Let's Talk About Sin

[Orange_Crush]

Sorry nothing personal, but this is what I mean. You lack knowledge. The story of Jesus is so plagiarized from other cultures that it's sad. Cultures around thousands of years with real documented history. History that doesn't come from one book edited by the crazy Emperor Nero and than rewritten and added to by King James.

Sorry... This is incorrect. I don't have time now to do the research for you, but you can search this thread and the evolution thread in this same sub-forum (or just search my previous posts) for posts where I have quoted non-Christian expertise that disproved this actual myth. That was a line of argument began by Sir James Frazer in his work "The Golden Bough", and it's been widely debunked and disproven. It's a line of argument used by people that either have an agenda, or have not researched the topic.

As for your 2000 years of recorded history there is not even recorded proof that Jesus existed.

To name a single example to disprove this spurious claim, Josephus references Jesus in several places. A few more:

Tacitus
Suetonius

In 1631, in Poland, the Jewish assembly of elders wrote:

We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.

Dr. Robert Morey wrote:

"Thankfully, copies of the uncensored pre-1631 texts can be found in Oxford University and several other European libraries. Thus the statements about Jesus were never actually ‘lost.’ They were published separately in numerous editions and studied by Jewish scholars in private. No one denies these facts any more... While the Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud is a censored text, the editors usually give the uncensored original readings in a footnote. We have put the statements about Jesus back into the text where they originally belonged and have indicated this by [ ]." (Morey, pp. 1-2)

Other than the bible that is, and even there the gospels were written 60-150 years in some cases after the actual events.

The Bible is the best documented ancient document in history. To deny its authenticity, one would have to deny the writings of Plato, Homer and every other ancient writing we treasure.

We have gospel manuscripts that are dated within 30 years of the events. And that's just the earliest manuscripts we have been able to find. That does not say that they are the earliest manuscripts written.

I would be interested in factual proof that the gospels were written 150 years after the event. I'm not interested in supposition or inference. I'm interested in actual evidence that proves your truth claim that the gospels were written 60-150 years after the event.

I'm not going to break down everything you said there because I don't want to come across as captain douche bag, but if I garner that you don't mind the debate we can continue on down the line.

I will be happy to jump in and do so, though some of the topics will be a repeat from recent history in this and the evolution thread for me. But I'll warn you, I will ask for factual evidence to support your claims.

Shall we start with the dating of the gospel and your proof of the date claims?

Or should we jump straight into a listing of the supposed contradictions?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So I have a few points to make and since I assume I'm dealing with Christians on this board I'll keep my focus on that particular religion.

Why do Christians constantly need affirmation and reinforcement in their faith from other Christians?
If you believe that god made the whole universe, knew you in your mothers womb before you were even born, sent his only son through an amazing set of circumstances to die for your sins ect ect..(not to diminish but no need for me to cover all the works and miracles of god and Jesus as listed in the bible) how can you ever even for an instance forget that>
I've never in my life, on a day when I've felt light on my feet or tossed a ball way up in the air for that matter ever doubted gravity. God is bigger than gravity right?

Romans says that one does not hope for what one sees, for if you see it it is not hope. As sojourners, aliens in a strange land, there is power in community.

I'm not sure what the issue with this is.

Secondly, for a group of people that believe in such an amazing thing there sure does seem to be a lot of disconnect. In so much as; there is so much as stake with what you state as your mantra yet there is less loyalty and dedication involved than many have for their favorite sports team.

Jesus told of the tares/goats-- those that claim the faith but are not actually of the faith. It is a prediction of our worldview that this would be the case.

Also, sanctification is a process, thus we are all in a daily struggle and recreation to be formed in the image of Christ. 1 John clearly states that no Christian will be perfected in this lifetime. In Romans, Paul went into great detail about the battle of the flesh and spirit. I agree with you of the priority that our faith should have in each Christian. The fact that many professing believers do not have that priority is actually a prediction from the Bible, tho.

Third,I find many Christians are severely lacking in having a knowledge or comprehension on how the bible was put together and how many contradictory and downright obscenely gross acts of genocide occur not only within its pages but by those who have promoted what those pages contain.

