I’m leaving for a few days, be back on Friday.In the mean time, let’s discuss Jesus from an historical perspective. Most of us will acknowledge that he didn’t turn any water into wine or cure any sick people, but did he live in the first place?I think not, and here’s why:1) All evidence supporting his existence has been disproven (Shroud of Turin, the Osuarry of James) or is very suspect (Josephus forgery)2) There should be much more evidence for a man with his supposed following3) Most of the accounts of Jesus’ life predate Jesus in other mythologies. Support from Frank ZindlerNone of this is proof that he didn’t exist, but it certainly seems so to me. Your thoughts?
So why is it that atheists seem to be preoccupied with God? Or trying to prove that there is no God? If you truly believe that you don’t believe in God then why all the rhetoric? If you truly have a superior intellect and a superior objective view of reality (which is what most atheists assert) then why even go there? Why on an atheist website is there all this discussion about God? The historicity of Jesus? Why do you even care? You don’t believe anyway. You wouldn’t believe even if there was the kind of proof you think you need. You seem caught in an exercise of futility. Much like I probably am by even writing this.
It is very obvious that you (atheists) are grappling with, and trying to come to terms with the the fact that there is a God but since you cannot (or will not) understand Him with your intellect you can’t handle it so you reject the entire concept or possibility. Hmmm, how would that attitude go over in a scientific experiment? What if Darwin would have approached his theory of evolution with that logic? You would not have an empty unprovable theory to believe in. Yet in your rejection you are crying out “prove to me that God exists”. You are torn between your intellect and the reality of a Living God. If you were truly satisfied in your unbelieving self righteous superior thinking then this thread or even this website would not even exist. Dare I say…hypocrite? You will deny all this because you live in denial. That’s what atheism is, denial. Surely you will agree with that.
Hmmm….”God tinted glasses”. What about yours? As an atheist you say you don’t believe in God. But, in fact you do believe in a god. The god of your understanding. YOUR understanding. You cannot look past your own understanding and accept that maybe, just maybe there is someone (God) smarter than, bigger than, mankind. A God who is so far greater than anything you can comprehend but yet has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind through what little understanding we do have. The universe really doesn’t revolve around you or mankind. There really are things we cannot comprehend. Does that make them not true?
Atheism boils down to the worship of the god of intellect, knowledge and human understanding. It’s nothing new. Gnosticism has been around for thousands of years. But what if you can’t figure something out, then what? Then you reject it. Hence atheism. If you were to take off YOUR “god-tinted glasses” you would be able to see beyond your own limited intellect and see reality…that the Creator of the Universe, both material things and things unseen wants you to have your eyes opened to The Greater Reality. The God who Lives now. Jesus.
openureyes
openureyes:
I dunno, the prevalence of Xtianity in our society? It’s negative impact on us, before & after our decisions?
Yeesh, I’m gonna have to develop a stock answer, that question’s been asked so MANY times.
Sharpening the debating skills, is all.
Bullshit.
Defer to my prior comment.
Apparently, you’re not a scientist, or you’d realize how foolish that statement is.
pot.kettle.black. Why do YOU even care?
1st rational statement you’ve made.
What, you took ESP 101?
Sure, why not?
Got proof?
2nd rational statement.
Hey, WE’RE the 1′s saying that.
It’s the theists who claim otherwise.
“Man, in his ignorance, supposed that all natural phenomena was created in direct relation to himself” paraphrase, Ingersoll.
3rd rational statement, sentence #1.
Apparently you know squat about Gnosticism.
It’s called empirical knowledge. Or logic, if you prefer.
The positive can’t be proven? The negative is given.
Open your own damn eyes.
Please.
“I dunno, the prevalence of Xtianity in our society? It’s negative impact on us, before & after our decisions?”
Excuse me but if you live in the US you live in a country where you can choose to beleive or not to beleive in God. Try that in China or many other nations. How much Christian (or Xian if you prefer, see my note below) blood was spilled so you could rant freely? Your probably a windoze user also, guess who gave you windoze?? Yup, uncle bill the… huh!!!!… Christian… (well you may have a point here…)
I don’t here you complaining about Harvard or Yale. Yes, they were started as Christian schools. How about hospitals? Do a little research and you will find that the concept of a place where people could go and be treated and healed was started by Christians. How many thousands of Christian churches have reached out to devastated lives in just your lifetime alone? Name me 1 or 2 Atheist organizations that even begin to get close to what Christian organzations have done over the course of American History.
