|
God (pg. 37)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by chlola
I was meditating and I found God... (thankful) I was lost... but know I'm Found. :) |
I was meditating and I found Santa... (when I was 6) Same thing.
 |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
i just watched ben hur the other day.. ing love that movie!
so awesome. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
This never gets old.
 |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
This never gets old.
|
I've seen it a million times before but...
:stongue: |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Unless you have any evidence whatsoever, there's simply no use talking about it. |
It's in a way an argument in my direction. If you may not speak without evidence, anyone who believes in the alternative, ghosts and gods should remain silent.
- Not because I agree with that. I would like to hear peoples opinions and why they believe things without evidence.
| quote: | | Unless you'd also like to recognize why many theoretical physicists are extremely spiritual. :gsmile: |
I would then like to acknowledge why some are: They lack critical thinking in one area. Intelligence in terms of theoretical physics is not the same as intelligence regarding the spiritual. What you are trying to do here is called an appeal to authority - "An intelligent person believes x, therefore you should believe it to - or therefore it is Intelligent to believe it to". This is wrong and it is of course clearly revealed by the fact that many scientists are not believers, including the two greatest minds in recent times, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
What's the word on those writings from the historian Josephus (spelling?) that mention Jesus? I know it's fairly well-accepted that the addition of the words "who was called the Christ" were edited in by someone else, but what about the mention in the first place? |
Firstly, Josephus was born around year 37, after Jesus was supposed to be dead - and his book, Antiquitates Judaica, was written in the year 93 or 94 - Thus even farther off. Josephus therefore could not experience Jesus himself, and must have his stories from a different source - which quite likely could be a Christian who passed on the fictional story of Jesus.
- What we need in order to talk about historical evidence of Jesus' existence, are eyewitness accounts from historians or others who are not already believers in the story - and there are none. All stories about Jesus are written by people who lived after his death. In most cases, long after.
Secondly Josephus mentions the resurrection in his first passage - but Josephus himself was a jew to his death. If he really believed that Jesus was divine and resurrected, would he then not himself have been converted to the new Christianity? That part rather suggests that he was forced or pressured to write it, or that it is inserted into the text later. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Firstly, Josephus was born around year 37, after Jesus was supposed to be dead - and his book, Antiquitates Judaica, was written in the year 93 or 94 - Thus even farther off. Josephus therefore could not experience Jesus himself, and must have his stories from a different source - which quite likely could be a Christian who passed on the fictional story of Jesus.
- What we need in order to talk about historical evidence of Jesus' existence, are eyewitness accounts from historians or others who are not already believers in the story - and there are none. All stories about Jesus are written by people who lived after his death. In most cases, long after.
Secondly Josephus mentions the resurrection in his first passage - but Josephus himself was a jew to his death. If he really believed that Jesus was divine and resurrected, would he then not himself have been converted to the new Christianity? That part rather suggests that he was forced or pressured to write it, or that it is inserted into the text later. |
Cool, thanks. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
There is actually no evidence that Jesus ever lived as an ordinary, non-divine human either. Of course it is possible that a teacher/carpenter named Yeshu was around in Palestine shortly after the year 0, but there is no reason to believe it. |
I'm sorry but the argument that there is no physical evidence or contemporary written accounts of Jesus as a historical figure equates to no reason to believe such a person existed shows very narrow thinking. It stands to reason that there would be nothing written about him in his life time, as during his lifetime he would have been a largely insigificant person... a working class person (note: tekton means maker of things, not necessarally carpenter... in fact carpenter is unlikely as that would have been a middle class occupation at the time and Jesus was most certainly a working class person), teaching to working class people, over a period of roughly three years, and doing nothing that would attract the attention of anyone until causing a slight disturbance in the temple and being executed for same a couple of days later. He was a wondering teacher in a time of wondering teachers. He would not have been viewed as anything special to his contemporaries other then those that actually followed him. Given that there were no news papers, and few of the people that paid any mind to this particular wondering teacher would have known how to write it only stands to reason that there would be no contemporary physical record. Hell, Pontius Pilate was one of the most powerful people in region and there has only been one contempory physical record of his existance found. It would be shocking if there was contemporary physical evidence of this person.
