Big Think

Faceless Atheist on March 12, 2009, 5:41 AM

This is a response to the first two comments on the original idea.

Bryan,
“Anywho, if he is coming back, then I pray he hurries up and I hope one of the first things he does is end religion so everyone will quit fighting about it.”

I couldn’t agree more… His coming back would effectively end all religious debate, but why allow so many to kill and die in the name of god in the meantime? Seems like divine negligence, but apparently he won’t let thousands of needless deaths affect the perfect timing of his glorious reentrance…what a diva.
And how funny is it that the apostles thought he would be back in their lifetime, and here we are, 2000 years later, and some christians still think they will witness the “end times” before they die.

Musycks,

I would totally agree with you that the absence of evidence of Jesus in histories of the day does seem to verge on “evidence of absence.” I think most historians would at least mention the miracle performing man who claims to be lord and savior, even if they didn’t believe him, assuming he was as big as the bible claims he was. I also think that Josephus’ mention of Jesus as the brother of “James the Just” is hilarious for a few reasons, but than again I was unaware of this mention until I checked wiki about it (and that just brings up more credibility issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus ).

Bryan Cridlebaugh on March 12, 2009, 11:40 AM

Anyone know what happened to the rest of this thread?

Faceless Atheist on March 12, 2009, 5:34 PM

I had been unable to view the thread. every time I tried BT said they had encountered a problem. I assumed this was happening when anyone tried to view the idea. After 2 full days of not being able to view my idea, I recreated it. Unfortunately the 4 comments that had been posted were lost, but I was hoping people would reiterate their thoughts.

Musycks on March 12, 2009, 8:55 PM

Yep… I got the ‘there is a problem’ screen and couldn’t get any further, so I’ll re-try.

Part of the reason I moved away from belief was the amount of credible new research and debate post Dead Sea Scrolls that has been published in the last 25 years. The Xtians had about 1850 years with the game to themselves to push the party line, there’s some work to do to win back that head start. The problem with the religionists historically monopolising education for most of that period meant unquestioned belief in the supernatural, behaviour that goes all the way back to the cave.

If science and research had not found significant error in heretofore unquestioned accounts then we would not be debating anything today. Think about the things the Bible got wrong?
1. The beginning of the universe.
2. The age of the cosmos.
3. No Adam and Eve
4. No ‘world’ flood.
5. No Ark and two of everything.
6. No Moses
7. No flight out of Egypt.
8. No ‘slaughter of the innocents’ by Herod.
9. No archeological evidence of Nazareth as a town pre 70 CE.

That’s just for starters, I’m sure others could add to it. These things were all once viewed as set-in-marble history.

60 Roman historians writing in the first century and not one undisputed direct mention of the man/god Jesus.
Jewish literature of the time does not mention him once. He simply fails the histroical test as a real person and is most likely a composite or a myth like Hercules or Horus.

Winning the hearts and minds of Rome with the latest ‘spiritual’ trend and taking it to the world via successive expansionist imperialist empires over 1600 years does not make one word of it true.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on March 13, 2009, 12:06 AM

“but why allow so many to kill and die in the name of god in the meantime?”
We want to explore and discover for ourselves.. live nature.. feel the real? I don’t know.!.. But, I think it would take(s) everything imaginable to be or make something this real. And everything imaginable isn’t restricted by space, time, or imagination.

Bryan Cridlebaugh on March 13, 2009, 12:10 AM

or human imagination…? I don’t know.!..

Musycks on March 13, 2009, 4:34 AM

BC… sadly or not the overwhelming evidence is everything imaginable IS restricted by space and time, that’s why universal laws are universal and inviolable.

Of course the BC universal law of love has no such restrictions!… by order of the convenors of the Church Of The Minor Ninth Chord!

Bryan Cridlebaugh on March 13, 2009, 1:06 PM

MR, I guess what I’m trying to say, again in a different way, is that everything imaginable is just what it is. It isn’t restricted by anything. Even if there is no consciousness or matter, everything imaginable would still exist as possibility. It’s hard for me to describe. I think words like imagine and possibility have restrictions built into their definition. “Everything” is hard to describe with words…I don’t know? But, I think, heck I’ll even claim to know, love is the way!

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 4:09 PM

Initially I was very interested to reading this post and got that dang blasted error thing so glad to know it wasn’t just my computer ignorance. Anyway point on hand…
Before I begin attempting to discredit every concept you wrote here I need a few points of clarification:

1. Are you denying the year you live in? (Meaning 2009 A.D.) AD standing for after death.. meaning his death?

2. As far as your other myths go, Did you find any people willing to die for their myths? How many wars were fought to keep their myths? Are their myths still prevalent?