Xmas, Xian, Xianity.
Oxford Dictionary:
ORIGIN X Representing the initial chi of Greek. Khristos, Christ.
I find it interesting how people try to “X” out Christ thinking they are making a statement. You are however still using the word Christ. It’s kind of a “gotcha” thing. See, no matter how hard you try you cannot get around Christ, The Messiah, The Annointed one.. or X if you prefer. Reality is real even if you deny it.
Gnosticism, I know, it’s a religion and afterall you are atheists. But, it’s still basically the worship of knowledge. It has nothing to do with a relationship with God through X. It is self centered religion just like atheism. I know you won’t cop to that plea but if you get honest atheism is a religion.
Religion: Activity towards a purpose… Like Islam, Catholocism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddism, Mormanism, Paganism and all the other “ism’s”
Christian- (Christ in). Followers of the Way of Jesus: Relationship with God through X.
Surely you know the difference between ritual and relationship.
Ingersoll would have been onto something if he would have just written:
“Man, in his ignorance, supposed…”
“The fool in his heart says there is no God” King David. Check your history books. He was a Jewish King.
Openureyes:
Rightey-o, & that’s thanks to the 1st amendment.
I am thankful to be an American.
Not the point.
Valid point, if there’d been any atheist organizations, say, at the beginning of American History.
Proof, please. Links, sources, etc.
)
Until Xtianity came along, there was no where for sick & wounded people to go?
Here, I’ll do your homework for you (but only this 1 time,
http://www.answers.com/topic/hospital?gwp=19
“In ancient cultures religion and medicine were linked. The earliest known institutions aiming to provide cure were Egyptian temples. Greek temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius might admit the sick, who would wait for guidance from the god in a dream. The Romans adopted his worship. Under his Roman name ?sculapius, he was proved with a temple (291 B.C.) on a island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed.
The first institutions created specifically to care for the sick appeared in India. Brahmantic hospitals were established in Sri Lanka by 431 B.C., and King Ashoka founded 18 hospitals in Hindustan c.230 B.C. The latter were provided with physicians and nurses, and supported from royal funds.“
I might suggest you do a little more homework, before you begin taking credit for something Xtianity didn’t start.
Again, shooting off your mouth w/o doing any research.
I’m not making a statement at all. I’m saving 5 extra keystrokes. Not afraid of the CHRIS part of it.
It’s also a perfectly legitimate way to type the name.
I could leave out the ‘t’, but I leave it in, anyways.
Wrong, on so many points.
Gnosticism (depending on the variant) is pantheistic (multiple gods), believes that the farther 1 gets from the Monad (the original source), the more 1 is corrupted, etc.
Atheism doesn’t worship anything whatsoever. Not the individual, nada.
I know that’s hard for you to understand, but it’s true.
Hey, if you start getting insulting (& your obvious attitude, + the need to spell things out, as if we are all ignorant children, is just that), you, as an Xtian, need to start practicing Agape.
http://www.answers.com/agape – definition # 2 – “1. Christianity. Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.
2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.”
Somehow, nothing you’ve said thus far reveals all of that.
That’s Psalms 14:1.
See, I didn’t even need to look it up.
Let’s clear the air here:
Myself, & many of us here, are very familiar w/all your trappings. Scriptures. History.
I suggest you step back, & think before you post next.
You’re rude, insulting, acting like a bigot, pretentious, oh, I could use a few choice invectives.
You are no better, nor worse, than any of us.
You’re a guest in someone else’s home.
As am I.
But I’ve been here a lot longer. & I’m amid friends here.
So take it down a couple of notches.
& quit judging others. It’s against your own rules.
Please.
openureyes
Two reasons: As a soiciological phenomena, religion is a facinating subject. I think you would be forced to conceed that many millions of non-Xians (I would include Xians) are deluded in their theistic belief systems. Reason Two: Theism esp. Xianity impacts our everyday lives in many subtle and not-so subtle ways. We need the rhetorical ammunition to protect ourselves from such unwelcome and unwarrented intrusions.
