Care to explain what you mean? The world is full of things that haven't been figured out, or science is trying to figure out.
Why is that?
Generally the evidence which exists that proves Jesus existed, can link you to the evidence of divinity.
Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Darkblade
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Generally the evidence which exists that proves Jesus existed, can link you to the evidence of divinity.
Not really. There isn't really a way to objectively prove the divinity of anyone or anything, because it requires faith, which is inherently subjective. As I've said in other threads, faith is illogical, because at some point you have to suspend disbelief and step away from objectivity to believe in the supernatural. So proving that a person named Jesus (or Jeshua, or Christus, or Chrestus) existed in Galilee/Judea during the first century is completely separate from proving that not only did that person exist, but he was a divine being as well.
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
That's actually totally not true. There really isn't any good evidence at all. At all.
Except for accommodating Christians, there's no reason for a person with an interest in history to concede that Jesus probably existed. That's just laziness.
Any references to Jesus made by historians, such as Josephus, is questionable at best, and totally discredited at worst.
Citation needed.
If you look at history, any time we have ever thought that a phenomena would have a supernatural cause, we've been wrong. The world has, without exception, been seen to be purely natural, and there is simply no reason at all to think that there will be an exception to that.
Last edited:
Which is circular, if you ask me. Whether objectivity exists or not, we are still subjective - if objectivity exists, we are subjective because we'll probably exist outside of it. If objectivity doesn't exist, we're also subjective.
I don't follow.
But if God exists and is divine, why can't Jesus also be divine?
Himeno-Pretear
Banned
there is documented evidence that there was a jesus, there is no evidence of him being actually that special and no proof of the miracles he performed...
somebody once asked me if i believed in god. it was probablya wind-up but its a good question. do i believe in god? that somebody made all this happen for a reason, that theres something waiting for us after all this crap? i dont know. id like to be able to say "of course" just as much as id like to say "Absolutely not" theres good evidence on both sides of the argument. good people die for nothing, little children go hungry, horrible diseases remain uncured and evil people hold power. but then i have my brother, the one person who can help me makje sense of life and above all else enjoy it. i have shaun, so is there a god? sorry to dodge the question but i just dont know
somebody once asked me if i believed in god. it was probablya wind-up but its a good question. do i believe in god? that somebody made all this happen for a reason, that theres something waiting for us after all this crap? i dont know. id like to be able to say "of course" just as much as id like to say "Absolutely not" theres good evidence on both sides of the argument. good people die for nothing, little children go hungry, horrible diseases remain uncured and evil people hold power. but then i have my brother, the one person who can help me makje sense of life and above all else enjoy it. i have shaun, so is there a god? sorry to dodge the question but i just dont know
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
Yeah, from the Big Lewbowski. I would love to see that documented evidence! If you can link it, please do.
Citation needed.
... There's no evidence on either side, let alone good evidence. Again, I would really like to see how you think there's evidence for a heaven or a hell! Citation needed.
Shaun is not evidence of a God. Shaun is evidence of a Shaun.
Pliny the Younger. Tacitus. Suetonius. Mara bar Sarapion. The Qur'an. The Talmud. The Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a good amount of evidence. Again, none if it absolutely conclusive, but enough to point to it being likely that Jesus existed during that time period.
Emyunoxious said:
I have a degree in History.
Emyunoxious said:
The majority of scholars accept the authenticity of Josephus' passages and references to Jesus' brother James. If they can accept the validity of his brother, certainly they can accept the validity of the man himself.
Emyunoxious said:
That's a very arrogant little catchphrase you have there.
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
First of all, thank you for taking the time to cite your sources! Second of all, let's take a look at them.
Pliny the Younger lived from 61 AD – ca. 112 AD and wrote only about the Christians, in reference to their worship of a figure called Christ. This does not have anything to do with adding to the historicity of Jesus.
Tacitus lived from c. 56–c. 117. Same deal.
