The new testament and slavery.

If you hadn't added the word "strong", I'd disagree. There is good evidence that James, the brother of the Lord, existed, and ordinarily if a person's brother exists, that's good evidence that the person in question did, as well. There is also good evidence that Peter existed, along with various members of the Jerusalem community, who all claimed to have known Jesus. They could have been making it up, but like news accounts today, we have to make decisions about what seems credible. There is also a brief account in the Talmud about a Jesus of Nazareth who was executed for practicing magic and deceiving the people of Nazareth. Of course, that could have been a different Jesus of Nazareth. Then there's Zoroaster, the Buddha and Socrates, other heroes of mine. The evidence of their existence seems no more stronger than that of Jesus'. To me, the important thing about these figures is not their existence but the message attributed to them.

I'd say that reality is thoroughly ambiguous and each of us faces the challenge of making sense of it. I find existence to be absolutely amazing and mindblowing--that I am conscious, that I can think far beyond what I would need to be able to do for survival, that others seem to be able to do the same thing, and we can communicate, that (according to evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould) there were so many forks in the evolutionary road that could have led to a different outcome than intelligent life, etc. I have an intuitive sense of a Higher Power, and am reassured to know that some pretty impressive scientists are convinced of the same thing by the strong anthropic principle. But of course, they and I could be wrong. Where omnipotence and benevolence are concerned, I'm far less confident. I tend to go along with the process theologians in thinking that God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, or that He has voluntarily limited these attributes. Otherwise, how would we explain all the suffering. I'd be hard pressed to chose between Theism, Deism, Pantheism, or Panentheism on the basis of evidence and logic, although I have a strong intuitive sense of the presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live and move and have our being." Several years ago, I had a "moment of clarity' (aka religious experience, psychotic break, whatever) in which I see God everywhere, but especially in other people. The challenge to me is less believing in God than in shutting out stimulation that's sometimes almost too intense. But the existence of such an entity is less important to me than the concept of God as the Ground of Being, or the summation of all human idealism. I think that Justice, Liberty, Beauty, etc., are the ultimate reality--the things that give meaning to human existence. And that wealth, status, power, sensual indulgence and materialism are illusions--blind allies that lead to emptiness and misery.

 

Apparently it does.

 

Some other thoughts on this question. From time to time, the thought has entered my mind that it's unfair I don't look like Brad Pitt, or have the business sense of Warren Buffett, or have the hoop skills of Michael Jordan. etc. Some guys have all the luck! Why couldn't I have been there with Jesus rather than just to read about Him in the Bible? But at the same time, I'm glad I'm me. Nobody else is or ever was quite the same. they broke the mold when I came along! I don't blame God for causing me to be alive in the 21st century instead of the first century. Bad as it is now, it was pretty shitty then, especially for poor people. And more to the point, the logic of that complaint is that everybody should have been born then, in Galilee, and gotten the opportunity to know Jesus then and there. Does that seem a little bit unreasonable? There are almost 7 billion people on the planet today, and how many more in history. That would be quite a mob scene in first century Galilee. Or maybe Jesus could book repeat engagements every decade or so in different parts of the world, to give everybody a chance to view some miracles. But maybe God didn't do that because He thought it would be ridiculous.

Seriously, it's reasonable to ask why the God of multiple universes would decide to adopt a bunch of Bronze age Jews as his chosen people at a point in the history of a 4 billion year old planet. And then pick another point in the history of the same people to send Jesus. Why not China? Why not India? Why not Peru? I have no answer to that, and as a matter of fact don't believe God made those particular choices. I think the Jews, for historic reasons that might have something to do with a Divine Plan, happened to ask questions about reality and came up with some compelling answers. So did the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, etc. And in the course of historic development, these traditions came together in remarkable ways, which we can draw on for insights into the nature of reality. And now we have the internet to put it altogether. The French Paleontologist and mystic, Tielhard de Chardin, believed that there was a direction to evolution--toward increasing communication, information, and consciousness--and that at this very moment on Hip Forums we are participating in a process bringing us closer to God. So don't fret about being left out.

 

I never said such a thing friend.

I just questioned your level of education because you couldn't see why there was a contradiction there.

No matter, it would be better if we didn't communicate with each other because we have different levels of education.

No hard feelings friend, life is about fun and I had a good time talking with you, however, we don't understand each other very well.

:2thumbsup:

 

You don't quite understand historical verification do you??

It takes far more than a claim that James was Jesus brother for Jesus to believe that a man walked on water, fed thousands of people with 6 loves of bread, healed paralyzed, blind and resurrected himself from the dead.

You can't prove that Jesus existed by supposing that someone was his brother, it takes far far far more proof to verify the existence of someone, 2000 years ago that to top it all off, performed AMAZING FEATS, WHICH WE WOULD ONLY EVER DREAM TO LAY EYES ON.