3. If I was inspired by a thing, would that make me less me? I box like Tyson, not because I’m cocky because I’m a midget like him in the heavyweight division. Because of our similarities am I less me to the point I’m not me at all?

4. Do you or Muyscks truly understand the importance of writing and the level of scrutiny that was on early historians? Meaning if I wrote a wrong letter I could be charged with death, were either of you aware of this fact?

5. Also are you aware of the Christian studies that prove that your “atheist” standards of proof for Jesus life are so stringent that no public figure in history could be proved true?

I look forward to your points of clarification.

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 4:10 PM

only in your own mind.

Faceless Atheist on March 13, 2009, 6:10 PM

1. I am not denying that our current calendar is based around the life of “Jesus,” but I do prefer the less religious CE (common era) and BCE (before common era). But your ignorance is showing Luke, even about your own religious terminology. AD does not mean “after death” it mean “anno domini” or “the year of our lord” in English. If you are wrong about that just think about how many other things you could be wrong about.
2. Yes, people besides christians have died for myths they believe in. This has been true from ancient time through today with people willing to die in the name of allah (which would be just another “myth” in the christian worldview (pot calling the kettle black to me)). The fact that other myths ancient myths don’t have believers today does not mean that those myths that have persevered are “true,” they are just lucky, or have aspects attached to their mythology that make them more palatable than other myths, and allowed them to survive longer.
3. I think you missed my point. If we were to find that Tyson never actually won a boxing match would “Tyson” be Tyson anymore? When the major attributes of a person turn out to be false than it is hard to say it is still the same person. Our entire understanding of that person needs to change.
4. “If I wrote a wrong letter I could be charged with death.” I think you do not know what you are talking about. If historians were to speak ill of an emperor or king than they might easily meet with a quick death, but this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the multiple historians who lived during the time not producing any documentation of “Jesus,” who wrote while he was allegedly performing miracles and rising from the dead, and yet failed to mention it in their writings. This isn’t a leader who didn’t want historians to say that he was a tyrant, this is historians not writing anything about god coming down to earth. It seems a little too big of an event to be passed over by every historian of the day.
5. This is also not true. “Atheist” or scientific standards of proof conclusively show a number of things about past leaders and other public figures of antiquity, and it definitely shows that they indeed existed and actually did the things they are most remembered for doing. The same is just not true for jesus.

Musycks on March 13, 2009, 7:03 PM

Luke… huge slabs of the globe use CE or BCE as they don’t have the Anno Domini marker as they are not Xtian countries. and FA is right it’s Year of Our Lord in Latin, I can thank my Christian Brothers education for that. But it will still satisfy your point that it’s Jesus based. And that’s my point too.. in western culture Xtian derived concepts are ubiquitous, found in our language and the very fabric of society, and only relatively recently has it been acceptable to challenge them.
‘Atheist’ standard of proof is incorrect, it’s ‘Historians’ standard, and not all would be atheists, probably a lot of believers there who chose the metaphor model to avoid contradicting their own discipline.
Historians support a lot of Biblical characters Luke.. Herod was a facinating man and has a great story, involving Mark Anthony and Cleopatra and Rome, but the Bible doesn’t tell that, it gives us one that didn’t happen. It also gets the date of birth of Christ wrong as Herod died in 4 BC.

Pilate was a Governor and there exists
a stone with his name carved on it going back to the era. He put about 2000 Jews to death to keep order, so I doubt he would have equivocated over one more.

Jewish writings 500 years after the Moses story show no presence of Mosaic law being applied to matters of dispute?
That must have came later. Again the Biblical time line is all over the shop.

Ther is no historical evidence for St Peter and the catholics built a church around him.

It seems to me the Christ story was a mix of several lines of esoteric thinking that Paul of Tarsus pulled together to push to urban gentiles.
As that product started to do well in the marketplace a demand arose to know more about this god man. His followers then attempted to record the ‘chinese whispers’ of oral stories going around. That’s why they are so ropey.. dates are wrong, locations are botched, events don’t match etc..
Not until Constantine did they start to agree on the crucial texts and that meant excluding popular gospels that were too contradictory. As it is the 4 that remain have some amazing contradictions.

By the time of Christ history was a respectable discipline and a widespread one. I can apply your point to say Abraham and understand why there’s evidence for him, but by Moses the Egyptians were great recorders of events.. losing an army in a great flood chasing runaway Jews would have been recorded somewhere you’d think.
Nothing.

