Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Can you please condense your arguments down to simple bullet points - it'd be easier.

    But to answer where you said 'There are no Roman records of Jesus' is funny because there are.
    We should both go back to condensed points.

    There aren't Roman records of Jesus at the time he supposedly existed. On their many censuses, he isn't mentioned. There are some historians who wrote about him decades after his supposed existence. And that is very different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    We should both go back to condensed points.

    There aren't Roman records of Jesus at the time he supposedly existed. On their many censuses, he isn't mentioned. There are some historians who wrote about him decades after his supposed existence. And that is very different.
    I agree that we should both go back to condensed points.

    The non-Christian Roman sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny were written in the same century as Jesus' life. Their writings and the Gospels are taken as historical evidence of his existence being written within 200 years of his life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I agree that we should both go back to condensed points.

    The non-Christian Roman sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny were written in the same century as Jesus' life. Their writings and the Gospels are taken as historical evidence of his existence being written within 200 years of his life.
    Writing within the same century isn't the same as writing at the time of jesus. Their accounts seem to be based on anecdotal evidence at best.

    I'm sure if someone was to perform all kinds of feats that it would've been worthy of some sort of note during his time lifetime.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    As an idealist your brain created god the idea of god.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Writing within the same century isn't the same as writing at the time of jesus. Their accounts seem to be based on anecdotal evidence at best.

    I'm sure if someone was to perform all kinds of feats that it would've been worthy of some sort of note during his time lifetime.
    If 1st century AD is not the time of Jesus to you, then whatever. You're forgetting those are non-Christian Roman sources - there are plenty of Christian or non-Roman sources in that century or his time.

    I thought you said the Romans kept very good records and now you're simply claiming it was based on anecdotal evidence with seemingly no evidence at all. The reason Jesus' crucifixion and baptism are the two most widely accepted facts about him are definitely not because they are based on 'anecdotal evidence' but rather due to various criterions.

    What you said last is actually not true generally.

    I quote from CARM [emphasis mine]:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    First of all, it is an assumption to say they didn't write things down until many years afterwards. It's certainly possible that things were recorded, used in writing the basis of the Gospels, and then the finished product was disseminated throughout the Christian church. This is not a very strong argument. It is merely offered as a possibility since there seems to be evidence of a common document that existed before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and one or more of them draw from it when writing the Gospels. The document called "Q" is proposed for this. Q stands for quelle, or 'source.'

    Second, people don't normally write things down as they happen. We experience something and then later realize it was significant. Then collaboration is often used with other witnesses when recounting what happened so that an accurate report can be recorded.

    Third, not everyone knew how to read and write. We are so accustomed to the idea of being able to read and write that we take it for granted and assume that people of the New Testament time could do the same. But the fact is, the great majority could not read or write. Many people would use hired scribes who would write documents for people. The documents would then be considered the original person's writing. Therefore, a lot of writings would not occur until later.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    If 1st century AD is not the time of Jesus to you, then whatever. You're forgetting those are non-Christian Roman sources - there are plenty of Christian or non-Roman sources in that century or his time.

    I thought you said the Romans kept very good records and now you're simply claiming it was based on anecdotal evidence with seemingly no evidence at all. The reason Jesus' crucifixion and baptism are the two most widely accepted facts about him are definitely not because they are based on 'anecdotal evidence' but rather due to various criterions.

    What you said last is actually not true generally.

    I quote from CARM [emphasis mine]:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    First of all, it is an assumption to say they didn't write things down until many years afterwards. It's certainly possible that things were recorded, used in writing the basis of the Gospels, and then the finished product was disseminated throughout the Christian church. This is not a very strong argument. It is merely offered as a possibility since there seems to be evidence of a common document that existed before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and one or more of them draw from it when writing the Gospels. The document called "Q" is proposed for this. Q stands for quelle, or 'source.'

    Second, people don't normally write things down as they happen. We experience something and then later realize it was significant. Then collaboration is often used with other witnesses when recounting what happened so that an accurate report can be recorded.

    Third, not everyone knew how to read and write. We are so accustomed to the idea of being able to read and write that we take it for granted and assume that people of the New Testament time could do the same. But the fact is, the great majority could not read or write. Many people would use hired scribes who would write documents for people. The documents would then be considered the original person's writing. Therefore, a lot of writings would not occur until later.
    The first mention of jesus was 20 - 30 years after his death by people such as Josephus and they weren't even born by the time jesus was meant to have died. If you think decades after his death is still the time of jesus then my point should correct you. I thought you said that there was plenty of evidence for his existence but now you put forth "evidence" (i'm using that term loosely) that was written long after his death. Even jesus' supposed enemies never wrote about him and they would have a lot to gain by writing evil things about him. But there's no good or bad stories about him during his time.

