Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[Humanistheart]

Okay my apologies for the belated response.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing against your idea that Christians have nothing besides the Bible on which to base their opinions of Jesus..

I was not arguing that christians have nothing else, although you must admit few use them. But in an historical inquiry into jesus the only thing scholars accept are the documents composed closest to his life. This is also one of the reasons many of what we know call gnostic texts weren't included. On a historical bases the bible's the best shot. Talk to oberon about this if you're daubting this, it's my understanding he's writing his theasis on this or a very similar topic.

Mormons are Christians. If your argument doesn't address Mormons' beliefs, it doesn't address the entirety of Christian belief..

Actually, they're not (and quite frankly I can't understand why they'd want to be). This site includes them as christians so I can see where you got confused. Take a religious education class if you have the time and money. I have studied christianity, jesus specifically, and the abrahamic religions. No class ever included the mormons. On a social aspect, non of the major christian denominations recognizes mormons as christians. All polls involving religiouns number keep mormons seperate, and our government does not consider them the same. But most importantly, they have a different god than the christians. But even if those reasons don't seem compelling to you, and we were to call them christians, the fact would remain that they have a different god than the god of 'mainstream' christians. Mormons do not believe jesus was god, nor do they believe in the trinity. So we would still have to address their god seperate from the mainstream christian god concept. But to avoid any symantical issues I'll specify, I'm disproving the mainstream christian god.

I don't need to. They're not relevant to the question of disproving that Jesus is God. .

Yes and no, this is where I think we are miscommunicating. I'll explain futher down.

All you've argued so far is that Jesus doesn't fulfil Jewish messianic prophecies. You jump from there to claiming you've proven that Jesus isn't God. There's a disconnect, and I haven't misunderstood it..

I don't understand why christians feel that the messiah and god are necesarrily connected either. The prophicies didn't call for the messiah to be god, nor is it really necessary. But the fact remains, the majority of christians do make that link. The key to jesus being god is someone linked to him being messiah. In the end we don't have to understand why they think that, just that they do.

Still, think about it. As I asked you before if I said Penguin is a flaming homosexual who loves going to gay bars, is into hardcore d/s relationships, likes to post on RF and has a 6th finger on his left hand, am I describing you, or a character loosely based on you. All one would have to do to prove that penguin didn't exist was disprove one of those descriptors. Perhaps a picture of your hand would do it. And then that character penguin has been proved false. It's the same with this. You're right in that this doesn't mean christianity can't adapt, or that jesus wasn't god, but it does mean that the character god they've created doesn't exist. For all intensive purposes, it disproves the god most mainstream christians believe in.

The Bible, the New Testament anyway, explicitly claims that Jesus is the Messiah. This is separate to anything it also claims about Jesus meeting messianic prophecy..

Yet the authors fail to show jesus was the messiah.

And only Sola Scriptura Protestants claim to base their entire faith on the Bible. The majority of Christians, including all Catholic and Orthodox churches, also cite "Holy Tradition" as a source of doctrine. Even if you throw away the Bible, this tradition would be enough for the majority of Christians to point to Jesus as the Messiah..

Yes, I agree that they most likely would. But just because people believe something and have been saying that belief for a long time, does not make it fact. Imagine if someone on RF claimed they'd proved god through tradition. I'm sure you, like myself, would be all over that.

You're reading things into my posts that I never said. I never once claimed that your interpretation was yours alone. It's the interpretation that you were presenting to us, and as such it's quite reasonable to call it "yours". "Your interpretation" does not necessarily mean "the interpretation that you and you alone came up with"..

My mistake.

If we restrict ourselves to non-Christian interpretations of Jewish messianic prophecies, we would also come to the conclusion that the Messiah is not God, making Jewish messianic prophecies irrelevant to answering the question of whether any person who we have decided is not the Jewish messiah is or is not God..

Christian 'interpretation' is more accuratly called mistranslation and misquatation. Besides, I'm not interested in interpretation, just truth. The messianic prophicies are fairly straight forward, they don't seem to need much interpreting. Interpret, in this context, seems little more than a word used to avoid saying 'how can I twist this the way I want it'. Not what I'm going for.

