the right religion

[Muffled]

:biglaugh: Too hilarious

As a Christian and a Baptist I fail to see the origin of your humor. I suppose the idea is that the person was saying our religion is the right one because it is ours but I have never heard that mentioned on here so it would have been an innappropriate attribution.

As for finding it funny that we consider Christianity the right religion, I believe you egotisitically think that you know whether it is or not without examining the evidence.

 

[Muffled]

You said the one that is true. Your religion is posted as Christian/Baptist not true.

Sterling Archer got it.

Too simple for you

I didn't get it either because the reference was too obscure. I believe the quality of truth is not the name of a religion so it is hardly a valid argument that "true" isn't in the name of the religion so the relgion must not be true.

Howeve I don't believe truth qualifies a religion as right since no religion can contain all that is true although Christianity comes close. However if one say the religion is true to God then I would agree that it is the right religion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Through an honest and critical appriasal of the evidence- this is our most tried and true method of arriving at truth and knowledge.

Unfortunately, such an analysis doesn't lead to a right or true religion per se, although it leads to the truth of the matter- atheism.

On the other hand, asking for the "right religion", as in the true one, is slightly misplaced to begin with- not all religions are primarily concerned with truth as such, but rather a state of being. For instance, Buddhism doesn't purport to dictate a variety of metaphysical truths about reality, the way Christianity does- it simply doesn't speak to these questions. Buddhism is concerned with one thing- the annihiliation of suffering. Any questions about the true nature of reality are simply beside the point, they are questions which "do not tend towards edification".

(this differing attitude towards truth is the topic of my thread- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/150057-truth-different-religions.html)

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I believe Christianity comes from God and is therefore good so anyone saying it is bad is wrong. Everyone saying it is good is right.

That's your belief, and thankfully it does not dictate what's actually right and wrong. As for your other post about people calling Christianity wrong with no evidence; there is no evidence to prove that Christianity is the right religion. Contrary to popular belief, it has not been proven that Jesus existed, or that God does.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Contrary to popular belief, it has not been proven that Jesus existed

While this is technically true, I guess, it's highly misleading- while it hasn't been "proven", as in, demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, it has been established as highly probable (more probable than the alternative, that Jesus did not exist), and largely by secular scholarship. There is a fair amount of evidence, primarily historical reports from pagan/Greek/Jewish/Roman sources from the first few centuries, that there was in fact a person at least roughly corresponding to the person of Jesus Christ, as described by the Gospels, and not only that, but these writers appear to treat the subject as if it were a well-known fact in their time.

(now, importantly, this is NOT to say that there is any evidence this person rose from the dead, performed miracles, or was in any sense God or the Son of God- only that there was a Jew living in 1st century Judea who caused quite a ruckus with the religious and Roman authorities and likely went by the name Yeshua)

or that God does.

Right, although here again, the word "proof" is tricky; there have been many attempted "proofs" of the existence of God, and many of us are familiar with them from these very forums- but none of them can be said to be sound, and thus God's existence has not been "proven".

Alternatively, we can provide various proofs (and by "proof" I mean an argument)- which are at least prima facie logically sound- that something like the Christian God cannot exist, even in principle.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

While this is technically true, I guess, it's highly misleading- while it hasn't been "proven", as in, demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, it has been established as highly probable (more probable than the alternative, that Jesus did not exist), and largely by secular scholarship. There is a fair amount of evidence, primarily historical reports from pagan/Greek/Jewish/Roman sources from the first few centuries, that there was in fact a person at least roughly corresponding to the person of Jesus Christ, as described by the Gospels, and not only that, but these writers appear to treat the subject as if it were a well-known fact in their time.

I think you need to review the evidence. I seriously doubt that anyone recognizable as the gospel Jesus actually lived during that time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think you need to review the evidence. I seriously doubt that anyone recognizable as the gospel Jesus actually lived during that time.

Your doubt is noted. Unfortunately, it would seem you need to take your own advice. Review the sources which have lead nearly a unanimous majority of historians to conclude that someone at least roughly corresponding (underlined because this is crucial) to the Christ of the Gospels actually existed- Pliny, Tactitus, Josephus, etc. And by "roughly corresponding" I mean that there was a person who operated a small religious/political ministry in 1st century Judea who was put to death by the local government. No more.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

(now, importantly, this is NOT to say that there is any evidence this person rose from the dead, performed miracles, or was in any sense God or the Son of God- only that there was a Jew living in 1st century Judea who caused quite a ruckus with the religious and Roman authorities and likely went by the name Yeshua)

No Greek or Roman historians specifically named him Jesus/Yeshua until after the Gospels were in wide circulation. Early historians only used the word "Christus" to describe this person, implying that their source was in fact early pre-Gospel Christians, who obviously wanted people to believe such a man existed, but had not named him yet. The Epistles never use the word "Jesus/Yeshua" either because the name had not been invented by the Gospel writers yet. There are no eyewitness accounts to corroborate the existence of such a person, thus there is really no concrete evidence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Your doubt is noted. Unfortunately, it would seem you need to take your own advice. Review the sources which have lead nearly a unanimous majority of historians to conclude that someone at least roughly corresponding (underlined because this is crucial) to the Christ of the Gospels actually existed- Pliny, Tactitus, Josephus, etc. And by "roughly corresponding" I mean that there was a person who operated a small religious/political ministry in 1st century Judea who was put to death by the local government. No more.

