There is no proof that Jesus existed

[Millhouse]

(07-12-2018, 09:11 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: As you know, Wiki is a poor source.

Even if Tacitus is authentic, he’s just echoing the Gospels, in which case renders his quip not an independent source & certainly no proof that Jesus existed.

Not necessarily as Tacitus would have had access to Roman records as he was not just a historian for Rome, but also because he was a former senator and a consul, though a diminished consul due to the Emperor having authority. Because of his access to records, and his writing of who the Emperor was when Christ was executed and who Pilate was, as Pilate was an obscure Roman figure those 60 some decades before, most scholars think he did his own research on this outside of Christian gossip.

Based on that, I think he did his own research.

However, none of his original manuscripts survived, so there is a chance they could have been altered centuries later as with any ancient writing that was being copied. No one knows whether they were or not.

[Benton]

(07-12-2018, 02:45 PM)Millhouse Wrote: There are a lot of people that interpret literally though. I think last I saw almost 25% of the population or so thinks the Earth is only 10000 years old, because someone tried to measure up time based from that first day in Genesis.

Heck, there is a freaking Creation museum over in Northern Kentucky that promotes the idea that the Flintstones is basically true, with Fred riding Dino. Well not literally, but man and dinosaurs co-existed.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

I googled it and, unfortunately, that number isn't encouraging. But, hopefully, education will continue to increase and coexist with faith. I believe there is room for both.

As far as Hamm, dude is a horrible, horrible person. He's in religion for profit, not for the benefit of others. I criticized using tax funds to build the Ark Park and he pretty well lived up to criticism when he tried shifting the park to a non-profit company to avoid paying taxes and Scrooge McDuck himself in all the loot. Unfortunately, it's guys like him that make Christianity look like a ponzi scheme.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is this religion that says there is no need to look further?

The people who claim that the Bible is 100% true.

(07-12-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I welcome it; the more we learn the more elements of the bible are proven true.

You mean like when Capernicus proved that the earth was not the center of the Universe?  


Or when geologists proved that the Earth was more than 7000 years old?

Or that there is not enough water to flood the entire earth.

Or that it is impossible for all species of all creatures on earth to fit into a boat the size of the ark, and that it is also impossible for many of them to make a journey to the middle east?

(07-12-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who has questioned the science?

You.

(07-12-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: THE MOTTO: "I don't know the answer, but I know you're wrong." 

It is scientifically possible to eliminate certain possibilities even when the ultimate answer has not been resolved.

[fredtoast]

I thought man wss created BEFORE all of the animals?


19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[GMDino]

(07-12-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuuhhhhmmmmm......You cannot have evolution (nature/human) without creation. So all discussions of evolution should start with discussion.

Who is this religion that says there is no need to look further? I welcome it; the more we learn the more elements of the bible are proven true.

Who has questioned the science?

THE MOTTO: "I don't know the answer, but I know you're wrong." 

WE can discuss it all you like.  Neither one of us has the definitive answer.

So your motto didn't work this time.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought man wss created BEFORE all of the animals?


19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Weeellllll....you have to pick one of the creation stories.  

[Beaker]

(07-12-2018, 08:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuuhhhhmmmmm......You cannot have evolution (nature/human) without creation. So all discussions of evolution should start with discussion.

I am assuming you meant creation in place of discussion where bolded. 

If so, your statement is untrue. Evolution means change over time. In other words, how things have changed since they got here. You can certainly easily discuss and investigate that changes that have occurred over evolutionary history without yet having discovered how they got there in the first place. That can be a totally separate discussion and investigation.

And just because science has not figured out biogenesis or the start of the universe doesn't mean evolution is invalid or that a divine creator is the answer.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-12-2018, 09:11 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: As you know, Wiki is a poor source.

Hence, why I also linked the footnotes. Wiki is only a poor source when the information in the wiki is not sourced. The statement I posted had 3 separate footnotes. That's a good source.

