Religious debate (split from main board)

[OrangeEmpire]

Aliens built the pyramids........ Stargate showed us this!

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

So let me get this straight - a group of people who most were not skilled in writing in the prose of the period were willing to believe and spread a set teaching to the point of death. Keep in mind this was not just some homogenous sect. This covered numerous nationalities.

Those who could have easily disproved this group with 'fact' did not do so. Read the Jewish manuscripts that survived even after Jerusalem was sacked. There was nothing to disprove what later became the Gospels.

You say "likely to be exaggerated". Odd statement since you seem to base your views on something having to be fact. You have no proof of this but make this part of your own belief.

I beg to differ on what was written on him. Firsthand accounts were written by witnesses. Each had different backgrounds but have corresponding stories. Yes, these were written AFTER Jesus died but they were written by witnesses. Luke, a scientific mind, wrote in a manner to ensure proof and detail were included in his writings. Matthew a disciple wrote addressing a Jewish audience. John wrote to a Gentile audience. Each had varying styles with varying backgrounds. But each corresponded with the other versions.

Again, you had centurions, tax collectors, Pharisees, landowners in privilege, etc. all writing each with their own styles and motivations but all telling the same story even to differing audiences. Each of these did so under the threat of the most extreme punishments inflicted on mankind. To get such a varying group of people all doing this while risking lives is unheard of. So if we are talking motivations and facts surrounding the authors, I will take this view over one that assumes that just because other people mutilate and embelish talltales, therefore this falls into the same category.

Wrong on all counts. First you say I don't have a factual basis for "likely to be exaggerated" when I go on to explain exactly why I think they are likely to be exaggerated. Then you claim that there were "eyewitness accounts". Again, wrong. The first gospels were written anonymously (Their authorship was only attributed centuries later, appearing suddenly in the historical record), with Mark being the earliest (some scholars claim gospels earlier but they aren't backed up by evidence) at 60 AD or later. That's on the order of 30 years after the death of Jesus. Can you imagine what it would be like if nothing was written about Elvis while he was alive, and the first story about him was written 30 years after his death? There are people out there who seriously believe that Elvis is still alive. The only reason we know differently is that we have a lot of documentation written while he was alive. We have absolutely zero about Jesus.

Then you claim that the different writing styles recounting the "same events" is somehow evidence that the story is genuine. Yet this is a distinguishing feature of legends, tall tales, fiction. It's a retelling of the story. That's how tall tales are born, out of retelling, to different audiences. And yet there are plenty of contradictions in the gospels. I can give you a laundry list of examples, yet I'm sure you could find them yourself if you looked. Don't forget the early church threw out a ton of gospels because they didn't like them, either.

And the features of the story are also not new. The idea of a virgin giving birth to a God is a common theme of Middle Eastern mythology, most famously claimed (besides of Jesus, of course) of Dionysius, Greek god of revelry. The concept of a god dying and being resurrected on the third day after the death is also common, as well as being visited by wise rulers led by a star in the east, having 12 disciples, etc. The fact that these literary ideas were present before the story of Jesus was written is not a surprise. In fact, it explains why they're there. The authors certainly incorporated cultural ideas at the time into the story.

And then you go onto to argue as if there were some massive conspiracy to squash people from "speaking out" about what happened to Jesus of Nazareth. Again, wrong. Christianity was an underground religious movement at the time, the only reason the Romans had any reason to persecute Christians would be because they defied the state religion. There were plenty of similar cults based on Messiah figures at the time. Christianity happened to spread because it was the one that was made official during the reign of Constantine.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

But if we can do this for those on the verge of death (not in all cases, mind you) why can we not do so shortly after death? What causes a body to completely cease function to the point of no return? We have the same means and knowledge but yet it cannot be done. What is the key?

