"the belief that a jewish zombie who can make you live forever in paradise if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree".. .
pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
.
BurnTheShips:
So you've actually read it? The whole thing?
Good god, no! Why would I put myself through that? While I'm sure it's not all as wretchedly embarrassing as his "lord, liar or lunatic" argument, nothing I've read of Lewis's work suggests that he has anything more convincing to offer. Assuming you disagree, perhaps you could share some of his better points before I shell out for his book...
"the belief that a jewish zombie who can make you live forever in paradise if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree".. .
pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
.
BurnTheShips:
Here is a good start:
http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926
His magical wardrobes and talking beavers were more convincing.
.condemned him to be crucified, those who had .
finally, the claim that on the third day jesus appeared to his disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-christian!.
we read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats.
lovelylil:
The thread is for believers who are constantly asked why there is no proof outside the NT for a historical Jesus. Now, they have some references to show people who ask them this
And my responses (given that the inadequacy of the sources you provided had already been shown) were for those same believers, to perhaps get them to ponder why they already strongly believe something without having evidence, and indeed why they are so willing to accept any supporting evidence and yet so quick to dismiss any that casts doubt on their beliefs.
-this is a hypothetical "for the sake of argument"-topic, where we take for granted that the biblical story of adam and eve (as it is presented in the bible we have available today) is literally true.
i think it can be an interesting exercise.. now - let's for this discussion say god did not plant any 'special' tree in the garden of eden.
no tree of knowledge, and no tree of life.
A deity as malicious as YHWH would have just thought up another way to screw them over.
"the belief that a jewish zombie who can make you live forever in paradise if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree".. .
pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
.
Robdar and Deputy Dog:
What part of gaiagirl's post was not an accurate description of Christianity?
.condemned him to be crucified, those who had .
finally, the claim that on the third day jesus appeared to his disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-christian!.
we read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats.
lovelylil:
You are BOTH misunderstanding the purpose of this thread. It is to provide evidence outside the New Testament that a man named Jesus lived in the time of the early Christian church, was worshipped by his followers, and died by crucifixation.
That is exactly what I understood the purpose of this thread to be. It is after all in the title of the thread, your comments on the article and the title of the article. My post explicitly stated that this was "a thread you started to provide evidence for the existence of such a person ["the Jesus of Christianity"]. Why, given all that, do you think I have misunderstood?
Because many on this board and in the world in general, claim there is absolutely NO evidence outside the NT about Jesus, I started this thread.
Generally the claim is that there is no reliable, independent evidence of the existence of Jesus, a claim you have failed to counter.
And what is a matter of FAITH is HOW we percieve the Jesus of the NT. Yes, there is evidence he existed, but whether or not he was GOD is a matter of faith.
No. It's a matter of fact. Either Jesus existed or he did not. Either he was a supernatural being or he was not. There are real, factual scientific answers to those questions. We may not have enough evidence to know what those answers are, but the are still entirely and completely matters that can be investigated based solely on the relevant evidence.
But this is a public forum and if non-believers give their opinions that NO evidence exists of a Jesus, then we who believe otherwise have a right to post contrary information.
Absolutely. And if I disagree with you (as I do), I have a right to post a response to that effect (as I have done).
Also IF as unbelievers you can constantly give opinions against Christianity and the Bible, then we believers can counter with our own information from time to time.
Of course. And you should expect it to receive the same scrutiny as any other evidentiary claims.
This thread is mainly for believers so that when someone asks THEM if there is any evidence of Jesus by non-Christian sources, they may point out the information in this article.
That's what I have a problem with. (Do not take this as some infringements of your right to post your opinion. It is merely a disagreement with that opinion.) You want to surround yourself with evidence that supports a belief you already hold. It's an intellectually dishonest approach, as evidenced by your fallback position that the evidence doesn't really matter as you believe based on "faith" (i.e. without, or even in the face of, evidence).
That is WHY this article is posted under "bible research". I always thought Bible Research was for those interested in the Bible to begin with.
It is. I'm fascinated by the bible. It doesn't mean I believe it's an accurate collection of documents.