    The reason people grow up believing these myths is not because of any truth, but because that myth is reinforced over their lives (from birth onwards). Which is why, for a generalized example, people in the west tend to be christian and people in the east tend to be muslims. Because those stories are reinforced. Children believe in santa but then we stop reinforcing those beliefs and they grow out of it. But the jesus myth is allowed to continue.

    If there ever existed a man who could snap his fingers like the Fonz and cure diseases, walk on water and all that stuff then there would be lots of documents to that fact at that period. Imagine how many records would exist if someone like that existed. People would write down such events, they would draw the events, create statues, i'm sure. Considering we know useless facts from that time like the custom of salutation comes from Roman tradition i'm sure there would've been some mention of some guy named jesus.

    The Romans did keep good records. In their governmental records they kept censuses of their population and jesus isn't mentioned once. Here's a quote in relation to the written record of jesus from our contemporary researchers:

    The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

    There is sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the bible about jesus (amongst) were copied from other stories that already existed in that time.

    There'll probably be people in 2000 years time worshipping at the First Church of Harry Potter claiming that he too was a real person as he's mentioned in "historical" documents and he did all these wonderful things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    The first mention of jesus was 20 - 30 years after his death by people such as Josephus and they weren't even born by the time jesus was meant to have died. If you think decades after his death is still the time of jesus then my point should correct you. I thought you said that there was plenty of evidence for his existence but now you put forth "evidence" (i'm using that term loosely) that was written long after his death. Even jesus' supposed enemies never wrote about him and they would have a lot to gain by writing evil things about him. But there's no good or bad stories about him during his time.

    The reason people grow up believing these myths is not because of any truth, but because that myth is reinforced over their lives (from birth onwards). Which is why, for a generalized example, people in the west tend to be christian and people in the east tend to be muslims. Because those stories are reinforced. Children believe in santa but then we stop reinforcing those beliefs and they grow out of it. But the jesus myth is allowed to continue.

    If there ever existed a man who could snap his fingers like the Fonz and cure diseases, walk on water and all that stuff then there would be lots of documents to that fact at that period. Imagine how many records would exist if someone like that existed. People would write down such events, they would draw the events, create statues, i'm sure. Considering we know useless facts from that time like the custom of salutation comes from Roman tradition i'm sure there would've been some mention of some guy named jesus.

    The Romans did keep good records. In their governmental records they kept censuses of their population and jesus isn't mentioned once. Here's a quote in relation to the written record of jesus from our contemporary researchers:

    The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

    There is sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the bible about jesus (amongst) were copied from other stories that already existed in that time.

    There'll probably be people in 2000 years time worshipping at the First Church of Harry Potter claiming that he too was a real person as he's mentioned in "historical" documents and he did all these wonderful things.
    Again, all of this is written within 200 years of his life and is still considered valid by historians. The reason very few historians believe in the 'Christ myth theory' is because it's almost certain it isn't true.

    It isn't about how long after his death that were written by rather the fact they were even written.

    There isn't really any sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the Bible were copied. You can claim such but it can easily be refuted.

    Thallus the historian was born before Jesus and is so ancient that a lot of his writings have been lost.

    His 52 AD writing describes the darkness that occurred when Jesus died but as Thallus is a pagan and is very hostile towards Jesus - he dismisses it as an eclipse (which wasn't possible at that specific time).

    You claim there would be loads of documents and there is - the Bible.

    There are hostile writings about Jesus and I don't know if you read what I put in the spoiler which literally refutes what you've said here and in the post before.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    this has already been answered. Our universe had a creator/creators and the being/beings whom created our reality to which we might call god/gods would have to have beings that created theirs and so on infinity.

    we live in a virtual reality this is pretty much a mathematical certainty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Again, all of this is written within 200 years of his life and is still considered valid by historians. The reason very few historians believe in the 'Christ myth theory' is because it's almost certain it isn't true.

    It isn't about how long after his death that were written by rather the fact they were even written.

    There isn't really any sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the Bible were copied. You can claim such but it can easily be refuted.