Death is a process, not an event. There are different degrees of death. Ultimately, once information begins to be lost in the brain does the idea of reviving someone become futile. You could use machines to pump and filter blood, breathe for them, etc. But if oxygen is deprived to the brain for too long, the neurons begin to die. These neuronal connections are what store data in the brain, and with it our mental states and consciousness. Depending on how advanced our technology is, it may be possible one day to have tiny robots - nanomachines - circulating through the blood, repairing or replacing damaged neuronal connections. But right now it depends. There is no single point where someone "dies" completely, and this fact is actually an argument against the existence of a soul! When does god take the soul away to heaven? Does he wait until the EMT gives up? Does he put you in a waiting room and return you to your body if all of a sudden your heart starts beating again?

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

We have as much historical evidence as saying who built the pyramids, etc. We have enough to say that those who wrote several books do in fact match in style. Your logic basically says we have no proof Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species unless someone or better yet many people stood over his shoulder and watched him write it out. The same goes for Tolstoy, Marx, Dumas, or any other author for that matter.

That's a ridiculous straw man and you know it. There's a lot of difference between 19th-century England and a book whose authorship only becomes attested centuries after it's written.

Also, you are right that we have nearly no historical evidence as to who actually built the Pyramids. Given, however, that it can be demonstrated that such a feat is possible given the tools at the time, the field of archaeology has come to a consensus that it was a group of people who lived there. The idea that aliens built them is pure nonsense, which is not unnecessary to explain how they were built, but far less likely than a bunch of slaves.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I'm not sure where you are getting your history. I'm sorry. I guess disciples who walked with these people are not considered eyewitness accounts. I would love to hear what your definition of eyewitness account is. Their authorship was accounted for centuries later? I guess historians and early scrolls, etc. dating before "centuries later" are incorrect? What history are you referring to? Early church historians even within a century after Jesus' death refer to letters written by apostolic fathers. These were not books but letters. Discoveries of texts prove that these letters were not "centuries later".

We have zero written about Jesus but yet Josephus who has every reason to counter writing about Jesus did so. Look at when he was alive.

Documents and letters found within a century of Jesus' death have been historically verified. As for retelling, this is still no proof that this was a tall tale. The factual events are still the same. The lessons pointed out, morals of the story mind you, are addressed to specific audiences. Anything historical is the case. Obama won - people were fed up with Bush, the nation trended left, he won states with a greater number of electoral votes, etc. Different versions of the same fact.

Massive conspiracy? No, just pointing out the persecution of a movement that is documented, historically proven. Defied the state religion was to deny ceasar his divinity. Roman law called for absolute devotion - taxes, lands, military service, etc. all of which were entirely or partially opposed to Christian teachings. Christians were a cause for Jewish animosity and resulted in one of many reasons the Jews were also sacked.

Christianity spread well before Constantine. It was all over the Roman empire, Asia, and well into Africa and the Indian subcontinent before Constantine.

Again, I don't know where you get your history but it's way off on this one. And looking at your examples of tall tale writing patterns, etc. you are basing an opinion on assumptions and theories. This falls in a realm science calls inconclusive. I'd say you are relying on coincidence.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Death is a process, not an event. There are different degrees of death. Ultimately, once information begins to be lost in the brain does the idea of reviving someone become futile. You could use machines to pump and filter blood, breathe for them, etc. But if oxygen is deprived to the brain for too long, the neurons begin to die. These neuronal connections are what store data in the brain, and with it our mental states and consciousness. Depending on how advanced our technology is, it may be possible one day to have tiny robots - nanomachines - circulating through the blood, repairing or replacing damaged neuronal connections. But right now it depends. There is no single point where someone "dies" completely, and this fact is actually an argument against the existence of a soul! When does god take the soul away to heaven? Does he wait until the EMT gives up? Does he put you in a waiting room and return you to your body if all of a sudden your heart starts beating again?

The brain begins to die. So people who have brain surgery and have parts removed are capable of living but someone dead for say 30 minutes has so much deteriorate to the point of never coming back? Neurons still exist for some time after clinical death. It is what makes Alzheimers research possible.

