notions of what it takes to get there.

I think that Christianoty offers many underlying messages, and it is often the individual Christian who decides what the central message is. Consequently, I don't think we can definitely say that Jesus is about any one thing, because somewhere there is a Christian group who believes something radically different. Even if we assume that your idea of the underlying message is the correct one, we are still faced with the reality that every single Christian in the world will interpret that differently.

the suggestions of how to behave that are contained in the gospels are not particularly appropriate for a secular life in any age. be meek. put up with any crap that anyone dishes out to you. sell all your stuff and wander the world. forgive anyone anything no matter how many times he wrongs you as long as he asks for forgiveness. love your enemies and be kind to those who do you wrong. even the classic "love your neighbor as yourself" is not great advice. "give your neighbor the respect he deserves" maybe but thats not what it says.

Have you tried living by them? Do you know of anyone who has? If so, did they feel they had a successful life? If not, why do you think this is bad advice?

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Yes, he was a real person. Does it matter? Yes, to millions around the world, just as many other prophets and religious leaders matter to people.

is there prof that he doesnt exist? if there is lets hear it real prof not somebody wrote this or somebody said that, because if thats the case then we have support that he does exist in the writings of the gosples i say he does you say he doesnt

is there prof that he doesnt exist?

Is there proof you are not a giant hyperintelligent squirrel? Asking someone to prove a negative is a poor debate tactic at best

Is there proof you are not a giant hyperintelligent squirrel?

My first thought when I read this post was "You'd have to be nuts to believe that". Does this make me a bad person? :(

Is there proof you are not a giant hyperintelligent squirrel? Asking someone to prove a negative is a poor debate tactic at best

That's true actually that's called an argument from ignorance,
My classic example is:
"hey ghosts exist because there's no evidence to suggest they don't exist."

Yes, he was a real person.

Prove it then. We've been through a million proofs already and none have held up.

Does it matter? Yes, to millions around the world, just as many other prophets and religious leaders matter to people.

Why?

is there prof that he doesnt exist? if there is lets hear it real prof not somebody wrote this or somebody said that, because if thats the case then we have support that he does exist in the writings of the gosples i say he does you say he doesnt

There's very few people who are actually saying "Jesus does not exist", because non-existence is never proven by lack of sources (since it doesn't take into account the possibility of sources we don't know about now coming up that would prove existence). However, the lack of sources also shows that existence isn't proven either, since there's no evidence to that end either. Doesn't mean that existence is refuted- it just means that there still are a lot of questions surrounding Jesus' historicity.

The majority opinion here is "we're just not sure if Jesus existed. He may have existed, He may have not but we've got no proof for either." Characterizing the debate as "either/or" misses the point.

no i dont think so.

the underlying message of christianity is that you too can enter into this groovy new heaven that was thought up in the centuries surrounding 1AD. christ is the conduit and gives you the key notions of what it takes to get there.

Does that mean that Jesus has to have been a physical person on Earth for that to happen? Why couldn't a spirit do the same thing? Many of the Greek gods offered salvation through them yet none are required to physically exist on Earth for that to happen.

the suggestions of how to behave that are contained in the gospels are not particularly appropriate for a secular life in any age. be meek. put up with any crap that anyone dishes out to you. sell all your stuff and wander the world. forgive anyone anything no matter how many times he wrongs you as long as he asks for forgiveness. love your enemies and be kind to those who do you wrong. even the classic "love your neighbor as yourself" is not great advice. "give your neighbor the respect he deserves" maybe but thats not what it says.

I think that mischaracterizes Jesus' Teachings- Jesus does not teach about complete submission, Jesus teaches about showing respect to others. A lot of the points He said run counter to many of Judea's cultural trademarks in His day ("eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth") and was meant to show people that revenge is simply *not* the answer. Furthermore, His statements about being meek address the issue of having too much pride, a charge He levied countless times against the Pharisees, and His comments about judgement are meant to tell His followers it is not important to concern yourself with the actions of others, especially if your own actions can be just as questionable. I'm sure Gospel readers at the time knew what the underlying message behind the sayings was, and I doubt they were meant to be taken completely literally.

and in the end, virtually no christian ever follows the actual example of christ or follows his rules for living. not that sacrificing yourself for strangers is much called for these days but...well OK i was going to pull out a more reasonable example but i cant THINK of one. how did christ live that anyone would use as a guide for life? he was nice to kids, maybe. he was a charismatic street preacher who ended up dead. not much to mold yourself after.

Jesus put Himself behind others (in washing the feet of His followers), reached out to the outcasts of society (in having dinner with Matthew the Tax Collector), made a lot of statements regarding life choices emphasizing it's more important what you *do* as opposed to what *others* do, and sacrificed Himself for the good of all humanity. There's certainly a lot there to follow. I agree that most Christians don't actually follow Christ's example but that doesn't mean that Christ never set one.

Does that mean that Jesus has to have been a physical person on Earth for that to happen? Why couldn't a spirit do the same thing? Many of the Greek gods offered salvation through them yet none are required to physically exist on Earth for that to happen.


well it would invalidate the stories of the gospels but thats not a big problem.

it would invalidate the nicean creed but thats not a big problem

it would invalidate the crucifiction which is the central event of christianity (although the resurrection is the most important)

it sorta invalidates the whole reason for their being a messiah because there is nothing that needs doing to fix the entrance to heaven.

it changes christianity into a gnostic religion.

i would require a whole reworking of christian theology

religiously speaking, i dont see a problem with it that cant be overcome if proof of such was offered.


I think that mischaracterizes Jesus' Teachings- Jesus does not teach about complete submission, Jesus teaches about showing respect to others. A lot of the points He said run counter to many of Judea's cultural trademarks in His day ("eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth") and was meant to show people that revenge is simply *not* the answer. Furthermore, His statements about being meek address the issue of having too much pride, a charge He levied countless times against the Pharisees, and His comments about judgement are meant to tell His followers it is not important to concern yourself with the actions of others, especially if your own actions can be just as questionable. I'm sure Gospel readers at the time knew what the underlying message behind the sayings was, and I doubt they were meant to be taken completely literally.


thats not how i read it. it seems to me that he wants you to not care about the things of this earth, possessions or wrongs that people do to you. i read the sermon on the mount and see a radical philosophy that virtually no one ever practices and perhaps shouldnt. if someone takes my shirt im really not going to give them my coat too. he told the rich young man who was very devout to sell everything he had and give the proceeds to the poor. we dont do that any more than the rich man did.