    Thallus the historian was born before Jesus and is so ancient that a lot of his writings have been lost.

    His 52 AD writing describes the darkness that occurred when Jesus died but as Thallus is a pagan and is very hostile towards Jesus - he dismisses it as an eclipse (which wasn't possible at that specific time).

    You claim there would be loads of documents and there is - the Bible.

    There are hostile writings about Jesus and I don't know if you read what I put in the spoiler which literally refutes what you've said here and in the post before.
    It doesn't matter that this was written within 200 years of his life, the accounts of jesus written afterwards can't be considered well, as they provide no means of corroboration. The only people who put forth these accounts as being accurate and / or complete are christians.

    These people appear to have written down stories they have been told, nothing more. There are people today that claim they saw jesus here and there and blog about such things. Just because they wrote it down offers nothing in the way of credibility. Likewise, those that wrote about jesus after the fact offer nothing credible.

    The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there.

    What Thallus said is up for debate. His view stems from the works of 9th century monks who compiled passages and attributed them to Thallus. So we cannot claim any kind of accuracy in regards to what Thallus said. So this can't be directly attributed to Thallus, we have the word of a religious figure (who makes a claim that Thallus said this but doesn't provide anything corroborative) that this is so.

    Some of these monks have a reputation of destroying /amending evidence. For example, it was found that a monk had destroyed evidence of calculus from over 2000 years ago, more than a thousand years before Newton came up with it.

    Even if Thallus wrote lots of works that were destroyed, the default position is to not believe anyone who claims to know what Thallus may have written about without evidence.

    I read your spoiler and there is nothing hostile about jesus, just arguments that anticipate counter-arguments.

    The bible isn't proof of jesus any more than 'The Iliad' is proof that the cyclops and Odysseus existed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    It doesn't matter that this was written within 200 years of his life, the accounts of jesus written afterwards can't be considered well, as they provide no means of corroboration. The only people who put forth these accounts as being accurate and / or complete are christians.

    These people appear to have written down stories they have been told, nothing more. There are people today that claim they saw jesus here and there and blog about such things. Just because they wrote it down offers nothing in the way of credibility. Likewise, those that wrote about jesus after the fact offer nothing credible.

    The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there.

    What Thallus said is up for debate. His view stems from the works of 9th century monks who compiled passages and attributed them to Thallus. So we cannot claim any kind of accuracy in regards to what Thallus said. So this can't be directly attributed to Thallus, we have the word of a religious figure (who makes a claim that Thallus said this but doesn't provide anything corroborative) that this is so.

    Some of these monks have a reputation of destroying /amending evidence. For example, it was found that a monk had destroyed evidence of calculus from over 2000 years ago, more than a thousand years before Newton came up with it.

    Even if Thallus wrote lots of works that were destroyed, the default position is to not believe anyone who claims to know what Thallus may have written about without evidence.

    I read your spoiler and there is nothing hostile about jesus, just arguments that anticipate counter-arguments.

    The bible isn't proof of jesus any more than 'The Iliad' is proof that the cyclops and Odysseus existed.
    Paul had met Jesus' brother James just a few years after his crucifixion (along with peter). It's hard to argue that Jesus didnt exist if you met a man calling himself his brother, in the city that he was said to have died in publicly just a few years earlier. You have to be unreasonably skeptical. The Gospels note embarrassing details, like James did not follow Jesus during his ministry. This is unlikely to be some made up myth that developed through story telling around the fire, its also something that was certainly viable knowledge as James became the leader of the Jerusalem church as, but most estimates, was killed around 62 AD, which is extremely close to the writing of the Gospel Mark anyway (which mentions he didnt follow Jesus). Its obviously very hard to claim James didnt exist, not only because of eye witness testimony from Paul (our earliest source) meeting him, but also because of non-Christian Jewish source (Josephus) also noting his public death by the the Jewish judges and noting its controversy (something a Jewish historian would not mention lightly). This is but one line of evidence that is very very hard for Christ mythers to account for. Also, saying 'but its just Christians who give the earliest accounts' and then rejecting them wholesale for being 'biased' is simply unforgivable history. Every historical source will have some element of bias, whether small or large, and historians have little trouble navigating which evidence can be reliably trusted. There is a reason afterall why Christ mythers are considered almost as crackpot as young earth creationists within New Testament scholarship and thats just the opinion of non Christian historians!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    It doesn't matter that this was written within 200 years of his life, the accounts of jesus written afterwards can't be considered well, as they provide no means of corroboration. The only people who put forth these accounts as being accurate and / or complete are christians.