Not to the idea that Jesus isn't the Messiah. I agree that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament in a way that I think is inconsistent. I see major problems with the New Testament claims that Jesus fulfilled Jewish messianic prophecies. What I'm arguing is that none of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus is God or not, and probably don't even have any bearing on whether Christians are justified in believing Jesus to be the Messiah.

I, again, agree that is shouldn't. But again, the fact is that christians link them. But I've already addressed this earlier.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay my apologies for the belated response.

No worries.

I was not arguing that christians have nothing else, although you must admit few use them.

No, I don't - the vast majority of Christians are not "few".

But in an historical inquiry into jesus the only thing scholars accept are the documents composed closest to his life. This is also one of the reasons many of what we know call gnostic texts weren't included. On a historical bases the bible's the best shot. Talk to oberon about this if you're daubting this, it's my understanding he's writing his theasis on this or a very similar topic.

What does any of this have to do with your argument?

Actually, they're not (and quite frankly I can't understand why they'd want to be). This site includes them as christians so I can see where you got confused.

They believe in Jesus and believe him to be the Son of God and the Christ. They're Christians by any reasonable definition.

Sure, they're not Trinitarian by the mainstream definition of the Trinity, but if that's the criteria you use to decide whether a denomination is Christian, then you're going to have to throw away lots of others, like Unitarian Christians and Pentecostals.

Take a religious education class if you have the time and money. I have studied christianity, jesus specifically, and the abrahamic religions. No class ever included the mormons.

I've taken many structural engineering classes; none of them ever included carbon fibre as a building material. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean you can't build structures (very light and strong ones, actually) out of it.

On a social aspect, non of the major christian denominations recognizes mormons as christians.

On a social aspect, I've had evangelical Protestants tell me that Catholics weren't Christians. They were incorrect.

All polls involving religiouns number keep mormons seperate, and our government does not consider them the same.

Most polls involving religion divide Christianity up into denominations. And why would you necessarily consider the government's opinion on this to be authoritative? After all, if you're talking about the American government, then you're talking about the same government that classed ketchup as a "vegetable" for school lunches.

But most importantly, they have a different god than the christians. But even if those reasons don't seem compelling to you, and we were to call them christians, the fact would remain that they have a different god than the god of 'mainstream' christians.

They have a different take on God than most Christians. So do several other Christian denominations. Still, they believe that Jesus was the Christ, which pretty much solidifies their claim to the descriptor "Christian" right there.

Mormons do not believe jesus was god, nor do they believe in the trinity. So we would still have to address their god seperate from the mainstream christian god concept. But to avoid any symantical issues I'll specify, I'm disproving the mainstream christian god.

Okay... so you concede that your argument doesn't address beliefs of non-mainstream Christianity at all, right?

Yes and no, this is where I think we are miscommunicating. I'll explain futher down.

I don't understand why christians feel that the messiah and god are necesarrily connected either. The prophicies didn't call for the messiah to be god, nor is it really necessary. But the fact remains, the majority of christians do make that link. The key to jesus being god is someone linked to him being messiah. In the end we don't have to understand why they think that, just that they do.

Except here's the problem: for your argument to really work, you have to establish not only that Christians do this, but that they must do this. Otherwise, even if you were to establish that Jesus wasn't the promised Messiah, there would be nothing to stop a Christian from saying "well, maybe not, but he's still God."

Still, think about it. As I asked you before if I said Penguin is a flaming homosexual who loves going to gay bars, is into hardcore d/s relationships, likes to post on RF and has a 6th finger on his left hand, am I describing you, or a character loosely based on you. All one would have to do to prove that penguin didn't exist was disprove one of those descriptors. Perhaps a picture of your hand would do it. And then that character penguin has been proved false. It's the same with this. You're right in that this doesn't mean christianity can't adapt, or that jesus wasn't god, but it does mean that the character god they've created doesn't exist. For all intensive purposes, it disproves the god most mainstream christians believe in.