Superior to what/who?
See answers to your first questions.
Wrong. I do not believe in god or gods precicely because the concept lacks credibility. It is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence. the actual evidence is scant to the point of irrelevancy (in supporting such a claim). If there were some verifiable, testable, extraordinary evidence, then I would believe. Again, despite millions of people searching for hundreds of years – no evidence of this type has been found.
I’m not sure what futilie exercise you think I am caught in. I assume you mean trying to prove there is no god or gods. If so, I am not trying to prove such, just show, through reason and logic, that it is unreasonable (to the point of self-delusion) to assert that there is a god or gods.
Wow, you sure have a vivid imagination. This is a tragically disingenuous comment. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports an assertion that god or gods are more than human inventions. If such evidence were to be presented (verifiable repeatable, testable, etc) then I would reconsider my position. The possibility is always there, the liklihood of that possibility is currently negligable.
The problem here is that your previous statement (that I assume you are referring to) contains no logic. Or rather it contains unsupported assumptions. If evolutionary theory was based on unsupported assumptions then it would not be a scientific theory – I guess it would be akin to a theistic belief.
Huh? Are you referring to evolution and equating it to a theistic belief system? Noone “believes” in evolution on faith. We look at the evidence (yes there is a LOT of evidence), and ask ourselves is this the best explanation currently available. If other evidence comes to light that contradicts the theory, we adjust or abandon the theory. Such is the process of science. Scientific theory can be disproved, but never proved (I think – mathematics excepted). To say evolution is empty is plain ignorant, to to say it is uprovable is in a purist sense accurate, to say it is a belief system is disingenuous.
I don’t demand proof – some extraordinary evidence would do – even a cogent logical argument.
You mean between reality and fantasy.
Look, theists are forever telling us they are right and we are wrong. Please note: We assert NOTHING. All we are saying is that theistic claims are mutually exclusive and extraordinary. If any brand of theist has some equeally extraordinary evidence to support their beliefs, then by all means present it. If theists have no such evidence then it is unreasonable to accept their claims as reality – epeciially when there is evidence strongly suggesting that their claims are bogus.
Are you challenging me to deny that I am a hypocrite, because I choose to discuss something in which a do not believe? I fail to see the hypocracy. I discuss Harry Potter books too. That would count as equally hypocritical based on the merits of your charge. So yes I do deny the charge, but not because I live in denial, rather because the charge is spurious.
You need to check your definition of a god. My understanding is not immortal, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent, etc. The two are different concepts.
Sure I can accept that possibility. That is precisely why i do NOT assert there is not god. Rather, I see insufficient evidence to justify an assertion that there is a god or gods. Again the onus is on those making the assertion to support their claims. theists consistently fail to do so.
Finally something we can agree on. Humankind is insignificant in the cosmic scheme. But I thought theist put humans at the center (exceting god and his cohorts) of the universe…..? Things unknown cannot be assigned a truth value. They are by definition unknown – therfore their truth value is NULL.
That’s just silly. “Intellect, knowledge and human understanding” are very different concepts to the concept of a god.
You obviously have no idea what Gnosticism is.
Maybe the something is invalid?
This descending into religious psychobabble. I have discarded god-tinted glasses – many years ago. Show me some extraordinary evidence for the rest of you fantasies and we’ll have something substantial to discuss. Until then they can safely be considered wishful thinking – or self-delusion.
HeatheNZ:
What then, in the cosmos, do you consider to be of greater significance? Do stars understand calculus? Can galaxies build hospitals? Can black holes contemplate their existence? Do quasars use imaginary numbers? But, most importantly, do interstellar nebulae have free will?
This is a response (long!) to the two articles below by Frank Zindler, which I got a link to from a man who calls himself “Robertangel” on IMDbpro.com. Anybody have any comments on my response? I’m open to any criticism.
WHERE JESUS NEVER WALKED
http://ftp.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
Robertangel,
The articles by Frank Zindler are impressive in some ways. He?s certainly well read and thorough, at least in certain areas. I learned from reading them. But I think there are some problems in his position.