    These people appear to have written down stories they have been told, nothing more. There are people today that claim they saw jesus here and there and blog about such things. Just because they wrote it down offers nothing in the way of credibility. Likewise, those that wrote about jesus after the fact offer nothing credible.

    The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there.

    What Thallus said is up for debate. His view stems from the works of 9th century monks who compiled passages and attributed them to Thallus. So we cannot claim any kind of accuracy in regards to what Thallus said. So this can't be directly attributed to Thallus, we have the word of a religious figure (who makes a claim that Thallus said this but doesn't provide anything corroborative) that this is so.

    Some of these monks have a reputation of destroying /amending evidence. For example, it was found that a monk had destroyed evidence of calculus from over 2000 years ago, more than a thousand years before Newton came up with it.

    Even if Thallus wrote lots of works that were destroyed, the default position is to not believe anyone who claims to know what Thallus may have written about without evidence.

    I read your spoiler and there is nothing hostile about jesus, just arguments that anticipate counter-arguments.

    The bible isn't proof of jesus any more than 'The Iliad' is proof that the cyclops and Odysseus existed.
    The majority of historians agree with those accounts so I don't know what you're talking about.

    How do they seem to have written down stories they have been told? No evidence? Okay.

    The gospels are corroborating evidence for each other.

    'People that write about an event after it happened offer nothing credible'

    If several people write about someone - because they wrote about it after he died - it means he doesn't exist? Your logic is really bad and I'm sure you didn't study History.

    'The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there. '

    There is nothing about Jesus being born on the 25th of December in the Bible. The virgin birth isn't copied from anywhere and 'healing'. So because there are stories of other people healing others - the Bible copied them? seems legit.

    No, the source I used was simply a man quoting Thallus not quoting some 9th century compiled sources. Whether or not Thallus said that, he is not the only one who held a hostile view confirming Jesus' existence. Almost all historians believe Jesus was baptised and crucified.

    The spoiler was a counter to your argument not 'an anticipation of counter-arguments'.

    The Iliad is a poem so why would it be setting out to prove the characters inside it exist? The Bible is a book detailing historical events and figures. I really think you need to know the difference here. The Bible counts as evidence for the existence of Jesus which is exactly why historians take it as such. The Bible is not the only source for proof of Jesus' existence,
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The majority of historians agree with those accounts so I don't know what you're talking about.

    How do they seem to have written down stories they have been told? No evidence? Okay.

    The gospels are corroborating evidence for each other.

    'People that write about an event after it happened offer nothing credible'

    If several people write about someone - because they wrote about it after he died - it means he doesn't exist? Your logic is really bad and I'm sure you didn't study History.

    'The stories of virgin births, 25 Dec birthdays, healing; these are all stories that have originated from other figures, before the bible was written. The bible appears to have taken parts from here and there. '

    There is nothing about Jesus being born on the 25th of December in the Bible. The virgin birth isn't copied from anywhere and 'healing'. So because there are stories of other people healing others - the Bible copied them? seems legit.

    No, the source I used was simply a man quoting Thallus not quoting some 9th century compiled sources. Whether or not Thallus said that, he is not the only one who held a hostile view confirming Jesus' existence. Almost all historians believe Jesus was baptised and crucified.

    The spoiler was a counter to your argument not 'an anticipation of counter-arguments'.

    The Iliad is a poem so why would it be setting out to prove the characters inside it exist? The Bible is a book detailing historical events and figures. I really think you need to know the difference here. The Bible counts as evidence for the existence of Jesus which is exactly why historians take it as such. The Bible is not the only source for proof of Jesus' existence,
    The majority of historians don't agree with those accounts. That's why you don't know what i'm talking about.

    They appear to have written down stories they were told as they don't mention any kind of historical investigation and they fail to provide anything which would back up their claims (no names of people who could be verified as being there - probably because there was no-one to witness a non-existent event). So, okay.

    The gospels are no more evidence for corroboration than Harry Potter and Hermione are to the existence of Voldemort.

    Nope, my logic is sound. The people who wrote about a supposed event offer nothing in the way of evidence. In the early 20th century, tens of thousands of people in a village in mexico claim to have seen the sun whiz all over the sky, yet there is no evidence for their claim. Just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it true. Only evidence does.