I don’t know why you’d be so keen to tackle the history Luke, it won’t help what you need brother. I’ve said before histroy does not matter to believers, it’s just another piece of god’s struggle for you… to believe in the face of difficulty or ridicule even. If you disrespect an opponent openly, you give him motivation to dig in deeper, to find something extra next time you meet. For most Xtians reading this thread will reinforce the bunker mentality.

History is a discipline, it requires evidence and argument to reach a conclusion that can be agreed to and supported. Faith needs none of that.

Musycks on March 13, 2009, 7:06 PM

no evidence for him….. sorry.

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 8:18 PM

Brilliant responses both faceless atheist and Musycks. I expect none less then this Musycks: “If you disrespect an opponent openly, you give him motivation to dig in deeper, to find something extra next time you meet.”Im doing the same. We are both on bigthink for the same purpose and Musycks if I didn’t respect you I couldn’t call you out. I’ve often stated one’s opponents show one’s abilities. I wouldn’t box a beginner, make sense.

However this statement of yours is most certainly not true for my Christian faith: “For most Xtians reading this thread will reinforce the bunker mentality” Both faceless atheist and yourself give me more strength and courage to study my religion and to speak more intelligently about it when ministering to your kind in real life. This is why I goad and prod you to get all the misinformation your feeding your fellow unbeliever’s.

The Holy Bible I have is an archeology Bible that comes complete with all the archeological evidence for our faith. History and its misinterpretations from almost all of us doesn’t need to be avoided anymore than any other field of knowledge to the Christian Musycks. One could easily turn your statements of Herod around and claim that since no Christian church or writer spoke about him nicely then he existed as pure evil incarnate as a man. We don’t however, we constantly search and study and mix together all thoughts because our God Lord Jesus Christ tells us to with his parable of talents in the book of Matthew.

Keep swinging guys I’ll try to refute your guys statements more accurately individually now.

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 8:18 PM

Brilliant responses both faceless atheist and Musycks. I expect none less then this Musycks: “If you disrespect an opponent openly, you give him motivation to dig in deeper, to find something extra next time you meet.”Im doing the same. We are both on bigthink for the same purpose and Musycks if I didn’t respect you I couldn’t call you out. I’ve often stated one’s opponents show one’s abilities. I wouldn’t box a beginner, make sense.

However this statement of yours is most certainly not true for my Christian faith: “For most Xtians reading this thread will reinforce the bunker mentality” Both faceless atheist and yourself give me more strength and courage to study my religion and to speak more intelligently about it when ministering to your kind in real life. This is why I goad and prod you to get all the misinformation your feeding your fellow unbeliever’s.

The Holy Bible I have is an archeology Bible that comes complete with all the archeological evidence for our faith. History and its misinterpretations from almost all of us doesn’t need to be avoided anymore than any other field of knowledge to the Christian Musycks. One could easily turn your statements of Herod around and claim that since no Christian church or writer spoke about him nicely then he existed as pure evil incarnate as a man. We don’t however, we constantly search and study and mix together all thoughts because our God Lord Jesus Christ tells us to with his parable of talents in the book of Matthew.

Keep swinging guys I’ll try to refute your guys statements more accurately individually now.

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 8:20 PM

That just posted twice? It wasn’t meant to and I apologize if I clicked to fast… FA feel free to remove one or both if you can.

Luke Allen on March 13, 2009, 9:13 PM

1. Ok I missed that AD doesn’t mean after death I blame my second grade Sunday school teacher but your right I should’ve been more diligent; still the main point was the very denotation of our calendar is based around him something that I think would be impossible for a mythical person right? So the main point is that we are still establishing his birth every year of our calendar.
2. The myths they die about only hold portions of truth or they would be more widespread. I would never disrespect a Muslim as a myth just the wrong vessel of a perfect God and yes FA I have and do wonder if my side is the right vessel of God or not.
3. You were making a couple of arguments to state Jesus didn’t exist and one aspect was he was “like” so many others. When I was posing this question I was essentially trying to point out how irrelevant that comparison model is because one can be like one other and still uniquely oneself. Using the Tyson analogy further though 4000 years from now if the world was different and there was not a continuous flow of information and there wasn’t anymore dvd, vcr or other recordings of Tyson then how could we prove his existence? Given enough time others may doubt our “existence”
4. Is so obvious from your own statements its hysterical for me you can’t see it. The historians as you rightly pointed out could be put to death for talking ill of an emperor or king. From an emperor or king’s perspective what could be more ill talking then this nobody can perform and do miracles that the wisest most amazing emperors can’t? It’s easy to see how much historians had to write to only put their leader’s in the best light definitely not to push forward a peasant king.
5. Everything they show is the same archeological evidence Christians show. You just use historians that don’t mention him (because as a the previous point showed would’ve made their emperor and king look bad) as a proof he doesn’t exist. Good luck with that

