are the gracies religious?

[Balto]

What is your take on the lack of contemporary records of Jesus?

You mean contemporary like right during the exact years Jesus was living as opposed to contemporary as in today?

 

[Gambledub]

You mean contemporary like right during the exact years Jesus was living as opposed to contemporary as in today?

Yeah as in the time he was supposed to have been alive. I would be quite shocked if he was walking around in times square last friday! lol

 

[Musheen]

I have not read it, but I have heard of it before. I do think I would enjoy reading it.

I have read little excerpts in articles and stuff. If I'm remembering correctly, he is arguing against mainline Christianity, but I like to hear the counter arguments so I will see if I can pick it up at the library.

Definitely worth a read. The aim of the book was really to separate the theological Jesus the Christ from the historical Jesus of Nazareth. He provides some pretty interesting background history to the region, which helps explain why Jesus became such a big figure.

I wouldn't say his aim is to argue against mainline Christianity per se, but more to provide what he thinks an unbiased historical account of Jesus is. Some of this does go against mainline Christianity, an example of such is the virgin birth. Here he speculates that Jesus was born out of wedlock, so the gospel writers used to virgin birth story to get around this.

 

[Throwing Dummy]

Throwing Dummy, you have explained the exact reason why I became a Christian. Prior to BJJ, I practiced Karate for years. I sat stunned and watched as the first UFC proved BJJ was the real deal. I immediately started training Jiu Jitsu. The UFC proved ground fighting was important.

Similarly, I just didn't close my eyes and decide I was a Christian. I wanted proof. I researched prophesies relating to the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah. The overwhelming evidence is that he was exactly who he claimed to be.

John 14

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Yes - I saw where you mentioned this earlier, and it does not meet the burden of proof I require. I would change my mind with sufficient evidence, but for these majestic claims, I will need irrefutable evidence, like, say, the actual hand of god doing something in defiance of natural laws. I have not yet seen anything that rises to this standard.

 

[Throwing Dummy]

I had a guy at work who was one of those real annoying atheists, that every conversation that's what he would bring the conversation back too. He also was a kung fu fanatic and believed Shaolin monks were the best fighters in the world. I pretty much used this argument in reverse to convince him how illogical he was in not believing in a god based on a lack of evidence. Yet how he was willing to believe in a TMA on the same grounds.


I am regularly amazed at the hypocrisy of which people are capable. We are all guilty of it, to varying degrees, but luckily we no longer have to attribute events we don't understand to magic...

 

[Oldguy]

Yes - I saw where you mentioned this earlier, and it does not meet the burden of proof I require. I would change my mind with sufficient evidence, but for these majestic claims, I will need irrefutable evidence, like, say, the actual hand of god doing something in defiance of natural laws. I have not yet seen anything that rises to this standard.

Have you honestly researched these prophecies?

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

My experience is that most people claim there is not enough proof. However, they haven't actually looked.

 

[Balto]

Yeah as in the time he was supposed to have been alive. I would be quite shocked if he was walking around in times square last friday! lol

Lol yeah I thought that was what you meant. I thought maybe you meant like contemporary scholarship discussion though.

Okay so as for why we don't have anything today that was written about Jesus during the exact years he was alive:

I think first off we have to consider who Jesus was, who his disciples were, and where he lived. He lived in a pretty poor, far flung corner of the Roman Empire. Jesus himself was a poor carpenter. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee.

Basically, I'm not sure how many of them were even literate enough to write a whole Gospel in the first place. They would have spoken Aramaic, but all of the Gospels are written in Greek. Greek was the scholarly language of the time, and it was the most widely spoken language in the known world. So it seems as if the early Christians selected the most learned among them to record things in writing.

There is some pretty strong evidence that there may have been a lost Gospel on which Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all based. This Gospel is not dated back to the time of Jesus exactly, but it sometimes gets pretty close like within five years of death. There was also possibly a book of sayings attributed to Jesus that was also lost on which the Gospels we have are drawn. That book may have been compiled during his lifetime; we don't know because if it even existed, we lost it.

My guess is that at that time and place, most of Jesus's teachings were spread orally. In the Bible he is always preaching in person. So people would come up to listen to what he had to say. He eventually got a big enough following that it disrupted the status quo, and the authorities had him put to death.

