Who is Jesus?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Indeed - there is the potentiality for many things outside of our created universe and the nature and number of the designer/creator is supernatural (in the sense of being beyond our natural world). But let’s not get too far ahead - this extra-natural existence is a moot point to me, since it is beyond present knowing, even beyond comprehension. My point at this stage is to state that this (the universe was designed/created) was the starting point for the creation of a personal belief system.[/quote]

Actually, what I meant was that in my mind it is possible that the universe is entirely natural. The second law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the logical conclusion is that matter/energy have always existed. I think the universe has always been around in some form, probably going through a series of expansions and contractions, but always present in some state or other.

Once you accept that as a possibility, the necessity of a creator disappears, nor do you have to deal with the unanswerable question of “what created the creator?”.

[quote]Glad to hear it - knew I liked you!
[/quote]

Thanks man, I like the way you think and applaud your willingness to look at all options. You seem to genuinely be interested in the truth, rather than trying to believe in something just because you want it to be true.

162

[quote]pat wrote:
Do not mistake your failure to ask questions, with a lack of evidence. You perhaps haven’t asked the right ones or do not care, but that is not lack of evidence.[/quote]

If you have any objective evidence for your particular brand of religion, feel free to share it. I’d be especially interested in why you think this objective evidence is so compelling that it justifies your automatic exclusion of every other belief system as misguided and false.

163

[quote]haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
thebigbus wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
OK - Historical records outside of Scripture mentioning Christ

Cornelius Tacitus - Governor of Asia
Suetonius - Roman Historian
Pliny the Younger
Lucian of Samosata
The Letter from Mara Bar-Serapion
Julis Africanus
Thallus
Phlegon
Hegesippus

Those are just a few - plus over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT Scriptures alone, many (over 800) within 60 years of Christ’s death.

How many manuscripts of Plato? 7 - the oldest more than 1200 years after his death.

Aristotle? only 5 and none less than 1400 years after his death

Herodotus? - only 8 and all 1300 years after the original

Euripedes? - 9 and all 1300 years after the original.

Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. 8 In fact, many people are unaware that there are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1600’s), and scholars have been forced to fill some gaps in his works. 9 This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,600 copies and fragments of the New Testament in the original Greek that, together, assure us that nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Bible from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.

ANYWAY - the point is -there is more evidence that Christ lived than any great historical figure of that era.

Whether or not he was the promised Messiah, the Annointed Christ? - well that is for each individual to decide, but stop wasting time disputing what has been definitively proven already.

Diety or not - he lived. You have to decide what to do with his message and his claims.

That’s why it is called Faith.

Josephus mentions him as well. :wink:

You have totally missed the point (deliberately or accidentally.) None of those writers reference Jesus as a fact. They talk about the beliefs of Christians, which is a totally different thing.

Jesus Christ as one person / deity never existed. There were numerous figures; the stories about them were conglomerated with long standing myths and legends into one story and one person. This is extremely common with the development of religions. If you have a hard time with that then there is no point continuing the discussion because your faith blinds you to logic.

The other famous figures who you mention also most likely were conglomerations of numerous real people who lived.

Your talk of textual reconstruction of the New Testament is farcical. There may be 5,600 documents but most of them are copies of each other. Many of the copies are error strewn. An entire branch of study is dedicated to piecing together the history of which document copies from which document.

There have been plenty of books about this; a good starting place is Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman. Don’t worry; Bart is a believer so you don’t need to be scared about the tissue thin fabric of your beliefs being destroyed.

Unequivocally there is not more evidence that Jesus lived than any other major figure from history, to say so is beyond idiotic. It has not been definitively proven. To state that it has is a flat out lie.

That is why religion clings so strongly to faith as a value. The last thing they want you to do is ask questions.

bart ehrman is not a Christian. He is a former fundamentalist Christian, who delights in breaking the faith of his students at UNC.