Jesus put Himself behind others (in washing the feet of His followers), reached out to the outcasts of society (in having dinner with Matthew the Tax Collector), made a lot of statements regarding life choices emphasizing it's more important what you *do* as opposed to what *others* do, and sacrificed Himself for the good of all humanity. There's certainly a lot there to follow. I agree that most Christians don't actually follow Christ's example but that doesn't mean that Christ never set one.

jesus sometimes put himself behind others. he sometimes reached out to the outcasts. sometimes he didnt. just like everyone else. if that is the only example he set, its not really much is it?

he mostly was the leader that everyone followed. he set the rules; he decided where to go; he told them how to behave. its a good example if you want to be a radical theologian with a devout following but not all that useful for the day to day life of everyone else.

Because if He did not, then my faith is based on nothing.
Well, you're obviously done learning and understanding the world and its complexities, so you might as well gear up for war to defend your limitations.
No prisoners. :rolleyes:

Jocabia is just reading along and see what develops. So far, I'm enjoying it. Ignoring the ravings of fanatics, of course.

...as well, of course, waiting for Baldy. :p

is there prof that he doesnt exist? if there is lets hear it real prof not somebody wrote this or somebody said that, because if thats the case then we have support that he does exist in the writings of the gosples i say he does you say he doesnt
That reminds me ... it's been a while since anyone whispered "Cthulu"

That reminds me ... it's been a while since anyone whispered "Cthulu"

We at the Esoteric Order of Dagon are getting ready for his return. It's hard to multitask that sort of thing with whispering his name on internet forums...

We at the Esoteric Order of Dagon are getting ready for his return. It's hard to multitask that sort of thing with whispering his name on internet forums...

Sorry. I guess it doesn't help for me to keep using my webcam to sign his name and use sock puppets all the time.

Sorry. I guess it doesn't help for me to keep using my webcam to sign his name and use sock puppets all the time.

We do tend to be a bit secretive about these things, but since the word's been out for almost a century, it's not the sort of things we enforce heavily. Carry-on with your webcammage and sock puppetry, and we'll see to it you're eaten first.

Carry-on with your webcammage and sock puppetry, and we'll see to it you're eaten first.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

Sigs limited to 8 lines.
:(

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

Sigs limited to 8 lines.
:(

*bows* You could just add the link. :)

*bows* You could just add the link. :)

Doesn't it say that it includes those in the parameters? :confused:

Doesn't it say that it includes those in the parameters? :confused:

Well, a link is a single line of text (or in the case of my sig, several links are crammed onto two lines). So even though a full quote is treated as several lines, the link itself can fit on one line. You seem to have 6 lines presently in your sig, and so an additional link-line would only bring it up to 7.

Well, a link is a single line of text (or in the case of my sig, several links are crammed onto two lines). So even though a full quote is treated as several lines, the link itself can fit on one line. You seem to have 6 lines presently in your sig, and so an additional link-line would only bring it up to 7.

Don't i have to use up available text to write in the link? That's the problem i was having before.
:(

Don't i have to use up available text to write in the link? That's the problem i was having before.
:(

I don't see why. Unless it's giving you a character limit, it shouldnt have a problem with adding the link there.

I don't see why. Unless it's giving you a character limit, it shouldnt have a problem with adding the link there.

Ayup.
:(
It was a character thingie, iirc.

Ayup.
:(
It was a character thingie, iirc.

:(

:(

If it weren't spam, or something very spam-flavoured, i would probably just have one colossal collective sig post that i could refer to whenever.
Hard to provide a context, though, to the thread - other than "most sigworthy lines/posters" ... which, iirc, i tried once already.

well it would invalidate the stories of the gospels but thats not a big problem.

it would invalidate the nicean creed but thats not a big problem

it would invalidate the crucifiction which is the central event of christianity (although the resurrection is the most important)

it sorta invalidates the whole reason for their being a messiah because there is nothing that needs doing to fix the entrance to heaven.

it changes christianity into a gnostic religion.

i would require a whole reworking of christian theology

religiously speaking, i dont see a problem with it that cant be overcome if proof of such was offered.

I don't disagree that Christian sects are going to have rethink their own theologies if Jesus was shown to be a mythological figure instead of a historical one, but I don't see how the concept of Christianity can't continue. The basis for the religion in the first place- the New Testament text- still hasn't changed and the Teachings and lessons learned can still be drawn from it as a result.

thats not how i read it. it seems to me that he wants you to not care about the things of this earth, possessions or wrongs that people do to you. i read the sermon on the mount and see a radical philosophy that virtually no one ever practices and perhaps shouldnt. if someone takes my shirt im really not going to give them my coat too. he told the rich young man who was very devout to sell everything he had and give the proceeds to the poor. we dont do that any more than the rich man did.

You have to remember it in context- Jesus spoke largely to poor crowds, who were probably destitute and would have loved the rich to cut them some slack, so the message of "if a man takes your shirt, give him your coat too" would hit home a lot better with a poor person who has nothing than it would with a rich person who'd have everything to give. Jesus' message to the meek was one of encouragement in that He reminded them that even though they have nothing they still have plenty to hope for.

Besides, the ultimate message is that if you're really going to be a good Christian, you're supposed to put nothing before God. If you care more about money than you do about God then you're not being a good Christian because you've put other concerns over your religious concerns. However, if you accumulate a large amount of wealth but devote it to religious causes then it doesn't matter how much money you have- at least you are still making the religion your prime motivation in life. Like I said, I doubt Jesus' Teachings were meant to be taken literally and they probably had a contextual meaning of which we have now lost but the readers and listeners knew very well.

jesus sometimes put himself behind others. he sometimes reached out to the outcasts. sometimes he didnt. just like everyone else. if that is the only example he set, its not really much is it?