Per my last response to you, my hope is you'll flesh that one out with facts so we can see just how great the "evidence" should effect the Christian's belief.

:hi:

 

[MercyPercy]

Christianity and Paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bunch of heathens IMO.

 

[Roustabout]

Sorry nothing personal, but this is what I mean. You lack knowledge. The story of Jesus is so plagiarized from other cultures that it's sad. Cultures around thousands of years with real documented history. History that doesn't come from one book edited by the crazy Emperor Nerro and than rewritten and added to by King James.

As for your 2000 years of recorded history there is not even recorded proof that Jesus existed. Other than the bible that is, and even there the gospels were written 60-150 years in some cases after the actual events.

I'm not going to break down everything you said there because I don't want to come across as captain douche bag, but if I garner that you don't mind the debate we can continue on down the line.

This is so littered with error that I question whether it's worth it to respond. That a man named Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine is considered historical fact.

 

[MustafaRasta]

Orange Crush:

I'll get back to you. I have some stuff going on through out though out the day but I wanted to at least hop in and acknowledge I read your posts.

That being said, I don't know what you would consider factual evidence as you are already quoting the bible which as I'll get to is no more factual than the Homer's iliad and odyssey.

I have the feeling we'll just go in circles if that's the case because I can say honestly that nothing you wrote in the last two posts even struck me as slightly convincing and I'm sure you see what you wrote as undeniable gospel, no pun intended.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Orange Crush:

I'll get back to you. I have some stuff going on through out though out the day but I wanted to at least hop in and acknowledge I read your posts.

Thank you. :hi:

That being said, I don't know what you would consider factual evidence as you are already quoting the bible which as I'll get to is no more factual than the Homer's iliad and odyssey.

I quoted the Bible at a theological level, not as a historical proof. I merely showed what the Christian worldview predicted of itself.

You smuggled another unsupported truth claim in there that I'll ask you to support-- namely that the Bible is not factual. I'll again ask you for evidence to that claim.

I have the feeling we'll just go in circles if that's the case because I can say honestly that nothing you wrote in the last two posts even struck me as slightly convincing and I'm sure you see what you wrote as undeniable gospel, no pun intended.

I never referenced the Bible as evidence-- just showed the internal consistency of the Christian worldview. I'm not much for circular reasoning. But, again, I'll need you to support the truth claims that you've made per:

The Bible is no more factual that Homer's Illiad/Odyssey

The gospels were written 150 years after the events they claim.

Christianity borrowed their Messiah from competing religions.

 

[MustafaRasta]

This is so littered with error that I question whether it's worth it to respond. That a man named Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine is considered historical fact.

No sorry. There are some historians like Bart Ehrman who wrote the book "Did Jesus really exist?" in which he tries to build a technical argument to his existence but to proclaim it's widely accepted is absurd. There is absolutely zero archeological evidence and the sources of the gospel are widely problematic as pointed out in Ehrman's own book.

 

[MustafaRasta]

Thank you. :hi:



I quoted the Bible at a theological level, not as a historical proof. I merely showed what the Christian worldview predicted of itself.

You smuggled another unsupported truth claim in there that I'll ask you to support-- namely that the Bible is not factual. I'll again ask you for evidence to that claim.



I never referenced the Bible as evidence-- just showed the internal consistency of the Christian worldview. I'm not much for circular reasoning. But, again, I'll need you to support the truth claims that you've made per:

The Bible is no more factual that Homer's Illiad/Odyssey

The gospels were written 150 years after the events they claim.

Christianity borrowed their Messiah from competing religions.

yes, no problem. I'm also going to attempt to do some reading in this thread and the evolution thread you mentioned to try and avoid making you repeat yourself and hopefully keep this conversation friendly.

 

[PKT_VOL]

That's actually a great thought. I guess it boils down to what you view as factual evidence based on history.

Christians believe that Jesus came to the earth and died for all humans. A Christians goal is to be as "christ-like" as possible (Striving for the goal that is ahead of us all). Along the time before Christ, and during, God inspired writers to record writings that we view as inspired word. They are not mans writings, but Gods words, and we believe them.