If you were looking for a believer why not use Ehrman’s mentor who is also noted as one of the best if not the best in textual criticism. Metzger

I was basing the fact that Ehrman is a Christian on the fact that he claims to be a Christian in the book I referenced. If he has changed his mind since then I am not surprised, after all he spends his life reading the Bible.

oh so people that spend thier life reading the Bible all leave the faith? or are you just over reaching with that statement. Why pick a book that favors your view point? Is metzger inferior in your eyes because He was a firm believer?

No, not at all. Ehrman at the time which he wrote the book was a beliver. I was not aware that this had changed. I chose that book because I found it intersting yet accessable (I didn’t agree with everything he wrote.)

The point about people who actually read the Bible and the documents that it is built from was a half joking reference to the fact that most of the people that I know who have the deepest levels of faith have the shallowest understanding of the Bible. Yes there are passages that they can quote chapter and verse but that is not the same as contextually reading the books.

fair enough. I was mostly just looking to stir the pot a little.

I actually have ehrman’s latest book on my “to read list”.
Although from the reviews I have read I am afraid I will be dissapointed.
[/quote]

What would be some good starting point Metger books?

164

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
What would be some good starting point Metger books?[/quote]

Honestly the best book he has is really a text book. Although the latest edition has notes with Ehrman in it as well.

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.

I like this one as well.

New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content

Metzger is pretty easy to read so If you wanted to give it a shot I think you would enjoy it. You can also skip skip some sections since they are just date of certain scraps of text.

165

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Do not mistake your failure to ask questions, with a lack of evidence. You perhaps haven’t asked the right ones or do not care, but that is not lack of evidence.

If you have any objective evidence for your particular brand of religion, feel free to share it. I’d be especially interested in why you think this objective evidence is so compelling that it justifies your automatic exclusion of every other belief system as misguided and false.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? You stated that you see no evidence for the existence of God. Where did you pick up that I was arguing my belief system is better than everybody else’s? I don’t hold to that point of view, neither does my “brand” of religion.

I am saying evidence for the existence of God is all around you. Look and think.

166

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Firstly, there are several other gospels, they just were not included by the first council of Nicea in their conglomeration.

Secondly, there is very little chance that The First Epistle of Peter was written by Peter due to references to the Septuagiant translation of the Hebrew bible which Peter would not have had access.

The Second Epistle was very unlikely to have been written by the same person as the first due to the stylistic differences. It could have been written by Peter though that seems unlikely especially given that it references his death.

Perhaps, we will never know for sure. The very unlikly part is not true. “Scholars” simply aren’t sure there is evidence in both cases.

Why would I refer to gospels not in the bible?

My question would be, why would you limit yourself to just the gospels chosen by the First Council of Nicea? Even if you reject the other Gospels surely you would want to read them and understand why they were rejected.[/quote]

I don’t reject them, nor have I included them, they just weren’t within the scope of the conversation.

167

[quote]thebigbus wrote:
pat wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
forlife wrote:

Choosing to have “faith” in something for which there is little to no objective evidence makes a lot less sense.

That’s the only thing you CAN have faith in - or else it isn’t faith. You’d have to be a retard to maintain faith in something that is objectively evidenced. Of course, very little in this world can be said to be so, which is why you (yes, even you forlife!) express this faith at every waking moment regarding things for which you have little or no evidence. You just don’t realize it because you haven’t thought about it. Or are too brainwashed by secular materialism.

That which cannot be proven deductively will require a certain degree of faith. Almost everything we know and believe is based in faith. We have faith that historians and scholars are not lying to us about what happened in the past, faith in our media that what they say is the truth, faith in science that the conclusions they draw are statistically significant enough for us to trust the results, faith that the next moment will not be our last, faith in the people around us, we live mired in faith because if you do not you will be paralyzed.

I think it is silly to think that one’s five senses and limited ability to draw conclusions based on the assembling of previously conceived ideas, means there is nothing else in existence.