I don't know how much "everyone else" acted like Jesus if many people looked down on Him for having dinner with Matthew or associating Himself with the sick and poor of society. Regardless, even if it's not extraordinary it's still not an undesirable example to set.

he mostly was the leader that everyone followed. he set the rules; he decided where to go; he told them how to behave. its a good example if you want to be a radical theologian with a devout following but not all that useful for the day to day life of everyone else.

I see Him more as a charismatic Teacher who engaged with a lot of followers and, given how people were so enraptured by Him, they wanted to know how to emulate Him. He set about a new way of life that was attractive to many, but I don't think He forced it upon anyone- He just said "I am The Way" and said that those who want Salvation should follow. He certainly never appeared very dictatorial at all.

I don't disagree that Christian sects are going to have rethink their own theologies if Jesus was shown to be a mythological figure instead of a historical one, but I don't see how the concept of Christianity can't continue. The basis for the religion in the first place- the New Testament text- still hasn't changed and the Teachings and lessons learned can still be drawn from it as a result.


here's the thing

christianity is a revealed religion.

its not a guess, its accumulated wisdom is the true word of god based on actual events. note that im not saying that the bible has to be the inerrant word of god.

but christianity is not MYTH. its actual fact.

or its not

and if its not, it is no more worth following than the roman pantheon or hinduism. if it does not have the force of god's law, there is no reason to work against my own best interest in turning the other cheek, giving all my money to the poor or even getting up on a chilly sunday morning. if all im looking for is a good life's philosophy i should take a bigger look around and form one from the great philosophers and theologians of all time. maybe make a nice fusion of christianity and hinduism.

if its not TRUE, there is no reason for anyone to choose it over any other religion.

here's the thing

christianity is a revealed religion.

its not a guess, its accumulated wisdom is the true word of god based on actual events. note that im not saying that the bible has to be the inerrant word of god.

but christianity is not MYTH. its actual fact.

or its not

and if its not, it is no more worth following than the roman pantheon or hinduism. if it does not have the force of god's law, there is no reason to work against my own best interest in turning the other cheek, giving all my money to the poor or even getting up on a chilly sunday morning. if all im looking for is a good life's philosophy i should take a bigger look around and form one from the great philosophers and theologians of all time. maybe make a nice fusion of christianity and hinduism.

if its not TRUE, there is no reason for anyone to choose it over any other religion.

Ugh. How sad it is that you view that as against your self-interest. What a shallow and biased view of the world you must have. You can't imagine a benefit to any of these things? Really? None? It's not possible that people benefit from such things without there being a little carrot at the end of the stick being dangled in front of your face.

I hope it's considered a stage of child development to move past doing right simply because there is some carrot being dangled, yes?

So parables aren't valuable if they're not true? Would they be more valuable if they were true? Considering Jesus isn't a person you've ever met, how would his teachings somehow have more punch if he was a real person you've never met instead of a fake person you've never met?

I've been reading this and watching RomeW be fairly patient, but it seems the crux of your argument is that because people think he's real now, that it loses meaning if he turns out he didn't. I don't care if Socrates didn't exist (and he very well may not have), I've learned a lot from his stories. And living or dead, real of fake, there is no person who I wish to emulate more than Jesus the Christ. It's what makes me a Christian. Not some silly idea that I need it to be the Truth. Right is right, and I'm happy to do right, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else finds any value in it or its truthiness.

Meanwhile, a revealed religion needn't for the revelation to be in the form of a real human. Revelation through teachings is equally valuable provide that are actually revealing God. The fact that people may have confused the purpose and style of those teachings is really irrelevant.

here's the thing

christianity is a revealed religion.

its not a guess, its accumulated wisdom is the true word of god based on actual events. note that im not saying that the bible has to be the inerrant word of god.

but christianity is not MYTH. its actual fact.

I don't know if the extent of the author's insistence of the historicity of the New Testament stories is any more than The Aeneid or The Illiad, stories held to be true at the time but questioned as such even now. In fact, I don't even think the Gospels are attempting to write actual history (it could be argued that Luke is, but how much of it is him just recounting a story he heard and adding elements to it (which may actually be real but applied really to someone else) is not known).

Regardless, what I've been trying to get at is how the text can't have any value even if Jesus doesn't exist historically. I mean, the text itself doesn't physically change just because Jesus isn't historical- there's still a figure to emulate and learn from. Whether or not that figure is legendary or historical is immaterial, really.

or its not

and if its not, it is no more worth following than the roman pantheon or hinduism. if it does not have the force of god's law, there is no reason to work against my own best interest in turning the other cheek, giving all my money to the poor or even getting up on a chilly sunday morning. if all im looking for is a good life's philosophy i should take a bigger look around and form one from the great philosophers and theologians of all time. maybe make a nice fusion of christianity and hinduism.

if its not TRUE, there is no reason for anyone to choose it over any other religion.

I really think that's a poor argument about the validity of a religion- if someone chooses to follow something, they do because it has value to them. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it can't have value to others.

is there prof that he doesnt exist? if there is lets hear it real prof not somebody wrote this or somebody said that, because if thats the case then we have support that he does exist in the writings of the gosples i say he does you say he doesnt

Jesus himself appeared to me in his resurrected form, and told me that he didn't exist and that the whole resurrection thing was a metaphor.

well it would invalidate the stories of the gospels but thats not a big problem.


It wouldn't 'invalidate' them - it would just show them to be metaphors... parables, perhaps.


it would invalidate the nicean creed but thats not a big problem


Not a problem at all, some would say.


it would invalidate the crucifiction which is the central event of christianity (although the resurrection is the most important)


The central event to those who interpret it as a literal event. To others, the earthly ministry is far more important than vicarious substitution.


it sorta invalidates the whole reason for their being a messiah because there is nothing that needs doing to fix the entrance to heaven.


Messiah is an earthly king - THE Messiah is the final earthly king, the one who will bring peace to the world, and bring the words of the priests of Israel to every nation.

