Why not amputees?

[Mijoy2]

How does this make anything I said an exaggeration?

"Nicodemus and Gamaliel were scribes and Hillel also for that matter. The young ruler who came to Jesus asking questions was no doubt a Scribe and Jesus said to him, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” (Mark 12:32-34) and He referred to some of His followers who would go to proclaim His truth as “scribes” (Matt 23:34). "

Josephus is more then controversial, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt a forgery. We know the time and place and likely person that did it because copies we have before that time are missing the passage and copies after that time have it, and those making the copies had the motive and opportunity and the passages don’t make any sense comming from Josephus and aren’t writen in the same style. The fact that Christians still use Josephus as evidence of Jesus’s existence just goes to show that they’re grasping for straws.

Tacitus is no better then the gospels, he was writing 200 years after the fact and only repeating rumors that he heard, that there was some cult following a guy named Christus. Last I read his work I seem to recall him seemingly being unaware even that Christ was dead. Tacitus is also notorious for speaking alogorically.

When did I ever use logic like that? I said it was silly to believe that Jesus was divine “because the bible says so”. I noted that we’d never use such logic on anything else, for various reasons that I shouldn’t have to explain. You want me to drag through the internet and prove to you that 2 + 2 = 4. well, sorry, no thanks.

That’s nothing similar to what I said at all.

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter. I don’t really care if Christ existed or not. You apparently are so hyper-sensitive that anything that could possibly be seen as unsupportive of your beliefs you find personally insulting. Just because you’re insecure about your faith doesn’t mean you need to lash out at other people. Chill.

My friend, Jesus was born amongst animals in a manjor. His ministry lasted 3 years before He was crucified. He came to earth in humble fashion, preached love and was crucified. What followed was 2000 years of earth changing and defining events.

The Roman’s did not write of Jesus because Jesus was not important by wordly standards, as is true today. He was not wordly, He is God.

“I don’t really care is Christ existed or not”.
I believe you may not care if Christ didn’t exist. If He did exist I believe you would care.

Your evidence of Christ not existing and Zeus being as worthy of belief doesn’t hold water. But I respect your opinion(s).

You care, or you’d be elsewhere. I wish you well and hope you find the Truth you look for.

Ever read “The Great Divorce” by C.S.Lewis? I’d recommend it. It’s a little book and a brief fun read.

 

[Nullasalus]

How does this make anything I said an exaggeration?

“Romans kept records of everything” is an exaggeration, and Mijoy2 has rightly responded to why your claim here is (in my opinion, greatly) flawed.

"Nicodemus and Gamaliel were scribes and Hillel also for that matter. The young ruler who came to Jesus asking questions was no doubt a Scribe and Jesus said to him, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” (Mark 12:32-34) and He referred to some of His followers who would go to proclaim His truth as “scribes” (Matt 23:34). "

How you turned this into 'Christ had dozens of scribes, wouldn’t they be writing down what he did?" is beyond me. That no scribes following Jesus wrote down anything He did is far from obvious either - it could simply their writings didn’t survive.

Tacitus is no better then the gospels, he was writing 200 years after the fact and only repeating rumors that he heard, that there was some cult following a guy named Christus. Last I read his work I seem to recall him seemingly being unaware even that Christ was dead. Tacitus is also notorious for speaking alogorically.

Tacitus was believed to be born AD 56, and to have died AD 117. You know nothing about him - this much is evident.

When did I ever use logic like that?

Your argument is that ‘Romans kept records of everything yet no records of Jesus exist’. First, you’re obviously not aware of just what records actually do exist and how close they are to the time of Jesus’ ministry - look at your take on Tacitus alone (Josephus, I won’t even get into.) Second, records of Jesus do exist - they are not firsthand. You conflate this to mean there’s no record of Jesus existing, and yes, I believe this rationale is silly - the earliest written records we have are not necessarily the earliest written records that existed, and a record need not be written the day Jesus spoke to be very accurate or reliable.

That’s nothing similar to what I said at all.

“We have far far more testimonial evidence that outdoes your so-called evidence by a mile.”

“We have dozens of testimonies from people claiming to have had direct dealings with Zues and Thor,”

Became

“As far as Zuess and Thor, people make such claims all the time: seeing gods, demons, mononoke, dragons, yettis; the particular figures I picked are irrelevent,”

No, I’d say my estimation of what you said was spot on.

I stand by everything I said - and for someone who doesn’t care whether Christ really was or wasn’t alive, you devote an awful lot of effort and emotion to the subject.

