History 2,000 year old books found in Jordan - new evidence for Jesus?

[Max zero]

Dunno. I'm still trying to work out who would be stupid enough to invent or join a religious movement with absolutely no personal benefit that involves them becoming beggars at risk of arrest and death.



'Being sold'?

Historical Jesus studies are conducted by atheists and believers alike. Do you really find it surprising that an atheist historian would be interested in the historical facts surrounding the founder of the world's largest religion? Such an inquiry has nothing to do with accepting the tenets of the religion itself.



So what? That point is irrelevant. The question is did such a Jewish man, who was a Galilean from Bethlehem, who was an apocalyptic preacher, who had disciples, who preached he was divine, who was known as a miracle worker, who was arrested and tried for blasphemy and crucified by Romans, actually exist? The evidence says yes.



Sure, but what has that got to do whether there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified?



You can't prove God. I've said that many, many times on this board.

Likewise, you can't prove that God created the universe. You can make arguments supported by lines of evidence. Arguments can be deductive and inductive. In my view the arguments for God are far better than the arguments for atheism.



God did not 'create himself' nor is he created. He is eternal.

It's pretty easy to see why people would create a religion if they believed they were they would go to eternal paradise. It's the same justification suicide bombers give.

Your description of Jesus, to be honest, is fairly broad. It also does not preclude Jesus from being an amalgam. Overall though, historical Jesus does not bother me overmuch (he is sort of irrelevant in the big picture), I am more suspicious of supernatural Jesus. I do find it amusing that the same supernatural claims that initially gave Jesus his credibility now are distanced from him because they now detract. I personally don't think you can separate historical and supernatural Jesus since without the supernatural claims what's the point?

In my view the arguments for God are far better than the arguments for atheism.

God did not 'create himself' nor is he created. He is eternal.

Well I'm sure they would when you can simply reply 'N/A' whenever difficult questions come up. It's why theist answers are never taken seriously in science.

 

[Max zero]

I had 7-8 year olds in a CRE class ask me about how God made things last week. They asked the question, it was not part of the discussion we were having at the time. One kid piped up and said God made everything in 6 days. Now we know 7-8 year olds have a limited capacity to understand (we are adults struggling with all these concepts), so i gave an age appropriate response. Basically I said that some Xians do believe God made the world in 6 days, but that I think the bible in Gen tells us a story which helps us understand that God created things, and that I think the world was made over a longer period than 6 days - that the world is very, very old. I even mentioned evolution, they all started at me blankly .

I know you didn't mean anything by it but I find that paragraph (especially the last line) depressing.

Teaching children fairytales instead of facts. When they get to Biology class some poor teacher is going to have to spend time undoing the damage you have done.

Too young for facts but never too young for indoctrination.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I know you didn't mean anything by it but I find that paragraph (especially the last line) depressing.

Teaching children fairytales instead of facts. When they get to Biology class some poor teacher is going to have to spend time undoing the damage you have done.

Too young for facts but never too young for indoctrination.

You are right, i didn't mean anything by it. Just to say at that age kids aren't really up to understanding detailed stuff.

Did you read the post and the previous ones in the conversation I was having with evo? I said I hold to evolution and I told the kids that etc. Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys read anything that is actually written.

 

[Max zero]

You are right, i didn't mean anything by it. Just to say at that age kids aren't really up to understanding detailed stuff.

Did you read the post and the previous ones in the conversation I was having with evo? I said I hold to evolution and I told the kids that etc. Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys read anything that is actually written.

When they do get to that Biology is that theist belief going to be any use? Does it have any benefit for the child?

I mean you say you hold to evolution so why are you telling them something, as an authority figure, that you don't even think is true?

 

[CharacterFirst]

When they do get to that Biology is that theist belief going to be any use? Does it have any benefit for the child?

I mean you say you hold to evolution so why are you telling them something, as an authority figure, that you don't even think is true?