Josephus' writings have been proven to be forged for quite some time now. No modern historian lends any credit to those accounts. Tacitus and Pliny both most likely got their information from early Christians, as I said earlier.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your doubt is noted. Unfortunately, it would seem you need to take your own advice. Review the sources which have lead nearly a unanimous majority of historians to conclude that someone at least roughly corresponding (underlined because this is crucial) to the Christ of the Gospels actually existed- Pliny, Tactitus, Josephus, etc. And by "roughly corresponding" I mean that there was a person who operated a small religious/political ministry in 1st century Judea who was put to death by the local government. No more.

Go back. Study the evidence. Don't let the cultural assumption convince you of something which isn't true. If you do that, you're a slave of your culture. Better to think free, I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Josephus' writings have been proven to be forged for quite some time now. No modern historian lends any credit to those accounts. Tacitus and Pliny both most likely got their information from early Christians, as I said earlier.

It's amazing to me that people think seriously of Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus -- as legitimate references to the historical Jesus. I think that only can be explained by special pleading. In other words one has to want to believe in the historical Jesus in order to accept them as good evidence of Jesus.

Just my opinion, but a pretty strong one.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I agree with you, AmbGuy. The Josephus writings are a proven fraud. The parts that mention Jesus were not written by Josephus at all, but interpolations added by Christians trying fabricate historical evidence of Jesus. Alone, the fact that they would do this is a strike against Jesus actually having existed. This has been known for some time, and the Josephus writings have lost all credibility. Pliny and Tacitus can hardly be called reliable, as neither of them were eyewitnesses to any of these supposed events. Tacitus' source of the Jesus story was most likely Pliny, and Pliny's source is untraceable, but certainly not an eyewitness account (he would have been 10-14 years old when Jesus was said to have died, and at that point he was living in Italy). Also, neither use the name Jesus/Yeshua specifically. They simply refer to "Christus"; the title used by pre-gospel Christians to identify their messiah, who might or might not have been believed to be a real person. This implies that Pliny's source was early Christians trying to propagate the myth as fact; a story which he later passed on to Tacitus. The name "Jesus/Yeshua" did not come up in any texts at all until around 70 AD when the gospel of Mark was written, which is the reason the word "Jesus/Yeshua" wasn't used in any of the Epistles.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree with you, AmbGuy. The Josephus writings are a proven fraud. The parts that mention Jesus were not written by Josephus at all, but interpolations added by Christians trying fabricate historical evidence of Jesus. Alone, the fact that they would do this is a strike against Jesus actually having existed. This has been known for some time, and the Josephus writings have lost all credibility. Pliny and Tacitus can hardly be called reliable, as neither of them were eyewitnesses to any of these supposed events. Tacitus' source of the Jesus story was most likely Pliny, and Pliny's source is untraceable, but certainly not an eyewitness account (he would have been 10-14 years old when Jesus was said to have died, and at that point he was living in Italy). Also, neither use the name Jesus/Yeshua specifically. They simply refer to "Christus"; the title used by pre-gospel Christians to identify their messiah, who might or might not have been believed to be a real person. This implies that Pliny's source was early Christians trying to propagate the myth as fact; a story which he later passed on to Tacitus. The name "Jesus/Yeshua" did not come up in any texts at all until around 70 AD when the gospel of Mark was written, which is the reason the word "Jesus/Yeshua" wasn't used in any of the Epistles.

Actually wasn't it Pliny the Younger (b. 60 CE) who mentions Jesus?

Anyway, I find the evidence for an historical Jesus to be inadequate so I was surprised at the assumption of his historicity, especially from an avowed atheist.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Actually wasn't it Pliny the Younger (b. 60 CE) who mentions Jesus?

You're right; Pliny the younger did write about Jesus, but Tacitus names Pliny the elder as a source for Annals, in which he put his bit about Jesus. Could be that both Pliny the younger and Tacitus heard this story from Pliny the elder.

 

[Sha'irullah]

As for finding it funny that we consider Christianity the right religion, I believe you egotisitically think that you know whether it is or not without examining the evidence.

:biglaugh: this is even funnier. You have failed to realize that I was born into Christianity and enjoyed going through the "evidences" of Christianity and once believed it myself. The issue is once I grew up and acquired real knowledge this changed.