The basic flaw in atheism (in my opinion) is that there is no viable way the worlds exist without a Creator. Saying the world was made scientifically is like throwing paint at a blank sheet and the Mona Lisa appearing. It's just not possible. So, to me, knowing that the Bible offers the most believable creationism, I'm forced to believe the whole thing.

Now, obviously I was raised in the church, and most of our young lives we just accept it. But to me, I left the church for a long time. I was stupid and hated to believe in something that controlled my life. But I realized that's what I need. I tried to look at religion objectively. And what i realized is I need to have a guide in my life. God guides me. By his teachings I become a better man, a better son, a better brother, and a better human being.

I don't care if someone doesn't believe what I believe. I simply ask someone to look at two thousands years of Christianity (recorded not only by Christians, but by non-Christians alike) compared to the history of others or the absolute illogical gibberish by some.

I hope this post made sense and I made myself understandable.

1) The idea or notion of a creator of some kind (supernatural being) is very different than that of a personal God. They are not necessarily connected. Starting with the belief of a probably creator doesn't take anyone any logically closer to Christianity or any other religion.

2) At what level of reality does the existence of a possible creator cease to make a difference either way?

Most creationists will invoke the cosmological argument (unmoved/uncaused mover) to get that there would have to be creator. They often cite that even the Big Bang (assuming the theory isn't falsified) had to be caused by something; the creator. To me, the moment of the Big Bang does not represent a creator's work but merely a seemingly (at the present time) impermeable level of reality in which our ability to gain knowledge/information stops. The causal chain of the events do not necessarily stop at the Big Bang, especially when many physicists believe that our universe is not the only one and that our universe could have either came from another universe or collision of D-Branes.

Personally, I think the level of reality in which the existence of a possible creator ceases to make a difference is much lower than the Big Bang. We are a small watery blue planet circling an insignificant star, on the edge of one leg of massive spiral galaxy, in an observable universe consisting billions of galaxies with billions of billions of stars with their own planets. That is just in the observable part of the universe. Thus, my level of reality where the existence of a possible creator ceases to make a difference is at the level of the Milky Way.

3) What makes the stories of Genesis the "most believable creationism"? Could you not think of a story, unto yourself, that would make more sense to you personally? Or do you only consider stories which others think are divine?

4) Regardless of how you feel or answered in question three above, if you truly believe Genesis to be the "most believable creationism", what would force you to believe the rest of the OT or NT? Jews believe in Genesis but not the NT.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I'll take a stab at some of these and then probably follow up with what most will deem "TLDR" but will contain some points of my own and a few questions for you and yours.

Speaking for myself it doesn't bother me what people believe as long as it doesn't harm others. The problem that occurs though is that people of faith use their interpretation of whatever holy book their particular religion holds dear and use their interpretation and doctrine to try and affect social policy and or laws that govern us.

Not all atheists are alike and there are many empty headed atheists that have put little thought into why they don't believe in god so they can also be stupid and be made fun of for their own illogical beliefs.

So me personally; I grew up in church. I have two uncles that are preachers. I taught Sunday school, bible school and was also a camp counselor at a Christian summer camp. I am an atheist.

I remember it being quite hard when I first began to question, but now it's pretty easy. I wont go into why because in having these conversations with my religious family members on the regular I know that my reasons will come across as condescending.

So I have a few points to make and since I assume I'm dealing with Christians on this board I'll keep my focus on that particular religion.

Why do Christians constantly need affirmation and reinforcement in their faith from other Christians?
If you believe that god made the whole universe, knew you in your mothers womb before you were even born, sent his only son through an amazing set of circumstances to die for your sins ect ect..(not to diminish but no need for me to cover all the works and miracles of god and Jesus as listed in the bible) how can you ever even for an instance forget that>
I've never in my life, on a day when I've felt light on my feet or tossed a ball way up in the air for that matter ever doubted gravity. God is bigger than gravity right?

Secondly, for a group of people that believe in such an amazing thing there sure does seem to be a lot of disconnect. In so much as; there is so much as stake with what you state as your mantra yet there is less loyalty and dedication involved than many have for their favorite sports team.

Third,I find many Christians are severely lacking in having a knowledge or comprehension on how the bible was put together and how many contradictory and downright obscenely gross acts of genocide occur not only within its pages but by those who have promoted what those pages contain.