God used/uses evolution to create.

You have lost me Max.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

It's pretty easy to see why people would create a religion if they believed they were they would go to eternal paradise. It's the same justification suicide bombers give.

We've been over this fallacy a couple of times before.

There's a distinction between believing something you were taught and the originators of the belief themselves.

If you and I sit down and make up a religion that says that if you burn a pigs head everyday you will go to paradise and we pass on our teachings, our students may be willing to put up with hardship and possibly death in the expectation of going to eternal paradise. But you and I know that we just made it up...so what is our motivation for putting up with hardship and possibly death?

Your description of Jesus, to be honest, is fairly broad. It also does not preclude Jesus from being an amalgam.

You're right, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that he was an amalgam. The best explanation of the evidence is that there was a single guy called Jesus who was born in Bethlehem, had a brother named James, was an apocalyptic preacher, was cruciifed, etc, all of which various independent sources refer to.

We would need to see some good evidence that he was an amalgam to rebut this 'common sense' presumption.

Overall though, historical Jesus does not bother me overmuch (he is sort of irrelevant in the big picture), I am more suspicious of supernatural Jesus. I do find it amusing that the same supernatural claims that initially gave Jesus his credibility now are distanced from him because they now detract.

Who says they detract? Quite the contrary, that is what draws people to Him.

But we were having a conversation about the historicity of Jesus, who clearly was a man who walked the streets of 1st century Palestine.

I personally don't think you can separate historical and supernatural Jesus since without the supernatural claims what's the point?

The point is to learn as much as we can about a hugely important historical figure who was the founder of the world's largest religion. Of course you may not be intereted yourself, but many historians are, whether they are atheist, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim.

Well I'm sure they would when you can simply reply 'N/A' whenever difficult questions come up. It's why theist answers are never taken seriously in science.

What difficult questions?

 

[Max zero]

We've been over this fallacy a couple of times before.

There's a distinction between believing something you were taught and the originators of the belief themselves.

If you and I sit down and make up a religion that says that if you burn a pigs head everyday you will go to paradise and we pass on our teachings, our students may be willing to put up with hardship and possibly death in the expectation of going to eternal paradise. But you and I know that we just made it up...so what is our motivation for putting up with hardship and possibly death?



You're right, it doesn't, but that doesn't mean that he was an amalgam. The best explanation of the evidence is that there was a single guy called Jesus who was born in Bethlehem, had a brother named James, was an apocalyptic preacher, was cruciifed, etc, all of which various independent sources refer to.

We would need to see some good evidence that he was an amalgam to rebut this 'common sense' presumption.



Who says they detract? Quite the contrary, that is what draws people to Him.

But we were having a conversation about the historicity of Jesus, who clearly was a man who walked the streets of 1st century Palestine.



The point is to learn as much as we can about a hugely important historical figure who was the founder of the world's largest religion. Of course you may not be intereted yourself, but many historians are, whether they are atheist, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim.



What difficult questions?

Fame? Influence? People know of the Apostles 2000 years later. People have been willing to die for much less.

What else is there to learn about Jesus? Was he married? What was his favorite food? All these are pretty irrelevant. It's the supernatural that is his selling point. No one follows Jesus cause he is Jewish.

God did not 'create himself' nor is he created. He is eternal.

In answer as to what created God. It was just a plain old 'Not applicable'.

 

[Max zero]

God used/uses evolution to create.

You have lost me Max.

That God used/uses evolution to create still goes against the theory of evolution.

When those Biology students here that Evolution is not driven by God but by selection pressure what are they meant to think?

 

[Pie eyed]

Yeah PE. What about it?

Different written word or a different God?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

Fame? Influence? People know of the Apostles 2000 years later. People have been willing to die for much less.

Fame and influence isn't much good when you're being arrested and possibly executed.

What else is there to learn about Jesus? Was he married? What was his favorite food? All these are pretty irrelevant. It's the supernatural that is his selling point. No one follows Jesus cause he is Jewish.