pokoj potpie on March 13, 2009, 9:35 PM

“We are talking about the multiple historians who lived during the time not producing any documentation of “Jesus,” who wrote while he was allegedly performing miracles and rising from the dead, and yet failed to mention it in their writings. This isn’t a leader who didn’t want historians to say that he was a tyrant, this is historians not writing anything about god coming down to earth. It seems a little too big of an event to be passed over by every historian of the day."

Luke was a known historian, and has been validated as being so. He wrote both the gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles.
———————
Mus ‘the bible’ doesn’t get the date of the birth of christ wrong, the creator of the system did. It’s been verified, I believe, that he used estimations. It was narrowed down. I actually watched something on the history channel about this, they were saying that Jesus was actually born between 6-3 BC, a time when Herod would still have been alive. And, interestingly enough, based on the astrological findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the ability for modern astronomers to do so, they have found that during this time, there was a conjunction of Jupiter moving into Taurus, some other planets (sorry this is off the top of my head) and all eclipsed by our moon, which, upon the end of the eclipse, would form the brilliant ‘star in the east’ that is so often spoken of.

I would comment further, but instead you should just read Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Christ” that pretty much sums up all argument I could offer. Historical existence of Jesus, the accuracy of the gospels and intent of those who wrote them, etc.

Faceless Atheist on March 14, 2009, 1:49 AM

The Gregorian calendar was officially instituted in the year 1582!!!!!!! I think this is more than enough time for a myth to take hold. The calendar provides absolutely no proof to the existence of jesus, only proves that the myth that surrounds him was very influential 1500 years after he supposedly lived. You cant really think this is proof he existed, if you do you are beyond hope.

The level of truth in a myth has no relation to how well it does over time. You would only like to think that it does because you are a Christian. If they did then how can you explain the presence of religions that are completely varied in their understanding of godly truth: Hinduism believes in numerous gods, Buddhism in none, and then you have the three monotheisms. By your logic all three would have the same amount of truth, actually Hinduism and Judaism would have more since there are the oldest. And your beliefs do contradict those of muslims (and every other religion), either mohammed was the only true prophet of god or he wasn’t, you cant both be right. Your firm belief in christianity means you must think their religion is wrong, that they are actually following a myth (isn’t it odd how so many can be deluded when it is so obvious that you are right?). The continued success of islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and even voodoo go against your idea that only “true” myths can survive. If “truth” was the main factor than we would see a steady advance of one religion over the others, but this is definitely not the case (ps the current fastest growing is non-belief).

Similarities between boxers are one thing, but saying that there were multiple people who rose from the dead is quite another. I was saying that it is odd that all the miraculous aspects of the character of jesus were present in other mythological characters that preceded him. Its not that they looked alike, or were all carpenters, similarities that would take nothing away from the individuality of jesus; but when the similarities are rising from the dead, “pure” birth, miraculous healing of the sick, and being god, the characteristics are not coincidentally the same, they were obviously pilfered from previous myths. All of these things violate the laws of physics, so it would be amazing to find them in one person, but when such traits are shared by multiple people it is obvious that none are really who they claim to be. It would be like if jesus was invincible except for one spot on the back of his ankle where is mother dipped him in the river styx…this would not be a coincidence that does not take away from other claims about him, it would be an obvious case of mythological stealing. The same is true for the virgin birth, rising from the dead, and jesus being god/son of god.

Ok… We are not talking about one or two historians of the day who put absolutely no mention of jesus into their works, were talking of 20-30 or more who wrote during his time or directly after. And we must remember that they are historians; they do not have to say that he was god, or that they believed he was capable of performing miracles. A mention like “there is a lot of talk about this Jesus character, some think he can perform miracles” would be sufficient, but it isn’t there. They would not have to worry about upsetting those who have power over their lives by mentioning him, those in charge would undoubtedly know about him anyway if he was nearly as big as the bible claims. The idea that they were afraid of authority holds up to a point, but it does not hold up when there are so many historians and none mention anything about him. Dozens and dozens of historians make no mention of him, good or bad, god or false prophet, there is nothing. And you don’t find this the least bit odd?