See, that's the thing: your argument only works if you prove that all those attributes you say I have are necessary parts of me. If it's not necessary that I have six fingers on my left hand, then when I show you my five-fingered hand, it's actually much more reasonable to conclude that your description of me was simply incorrect.

In fact, I'm not sure how what you describe could ever be considered to be a disproof of my existence. Even if having six fingers on my left hand was a necessary attribute of me, if I were to show you a five-fingered left hand, this would be proof that I wasn't the Penguin you described. It's not a disproof of this other Penguin; it wouldn't provide any information on this other Penguin at all.

Yet the authors fail to show jesus was the messiah.

So what? The New Testament says Jesus was the Messiah. You argue that the Old Testament implies he wasn't. The only real conclusion you could draw from this is that the Bible is contradictory. To get past that, you have to make a case for why we should accept Old Testament prophecy (and your interpretation of it) over a New Testament claim, which I haven't seen you do so far.

Yes, I agree that they most likely would. But just because people believe something and have been saying that belief for a long time, does not make it fact. Imagine if someone on RF claimed they'd proved god through tradition. I'm sure you, like myself, would be all over that.

Whether the practice is valid or not, what it seems you're telling me is that your argument doesn't work for any denomination that considers "Holy Tradition" to be a source of doctrine and teaching. As I pointed out before, this excludes the majority of Christians with one fell swoop.

Christian 'interpretation' is more accuratly called mistranslation and misquatation. Besides, I'm not interested in interpretation, just truth. The messianic prophicies are fairly straight forward, they don't seem to need much interpreting. Interpret, in this context, seems little more than a word used to avoid saying 'how can I twist this the way I want it'. Not what I'm going for.

But you do agree that most Jewish interpretations of what the Messiah will do and be include the conclusion that he won't be God, right?

Messianic prophecies only speak about the Messiah. They don't say anything about anyone who isn't the Messiah. Once you establish that Jesus is not the Messiah, then you have to conclude that they're completely useless for determining whether Jesus is or is not God; at this point, your source simply gives you no information that can lead you to your conclusion.

I, again, agree that is shouldn't. But again, the fact is that christians link them. But I've already addressed this earlier.

And like I said above, this only gets you so far as "the Bible is inconsistent", which is quite a bit shy of "Jesus is not God".

 

[tumbleweed41]

Mine yes! IDK about anyone else.

So you admit ignorance of competing omnipotent god concepts, and lay your faith upon the one that you know best.

Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God. The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the trinitarian view of most Christians, the Yahweh definition of Judaism , and the Islamic concept of God. And within each of these is numerous conflicting definitions of God.
Some definitions of God are nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory.
And in all this, each 'believer' claims to 'know' that their concept of God is the correct one. Wars have been fought over whose concept of God was correct. There are martyrs for every concept of God, and for those who have no theistic beliefs at all.
And through all of these numerous god concepts, omnipotence is still claimed. Contradicting the fact that an omnipotent god would have the ability to make itself known through much better means than conflicting and vague revelations to a select few.
When looking at these facts, there are only a few logical choices remaining.

• God is not omnipotent, and cannot make it's will known to men.
• God is omnipotent, but incompetent.
• God is not intercessionary, and makes no revelations to mankind.
• All god concepts are equally valid, including the non-existence of god.
• There is no God.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So you admit ignorance of competing omnipotent god concepts, and lay your faith upon the one that you know best.

Conceptions of God held by individual believers vary so widely that there is no clear consensus on the nature of God. The Abrahamic conceptions of God include the trinitarian view of most Christians, the Yahweh definition of Judaism , and the Islamic concept of God. And within each of these is numerous conflicting definitions of God.
Some definitions of God are nonspecific, while other definitions can be self-contradictory.
And in all this, each 'believer' claims to 'know' that their concept of God is the correct one. Wars have been fought over whose concept of God was correct. There are martyrs for every concept of God, and for those who have no theistic beliefs at all.
And through all of these numerous god concepts, omnipotence is still claimed. Contradicting the fact that an omnipotent god would have the ability to make itself known through much better means than conflicting and vague revelations to a select few.
When looking at these facts, there are only a few logical choices remaining.