Suetonius, c. 69–140, wrote about Jews inciting riots due to the influence of a figure, Chrestus. It is disputed whether this is referring to Jesus at all, as, I'm sure you're aware, Jews don't actually follow Jesus.
Mara was from the 3rd century and simply wrote that the Jews killed a wise king. Now, unless you're Mel Gibson, that doesn't really sound like Jesus at all. There's a wild amount of controversy over connecting this writing to Jesus.
The Qu'ran is a religious text with a figure, Isa, that is not crucified, and instead ascends to heaven. This completely contradicts almost all other references made to a historical Jesus.
The Talmud... Are you referring to the story of Yeshu? Because other than the name, the two characters have nothing in common.
All the Dead Sea Scrolls add to the historicity of the Gospels is that it shows that the Gospels depict customs common the the time in which they supposedly portray, and not some later time. This... really doesn't help at all. I don't know why you thought it would.
I have a degree in History.
Excellent! Then you must be familiar with everything I said above. Help me, then: After all that, how is it you can still say there is anything even approaching convincing evidence that Jesus probably existed?
From Wikipedia (I know, I know):
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage [that refers to Jesus], and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe.
Yes, it is.
Last edited:
Their worship of a figure called Christ. Christ. Why does that sound familiar?
Emyu said:
Same response.
Emyu said:
Jews today don't follow Jesus. Jews in the first century did follow Jesus, as Jesus was a Jew, and a Rabbi. Remember the piece of parchment that was, according to the story, nailed to Jesus' cross? I.N.R.I, which translated reads "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews?" Also, I generally subscribe to the version of Jesus' history wherein the Essene sect wanted to prepare Jesus to become "King of the Jews" in a very physical sense, and wrest power away from the Romans. So a political fomentor makes a lot of sense in that vein.
Emyu said:
"Wise king" would actually sound very much like the Jesus I feel the evidence points to existing. See above for the political aspects. The wise aspect would possibly come from his tendency to meditate and look inward for answers. Again, that's a bit of a personal interpretation from some documents I've read.
Emyu said:
But the fact that he appears in a religious text that is vastly different from the Bible, and that they specifically took the time to mention him as a prophet lends credence to the possibility of his existence. And also, there is a school of thought that Jesus never actually died on the cross. So to say he is not crucified would jive with that.
"..WE GAVE JESUS THE SON OF MARY CLEAR SIGNS AND STRENGTHENED HIM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT"
HOLY QURAN 2:87
"..O MARY! GOD GIVETH THEE GLAD TIDINGS OF A WORD FROM HIM: HIS NAME WILL BE CHRIST JESUS, THE SON OF MARY.."
HOLY QURAN 3:45
"..CHRIST JESUS THE SON OF MARY WAS (NO MORE THAN) AN APOSTLE OF GOD.."
HOLY QURAN 4:171
"..AND IN THEIR (the previous Prophets') FOOTSTEPS WE SENT JESUS THE SON OF MARY.."
HOLY QURAN 5:49
"AND ZAKARIYA AND JOHN, AND JESUS AND ELIAS: ALL IN THE RANKS OF THE RIGHTEOUS:"
HOLY QURAN 6:85
Emyu said:
No.
Babylonian Abodah Zarah 17a: "One of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene found me""
Ibid: "Thus I was taught by Jesus the Nazarene."
Babylonian Sanhedrin 103a: " ... that you will not have a son or disciple ... like Jesus the Nazarene"
Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b: " ... not as Yehoshua b. Perahya who pushed Jesus the Nazarene away."
Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b: "On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene."
Among others.
Emyu said:
Because it lends credence to the legitimacy of the Gospels. And the main subject of the Gospels is...
Emyu said:
What you seem to be saying is that despite all the circumstantial evidence, it's more likely that disparate sources all made up the same fictional character, as if it were some mass conspiracy spanning several centuries and several parts of the world. Honestly, your explanation seems less likely.