And there is no single point where someone dies completely? So we legally call someone dead for no reason? Doctors diagnose a clinical death for no reason? Or based on what? So do we need machines constantly working in a morgue to make sure no one has reached the neverending point of permanent death? Edgar Allan Poe was ahead of his time.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

I'm not sure where you are getting your history. I'm sorry. I guess disciples who walked with these people are not considered eyewitness accounts. I would love to hear what your definition of eyewitness account is. Their authorship was accounted for centuries later? I guess historians and early scrolls, etc. dating before "centuries later" are incorrect? What history are you referring to? Early church historians even within a century after Jesus' death refer to letters written by apostolic fathers. These were not books but letters. Discoveries of texts prove that these letters were not "centuries later".

We have zero written about Jesus but yet Josephus who has every reason to counter writing about Jesus did so. Look at when he was alive.

Documents and letters found within a century of Jesus' death have been historically verified. As for retelling, this is still no proof that this was a tall tale. The factual events are still the same. The lessons pointed out, morals of the story mind you, are addressed to specific audiences. Anything historical is the case. Obama won - people were fed up with Bush, the nation trended left, he won states with a greater number of electoral votes, etc. Different versions of the same fact.

Massive conspiracy? No, just pointing out the persecution of a movement that is documented, historically proven. Defied the state religion was to deny ceasar his divinity. Roman law called for absolute devotion - taxes, lands, military service, etc. all of which were entirely or partially opposed to Christian teachings. Christians were a cause for Jewish animosity and resulted in one of many reasons the Jews were also sacked.

Christianity spread well before Constantine. It was all over the Roman empire, Asia, and well into Africa and the Indian subcontinent before Constantine.

Again, I don't know where you get your history but it's way off on this one. And looking at your examples of tall tale writing patterns, etc. you are basing an opinion on assumptions and theories. This falls in a realm science calls inconclusive. I'd say you are relying on coincidence.

Show me. Which eyewitness accounts are you referring to? Name names.

All of Josephus' mentions of Jesus have been of questionable authenticity since the 17th century. It is very similar to the writing of a different writer named Eusebius who himself said that it was appropriate to lie if the truth were inadequate.

Again, which documents? You can produce a lot of documents and letters within a century, but nothing during his life itself. The unanimous consensus among biblical scholars is that the Jesus story started as an oral tradition, being retold many times before it was written down. And the facts aren't the same! There are plenty of glaring contradictions, but since you don't want to be bothered to actually look for them, I'll rattle off a few. Matthew mentions an earthquake and a bunch of zombies going into Jerusalem. Yet the authorities seemed blithely unaware of a severe earthquake, which would likely have collapsed plenty of buildings and killed a bunch of people, and some zombies getting out of their graves and walking around. Oh, and John mentions absolutely no supernatural events happening during Jesus' death. No temples being broken, no darkening skies, and no zombie apocalypse.

I love how you just dismiss all of the arguments about tall tales and legends. You don't even care if the story is a tall tale or legend, you just want to believe it and so you do.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

The brain begins to die. So people who have brain surgery and have parts removed are capable of living but someone dead for say 30 minutes has so much deteriorate to the point of never coming back? Neurons still exist for some time after clinical death. It is what makes Alzheimers research possible.

And there is no single point where someone dies completely? So we legally call someone dead for no reason? Doctors diagnose a clinical death for no reason? Or based on what? So do we need machines constantly working in a morgue to make sure no one has reached the neverending point of permanent death? Edgar Allan Poe was ahead of his time.

Yes, but the neurons themselves store no information. It is the connections that matter. And no, there is no single point where someone is "dead completely". It is a process. But what you're thinking is a false spectrum fallacy, that goes along the lines of "because there's no clear dividing line we can't make any dividing line". There are two extremes - completely skeletal remains and a healthy living person, but at some point legally we make a cut and say "anyone further than this or with these symptoms is dead". That differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Usually it means no brain activity, no pulse, no breathing, and a failure to resuscitate. A hundred years ago the rules were different, and there are likely people who were buried alive, comatose. But there are certain processes along the way that seal the deal. While a person losing consciousness in the middle of nowhere is a whole lot different than it happening in a hospital, there are certain processes in death that cannot be reversed with current technology. These include rigor mortis, deterioration of the neuronal connections, leading to brain damage and loss of information stored therein, and a bacterial invasion from your gut (yes, the bacteria that help you digest things in your gut will eat you when you die).