See its responses like this I wish all atheists had. I see your points. I have always had a problem with all of the different sects associated with Christianity. I do not think it was meant to be this way. Of course I could be wrong. But I feel like if you're a person who believes in God, why do you have to be a Methodist or Baptist or whatever?

I do not mind atheists questioning why I believe in God, thats fine. The problem occurs when atheists call belief in God as stupid or illogical. That somehow my belief is inferior to their non belief.

 

[Septic]

The problem occurs when atheists call belief in God as stupid or illogical.

Humor me.

Come up with a list of 5 reasons Zeus isn't the one true god.

Apply those reasons to your god.

Report back.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Humor me.

Come up with a list of 5 reasons Zeus isn't the one true god.

Apply those reasons to your god.

Report back.

You are one of the empty headed atheists. I don't need 5 reasons, I only need one. I believe and have faith that Jehovah is the one true God. I don't believe in Zeus. Do I think those whom believe in Zeus are stupid? Not at all.

 

[Roustabout]

No sorry. There are some historians like Bart Ehrman who wrote the book "Did Jesus really exist?" in which he tries to build a technical argument to his existence but to proclaim it's widely accepted is absurd. There is absolutely zero archeological evidence and the sources of the gospel are widely problematic as pointed out in Ehrman's own book.

That Jesus existed is widely accepted as a genuine historical fact. To state otherwise is absurd. Ehrman is a rabid atheist, so, why would he build a an argument to verify Jesus' existence?
The Case for Christianity: Part 1 - The Historicity of the Bible
http://www.theopedia.com/Historicity_of_the_New_Testament
Top Ten New Testament Archaeological Finds of the... | Christianity Today

 

[Roustabout]

Humor me.

Come up with a list of 5 reasons Zeus isn't the one true god.

Apply those reasons to your god.

Report back.

The myth never presents Zeus as omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, transcendent, immutable, nor possessing aseity.

Apply this formula to any pagan religion.
That leaves you with Islam and the Judeo/Christian God.
We already know that Islam is a perversion of the Judeo Christian God of the OT.

Next.

 

[Vol8188]

The myth never presents Zeus as omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, transcendent, immutable, nor possessing aseity.

Apply this formula to any pagan religion.
That leaves you with Islam and the Judeo/Christian God.
We already know that Islam is a perversion of the Judeo Christian God of the OT.

Next.

Or Santa. But it is impressive that you dismiss other gods, simply because they don't claim to have as many superpowers as your god.

I prefer to chose my deity off who knocks up the most mortal women. Your god only knocked up one girl, and she was so ugly no one else had ever touched her.

That's why I prey to either Zeus or Travis Henry. Depending on the mode.

 

[Roustabout]

1) The idea or notion of a creator of some kind (supernatural being) is very different than that of a personal God. They are not necessarily connected. Starting with the belief of a probably creator doesn't take anyone any logically closer to Christianity or any other religion.

ON the first part, I basically agree. On the second, I beg to differ.

2) At what level of reality does the existence of a possible creator cease to make a difference either way?

Are you saying that reality is knowable?

Most creationists will invoke the cosmological argument (unmoved/uncaused mover) to get that there would have to be creator. They often cite that even the Big Bang (assuming the theory isn't falsified) had to be caused by something; the creator. To me, the moment of the Big Bang does not represent a creator's work but merely a seemingly (at the present time) impermeable level of reality in which our ability to gain knowledge/information stops. The causal chain of the events do not necessarily stop at the Big Bang, especially when many physicists believe that our universe is not the only one and that our universe could have either came from another universe or collision of D-Branes.

The problem is that "belief" (multiverse) is not science but science fiction. If you have empirical evidence, do tell.

Personally, I think the level of reality in which the existence of a possible creator ceases to make a difference is much lower than the Big Bang. We are a small watery blue planet circling an insignificant star, on the edge of one leg of massive spiral galaxy, in an observable universe consisting billions of galaxies with billions of billions of stars with their own planets. That is just in the observable part of the universe. Thus, my level of reality where the existence of a possible creator ceases to make a difference is at the level of the Milky Way.

You are question begging. Insignificant based on what? If the universe is without a creator, then none of it is significant.