If nothing else the Jesus of the bible is a character of legend, legends are often based on some truth... in this case I would suggest that it's reasonable to assume there was a wondering teacher in Galalie and Judea by the name Yeshua in the first half of the first century CE. I would also suggest it is probable that he was executed. Most scholars would agree with that. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
I don't doubt that there was a "jesus" somewhere around 2000 years ago.
On the other hand, when he was recognized as being divine... Thats a bit hard to figure out, and it was probably most likely after his death. His death was used as martyrdom and as a way to gain followers to a religion that opposed the Romans.
Telling people with little to no clue on anything beyond their plot of land that the Romans killed the son of God is a pretty good way to get people to follow you... :p
The idea of his virgin birth, mother mary, etc, all were formed as part of the cult of personality around him after his death. Its almost the same as North Koreans believing that the dear leader was born on a mountain top and is divine himself... :p You get a bunch of people that have no idea about the world outside of what they have been told by people in much higher power and its easy to control them. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I don't doubt that there was a "jesus" somewhere around 2000 years ago.
On the other hand, when he was recognized as being divine... Thats a bit hard to figure out, and it was probably most likely after his death. His death was used as martyrdom and as a way to gain followers to a religion that opposed the Romans.
Telling people with little to no clue on anything beyond their plot of land that the Romans killed the son of God is a pretty good way to get people to follow you... :p
The idea of his virgin birth, mother mary, etc, all were formed as part of the cult of personality around him after his death. Its almost the same as North Koreans believing that the dear leader was born on a mountain top and is divine himself... :p You get a bunch of people that have no idea about the world outside of what they have been told by people in much higher power and its easy to control them. |
Hard to say exactly when he became believed to be divine. There is a pretty clear bent in the teachings ascribed to him that much of what he was teaching was that there is divinity in all people. Whether people at the time thought he was god/part of god/son of god is hard to say; however, Paul refers to him as the son of god in several letters (not through conception mind you but through being chosen by god to be born again in resurection). Given that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus (although never met him) and was introduced to Christianity through Peter it is fair to conclude that Jesus' closest compatriates believed him to be divine.
While your argument that telling people Rome killed the messiah would act as good fodder to get people to join in an uprising against Rome makes sence it actually stands in stark opposition to historical fact. The Christians were largely neutral in the Jewish rebellions against Rome (granted; it is probable that many Christians who had converted from Judism sided with the Jews whereas many of the Gentiles would have stayed non-commital... the early church - such as it were - as a whole did not choose sides). In addition, the gospels shifted the blame for the execution of Jesus to the Jews rather then the Romans... Mark (the earliest and likely writen before or during the Jewish rebellion) does not suggest blame on either side and simply reports that he was turned over to Rome by the Jews and executed by Rome; whereas, John (writen 15-30 years later) goes so far as to say Pilate and Jesus had a theological discussion and Pilate urges the Jews to let him go (and flat out blames them for his execution). So while I see how your suggestion could make sense it stands in direct opposition to the fact that early Christianity was not a revolutionary movement.
With regard to the virgin birth; more than anything it is likely this evolved due to the influence of Greek mythology and a misinterpretation of Matthew and Luke in which the greek word used to describe Mary can be interpreted to latin as either virgin or young woman. One thing that is certain; however, is that early Christian tradition considered Jesus to be born of human parents through the normal means not a human mother and divine father. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Paul refers to him as the son of god in several letters |
The phrase "son of god" had multiple meanings in Jewish culture. It actually appears several times in the old testament to refer to other people such as kings or other military rulers, and obviously nobody back then took it literally to mean that God had a child. It was just an exalted title to emphasize the importance of someone. |
|
|
|
|
