are the gracies religious?

[Throwing Dummy]

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.

A concise summary. Although I disagree that they evidence for the supernatural is convincing, I recognize that each person will require a different burden of proof. Yes, I will remain unconvinced for now.

I am currently extremely skeptical that supernatural things can occur, but I want to restate that new evidence can convince me. It will just have to be very convincing, and as of yet I have seen nothing that rises near this level.

 

[Throwing Dummy]

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,

 

[Hyperborean]

This is a good point to expound on.

First off, yes there is some completely secular evidence that something pretty significant happened at that place in time. Just the fact that Christianity even exists seems to indicate that something happened to convince some people to change. Also the fact that the early Christians were harshly persecuted for their beliefs, many being martyred and tortured to death. St. Peter was crucified upside down; St. Paul merely had his head cut off because he was a Roman citizen. None of them really gained any material benefits for their beliefs in their lifetimes; someone like Paul actually gave up a relatively cushy life for a life of persecution just to preach the Gospel.

The rise of a cult or a new religion in itself does nothing for the validity of said cult or religion. Obviously something happened, a message was spread and caught on. But the spreading of the message does not tell us where it originated from. Through out the history of man religions, belief systems etc that rise and challenge the dominating religions of belief systems has had its proponents persecuted, executed and being treated harshly. The occurance of some individuals believing in something strongly enough to give up a comfortable life is a fact. But so what? It says nothing about the truth of the claims and similar examples can be found from many other religions or belief systems. So far the only evidence you have presented is that Christianity rose in those times and that some people believed very strongly in it. Noone is doubting that, but that is missing the point of the discussion.

There is also a brief note about Jesus and this event being historical in the secular works of Josephus. It's not a very significant note, but it is there and completely separate from the Bible.

I was not aware of this, I will have to look into that.

Regarding the other historical evidence, it comprises the Bible itself. The Gospels were not written with the intention of becoming part of the Bible. They were actually written as independent historical accounts. They meet the same criteria we use for other historical accounts from the ancient world. The whole reason they are in the Bible in the first place is because, sometime around the year 400 AD, Christians decided to pull together the best historical material they had about Jesus and canonize it into the New Testament. Until then, there was no real New Testament in the modern sense, just the separate books floating around.

I am aware of this. But it is still a selected body of work that is choosen BECAUSE it suited the narrative they wanted to put forth. And none of its authors are contemporary of first hand sources so the problems we discussed earlier remains.

So one of the big misconceptions is that the books of the Bible cannot be historical because they are in the Bible. That is the wrong order of things. The books of the Bible were picked later to be in the Bible specifically because the early Christians got together in councils and agreed that they were reliable enough to go in there.

Right, but how could they, 400 years after the fact, decide what was reliable? What methodology was used? How did the make the choice of what to cut and what to keep? They had a narrative in mind and they picked out the parts that fit the narrative...

So the Gospels came first, then the Bible a few hundred years later. It's not like Christians had been around for a few hundred years, realized they needed a New Testament, and had the Pope commission one that would be tailor made to the faith. It was not written that way.

Well it sort of was... Not written like that, but put together in that way. Or I should say, I think its probable that it was, I can

 

[Balto]

Here's the stuff on Josephus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[Balto]

As to the points about later people being choosy about what sources they included for their history, this can happen, but how is that different than any of our secular histories of the ancient world? This is true for most of the stuff that we know about. We just accept that and move on.

The truth is that we believe in many other historical events with less evidence, wholly without controversy. You would be marked wrong on a history test for saying Alexander the Great was a fake. However, when it comes to Jesus, entirely different historical criteria are used.

I mean I do understand the difference in the level of claim. Alexander being the best general of all time is a pretty big claim, but it is not extraordinary in the way Jesus resurrecting from the dead is.

My point is that criticism of the historical nature of Christianity is not really based on the historical evidence itself. It is much more heavily based on the belief that the claim itself is too extraordinary to be true, and then the historical evidence is judged by an entirely different standard than other historical events.

 

[Oldguy]

Yes - we'll have to disagree on what is sufficient proof. Frankly, I don't believe the supernatural claims made. I will have to actually see it with my own eyes.

