"that's quite cheesy I suppose" understatement of the year. This guy's whole demeanour is very cheesy and preachy. I just can't accept it when he proclaims that faith in Jesus through scripture alone can give eternal life, protestants misinterpret scripture constantly hence why they have split into over 70,000 different factions. Faith and works is a far more convincing statement of how to, please God (if you believe that is) and attain eternal life.
Yet none of us keep the law perfectly, religious or not. Hmm... Makes you wish there was someone out there who had kept the law perfectly as a sin-bearing substitute. Can anyone help?
I don't need to give reason or evidence because I am not looking to prove anything - to disbelieve something is the default and modest position when faced with a lack of proof. Since evangelicals have no proof and only assumptions, they have no place in an academic institution where ideas are backed up with reason. Stating the bible is true with no adequate reasoning is a form of deception, and I don't tolerate lies.
'to disbelieve something is the default and modest position when faced with a lack of proof.'
Yeah - I agree. It's more modest to doubt 'everything came from nothing' as many atheists do. There's no evidence for it. So I doubt it.
'I don't tolerate lies' - that's sinister - I've heard that kind of thing before. Tell me, how would you go about enforcing your non-tolerance if you (God forbid) had power? I shudder to think - I've read my history...
Atheists do not believe everything came from nothing, that's ridiculous. The best evidence suggests the universe expanded rom a point of singularity - speculation beyond this without the mathematics to back it up is indeed immodest. To pontificate about possibilities beyond scientific verification is to lie about the value of ones own convictions - and this produces religions that consume millions in ritualistic systems that do not better explain our reality. Lies produce witchburners and fools.
Nope I don't know where the point of singularity came from, if that question is even intelligible in the realm of quantum physics and mathematics. That's called being modest, stating that one does not know everything. I said religion produces witchburners and fools, not all believers are. To believe you know things when you cannot prove them, or justify them beyond other alternatives, is foolish and arrogant. We know a big bang happened, we simply cannot explain the nature of its origins.
I appreciate you modesty. So my faith in an eternal Creator as the explanation of what neither of could empirically prove is reasonable. We all have faith - some of us admit it. We all have faith - something being caused by a 'greater' being is reasonable faith even if not strictly demonstrable by the methods of induction. After all, induction itself is not proven by induction but believed by faith as an axiom for science.
Nope faith is not reasonable because it is the justification of a belief on nothing more than conviction - conviction is not a form of proof. Empirical reasoning is a process based on the principles that there are common principles and order within reality which we can demonstrate. Faith and practical reason are very different, and you have no justification for stating you have true knowledge of a creator, other than your own self-affirming opinion.
You have faith in 'empirical reasoning' and what you call 'practical reason' - you are just blind to your faith. Prove empiricism without assuming it. Demonstrate the validity of practical reason without using the reason you assume (else you are engaging in circular reasoning). Induction can only give probabilities which is not knowledge - or have you answered David Hume's charge?
The 'bible', as we know it was not around in those times. The ENTIRE NEW TESTIMATE was written after Jesus' death...and this is if you believe the Jesus Myth in the first place.
Your first point is flawed beyond repair, and in my opinion so are the rest.
"this is if you believe the Jesus Myth in the first place." Wow! - do you know any reputable historian who doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? What EVIDENCE do you have for distrusting all the contemporary witnesses (gospel writers, Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius etc. etc.)
Or do you take it as untrustworthy on faith? Hey, I believe you should be allowed your faith too...
er, no actually. Mark was written in the 1stC. (probably under Nero's persecution - Mark has clear background in persecution)- the last NT book was written by the end of the 1stC.
As to your first point - Jesus was speaking of the Old Testament - yes the NT was written after him. But He said the Spirit would guide the apostles into 'all truth' - which is what they wrote down and we now have as the NT.
Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based on apparent references to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, combined with the assumption that the first readers would not have understood these references if the gospel had been written prior to the events described.
Mark 13:14-23, known as the "Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, ...