(07-12-2018, 09:11 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Even if Tacitus is authentic, he’s just echoing the Gospels, in which case renders his quip not an independent source & certainly no proof that Jesus existed.

Soooooooooooooooo, a source doesn't count because it says the same thing? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?
"The New York Times just said Obama thinks gay marriage should be legal."
"Well, that's exactly what Obama said last night." 
"Clearly, the New York Times is just echoing Obama and can not be considered an independent source nor can it be considered proof of what Obama says."

Has it not occurred to you that maybe the reason he's supposedly "echoing" the gospels is because the gospels ARE authentic?

(07-12-2018, 09:11 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: But Tacitus says Christos, which mean anointed one. Many, many people claimed or was accused ‘the anointed one’.

What's your proof of the "many people" that claimed to be the Messiah around the time of Jesus?

(07-12-2018, 09:11 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote:  He doesn’t mention Jesus. Further, he is telling you right up front that it is second hand information. Tacitus offers zero proof that Jesus existed.

Doesn't mention Jesus by name, true, but he mentions "Chrisus" who suffered the "extreme penalty" (death) under the hands of Pontius Pilate. There's only one person who claimed to be the Messiah that was put to death under Pilate. Hint: his name is Jesus.

[Millhouse]

(07-12-2018, 10:20 PM)Benton Wrote: https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

I googled it and, unfortunately, that number isn't encouraging. But, hopefully, education will continue to increase and coexist with faith. I believe there is room for both.

As far as Hamm, dude is a horrible, horrible person. He's in religion for profit, not for the benefit of others. I criticized using tax funds to build the Ark Park and he pretty well lived up to criticism when he tried shifting the park to a non-profit company to avoid paying taxes and Scrooge McDuck himself in all the loot. Unfortunately, it's guys like him that make Christianity look like a ponzi scheme.

Wow, that number is even higher than I thought, pretty sad.

But I kinda disagree that there is room for both, at least with those that are pushing the idea that dinosaurs and other fossilized creatures went extinct a few thousand years ago due to the great flood. These people are literally brainwashing millions of people into believing this to be scientific fact, when in fact they are no more of a scientist than Homer Simpson.

At the same time though, scientists can be a prickly bunch, and some are so absolute in their thinking that nothing can exist in a spiritual plane, or other dimensions, other than what they can see right in front of them. So they arent exactly helping matters on this either.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought man wss created BEFORE all of the animals?


19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

No, man was created AFTER all the animals. That verse is not a chronology. That verse is to help show that no suitable helper could be found for man.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2018, 01:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, man was created AFTER all the animals.

Not according to Gen 2:19

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 01:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not according to Gen 2:19

Re-read my post after I edited it.

[Millhouse]

(07-13-2018, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I thought man wss created BEFORE all of the animals?


19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

That was part of the second creation story. Many biblical scholars, especially the literary scholars, believe that the Adam and Eve section was written by a different author than the first part of Genesis, based on the contradictions and writing style involved. At least that is what I learned in college when I took a class on a literary non-religious point of view of the bible. Pretty fascinating class actually, learning about the book without religious blinders.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2018, 01:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Re-read my post after I edited it.

It is absolutely a chronology.

First it says Adam was alone and needed a help mate.  So God then created all of the animals, but Adam could not find a help mate among them.  So it is clear that Adam was created first and was alone until god created the animals


18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 01:44 PM)Millhouse Wrote: That was part of the second creation story. Many biblical scholars, especially the literary scholars, believe that the Adam and Eve section was written by a different author than the first part of Genesis, based on the contradictions and writing style involved. At least that is what I learned in college when I took a class on a literary non-religious point of view of the bible. Pretty fascinating class actually, learning about the book without religious blinders.

I remember reading something about this once (but I honestly forget the details which is why I bring it up again):   I wonder why they left such a glaring contradiction in the bible when they were reaching a "final" version over the years?

[hollodero]

(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What's your proof of the "many people" that claimed to be the Messiah around the time of Jesus?

You clearly haven't seen life of Brian.