Man, I wish we could do “rep” points on here, cause you’d get 'em all day. This is absolutely true.

We use inductive reasoning (fallacy) every single day of our lives. I have “faith” that my truck will start every time i turn the key. I have faith this chair will hold me up every time I sit in it…etc, etc.

No one has yet to be able to show how sensory information can then proceed to knowledge without an appeal to non-sensory ASSUMPTIONS (aka, a priori presuppositions). Truth is, we ALL start with presupps. But, alas, this is an argument for a different time :>)[/quote]

Thanks!

168

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
That which cannot be proven deductively will require a certain degree of faith. Almost everything we know and believe is based in faith. We have faith that historians and scholars are not lying to us about what happened in the past, faith in our media that what they say is the truth, faith in science that the conclusions they draw are statistically significant enough for us to trust the results, faith that the next moment will not be our last, faith in the people around us, we live mired in faith because if you do not you will be paralyzed.

I think it is silly to think that one’s five senses and limited ability to draw conclusions based on the assembling of previously conceived ideas, means there is nothing else in existence.

This is true if you have no education or you are stupid. Other than that you will be able to deductively reason most things based on logic.
[/quote]
No you cannot. You could not even present a valid deductive argument that you exist much less anything else.
DesCartes reasoned that he thought, therefore he was, he was wrong. He thought therefore something was or is, but it may not be him. Deduction is an extremely rigid process, most accurately done reasoning will lead you into a whole shit load of unknowns, not obvious knowns.

Perhaps, but you can never be certain. You may feel confident about it, but certainty will almost always evade you.

[quote]
There is always a risk that you were missing a vital piece of the evidence however this is a far more reliable method than taking a badly translated 1,500 year old political agenda and choosing a few small parts of it to base your life around.[/quote]

I don’t base my life on Beowulf.

169

[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? You stated that you see no evidence for the existence of God. Where did you pick up that I was arguing my belief system is better than everybody else’s? I don’t hold to that point of view, neither does my “brand” of religion.[/quote]

So you freely admit that Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Hindus, or Catholics are just as likely to be correct about their beliefs while you are incorrect? If so, cool for having an open mind.

I respectfully disagree that there is any objective evidence for the existence of a god(s). I find it more plausible that matter and energy have always existed, and I see the idea of god as a scapegoat that fails to answer the ultimate question about the origin of the universe.

People can never answer where their god(s) came from. At best, they argue that god has always existed. Well, if god has always existed, why can’t matter and energy have always existed (per the first law of thermodynamics), without the need to invoke a god(s) in the first place?

Not that I don’t think there could be god(s), I just don’t see any real evidence for them at the current time.

170

[quote]forlife wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:

Actually, what I meant was that in my mind it is possible that the universe is entirely natural. The second law of thermodynamics states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, so the logical conclusion is that matter/energy have always existed. I think the universe has always been around in some form, probably going through a series of expansions and contractions, but always present in some state or other.

Once you accept that as a possibility, the necessity of a creator disappears, nor do you have to deal with the unanswerable question of “what created the creator?”.

Thanks man, I like the way you think and applaud your willingness to look at all options. You seem to genuinely be interested in the truth, rather than trying to believe in something just because you want it to be true.[/quote]

Good stuff - you understand that we each looked at the same evidence and each made a choice - I for an outside source for the existence of the universe, and you for an internal one (or would that be no source?). These fundamental choices ultimately affect the points at which we end when it comes to the supernatural.

You’re right - but I fear you leave unanswered “what created creation” - but that’s kewl -we each chose the point we were comfortable in stretching our reason to and I think with merit to each approach.

ok ok - enough mutual admiration you magnificent bastard!

171

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? You stated that you see no evidence for the existence of God. Where did you pick up that I was arguing my belief system is better than everybody else’s? I don’t hold to that point of view, neither does my “brand” of religion.