Faceless Atheist on March 14, 2009, 1:54 AM

luke may have been a historian, but he didn’t write until about the year 100. 70 years after jesus’ death. It is hard to point to him as proof when never witnessed any of the things he wrote about, or even lived while they were going on. He is alleged to have used the gospel of mark as his source, making his claims completely dependent on those of mark. If his source is flawed his histories are meaningless.

Musycks on March 14, 2009, 8:03 AM

Luke… what misinformation of ours do you refute? the great thing about the history I consume and offer to you is it stands outside of belief. I’m not making it up about 60 Roman historians of the time not mentioning your boy…et al. you can look it up for yourself.
FA’s point of several other mega successful myths (Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, islam) is a good one, success is no indicator of intrinsic truth, just popularity.

To the artist formerly known as Potpie I agree Luke was a Xtian writer who probably wrote at the end of the first century, and used Mark and the common source Q for a lot of his stuff, but he wasn’t a contempory of Christ, possibly an associate of Paul, who we can agree existed. The author you quote is a pastor of a mega church described in Wiki as a Xtian apologist, so I don’t think he’s much of an objective voice.
And therein lies the inherited problem.. for most of our written western history we’ve been relying on an almost solely Xtian interpretation of history, now valid ways of looking at the evidence without the flaw of pre-supposed belief has started to strip away the Jesus coloured hue, and we can find a much more complete and clearer picture.
ps..The really interesting thing for you guys to confront is the lack of a biographical strand to any of Pauls writing. he was remarkably unaquainted with Jesus the man.

To my mates in the Xtian chorus I would add… you have put your JC outside of empirical disciplines like science and history. I would not advise you to pursue that line, the support is not there, and that’s not a matter of belief. Your prism is a poetic/romantic one, your philosophy should be debated on those grounds not on grounds of fact and evidence that can make no impact on your type of belief.

Keep swingin boys!

pokój! on March 14, 2009, 11:13 PM

…are you?
From Wiki:
“Some scholars have posited earlier dates for Luke’s composition. Arguments for a date between AD 37 and AD 61 for the Gospel note that Luke is addressed to “Most Excellent Theophilus,” almost certainly a reference to the Roman-imposed High Priest of Israel between AD 37 and AD 41, Theophilus ben Ananus. This reference would date the original copy of Luke to within 4 to 8 years after the death of Jesus."
———-
Another theory I was reading in that book has been suggested that as Acts, written by Luke, which in great part describes the actions of Paul, is not concluded, it must have been left unfinished because of Paul’s execution in 62AD. Acts, being the second part of Luke’s writing, after the gospel of Luke it self. And as Luke incorporates parts of Mark, Mark must be written earlier. The man being interviewed is Craig Blomberg, a New Testament scholar who received his Ph.D. at the University of Aberdeen. He concedes that this is a theory, but it makes sense, apart from the ‘standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s… That’s still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going around." He goes on to make a comparison to the two earliest known biographies of Alexander the Great being written more than four hundred years after his death, yet still considered to be historically trustworthy.
So maybe Alexander didn’t exist either.

Like I said, if you want to consider another side, check out that book. Mus might have automatically assumed it is not ‘objective’ enough, but in his interviews he asks all the hardest questions, many you guys haven’t even thought of.

pokój! on March 14, 2009, 11:27 PM

“I agree Luke was a Xtian writer who probably wrote at the end of the first century, and used Mark and the common source Q for a lot of his stuff, but he wasn’t a contempory of Christ, possibly an associate of Paul, who we can agree existed.”

That is not definitive… and even so, Paul did, and as Luke, considered a journalist as well, followed Paul and his actions, that is once removed from an eyewitness to Christ. Wow. What a gap.
—————————————
“The author you quote is a pastor of a mega church described in Wiki as a Xtian apologist, so I don’t think he’s much of an objective voice.”

How quick to assume you are… first off this book of his is described as the reason for his transition from atheist to Christian, and the questions he asks all the people he interviews are often much more in-depth than anything you guys have brought forth on this website… why not check it out before making such a statement? It is possible for a believer to be objective about their beliefs, far more possible, it seems, than for you to be objective in your assumptions about Christians.

“And therein lies the inherited problem.. for most of our written western history we’ve been relying on an almost solely Xtian interpretation of history, now valid ways of looking at the evidence without the flaw of pre-supposed belief has started to strip away the Jesus coloured hue, and we can find a much more complete and clearer picture.

“ps..The really interesting thing for you guys to confront is the lack of a biographical strand to any of Pauls writing. he was remarkably unaquainted with Jesus the man.”