Allegedly, there were lots of preachers around that time. One of them would be Apollonios of Tyana, it is rumored some Emperors had his picure aside of Jesus' just to be safe. The Baha'i religion mentions him quite prominently in their faith.

[Millhouse]

(07-13-2018, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: I remember reading something about this once (but I honestly forget the details which is why I bring it up again):   I wonder why they left such a glaring contradiction in the bible when they were reaching a "final" version over the years?

Well, one theory is that it was done by men to keep women in their place, so to speak. The most important part of the Adam and Eve tale is that it was the woman, not the man, that fell to sin by eating the fruit off the forbidden tree. And from then on man was greater than woman, again so to speak according to that old theory.

Of course this is purely a political/power kind of theory, but based on history when it came to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in antiquity up until the modern age, women were always secondary to men in everything, and had virtually zero rights compared to men. This wasn't true with other ancient cultures at the time in Greece, Rome, and Egypt, at least to that extent, so maybe there is some truth to it afterall.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-13-2018, 01:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: You clearly haven't seen life of Brian.

Allegedly, there were lots of preachers around that time. One of them would be Apollonios of Tyana, it is rumored some Emperors had his picure aside of Jesus' just to be safe. The Baha'i religion mentions him quite prominently in their faith.

Shh. I'm setting a trap for DA.

And I have seen the Life of Brian. It's a brilliant movie. Loved it.

[GMDino]

(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hence, why I also linked the footnotes. Wiki is only a poor source when the information in the wiki is not sourced. The statement I posted had 3 separate footnotes. That's a good source.

Agreed.  If one can follow the sources and verify them it works as a good repository for information and links.

(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Soooooooooooooooo, a source doesn't count because it says the same thing? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?
"The New York Times just said Obama thinks gay marriage should be legal."
"Well, that's exactly what Obama said last night." 
"Clearly, the New York Times is just echoing Obama and can not be considered an independent source nor can it be considered proof of what Obama says."

Has it not occurred to you that maybe the reason he's supposedly "echoing" the gospels is because the gospels ARE authentic?

Except, unlike your example, he had no way of verifying the Gospels.  We can't even verify the original work of Tacitus (although it is general accepted as genuine).  And, from what I read, he was a small boy during the time frame he was writing about.  He probably had heard stories and knew of the gospels and put two and two together?  

The translation I read said this after saying he was put to death by Pilate: "...and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,..."  I wonder if he means he DOESN'T believe there was a resurrection, or simple has no proof of it?

(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What's your proof of the "many people" that claimed to be the Messiah around the time of Jesus?

There is as much "proof" for that as "proof" that Jesus was real or the son of god.

But there are theories.

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artsculture/Religion/689744-1051562-yiwuw8/index.html
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520234000/the-messiah-before-jesus

And there's this:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/jesus-wasnt-the-only-messiah-during-his-time/195519

Quote:There were others, the bible it's self points this out, say in Acts of the Apostles:

Quote:Act 5:34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. 
Act 5:35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men. 
Act 5:36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves. Who was slain: and all that believed him were scattered and brought to nothing. 
Act 5:37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him. He also perished: and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. 
Act 5:38 And now, therefore, I say to you: Refrain from these men and let them alone. For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

That poster goes to say:

Quote:What stands out about Christianity is the fact that Jesus actually rose from the dead, that is to say he proved he was God. Not merely that his followers managed to keep hanging in there (as your teacher suggests).

As if is a definitive fact.

(07-13-2018, 01:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Doesn't mention Jesus by name, true, but he mentions "Chrisus" who suffered the "extreme penalty" (death) under the hands of Pontius Pilate. There's only one person who claimed to be the Messiah that was put to death under Pilate. Hint: his name is Jesus.

Well we know Pilate existed.  Or someone by that name did at the right time.  But the passage you cite give us no other information about how "Chrisus" died or why.  Just that he inspired followers.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2018, 02:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Shh. I'm setting a trap for DA.

And I have seen the Life of Brian. It's a brilliant movie. Loved it.

I caught onto the trap immediately.