There might be evidence that he existed, but not that Jesus did. I don't know why you can't understand this. I guess because the moment you think of peter you automatically associate him with Jesus but to jump from peter, a normal individual with normal human attributes to a man with absolutely amazing attributes is way to much.

But why do you not use what we see now? It is far more easy to trust what we have and see in front of us than to trust very very old books.

What message does the bible have that any normal individual living in a group wouldn't rationally make??

Take for example, treat others equally. In relationships, you are far better off if you do. Jesus never once explains why we should treat other's equally, the golden rule comes with no explanation. When it comes to love in the bible, MOST OF THE TIME, the message comes with a threat of punishment and judgment from god.

However, treating others equally at work will most likely get you hurt, because in a work place most people are out to get you and will step on you to advance in the company. Clearly, treating people like equal doesn't work in all situations and not only that, but the bible doesn't at all aid in resolving these problems.

I will answer you next paragraph after. There is a lot here as it is.

 

:2thumbsup:

 

Your kiddin'! You only talk to Ph.Ds? Do they have to be Nobel Prize winners? Ivy League, or would Stanford do? Hey, def. If you get lonely, I'll talk to you. I'm gettin' my degree from a cow college.

 

Did I say I believe any of those things? I happen not to believe in miracles by anyone. I don't believe Zarathustra healed the king's horse either. I tend to adopt Hume's position on miracles as a working hypothesis, although there is no proof of that. I tend to agree with the Jesus Seminar, that Jesus said and did less than 20% of the things attributed to Him, but if he said and did that, I'd still be impressed. For more on James as evidence of Jesus, see Eisenman, James, the Brother of Jesus, There is also the matter of the alternative explanation, that Jesus was entirely made up. I've seen efforts to develop that thesis an find them unconvincing. G.A. Wells, the best of these( Did Jesus Exist?) has since changed his mind, on the strength of the Q Gospel. So show us your evidence.[/Quote]

I've covered the AMAZING FEATS part supra. As for "proof", what level ya talkin'? First of all, I'm not trying to "prove" anything to you. I'm trying to explain why I believe something. Do you believe in Socrates, Zoroaster, or the Buddha, or are you holding out for further proof? Would you require proof of their existence before you follow any of their teachings? The level of "proof" that I go by for in matters like this is substantial evidence, which is less than scientific or courtroom proof--enough that a reasonable person might be persuaded, even though others are not.

It's because Peter and James and the others claimed not just to have seen Jesus but to have known him well, and others around them at the time who were in a position to judge their claims seemed to accept them. The alternative hypothesis is that they made him up out of whole cloth. To me, that just doesn't seem plausible.

I don't know , man. I think Jesus said and did a lot that I don't find being said or done nearly as well in the modern world by those who aren't inspired by Jesus or some other great moral teacher(s). Some lucky ones seem to come by it naturally, but there are plenty who don't. A lot of those individuals living in groups treat others like shit. Some will pretend to be nice when it suits them, and then its everybody for himself and the devil take the hindmost. Look at Congress. Look at who's running for President. Look at Newt Gingrich, serial polygamist, preaching to us about morality. No offense, but if I lived in a group setting with you, I'd expect the silent treatment, because I'm an intellectual inferior and country bumpkin type.

Jesus did say why you should love your neighbor as yourself. It's for the love of God. And the first commandment. He said, is also important. Love God, first, last and always, and put no false Gods before him. That means Mammon, lust, pride, envy, etc. We are equal before God, who made us in His image and likeness. The only figures I think came close to Jesus are Zarathustra and the Buddha, and they were even older. Jesus was the champion of society's rejects, which is why I said; "That's my guy". Who does it better? Your gobbledy gook about equality doesn't cut it. You have to feel the Spirit and go with it.

 

Thanks guys ....

Btw, what's a cow college? Do you sit around cows in an open grass field learning how to moo? :smilielol5:

 

Yeah you are, when you say things like James existed therefore Jesus Existed and performed miracles.

What can I say, you clearly aren't educated in history, because only those ignorant of the historical method would claim such things.

To top it all off, you dodge questions that aren't convenient to you. The question about how god hasn't sent a messiah and that he allows us to rely on a book to come to a conclusion about it. Like you said you have no answer for it.

Instead of saying you don't have an answer recognize how it contradicts what the bible says about god.

I never meant to offend def-zepplin, but I can't go around in circles trying to show him how he contradicts himself and how you don't quite get the historical method of evaluation and why most historians who aren't considered quacks by the historical peer reviewing journal community don't believe that Jesus existed.

I guess I probably just learnt the reason for the sudden leave of most aetheist from this thread, you guys talk out of your ass. Get an education, the internet doesn't count!!

 

But at least I can read. If you look more carefully, I never said that James existed before Jesus existed. What I did say is that there is evidence of James' existence, and unless he was making up an imaginary brother, James' existence substantiates Jesus' existence. Or is that too complex a train of thought for you? I also explicitly stated that I'm skeptical about anybody performing miracles. I think Jesus may have performed healings and exorcisms that were taken as miracles, but could have a hysteric or psychosomatic basis.