All sorts of things that help us understand how Christianity got started. That's what history is all about.

In answer as to what created God. It was just a plain old 'Not applicable'.

But the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is eternal. It's been that way since the start of these religions (well before the scientific evidence for the Big Bang or the cosmological argument for God).

If I'm arguing for a Christian God, why should I have to reject a fundamental teaching about God that has been part of the church since day dot?

It would be like:

Me: everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning...therefore the universe must have a cause. That cause cannot be natural, because the universe encompasses all of nature. Therefore the cause must be supernatural. That supernatural cause is God.

You: But if God caused the universe what caused God?

Me: Unlike the universe, God didn't have a beginning, so he doesn't need a cause.

You: Not fair! You can't apply a rule to the universe and not apply it to God.

Me: But that's the Christian conception of God...that he is eternal and uncaused. I'm not just making that up to avoid an explanation...that's just the way it is.

You: I don't like that because it means your deductive argument works. Can't we change the Judeo-Christian understanding of God so that God requires a cause?

Me: Um.....no, not really.

 

[Max zero]

Fame and influence isn't much good when you're being arrested and possibly executed.



All sorts of things that help us understand how Christianity got started. That's what history is all about.



But the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is eternal. It's been that way since the start of these religions (well before the scientific evidence for the Big Bang or the cosmological argument for God).

If I'm arguing for a Christian God, why should I have to reject a fundamental teaching about God that has been part of the church since day dot?

It would be like:

Me: everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning...therefore the universe must have a cause. That cause cannot be natural, because the universe encompasses all of nature. Therefore the cause must be supernatural. That supernatural cause is God.

You: But if God caused the universe what caused God?

Me: Unlike the universe, God didn't have a beginning, so he doesn't need a cause.

You: Not fair! You can't apply a rule to the universe and not apply it to God.

Me: But that's the Christian conception of God...that he is eternal and uncaused. I'm not just making that up to avoid an explanation...that's just the way it is.

You: I don't like that because it means your deductive argument works. Can't we change the Judeo-Christian understanding of God so that God requires a cause?

Me: Um.....no, not really.

Religious fanatics are not know for their reasonability. They have already sacrificed everything for the idea of Jesus it would probably be harder to renounce and admit it's all a lie then to die.

You little conversation is nice except for one thing:

You: But despite this my God theory is on the same level as scientific theory. Yes I apply higher standards to scientific theories then my own theist theory but this acceptable because my theist theory says this is acceptable.

Me: ...

You: I win!

 

[CharacterFirst]

Different written word or a different God?

Clearly its a different book. I would probably say its a misunderstanding of God, and that God didn't inspire the Koran. As you know, they are totally different books and their histories are radically different.

 

[CharacterFirst]

That God used/uses evolution to create still goes against the theory of evolution.

When those Biology students here that Evolution is not driven by God but by selection pressure what are they meant to think?

They will probably think God uses selection pressure. Do you think God couldn't use natural selection?

 

[Max zero]

They will probably think God uses selection pressure. Do you think God couldn't use natural selection?

I forgot, supernatural swiss army knife.

You can stick God into just about anything. Like duct tape. He's useful like that.

What purpose does it serve to stick a supernatural angle on everything?

 

[CharacterFirst]

I forgot, supernatural swiss army knife.

You can stick God into just about anything. Like duct tape. He's useful like that.

What purpose does it serve to stick a supernatural angle on everything?

What are you talking about Max?

I think b/c some people have no understanding of who God is, or even what God would be purely by definition, they find these ideas hard to handle. God is God. It you believe that, then everything does have a supernatural angle.

Science is just a tool that man uses to show how God has set things up. Science is good, but its no God!

 

[JeffDunne]

To me the biggest issue non-believers have with believers is that if you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally, how can you be so certain preaching to others how they should live their lives?

