Why dosent God just pop up and say "Hi"

[Boris Godunov]

If you believe in a god of some sort, you are a theist. If, hypothetically, the Christian god is untrue, is there no other alternative?

[Zylka]

My point in spades!

[Boris Godunov]

Vishnu is calling! OoooOOOOoooooh Vishnuuuuuu!

[Zylka]

Can Vishnu prescribe tylenol 3s? ...because these migraines aren't fun

[Boris Godunov]

I believe Vishnu is now copyrighted by Bayer, so tough luck.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Because he has been bored with this world and moved on to something else ?

I know it's late in the Thread, but personally I like Spiffor's theory.

[Ben Kenobi]

Back from vacation.

I'm most saddened by Cavebear's tack on the issue.

The "mystery of the absence of Jesus's body in the vault" can be easily explained by suggesting that Jesus never really existed in the first place. There is not one single piece of evidence for his existence.

Go here, cavebear. Lots of extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Christ of Nazareth.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

Rebutting that point, I'd like to move onto Boris:

There are no eye witness accounts, nothing but writings that were made decades after the supposed events.

*ahem*

When did Tacitus write his annals? The synoptic Gospels based on eyewitness testimony were written around 55-60 BC, a mere 20-25 years after the events occured. To fake such an event would be impossible because there would be many people alive who witnessed the event. This is substantial evidence in favour of the historicity of the Gospels.

(most "criminals" who were crucified by the Romans were buried in public pits, anyway).

Most may have been, but not Christ. The Gospels record his body as being placed in the grave, and why he got the grave of Joseph of Arimathea

The Bible itself offers conflicting accounts of the Resurrection, so it is hard to take it seriously.

Details.

God has obviously not provided adequate evidence, or else there wouldn't be such debate over it!

Assumes that people are always logical, and perceive things properly. That's a big assumption. People are most definitely not logical, and will not see what is in front of their face.

"They will be ever seeing, though not understanding."

There are enough translations that attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text that being a scholar isn't necessary.

That's an awful big leap of faith. At least you admit that you trust a source based on nothing but a 'attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text.'

It drops whole versus from the original texts. How is that explicable?

With the note:

'Not found on the earliest manuscripts.'

At least they show what they are doing up front!

As for Christians supposed to be perfect, to emulate Christ.

Matthew 5:48
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

From Christ himself. Pretty authoritative as to what Christians should believe.

Seeking a purpose in life need not hinge on believing in deities or the like.

But curiosity does. I am, by nature, a curious person, and I want to understand how best the world works. To do so, you need God.

[Ben Kenobi]

jack

There is no reason to assume that Matthew and Luke are independent sources. In fact, Biblical scholars regard both as being derived from Mark and the Q sayings gospel. It is interesting to note that neither Mark nor John include the Nativity.

Only question that actually pertains to the question at hand. As for the others:

When do you believe Isaiah was written, and why? You never gave a direct answer.

Now onto the first question. Mark and John didn't see the need to go over earlier information.

Matthew and Luke were not independent sources, then we would expect more of the little details to be the same. Looking over the respective Gospels, we see that the two accounts of the nativity agree on the important points, yet take two different perspectives of the event.

While not entirely independent, the differences in the two testimonies indicates that the Gospel writers rely on different sources for their testimonies.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Go here, cavebear. Lots of extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Christ of Nazareth.

http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

The Josephus articles are widely regarded as later additions by Christians, as I'm sure you're aware.

"Yeshua" was hanged, not crucified. The Jewish custom of the time was to stone heretics and then hang the body from a tree. So the name isn't quite right, and his fate isn't right either. Otherwise, yes, this is about as close as any source ever gets to "independent evidence for Jesus".

Thallus is a third-hand account of a mysterious darkness which happened at an unspecified time. It is likely that he was referring to the total eclipse of November 29 AD, and this may also be the origin of the Christian "darkness" (which is only mentioned in Luke, possibly because other authors knew that the date was completely wrong).

