Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[Backglass]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I will make it simple for you. I do not believe that magical gods, evil demons, satans, the boogieman, bigfoot, aliens, incubus, succubus, chupacabra or any other superstitious creatures that men have invented exist.

Why? Because none of them have ever been spoken to, been seen by, caught or witnessed by more than one or two people at a time, and then always in unverifiable and suspect circumstances. (Dreams, burning plants and visions in Grilled Cheese Sandwiches notwithstanding) Your Skydaddy® for example, is supposedly ALL powerful, yet cannot speak to us except the occasionally claimed dream-vision or random TV Preacher healing. I have heard all the convenient and sometimes very twisted excuses before.

As for the above, I believe we have a much greater chance of discovering that Bigfoot exists than a magical sky god, but regardless I will believe any and all when I see or speak to one.

Does that answer your question my pious friend?

[viperbitex]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I have to see something to believe in it.

[CrazyAnglican]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I have to see something to believe in it.

That leaves a lot of very real things that you don't believe in doesn't it?

Air, for example? The Colossus of Rhodes (well, that it existed anyway).

[Frigidus]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I have to see something to believe in it.

That leaves a lot of very real things that you don't believe in doesn't it?

Air, for example? The Colossus of Rhodes (well, that it existed anyway).

But there are solid arguments for air's existence, and historical accounts almost universally agree that Colossus of Rhodes existed. Not so much so for God.

[Backglass]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I have to see something to believe in it.

That leaves a lot of very real things that you don't believe in doesn't it?

Air, for example? The Colossus of Rhodes (well, that it existed anyway).

Without air, you die. Without magical gods...you have the real world around us.

[CrazyAnglican]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I have to see something to believe in it.

That leaves a lot of very real things that you don't believe in doesn't it?

Air, for example? The Colossus of Rhodes (well, that it existed anyway).

But there are solid arguments for air's existence, and historical accounts almost universally agree that Colossus of Rhodes existed. Not so much so for God.

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed and performed miracles. There are certainly solid arguments that he was exactly who Christians believe him to be. If the Colossus of Rhodes why not Christ? Some of these accounts are even from outside of religious texts. The writings of Josephus, etc.

[CrazyAnglican]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I have to see something to believe in it.

That leaves a lot of very real things that you don't believe in doesn't it?

Air, for example? The Colossus of Rhodes (well, that it existed anyway).

Without air, you die. Without magical gods...you have the real world around us.

So you say, but that's merely a presumption that they don't exist isn't it?

[comic boy]

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

[Backglass]

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed and performed miracles. There are certainly solid arguments that he was exactly who Christians believe him to be. If the Colossus of Rhodes why not Christ? Some of these accounts are even from outside of religious texts. The writings of Josephus, etc.

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed and those present believed he performed miracles.

Big difference.

So you say, but that's merely a presumption that they don't exist isn't it?

Are you saying you want me to bring out the Leprechauns again?

[Spockers]

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed

Sorry mate, but unless you can back that up, i'm calling B.S on that one.

any historical "evidence" i've heard in regards to this is full of "could"'s "if"'s and "but"'s

[CrazyAnglican]

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

You mean you believe he performed no miracles don't you? Otherwise you are making a presumption based on your expectations and nothing else. ie. Nobody has ever been observed walking on water, therefore it's viewed to be impossible. So, You don't think Jesus did it, because you don't think that he was anything but an ordinary man.

If he was more than that, then we have to deal with the possibility that he could do more.

[CrazyAnglican]

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed

Sorry mate, but unless you can back that up, i'm calling B.S on that one.

any historical "evidence" i've heard in regards to this is full of "could"'s "if"'s and "but"'s

Fair enough.

The writings of Josephus Flavius. (nonscriptural, as Josephus was a historian and was not a Christian)

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 "

Where exactly are these coulds of yours?

There are certainly problems with this like with any evidence of anything in the ancient world. ie. Graffitti is even seen as historically significant in Roman History because of the dearth of evidence.

Here's the website

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm

feel free to argue.