This presupposes (by faith) that Jesus could not foretell the destruction of Jerusalem. A lot of higher criticism works on this presupposition. But the presupposition itself is debatable of course...
3.Tacitus, wrote "the Annals", around A.D. 115. In it, he states:"Nero created scapegoats....whom the common people called 'Christians'.... Where did Tacitus get his information about Jesus? Scholars point out, he mistakenly calls Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect.
Tacitus is simply repeating what Christians of his day were saying about their origins. There is no basis here for concluding that he was presenting independent testimony about the historical figure of Jesus.
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on (the)Christians...Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome'
The Christians called their beliefs a 'mischievous superstition' - hardly likely. Or did he himself add that bit? Then where's your evidence?
Are you kidding?! Tacitus explicitly mentions 'Christus' from whom the 'Christians' derive their name. This ties in with Acts 11.26.
The onus is on the historian to give good reason for the rise of a 'myth' when there exists a very simple explanation for belief in the existence of a person - i.e. that he actually existed.
4. Suetonius his biography of the emperor Claudius, A.D. 120, he writes about the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49. Suetonius' account makes for interesting reading. But, again, it is far from being an independent witness to the historical Jesus.
5. Josephus lived from A.D. 37 to 100, and wrote Jewish Antiquities which recounts Jewish history from creation to the Jewish revolt against Rome (A.D. 66-70). Josephus gives us only two passages about Jesus. And even these references are difficult to assess. The texts available to us today contain statements that were added later by Christian editors. This is clearly seen in the famous Testimonium Flavianum, "the testimony of Josephus," found in Antiquities 18:63-64.
'The texts available to us today contain statements that were added later by Christian editors' The text of Josephus reads, 'the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ' - Christians saying Jesus is the so-called Christ? Not likely - you have too much faith.
I too have my doubts about the Testimonium Flavianum, but I'm not referring to that.
'I find your comments are ....." a poor substitute for a rational counter-argument. But, ironically, truth and rationality as well as human dignity are the victims of CHRISTIAN theory.
Have you got any facts to back up this emotional tirade? Or was it a purely cathartic moment? Truth and rationality? How does evolutionary naturalism account for unvarying, universal, immaterial laws of logic?! Human dignity? Are you kidding?! Have you 'overlooked' how the atheistic regimes trampled their boots on the face of human dignity in Soviet Russia, Mao's China etc?
In my previous posts I displayed the facts....and incase you did not notice, in my statement above I was quoting YOUR WEBSITE.
If it sounds to you like and "emotional tirade", then I very much agree. It is YOUR emotional tirade. But the proof is in the pudding.
The bible is full of untruths (age of the earth, global flood, Pi), is irrational (shalt not kill/ kill man-woman-child, marry your rapist) and hurts human dignity (pro slavery, woman are inferior). The list goes on and on.
I didn't realise you were quoting me. Why haven't you answered the question I first put: where is the reputable historian who believes Jesus did not exist?
"that's quite cheesy I suppose" understatement of the year. This guy's whole demeanour is very cheesy and preachy. I just can't accept it when he proclaims that faith in Jesus through scripture alone can give eternal life, protestants misinterpret scripture constantly hence why they have split into over 70,000 different factions. Faith and works is a far more convincing statement of how to, please God (if you believe that is) and attain eternal life.
Gurn92 3 months ago
wouldn't it be a grand world if everyone would just follow the ten commandments? would there be wars and killing? religeous wars? I wonder.
butchfoot 3 years ago
Yet none of us keep the law perfectly, religious or not. Hmm... Makes you wish there was someone out there who had kept the law perfectly as a sin-bearing substitute. Can anyone help?
jgourlay6 3 years ago
Evangelical Christians have no place in universities.
lonerook860 3 years ago 2
That would be your 'liberal tolerance' coming into play? Perhaps you don't pretend to be tolerant...