WHat Christians generally CLAIM 'messiah' is 'for' is nothing to do with what Messiah was prophesised as being 'for'.


it changes christianity into a gnostic religion.


It kind of is, really....


i would require a whole reworking of christian theology


No bad thing.

Ugh. How sad it is that you view that as against your self-interest. What a shallow and biased view of the world you must have. You can't imagine a benefit to any of these things? Really? None? It's not possible that people benefit from such things without there being a little carrot at the end of the stick being dangled in front of your face.

I hope it's considered a stage of child development to move past doing right simply because there is some carrot being dangled, yes?

So parables aren't valuable if they're not true? Would they be more valuable if they were true? Considering Jesus isn't a person you've ever met, how would his teachings somehow have more punch if he was a real person you've never met instead of a fake person you've never met?

I've been reading this and watching RomeW be fairly patient, but it seems the crux of your argument is that because people think he's real now, that it loses meaning if he turns out he didn't. I don't care if Socrates didn't exist (and he very well may not have), I've learned a lot from his stories. And living or dead, real of fake, there is no person who I wish to emulate more than Jesus the Christ. It's what makes me a Christian. Not some silly idea that I need it to be the Truth. Right is right, and I'm happy to do right, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else finds any value in it or its truthiness.

Meanwhile, a revealed religion needn't for the revelation to be in the form of a real human. Revelation through teachings is equally valuable provide that are actually revealing God. The fact that people may have confused the purpose and style of those teachings is really irrelevant.


its not whether or not he existed that is important. its whether or not he's the son of god.

after all, no one pulls out the symposium and argues over the exact meaning of something socrates said.

so why do they do that to the bible?

I don't know if the extent of the author's insistence of the historicity of the New Testament stories is any more than The Aeneid or The Illiad, stories held to be true at the time but questioned as such even now. In fact, I don't even think the Gospels are attempting to write actual history (it could be argued that Luke is, but how much of it is him just recounting a story he heard and adding elements to it (which may actually be real but applied really to someone else) is not known).


no its not the AUTHOR. the authors lived in a time where the exact truth of something like this wasnt important

its CHRISTIANS. christianity is a revealed religion and the bible is that revelation. everything a christian believes has to be justified by the bible. even the odd things that protestants diss catholics for believing has justification in the bible. (im thinking purgatory. its not explicit in the bible, its only vaguely implied)


Regardless, what I've been trying to get at is how the text can't have any value even if Jesus doesn't exist historically. I mean, the text itself doesn't physically change just because Jesus isn't historical- there's still a figure to emulate and learn from. Whether or not that figure is legendary or historical is immaterial, really.

as ive written before, there just isnt much THERE when you remove the religious parts. the vast majority of the parables are about god. a very few are about how to deal with other people and it recommends that you treat people with an unrealistically high regard. no one being recommended such a standard by a non religious figure would consider following it. it only holds prestige because it is commanded by god.

but feel free to pull out some examples of a great story from the NT that contains a lesson that is good for us to follow. im willing to discuss whether or not i agree with you.


I really think that's a poor argument about the validity of a religion- if someone chooses to follow something, they do because it has value to them. Just because it has no value to you doesn't mean it can't have value to others.

i dont know about quality, i know that few people follow the secular teachings of jesus. many have a vague idea that jesus would want them to behave a certain way but it doesnt seem to be contained in the bible.

and as a reminder, i dont DO what baldy did. im only posting because YOU want to get to the #10 spot. keep that in mind please.

no its not the AUTHOR. the authors lived in a time where the exact truth of something like this wasnt important

its CHRISTIANS. christianity is a revealed religion and the bible is that revelation. everything a christian believes has to be justified by the bible. even the odd things that protestants diss catholics for believing has justification in the bible. (im thinking purgatory. its not explicit in the bible, its only vaguely implied)

The Bible is not the revelation. It is a human, and therefore imperfect, record of divine revelation. So, while Christian beliefs can not directly contradict the Bible, there is no reason for Christians to believe that every single word is literally true, or that a literal interpretation is the correct one.

as ive written before, there just isnt much THERE when you remove the religious parts. the vast majority of the parables are about god. a very few are about how to deal with other people and it recommends that you treat people with an unrealistically high regard. no one being recommended such a standard by a non religious figure would consider following it. it only holds prestige because it is commanded by god.

If you were to take put all the religious parts of the Bible and just leave the moral bits, you would have a pretty boring story and it probably wouldn't be as big a hit. But the folks who wrote the Bible didn't do that.Precisely because God adds prestige. But even so, such a boring book would still have benefit for the people who believed that those moral lessons should be followed.

i dont know about quality, i know that few people follow the secular teachings of jesus. many have a vague idea that jesus would want them to behave a certain way but it doesnt seem to be contained in the bible.

I am not so sure about that. And even if it were true, it would still not affect the other non-religious benefits of Christianity.

and as a reminder, i dont DO what baldy did. im only posting because YOU want to get to the #10 spot. keep that in mind please.

You go, girl. How many posts do we have left anyways?

its not whether or not he existed that is important. its whether or not he's the son of god.

after all, no one pulls out the symposium and argues over the exact meaning of something socrates said.

so why do they do that to the bible?

Oh, yes, they do. If you've never argued over the specific meanings of the stories of Socrates, then you need new friends.

Jesus himself appeared to me in his resurrected form, and told me that he didn't exist and that the whole resurrection thing was a metaphor.Can we get a second record of the event, please?

You go, girl. How many posts do we have left anyways?

At the time of this writing...52 posts.

EDIT- Ashmoria, I'll respond to your post tomorrow...I'm just too tired right now...

Can we get a second record of the event, please?

It's okay, I wrote it down somewhere else, too.

Jesus himself appeared to me in his resurrected form, and told me that he didn't exist and that the whole resurrection thing was a metaphor.

*head/spirit asplode*

It's okay, I wrote it down somewhere else, too.

kaikaikaikaikai

It's okay, I wrote it down somewhere else, too.Can we get a second, independent record of the event, please?

Grave_n_Idle saw Jesus and he told him the stories were a metaphor. This is first-hand testimony. I'm just a scribe. Here is my scription.