The early Christians were also extremely persecuted. Christianity had a pretty dramatic turnaround from tiny, underground religion to largest religion in the world. This was mostly due to Constantine's conversion.

But Constantine was emperor around 300 AD. Jesus died around 30 AD. So in the intervening 270 years or so, Christians had it really hard. The Jews did not like them, and neither did the Romans. They were underground. There were concerted efforts to stamp them out completely. In some ways, I think it is remarkable that we even have the Gospels that we have. There were a lot of people during that 270 year period who had a vested interest in completely destroying all of that material.

So those are my thoughts on why we have the Gospels that we have today.

 

[Gambledub]

I had a guy at work who was one of those real annoying atheists, that every conversation that's what he would bring the conversation back too. He also was a kung fu fanatic and believed Shaolin monks were the best fighters in the world. I pretty much used this argument in reverse to convince him how illogical he was in not believing in a god based on a lack of evidence. Yet how he was willing to believe in a TMA on the same grounds.


I am regularly amazed at the hypocrisy of which people are capable. We are all guilty of it, to varying degrees, but luckily we no longer have to attribute events we don't understand to magic...

To be fair to the guy, as soon as I brought it to his attention he did note that it was pretty hypocritical. I could almost see the wheels turning in his head as he reevaluated everything. As shown by this thread getting someone to reconsider a position on religion (I think martial arts has the same type of stubbornness) is nearly impossible. To make a person reconsider their views about both simultaneously was probably a once in a life time event lol

 

[Gambledub]

Lol yeah I thought that was what you meant. I thought maybe you meant like contemporary scholarship discussion though.

Okay so as for why we don't have anything today that was written about Jesus during the exact years he was alive:

I think first off we have to consider who Jesus was, who his disciples were, and where he lived. He lived in a pretty poor, far flung corner of the Roman Empire. Jesus himself was a poor carpenter. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee.

Basically, I'm not sure how many of them were even literate enough to write a whole Gospel in the first place. They would have spoken Aramaic, but all of the Gospels are written in Greek. Greek was the scholarly language of the time, and it was the most widely spoken language in the known world. So it seems as if the early Christians selected the most learned among them to record things in writing.

There is some pretty strong evidence that there may have been a lost Gospel on which Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all based. This Gospel is not dated back to the time of Jesus exactly, but it sometimes gets pretty close like within five years of death. There was also possibly a book of sayings attributed to Jesus that was also lost on which the Gospels we have are drawn. That book may have been compiled during his lifetime; we don't know because if it even existed, we lost it.

My guess is that at that time and place, most of Jesus's teachings were spread orally. In the Bible he is always preaching in person. So people would come up to listen to what he had to say. He eventually got a big enough following that it disrupted the status quo, and the authorities had him put to death.

The early Christians were also extremely persecuted. Christianity had a pretty dramatic turnaround from tiny, underground religion to largest religion in the world. This was mostly due to Constantine's conversion.

But Constantine was emperor around 300 AD. Jesus died around 30 AD. So in the intervening 270 years or so, Christians had it really hard. The Jews did not like them, and neither did the Romans. They were underground. There were concerted efforts to stamp them out completely. In some ways, I think it is remarkable that we even have the Gospels that we have. There were a lot of people during that 270 year period who had a vested interest in completely destroying all of that material.

So those are my thoughts on why we have the Gospels that we have today.

Pretty good points. Especially about the language differences and illiteracy. But like you said he disrupted the status quo, wouldn't you expect more records for such a troublesome figure. Especially seeing as the Romans were notorious for recording nearly everything.

 

[Balto]

Yes - I saw where you mentioned this earlier, and it does not meet the burden of proof I require. I would change my mind with sufficient evidence, but for these majestic claims, I will need irrefutable evidence, like, say, the actual hand of god doing something in defiance of natural laws. I have not yet seen anything that rises to this standard.

This is usually the big sticking point for most.

The Christian breakdown is:

Extraordinary claim = Jesus was the Son of God
Extraordinary evidence = Jesus physically rose from the dead to prove his claim

From the Gospels, many people came to belief because they witnessed the extraordinary evidence themselves. Of course, unless you were alive in Judea around 30 AD, you would not be able to witness this personally.

So then you either have to be convinced from the more ordinary evidence of the witness accounts, or you have to just believe from something else.