Actually every time you bring this up I say the same thing. Paul was writing to people who already were Christians. He had no reason to try to prove or disprove Jesus to them. His letters were not biographical, they were for spiritual guidance.

“To my mates in the Xtian chorus I would add… you have put your JC outside of empirical disciplines like science and history. I would not advise you to pursue that line, the support is not there, and that’s not a matter of belief. Your prism is a poetic/romantic one, your philosophy should be debated on those grounds not on grounds of fact and evidence that can make no impact on your type of belief.”

We didn’t create this topic… and I know I am not an historian, nor have I studied any of this. I don’t need to prove to myself that Jesus did or didn’t exist, that seems to be your thing… but have fun trying to enlighten Christians to the errors of their logic… its hearts vs. minds my friends, and in Lovers the heart will win in the end…

Keep throwin’ your spit-balls, man… but I ain’t playin’ baseball…

Musycks on March 15, 2009, 6:26 AM

Pokoj… No I’m not as historian either… I just consume a lot of it.
and Craig Blomberg according to wiki is a conservative evangelical. But his theories can get out in the marketplace of history and let’s see if he gets widespread support, that’s how ideas in that discipline work. Let him quote his research that led him to those dates, but excuse me for being sceptical that it’s an evangelical pushing the dates back that far.
proving Jesus did not exist as a person might not cruel the pitch for you pokoj, but it sure will change it for millions of others. I think it matters as to whether he was a real figure, I’m surprised you don’t.

ps.. The Alexander argument is just wrong. Several contempories wrote of Alexander.. there are many artworks and statues of him that were made at the time. If this guy is seriously running that argument he has no credibility.
Again look at wiki and the section Greek and latin sources and you’ll see why.

Faceless Atheist on March 15, 2009, 7:16 AM

Do you read the part on the wiki page before the part you quote? The part that says

“If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70, they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. This view also believes that Luke’s prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus miraculously predicting the future but must have been written with knowledge of these events after the fact. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark’s or Matthew’s) that a date after 70 seems necessary, if disputed.^{42 43} These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100. Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. The universalization of the message of Luke is believed to reflect a theology that took time to develop.[citation needed] Differences of chronology, “style”, and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul’s distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred."

4 to 8 years pokoj? Again, come on, be reasonable. But I would have to say that the thing on the page that we would most likely agree on seems to be: “However Guthrie notes that much of the evidence for dating the Gospel at any point is based upon conjecture.”

From my understanding of the gospel timeline was that they were all written about 50 to a 75 or 80 years after the death of jesus, in the range offered by your expert (complete with credentials). Some say earlier and some say later, but I think that is a reasonable estimate. Debate the particulars if you want but there are very good reasons to doubt the historical accuracy of the gospels, and that no historian of the time mentioned the man doesn’t help your case. Apparently the only people who wrote about him thought he was god. The lack of historical evidence of his existence was only one part of my argument, but I think it is a good one. Even if the gospels had been written in the year 33 it would not change the fact that the stories about jesus are eerily similar to those of previous mythical characters, or that he repeatedly broke the laws of physics. I know such objections are mere trifles to true believers, but all I’m trying to do appeal to their neglected reason and introduce some much needed doubt.

pokój! on March 16, 2009, 1:48 AM

FA:
“4 to 8 years”
-
Never said I believed either way… My point was they don’t know for sure, but in the historical standpoint, it really wasn’t that long after, even if it was 70-100…
——
And doubt is always welcome. It is a cornerstone to faith. I’ll keep searching myself.
————————————-
Mus:
well, I was just commenting on what I’d read… Whatever his background was, he seemed to know what he was talking about, and has written some pretty extensive books on the subject too… Wiki also said he is one of the main claimants in the historical Jesus debates…
like I said none of this is really going to get anywhere, it’s all opinion at this point… I still see nothing as direct evidence either to back up the claim that Jesus didn’t exist, and far more, however theoretical to suggest that He did.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 3:23 AM

No: “Your firm belief in christianity means you must think their religion is wrong, that they are actually following a myth” Stating this is an assumption your mind makes. I believe my belief is just a belief. I am respectful and caring to ALL the worlds religions because if I get my “belief” wrong I want someone to speak up for me.

I agree with Bill Maher and his premise in Religulous that we need to get along and stop assuming I’m right and your wrong so DO NOT put me in the same category as other Christians you know. For a long time on here the COEXIST banner with the symbols from all the worlds religion was my avatar here and on my myspace it still is; so DO NOT think I think I’m right and everyone else is wrong.