Jesus appeared before his disciple Grave_N_Idle in baby form. He explained to Mr. Idle that he was a metaphor. Then he ate an orange without peeling it.

Can we get a second, independent record of the event, please?
It's true. He had his webcam on at the time.

Jesus looks a lot like a Raptor.

It's true. He had his webcam on at the time.

Jesus looks a lot like a Raptor.post the film on youtube then.

UB, in his offhand way, has touched upon an interesting point.

If a Christian were to have such a direct revelation right now (i.e. that Jesus was a metaphor), how would that Christian react? How would his or her community react?

I would imagine that the vast majority of Christians would discount such a revelation. Those close to the 'prophet' (for lack of a better word) would probably believe that the person who had the revelation was sincere, but that the revelation itself may not come from God. It's the devil sticking those ideas in yer head!

And I have no idea how the individual would react.

UB, in his offhand way, has touched upon an interesting point.

If a Christian were to have such a direct revelation right now (i.e. that Jesus was a metaphor), how would that Christian react? How would his or her community react?

I would imagine that the vast majority of Christians would discount such a revelation. Those close to the 'prophet' (for lack of a better word) would probably believe that the person who had the revelation was sincere, but that the revelation itself may not come from God. It's the devil sticking those ideas in yer head!

And I have no idea how the individual would react.I would rather be interested in confirming the revelation. Would you trust somebody who claims to have had a revelation? Without reliable witnesses or recording devices?

I would rather be interested in confirming the revelation. Would you trust somebody who claims to have had a revelation? Without reliable witnesses or recording devices?

You're asking the wrong person.

I've had revelations.

I would rather be interested in confirming the revelation. Would you trust somebody who claims to have had a revelation? Without reliable witnesses or recording devices?
You're asking the wrong person.

I've had revelations.

I wouldn't

I wouldn't

You wouldn't what? Are you saying that you would not accept someone else's testimony of their revelation as truth?

That makes sense. Many wouldn't. I might or might not. It would depend on how the new information fit in with the other bits of information I already have.

If their revelation was that God had commanded them to kill somebody, I would probably tell the person to get serious psychiatric help.

If their revelation was that Jesus was just a metaphor, I would assume that person was probably joking.

If their revelation was that god is immanent, and that we all find unity therein, so we should love all reality as god, then I would regard them very carefully, and ask for more information.

Yup, that's what I was saying



I'd just figure they were a loon regardless of what the revelation was supposed to be about (assuming of course that they had no proof).

Okay. From a theoretical viewpoint, I can see your logic. On a more practical level, it runs into some problems.

Let's take me as an example. I've had revelations. According to your theory, I should be a loon. Since I am obviously not an aquatic bird, I would assume you mean that I am somewhat crazy.

The trouble with this theory is that you have no other evidence to suggest any insanity on my part. All the other data you have on me shows me to be rational.

You wouldn't what? Are you saying that you would not accept someone else's testimony of their revelation as truth?

Yup, that's what I was saying

That makes sense. Many wouldn't. I might or might not. It would depend on how the new information fit in with the other bits of information I already have.

If their revelation was that God had commanded them to kill somebody, I would probably tell the person to get serious psychiatric help.

If their revelation was that Jesus was just a metaphor, I would assume that person was probably joking.

If their revelation was that god is immanent, and that we all find unity therein, so we should love all reality as god, then I would regard them very carefully, and ask for more information.

I'd just figure they were a loon regardless of what the revelation was supposed to be about (assuming of course that they had no proof).

post the film on youtube then.
Didn't get a download, but I did get a picture:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c14/Dipp_/Picture12.png

lol, Raptor Jesus Lives!

Grave_n_Idle saw Jesus and he told him the stories were a metaphor. This is first-hand testimony. I'm just a scribe. Here is my scription.

Jesus appeared before his disciple Grave_N_Idle in baby form. He explained to Mr. Idle that he was a metaphor. Then he ate an orange without peeling it.

The orange clinches it. There's no way you could have known that detail if you hadn't have been there, seen it somehow, been an actual eyewitness, been told it by a REALLY reliable source, and/or been divinely inspired.

The orange clinches it. There's no way you could have known that detail if you hadn't have been there, seen it somehow, been an actual eyewitness, been told it by a REALLY reliable source, and/or been divinely inspired.

One cannot argue with such Idle chatter. All hail the prophet !

I would rather be interested in confirming the revelation. Would you trust somebody who claims to have had a revelation? Without reliable witnesses or recording devices?

Amusing. How is a witness (no matter how reliable) going to be able to intrinsically verify my revelation?

Don't you know that ye of little faith couldn't see the truth even if it were to be placed in front of you?

How could a recording device measure or verify a revelation that occured beyond the parameters of it's scope and capacity? (And hell, that's not hard... if Jesus appeard 'off-cam' then you'd question the source, no?)

Yes

Didn't get a download, but I did get a picture:

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c14/Dipp_/Picture12.png

lol, Raptor Jesus Lives!

That makes one revealed 'prophet', who documented the encounter in two different places; one scribe adding his own 'eyewitness' testimony; one independent, contemporary (and external) source; and what appears to be (photo)graphical evidence.

Pretty conclusive evidence, I think. And at least one and a half sources better than the evidence we usually see for a 'historical Jesus'.

Yes

Way to be ambiguous...

Yes to what?

I'd just figure they were a loon regardless of what the revelation was supposed to be about (assuming of course that they had no proof).

But, you would have to accept their witness testimony as to the nature of their revelation, no? Even if you decided you didn't accept the 'revelation' as being significant?

The orange clinches it. There's no way you could have known that detail if you hadn't have been there, seen it somehow, been an actual eyewitness, been told it by a REALLY reliable source, and/or been divinely inspired.

And the orange part is so absurd that it must be true, it couldn't have been made up. It's a miracle!

But, you would have to accept their witness testimony as to the nature of their revelation, no? Even if you decided you didn't accept the 'revelation' as being significant?

I would have to take their word on what the 'revelation' was about, yes. That in no way confirms their 'revelation'.