The other sources don't count, because they confirm only that the Christians believed in the existence of Jesus, not that he actually did exist: the historians don't claim to be eyewitnesses. This is hardly news.

So there is no independent confirmation of the existence of Jesus, other than the possibility that he was the dissident "Yeshua" who was stoned and hanged, not crucified.

The synoptic Gospels based on eyewitness testimony were written around 55-60 BC, a mere 20-25 years after the events occured.

Where are you getting those dates from, and where is the supporting evidence? Nobody knows when the gospels were written! Suggested dates range from 65 AD (Mark) into the following century.

To fake such an event would be impossible because there would be many people alive who witnessed the event. This is substantial evidence in favour of the historicity of the Gospels.

Circular reasoning, you're assuming it happened. If the event did not happen, there would be no eyewitnesses. Hence, no contradictory accounts: as the gospels don't even specify which year Jesus was crucified in, everyone who failed to remember seeing him crucified could simply assume they missed it. Only a small handful of people would know that it didn't happen at all: and are you really surprised that their accounts weren't included in the gospels?

(most "criminals" who were crucified by the Romans were buried in public pits, anyway).

Most may have been, but not Christ. The Gospels record his body as being placed in the grave, and why he got the grave of Joseph of Arimathea

Why wouldn't the Romans toss his body into a pit? "Because the gospels say otherwise" is not a satisfactory answer.

When do you believe Isaiah was written, and why? You never gave a direct answer.

Because I don't know. But you have still not explained why this is relevant.

I have already pointed out that Isaiah reads as if it was written after the events described therein. It describes a claimed prophecy, then later describes its fulfilment.

When citing prophecies as evidence of the supernatural authorship of the Bible, the burden of proof is always on the person making the supernatural claim. If I find an old magazine article describing the events of September 11th 2001, but the article isn't dated: which is more likely, that the article was written after the event, or that it was a "true prophecy"?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Go here, cavebear. Lots of extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Christ of Nazareth.

Lots? Not exactly. Notice only Josephus and the Talmud are making direct references to the actions of Jesus. Josephus was, once again, written decades after the supposed events took place.

Given its variance from the Biblical account, the Talmud seems to support the theory I posited of Jesus being a composite character, of which "Yeshua" would be a part.

This is very scant evidence for such supposedly tumultuous and earth-shaking events.

*ahem*

When did Tacitus write his annals?

In 109 CE, over 70 years after the supposed events. Mentioning Tacitus and Pliny as proof of Jesus existing is a huge stretch. Pliny says only that Christians worshiped a god named Christ, which was pretty self-evident.

Tacitus is most often cited, which is funny, because it's so incredibly weak. Look at the context--Tacitus was giving a history of Emperor Nero and the events surrounding the Great Fire and its aftermath. It is for this reason he mentions the sect called Christians, who were (as we know from Seutonius) one of MANY sects persecuted by Nero as blame for the fire. Tacitus only mentions "Christos" to explain who the Christians were and that their belief was considered a superstition.

First, we have no reason to believe Tacitus was doing anything more than reciting what he was told by Christians or those who knew of them. The historicity of there actually being a "Christos" was completely inconsequentual to the passage. Second, we know Tacitus exaggerates the crimes of Nero because of his strong anti-Imperial bias. Seutonius and other historians flatly contradict his assertion that people were used as human torches, fed to the lions, etc. Seutonius was quite, quite harsh in his criticism for and dislike of Nero, but Tacitus seems to have gone a step further into inventing things. This is just one of several incidences in his writings which modern historians believe are inaccurate.

There is also a lot of speculation that the passage itself is fraudulent, but I haven't seen much to support that claim.

The synoptic Gospels based on eyewitness testimony were written around 55-60 BC, a mere 20-25 years after the events occured. To fake such an event would be impossible because there would be many people alive who witnessed the event. This is substantial evidence in favour of the historicity of the Gospels.