If you saw something supernatural, how would you know who is behind it? Satan can also do supernatural things. He is real. His job is to deceive mankind.

1 John4

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

 

[Hyperborean]

Here's the stuff on Josephus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Thanks! I will read it. And I will answer your previous post as well, but before I do, just so we are clear. We are arguing whether or not the Jesus of the bible (as there portrayed, with powers and all) existed right? I will grant you that it is entirely possible that a jewish man named Jesus who put forth some new ideas existed (exluding all of the supernatural aspects) I am arguing against the evidence of the existance of the former.

 

[Hyperborean]

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,

 

[Balto]

Thanks! I will read it. And I will answer your previous post as well, but before I do, just so we are clear. We are arguing whether or not the Jesus of the bible (as there portrayed, with powers and all) existed right? I will grant you that it is entirely possible that a jewish man named Jesus who put forth some new ideas existed (exluding all of the supernatural aspects) I am arguing against the evidence of the existance of the former.

Yes, I am saying that a lot of historical evidence points to the Jesus of the Bible existing.

Saying that Jesus exists, but was not the Jesus of the Bible, is not really a conclusion that you come to easily from just history alone. Because by far the most detailed, comprehensive historical accounts are actually in the Bible.

At that point, the conclusion is not really guided by normal historical methods. The conclusion is guided by a skepticism of the supernatural aspects, so the normal conclusion is skipped over in favor of other more complex conclusions.

It gets to what I was saying before. Unless you are willing to accept the conclusion as possible before you even look at the evidence, the evidence will never be enough.

If I refuse to believe that a general like Alexander could possibly exist, I will always think he is fake in spite of the historical evidence. I mean we have no direct physical evidence of him. We have nothing he wrote. We have no tomb. There were supposedly a chunk of histories of him written by people who knew him, but every single one of those is lost with no explanation. We have no idea what happened to them. They are just lost mysteriously.

What we actually have today is about five accounts of guys who claim to have read the accounts of other guys who claim to have known a great general named Alexander.

Since I already am open to the possibility of a great general named Alexander who did the things he did, this evidence is enough to convince me. It's also obviously enough to convince just about everyone else in the world that Alexander is real. I mean I am sure some people out there still think he is fake, but that's the normal view.

It is the same when we are talking about a historical Jesus. If I don't believe that someone who did the things Jesus was said to have done could possibly be real, I won't believe him to be real given the evidence we have. If I open myself up to the possibility, I find it hard not to believe in that case.

A historical Jesus who exists but does not do any of the stuff the Bible claims is one of the toughest things to back up historically. This is because you have to agree that the weakest historical evidence is reliable (small mentions in Josephus), but you have to say that the strongest historical evidence is unreliable. I mean the argument can be made and many do make it, but I think it's even more convoluted that just saying that Jesus was not real period.

 

[Oldguy]

No, no they most certainly are NOT. If Thomas was good enough to actually be demonstrated the truth, then why shouldn

 

[Hyperborean]

Yes, I am saying that a lot of historical evidence points to the Jesus of the Bible existing.

Saying that Jesus exists, but was not the Jesus of the Bible, is not really a conclusion that you come to easily from just history alone. Because by far the most detailed, comprehensive historical accounts are actually in the Bible.

At that point, the conclusion is not really guided by normal historical methods. The conclusion is guided by a skepticism of the supernatural aspects, so the normal conclusion is skipped over in favor of other more complex conclusions.

It gets to what I was saying before. Unless you are willing to accept the conclusion as possible before you even look at the evidence, the evidence will never be enough.

If I refuse to believe that a general like Alexander could possibly exist, I will always think he is fake in spite of the historical evidence. I mean we have no direct physical evidence of him. We have nothing he wrote. We have no tomb. There were supposedly a chunk of histories of him written by people who knew him, but every single one of those is lost with no explanation. We have no idea what happened to them. They are just lost mysteriously.

What we actually have today is about five accounts of guys who claim to have read the accounts of other guys who claim to have known a great general named Alexander.

Since I already am open to the possibility of a great general named Alexander who did the things he did, this evidence is enough to convince me. It's also obviously enough to convince just about everyone else in the world that Alexander is real. I mean I am sure some people out there still think he is fake, but that's the normal view.