[Spockers]

That website seems to provide some arguments for and against.. i don't know enough about it to argue... but i did some other searches on it and I see no reason why it would be any more or less historically accurate than the bible.

from what i have briefly read, it seems to draw from the bible and other sources and basically summarise them.

[CrazyAnglican]

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed and those present believed he performed miracles.:

Big difference.

Not if they believed it because it really happened.

So you say, but that's merely a presumption that they don't exist isn't it?

Are you saying you want me to bring out the Leprechauns again?

I was hoping you would it's been too long

Sure I presume Leprecauns and Unicorns don't exist the same way you presume God doesn't. I'm not about to try to convince you he does. That's your decision, and you've made it. We are over generalizing here though. Plenty of creatures thought to be myth have shown up as real the Narwhal for instance (had to through in the Unicorn reference ). One thing thought to be myth really is, another thing thought to be myth turn out to be real. So, there are troubles with that generalization.

[comic boy]

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

You mean you believe he performed no miracles don't you? Otherwise you are making a presumption based on your expectations and nothing else. ie. Nobody has ever been observed walking on water, therefore it's viewed to be impossible. So, You don't think Jesus did it, because you don't think that he was anything but an ordinary man.

If he was more than that, then we have to deal with the possibility that he could do more.

Yes I agree that my presumption would be as you indicate though my post was based on the fact that there is no sound historical evidence. Josephus may not of been a Christian but his reference to the Messiah indicates a man of God, consequently he would have been more than willing to accept the concept of miracles. A modern historian ( with no particular bias ) would not be so accomodating and , as a product of modern thought , nor am I.

[CrazyAnglican]

That website seems to provide some arguments for and against.. i don't know enough about it to argue... but i did some other searches on it and I see no reason why it would be any more or less historically accurate than the bible.

from what i have briefly read, it seems to draw from the bible and other sources and basically summarise them.

My only point about that is this. The only evidence extant says that he's who Christians claim him to be. That immediately makes some doubt the source and others to take it at face value. Either way it's far short of a B.S. argument wouldn't you agree?

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

You mean you believe he performed no miracles don't you? Otherwise you are making a presumption based on your expectations and nothing else. ie. Nobody has ever been observed walking on water, therefore it's viewed to be impossible. So, You don't think Jesus did it, because you don't think that he was anything but an ordinary man.

If he was more than that, then we have to deal with the possibility that he could do more.

Yes I agree that my presumption would be as you indicate though my post was based on the fact that there is no sound historical evidence. Josephus may not of been a Christian but his reference to the Messiah indicates a man of God, consequently he would have been more than willing to accept the concept of miracles. A modern historian ( with no particular bias ) would not be so accomodating and , as a product of modern thought , nor am I.

Pretty much most of your historians were/are "men of God", as you put it. Do you make a habit of doubting everything that comes from them? That's a pretty big body of work to just write off like that.

[comic boy]

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

You mean you believe he performed no miracles don't you? Otherwise you are making a presumption based on your expectations and nothing else. ie. Nobody has ever been observed walking on water, therefore it's viewed to be impossible. So, You don't think Jesus did it, because you don't think that he was anything but an ordinary man.

If he was more than that, then we have to deal with the possibility that he could do more.

Yes I agree that my presumption would be as you indicate though my post was based on the fact that there is no sound historical evidence. Josephus may not of been a Christian but his reference to the Messiah indicates a man of God, consequently he would have been more than willing to accept the concept of miracles. A modern historian ( with no particular bias ) would not be so accomodating and , as a product of modern thought , nor am I. What further persuades me is the complete omission of Jesus from the Dead Sea Scrolls,it seems incredible that extremely pious men, living in the area and at the time of Jesus, would not have written one word about a supposed Messiah performing miracles.

[got tonkaed]

Though i dont really disagree with the point, i think it is fair to note that religion was pretty much par for the course for most of human history. It would be similar imo as suggesting that the average person today thinks freedom is a good idea. Most people would to varying degrees.

[CrazyAnglican]

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

You mean you believe he performed no miracles don't you? Otherwise you are making a presumption based on your expectations and nothing else. ie. Nobody has ever been observed walking on water, therefore it's viewed to be impossible. So, You don't think Jesus did it, because you don't think that he was anything but an ordinary man.