That makes one revealed 'prophet', who documented the encounter in two different places; one scribe adding his own 'eyewitness' testimony; one independent, contemporary (and external) source; and what appears to be (photo)graphical evidence.

Pretty conclusive evidence, I think. And at least one and a half sources better than the evidence we usually see for a 'historical Jesus'.

Hehehe.

I would have to take their word on what the 'revelation' was about, yes. That in no way confirms their 'revelation'.

Agreed. But since you were arguing (as far as I can tell) about whether you'd 'trust someone who had had a revelation'... well, you WOULD trust them - to describe it - but you wouldn't necessarily assume that that made the 'revelation' true.

And the orange part is so absurd that it must be true, it couldn't have been made up. It's a miracle!

I was blind, but now I can see!

Agreed. But since you were arguing (as far as I can tell) about whether you'd 'trust someone who had had a revelation'... well, you WOULD trust them - to describe it - but you wouldn't necessarily assume that that made the 'revelation' true.

It doesn't take any trust to listen to someone blather on about some schizoid episode ;)

It doesn't take any trust to listen to someone blather on about some schizoid episode ;)

Nonono.. that's not the point... you wouldn't assume they were LYING about their revelation... you'd assume they were giving you a fairly faithful rendition of their episode, even if you suspected it was a psychological episode, rather than a miraculous one... no?

Nonono.. that's not the point... you wouldn't assume they were LYING about their revelation... you'd assume they were giving you a fairly faithful rendition of their episode, even if you suspected it was a psychological episode, rather than a miraculous one... no?

Yes and no

My thought would be that they were making it up, the reasons for which would be mental illness

I was blind, but now I can see!

You think that's impressive? I used to be a newt!


Oops, wrong Monty Python film...

Yes and no

My thought would be that they were making it up, the reasons for which would be mental illness

Do you have any evidence on which to base your assumption?

Do you have any evidence on which to base your assumption?

No, but then lacking any evidence to support the veracity of the 'revelation' I'm comfortable with my assumption.

No, but then lacking any evidence to support the veracity of the 'revelation' I'm comfortable with my assumption.

I wonder if your position qualifies as a religious belief: i.e. an assumption about spiritual matters based on faith rather than evidence.

I wonder if your position qualifies as a religious belief: i.e. an assumption about spiritual matters based on faith rather than evidence.

Possibly

I would rather be interested in confirming the revelation. Would you trust somebody who claims to have had a revelation? Without reliable witnesses or recording devices?

Even with eye witnesses or recording devices, I am sure *most* xtains would not accept it as fact today. They are however willing to accept as fact the same thing because it supposedly happened 2000+ years ago.

If a man were to declare 'god' has visited him, and it was witnessed by twelve people, and that 'god' told him that 'god' was an alien from mercury, no xtain would believe it. But if the same holy nugget had been recorded in a canonized text of the bible, oh have mercy! It must be true!

Besides, if it is on the internet or in the bible, it has to be true! great pic of the 'god-lizard' btw

Yes jacobia, I know we have no evidence either way so we cannot discount the possibility that 'god' is an alien or alien-human hybrid. Got you covered.

Possibly

It is somewhat amusing to think that an atheist such as yourself has more faith than a theist such as I.

I've had revelations.How do you know?

How do you know?

Because I experienced them.

It is somewhat amusing to think that an atheist such as yourself has more faith than a theist such as I.

I'm not an atheist

I'm not an atheist

Oh. Well. Not nearly as amusing, then.

Oh. Well. Not nearly as amusing, then.

:( Sorry to disappoint :(

Sure. Dyakovo can have the honour. With Jolt's time warpiness, we'll have to be careful.

I suggest that Dyakovo make the record breaking post 3 or four minutes after the post that ties this thread with tenth place.

And the rest of us will simply not post during that time.

Now that we are close to our goal I think we should consider WHO will get the post that will get us into the top 10.

I therefore nominate the OP of this thread. Dyakovo should have the honor of putting us into the top ten.

Nah, I'm probably not going to be on when it happens.


Also fixed your utter lack of capitalization, could please start capitalizing? Reading your posts hurts at times.

Sure. Dyakovo can have the honour. With Jolt's time warpiness, we'll have to be careful.

I suggest that Dyakovo make the record breaking post 3 or four minutes after the post that ties this thread with tenth place.

And the rest of us will simply not post during that time.

LOL

now that we are close to our goal i think we should consider WHO will get the post that will get us into the top 10.

i therefore nominate the OP of this thread. Dyakovo should have the honor of putting us into the top ten.

now that we are close to our goal i think we should consider WHO will get the post that will get us into the top 10.

i therefore nominate the OP of this thread. Dyakovo should have the honor of putting us into the top ten.

I was about to refuse to engage in pointless spam to increase post total... when the mental iamge of 'pointy' spam (as a necessary alternative) came to my mind, filling me with nausea, fear, and then more nausea.

Many years from now, an NSer will find a sacred text in Mary's own hand, admitting that the 'New Testament' was a fictional book she wrote, in tribute to her own child, that she aborted because she was gay.... thus both tying together, and ending for-once-and-for-all, the bulk of NS General.

Many years from now, an NSer will find a sacred text in Mary's own hand, admitting that the 'New Testament' was a fictional book she wrote, in tribute to her own child, that she aborted because she was gay.... thus both tying together, and ending for-once-and-for-all, the bulk of NS General.

You forgot the poor, underage animals ;)

You forgot the poor, underage animals ;)

What if Mary was eating pork chops and ran a sex education class while announcing this?

It is somewhat amusing to think that an atheist such as yourself has more faith than a theist such as I.

I don't see how that follows from what he said. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor; you've made a claim for which there are three possible explanations: divine revelation, that you were genuinely mistaken in what you experienced or mental illness (I'm sure there are other possible explanations and I'll do you the courtesy of excluding dishonesty).

Our evidence consists of you saying that you've experienced revelation and we must decide which explanation is the best one. From our perspective, genuine confusion or mental illness would explain the data just as well as divine revelation, and both of these phenomena are known to exist so there really is no need to postulate any supernatural cause unless you can demonstrate it.