 

[Mersenne]

“Romans kept records of everything” is an exaggeration,

No it’s not, they did keep records of everything. Maybe the statement was somewhat hyperbolic, but not an exaggeration.

and Mijoy2 has rightly responded to why your claim here is (in my opinion, greatly) flawed.

Well, that speaks volumes on your idea of proof and evidence.

How you turned this into 'Christ had dozens of scribes, wouldn’t they be writing down what he did?" is beyond me. That no scribes following Jesus wrote down anything He did is far from obvious either - it could simply their writings didn’t survive.

How you can’t turn that into ‘Christ had dozens of scribes’ is beyond me. Okay, granted, it’s possible they didn’t survive, but not likely. We have more thorough records on an 8 year old jewish girl who was dragged out on the street and killed for talking back to a roman then we do for a major political and religious figure.

Tacitus was believed to be born AD 56, and to have died AD 117. You know nothing about him - this much is evident.

We’re still talking about someone who wasn’t born by the time everyone who could have known jesus was probably dead. 200 years versus 100 years is rather irrelevent given the time period.

Your argument is that ‘Romans kept records of everything yet no records of Jesus exist’. First, you’re obviously not aware of just what records actually do exist and how close they are to the time of Jesus’ ministry - look at your take on Tacitus alone

Okay, what records do exist, how close are they, and what exactly is wrong with my take on Tacitus? If you’re going to make an arguement go ahead and do so. Don’t just imply that you have some vast knowledge you just don’t wish to share with us. The truth is 3rd hand reports of circulating rumors is the closest thing we have to evidence of Jesus, besides all the other problems I brought up previously.

(Josephus, I won’t even get into.)

Obviously you won’t, getting caught BSing tends to make people back down.

Second, records of Jesus do exist - they are not firsthand.

Generally when I say records I mean roman governement documentation “Today was executed, Jesus of Nazareth, for the Crime of blasphamy…” we have those kinds of records for hobos they killed for sport, why not for a highly publicized execution of a major religious figure?

You conflate this to mean there’s no record of Jesus existing, and yes, I believe this rationale is silly - the earliest written records we have are not necessarily the earliest written records that existed, and a record need not be written the day Jesus spoke to be very accurate or reliable.

It’s fine to have a copy of a first-hand statement, but we don’t have any claims that can be traced to anything other then circulating rumors. You conflate this to mean Jesus is the lord our god, part of the holy trinity, raised from the dead, performed miracles, and is still working in our lives today. Yes, I believe this rationale is silly, in fact, it’s beyond delusional.

No, I’d say my estimation of what you said was spot on.

I’d say your reading comprehension needs work then. I never even said anything about people having “visions”

I stand by everything I said - and for someone who doesn’t care whether Christ really was or wasn’t alive, you devote an awful lot of effort and emotion to the subject.

I’ve never even said in this thread that Jesus doesn’t exist. I said “because the bible said so” is a bad reason to assume Jesus came back from the dead. Yes, I’m willing to put effort and emotion to the subject when I have a thin schedule, but the ability of Christians to weasle out of a fair debate is starting to make me think all too much effort is required to make points which should go without saying to normal non-delusional people.

 

[Nullasalus]

No it’s not, they did keep records of everything. Maybe the statement was somewhat hyperbolic, but not an exaggeration.

I have to ask, and I don’t mean this as an insult - but is english your first/primary language? This isn’t just related to your use of ‘everything’ here, but a lot of other incidents in your posts.

Either way, I say you exaggerated, you say you were hyperbolic. I suggest you look up what hyperbolic means.

How you can’t turn that into ‘Christ had dozens of scribes’ is beyond me. Okay, granted, it’s possible they didn’t survive, but not likely.

I’ll explain it then: There is no dozens there. A couple names are given, it’s mentioned there were scribes who listened to Jesus. And how do you know it’s not likely? Are you saying we naturally expect most 2000 year old documents, especially of this nature, to survive intact?

Christ is a major political and religious figure -now-. At the time, his prominence was strictly limited to what the Romans considered as a rather backwater occupied area. The situation is comparable to Buddha.

We’re still talking about someone who wasn’t born by the time everyone who could have known jesus was probably dead. 200 years versus 100 years is rather irrelevent given the time period.

