Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[RandFan]

HOW THE BIBLE CAME ABOUT (according to atheists)-

Straw man. Though it is cute, but no. It's the same as cargo cults. Ideas were shared among a group of people and eventually became a common narrative (like the many mythologies of Native Americans and Africans and other small indigenous groups).

BTW: Atheists didn't come up with the idea and the facts to support it. Christians did.

 

[Craig B]

MickinEngland

What a fantasy! You take my breath away.

MEDIEVAL ABBOT- "Father Bartholemew, I want you to take these ancient christian scriptures to your cell and translate them into english, take 5 years on the job and i'll have hot food and wine sent in every day to ensure your comfort"

Not quite ...
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banne...Bibles used as kindling for the fire.[/quote]

 

[Greediguts]

Gday,

So, one of the claims made about HJ is that his followers passed on the details using an "Oral Tradition". Sometimes claimed to be word-for-word perfect.

Well, let's see :


The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the Lord's Prayer - supposedly directly taught by Jesus to the disciples. But we have DIFFERENT versions of the Lord's Prayer - the Gospels have differing versions, another in the Didakhe, and the MSS have more different versions again. The Lord's Prayer is one of the most VARIANT items in the MSS - yet supposedly this came directly from Jesus to the disciples. This shows clearly that the alleged 'oral tradition' totally failed to record Jesus alleged words.


The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the names of the apostles - we have various DIFFERENT lists, explained away by nonsense about Peter called Simon whose named was George - but we call him Stephen.


The oral tradition totally FAILED to record correctly who Cephas and Peter were - early Christians thought Cephas and Peter were different people, but later there were considered the SAME person.


The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the (alleged) words of God himself at the baptism - early Christians quote 'this is my son, this day have I begotten thee', but later it becomes 'this is my son, in thee I am well pleased'.


The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the alleged last words of Jesus on the cross - we have DIFFERENT versions in the Gospels.


The oral tradition totally FAILED to record the genealogy of Jesus - we have DIFFERENT versions in the Gospels.


On this evidence, oral tradition conspicuously failed.


K.

I think that is a pretty naive view of oral tradition if that is what HJers you have argued with have presented to you.

My last history prof. recommended Vansina's Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology as a jumping off point. As I am about 2 chapters into the book, I can't present any detailed argument, but I did find the Oral Tradition Journal site that has many free PDFs to download and read regarding ancient/modern cultures that have very large illiterate populations and how they transmit history. No one expects oral tradition to get it all 100% correct.

 

[Mudcat]

Fancy a nice slice of pie mate?
There's a heck of a lot of Christians and Muslims in it who have no problem accepting Jesus existed..

If this were a math test you would have failed here. One thing you can't derive from that pie chart is the percentages of Christians and Muslims who 'have no problem accepting Jesus existed'.

 

[MickinEngland]

One thing you can't derive from that pie chart is the percentages of Christians and Muslims who 'have no problem accepting Jesus existed'.

Not sure i understand what you're trying to say mate.
Jesus was all over the gospels last time i looked, and he's big in the Koran too-

[Koran 2.253] "We have made some of these apostles to excel the others, among them are they to whom Allah spoke, and some of them He exalted by many degrees of rank; and We gave clear miracles to Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary], and strengthened him with the holy spirit.."

 

[Bill Thompson]

Maybe we like to see others sputter with their claims like you did. Perhaps we like schadenfreude. Watching someone post what they think is killer evidence only to be picked apart and shown to be nonsense.

When you pick apart paragraph into sentences you change the overall message and idea into something different from what someone is trying to say. That is not fair.

I can think of lots of examples. But one comes to mind. If, for example, I believe in some conspiracy theory and there is a book that debunks it by providing 53 bits of evidence that, let's say, Oswald shot Kennedy. If I wanted to make this proof look wrong, all I would have to do is pick apart each 53 bits one at a time and provide, each time, outragious, unlikely counter-arguments. Better yet, I could pick apart one bit into smaller bits to make the point of the evidence disolve and get lost.

Would doing this accomplish anything? No. The idea is to go with where the overall picture points to, not to where some collection of dots go to and then we "Connect the Dots" to form a pictue that we want.