The best explanation therefore, for myself and for Dyakovo, is that you are either mistaken or ill (please don't take this as an insult, it's meant as an objective observation). This is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of inductive reasoning to the simplest explanation. Maybe your experiences mean that the most rational judgement from your perspective is differentbut even if you genuinely have experienced divine revelation, you can't reasonably expect us to believe you at this time. Maybe if you could demonstrate prescience, clairvoyance or similar in a double-blind test then things would be different.

now that we are close to our goal i think we should consider WHO will get the post that will get us into the top 10.

i therefore nominate the OP of this thread. Dyakovo should have the honor of putting us into the top ten.

I agree he should get the record breaking post. However, I don't see why we need to settle for 10th if we can keep this going reasonably.

There's still the opportunity for good discussion to be had...

I don't see how that follows from what he said. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor; you've made a claim for which there are three possible explanations: divine revelation, that you were genuinely mistaken in what you experienced or mental illness (I'm sure there are other possible explanations and I'll do you the courtesy of excluding dishonesty).

Our evidence consists of you saying that you've experienced revelation and we must decide which explanation is the best one. From our perspective, genuine confusion or mental illness would explain the data just as well as divine revelation, and both of these phenomena are known to exist so there really is no need to postulate any supernatural cause unless you can demonstrate it.

The best explanation therefore, for myself and for Dyakovo, is that you are either mistaken or ill (please don't take this as an insult, it's meant as an objective observation). This is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of inductive reasoning to the simplest explanation. Maybe your experiences mean that the most rational judgement from your perspective is differentbut even if you genuinely have experienced divine revelation, you can't reasonably expect us to believe you at this time. Maybe if you could demonstrate prescience, clairvoyance or similar in a double-blind test then things would be different.

This is actually a correct application. Sorry, but scientific explanations must defer to explanations that are known to exist for explanation. We don't go, well, all the evidence points to Jim shooting Johnny in the face, but we cannot discount that the gun levitated just in front of Jim's hand and shot Johnny in the face. Things we don't know to be possible simply aren't a choice when there are explanations we know to be possible.

It's a great example of how we should look at explanations for other events. That's why a scientific explanation for something being an eyewitness account cannot be "well, maybe Jesus told people about after the resurrections", an example directly from this thread offer by Baldy as an explanation for how eyewitness accounts could include events no living person witnessed.

But, you would have to accept their witness testimony as to the nature of their revelation, no? Even if you decided you didn't accept the 'revelation' as being significant?

I think he has an excellent point really, and it's a good way to look at the thread as a whole.

I guess the question lies in when we'd actually consider it enough evidence. Mass revelation has been proven to be unreliable, so what do we need?

EDIT: And, apparently, I took the post that moved us up a notch. Frankly, I've got more posts than anyone else in this topic by over 100. I think I earned it.

I think he has an excellent point really, and it's a good way to look at the thread as a whole.

I guess the question lies in when we'd actually consider it enough evidence. Mass revelation has been proven to be unreliable, so what do we need?

I can't think of anything that would satisfy me as proof of a 'revelation'.

EDIT: And, apparently, I took the post that moved us up a notch. Frankly, I've got more posts than anyone else in this topic by over 100. I think I earned it.

I certainly don't begrudge it

I can't think of anything that would satisfy me as proof of a 'revelation'.

But then you're not being very scientific. The requirement for evidence must have equal application all the time. You can't say, except here, here, I will accept no evidence.

But then you're not being very scientific. The requirement for evidence must have equal application all the time. You can't say, except here, here, I will accept no evidence.

How am I being unscientific, I merely stated that I cannot think of anything that would be acceptable, not that I wouldn't be willing to consider evidence.

How am I being unscientific, I merely stated that I cannot think of anything that would be acceptable, not that I wouldn't be willing to consider evidence.

So you're saying that you honestly can't imagine what would qualify as evidence that a person experienced a revelation, but you're willing to accept evidence were some to be presented?

So you're saying that you honestly can't imagine what would qualify as evidence that a person experienced a revelation, but you're willing to accept evidence were some to be presented?

Yes, I thought that was clear when I wrote it, although obviously it was not. :(

I don't see how that follows from what he said. This is a simple case of Occam's Razor; you've made a claim for which there are three possible explanations: divine revelation, that you were genuinely mistaken in what you experienced or mental illness (I'm sure there are other possible explanations and I'll do you the courtesy of excluding dishonesty).

I was alluding to Dyakovo's position that he dismisses all claims of revelation as mental illness without any evidence. To believe such a claim without proof requires a certain amount of faith. My position is based solely on my personal experiences, which are not faith based. Therefore, Dy's position requires more faith than mine.

Now, let's get to the point of your post.

There's two different questions I want to look at. One: Why would I think I had a divine revelation? and two: Why would you think I had a divine revelation.

Our evidence consists of you saying that you've experienced revelation and we must decide which explanation is the best one. From our perspective, genuine confusion or mental illness would explain the data just as well as divine revelation, and both of these phenomena are known to exist so there really is no need to postulate any supernatural cause unless you can demonstrate it.

The best explanation therefore, for myself and for Dyakovo, is that you are either mistaken or ill (please don't take this as an insult, it's meant as an objective observation). This is not a matter of faith, it's a matter of inductive reasoning to the simplest explanation.

And these paragraphs are a good summation as to why you would force yourself to choose Dyakovo's belief if you had to choose one.

Maybe your experiences mean that the most rational judgement from your perspective is differentbut even if you genuinely have experienced divine revelation, you can't reasonably expect us to believe you at this time. Maybe if you could demonstrate prescience, clairvoyance or similar in a double-blind test then things would be different.

This touches on why I think my revelation was not some mental aberration on my part. It starts with a question. How do you know you're awake right now? How do you know you're not still dreaming? There must be some way for you to tell the difference. It implies that there is some set of criteria that you can compare your sensory input to in order to determine if you are experiencing consensual reality. Rather than type for pages and pages, I will simply say that my experiences fit closer to the criteria of reality than they did to the criteria of hallucination, dreams, drug induced visions, etc.