 

[VolInMn]

Damn. Snakes on a Wii beat me to all my points about the gospels. Damned doctor's appointments.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Questionable authenticity from whom? So are you saying because a scholar questions it, therefore it must not be accurate? Scholars question all sorts of historical documents but this does not disprove it. Read Polycarp who mentions what we call the Scriptures. He mentions this well before the "several centuries" mentioned earlier.

Read the early writings of the church that have been dated - well before the Costantine, etc. references.

Matthew and zombies - seriously? Read the text. You make it sound as if thousands walked the streets and appear to all of the residents. Stop taking the story out of context. As for authorities being unware let's run with your theory:

-Matthew says centurions make a profound statement declaring his deity
-How do you or we know any authority was unaware? Does every seismic event of the period get documented and remain intact until now?
-If this were attributed to a troublemaking sect, would you seriously acknowledge it thus giving credence to the sect?

Your argument 'against' is based on theory. John not mentioning anything supernatural during Jesus' death proves nothing. He metions the resurrection and even miracles.

I love how you say the facts aren't the same but the only thing you give is Matthew and John giving every single detail - as if omission somehow makes a contradiction? Some gospels omit Jesus' early years. Some omit certain miracles.

You do know this is across the board for all ancient history right?

I could just as easily ask what proof do you have the big bang happen? Where did this explosion come from? Etc. Keep in mind what logic you judge one opposing view by can be applied to you.

 

[CSpindizzy]

"Because other people have written tall tales" and "orally passed stories getting modified" is still no reason to disprove the authenticity of something. It can cause further scrutiny but does not mean something is disproved - "it's happened before" is not exactly scientific.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

Questionable authenticity from whom? So are you saying because a scholar questions it, therefore it must not be accurate? Scholars question all sorts of historical documents but this does not disprove it. Read Polycarp who mentions what we call the Scriptures. He mentions this well before the "several centuries" mentioned earlier.

No, I never said that. I said it was of questionable authenticity. If your logic is correct, isn't the reverse also applicable? That is, "because some scholar affirms it, therefore it must be accurate" would be valid for you?

What do you mean to prove by bringing up Polycarp. Did Polycarp name the authors of the Gospels?

Read the early writings of the church that have been dated - well before the Costantine, etc. references.

Which early writings? Get specific, you claim that there are many, name a few.

Matthew and zombies - seriously? Read the text. You make it sound as if thousands walked the streets and appear to all of the residents. Stop taking the story out of context. As for authorities being unware let's run with your theory:

Oh wow you just walked right into this one. I make it sound that way because it's in the bible! :good!:

27:53 "And coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many"

-Matthew says centurions make a profound statement declaring his deity
-How do you or we know any authority was unaware? Does every seismic event of the period get documented and remain intact until now?
-If this were attributed to a troublemaking sect, would you seriously acknowledge it thus giving credence to the sect?

That's a good question. We don't "know" any authority was unaware, as an authority would have no reason to write down "Had lunch today with a nice fellow, oh by the way, there was no major earthquake after we killed the Jew and it certainly didn't knock over buildings and kill people". And yet despite the fact that a major earth quake that can "split rocks" would certainly topple buildings and definitely kill people, there is zero evidence, historical or archaeological, that it happened. And that is completely irrelevant to my main point, which is that no other gospel writer included it in his work!

Your point about the centurion: one version has him saying "Truly this man was the son of god" and the other has him saying "Certainly this was a righteous man". Which was it?

Your argument 'against' is based on theory. John not mentioning anything supernatural during Jesus' death proves nothing. He metions the resurrection and even miracles.

Whatever. It directly contradicts your claim that they had the same story.

I love how you say the facts aren't the same but the only thing you give is Matthew and John giving every single detail - as if omission somehow makes a contradiction? Some gospels omit Jesus' early years. Some omit certain miracles.

It isn't just things missing, there are things that are stated completely differently, like the number of blind men that came to Jesus, or when certain events happened, like the leper being healed, etc.