 

[Craig B]

MickinEngland

Big in the Koran, which merely contains information received from Arabian and Syrian Christians; ie it's not an independent witness. And half the information it receives, it rejects:

They say: "the most gracious has betaken a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it in the skies are about to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, that they attributed a son to the Most Gracious, for it is not consonant with the majesty of the Most Gracious that he should beget a son. (The Qur'an, 5:88-92).

 

[Bill Thompson]

Gday,



Jesus is a space alien?

I would love it if you showed me where I said THAT !
Are you acussing me of thinking or saying something like this?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, BTW, what does this have anything to do with the topic?

This is taking up more and more of my time and it is reaching a point where it goes beyond the level of importance I give this topic. In the past, by the way, is how Mormons I have debated win the argument I have with them online. They win simply because they want to belive what they believe much more than my desire to debunk them. So they outlast me.

But,to answer your question: What this has to do with this topic is that atheists, being human beings, are subjected to the same desires to believe something just because it supports their views rather than being based on logic.

 

[bikerdruid]

......atheists, being human beings, are subjected to the same desires to believe something just because it supports their views rather than being based on logic.

atheists are not defined by their beliefs, but rather their lack of beliefs, and it is entirely based in logic.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I think that is a pretty naive view of oral tradition if that is what HJers you have argued with have presented to you.

If "that" ?
If WHAT ?
I said nothing about what HJers had "presented to me".
I just pointed out examples where an O.T. had obviously failed.
Your reply was to cite a book!

No one expects oral tradition to get it all 100% correct.

The ol' 100% dodge !
I never said it should be 100%
I said it FAILED - which it obviously did.
Maybe it's 1%, maybe it's 10%.

Consider the Lord's Prayer - NOTHING could be more important to a Christian than the words Jesus said to pray. But they FAILED to remember it - it's one of the most VARIANT parts of the whole N.T.

Do you have an answer for that?



K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I can think of lots of examples. But one comes to mind. If, for example, I believe in some conspiracy theory and there is a book that debunks it by providing 53 bits of evidence that, let's say, Oswald shot Kennedy. If I wanted to make this proof look wrong, all I would have to do is pick apart each 53 bits one at a time and provide, each time, outragious, unlikely counter-arguments. Better yet, I could pick apart one bit into smaller bits to make the point of the evidence disolve and get lost.

So Jesus was really Oswald who travelled back in time?
What a stupid idea, Bill.

Would doing this accomplish anything? No. The idea is to go with where the overall picture points to, not to where some collection of dots go to and then we "Connect the Dots" to form a pictue that we want.

Nonsense!
No-one believes that Jesus carred a LASER.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

I would love it if you showed me where I said THAT ! Are you acussing me of thinking or saying something like this?

A space alien ?!
What a silly idea, Bill.

No-one agrees that Jesus was a space alien who carried a LASER!
Completely ridiculous claims there Bill.
Lasers? hahahaha...


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

This is taking up more and more of my time and it is reaching a point where it goes beyond the level of importance I give this topic. In the past, by the way, is how Mormons I have debated win the argument I have with them online. They win simply because they want to belive what they believe much more than my desire to debunk them. So they outlast me.

What?
Jesus enslaved the Mormons to build the pyramids?
Hahaha - that's complete nonsense, Bill !

But,to answer your question: What this has to do with this topic is that atheists, being human beings, are subjected to the same desires to believe something just because it supports their views rather than being based on logic.

So Jesus had sex with reptiles?
That's crazy Bill.
What a bizarre idea !


K.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But,to answer your question: What this has to do with this topic is that atheists, being human beings, are subjected to the same desires to believe something just because it supports their views rather than being based on logic.

Does not make atheism a religion, I am afraid. And neither does the fact that quite a few atheists are in fact members of a religion. I don't know about that Free Thought Church of yours, but me for instance I am a Christian (nominal, cultural you may say - fair enough), others Bhuddists, or even really whacky stuff like Raelianism or so. Still does not make atheism a religion. And coincidentally monotheism, polytheism, animism, theism, mysticism, or agnosticism are not religions either.


And what is more, Bill, Poisoning the Well, is a fallacy, e.g. pre-emptively slurring single persons or even whole groups. And so is straw man argumentation. And the whole thing that you are trying to pull off here is incidentally a mix of both, although the PtW is more apparant.

 

[Greediguts]

Gday,

So, one of the claims made about HJ is that his followers passed on the details using an "Oral Tradition". Sometimes claimed to be word-for-word perfect.