Did your superior education include a remedial reading course? I think I made clear that I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, or a God who "sent" a messiah in a literal sense. I think that Jesus meets the qualifications of a messiah, that he had an enlightened understanding of God, and that he provides a means of salvation for those who want to understand it. That can't be done, however, if you close your eyes and ears to it all because you're so convinced of your own superior intellect. As for reliance on a book, I think Scripture is only one way in which we know God. Others are through reason, intuition, nature, epiphanies, worship, service, relationships, experience, scholarship, history, science, great works of literature, etc.

Once again you demonstrate that you just can't read. I'm pretty familiar with the peer reviewed historical literature on this subject. As I've said, the evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is slender, but scholars who insist that there was no such person are a fringe minority, because they have no credible evidence to support the claim (and having made the assertion, they assume the burden of proof). You have also presented no evidence, and you persistently couple the question of the existence of an historical Jesus with the supernatural claims made of Him, which is a different issue. In that case, you manifest weak analytical skills that are unbecoming a scholar of such stature.

Having the pleasure of knowing some good, intelligent folks who are atheists, I can vouch for the fact that most of them are not arrogant assholes. So it would be unfair to use you as a basis for judging the rest. We haven't asked about your university, but if your performance is a reflection of its caliber, I'm glad I didn't go there.

I'm a Jesus fan, if there was such a person, because if everybody were like Him, it would be heaven. On the other hand, if everybody were an intellectual snob whining about equality while looking down his nose at everybody else, what would we call that place?

 

No, wiseass. We study udder bullshit!(or cowshit, as the case may be).

 

:smilielol5:

 

Apparently you can't; WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT JAMES EXISTED BEFORE JESUS?

Therefore, not BEFORE.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Maybe my degree qualifies me to engage this fellow in a discussion

Graduated from the University of Alberta with a B.A. with a Major in Religious Studies and a minor in Christian Theology.

Some example of the various classes I took are: Modern Movements in Islam (RELIG), Intro Buddhism and Hinduism (two seperate RELIG), Modern Creationisms (CHRTC), Mathew/Mark/Luke: The Synoptics (CHRTC), The Book of Acts (RELIG special topic), Early Hagiography (RELIG special topic), Intro to Religious Studies (a survey of many, many theorists, thinkers, etc. basically the history and theory of studying religion), Durkheim's Elementary forms of Religous Life (RELIG special topic), etc... RELIG denotes a Religious Studies class and CHRTC denotes a Christian Theology(Catholic) course. There were also CHRTP(Protestant) courses I did not take.

Qualified, oh Great and Powerful History King? If I really want to get persnickity about "historical method" I'd say that all "facts" are not real "facts" because primary sources carry with them biases (I am sure Lincon thought he, himself, was brilliant--or that old Soviet Newspapers carry no mention the starvation of 6 Million Ukrainians, so it cannot be true). Basically I am saying that "history" is manufacutred by the present. check your bias at the door.

History, shmistory. Interdisciplenary is where it is at.

 

You're right. I apologize on that point, but my remarks on the others, including your insufferable arrogance, still stand. Btw., so far we have only your bravado to go on that you are some kind of super scholar. Would you share your academic credentials? Do you have a Ph.D.? From which university? Have you ever published in a refereed journal on a subject related to this discussion?

Two points before I go out of town. First, although Paul knew Jesus only as a vision, his detailed accounts exchanges and meetings with Peter, James and the Jerusalem community suggest that there were such people who had intimate knowledge of Jesus. Their existence is corroborated by other documents, especially a reference by Josephus Flavius for "James the brother of Jesus". It seems more plausible to me that Jesus existed than that they made him up, particularly since there were people around. There is also the Talmudic reference. your evidence to the contrary is--what? Other writers who deny Jesus' existence stress (1) the absence of contemporary records by historians (which is understandable of an itinerant peasant preacher from a backwater province of the Roman empire); (2)the similarity between his story and those of pagan gods--which is consistent with mythmaking about a real man after his death. Did King Arthur exist? Most historians now think so. Did he have knights and a round table? Doubtful.

Second, nowhere have I suggested that I'm preparing an article for publication in a refereed journal. I'm explaining to you why I think it's more plausible to believe one view than another. If you aren't convinced, so be it. I've never been trying to convince you. It would be a waste of time.

 

I am done with arguing with you. I feel like I am arguing with a child.

Sadly, this is why I didn't want to communicate with you and def and especially old water brother on this issue.

I mean no insult but when I get insulted I feel good insulting back.

Cheers,

See you around.

 

We'll miss you. Don't let the door smack you on the ass on your way out! And did you say Cheers? I had a prof who used to always say that. Most narcissistic dude I've ever run into. What do you want to bet ChangeHappens has no academic rep to speak of. Secure academicians don't act like that.