No, it’s very relevant. Do you think Christ was crucified in 0 AD? It’s estimated to have happened around 30AD. It’s not even a century from that event to these writings. Sure, Annals was written in 117, so that’s ~84 years since when Christ is thought to have died. I’m guessing 84 years isn’t relevant compared to 100 years, though.

Okay, what records do exist, how close are they, and what exactly is wrong with my take on Tacitus? If you’re going to make an arguement go ahead and do so. Don’t just imply that you have some vast knowledge you just don’t wish to share with us. The truth is 3rd hand reports of circulating rumors is the closest thing we have to evidence of Jesus, besides all the other problems I brought up previously.

Wait a second. ‘The romans kept records of everything.’ But when it comes to Tacitus, a major Roman historian, suddenly they can’t be trusted because he was writing decades after the fact. Your argument seems to be ‘The romans kept exhaustive and accurate records, except about Jesus - they just went off rumors when it came to him.’ As for what’s wrong with your take on Tacitus, the fact that you had no idea when he was even alive is pretty telling.

Obviously you won’t, getting caught BSing tends to make people back down.

From the wikipedia entry “Josephus on Jesus”:

“Judging from Alice Whealey’s 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, “The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.” There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.”

This is why I didn’t want to get into it - not because Josephus’ reference to Jesus is baseless.

Generally when I say records I mean roman governement documentation “Today was executed, Jesus of Nazareth, for the Crime of blasphamy…” we have those kinds of records for hobos they killed for sport, why not for a highly publicized execution of a major religious figure?

Again, see the problem with your use of major here. And yes, I’m sure we do have some records of trivialities - do you think the records for everyone, or even the majority of such, survived? A lot of history is estimated to have been lost. It’s only natural due to the length of time.

It’s fine to have a copy of a first-hand statement, but we don’t have any claims that can be traced to anything other then circulating rumors. You conflate this to mean Jesus is the lord our god, part of the holy trinity, raised from the dead, performed miracles, and is still working in our lives today. Yes, I believe this rationale is silly, in fact, it’s beyond delusional.

You’re getting pretty hostile here, and you’re not even addressing the points I’m bringing up. I’ve responded to yours - even Josephus - directly.

I’ve never even said in this thread that Jesus doesn’t exist. I said “because the bible said so” is a bad reason to assume Jesus came back from the dead. Yes, I’m willing to put effort and emotion to the subject when I have a thin schedule, but the ability of Christians to weasle out of a fair debate is starting to make me think all too much effort is required to make points which should go without saying to normal non-delusional people.

No one has weaseled here - your assertions have just been shown to be very shallow and, in some cases, baseless. And now you’re down to ad hominems. Just go read up on this subject, please.

 

[AnthonyM2]

But would the moving of Everest be enough for the doubter? Given the number of prophecies that Christ fulfilled, the historical reliability of the gospel accounts of the life of Christ, the witness of over 500 of His resurrection, and the evidence of miracles that have occured in the Church Age (including healing of amputees), we have ample reason to believe. God doesn’t give us every bit of evidence possible, but He gives us sufficient evidence.

You say that the faithful always find a way to explain a contradiction. In my experience, skeptics always find a way to dismiss the work of God. When His work is dismissed so easily by the doubter, why should He go to any further extraordinary effort?

Blessing,

petra

Exactly, there’s the old saying, “For the believer no explanation is neccessary but for the non-believer no explanation is possible.” I think that was from The Song of Bernadette.

There comes a point when no what miracle happens you either have to believe or you don’t, it still comes down to faith. Faith based on reason and strenghthened by some miracles now and then but not totally dependent on them. Otherwise God would just come and clearly show Himself and you wouldn’t need any faith.

 

[tdgesq]

The laws of physics represent our current understanding of natural powers, if something surpasses all known human or natural powers then it violates the laws of physics.

Nonsense. The laws of physics exist whether we know they exist or not. What you are really saying is that if something surpasses all the laws of physics, then it violates those laws. I don’t see right off where even that follows, but the fact remains that the definition states “surpasses all known human or natural powers.”

That was the point, but obviously it went over your head.

No, the other way around I think. Clearly there are other definitions of the word “miracle,” not just the one you cited. And let’s look at some more from your own source that you neglected to cite:

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
3. a wonder; marvel.

The point is, your source yet once again does not support your contention that a miracle requires a violation of the laws of physics.

I didn’t pick the somantics to argue over, you did, I put out quite a few arguements that you could have addressed and you decided to avoid all of them. For the record, none of my arguements were “a law of physics has not been violated therefore divine intervention doesn’t happen”

The record speaks for itself:

Point, but I see no reason to define the term differently. Seems to me like a somantic way to avoid the obvious. Divine intervension doesn’t happen.