Anyway, hope this clears up my intentions.
Your intentions were clear from the beginning.
.condemned him to be crucified, those who had .
finally, the claim that on the third day jesus appeared to his disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-christian!.
we read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats.
lovelylil:
because belief in the Jesus of Christianity IS a matter of faith after all.
What a strange comment in a thread you started to provide evidence for the existence of such a person. What it says to me is that you have chosen to believe without evidence in this person and the associated mythology of Christianity, but in order to bolster this belief with the rational part of your mind you look for evidence to support it. You give undue credence to any supporting evidence however feeble, and you reject outright any contradictory evidence. If there is no supporting evidence, well that doesn't matter because you have "faith" and don't really need the evidence after all.
Can you imagine behaving this way with respect to any other belief? Why should belief in Jesus be based on a different standard to belief in any other historical or mythological character?
i've been reading some of the posts here, and i notice a significant number of them make reference to "jehovah" or something called "jehovah's witnesses.
although i attended the kingdom hall services for more than 20 years, i can't say i'm familiar with the term.
could someone enlighten me?
reneeisorym:
So it's more logical to conclude that a big explosion happened and it just so happened that this one planet landed at just the right place to make life possible?
It certainly strikes me as more logical given that, of the hundreds of planets known, only one happened to land in a suitable place for life. It doesn't seem like the work of an intelligent creator. Why put most of the planets in the wrong place?
Then somehow some parts came together without a maker but by chance to create a complex item called a cell?
I know of nobody who seriously advances a hypothesis that something as complex as a cell came about by chance. (Except perhaps creationists who believe a big invisible man came about by chance)
Then somehow these cells came together to create a variety of creatures that evolved into a variety of species who just so happen to coexist perfectly into a society?
While poorly stated, this is (something like) what we know actually happened. It's quite clear that all life on earth has evolved from a common ancestorm, although the idea that they "coexist perfectly" is laughable.
That seems logical but if I suggested to you that I found a deserted island with this car on it -- and since I was sure the island had never been inhabited, that the car must have gotten there by some parts just falling there like that?
Why would you notice the car there? Isn't it because the car, which is quite obviously engineered is quite different from everything else on the island?
The assumption that there was a car maker would be completely untrue unless we could prove the existance of said car maker?
An examination of the car would show that it has no ability to replicate itself so we would know that it is not a life form of any sort. A close examination of its parts would show that they were machined, molded, cut down and fitted together, unlike any form of life, byproduct thereof or indeed any natrual object. It's significant differences from everything in the natural world show that unlike them, it must have a maker. Obviously, it's absurd to use this clear difference between the natural and artificial to try to prove that natural things are artificial too.
i've been reading some of the posts here, and i notice a significant number of them make reference to "jehovah" or something called "jehovah's witnesses.
although i attended the kingdom hall services for more than 20 years, i can't say i'm familiar with the term.
could someone enlighten me?
real one:
i am going to pray for you!
Translation:
"I'm going to kneel down and close my eyes; then I'm going to talk - in my head - to a big all-powerful invisible man in the sky, and ask him to alter his immutable plans regarding your future."
i've been reading some of the posts here, and i notice a significant number of them make reference to "jehovah" or something called "jehovah's witnesses.
although i attended the kingdom hall services for more than 20 years, i can't say i'm familiar with the term.
could someone enlighten me?
Jehovah is a giant invisible man who lives in the sky. He made the entire universe but only really cares about the earth, although he largely ignores it. His massive ego and insecurities cause him to periodically smite people, but this is all just build-up to the time when he will kill all the people he has created unless they regularly tell him how great he is and beg him to treat them decently. Those who do pander to his whims will be rewarded by being allowed to continue pandering to them forever.
The Watchtower is the Brooklyn-based publishing company that Jehovah has chosen to warn everybody that he's going to kill them unless they do what it says in the books and magazines that Watchtower produces. After a century and a third of non-stop publicising, advertising and proselytising under the direction of Jehovah, said books and magazines are now read by around 0.2% of the world's population less than half of whom actually believe them.