In particular, look at this passage in the ?Did Jesus exist?? article. Unfortunately, I have to quote at length to make my point.
?Apologists, as they grasp for ever more slender straws with which to support their historical Jesus, point out that the passage quoted above is not the only mention of Jesus made by Josephus. In Bk. 20, Ch. 9, ?1 of Antiquities of the Jews one also finds the following statement in surviving manuscripts:
?Ananus? convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.?
?It must be admitted that this passage does not intrude into the text as does the one previously quoted. In fact, it is very well integrated into Josephus’ story. That it has been modified from whatever Josephus’ source may have said (remember, here too, Josephus could not have been an eye-witness) is nevertheless extremely probable. The crucial word in this passage is the name James (Jacob in Greek and Hebrew). It is very possible that this very common name was in Josephus’ source material. It might even have been a reference to James the Just, a first-century character we have good reason to believe indeed existed. Because he appears to have born the title Brother of the Lord, it would have been natural to relate him to the Jesus character. It is quite possible that Josephus actually referred to a James “the Brother of the Lord,” and this was changed by Christian copyists (remember that although Josephus was a Jew, his text was preserved only by Christians!) to “Brother of Jesus” – adding then for good measure “who was called Christ.”
Zindler goes on in a footnote to define the term ?Brother of the Lord?:
?Originally, this would have been the title born by a member of a religious fraternity associated with the worship of Yahweh, who in Greek was always referred to as kurios (‘Lord’). This was carried over into primitive Christianity, where we know from I Cor. 9:5 that there existed a governing class coordinate with apostles that was called “Brothers of the Lord.” Misunderstanding of the original meaning of the title led to the belief that Jesus had siblings – an error that can be found already in the earliest of the canonical gospels.
?Interestingly, the embarrassing passages in the gospels where Jesus is rude to his mother and brethren would seem to derive from a period where a political struggle had developed between apostolically governed sects and those governed by “Brethren of the Lord,” who claimed authority now by virtue of an alleged blood relationship to Jesus – who had by then supplanted Yahweh as “Lord.” The apostolic politics of the gospel writers could not resist putting down the Brethren Party by having Jesus disregard his own family. If Jesus didn’t pay serious attention to his own family, the argument would go, why should anyone pay attention to their descendants? This is the only plausible explanation for the presence of such passages as John 2:4 (“Woman, what have I to do with thee?”) or Mark 3:33 (“Who is my mother, or my brethren?).?
Now, Robertangel, for one thing, I?m not sure what the evidence is for the ?religious fraternity? mentioned in the first paragraph of the footnote, but maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt on that. But I think it?s extremely significant that he accepts the historicity of this person named ?James the Just,? who is supposedly a member of a Christianized version of it. But don?t you think it?s a bit problematic that the apostles would have made jabs at the ?Brethren of the Lord? who claimed a blood relation with Jesus, if Jesus were fictional? Especially if Paul mentions ?James the Lord?s Brother? by about 55 AD in Galatians 1:19? I suppose this mention and that of Josephus are the reasons Zindler thinks ?we have good reason to believe [he] indeed existed.? But my point is, whether the apostles would have made jabs at them or not?and I think what Zindler says there is pretty plausible–they would have no reason to claim blood relationship with someone who never existed.
Now, I?ll admit that one could say these passages only say there was a group of people called ?Brothers of the Lord,? and that the identification of ?Lord? as referring to the figure Zindler calls ?Jeshua ha Netzer? (?the Savior, the Branch?) came later. But the problem I see with his whole theory is that it requires that this mythology develop rather quickly. First, Paul wrote in 55 AD of someone named James the Lord?s Brother, and about the same time, in I Cor. 8:6, he refers to Jesus as ?Lord.? Zindler thinks that at this time, the idea that Netzer was a reference to a place called Nazareth had not taken hold yet: that would happen over the next 20-30 years and eventually be stated in the gospels. He points out that Paul never calls Jesus ?Jesus of Nazareth.?