Jack already disposed of this. The first gospel we know of was Mark, written c. 65-70 CE That's 35-40 years after the supposed events, if the events even happened in c. 30 CE. You claim they are based on eyewitness testimony, but there isn't a shred of evidence to support that assertion. The best anyone has done is cite the phrase in John wherein he claims to be a witness, but this self-referential (therefore unsubstantiated) and seems to be fraudulent, as the earliest manuscripts of John do NOT feature this phrase. John has been dated by theolgoians to c. 110 CE, making it the work of an eyewitness to the events pretty unlikely

[QUOTE] Most may have been, but not Christ. The Gospels record his body as being placed in the grave, and why he got the grave of Joseph of Arimathea [/UOTE]

Again, self-referential claims don't amount to corroborating evidence.

Details.

How many women came to the sepulchre? Whom did they meet in the tomb (how many)?

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance? Where did he first appear? Did Mary Magdelene recognize Jesus when she saw him? Or did he appear to her at all?

How many disciples did he appear to? Were they glad to see him, or terrified? Where did Jesus tell them to go?

Were people allowed to touch Jesus before he ascended to heaven? Where did Jesus ascend?

Assumes that people are always logical, and perceive things properly. That's a big assumption. People are most definitely not logical, and will not see what is in front of their face.

This reminds me...why does Jesus speak in parables?

That's an awful big leap of faith. At least you admit that you trust a source based on nothing but a 'attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text.'

Of course, we must rely on such things. But considering the NIV is virtually alone among translations with much of the stuff it comes up with, and theologians overwhelmingly find it less-than-reliable, I will have to reject it in favor of translations that are more consistent.

With the note:

'Not found on the earliest manuscripts.'

At least they show what they are doing up front!

Do they substantiate that? You'll note one of the links I provided showed that the NIV was relying on texts that have been showed to be flawed. The other sources also pointed out the problems with it. No response?

As for Christians supposed to be perfect, to emulate Christ.

Matthew 5:48
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

From Christ himself. Pretty authoritative as to what Christians should believe.

But you acknowledge it is impossible for a person to be perfect, so why the guilt over not being so? Seems so unneccessary.

But curiosity does. I am, by nature, a curious person, and I want to understand how best the world works. To do so, you need God.

Malarky. I can't be curious because I don't believe in God? Thanks for telling me how I must think!

I have plenty of curiosity into how the universe works, how men interact and why we do what we do, etc. None of that is reliant on belief in a god.

[Ben Kenobi]

In 109 CE, over 70 years after the supposed events. Mentioning Tacitus and Pliny as proof of Jesus existing is a huge stretch.

Boris:

Using your standard, whom do we have proof of in this period of time?

Jack already disposed of this. The first gospel we know of was Mark, written c. 65-70 CE That's 35-40 years after the supposed events, if the events even happened in c. 30 CE.

There are other authorities that cite different dates, but 65-70 is fine by me so long as the synoptics are dated before the fall of Jerusalem.

35-40 years is unprecendented for any work that we have from this time period, for any historical work that we still have.

Questions in turn:

How many women came to the sepulchre?

Luke 24: 2

"They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered,"

John only mentions Mary Magdelene.

So now a contradiction? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Whom did they meet in the tomb (how many)?

Luke mentions two, while Mark and Matthew only mention the one. There are other examples where they mention the spokesperson, while omitting the others.

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?

Luke first mentions the road to Emmaus, Matthew the other women on the road. John and Mark mention Mary Magdelene.

Consensus places the appearance to Mary Magdelene as the first resurrection appearance.

Did Mary Magdelene recognize Jesus when she saw him? Or did he appear to her at all?

He appeared to her, Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus. She was not the only one who did not immediately recognise Jesus, BTW.

Matthew 28:1-5 are not along a linear timeline, as he has the stone rolling away and then cuts back to the resurrection appearance to the women.

How many disciples did he appear to?
11, at different times. 8 different appearances.

Were they glad to see him, or terrified?
Some were, some weren't.


Where did Jesus tell them to go?


Preach to everyone all over the Earth.