Fundamentally I think that unless you are willing to be open to the possibility that supernatural things can occur, the evidence that we have will not be enough to convince you.

That is why, as noted previously, it is tough for anyone to change to either side. If you are not open to the possibility, no amount of evidence is enough to convince you. If you are open to the possibility, I think the evidence we do have for it is strong and convincing.

 

[Balto]

Pretty good points. Especially about the language differences and illiteracy. But like you said he disrupted the status quo, wouldn't you expect more records for such a troublesome figure. Especially seeing as the Romans were notorious for recording nearly everything.

I don't think the Romans really viewed him as a very big deal at the time. He was one disruptive guy in a disruptive minor province. There was lots of trouble brewing in Judea anyway. In 70 AD, only like 40 years after Jesus died, there was a huge Jewish revolt that the Romans crushed. The Romans ended up sacking Jerusalem and destroying the Second Temple.

A rebellion of that magnitude is something that the Romans recorded. But a guy like Jesus, who to them would have been seen as a poor peasant they just executed, I don't think the Romans were overly concerned about.

The Romans also did record Jesus, albeit in a minor way. Josephus was a Roman historian. He mentions Jesus. He also mentions John the Baptist, another religious figure the Romans considered dangerous and thus put to death.

 

[snakeybizz]

once we are shown supernatural things can occur I will have no choice but to be open to the possibility

 

[Gambledub]

Have you honestly researched these prophecies?

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

My experience is that most people claim there is not enough proof. However, they haven't actually looked.

"1. Genesis 3:15.....Seed of a woman (virgin birth).....Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18-20"

Please demonstrate the conclusive proof that this happened. This is the first one on the list.

Like I said, an atheist does not believe the bible is a true or in some parts real account. Proof as most people understand it, is the court room definition of reasonable doubt. So please, prove to me this happened. Show me sources outside of the Bible, or accounts from people with little vested interest in confirming it. Where are the sources that prove this happened.

 

[Balto]

once we are shown supernatural things can occur I will have no choice but to be open to the possibility

This was what happened to St. Paul.

Not everyone realizes that Paul did not actually know Jesus. He was not one of the original disciples. He did not even live in the area. He initially hated Christians, and he specifically worked with the authorities to repress them.

While he was traveling to repress Christians, he had a conversion experience that he described as supernatural. Jesus came to him in a vision and ordered him to preach the gospel. Then he was blinded for three days before he could see again.

Afterwards, he gave up his comfy life to travel around the Roman Empire preaching Christianity. He had a huge impact on expanding the religion. And the only reward he got for it in his lifetime was hardship and eventually a beheading. He was convinced of his reward in the afterlife.

If even someone like Paul required this type of direct personal evidence before he converted, then I should be able to at least understand why others require it as well.

 

[Throwing Dummy]

Have you honestly researched these prophecies?

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

My experience is that most people claim there is not enough proof. However, they haven't actually looked.

Nothing written down will convince me.

I want to be perfectly clear - I will have to personally witness a miracle that is irrefutably the act of god to be convinced. Nothing short of that will convince me.

For background, I grew up the nephew of a prominent Presbyterian minister in a strongly religious family, and these were our dinner table conversations - Suggestions that I research prophesy, and my response that these are not convincing. Yes, I've read the prophecies, albeit some years ago, but nothing there ever approached the level of proof I would require.

We will all require different levels of evidence to convince us. To me, as there is nothing I can think of that requires a god to explain it, and the idea of a god is a really big claim, I will require really big evidence to believe it.

In your view, will my demand of evidence damn me? (my name is Thomas btw - lol)

 

[Gambledub]

I don't think the Romans really viewed him as a very big deal at the time. He was one disruptive guy in a disruptive minor province. There was lots of trouble brewing in Judea anyway. In 70 AD, only like 40 years after Jesus died, there was a huge Jewish revolt that the Romans crushed. The Romans ended up sacking Jerusalem and destroying the Second Temple.

A rebellion of that magnitude is something that the Romans recorded. But a guy like Jesus, who to them would have been seen as a poor peasant they just executed, I don't think the Romans were overly concerned about.

The Romans also did record Jesus, albeit in a minor way. Josephus was a Roman historian. He mentions Jesus. He also mentions John the Baptist, another religious figure the Romans considered dangerous and thus put to death.

