Fabnaq

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by saltn00b
...This line of thinking is scary to me, this is similar to the line of thinking that gets people killed. Im sure we have all heard that almost all wars ever fought were over religion, and more people have died in the name "god" than anything else and yadda yadda yadda.......
There is propaganda and rhetoric on both sides. For instance, the "more have died in the name of God" line.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
You also need a lot of faith to even believe in Christ, since all of the evidence about him is hearsay.
As with all early historic figures...

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
As with all early historic figures...

You might want to rethink that, there is tangible evidence of famous people who lived long before christ and to say their exisitence is hearsay is incorrect.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
You might want to rethink that, there is tangible evidence of famous people who lived long before christ and to say their exisitence is hearsay is incorrect.

There is tangible evidence as well on a person named Jesus Christ, I believe science can back this up. I will be back with the info.
I borrowed this as I couldn't remember specific names.
The "proof" for the existence of Christ can be found in three main sources. The argument for the existence of Jesus is strengthened because the person of Jesus Christ is mentioned by independent Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources. Obviously the person of Jesus is mentioned quite thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Jesus is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus. The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Jesus Christ. In turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the crucifixion of Jesus in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic tribes in Europe. In essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven historically, the historical community is quite sure that a person named Jesus did live in the Middle East two thousand years ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their argument.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
There is tangible evidence as well on a person named Jesus Christ, I believe science can back this up. I will be back with the info.
I borrowed this as I couldn't remember specific names.
The "proof" for the existence of Christ can be found in three main sources. The argument for the existence of Jesus is strengthened because the person of Jesus Christ is mentioned by independent Christian, Jewish, and Roman sources. Obviously the person of Jesus is mentioned quite thoroughly in the New Testament and other early Christian writings but Jesus is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus. The fact that Josephus, a practicing Jew and a man who was not actively involved Christian circles and not part of the early church mentions the existence of Jesus of Nazareth in his writings definitely gives credence to the argument for the existence of Jesus Christ. In turn, another of the most credible arguments for the existence of Jesus Christ are the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus was a Roman historian who also mentioned the existence of the crucifixion of Jesus in his writings. In turn, the writings of Tacitus are viewed by historians as crucial to not only understanding early Middle Eastern history but also what we know of early Germanic tribes in Europe. In essence, while the divinity of Jesus is not something that can be proven historically, the historical community is quite sure that a person named Jesus did live in the Middle East two thousand years ago and can look to independent historical sources to strengthen their argument.
Both Tacitus and Josephus Flavius were born after Jesus had been cruxified, which would make anything they have to write hearsay. Also, why no paintings, drawings, status, coins or anything else that would show his image? Also, why no writings that mention him during the time he lived, everything came after.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
Thats not quite true, church catechism changes all of the time.
Yes, we are in agreeance then. But unfortunately many people don't understand what science; they don't realize that science doesn't explain, it describes.
The difference I see is that in science people can measure and test ideas. Some ideas may be wrong and some people may insist that their idea is correct even when it is wrong but the methods they use can be tested and recorded. Testing for the existence of God would be impossible, just by defination, since God is trancendant and even if it were possible to test for the existence of a God you still would need to find a way to determine what definition of God is correct.
So, religion requires faith. The only faith the science requires is faith that our universe is rational and follows certain laws but I wouldn't call that faith since the alternative would be irrational.

 

[darthtang aw]

why would a Jew acknowledge the guys existance or a Roman as well. Neither were christians and believed in Jesus Christ...so why write something about someone that didn't exist, especially since the bible wasn't first penned till around their life time or just after?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Both Tacitus and Josephus Flavius were born after Jesus had been cruxified, which would make anything they have to write hearsay. Also, why no paintings, drawings, status, coins or anything else that would show his image? Also, why no writings that mention him during the time he lived, everything came after.
What about, Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century? He wrote in reference to the death of Jesus. That these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. These same records mentioned Jesus' miracles, regarding which he says: That He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.
These Acts, or official records, no longer exist. But they did exist in the second century, and Justin challenged his readers to check them to verify the truth of what he said.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
The difference I see is that in science people can measure and test ideas. Some ideas may be wrong and some people may insist that their idea is correct even when it is wrong but the methods they use can be tested and recorded. Testing for the existence of God would be impossible, just by defination, since God is trancendant and even if it were possible to test for the existence of a God you still would need to find a way to determine what definition of God is correct.
So, religion requires faith. The only faith the science requires is faith that our universe is rational and follows certain laws but I wouldn't call that faith since the alternative would be irrational.