I notice you didn't give a REASON or any EVIDENCE for what you say? Is that your 'rationality' at work? Just asking...
jgourlay6 3 years ago
I don't need to give reason or evidence because I am not looking to prove anything - to disbelieve something is the default and modest position when faced with a lack of proof. Since evangelicals have no proof and only assumptions, they have no place in an academic institution where ideas are backed up with reason. Stating the bible is true with no adequate reasoning is a form of deception, and I don't tolerate lies.
lonerook860 3 years ago 2
'to disbelieve something is the default and modest position when faced with a lack of proof.'
Yeah - I agree. It's more modest to doubt 'everything came from nothing' as many atheists do. There's no evidence for it. So I doubt it.
'I don't tolerate lies' - that's sinister - I've heard that kind of thing before. Tell me, how would you go about enforcing your non-tolerance if you (God forbid) had power? I shudder to think - I've read my history...
jgourlay6 3 years ago
Atheists do not believe everything came from nothing, that's ridiculous. The best evidence suggests the universe expanded rom a point of singularity - speculation beyond this without the mathematics to back it up is indeed immodest. To pontificate about possibilities beyond scientific verification is to lie about the value of ones own convictions - and this produces religions that consume millions in ritualistic systems that do not better explain our reality. Lies produce witchburners and fools.
lonerook860 3 years ago 2
And the 'point of singularity' comes from...? Ah, you don't know - it would be 'immodest' to say so. But it certainly wasn't God!
And all believers are 'witchburners and fools'?! Does this straw man make you feel better? Is it a psychological crutch for you?
jgourlay6 3 years ago
Nope I don't know where the point of singularity came from, if that question is even intelligible in the realm of quantum physics and mathematics. That's called being modest, stating that one does not know everything. I said religion produces witchburners and fools, not all believers are. To believe you know things when you cannot prove them, or justify them beyond other alternatives, is foolish and arrogant. We know a big bang happened, we simply cannot explain the nature of its origins.
lonerook860 3 years ago
I appreciate you modesty. So my faith in an eternal Creator as the explanation of what neither of could empirically prove is reasonable. We all have faith - some of us admit it. We all have faith - something being caused by a 'greater' being is reasonable faith even if not strictly demonstrable by the methods of induction. After all, induction itself is not proven by induction but believed by faith as an axiom for science.
jgourlay6 3 years ago
Nope faith is not reasonable because it is the justification of a belief on nothing more than conviction - conviction is not a form of proof. Empirical reasoning is a process based on the principles that there are common principles and order within reality which we can demonstrate. Faith and practical reason are very different, and you have no justification for stating you have true knowledge of a creator, other than your own self-affirming opinion.
lonerook860 3 years ago
You have faith in 'empirical reasoning' and what you call 'practical reason' - you are just blind to your faith. Prove empiricism without assuming it. Demonstrate the validity of practical reason without using the reason you assume (else you are engaging in circular reasoning). Induction can only give probabilities which is not knowledge - or have you answered David Hume's charge?
jgourlay6 3 years ago
I'd like to see atheist biblical scholars and historians at this meeting tossing actual critical comments at these people.
CamdenBloke 3 years ago 3
1:00..."Jesus said this about the bible"
Jesus did not say this about 'the bible'.
The 'bible', as we know it was not around in those times. The ENTIRE NEW TESTIMATE was written after Jesus' death...and this is if you believe the Jesus Myth in the first place.
Your first point is flawed beyond repair, and in my opinion so are the rest.
dmosier 4 years ago 3
"this is if you believe the Jesus Myth in the first place." Wow! - do you know any reputable historian who doubts the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? What EVIDENCE do you have for distrusting all the contemporary witnesses (gospel writers, Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius etc. etc.)
Or do you take it as untrustworthy on faith? Hey, I believe you should be allowed your faith too...
jgourlay6 3 years ago
1. way to completely miss my first point!
2. the first gospel (Mark) was written no sooner that 80 years after Jebuse's death, the rest MUCH LATER (its a fact Look it up)
dmosier 3 years ago
er, no actually. Mark was written in the 1stC. (probably under Nero's persecution - Mark has clear background in persecution)- the last NT book was written by the end of the 1stC.