The point here is we are arguing about a belief. A belief I can not ever scientifically prove and a belief you can not ever scientifically disprove. For this reason I have always stated the ONLY scientific response to belief of any kind is agnostic. We can only prove what we can duplicate and therefore in my mind there is only reason to debate belief because scientific facts are facts. So please don’t misunderstand my determination in proving Christians legitimate standing in philosophical discussions as an assumption of perfect truth and understanding.

I’ve defined the meaning of life as coming as close to the truth as possible. As Roakes pointed out because truth is perfect there is only one, I needed to assure him that is the reason AS CLOSE AS is in the statement.

I can’t define your truth. You can’t define mine and by definition of truth and its singular nature you (and your atheist friends), I (and my numerous Christian brother factions), Islam, Buhdists, Pagans, Wiccans, Satanists, Taoist, Jewish, NONE of us can claim empirical superiority. My anguish and disrespect to the atheist position is only when the atheist community INCORRECTLY assumes it is more than just a belief system when it has NO MORE facts then ANY other belief system.

And I find it no more odd that numerous historians didn’t speak of a peasant carpenter claiming to be God then I do the absence of Buhhda in most of the western world or Lao Tzu in most of the world. Please stop being so time centric and just assuming that that day and age had an internet where they were highspeed connected and everyone knew everything about everyone everywhere! HELL NO HISTORIAN EVER wrote about the Native Americans and I really believe they exist to. Simply a moronic position to take FA that a man name Jesus never actually existed.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 3:26 AM

“Luke… what misinformation of ours do you refute”

I refute the idea that you are anymore a scientific belief system then Christianity or any other belief system is.

Please read my above response to FA for a better description of why this is true.

Faceless Atheist on March 16, 2009, 4:22 AM

Luke:
I like how your all about coexistence in this thread, but are raging against catholics in the other. If you can harbor so much ire towards people who share 90% of your beliefs I can’t imagine how wrong you really think people of other faiths are.

I am not being “time centric,” there were numerous Roman and Jewish historians of the day who didn’t think jesus was important enough to mention. I’m not trying to prove “a person named jesus never actually existed” (I say so in the idea), but if jesus wasn’t important enough for those who recorded important things, in that part of the world at that time, to mention him, than I don’t think he is really the same “jesus” you think of.

OOOHHHH that’s right, the internet is a new invention. I thought jesus blogged on his laptop and paul sent his epistles by email. Thanks for enlightening me, but are you sure Native Americans exist?

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 11:40 AM

The Catholics like most fringe groups should be brought in from the mainstream of their group.
Only moderate Muslims can reign in the terrorist.
So yes I’m way harder on FLDS or Catholics then I am any other group.
Thanks for being sarcastic and your argument is now moving into reductio ad absurdum… which makes it irrelevant and that was all I was trying to prove with this ridiculous Jesus doesn’t exist statement… All your doing is aligning yourself with holocaust deniers and other people that choose to create history in accordance to their belief vs. the truth. I may not be able to prove everything about the man; you can not intelligently denied he was a man.

Faceless Atheist on March 16, 2009, 5:15 PM

But I can intelligently deny that he was god.

Faceless Atheist on March 16, 2009, 5:22 PM

And there is no intelligent way to argue that he is god.

Musycks on March 16, 2009, 6:05 PM

Luke… we are entertaining conclusions that are a possibility.. that Jesus did not exist at all… you are not. We put up some valid points to argue the position, that’s all. You call the idea ridiculous, because that’s your emotional response to the idea. You can’t produce contempoaneous accounts, they don’t exist. The Nag Hammadi scrolls don’t prove he existed either, so I don’t know where you got that from. They are more early writings from Xtian communities and the manuscripts themseleves date from the 3rd or 4th century.. so same problem.

I don’t doubt you have love in your heart Luke, as does pokoj, but I call it yours… you call it Jesus.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 8:42 PM

But I can intelligently argue he was God.

Luke Allen on March 16, 2009, 8:47 PM

of anything, even that their wasn’t a holocaust. It doesn’t prove anything entertaining an idea except that even if God spoke directly to us all at once that their would still be complainers.

How does something written about and hidden explaining how a man existed not prove he existed Musycks? You are doing some interesting intelligent gymnastic stuff here Musycks it looks like you did learn something from your Catholic upbringing.