If he was more than that, then we have to deal with the possibility that he could do more.

Yes I agree that my presumption would be as you indicate though my post was based on the fact that there is no sound historical evidence. Josephus may not of been a Christian but his reference to the Messiah indicates a man of God, consequently he would have been more than willing to accept the concept of miracles. A modern historian ( with no particular bias ) would not be so accomodating and , as a product of modern thought , nor am I. What further persuades me is the complete omission of Jesus from the Dead Sea Scrolls,it seems incredible that extremely pious men, living in the area and at the time of Jesus, would not have written one word about a supposed Messiah performing miracles.

The Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus by at least a fair few years. They are also copies of the Scripture. As nobody was writing a New Testament yet. It's not hard to believe that they wouldn't be writing about a guy who hadn't shown up yet.

[comic boy]

Though i dont really disagree with the point, i think it is fair to note that religion was pretty much par for the course for most of human history. It would be similar imo as suggesting that the average person today thinks freedom is a good idea. Most people would to varying degrees.

I agree but reputable modern historians, I would venture, are far more likely to write dispasionately.

[comic boy]

Existed very probably, performed miracles no Im afraid not

You mean you believe he performed no miracles don't you? Otherwise you are making a presumption based on your expectations and nothing else. ie. Nobody has ever been observed walking on water, therefore it's viewed to be impossible. So, You don't think Jesus did it, because you don't think that he was anything but an ordinary man.

If he was more than that, then we have to deal with the possibility that he could do more.

Yes I agree that my presumption would be as you indicate though my post was based on the fact that there is no sound historical evidence. Josephus may not of been a Christian but his reference to the Messiah indicates a man of God, consequently he would have been more than willing to accept the concept of miracles. A modern historian ( with no particular bias ) would not be so accomodating and , as a product of modern thought , nor am I. What further persuades me is the complete omission of Jesus from the Dead Sea Scrolls,it seems incredible that extremely pious men, living in the area and at the time of Jesus, would not have written one word about a supposed Messiah performing miracles.

The Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus by at least a fair few years. They are also copies of the Scripture. As nobody was writing a New Testament yet. It's not hard to believe that they wouldn't be writing about a guy who hadn't shown up yet.

Simply not true, they date from 2nd century BC to the first century AD .

[Backglass]

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed and those present believed he performed miracles.:

Big difference.

Not if they believed it because it really happened.

Drop Penn & Teller into Jerusalem 2000 years ago and they too would be considered sons of a god. (or more likely sons of satan ).

We are talking about an ancient, primitive, superstitious people. These same people thought the earth was flat and that a person's spirit or soul was found in "the air inside his head". When someone sneezed, there was the danger that the spirit/soul would be expelled unless your god was asked to intervene.

Think of that next time you bless someone who sneezed.

I was hoping you would it's been too long

The little bastards!

Plenty of creatures thought to be myth have shown up as real the Narwhal for instance (had to through in the Unicorn reference ). One thing thought to be myth really is, another thing thought to be myth turn out to be real. So, there are troubles with that generalization.

Agreed. I welcome the day that any of the aforementioned myths show themselves.

Actually the myth of the Unicorn was from people finding the Narwhal Tusk washed up on the beach and jumping to the conclusion. Unicorns love to run on the beach ya know!

[MelonanadeMaster]

In any given written work of reasonable size, there is going to be both figurative language and literal language. The trick is distinguishing between the two based on context and the author's intention. This can be difficult, given that the books of the Bible were written some time ago, but certainly possible.

Here's the thing. Different authors means different intentions. I could understand if it was one author, but they all had different original writing styles that disintegrated during the process of word of mouth and translation. So how literal and how figurative the bible actually is won't be an easy task to know.

Precisely. DIFFERENT AUTHORS.

So saying, "Well walking on water must be figurative, because you believe that Genesis is figurative" is ridiculous.

(note- I am NOT trying to bring the creationism evolution debate here, this is just an example that pertains to me).

Well the Gospels and the book of Genesis were written by different authors with different intentions.