• God is not omnipotent, and cannot make it's will known to men.
• God is omnipotent, but incompetent.
• God is not intercessionary, and makes no revelations to mankind.
• All god concepts are equally valid, including the non-existence of god.
• There is no God.

Yet, even in the world of TumbleWeed it is also true, that the exclusive perception you hold must be right. I sense another war brewing

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yet, even in the world of TumbleWeed it is also true, that the exclusive perception you hold must be right. I sense another war brewing

Do you not see the problem with the numerous, conflicting, omnipotent god concepts?

 

[tumbleweed41]

As children we used to play a game where we sat in a large circle. The first player would whisper a short sentence into the ear of the player to their right. Then the sentence would be repeated around the circle until it returned to the original player. The larger the circle, the more the original sentence would change by the time the game was over.
This is a lesson in the inaccuracy of hearsay.

However, if the original player instead were to go to each individual and repeat the same original sentence into each players ear. There would be no change, and the original sentence would remain the same.
This is an example of the accuracy of direct witness.

If you were an omnipotent god who wished to make himself known accurately to mankind, which method would you use?

 

[AK4]

But you said all things MUST have a starting point. Something CANNOT come from NOTHING.
But you changed the rules for God. By that reasoning, one can claim the universe is infinite, has always been, and needs no starting point.
This is where your logic fails you.





Actually, you did...



Thus limiting the omnipotency of your "Supreme Being" and failing in your logic.

Wow, i was gone for two days and fell behind 10 pages!. Anyway defining God the Father and why He doesnt have a starting point we can use the analogy of a circle. On a circle you cant point to the starting or end point, thus the same with God the Father. I could argue this further but im being distracted right now

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible is too illogical to be a fake.

Priceless.

 

[Autodidact]

I never ask for anything to happen so I cant answer that. I believe as I said prayer is for cleansing yourself not getting things.

Are you familiar with the concept of a hypothetical question? It's not that difficult for anyone who can comprehend English. It does not rest on the assumption that you do anything. It asks you to imagine what would happen IF you did.

btw, in earlier posts you seemed to imply that prayer does work, and you're retreating from that claim now.

 

[Autodidact]

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is huge when compared with other literary works the ancient world. About 5,000 fragments of the NT in Greek and about 10,000 in other ancient languages still exist today. There are fragments of papyrus compies of portions of the Gospels tht go back to AD 130. Latin and Coptic copies also go back to the 2nd Centujry. Quotations from the Gospels in the writings of the early church fathers can be dated to around AD 100. There are complete versions of the Gospels, Acts and Pauls's letters dated in the early part of the 3rd Century(predating Constantine who was the first Roman emperor to be a Christian and who "The Da Vinci Code absurdly asserts created a new version of the NT by Fiat on the occasion of the Council of Nicaea in AD 325).

Well, if by "The New Testament" you mean something written a century after Christ died, yes, it's pretty good.

 

[Autodidact]

14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.
14:9 But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them encamping by the sea, beside Pihahiroth, before Baalzephon.
14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD.
14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? 14:12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.
14:14 The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.
14:15 And the LORD said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward: 14:16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
14:18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
14:19 And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: 14:20 And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.
14:21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
14:23 And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.
14:24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
14:26 And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians, upon their chariots, and upon their horsemen.
14:27 And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.
14:28 And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.
14:29 But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

See bolded sections.

 

[AK4]

If the singularity represents Jesus, then what came before is unknown, undefinable, and completely outside the realm of the universe (Jesus), and having no further effect within the universe.

So much for omnipotence.