Faceless Atheist on March 17, 2009, 2:01 AM

Well, I don’t think you can, not intelligently anyway. You have to rely on “belief” which is pretty much saying that there is no intelligent reason to think he was god, but you believe it regardless. Arguing that he was god boils down to pointing to a book and resting your case. You can argue that there is enough proof that a person named jesus existed, but I don’t think you can intelligently argue that he was born to a virgin, performed miracles, resurrected after his death, or rose into heaven (all the things that make jesus who he is in the minds of those who believe him god). I think one needs to believe in some if not all of these things in order to think jesus was god, but I don’t think you can intelligently argue that he actually did any of these things, so I don’t think you can intelligently argue he was god (though it is easy to intelligently deny that he was).

Musycks on March 17, 2009, 2:02 AM

My twists have got nothing on yours mate! :)

let’s move on… I’ll grant you for a moment that a guy called Jesus existed in the first century. SO WHAT?
FA’s point is he could not possibly be responsible for the things that the writings attribute to him. I agree.
You base your beliefs on a book that has been continually discredited as history, so history should mean very lttle in your criteria of estimation, but you seem to want to argue on those terms. The things the bible got wrong would take an eon to list. The reason you find significance in it is not historical, it’s romantic. The idea of ‘god is love’ appeals to a deep longing in you and those like you, and you look past the errors in the book in a way I cannot. You condemn the first Xtians to the status of pagans as easily as you do FA and I.
Your Jesus would be unrecognisable to most of the people that have ever believed in him Luke, but we’re expected to assume you got it right and they all got it wrong for so long.

Luke for Pope!!

Luke Allen on March 23, 2009, 3:41 AM

So sorry for the delayed response FA with the new format it is next to impossible to keep up with everyone but here it goes:
First God is a concept. No one can claim to no him or her so intimately so as to define him as any other way.
Therefore, God and those that choose to follow him are admitting to enjoying ideas in the abstract.
Abstract ideas are genuinely what separates IQ points which is our value of intelligence. In fact IQ is never usually effected no matter how many degrees and jargon that one obtains therefore, our current standard for intelligence is the ability to attempt to understand abstract ideas. Agree or disagree? I promise to respond quicker… this time and again I apologize for my delay.

Musycks on March 24, 2009, 2:20 AM

Click on the follow icon Luke and it lights up yellow… then go to the YOU icon and click on the ‘following’ bar and you’ll get a summary of all the ideas you are clicking on and a count so you can keep track.

and the ability to embrace abstract concepts is exactly what your god is to me… not a seperate thing out there, but an innate mental ability within us.

Luke Allen on March 24, 2009, 2:33 AM

But I think I’m following too many Musycks because it only shows a few that Im following that is actually how I got lost because I thought I was responding to everything I was following but forgot our discussion here and in my own blog… O well nothings perfect but they make me follow some blowhards that I didn’t know I was following on my screen, Do you have that?

Since God is an abstract concept outside of oneself then it is intelligent to try to grasp it, correct? How with all the evidence of something more than us ie Boskops, Infinite cosmos etc. etc. can one intelligently claim our species is all there is and the height of evolution?

Musycks on March 24, 2009, 7:44 PM

mine shows all the ones I clicked to ‘follow’ and no others… so somethings is wierd with yours?

and I would say abstract concepts are not outside of us, they are all within our brains, that’s all. I also would not claim we are all there is, or the height of evolution… I think that fits more with the faith model.
I’m with Sagan, there’s a great probability of other life in the universe, but little chance we’ll ever bump into it.

Faceless Atheist on March 25, 2009, 7:24 AM

“Since God is an abstract concept outside of oneself then it is intelligent to try to grasp it, correct?”

No. The idea can be pursued intelligently, but belief in the abstract notion of “god” is not inherently intelligent because the idea is abstract. Not all abstract ideas are intelligent. The flying spaghetti monster is an abstract idea, so are russell’s teapot and social darwinism, but none can be supported intelligently. I think the idea of an all-knowing omnipotent being who is completely good is illogical despite its abstractness, and that it too is impossible to support intelligently.

Musycks on March 25, 2009, 9:35 PM

yep… it’s again the utilitarian idea of balance of probabilities that comes into play. The contest between sky god magician or natural universal laws for the origins of the universe should be a no brainer. I wish.

Luke Allen on March 31, 2009, 1:40 AM

Send me what your definition of intelligence is and I will defend God in that set parameter. Note that a definition of a thing can’t ever be what some thing isn’t. Meaning don’t say intelligence isn’t believing in God or else your definition would limit my ability and it wouldn’t be intelligence denying my God it be your perception. If you want to use Oxford or Webster that may be best: You choose the definition and I’ll defend.