As to your first point - Jesus was speaking of the Old Testament - yes the NT was written after him. But He said the Spirit would guide the apostles into 'all truth' - which is what they wrote down and we now have as the NT.
jgourlay6 3 years ago
From Wikipedia
Dating of Mark after 70 AD is based on apparent references to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, combined with the assumption that the first readers would not have understood these references if the gospel had been written prior to the events described.
Mark 13:14-23, known as the "Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, ...
dmosier 3 years ago
This presupposes (by faith) that Jesus could not foretell the destruction of Jerusalem. A lot of higher criticism works on this presupposition. But the presupposition itself is debatable of course...
jgourlay6 3 years ago
Where is YOUR PROOF that "Mark was written in the 1stC"?
Please provide a source.
dmosier 3 years ago
3.Tacitus, wrote "the Annals", around A.D. 115. In it, he states:"Nero created scapegoats....whom the common people called 'Christians'.... Where did Tacitus get his information about Jesus? Scholars point out, he mistakenly calls Pilate a procurator when he was actually a prefect.
Tacitus is simply repeating what Christians of his day were saying about their origins. There is no basis here for concluding that he was presenting independent testimony about the historical figure of Jesus.
dmosier 3 years ago
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on (the)Christians...Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome'
The Christians called their beliefs a 'mischievous superstition' - hardly likely. Or did he himself add that bit? Then where's your evidence?
jgourlay6 3 years ago
So then we agree that Tacitus is not a reliable source. Good to find some common ground
dmosier 3 years ago
Are you kidding?! Tacitus explicitly mentions 'Christus' from whom the 'Christians' derive their name. This ties in with Acts 11.26.
The onus is on the historian to give good reason for the rise of a 'myth' when there exists a very simple explanation for belief in the existence of a person - i.e. that he actually existed.
jgourlay6 3 years ago
4. Suetonius his biography of the emperor Claudius, A.D. 120, he writes about the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49. Suetonius' account makes for interesting reading. But, again, it is far from being an independent witness to the historical Jesus.
dmosier 3 years ago
5. Josephus lived from A.D. 37 to 100, and wrote Jewish Antiquities which recounts Jewish history from creation to the Jewish revolt against Rome (A.D. 66-70). Josephus gives us only two passages about Jesus. And even these references are difficult to assess. The texts available to us today contain statements that were added later by Christian editors. This is clearly seen in the famous Testimonium Flavianum, "the testimony of Josephus," found in Antiquities 18:63-64.
Facts
Look into it
dmosier 3 years ago
'The texts available to us today contain statements that were added later by Christian editors' The text of Josephus reads, 'the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ' - Christians saying Jesus is the so-called Christ? Not likely - you have too much faith.
I too have my doubts about the Testimonium Flavianum, but I'm not referring to that.
jgourlay6 3 years ago
'I find your comments are ....." a poor substitute for a rational counter-argument. But, ironically, truth and rationality as well as human dignity are the victims of CHRISTIAN theory.
dmosier 3 years ago
Have you got any facts to back up this emotional tirade? Or was it a purely cathartic moment? Truth and rationality? How does evolutionary naturalism account for unvarying, universal, immaterial laws of logic?! Human dignity? Are you kidding?! Have you 'overlooked' how the atheistic regimes trampled their boots on the face of human dignity in Soviet Russia, Mao's China etc?
jgourlay6 3 years ago
In my previous posts I displayed the facts....and incase you did not notice, in my statement above I was quoting YOUR WEBSITE.
If it sounds to you like and "emotional tirade", then I very much agree. It is YOUR emotional tirade. But the proof is in the pudding.
The bible is full of untruths (age of the earth, global flood, Pi), is irrational (shalt not kill/ kill man-woman-child, marry your rapist) and hurts human dignity (pro slavery, woman are inferior). The list goes on and on.
dmosier 3 years ago
I didn't realise you were quoting me. Why haven't you answered the question I first put: where is the reputable historian who believes Jesus did not exist?
jgourlay6 3 years ago