wrong, if science followed all laws that scientists Discover, based on the level of CO2 in the atmospere we should be in an Ice age based off of past laws and discoveries in science. Yet we are not.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
wrong, if science followed all laws that scientists Discover, based on the level of CO2 in the atmospere we should be in an Ice age based off of past laws and discoveries in science. Yet we are not.
Again, science is debateable and ideas are dynamic and changing. Someone does a study, comes up with an idea. If the idea holds people keep testing it and try to build on it, if it doesn't hold up they find a new idea and test that until it fails. I do no see people doing this with religion. They do not say, "well my theory is that God exists so I am going to devote my life to proving he does not." People generally say "God exists so I am going to devote my life to him."
I see no problem with religion or science but I believe they require two different approaches and therefore they use different inital assumptions so it is pointless to try to tie them together.
If God exists he/she can do anything he/she wants and it does not have to be rational or follow any rules so trying to fit God or any of God's actions into the rules we observe in nature does not make sense to me.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
The difference I see is that in science people can measure and test ideas. Some ideas may be wrong and some people may insist that their idea is correct even when it is wrong but the methods they use can be tested and recorded. Testing for the existence of God would be impossible, just by defination, since God is trancendant and even if it were possible to test for the existence of a God you still would need to find a way to determine what definition of God is correct.
So, religion requires faith. The only faith the science requires is faith that our universe is rational and follows certain laws but I wouldn't call that faith since the alternative would be irrational.
As a scientist, I stand by my position. Science certainly takes faith. There are more un-testable theories in science than there are tested ones.
In regards to testing for God, I agree. But I also think its silly to approach religion via science, when science itself requires a faith.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Again, science is debateable and ideas are dynamic and changing. Someone does a study, comes up with an idea. If the idea holds people keep testing it and try to build on it, if it doesn't hold up they find a new idea and test that until it fails. I do no see people doing this with religion. They do not say, "well my theory is that God exists so I am going to devote my life to proving he does not." People generally say "God exists so I am going to devote my life to him."
I see no problem with religion or science but I believe they require two different approaches and therefore they use different inital assumptions so it is pointless to try to tie them together.
If God exists he/she can do anything he/she wants and it does not have to be rational or follow any rules so trying to fit God or any of God's actions into the rules we observe in nature does not make sense to me.
Please refer to my first post in this thread.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
Both Tacitus and Josephus Flavius were born after Jesus had been cruxified, which would make anything they have to write hearsay. Also, why no paintings, drawings, status, coins or anything else that would show his image? Also, why no writings that mention him during the time he lived, everything came after.
Jmick, many many early historical figures are based on "hearsay". Homer is a great example.
While there are no coins or drawings, one could certainly argue the plethora of First century churches and the founding of the religion of Christianity could certainly be seen as more than hearsay.
The entire NT was written within 50 years of the cruxifiction.
The writings occurred shortly after His death because it's His death and resurrection that started Christianity and made His teachings significant.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Jmick, many many early historical figures are based on "hearsay". Homer is a great example.
While there are no coins or drawings, one could certainly argue the plethora of First century churches and the founding of the religion of Christianity could certainly be seen as more than hearsay.
The entire NT was written within 50 years of the cruxifiction.
The writings occurred shortly after His death because it's His death and resurrection that started Christianity and made His teachings significant.
I don't disagree with that but at the same time a handful of very influential people could have easily spread the stories of "Jesus" and created the legend of the man. Afterall, the story of his death and resurection parallels many mythical figures from different cultures who origins long predated Jesus and would have been known, making it more believable to the masses.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Jmick, many many early historical figures are based on "hearsay". Homer is a great example.
While there are no coins or drawings, one could certainly argue the plethora of First century churches and the founding of the religion of Christianity could certainly be seen as more than hearsay.
The entire NT was written within 50 years of the cruxifiction.
The writings occurred shortly after His death because it's His death and resurrection that started Christianity and made His teachings significant.
I am curious how you date these writings to within 50 of the cruxifiction?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
I don't disagree with that but at the same time a handful of very influential people could have easily spread the stories of "Jesus" and created the legend of the man. Afterall, the story of his death and resurection parallels many mythical figures from different cultures who origins long predated Jesus and would have been known, making it more believable to the masses.
What you have to remember is that the "church" sprang up in a time when there were plenty of eyewitnesses that could have disputed it. The influencial leaders of the time were opposing the new church, not propping it up or wanting to spread it. The early church fathers were uneducated fishermen, not jewish scholars.
There was nothing to gain except persecution.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
Please refer to my first post in this thread.
I suppose you could call the basic assumption of science to be faith. I prefer to use the term assumption because I am willing the change them if I come across new information. If we say faith is needed for the basic assumptions in science then I would say faith is required for everything and to me this takes away the significance of the word faith...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I am curious how you date these writings to within 50 of the cruxifiction?
Actually I'm not educated enough in archeaology, Hebrew or Aramaic to date the writings.
This has been done by a swarm of other scholars.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
What you have to remember is that the "church" sprang up in a time when there were plenty of eyewitnesses that could have disputed it. The influencial leaders of the time were opposing the new church, not propping it up or wanting to spread it. The early church fathers were uneducated fishermen, not jewish scholars.
There was nothing to gain except persecution.

What could be a better tool to spur the future growth of Christainity then the fugure of Christ and his tale? Again, the son of god, death and resurection story paralleled so many other savior stories that were already known it would have been easy to follow and to the masses even if they didn't know of Christ they could have easily believe the stories.
They had nothing to gain? They were spreading their good word and creating the beginnings of something that would draw in and convert many pagans and Jews....they had nothing but power and influence to gain.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
...They had nothing to gain? They were spreading their good word and creating the beginnings of something that would draw in and convert many pagans and Jews....they had nothing but power and influence to gain.
You forget the two major powers of the time (Rome and the Jews) opposed and persecuted the first century church. The first century church leaders were martyred.
Power and influence don't matter much when you're missing your head.