3) What makes the stories of Genesis the "most believable creationism"? Could you not think of a story, unto yourself, that would make more sense to you personally? Or do you only consider stories which others think are divine?

They invoke a beginning of space, time and matter. They present a God that is transcendent and timeless.

 

[MercyPercy]

My god can beat up your god.

 

[Roustabout]

Or Santa. But it is impressive that you dismiss other gods, simply because they don't claim to have as many superpowers as your god.

If patronizing makes you feel better so be it.
Based on what we KNOW about the cosmos, we have every reason to dismiss those others as the one TRUE God. He asked, I answered. Being created, temporal, etc. negates them as a viable CREATOR. It says something that when offered a reasonable, logical answer you refuse it.

 

[Vol8188]

If patronizing makes you feel better so be it.
Based on what we KNOW about the cosmos, we have every reason to dismiss those others as the one TRUE God. He asked, I answered. Being created, temporal, etc. negates them as a viable CREATOR. It says something that when offered a reasonable, logical answer you refuse it.

So no other religion in the world claims their god to be the creator? Are you positive of this?

 

[Roustabout]

So no other religion in the world claims their god to be the creator? Are you positive of this?

Did I say that? Uhhh, no.
Either you want an honest dialogue or you don't. Continually building strawmen to attack demonstrates an unwillingness to have such.
I said VIABLE creator based on what we KNOW about the cosmos and modern science. The Judeo/Christian OT presents a god that possesses the qualities essential to even hypothesize a creator. The others do NOT.

The objection you present is old, tired, and answered. I've given reasonable and logical reasons as to why it doesn't hold water. Yet, you continue to throw it up as if it is some zinger that creates a problem for our position. It doesn't, and you just end up looking silly by repeating the same error over and over.

 

[Septic]

The myth never presents Zeus as omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, transcendent, immutable, nor possessing aseity.

Apply this formula to any pagan religion.
That leaves you with Islam and the Judeo/Christian God.
We already know that Islam is a perversion of the Judeo Christian God of the OT.

Next.

So your argument is that your god 'is the toughest'.

Because the Bible tells you so, I presume?

Do you understand the term circular logic?

 

[Septic]

If patronizing makes you feel better so be it.
Based on what we KNOW about the cosmos, we have every reason to dismiss those others as the one TRUE God. He asked, I answered. Being created, temporal, etc. negates them as a viable CREATOR. It says something that when offered a reasonable, logical answer you refuse it.

Where was your reasonable, logical answer? All I see is assertions based on "feels".

Dismissing other gods because their SOP isn't as super duper is hardly a logical or reasonable offer.

 

[MercyPercy]

Did I say that? Uhhh, no.
Either you want an honest dialogue or you don't. Continually building strawmen to attack demonstrates an unwillingness to have such.
I said VIABLE creator based on what we KNOW about the cosmos and modern science. The Judeo/Christian OT presents a god that possesses the qualities essential to even hypothesize a creator. The others do NOT.

The objection you present is old, tired, and answered. I've given reasonable and logical reasons as to why it doesn't hold water. Yet, you continue to throw it up as if it is some zinger that creates a problem for our position. It doesn't, and you just end up looking silly by repeating the same error over and over.

So you rationalize your god over others by saying that the Christian god makes the most sense according to science.

Oh boy.

 

[PKT_VOL]

ON the first part, I basically agree. On the second, I beg to differ.

Why?

Are you saying that reality is knowable?

Depends on what you mean. I do not think absolute knowledge of the external can be achieved. I do think we can have (some) knowledge of the external.

The problem is that "belief" (multiverse) is not science but science fiction. If you have empirical evidence, do tell.

Not science fiction nor empirically proven.

You are question begging. Insignificant based on what? If the universe is without a creator, then none of it is significant.

Insignificant in the that it is just one planet circling one star, in one galaxy in a universe considering of billions of galaxies with billions of stars who have their own planets (just in the observable universe).

Having a creator or not having has nothing to do with significance.

They invoke a beginning of space, time and matter. They present a God that is transcendent and timeless.

That is the best possible story?

 

[PKT_VOL]

The myth never presents Zeus as omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, transcendent, immutable, nor possessing aseity.

What necessitates those qualities/characteristics?