Personally I reckon the desire to micro manage others lives is based on the theory 'change the way people act, by changing the way they think'.

A simple example:

[YOUTUBE]Qx_8gxh76iM[/YOUTUBE]

Maybe that should be in the school chaplaincy thread?

 

[CharacterFirst]

To me the biggest issue non-believers have with believers is that if you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally, how can you be so certain preaching to others how they should live their lives?

Personally I reckon the desire to micro manage others lives is based on the theory 'change the way people act, by changing the way they think'.

They/we don't pick and choose. We study the context, literary genre, we use exegesis, etc. Many non believers don't understand how or why Xians interpret the bible the way they do. It isn't just a pick and mix attitude, but....

Another large misconception (and many Xians get this wrong as well) is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is about values or about how we should live our lives. Sure there is some of that in the NT, but the gospel is about grace. You see its not "the good advice" - follow these rules and you will be ok. It is "the good new " - Jesus has made a personal relationship with God possible again. This is Grace. Most people have no idea about Xian grace, they can't accept it, can't apply to their lives etc. It is this grace, that is when understood, is most offensive about the gospel, b/c humans can't believe that their relationship with God might have nothing to do with them, but in fact all be dependent on what God has done for us.

Don't get caught up in what the church does, what Xians do etc - look at Jesus and see what he did, does, says, etc. Then you will see what it means to be a believer in JC.

 

[JeffDunne]

look at Jesus and see what he did, does, says, etc

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread.

How can you possibly do what you suggest when Jesus appears to have not documented or recorded anything and you need to rely on third-hand accounts? Even religious scholars can't agree on the interpretations of translations of these third-hand accounts.

Was Jesus illiterate?

Why would a god want to pass on a message to his creation through such dubious means so open to misinterpretation?

If we are to accept god is what is claimed, his method of communication is breathtakingly flawed when viewed in the context of the rest of his supposed creation. If there is a god or gods, I cannot comprehend how anyone would think they could on the one hand create everything in the universe, be omnipresent, yet rely on a method of communication that amounts to nothing more than a poorly written message in a bottle (one that most of his creation cannot understand due to language differences). I can see how people 2,000 years ago would believe such a story, but it staggers me anyone with an ounce of deductive reasoning could buy such a story today.

Yeah I know . . . . you need 'faith'.

Two other questions I have :

- what happened to Jesus after the resurrection?
- why would anyone that believes he is what is claimed, diminish his name by calling Christians 'Xians' to save a few seconds?

 

[TheMightyEagles]

- why would anyone that believes he is what is claimed, diminish his name by calling Christians 'Xians' to save a few seconds?

The use of the term X'ian extends back to ancient times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

the "X" comes from the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of the Greek word Χριστός, translated as "Christ".

 

[CharacterFirst]

Which brings us back to the topic of the thread.

How can you possibly do what you suggest when Jesus appears to have not documented or recorded anything and you need to rely on third-hand accounts? Even religious scholars can't agree on the interpretations of translations of these third-hand accounts.

Was Jesus illiterate?

Why would a god want to pass on a message to his creation through such dubious means so open to misinterpretation?

If we are to accept god is what is claimed, his method of communication is breathtakingly flawed when viewed in the context of the rest of his supposed creation. If there is a god or gods, I cannot comprehend how anyone would think they could on the one hand create everything in the universe, be omnipresent, yet rely on a method of communication that amounts to nothing more than a poorly written message in a bottle (one that most of his creation cannot understand due to language differences). I can see how people 2,000 years ago would believe such a story, but it staggers me anyone with an ounce of deductive reasoning could buy such a story today.

Yeah I know . . . . you need 'faith'.

Two other questions I have :

- what happened to Jesus after the resurrection?
- why would anyone that believes he is what is claimed, diminish his name by calling Christians 'Xians' to save a few seconds?