I could just as easily ask what proof do you have the big bang happen? Where did this explosion come from? Etc. Keep in mind what logic you judge one opposing view by can be applied to you.

Try me. We know the big bang happened because it left an "echo" called the cosmic microwave background, which permeates the entire universe. Given the age of the universe, and the rate of expansion, the wavelength of this radiation is calculable. It corresponds to the peak wavelength of a 2.7 K blackbody curve, and observations of this radiation show that it is present in every direction we look, with differences less than 1 in 100,000. What are the chances of that occurring at random? A heck of a lot smaller than winning the lottery, that's for sure.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

"Because other people have written tall tales" and "orally passed stories getting modified" is still no reason to disprove the authenticity of something. It can cause further scrutiny but does not mean something is disproved - "it's happened before" is not exactly scientific.

It's not proof of anything, it's just putting the story into context. Why do you doubt that there was ever a man named Paul Bunyan who could do all those things?

 

[BeecherVol]

"We know the Big Bang happen"? As in, there is no other scientific theory that could be right, in this instance? Even outside of creation?

 

[VolInMn]

Sorry, but I'm catching up and trying to read all the posts I missed. Is CSpindizzy asserting that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

"We know the Big Bang happen"? As in, there is no other scientific theory that could be right, in this instance? Even outside of creation?

Creationism is not a scientific theory

And yes, the Big Bang is the only theory that fits with all the evidence. On top of that, it specifically makes predictions that were later gone out and seen, which is the hallmark of a good scientific theory. It's not like the CMB was noticed and the Big Bang was made up to explain it, the Big Bang specifically predicted that exact kind of radiation!

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

Sorry, but I'm catching up and trying to read all the posts I missed. Is CSpindizzy asserting that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

I'll let CSpin answer that one. As far as I know, yes, CSpin is claiming that we know the authors of those texts from other historical sources.

 

[BeecherVol]

Creationism is not a scientific theory

And yes, the Big Bang is the only theory that fits with all the evidence. On top of that, it specifically makes predictions that were later gone out and seen, which is the hallmark of a good scientific theory. It's not like the CMB was noticed and the Big Bang was made up to explain it, the Big Bang specifically predicted that exact kind of radiation!

You did notice that I seperated the 2, didn't you?

If in 20 years, well known, and credible scientists claim that the "Big Bang" is false, would you move toward their new claim of how everything started?

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

You did notice that I seperated the 2, didn't you?

If in 20 years, well known, and credible scientists claim that the "Big Bang" is false, would you move toward their new claim of how everything started?

If I could conclude that it was because new evidence discredited the Big Bang, yes, I would. But the same applies to you. If in 20 years it was revealed that the Jesus story was made up, would you stop being a Christian?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

If I could conclude that it was because new evidence discredited the Big Bang, yes, I would. But the same applies to you. If in 20 years it was revealed that the Jesus story was made up, would you stop being a Christian?

Sure thing...........

Won't happen, but sure....

 

[BeecherVol]

I agree OE.

What I believe doesn't change with new technology, or theories. If I was wrong (for the sake of the discussion) at some point in the future, both of us will be die, and what you or I believe, while we lived, will not matter. Under your belief.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

I agree OE.

What I believe doesn't change with new technology, or theories. If I was wrong (for the sake of the discussion) at some point in the future, both of us will be die, and what you or I believe, while we lived, will not matter. Under your belief.

No one said we don't matter. What we believe does matter because it influences how we make decisions.

 

[BeecherVol]

It don't when your dead, and from what you have posted before, (correct me if Im wrong) once you die, thats it.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Christianity happened to spread because it was the one that was made official during the reign of Constantine.

Christianity spread in large part because of Paul. You should study his writings sometime, as very few people dispute that he actually wrote the numerous letters while he was being tortured in prison.

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

Christianity spread in large part because of Paul. You should study his writings sometime, as very few people dispute that he actually wrote the numerous letters while he was being tortured in prison.

I have studied his writings. I was a Christian before I grew up (actually I was born an atheist and raised a Christian, funny how that works).