    You get preachers in ministries all over the world claiming to heal the sick and do all sorts of miraculous things through the power of god, but none of it is ever verified. So the people writing down events they appear not to have investigated without providing anything verifiable can't be considered as anything other than a story. Your reasoning skills are very bad.

    There is the story of Horus (long before the tale of jesus) who spawned from a virgin birth; only son of god; mother's name was Meri; foster father called Jo-seph; his birth was heralded by a star and announced by angels; birth witnessed by shephards; visited by three deities; and a lot more similarities. So, the authors of the bible clearly thought: wow, good story lets just just replace the name Horus with jesus.

    No, you quoted a 9th century monk claiming to quote Thallus and who then conveniently destroyed or lost the original text. The majority of historians don't agree on the birth of jesus as there is no evidence for this and their careers are based on evidence, not feelings and faith.

    The spoiler didn't counter anything, it was used in a failed anticipation of potential counter points.

    The Iliad is a fantastic work of fiction which details historical events. The bible is also a fantastic work of fiction. The only difference is that we don't teach the Iliad as being true. It has it's place it education in the literature segment, just where the bible belongs. If people started saying, "The Iliad is true. Agamemnon and Achilles confirm what Odysseus said", then we'd probably still be worshipping Zeus, Poseidon and the rest. You should really look into this some more.

    If the bible counts as evidence for jesus (for which no credible historian accepts) then the Iliad counts as evidence for the existence of Odysseus. You don't need truth in christianity, you just need people to claim it's true... just like how the scientology got a foot hold in the money making business of religion.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I agree that we should both go back to condensed points.

    The non-Christian Roman sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny were written in the same century as Jesus' life. Their writings and the Gospels are taken as historical evidence of his existence being written within 200 years of his life.
    LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOL

    You actually think that's a good thing? That's basically fiction then.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Again, all of this is written within 200 years of his life and is still considered valid by historians. The reason very few historians believe in the 'Christ myth theory' is because it's almost certain it isn't true.

    It isn't about how long after his death that were written by rather the fact they were even written.

    There isn't really any sufficient evidence to claim that stories in the Bible were copied. You can claim such but it can easily be refuted.

    Thallus the historian was born before Jesus and is so ancient that a lot of his writings have been lost.

    His 52 AD writing describes the darkness that occurred when Jesus died but as Thallus is a pagan and is very hostile towards Jesus - he dismisses it as an eclipse (which wasn't possible at that specific time).

    You claim there would be loads of documents and there is - the Bible.

    There are hostile writings about Jesus and I don't know if you read what I put in the spoiler which literally refutes what you've said here and in the post before.
    Any human being, be it the historian himself or those believing him, claiming to call something a good source that was written 200 years after the fact with absolutely no contemporary evidence, is a lunatic. And I mean that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Any human being, be it the historian himself or those believing him, claiming to call something a good source that was written 200 years after the fact with absolutely no contemporary evidence, is a lunatic. And I mean that.
    They weren't written 200 years after. In fact the gospels were written within 40 years of his life but all historians take evidence written with 200 years of a historical figure.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    The majority of historians don't agree with those accounts. That's why you don't know what i'm talking about.

    They appear to have written down stories they were told as they don't mention any kind of historical investigation and they fail to provide anything which would back up their claims (no names of people who could be verified as being there - probably because there was no-one to witness a non-existent event). So, okay.

    The gospels are no more evidence for corroboration than Harry Potter and Hermione are to the existence of Voldemort.

    Nope, my logic is sound. The people who wrote about a supposed event offer nothing in the way of evidence. In the early 20th century, tens of thousands of people in a village in mexico claim to have seen the sun whiz all over the sky, yet there is no evidence for their claim. Just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it true. Only evidence does.

    You get preachers in ministries all over the world claiming to heal the sick and do all sorts of miraculous things through the power of god, but none of it is ever verified. So the people writing down events they appear not to have investigated without providing anything verifiable can't be considered as anything other than a story. Your reasoning skills are very bad.

    There is the story of Horus (long before the tale of jesus) who spawned from a virgin birth; only son of god; mother's name was Meri; foster father called Jo-seph; his birth was heralded by a star and announced by angels; birth witnessed by shephards; visited by three deities; and a lot more similarities. So, the authors of the bible clearly thought: wow, good story lets just just replace the name Horus with jesus.