Gday,

If "that" ?
If WHAT ?
I said nothing about what HJers had "presented to me".
I just pointed out examples where an O.T. had obviously failed.
Your reply was to cite a book!

The first comment "one of the claims made about HJ" I took to mean as this was an argument presented to you in some form by HJ proponents. Can you not see how I got that impression? Also, the majority of scholarly work I read does not push any type of "word for word perfect" (your words from your quote) idea of oral tradition. I see this more from fundamentalists.

The ol' 100% dodge !
I never said it should be 100%
I said it FAILED - which it obviously did.
Maybe it's 1%, maybe it's 10%.

Consider the Lord's Prayer - NOTHING could be more important to a Christian than the words Jesus said to pray. But they FAILED to remember it - it's one of the most VARIANT parts of the whole N.T.

Do you have an answer for that?



K.

Kapyong, I am not trying to "dodge" by introducing the historical methodology used in helping to show how oral tradition is transmitted and how it helps determine what has more historical roots in oral traditions than what does not. Historians apply this methodology to Ancient Greeks, Ugartics, African tribes, Native Americans, Serbo-Croatian folk ballads, etc., etc.

As far as the Lord's prayer - yes, it is very important to Christians today. If we look at the historical construct (where Jesus is not a god - he is some sort of rabbi/messiah wannabe) the prayer would not be that important. The earliest Christians were practing Jews. Jews had developed prayers, songs, structure of worship services, etc. A standardized prayer becomes more important if you are trying to establish a new structure for a religion. Parts may come from Jesus (oral tradition) but some formal finalized structured prayer to be repeated - probably not. (For those who give weight to the Jesus seminar - they voted that the prayer was a mish-mash not some word-for-word copy. View article here.)

 

[RandFan]

This is taking up more and more of my time and it is reaching a point where it goes beyond the level of importance I give this topic. In the past, by the way, is how Mormons I have debated win the argument I have with them online.

I'm not a Mormon and your attempt to paint me with that brush is silly. It's a bit immature. While I don't agree with you I'd happily have a discussion. I have serious contempt for you when you come here and tell atheists what we believe or accuse us of CT for not believing in Jesus. I'm going to give you hell when you do that.

Act grown up and respect other people's opinion and they will respect yours. I respect lots of Christians. I have good relations with many Christians. They don't get in my face and declare I belong to a religion. That's just being a douche.

But,to answer your question: What this has to do with this topic is that atheists, being human beings, are subjected to the same desires to believe something just because it supports their views rather than being based on logic.

NOT AN ANSWER. Not acceptable. You wouldn't like it if I treated you in kind.

Learn the Golden Rule and practice it. It will stand you in good steed. If you can't take the slings and arrows of this place without resorting to such boorish behavior then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

 

[RandFan]

Does not make atheism a religion, I am afraid. And neither does the fact that quite a few atheists are in fact members of a religion. I don't know about that Free Thought Church of yours, but me for instance I am a Christian (nominal, cultural you may say - fair enough), others Bhuddists, or even really whacky stuff like Raelianism or so. Still does not make atheism a religion. And coincidentally monotheism, polytheism, animism, theism, mysticism, or agnosticism are not religions either.


And what is more, Bill, Poisoning the Well, is a fallacy, e.g. pre-emptively slurring single persons or even whole groups. And so is straw man argumentation. And the whole thing that you are trying to pull off here is incidentally a mix of both, although the PtW is more apparant.

Bill,

Please pay close attention.

 

[Buckyball]

Atheism is not a religion?

Not believing in something with no evidence to believe it shows the same degree of "faith" as believing in something with little to no evidence? Hardly.... nice try...

 

[RandFan]

Atheism is not a religion?

Not believing in something with no evidence to believe it shows the same degree of "faith" as believing in something with little to no evidence? Hardly.... nice try...

No.

• I don't have faith that there are no unicorns. Neither do you.
• I don't have faith that Zeus doesn't exist. Neither do you.
• I don't have a sacred text about god not existing.
• I don't have any dogma resulting from my non belief.
• I don't have any rituals as a result of not believing.
• I don't belong to any group (I wouldn't belong to any group).

Unless you belong to a religion of non-unicorn belief with sacred texts and dogmas about unicorns not existing then your argument is pure and utter BS.

No, just no.