Emyu said:
You conveniently left out the rest of the paragraph. It's ok, I'll finish it for you. Emphases mine.
"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt. There has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree. However, Geza Vermes points out in an in-depth analysis of the passage that much of the language is typically Josephan, which not only supports the hypothesis that Josephus did write something about Jesus, but also may aid in determining which parts of the passage are genuine."
The bottom line is there is no conclusive evidence that Jesus did exist. I am aware of that, and concede that. However, there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that points to the existence of a person named Jesus who held an important position in the Jewish hierarchy during the first half of the first century CE.
To get this back on topic, which is whether or not one believes in God, not the existence of Jesus.
I believe the evidence points to the existence of Jesus. Do I believe that Jesus was divine? No. Do I believe that Jesus himself thought he was divine? Yes, in the sense that he believed that every person had some sort of divine spark within them that was accessible. Do I think Jesus thought he was the Son of God as depicted in the Christian Church since his time? No. Do I believe in the Christian God? No. Do I believe that any God exists? I dunno. Maybe. Not really. I'm Agnostic.
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
Well, you're an agnostic atheist, to be sure.
Agnosticism refers to knowledge.
Atheism refers to belief.
Saying you're agnostic in regards to whether you believe in god or not is a little bit nonsensical.
Agnosticism refers to knowledge.
Atheism refers to belief.
Saying you're agnostic in regards to whether you believe in god or not is a little bit nonsensical.
Last edited:
No. I'm an agnostic. Plain and simple.
ag·nos·tic (
g-n
s
t
k)
n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
ag·nos·tic (
n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
No. I'm an agnostic. Plain and simple.
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n. 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I assert that, if you didn't just make that definition up, you got it from a terrible source, because that second definition is totally incorrect.
From the Random House Dictionary:
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
These deal with knowledge, not belief.
The term "agnostic" has no place in this topic, as this is a topic about belief. Gnosticism is not related to belief, and neither is agnostic.
There's not a sliding scale between atheism and theism with agnosticism in the middle. That's just indecision, not an actual position.
Would you argue that gnosticism has a place in this topic? No, of course not. That's not belief. They would, for the purposes of this topic, be a theist.
Just like here, everyone that has claimed agnostic is probably an atheist who doesn't want to admit it.
Jesus existed. Unless you believe there is some remarkable conspiracy, you can bet on that. They didn't have birth certificates then, but those weren't quote 'ancient' times either. However primitive they still may have been to our modern era, the events surrounding Jesus were heavily documented in relevance to not only other biblical figures, but almost anyone else as well.
Not only that, but Jesus was a political dissident and witnessed by many.
If he's divine or not is yet to be known. We'll find out roughly within our lifetime though. If the prophesy doesn't unfold, then he was, in fact, a blasphemer.
Anyways I'm a strong agnostic, unwilling to take a side for two reasons: One being that it's impossible to know anyways. The second: They do not conflict.
Not only that, but Jesus was a political dissident and witnessed by many.
If he's divine or not is yet to be known. We'll find out roughly within our lifetime though. If the prophesy doesn't unfold, then he was, in fact, a blasphemer.
Anyways I'm a strong agnostic, unwilling to take a side for two reasons: One being that it's impossible to know anyways. The second: They do not conflict.
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
As that's not the topic, I won't waste time trying to explain how you're wrong. Read my previous post.
The ideas that god exists and does not exist don't conflict? We can live in a universe where a god simultaneously does and does not exist?
Uh.
what
Your ability to argue semantics is impressive in its futility. Merriam-Webster defines agnosticism in much the same way my earlier definition, which was from Encarta, iirc, did. Moreover, my agnosticism stems from my view that it is impossible to have knowledge as to the existence (or non-existence) of a deity. I am not atheist, because I do not believe in the lack of a deity. I am not a theist, because I do not believe in any one particular deity. I am an agnostic because my view is that currently there is no way of knowing whether any deity exists. I am not agnostic atheist, because I don't necessarily deny the possibility of there being a deity in some form. I am not agnostic theist because I don't feel that there is enough evidence to claim that a deity exists.