It is the same when we are talking about a historical Jesus. If I don't believe that someone who did the things Jesus was said to have done could possibly be real, I won't believe him to be real given the evidence we have. If I open myself up to the possibility, I find it hard not to believe in that case.

A historical Jesus who exists but does not do any of the stuff the Bible claims is one of the toughest things to back up historically. This is because you have to agree that the weakest historical evidence is reliable (small mentions in Josephus), but you have to say that the strongest historical evidence is unreliable. I mean the argument can be made and many do make it, but I think it's even more convoluted that just saying that Jesus was not real period.

Good, then I will answer what you wrote previously. By the way. I am enjoying this, its a fun discussion to have I think. (And not one I usually engage in since, well most people where I live are secular)

 

[Throwing Dummy]

If you saw something supernatural, how would you know who is behind it? Satan can also do supernatural things. He is real. His job is to deceive mankind.

1 John4

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

I would have to do my best - I am guessing this is how you are sure your beliefs are not deceptions of the devil - there is no other way.

 

[Hyperborean]

Hyperborean, God disagrees with you. I think I will go with God on this one.

Here is a cold hard fact. Some people are bound and determined to send themselves to hell and there is nothing that can be done about it.

That is just the way it is.

oh my, you are threatening me with hell now? Ok. Well I put as much stock into that that you would if I was to threaten you with you suffering in Helheim after you die unless you are bravely killed in battle, after all, Allfather Odin proclaims it to be so!! .....

You see what little effect that had on you? Your statement had the same on me, I try to keep a good tone because I enjoy a nice argument but it does say something about a person when he resorts to threats when he can

 

[Balto]

For what it is worth, to those who might ask "Why Christianity and not Islam?", the historical evidence is what helps me make that choice for myself.

A fundamental claim of Islam is that the Old and New Testaments, while having a kernel of truth, are both severely corrupted texts. That is why they have the Quran to set things straight again.

Based on the historical evidence and scholarship we have of the Old and New Testaments, I see nothing to suggest that these texts are corrupted at all. This includes older research that has been around for hundreds/thousands of years, as well as recent discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s.

From all of the evidence I have seen, these are authentic texts that date back to when they should. There doesn't seem to be any significant loss over time from transcription to transcription. For the New Testament especially, I don't believe there is really enough time for this to happen in the first place.

This is something that I believe almost entirely from normal historical methods applied to all sorts of secular things. Modern secular scholars just do not generally believe these texts are corrupt. They may not believe that the content of the texts is true, but there is minimal evidence of corruption over time.

 

[Oldguy]

oh my, you are threatening me with hell now? Ok. Well I put as much stock into that that you would if I was to threaten you with you suffering in Helheim after you die unless you are bravely killed in battle, after all, Allfather Odin proclaims it to be so!! .....

You see what little effect that had on you? Your statement had the same on me, I try to keep a good tone because I enjoy a nice argument but it does say something about a person when he resorts to threats when he can

 

[Marfa]

This thread about Jewish magicians and non-existing conquerors rustles my jimmies.

I believe in Carlos' Peruvian Spirit.

 

[Hyperborean]

But there is pretty strong historical evidence for a lot of the main characters in the Bible. We have a tomb for St. Paul, and they took an archaeological look at it in 2009. The fragments inside were consistent with someone dying around 0-100 AD, exactly when Paul is supposed to have died. It also says "Paul Apostle Martyr" on it, and the inscription dates from around then too.

I mean when we discover the remains of Richard III or something like we also did recently, we don't ask for a whole lot more evidence. The fact that it says it's him, the remains date, and everything seems consistent is enough for us to accept that as a reliable historical fact.

Yes, because there is nothing overtly out of the ordinary with the remains of a dead king. If a king makes war, remnants of that war can be found. If he fathers children, his descendants can be found and be genetically compared to the corpse of the king. If there was claims of Richard III being a clairvoyant or being able to do real magic. Finding his body does NOTHING for confirming that. Take Ceasar. The ancient romans where incredibly superstitious and their texts regarding Ceasar are full of references to divinde omens and signs of him being chosen by providence. Should those be accepted because they are in the texts and we know he existed? If not, then why should similar claims be accepted when it comes to Jesus? you can

 

[Hyperborean]

I can't threaten anyone with hell. I am telling you the consequences of your decisions. Kind of like "Don't stick you finger in a light socket, it will hurt."