This is why Occam's razor works for you but not for me. You cannot compare the experience to the criteria, and therefore the three hypotheses you outlined are equal in your perspective. I can make that comparison, so I can judge that the three hypotheses do not explain the phenomena equally. After all, Occam's razor only works if the theories being compared all describe the phenomena equally well.

What truly is a brief summary of Occams Razor

What truly is a brief summary of Occams Razor
Occam's Razor is a method of inductive model building.

Basically, you build your model of the world (that you use for explaining the things you perceive and experience) by responding to each new phenomenon by first seeing if any explanation exists within your current model already. If they do, you use that explanation above and beyond those that are incompatible with it. If, however, your model is incapable of explaining a particular event, then you should pick that modification to your model which results in the fewest number of additional agents, bodies, rules or laws being made a part of your model. The reasoning behind this is that adding the fewest number of rules results in both a more concise system of understanding and a strategy that encourages continuous review (since simpler rules will need to be tested more frequently).

It has a tendency to be misused by people that think it means "The simplest explanation is always right" when what it really means is "Picking the simplest explanation is the best strategy".

I was alluding to Dyakovo's position that he dismisses all claims of revelation as mental illness without any evidence. To believe such a claim without proof requires a certain amount of faith. My position is based solely on my personal experiences, which are not faith based. Therefore, Dy's position requires more faith than mine.

Not nearly as much faith as is required to believe that you were actually visited by a supernatural entity


Do you accept others claims of revelation automatically?

That makes one revealed 'prophet', who documented the encounter in two different places; one scribe adding his own 'eyewitness' testimony; one independent, contemporary (and external) source; and what appears to be (photo)graphical evidence.

Pretty conclusive evidence, I think. And at least one and a half sources better than the evidence we usually see for a 'historical Jesus'.
Now to translate it through Lolcat and Engrish.com, and to have a-poster-les carry the good news all across teh interwebz!

Like it wasn't already inevitable that Grave wasn't gonna have a religion based on him. :p

Not nearly as much faith as is required to believe that you were actually visited by a supernatural entity


Do you accept others claims of revelation automatically?

Accept and reject aren't the only choices.

Nonono.. that's not the point... you wouldn't assume they were LYING about their revelation... you'd assume they were giving you a fairly faithful rendition of their episode, even if you suspected it was a psychological episode, rather than a miraculous one... no?
Remniscient of the OBE's and the "light at the end of the tunnel" explanations so commonly found?
Kinda like, somewhat, how irritating the trip was on Altered States.

EDIT: And, apparently, I took the post that moved us up a notch. Frankly, I've got more posts than anyone else in this topic by over 100. I think I earned it.

Someone wants a t-shirt.

Now to translate it through Lolcat and Engrish.com, and to have a-poster-les carry the good news all across teh interwebz!

Like it wasn't already inevitable that Grave wasn't gonna have a religion based on him. :p

Another one... actually.

Most NSG-ers probably don't know I'm actually an ordained minister, too....

Another one... actually.
Didn't know. Perhaps some siglines? :p
Most NSG-ers probably don't know I'm actually an ordained minister, too....
Knew of, didn't know thoroughly/intimately. Siglines tambien? :)

Because I experienced them.That's only your end of the "connection". What about the other end? How did you make sure?

no its not the AUTHOR. the authors lived in a time where the exact truth of something like this wasnt important

its CHRISTIANS. christianity is a revealed religion and the bible is that revelation. everything a christian believes has to be justified by the bible. even the odd things that protestants diss catholics for believing has justification in the bible. (im thinking purgatory. its not explicit in the bible, its only vaguely implied)



as ive written before, there just isnt much THERE when you remove the religious parts. the vast majority of the parables are about god. a very few are about how to deal with other people and it recommends that you treat people with an unrealistically high regard. no one being recommended such a standard by a non religious figure would consider following it. it only holds prestige because it is commanded by god.

but feel free to pull out some examples of a great story from the NT that contains a lesson that is good for us to follow. im willing to discuss whether or not i agree with you.



i dont know about quality, i know that few people follow the secular teachings of jesus. many have a vague idea that jesus would want them to behave a certain way but it doesnt seem to be contained in the bible.

Of course. After all, it's people who attached those meanings to the Gospels, and humans can and do err. Obviously, without a historical Jesus there'd have to be a reinterpretation but the text of the stories are still there and lessons can still be learned from it. I can't say which ones will inspire you since I don't know you that well but I can say that I've found meaning in a lot of the Gospel stories myself, especially when I looked beyond what is written literally (the Prodigal Son story tells you not to place yourself on a pedestal, for example, even though it's really about the Pharisees).

As for the stories about God- well, let's not forget, we're just talking about how the ahistorical existence of Jesus would change things- the existence of God doesn't come into the equation, since God's existence doesn't hinge on Jesus' historical existence (I note "historical" because I want to differentiate from a physical person to simply a figure used in a story). Anyway, even if God were proven not to exist, the stories about God could still be reinterpreted in other ways- the story of the Mushroomseed was meant to be about the Kingdom of Heaven, but it can also be about how even the little of acts can be a huge difference (since the seed is the smallest in the plant family but grows into an immense bush, a concept that could be taken to "give $7 to an Indian family because that will allow them to buy a cow). We'd have to get creative in some areas but there's nothing that couldn't be ultimately rectified.

As an aside, it's possible Jesus could exist as a metaphor for how a writer felt God would act if He came down to Earth. The ancient Greek writers commonly had their gods come down to Earth and mingle among the locals, and the New Testament stories could be an extension of that literary device. In that angle, the readers just confused a device (maybe because they were not used to it- remember, this was an entirely different culture than the ones that would actively read Greek epics) for history.

and as a reminder, i dont DO what baldy did.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, since I don't see you doing what Balderdash71964 did.

I'm happy we've passed into the Top 10, so if this is the last I broach the topic with you Ashmoria, I want to say it was nice discussion. :)

EDIT: And, apparently, I took the post that moved us up a notch. Frankly, I've got more posts than anyone else in this topic by over 100. I think I earned it.

I think you have. I do want to point out, though, that I was the one who first noticed we were reaching that milestone.