    No, you quoted a 9th century monk claiming to quote Thallus and who then conveniently destroyed or lost the original text. The majority of historians don't agree on the birth of jesus as there is no evidence for this and their careers are based on evidence, not feelings and faith.

    The spoiler didn't counter anything, it was used in a failed anticipation of potential counter points.

    The Iliad is a fantastic work of fiction which details historical events. The bible is also a fantastic work of fiction. The only difference is that we don't teach the Iliad as being true. It has it's place it education in the literature segment, just where the bible belongs. If people started saying, "The Iliad is true. Agamemnon and Achilles confirm what Odysseus said", then we'd probably still be worshipping Zeus, Poseidon and the rest. You should really look into this some more.

    If the bible counts as evidence for jesus (for which no credible historian accepts) then the Iliad counts as evidence for the existence of Odysseus. You don't need truth in christianity, you just need people to claim it's true... just like how the scientology got a foot hold in the money making business of religion.
    The gospels are well evidenced.

    Miracles in Lourdes are verified by atheist doctors smh.

    LOL Horus has a father called Meri? Please stop. Horus is an egyptian god and the son of Isis and Osiris. There was nothing about a virgin birth. No angels or stars heralded Horus and no shepherds came to visit him. There is also no records of three kings visiting Horus. The Bible never mentions the amount of Magi that visited Jesus anyway.

    You clearly didn't research this if you're going to spout all this utter rubbish and actually think it's true? I'm pretty sure even primary school children know Horus's mother was Isis and his father Osiris.

    The majority of historians agree Jesus existed - what are you talking about? It is the very few that think he was a complete myth and never existed at all.

    Even some people that say it is all a myth agree that Jesus existed but was a normal Jewish man who wasn't a rabbi at all.

    You are holding extremist views and claiming them to be the majority.

    If you want to pretend to yourself that no-one in the whole Bible existed then you really must never take History, please.

    Credible historians take the Bible as evidence due to the fact it is well evidenced and corroborated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My belief is that everything around us, everything that penetrates us and surrounds us, is part of one whole being. There is a light side and the dark, and there is a middle. In the end, we all end up as part of this one cosmic force, this one huge grouping. I may sound like a Jedi, but it makes sense.

    The argument that everything has to have been created can spout for everything; I could say that something as intricate as an atom has to have been created, it isn't just there; then we go on to the smaller intricacies behind that, and so forth. In the end, we'll always end up with something that has to have created the next thing in our sequence. There is no ultimate source, it's just a constant infinite line of "X created Y" and so forth.

    To be honest I'm not religious. I don't believe any god may have created the physical laws that mediate our existence or that any sort of numinous being may have formed a planet and dumped us on it, it just seems logical to assume that whatever did start our existence, our Universe in itself, just is. It just is. There is nothing to explain where it came from, the argument that it may be some sort of god could be there (but we can never answer that, as that god would hence need some ultimate source too, and if the argument that he also just is happens to be used, then the argument could hence be used on all the other aspects that may just happen to be). It's a very hard thing to explain, but you can probably understand where I'm coming from.

    Through the years more and more things are being traced backward, and thoughts that gods may influence the phenomena that are traced are receding as more and more discoveries are made. There is nothing to describe the initial start of the Universe though. It could be some sort of god, or the items that make up our universe may just be.

    I could cough up some sloppy Physics explanation, but then it'd be half-assed, poorly explained, and yeah. I'm some random A-Level Physics dude, I don't know that kind of thing.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    They weren't written 200 years after. In fact the gospels were written within 40 years of his life but all historians take evidence written with 200 years of a historical figure.
    Given the short lifespan back then, even 30 years would mean it was written by people who didn't actually witness anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When you ask Christians, Muslims, etc for evidence and reasons for God's existence, often times you will get the first cause argument and whatever else. That's completely fine. But these arguments usually tackle questions on how the world was created, nature, science, etc. Now, even if I did believe every single argument they present (some I do accept), it merely tells me that there was a creator, you can call it whatever you like, but something created the world. None of these arguments tell us or show us that God is benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, or even that he cares about us or even still exists after the creation of the universe.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Callicious)
    My belief is that everything around us, everything that penetrates us and surrounds us, is part of one whole being. There is a light side and the dark, and there is a middle. In the end, we all end up as part of this one cosmic force, this one huge grouping. I may sound like a Jedi, but it makes sense.
    You sound like a pantheist.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Wake up and smell the...
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.