Since at that juncture all we had been talking about is the definition of “miracle,” how else did you come to the conclusion that divine intervention doesn’t happen? If you had other reasons, then you should have given them.

But an important point. You can explain why the actions of god are indistinguishable from the actions of a cold godless uncaring world but that just means you’ve proven that our world is indistinguishable from a world that is cold godless and uncaring.

Was this the reason for your statement that divine intervention doesn’t happen? If so, do you see why it still doesn’t follow that there is no divine intervention?

Yes, nothing is ever provably totally completely has to come from god, but nothing is ever provable totally completely anything. As I’ve pointed out in my other posts, there is a coorelation to notice. The more something would lend credence to god’s existence, the less he does it. He’s either hiding or not there. How hardened skeptics would respond to a change in this behavior is rather irrelevent.

It’s very relevant. If a person has already made the decision that God does not exist, then the documented miracles that we already know of will never be seen that way.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

How you can’t turn that into ‘Christ had dozens of scribes’ is beyond me. Okay, granted, it’s possible they didn’t survive, but not likely. We have more thorough records on an 8 year old jewish girl who was dragged out on the street and killed for talking back to a roman then we do for a major political and religious figure.

Okay, what records do exist, how close are they, and what exactly is wrong with my take on Tacitus? If you’re going to make an arguement go ahead and do so. Don’t just imply that you have some vast knowledge you just don’t wish to share with us. The truth is 3rd hand reports of circulating rumors is the closest thing we have to evidence of Jesus, besides all the other problems I brought up previously.

There are about fifty documents mentioning Jesus written before AD120, which is about when the last person with a memory of meeting Him would have died. That is an enormous mountain of evidence, more than for anyone else from the period except a few people like Julius Caesar.

There is however no evidence except the evidence.

Generally when I say records I mean roman governement documentation “Today was executed, Jesus of Nazareth, for the Crime of blasphamy…” we have those kinds of records for hobos they killed for sport, why not for a highly publicized execution of a major religious figure?

What survives 2000 years is a bit random. There are no tax records that I know of from 1st century Palestine. That doesn’t mean that the Romans didn’t collect taxes, or that the collectors didn’t keep records.

It’s fine to have a copy of a first-hand statement, but we don’t have any claims that can be traced to anything other then circulating rumors. You conflate this to mean Jesus is the lord our god, part of the holy trinity, raised from the dead, performed miracles, and is still working in our lives today. Yes, I believe this rationale is silly, in fact, it’s beyond delusional.

The only evidence that is really likely to survive is written evidence. There was a first century fishing boat unearthed on the shores of the Sea of Galilee recently. It may have been the very one in which Jesus calmed the waves. In past centuries it would no doubt have been passed of as such. However, barring the discovery of a cushion embroidered “Jesus”, how could anyone tell?

What survives is what is written, which is by definition a claim. Since only a few people were professional scribes - St Paul could write a few big clumsy letters, but not a whole epistle, you hired someone to do that - the evidence is naturally at a second hand.

A histoian must deal with the evidence he has. Only the experimental scientist can produce the evidence he would like to have.

I’d say your reading comprehension needs work then. I never even said anything about people having “visions”

I’ve never even said in this thread that Jesus doesn’t exist. I said “because the bible said so” is a bad reason to assume Jesus came back from the dead. Yes, I’m willing to put effort and emotion to the subject when I have a thin schedule, but the ability of Christians to weasle out of a fair debate is starting to make me think all too much effort is required to make points which should go without saying to normal non-delusional people.

Jesus Mythism is to biblical history what creationism is to biology, or Holocaust Denial to modern history. You are not exactly a Jesus Mysther, but even to give the idea any credibility is to put yourself at the margins of what could be considered serious thought.

The Resurrection is the central event in the history of the West. The course of history from the first century on doesn’t make any sense without such an event, or at least a firm belief in such an event. No other alleged miracles have had that sort of influence.
Now you can without absurdity make up some alternative explanation that does not involve miracles. But the argument is not particualrly convincing, not overwhelmingly strong. So many atheists opt instead for absurdity, and simply choose to believe that Jesus didn’t exist, or was married to Mary Magdalene and His movement hijacked by St Paul and consirators, or just hope that if they concentrate on soft targets like creationism, the evidence will go away.