Now, one thing that I consider very important to recognize about Paul is that he does not hold the concept of Jesus? deity. What he says in I Corinthians is quite incompatible with that (see I Cor. 8:6 and 15:28). He does not equate Kurios (?Lord?) in 8:6 with ?God,? and it has been pointed out, even by the Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, that lots of people could be called Kurios at that time. Sometimes it was just a way of saying ?Sir? or ?Mr.? Not that Paul denied Jesus? deity: the point is, the concept never even occurred to him. It isn?t until the gospel of John that that concept enters Christian literature. Even passages in the other gospels that are sometimes translated as ?he fell down and worshipped him,? when Jesus helps someone, don?t prove a belief in his deity, because the Greek word really only means to ?bow before? someone. So the claim Zindler makes that Jesus ?had by then supplanted Yahweh as ?Lord?” is really questionable. Even John doesn?t make Jesus ?equal to the Father? (John 14:28), and the idea of their equality as members of the Trinity wasn?t fully established for centuries. It?s important to recognize that ?Lord? has two different meanings: sometimes it is just the Greek word that means ?lord? or a respectful form of address, and sometimes it?s the traditional Jewish way of pronouncing Yahweh?s name so as to avoid profaning it. Paul?s discussion in I Corinthians shows that we should not confuse those usages.
To sum up, I guess my point is, if it took centuries for the ?mature? Christian view of Jesus? deity to develop, why does Zindler think that this whole mythical figure of ?Jesus of Nazareth? could develop within 40-50 years? The existence of books like I Corinthians and Galatians from the 50?s shows that people were talking about someone named Jesus for some time before the gospels were written. But if Zindler is right, somehow by about the 80?s, at least, most Christians had forgotten what netzer (?branch?) referred to and were beginning to make up stories about a place called ?Nazareth? where he grew up. Now, I do think that the similarity to netzer explains Matthew?s reference to ?He shall be called a Nazarene? (2:23) as a biblical prophecy. It?s been pointed out many times that there really is no such statement in the Old Testament. It probably is a confused reference to Isaiah 11.1 and Zechariah 3:8, which speak of netzer. But the fact that Nazareth is similar to netzer doesn?t necessarily prove that it never existed. Lots of coincidences happen in real events.
The reason I said Zindler assumes the meaning of netzer was forgotten is that we have passages like John 1:46 (?Can anything good come out of Nazareth??) that imply a problem with his being from Nazareth rather than Bethlehem, where many thought the Messiah would be born. So all the gospel writers were assuming it was a geographical place. And this assumption must have been in place for awhile, because it?s clear that people were applying some ingenuity to the problem of how Jesus could be born in Bethlehem if he grew up in Nazareth. You see two different attempts to reconcile those things in Matthew and Luke, whereas John doesn?t seem to care whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Consider this, too. Netzer in Isaiah 11:1 must be a reference to a Davidic figure, because it speaks of the netzer as ?from the stump of Jesse,? David?s father. Now, if the determination of ?the Savior, the Branch?s? place of origin is purely a matter of imagination, as Zindler claims, why would any Christian ever have said it was anywhere but Bethlehem, where the Davidic Messiah was supposed to come from? That?s why I have thought that the efforts to reconcile the two places of origin in Matthew and Luke is so significant: it shows a tension between a ?Jesus of history? (from Nazareth) and a ?Jesus of faith? (from Bethlehem).
As for Zindler?s discussion of the archeological difficulties in identifying Nazareth and other places, I have to admit I don?t put as much weight on that sort of thing. Not that archeology isn?t important, but the conclusions of archeologists seem to change from year to year. What he says about those things, while interesting, reminds me of the Holocaust deniers who say that some of the death camps never existed based on aerial geology surveys. Archeologists need to do their work, and it will be helpful, but I think the internal evidence of the biblical text or other texts like Josephus needs to be looked at first, because, while certainly not perfect, it?s at least relatively unchanging.
I?d make a similar point about his drawing from Origen. That was quite interesting, but it?s important to recognize that Origen was in that area two centuries after Jesus. The Romans had devastated that area over that time, so it wouldn?t be too surprising if it was hard to identify places from 200 years earlier.
Ted Gemberling
this is very good
this is related article
this is very good
related source