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
True, the term "agnostic" has deviated from its original meaning by Huxley, and the definition you are using is the popular one. I disagree with it, but you are explaining your beliefs clearly enough that everyone can understand it, with or without the simple label we are arguing over.
I do not believe in god.
My Grandparents were Jehovah's Witnesses and my Mum strongly believes in god but my dad doesn't.
When I used to live with my grandma, she would read me the bible and other weird things on god before bed, I guess trying to brain wash me haha
As I grew older I became tired of the miss matched, hypocritical teachings of religion and decided to form my own opinion.
I decided it made more sense for there not to be a god.
If there was a god, I cannot wrap my head around why he would be so spiteful? I thought god was forgiving?
So, Adam and Eve betrayed him by eating an apple and in turn God decided to make mass diseases, poverty, Horrendous Natural Disasters, children suffering, etc. Why would someone loving and forgiving do something like that? Pretty spiteful and mean if you ask me.
Now I usually prefer to just not care about religion, I count myself Atheist but I don't really preach the Atheist side. I love science though and i love reading about their recent findings and I just find Science to be more logical than religion, and yes, science hasn't proved much, but from what I know of (which I'll admit, isn't much) religion hasn't really proved anything either...
Religion also starts too many wars, aren't all the major wars in existence about religion?? I can't believe in something that is so destructive like that.
Anyway, no not religious, don't believe in god, and never will!
My Grandparents were Jehovah's Witnesses and my Mum strongly believes in god but my dad doesn't.
When I used to live with my grandma, she would read me the bible and other weird things on god before bed, I guess trying to brain wash me haha
As I grew older I became tired of the miss matched, hypocritical teachings of religion and decided to form my own opinion.
I decided it made more sense for there not to be a god.
If there was a god, I cannot wrap my head around why he would be so spiteful? I thought god was forgiving?
So, Adam and Eve betrayed him by eating an apple and in turn God decided to make mass diseases, poverty, Horrendous Natural Disasters, children suffering, etc. Why would someone loving and forgiving do something like that? Pretty spiteful and mean if you ask me.
Now I usually prefer to just not care about religion, I count myself Atheist but I don't really preach the Atheist side. I love science though and i love reading about their recent findings and I just find Science to be more logical than religion, and yes, science hasn't proved much, but from what I know of (which I'll admit, isn't much) religion hasn't really proved anything either...
Religion also starts too many wars, aren't all the major wars in existence about religion?? I can't believe in something that is so destructive like that.
Anyway, no not religious, don't believe in god, and never will!
Science has more scope for discovery than a single book.
Im not gonna get involved in Jesse and that dude from the Plateau of Gorgoroths
argument, not my specialty but it was looking more like a battle of Dictionaries.
Like faith and belief in god the reasons why people dont believe in god are just as subjective, probably more diverse than than the reasons to believe in a god head, the main one for me is that there is no proof.
Zero interaction means no god, and excuses that say god doesnt interfere for such and such reasons are just bogus
Im not totally opposed to the idea of a god either, in video games there are some religions where heralds and stuff interact and give on behalf of god or gods.
But with no interaction in our world it is pointless to even consider.
Its like belief in alien life, people deny, are very skeptical about the possibility but at least there is evidence of it being possible look at all the various types of life on a single planet.
Life does not require a God to create it nor a garden, it is universally possible for life to exist any where in the universe with in the right condition, even other variation of chemical compounds that can produce life bearing conditions, outside of the 36 million variation of carbon based life.
Im not an athiest or agnostic, if there is a god l simply require proof that it exists and even if he did l would not worship or pray to it/him/her, understand it yes interact with it
sure.