I will let the scriptures say it

Judgment Before the Great White Throne

11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Oh shut it with your nonsensical parroting of bible verses... Try to construct an argument yourself instead, or is that to hard for you? At least Balto makes an effort, you have just shut your mind down.

But you know what? If its true, if you are right and I am sent to Hell just for disbelieving (despite living an otherwise fairly decent life). All I am doing is using my intellect and my reasoning to analyze the world around me. A mind your god gave me. If there is a lack of proof for his existance that is NOT my fault. And if you believe it is right to torture someone for eternity just for being intellectually honest then what the fuck is wrong with you? In that case your god is nothing more then a brute tyrant undeserving of any respect or worship!

 

[Hyperborean]

As to the points about later people being choosy about what sources they included for their history, this can happen, but how is that different than any of our secular histories of the ancient world? This is true for most of the stuff that we know about. We just accept that and move on.

The truth is that we believe in many other historical events with less evidence, wholly without controversy. You would be marked wrong on a history test for saying Alexander the Great was a fake. However, when it comes to Jesus, entirely different historical criteria are used.

I mean I do understand the difference in the level of claim. Alexander being the best general of all time is a pretty big claim, but it is not extraordinary in the way Jesus resurrecting from the dead is.

My point is that criticism of the historical nature of Christianity is not really based on the historical evidence itself. It is much more heavily based on the belief that the claim itself is too extraordinary to be true, and then the historical evidence is judged by an entirely different standard than other historical events.

If we are talking about how the bible was put together well I pointed out that it was a narrative put together to serve a purpose. When it comes to similar text, ie pure propaganda text written on behalf on conquering kings etc. Historians are usually pretty good at treating claims in those types of materials with a fair bit of skepticism. And those who do not will get called out on their bullshit.

I think I covered the different evidence argument in the other reply, but if you have another point to make on in go ahead.

 

[Balto]

If we are talking about how the bible was put together well I pointed out that it was a narrative put together to serve a purpose. When it comes to similar text, ie pure propaganda text written on behalf on conquering kings etc. Historians are usually pretty good at treating claims in those types of materials with a fair bit of skepticism. And those who do not will get called out on their bullshit.

I think I covered the different evidence argument in the other reply, but if you have another point to make on in go ahead.

With the Alexander example, I probably was not clear enough. I agree with you that modern history methods always toss out the supernatural as possible explanations. So I can't point to any figures that would be accepted as such.

My point was rather that if you don't automatically toss out such explanations, you will start seeing evidence for these things. It's just a matter of whether or not you choose to toss them out.

Now the special pleading part was a very keen observation. I can see how things appear that way from how this discussion has gone. But let me explain why it is not a case of special pleading.

Christians do not believe Jesus is the only person who ever had any supernatural powers. In fact, Christianity basically requires that you believe many people have been able to do these things. The prophets in the Old Testament were able to do supernatural things like part the sea. The apostles were able to do supernatural things immediately after Jesus's death. And all of the saints that came afterwards have had to do miracles in order to become saints.

There is also nothing in Christianity that says someone like Julius Caesar could not have had supernatural powers either. There is nothing in the Bible that strictly limits them to only Christians. As previously noted, there is the belief that there can be evil miracles too. But there would be nothing really to indicate that the miracles attributed to Caesar are good or evil necessarily. I am not super familiar with his miracles, but there is nothing about Christianity that says I should not be open to the possibility. So the supernatural claims are not a case of special pleading. Christians accept many cases of supernatural events occurring in people other than Jesus.

The reasons why Jesus is considered God are several. First, he explicitly claimed to be the Son of God. Then he said that he would prove it to people. Then he pulled off one of the biggest miracles ever attested to by resurrecting from the dead in three days.

None of the other supernatural cases Christians believe in have all of those components. All of those people are believed to still be dead. So that is why the Jesus resurrection story is so important to the faith. But as far as recognizing supernatural occurrences in general, Christians do so all the time. And yes, I believe it could even be with someone like Julius Caesar.