We know for a fact that the authors of the Gospels were endeavoring to create a biography of sorts of Jesus. Some even state this intention straight up, such as Luke. This leads us to the conclusion that the author is meant to be taken literally. There is nothing to suggest the contrary.

I'm no expert on Genesis, and I have no idea who wrote it, but my assumption is that it's meant to be taken metaphorically, because I have scientific knowledge and reason which rules out the idea that it should be taken literally. Certainly, i do not deny that God could have created the universe in 6 days as described in Genesis. He is all-powerful after all. But if that were the case, there would be no explanation for the fact that there are fossils which can be dated back millions of years. Reason, therefore, dictates that Genesis is figurative.

Yay support for Augustine, as even unriggable put it, well put.

[CrazyAnglican]

The Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus by at least a fair few years. They are also copies of the Scripture. As nobody was writing a New Testament yet. It's not hard to believe that they wouldn't be writing about a guy who hadn't shown up yet.

Simply not true, they date from 2nd century BC to the first century AD .

You're absolutely right.

"Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower's described in the New Testament."

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

Still, strange or not, without arguing from ignorance neither you nor I know why they didn't write about him. Perhaps you're right there were no miracles, or perhaps they saw Christ and his followers as a rival sect and wouldn't acknowledge them. Strange perhaps, but inconclusive.

Historical accounts almost universally agree that Jesus existed and those present believed he performed miracles.:

Big difference.

Not if they believed it because it really happened.

Drop Penn & Teller into Jerusalem 2000 years ago and they too would be considered sons of a god. (or more likely sons of satan ).

We are talking about an ancient, primitive, superstitious people. These same people thought the earth was flat and that a person's spirit or soul was found in "the air inside his head". When someone sneezed, there was the danger that the spirit/soul would be expelled unless your god was asked to intervene.

Think of that next time you bless someone who sneezed.

I can certainly see Penn & Teller creating havoc, but these primitive and superstitious people (Hellenized societies) had access to idea like Geometry and a primitive Steam Engine. It's tempting to think of them as backwards and superstitious, but they were people every bit as intelligent as us and setting the foundations for everything we know today.

While it's obviously a possibility that Christ was a magician in the same way that Penn & Teller are, how many of Penn & Teller's assistants would die for them after their deaths. You're suggesting that his own assistants didn't know he was faking? "Don't look into the Holy trunk of stuff guys" they lived with him 24/7 for three years.

or that they were in on it and just decided to keep the gag going after the boss died knowing full well that their was nothing to gain for it (even in an afterlife that they now knoew wasn't coming.). "Hey I know they crucified Christ. They'll probably do worse to us, but let's keep this up anyway."

[Backglass]

It's tempting to think of them as backwards and superstitious, but they were people every bit as intelligent as us and setting the foundations for everything we know today.

People from 2000 years ago? "Every bit as intelligent as us"? That's a big stretch.

how many of Penn & Teller's assistants would die for them after their deaths.

How many of David Koresh or Jim Jones followers died for them? In their eyes they were (and both claimed to be) Christ. Both were great manipulators. Jones alone had over 900 "disciples" ready and willing to kill or die for him.

You're suggesting that his own assistants didn't know he was faking? "Don't look into the Holy trunk of stuff guys" they lived with him 24/7 for three years.

Funny image. "Now watch as I produce a Holy Rabbit from this Tunic!"

I am just saying it is very possible that the "miracles" you accept 100% as fact from ancient people could very well have been staged tricks, given the times and the number of water walking, blind healing, wine producers known to history. After all...you claim they were a very intelligent people. I am assuming that would include Magician-Jesus. No?

or that they were in on it and just decided to keep the gag going after the boss died knowing full well that their was nothing to gain for it (even in an afterlife that they now know wasn't coming.). "Hey I know they crucified Christ. They'll probably do worse to us, but let's keep this up anyway."

Why do Scientologists "keep the gag going" long after their science-fiction writer/leader/holy man died? Because they believed it to be true. I am guessing you look at them and shake your head & laugh at their beliefs and bizarre rituals.

I do the same for all religions & rituals.