The existence of god is not impossible, but its highly unlikely after all this time, although if you consider the length of time religion has been around versus the life age of the earth proper, then the absence of god over a short "time" like that is not really an excuse to not believe.
But then again the bible is predated by many events far before its creation
(lm so tired
)
Im not gonna get involved in Jesse and that dude from the Plateau of Gorgoroths
argument, not my specialty but it was looking more like a battle of Dictionaries. Like faith and belief in god the reasons why people dont believe in god are just as subjective, probably more diverse than than the reasons to believe in a god head, the main one for me is that there is no proof.
Zero interaction means no god, and excuses that say god doesnt interfere for such and such reasons are just bogus
Im not totally opposed to the idea of a god either, in video games there are some religions where heralds and stuff interact and give on behalf of god or gods.But with no interaction in our world it is pointless to even consider.
Its like belief in alien life, people deny, are very skeptical about the possibility but at least there is evidence of it being possible look at all the various types of life on a single planet.
Life does not require a God to create it nor a garden, it is universally possible for life to exist any where in the universe with in the right condition, even other variation of chemical compounds that can produce life bearing conditions, outside of the 36 million variation of carbon based life.
Im not an athiest or agnostic, if there is a god l simply require proof that it exists and even if he did l would not worship or pray to it/him/her, understand it yes interact with it
sure.
The existence of god is not impossible, but its highly unlikely after all this time, although if you consider the length of time religion has been around versus the life age of the earth proper, then the absence of god over a short "time" like that is not really an excuse to not believe.
But then again the bible is predated by many events far before its creation
(lm so tired
)
Emyunoxious
My penis is massive
Because that's who Christians claim to follow. There's no one who would deny that Christians worship Christ, just like no one would deny that Dionysian-type cults worship Dionysus. Just because they claim to worship something doesn't mean it's real.
Again, Suetonius wasn't born until 69 AD. Any of these events, if they happened, he heard about second hand. My "jews don't follow jesus" statement was a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but the point still stands. Chrestus, which, like Christ, means simply "anointed one". The people of the Jewish religion had predicted a messiah for a long time. It's not out of the question to think that someone else was given that title.
I'm just afraid we'll have to disagree here.
Even if Mara was referring to this story, which, I will concede, is likely, it's probably just from stories Mara had heard from Christians, like the first two. I'm sure you understand why third-hand stories like this.
A text from 300 CE in an area that certainly had access to Jewish prophecies and the Gospels?
That's not evidence.
I'm sorry, I have to concede that I have no idea what this is about, or the context of it. Please enlighten me, I'm actually really interested.
Do I believe in God? No, but this is a rather limited question. In terms of religious context, I wonder if a better alternative would be do you believe in a higher entity, whether it is a personal deity like YHWH or Brahman or is a non-personal entity as many other religions profess.
I believe in none of them, mainly because I have no cause to. In retrospect there is no reason for me believing there is no god just as there is no reason for me believing there is a god; I neither believe nor care one way or the other. If there is a god, there is; if there isn't then there isn't. I hold many beliefs similar to that which some religions profess - perhaps the most obvious being that living life without helping others is a wasted life - but in no way do I ally myself with any of those religions. Similarly I am not interested in proving whether there is or is not a god. I would rather work towards solving the problem of religious diversity through cooperative methods between different religions - we should accept one another, not rip each other's throats out because we believe in different things.
I believe in none of them, mainly because I have no cause to. In retrospect there is no reason for me believing there is no god just as there is no reason for me believing there is a god; I neither believe nor care one way or the other. If there is a god, there is; if there isn't then there isn't. I hold many beliefs similar to that which some religions profess - perhaps the most obvious being that living life without helping others is a wasted life - but in no way do I ally myself with any of those religions. Similarly I am not interested in proving whether there is or is not a god. I would rather work towards solving the problem of religious diversity through cooperative methods between different religions - we should accept one another, not rip each other's throats out because we believe in different things.