Were people allowed to touch Jesus before he ascended to heaven?

He asks Thomas to touch him, so yes.


Where did Jesus ascend?


Heaven. Skyward and Heaven are not mutually exclusive.

Malarky. I can't be curious because I don't believe in God? Thanks for telling me how I must think!

Now you know how I felt when you made your point about complicated life philosophies. Not fun, eh?

But you acknowledge it is impossible for a person to be perfect, so why the guilt over not being so? Seems so unneccessary.

Guilt helps you improve. Why improve if being rotten is good enough?

As for the NIV v. the KJV:

It makes a big difference whether the person looking into the issue is a Christian or not. I'd rather set aside this question, and work on these more pertinent ones.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jack:

Circular reasoning, you're assuming it happened. If the event did not happen, there would be no eyewitnesses. Hence, no contradictory accounts: as the gospels don't even specify which year Jesus was crucified in, everyone who failed to remember seeing him crucified could simply assume they missed it. Only a small handful of people would know that it didn't happen at all: and are you really surprised that their accounts weren't included in the gospels?

Assuming the event never happened, sounds like circular reasoning again.

I do not assume that the event happened, I'm looking at some of the surrounding events.

Did Peter preach at Pentecost? The only evidence that we have suggests that he did. We are bound to respect the evidence we have available over the evidence that does not exist.

Do we have some extra-biblical evidence that Christ existed? Yes. Is some of the evidence questionable? Yes. But we have some evidence, that would be considered sufficient if used in any other circumstance for any other historical personage.

Now, according to the biblical account of the resurrection, are there any reasons to believe that few heard the message? The Jewish authorities surely would have produced the body to crush the dissidents, if they could They themselves admit that they could not.

Explain the apostles! Explain how the church grew to become the church that we see today, if everything were based on a lie? Why believe?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:

Using your standard, whom do we have proof of in this period of time?

Plenty of people. Paul, for instance. My standards aren't that strident. For any person of such a monumental significance as Jesus, I'd expect at least one of these things:

1) Their own writings (none for JC)
2) Contemporary documents mentioning them (none for JC)
3) Contemporary first-hand eyewitness accounts (none for JC)
4) Even later first-hand accounts (none for JC)

Those aren't hard standards to meet, I believe. Not for the supposed Son of God.

There are other authorities that cite different dates, but 65-70 is fine by me so long as the synoptics are dated before the fall of Jerusalem.

But there is no evidence they all were. Matthew, Luke and John were all written after the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew and Luke c. 90 CE, John c. 110-130 CE.

35-40 years is unprecendented for any work that we have from this time period, for any historical work that we still have.

It's not unprecedented for first-hand, corroborating documentary evidence. You'll note that reliable histories from this period (like Tacitus or Seutonius) were based on diligence and documentary support.

I find it hard to believe the author of John could be said to have been dilligent when he makes the rather egregious error of saying Jesus and his followers were banned from the synagogues, when this would clearly not have been the case.

How many women came to the sepulchre?

Luke 24: 2

"They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered,"

John only mentions Mary Magdelene.

So now a contradiction? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

John says one. Matthew says two. Mark says three. Luke says five (or more). You don't think the word of God would be consistent?

Speaking of this, the stone... Luke says they found the tomb open, but Matthew says they see an angel come down, move the stone and sit on it. Is this consistent?

Whom did they meet in the tomb (how many)?

Luke mentions two, while Mark and Matthew only mention the one. There are other examples where they mention the spokesperson, while omitting the others.

And where were they? Matthew says one, outside the tomb on the door. In Mark they have to enter to see the man. Luke and John say two inside the tomb. So we now have three in the mix.

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance?

Luke first mentions the road to Emmaus, Matthew the other women on the road. John and Mark mention Mary Magdelene.

Consensus places the appearance to Mary Magdelene as the first resurrection appearance.

Matthew says the two Marys. Mark and John both say only Mary Magdelene. Luke says Cleopas and another. 1 Corinthians says Cephas!

