Apostates of Islam

[Hueij]

admit I am inclined to believe there was...

But that's the whole problem. It' s a question of belief.

If the gospels are an accurate description of what really took place then there must be some hard evidence of it. After all, according to the NT, some weird sh!t happened and there is no way that there wouldn't be any first hand accounts.

[Dr Strangelove]

How thorough could the written documentation of the daily goings on in 1st century Judea be anyway? Wasn't there widespread destruction during the revolt of 70AD? Surely the Zealot rebels didn't painstakingly preserve the Roman records in liberated Jerusalem. In fact they may have had been more likely to destroy as many of those documents as possible. Furthermore the letters of Paul and the book of "Acts" makes it pretty clear that there was a concerted effort to eradicate the new religion in and around the vicinity of Jerusalem after Jesus' death, so one might wonder if there was a sufficient Christian persence in the area to warrant documentation at the time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I admit I am inclined to believe there was a historical person named Jesus but I recognize Boris's claim that there is very little in the way of physical evidience. Of course one would expect that of a poor fisherman who later claims he's the son of a deity and who is executed by the state but still.

I'm inclined to believe there was an historical basis for Jesus, just as there was for Noah's Flood. But I think the relationship between the accounts we have in the Bible and reality are about the same as the relationship between the legends of King Arthur and that reality. I think he's probably a composite character drawn from a number of sources.

[Dinner]

I don't believe any super natural crap happened. I'm talking about a person named Jesus existed and then his followers just made up the super natural bits after his death since their livelyhood depended upon other people believing the lie.

[Boris Godunov]

I know you don't believe the supernatural "crap," but I find your version much less likely.

[Dinner]

We do know that supporting charactors existed. Pontius Pilot, Herrod or what ever that Jewish King's name was, etc. That doesn't prove Jesus exitied but it does show that at worst this is historical fiction or it just might be talking about the basic outline of events concerning a 1st century religious cultist.

[chequita guevara]

Some of the supporting characters in King Authur also existed.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by beingofone


I am glad we can agree that Rome and Caesar existed.

Are you sure ?

Which infallible holy book are you using for reference with regards to the existence of Rome and Caesar ?

Bear in mind, you were the one who said there was more 'evidence' for the existence of the biblical 'historical' Jesus than there was for the historical Julius Caesar.

(By the way- Caesar's existence is attested to not only by his own writings, which curiously your sources for his non-existence seem to be unaware of, but also by contemporaries of his, including not only his successor, but also his political enemies and military enemies. Not bad going for a guy that's supposed only to vaguely be real)


You simply blithely ignore the lack of proof of independent contemporaneous testimony to the events as described in the New Testament- ignoring also of course that those texts have been through revision and aren't necessarily eye witness testimonies.

Little things like the complete lack of evidence for the supposed Herodian massacre of the innocents, the part that religious (and political propaganda) might play in furthering the cause of the new Jewish/Hellenized Jewish sects never seems to occur to you as introducing the slightest element of doubt in what you take to be the equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or the Domesday Book . It wasn't, and it isn't.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I'm inclined to believe there was an historical basis for Jesus, just as there was for Noah's Flood. But I think the relationship between the accounts we have in the Bible and reality are about the same as the relationship between the legends of King Arthur and that reality. I think he's probably a composite character drawn from a number of sources.

ok, than how do you explain the fact that in the lifetime of people who knew Him, there were accounts written about Him

you think that pretty much all jews (and even some of the others) would read the early accounts, and say WTF if such a person flat out didn't exist

face it, while it is reasonable to think that there are exaggerations and the like, it is flat out idiotic to think that He didn't exist (there is more evidence for Christ's existence than for Socrates)

JM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


ok, than how do you explain the fact that in the lifetime of people who knew Him, there were accounts written about Him

Holy books of Christians support the view that their god existed- shock news.

[Jon Miller]

no, the point is that if I started a religion and writing stories about a woman named Christefia who lived in Puerto Rico and did all these great things in the 60s, I think that a lot of people who point out that she never even existed, much less did those great things (my mom could for example) because they were alive at the time

while you can in general exagerate, you can't totally make up events that ahve no truth in them

JM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


while you can in general exagerate, you can't totally make up events that ahve no truth in them

Right. So how many other gods do you believe in?

Wotan ? Vishnu ? Llir ? Baal ? Marduk ?

Do you believe in the historical 'reality' of dragons ?


How about 'miracles' ? Bilocation ?


Truth is frequently what people make it, especially with religions and cults. If the religion gets to be powerful enough so that it becomes the power behind the state, then anything can be the truth- especially if 'truth' is identified with orthodoxy and the punishment for ignoring or contradicting the 'truth' is punishment or death.


Interesting isn't it, that the exodus from Egypt after the supposed visitation of biblical plagues upon Egypt seems to have been unnoticed or ignored by the Egyptians.

Did they simply miss out on the frogs, and blood and deaths of their firstborns ? Perhaps they were too busy worshipping their gods, who judging by your views also have a claim to historical reality.

[Jon Miller]

I am not talking about the OT

and I agree that things get more uncertain the farther back you go

but for dragons and all those other gods, there is no dated written word from within 40 years of the circumstances in question

JM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am not talking about the OT

but for dragons and all those other gods, there is no dated written word from within 40 years of the circumstances in question

How on earth do you know ?

When Hindus talk about avatars of Vishnu and Shiva appearing on earth, how do you know they aren't talking about contemporaneous events ?


Even if we restrict it to supposedly contemporaneous reports of divinities or prophets, then you would have to allow that Muhammad is also 'correct', and Mani and the Sikhs, and the Mazdakites and the Buddhists and so on.

You don't seem to understand that the New Testament as it exists, is there through revision and selection. It wasn't and isn't the equivalent of Time magazine or Picture Post and the idea of its literal truth is a relatively recent development (really taking off from the 17th Century onwards).

It's propaganda, as well as being a selection of moral texts. What it isn't, is objective reportage of historical events.

[Jon Miller]

I am actually not away of all Hindus religious texts, so I won't comment on those

and I do beleive int he existence of Muhammad

we aren't dicussing whether or not the NT is correct, but whether or not there was a person who existed

and I don't argue that Bhuddah didn't exist either

you don't seem to understand that the books that exist today, existed in ~100 AD (and before, if we find pieces of tehm that date to than)

in fac,t I am not arguing even that it is not propaganda

so I am left with the conclusion that you are an idiot, and not worth my time

JM