So you freely admit that Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Hindus, or Catholics are just as likely to be correct about their beliefs while you are incorrect? If so, cool for having an open mind.
[/quote]
Well logically that cannot be true. For the most parts when it comes to core beliefs most of the religions are the same. But the tenants of each belief systems are different and hence when in opposition to one another, they somebody is going to be right and the other wrong. Being right, isn’t the main determination as to who gets into the pearly gates. I could be right in all my beliefs yet somebody who is wrong could be ahead of me in the line to get into heaven because they were a better person. It is the person who is humble before God, and fellow man, who treat each other with respect and do good to those around them who have the upper hand more so than which religion or religious sect you belong to.
[/quote]

I am saying evidence for the existence of God is all around you. Look and think.

I respectfully disagree that there is any objective evidence for the existence of a god(s). I find it more plausible that matter and energy have always existed, and I see the idea of god as a scapegoat that fails to answer the ultimate question about the origin of the universe.

People can never answer where their god(s) came from. At best, they argue that god has always existed. Well, if god has always existed, why can’t matter and energy have always existed (per the first law of thermodynamics), without the need to invoke a god(s) in the first place?
[/quote]
There is no evidence that matter has always existed. Energy is just the amount of work a force can produce. That is just a universal truth which has no substance. Just like any scientific fact, they are only discovered not invented. All truths already exist, but where do they come from? I see them as a rung in the metaphysical totem poll. Something posses all truths. That which posses them is also possessed, etc. Until we arrive at that which cannot be possessed. This is really just another angle of the cosmological argument from the point of contingency.
In the known universe there is nothing that has come from something else, so there is no precedence for something physical to have always existed.

If we knew absolutely everything about even a single object we’d know the answer to where things have come from.

The evidence isn’t necessarily obvious. We are so conditioned to our environments that we seldom see anything extraordinary in them. But if you really look at the world around you, it is very extraordinary. Even the simplest thing is quite remarkable. A grain of sand has a storied past and an infinite future. I feel quite humbled in light of all that.

172

[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
So you freely admit that Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Hindus, or Catholics are just as likely to be correct about their beliefs while you are incorrect? If so, cool for having an open mind.

Well logically that cannot be true.[/quote]

Logically, it can be true because I was referring to the probability, based on existing evidence, that it is true, not to the actual fact of it being true. Since there is no existing objective evidence for any of these religions, they are all equally likely to be true or false.

You’re correct that only one (or none) of the various world religions can actually be true, but that wasn’t my point. I was saying that since we have no objective evidence for Protestantism vs. Hinduism vs. Catholicism vs. Buddhism, we cannot logically conclude that one is any more likely to be correct than the others.

I agree with you, but many (especially fundamentalist Christians) don’t. They believe you must accept Jesus as your Savior, be baptized, etc. in order to get into heaven. How you actually live your life is irrelevant, unless you pass these milestones during your spiritual journey.

The first law of thermodynamics is supported by an enormous amount of evidence. This law states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and thus has always existed.

I agree with you. The universe is beautiful, it is mysterious, and it is beyond our current comprehension. However, none of that requires or even implies supernatural intervention, at least not in my mind.

173

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
So you freely admit that Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Hindus, or Catholics are just as likely to be correct about their beliefs while you are incorrect? If so, cool for having an open mind.

Well logically that cannot be true.

Logically, it can be true because I was referring to the probability, based on existing evidence, that it is true, not to the actual fact of it being true. Since there is no existing objective evidence for any of these religions, they are all equally likely to be true or false.

You’re correct that only one (or none) of the various world religions can actually be true, but that wasn’t my point. I was saying that since we have no objective evidence for Protestantism vs. Hinduism vs. Catholicism vs. Buddhism, we cannot logically conclude that one is any more likely to be correct than the others.

I could be right in all my beliefs yet somebody who is wrong could be ahead of me in the line to get into heaven because they were a better person.