Did Mary Magdelene recognize Jesus when she saw him? Or did he appear to her at all?

He appeared to her, Mary did not immediately recognise Jesus. She was not the only one who did not immediately recognise Jesus, BTW.

Matthew 28:1-5 are not along a linear timeline, as he has the stone rolling away and then cuts back to the resurrection appearance to the women.

Luke doesn't say Mary Magdelane saw him, and then says in 23:24 that it was the two angels who told her of the resurrection, and then she tells the disciples. No mention of her seeing him. Odd thing to omit, eh? Especially since, according to Matthew, Jesus appears to her on her way to tell the disciples.

That you would claim Matthew isn't linear in this regard is bizarre, though. It clearly states they leave the sepulchre, and then Jesus appears to them. Are you saying the stone rolling was after they saw the resurrected Jesus?

How many disciples did he appear to?
11, at different times. 8 different appearances.

John says 10, Matthew, Mark and Luke say 11, 1 Corinthians says 12 (the new Cephas).

Were they glad to see him, or terrified?
Some were, some weren't.

Source? Luke says they were (as a group) terrified. John says they were (as a group) glad. Neither says some were this, some were that. Matthew also says they first see him on a mountain in Galilee, but the other three in a room in Jerusalem.

Where did Jesus tell them to go?


Preach to everyone all over the Earth.

I meant precisely where to go!

In Matthew and Mark, he tells the women to tell them to go to Galilee. Luke and Acts has him telling them to stay in Jerusalem.

Were people allowed to touch Jesus before he ascended to heaven?

He asks Thomas to touch him, so yes.

According to John, Jesus won't let Mary Magdelene touch him, saying "I am not yet ascended to the Father." But he lets Thomas and others touch him. Was he lying to Mary to get away from her cooties, or was she somehow tainted and less worthy than Thomas to touch him?

Where did Jesus ascend?


Heaven. Skyward and Heaven are not mutually exclusive.

No no no. At what locality did he ascend? Luke says Bethany, Acts says Mt. Olivet.

Now you know how I felt when you made your point about complicated life philosophies. Not fun, eh?

Huh? What I said isn't remotely comparable. I said that I, personally, do not feel the need for a complicated life philosophy. I didn't say that anyone who doesn't believe what I believe is incapable of curiosity/introspection/etc.

Guilt helps you improve. Why improve if being rotten is good enough?

Making mistakes and recognizing them and seeking to rectify them makes one improve--why does guilt have to be associated with it? Or do you believe we can only recognize mistakes through guilt? I don't think so. My moral conscience is not based on avoiding guilt for doing wrong, but seeking good things for doing right.

As for the NIV v. the KJV:

It makes a big difference whether the person looking into the issue is a Christian or not. I'd rather set aside this question, and work on these more pertinent ones.

I agree, but that's because I think Christians will be more prone to glossing over the inconsistencies and bad things to suit their worldview (which is what I see in the NIV). But I'm happy to drop the subject...provided we can agree to use the KJV as our reference for the text. The NIV is controversial enough that we should drop it.

Oh, two more questions (you didn't answer my one about the parables) relating to the Old Testament:

What day of the month did Nebuchadnezzar enter Jerusalem?

Who was king of Babylon when it fell and the Jews were able to leave?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Oh we need some



what's the point of all the fact proofing? God either exists or does not irrelevant of the factual exactness in the Bible or some other holy book...

after all Bible was written by people, and not as a impeccable historical reference to events... my opinion anyway, these factual marathons happen rather too often, one side wants to subsidize its faith by proofing existance of "it all makes sense scenario", and the other finds fun, or convinces itself that they are right in believing that there is no God by "proving" that there are written inconsistancies in the accounts...

It just doesn't work that way

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
God either exists or does not irrelevant of the factual exactness in the Bible or some other holy book...

after all Bible was written by people, and not as a impeccable historical reference to events...

That's the point of the entire argument...showing that the Bible is not infallible.