Yep, you are correct. Faith is certainly needed. Xians would claim its not a blind faith however.

I think Serg has shown that we can have confidence in the biblical texts etc. I don't really have the time or energy thru this medium to go over it all again.

I think God has made himself known but is also mysterious - yep its a paradox. To borrow from Contra Mundum's signature - Credo quia absurdum est. The bible also recognizes the the story of Jesus is hard for some people to understand. cf. 1 Cor 1:17-19.

I think this is part of God's will/plan. Jesus said he talked in parables to deliberately confuse some - let those with ears to hear, hear.

God has actually deliberately set things up so that humans can't access him purely thru their own intellect or efforts. This gets back to my comments about grace. Becoming a Xian means you have to put yourself aside as god, and accept that He is God. As i said, that is why grace is so hard for people to grasp, and why it is offen offensive to some. They can;t believe God could do things this way, he must do things the way we think he should. Surely it would all be laid out before us like a big, easy to follow blue print. But that is not how the bible teaches God always does things.

Jesus after the resurrection - Within the body of Christian beliefs, the death and resurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much of Christian doctrine and theology depend.

Jesus was crucified, died, buried within a tomb, and resurrected three days later (John 19:30–31, Mark 16:1, Mark 16:6).

There were several resurrection appearances of Jesus on different occasions to his twelve apostles and disciples, including "more than five hundred brethren at once" (1 Cor. 15:6), before Jesus' Ascension [into heaven].

Xian is a shortening of Christian as you realize. Christ is not Jesus' name, but one of his titles - it means messiah. So Jesus Christ = Jesus the Messiah. X is the first letter of the the word Christ in Koine Greek - Χριστοῦ. Koine Greek was the language of the original NT.

Using X as shorthand for Christ has a very early beginning in the Christian church/tradition and is not a slight on Jesus. Sometimes we see it a Christmas as well - Xmas.

 

[JeffDunne]

The reason for that last question CF was due to being told 'Xmas' is an attempt to diminish Jesus' meaning in the cultural celebration of the event.

i.e. to make Christmas a generic cultural event.

Was just a random question on my behalf due to other discussions (since you seem more considered in your views than many)

 

[CharacterFirst]

The reason for that last question CF was due to being told 'Xmas' is an attempt to diminish Jesus' meaning in the cultural celebration of the event.

i.e. to make Christmas a generic cultural event.

Was just a random question on my behalf due to other discussions (since you seem more considered in your views than many)

Back at ya.

I am pretty sure some people do use Xmas to diminish Jesus meaning in Xmas D). So in a practical sense whoever told you that was probably looking at it from that perspective. But as I mentioned it has legitimate history etc.

 

[Max zero]

Back at ya.

I am pretty sure some people do use Xmas to diminish Jesus meaning in Xmas D). So in a practical sense whoever told you that was probably looking at it from that perspective. But as I mentioned it has legitimate history etc.

I call it Saturnalia does that diminish Jesus too?

 

[SergioGeorgini]

I call it Saturnalia does that diminish Jesus too?

Have you been reading the Atheist Foundation website?

The information on there about religion is about as reliable as Bob Brown's economic views.

 

[SergioGeorgini]

So what's the point in 'miracles'? What was the point of Jesus? Moses & the burning bush and any other claims of God's existence in this world?

I would think even the most ardent of skeptics would change their mind had they witnessed the parting of the Red Sea.

Observed occurrences in nature are universal (what are commonly referred to as laws of nature). When new occurrences are detected, we soon realise too that they are universal. Any occurrence that isn't would be evidence of the work of a divine being.

Frankly if the Bible and the religions derived from it are to be believed, proving God's existence should be easy.

Miracles are very rare events that don't just occur capriciously. God isn't like some magician who suspends the laws of nature to impress people. You have to consider the deeper theological meaning of these issues.

I'd love to hear them.

I don't think anyone wants me to clog up another thread with my arguments for theism.