I agree with you, but many (especially fundamentalist Christians) don’t. They believe you must accept Jesus as your Savior, be baptized, etc. in order to get into heaven. How you actually live your life is irrelevant, unless you pass these milestones during your spiritual journey.
[/quote]

Of course, I have seen that too, but I have also seen evangelicals be down right reasonable too.

It deals with energy not matter. Matter is far weirder than energy.

Intervention is one thing I am looking towards to muse. Where did it come from? How did it get there? Legitimate questions with a legitimate answers even if we do not know what they are.

That is why I like the cosmological argument. It argues that for something to be a original cause, it cannot be part or subject to the causal chain.

174

[quote]pat wrote:
Of course, I have seen that too, but I have also seen evangelicals be down right reasonable too.[/quote]

I have yet to meet an evangelical that believes you can get to heaven without accepting Jesus as your personal Savior. There may be exceptions, but if so they are rare.

Matter is energy:
E = mc2

I agree with that logic, except that it presumes the universe has an original cause, rather than accepting the possibility that the universe has always existed in some form.

175

Energy is not matter otherwise the formula would be E=M Energy and Matter are related.

Also, the first law of Thermodynamics states that energy is conserved in a reaction this is subtly different from saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Just because we don’t know what form the energy was in before the big bang doesn’t mean that energy had to be created in the big bang.

176

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Energy is not matter otherwise the formula would be E=M Energy and Matter are related.

Also, the first law of Thermodynamics states that energy is conserved in a reaction this is subtly different from saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Just because we don’t know what form the energy was in before the big bang doesn’t mean that energy had to be created in the big bang.[/quote]

Yup.

177

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Of course, I have seen that too, but I have also seen evangelicals be down right reasonable too.

I have yet to meet an evangelical that believes you can get to heaven without accepting Jesus as your personal Savior. There may be exceptions, but if so they are rare.

It deals with energy not matter. Matter is far weirder than energy.

Matter is energy:
E = mc2

That is why I like the cosmological argument. It argues that for something to be a original cause, it cannot be part or subject to the causal chain.

I agree with that logic, except that it presumes the universe has an original cause, rather than accepting the possibility that the universe has always existed in some form.

[/quote]

It is possible, I suppose. But there is no precedence for that in our physical universe. Everything came from something else. There are no physical constants, all constants are the “rules” or laws on which the physical operates. But even laws, from a point of contingency, having an origin is very plausible.
It is our inability to fill in these last few pieces that will forever leave this point in the argument in a stalemate.
It is at this point I would use other arguments as a complement, such as the teleological argument, mind-body, etc. Even so, we though we can get closer and closer to the answer we can never actually get to it. It’s almost as if He doesn’t want us to know, or something doesn’t.

178

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Energy is not matter otherwise the formula would be E=M Energy and Matter are related.

Also, the first law of Thermodynamics states that energy is conserved in a reaction this is subtly different from saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed.[/quote]

You’re right, I was actually thinking about the Law of Conservation of Mass:

My point was that Einstein proved the sum of matter and energy in the universe is constant, and that this sum of matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

179

[quote]pat wrote:
It is possible, I suppose. But there is no precedence for that in our physical universe. Everything came from something else. There are no physical constants, all constants are the “rules” or laws on which the physical operates.[/quote]

Einstein showed that the total sum of mass and energy in the universe is a constant, and that this sum of mass and energy cannot be added to or subtracted from. It is impossible, by the laws of the universe, to create or destroy matter/energy.

Thus, there is strong evidence that the universe, and the matter/energy which comprise it, has always existed. The idea of infinity boggles the mind, but both deists and agnostics/atheists accept it. The only difference is that deists believe god(s) have always existed, while agnostics/atheists see no need for a supernatural explanation, since evidence strongly supports the infinite nature of the natural universe.

Or, it is possible that there are no god(s), and that the universe is entirely natural.

180

I like how people assign a gender to a hypothetical being of such immense power that it created this universe.