There is no evidence for Christianity as a whole. The Nile has not dried and Egypt still persists. Failed prophecies and a god who sent himself as a supposed son to die for the sins he gave humanity in order to rectify his guilt.

This has nothing to do with egoism. It has to do with YOUR egoism thinking that such a religion is the right one. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but to have such firm faith in a religion that has been disproven so many times baffles me.
You accuse me of not "examining" the "evidence". How can I examine something not present?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You're right; Pliny the younger did write about Jesus, but Tacitus names Pliny the elder as a source for Annals, in which he put his bit about Jesus. Could be that both Pliny the younger and Tacitus heard this story from Pliny the elder.

I think Mark was hearing lots of stories about the Christ, based on earlier godmen stories, and that he decided to write about an actual Jewish messiah, placing him in 0-30 CE Judea. I think he created Jesus-the-man from his imagination, that early Jesus deniers were shouted down and written out of the history books, and that a fiction became reality, so powerful was the need for a hero savior.

Just my current best guess. Every word of the gospels could yet be true for all I know.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I think Mark was hearing lots of stories about the Christ, based on earlier godmen stories, and that he decided to write about an actual Jewish messiah, placing him in 0-30 CE Judea. I think he created Jesus-the-man from his imagination, that early Jesus deniers were shouted down and written out of the history books, and that a fiction became reality, so powerful was the need for a hero savior.

Just my current best guess. Every word of the gospels could yet be true for all I know.

The Christ myth (with all the sun-based demigod magic) was told among early Christians before the name Jesus or the Gospels existed. Mark was just the first person to put the story in writing and use the name Jesus. Mark may have been the first person to say Jesus was actually a person on Earth, but there is not enough evidence to tell one way or another. I definitely don't think a single word of the Gospels is true; the stories just bear way too much resemblance to other mythology.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Josephus' writings have been proven to be forged for quite some time now.

Again, your statement contains a kernal of truth but is so misleading that it is literally false. There is indeed a high likelihood that the extant document is not authentic in its entirety, but that is a far cry from it being, on the whole, a "forgery". Specifically, the Testimonium Flavianum, which recounts Christ's execution at the hands of Pilate, is likely a later addition, not by Josephus.

No modern historian lends any credit to those accounts.

Bollucks. There is an overwhelming scholarly consensus (Painter, Feldman and Hata, Bauckham, Maier, Schkrecknberg and Schuburt, Kostenberger, Kellum and Quarles, Voorst, Evans, Wansbrough, Wells... we could go on here ad naseum) that much of the extant manuscripts by Josephus are indeed authentic, including and especially several references to Christ and John the Baptist NOT found in the Testimonium Flavianum (i.e. the part that was forged).

Tacitus and Pliny both most likely got their information from early Christians, as I said earlier.

"Most likely"? Who's measuring for the conclusion here? While this is certainly possible, and even likely, it is not certain, and the testimony of those like Tacitus and Pliney nevertheless constitutes some evidence of the existence of a person corresponding to the Biblical Christ. Far from decisive evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Go back. Study the evidence.

You really need to lay off giving advice, you have no skill for it.

Anyway, I find the evidence for an historical Jesus to be inadequate so I was surprised at the assumption of his historicity, especially from an avowed atheist.

Don't let the cultural assumption convince you of something which isn't true.

Lol, ok.

1. I am not convinced one way or the other. I'm simply being honest- there is a fair amount of evidence, comparable at the very least to the quantity and quality of available evidence for many other historical figures, that someone at least roughly corresponding to the character of Jesus Christ actually existed. I don't find it compelling evidence, but I'm ALSO not making the opposite assumption that these sources are necessarily false, out of hand, as ISLAM167 appears to be doing. I'm agnostic on the matter- but stating unequivocally that theres zero reason to think Christ ever existed is misleading at best, false at worst. There is some reason to think that, even if it is not sufficient reason to think that.

2. It is not a cultural assumption. It is a subject of a fair scholarly consensus. Now don't mistake me, this is not an argument from authority- I'm not saying they are necessarily right (as I said, I'm agnostic on the matter at present), but the fact that there is a consensus among experts at least deserves consideration rather than blanket dismissal.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Alone, the fact that they would do this is a strike against Jesus actually having existed.

Why?

Pliny and Tacitus can hardly be called reliable

Why not?

as neither of them were eyewitnesses to any of these supposed events.

So? There are credible and genuine historical accounts which are not from eyewitnesses...

Tacitus' source of the Jesus story was most likely Pliny

Can we source this?

and Pliny's source is untraceable, but certainly not an eyewitness account

Obviously not an eyewitness account but again, so what? And lets not forget that Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus are only three of the commonly cited sources which refer to Christ- theres the Talmudic sources, Lucian, Suetonius, among others. Regardless of what we ultimately think, one cannot say that there is no evidence for the historicity of Christ, even if it is deemed insufficient or unreliable evidence.