I have trouble believing that the Roman governors would see him as another peasant if the accounts of the bible were truly accurate. But you do make some good points.

I think the account of Tacitus, although somewhat later, is likely a legitimate record. I also considered that perhaps the Romans did intentionally remove a lot of their references once they converted, to prevent embarrassment to themselves, perhaps playing it off against the Jews. It wouldn't be a huge stretch when you consider the Ninth Spanish Legion disappears and barely gets mentioned, it is also a similar time frame to a number of the more significant Jewish revolts. Could be a potential conspiracy haha

 

[Balto]

I have trouble believing that the Roman governors would see him as another peasant if the accounts of the bible were truly accurate. But you do make some good points.

I think the account of Tacitus, although somewhat later, is likely a legitimate record. I also considered that perhaps the Romans did intentionally remove a lot of their references once they converted, to prevent embarrassment to themselves, perhaps playing it off against the Jews. It wouldn't be a huge stretch when you consider the Ninth Spanish Legion disappears and barely gets mentioned, it is also a similar time frame to a number of the more significant Jewish revolts. Could be a potential conspiracy haha

I think the Romans probably disbelieved the accounts of the Bible because the real leadership wasn't there to see them either. They probably disbelieved for the same reasons people disbelieve today. Yeah, you are SAYING that you saw him rise from the dead, but I can't believe something like that.

I think it probably wasn't a conspiracy, but you never know.

One thing that I do think may have been a conspiracy is the Egyptians with the Exodus story. One hole in that story is, well, why don't the Egyptians mention this major event at all?

But we know, from sources completely outside of the Bible, that the Egyptians have censored their history on purpose before. They wrote a couple of pharaohs out of history completely because they were embarrassed by their actions. We did not even know these pharaohs existed until we found new evidence relatively recently.

So who knows. Sometimes it happens.

 

[Hyperborean]

There is archaeological evidence for a lot of things discussed in the New Testament. Obviously the area existed, Pontius Pilate existed, Tiberius was a real emperor, etc. They have also found the tombs of important figures like Paul. Obviously Jesus has no tomb to find because he resurrected.

The second paragraph contains the most common objection, and I understand where it is coming from. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But I am willing to accept that it is indeed possible for such a thing as described in the Gospels to happen. If you accept that it is possible without requiring overwhelming evidence, the normal historical evidence that we use for non religious events is pretty good on this one.

But that is really no evidence at all. The existance of places and persons proves the existance of those places and persons. Not other persons by proxy. The writers of the bible would know of contemporary agents ( who there are stronger evidence for as there are multiple sources) and would obviously put them in their story (regardless of if they believed in them or not). If people a thousand years from now excavate the remnants of New York, would that prove the existance and deeds of Spiderman should they have found books about him prior to the excavation?

Yes, indeed, it is that argument and it is a strong one. But you can

 

[Oldguy]

Nothing written down will convince me.

I want to be perfectly clear - I will have to personally witness a miracle that is irrefutably the act of god to be convinced. Nothing short of that will convince me.

For background, I grew up the nephew of a prominent Presbyterian minister in a strongly religious family, and these were our dinner table conversations - Suggestions that I research prophesy, and my response that these are not convincing. Yes, I've read the prophecies, albeit some years ago, but nothing there ever approached the level of proof I would require.

We will all require different levels of evidence to convince us. To me, as there is nothing I can think of that requires a god to explain it, and the idea of a god is a really big claim, I will require really big evidence to believe it.

In your view, will my demand of evidence damn me? (my name is Thomas btw - lol)

Doubting Thomas. That is a great coincidence. It is good thing that you want to see the evidence. Thomas stuck his fingers inside Jesus' wounds and believed.

John 20

Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

I would encourage you to keep searching the scriptures. Here is what Jesus said to the rich man about evidence in John 20:

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


The Old Testament scriptures are sufficient proof.

 

[Balto]

But that is really no evidence at all. The existance of places and persons proves the existance of those places and persons. Not other persons by proxy. The writers of the bible would know of contemporary agents ( who there are stronger evidence for as there are multiple sources) and would obviously put them in their story (regardless of if they believed in them or not). If people a thousand years from now excavate the remnants of New York, would that prove the existance and deeds of Spiderman should they have found books about him prior to the excavation?

Yes, indeed, it is that argument and it is a strong one. But you can