No you are seeing it wrong. Jesus [singularity] is inside of that that is unknown and undefinable[the Father]. And whats inside of the unknown and undefinable is directly affected by that unknown. Jesus [being the first to know Him] came to reveal Him to us. That we are inside of Him [and He is inside of us]. Heres Paul addresses the same agrument

Acts 17:22-31 - [Verse 28 in Original Greek] 22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus F401 and said, "Men of Athens, R1001 I observe that you are very religious R1002 in all respects. 23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects R1003 of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you R1004 worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord R1005 of heaven and earth, does not dwell R1006 in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as R1007 though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all {people} life and breath and all things; 26 and He R1008 made from one {man} every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined R1009 {their} appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though R1010 He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in R1011 Him we live and move and exist, F402 as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

 

[Charity]

Well, if by "The New Testament" you mean something written a century after Christ died, yes, it's pretty good.

Then by contrast no more than 9 or 10 good manuscripts exist of Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and none dates earlier than 900 years following the Caesar's chronicling of the 9 year war. As for Aristotle, not a single manuscript of any of his works dates earlier than AD 1100. Many scholars have concluded that the best text of the Greek NT available today is as close to the original documents as it is possible to get.
F.F. Bruce writes in "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the NT affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

 

[AK4]

Contradicting the fact that an omnipotent god would have the ability to make itself known through much better means than conflicting and vague revelations to a select few.
When looking at these facts, there are only a few logical choices remaining.

• God is not omnipotent, and cannot make it's will known to men.
• God is omnipotent, but incompetent.
• God is not intercessionary, and makes no revelations to mankind.
• All god concepts are equally valid, including the non-existence of god.
• There is no God.

See the validity of Jesus' and His Apostles writings as to prophecy exactly what you have said. The conflicting and contradictory happenings we witness and what started way back then was part of the plan of God. And part of His plan was that only a select few in this age would actually "get it". I will just paraphrase some verses

"I came not to bring peace, but a sword"---Jesus
"enemies will be of your own househole"---Jesus
"it is given unto YOU not THEM to know the mysteries of the Kingdom"----Jesus
""For many are called, but few {are} chosen." ---Jesus
"they will wax worse and worse"---Paul speaking of those ["christians"] who pervert the truth
"bring in damnable doctrines of devils"---Peter speaking of those ["christians"] who will pervert the truth


Etc etc etc. This is how it is supposed to be in this age. It was prophecied and brought to pass. So when looking at these facts there are only a few logical choices remaining:

• God is omnipotent, and can make it's will known to men by fulfilling His prophecies
• God is not incompetent, but omnipotent because no will of man thwarted His prophecies
• God is makes revelations to a few of mankind for those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear"
• All god concepts are not equally valid, especially the non-existence of god.
• There is a God.

 

[Tristesse]

Then by contrast no more than 9 or 10 good manuscripts exist of Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and none dates earlier than 900 years following the Caesar's chronicling of the 9 year war. As for Aristotle, not a single manuscript of any of his works dates earlier than AD 1100. Many scholars have concluded that the best text of the Greek NT available today is as close to the original documents as it is possible to get.
F.F. Bruce writes in "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the NT affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

You're kind of missing the point, it's not really important whether or not julius caesar lived. Because nobody is saying that julius caesar performed miracles. What's important is determining whether or not the things he said are of any value. Not to mention we actually have things that julius caesar wrote, we have text from his friends and family. He also created a form of government that lasted for hundreds of years. But nobody is claiming that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead and performed miracles. Those claims need much more validation than just the bible's say so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then by contrast no more than 9 or 10 good manuscripts exist of Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and none dates earlier than 900 years following the Caesar's chronicling of the 9 year war. As for Aristotle, not a single manuscript of any of his works dates earlier than AD 1100.

But we have other sources for both - ancient scholars commented on writings about both people. And for Julius Caesar, we have mountains of physical evidence for major events in his reign.

Many scholars have concluded that the best text of the Greek NT available today is as close to the original documents as it is possible to get.

But that's still no guarantee of correctness, especially in the nitty-gritty details.

And Jesus is a different sort of figure than the other two examples you gave. Even if the person Julius Caesar didn't actually exist, it doesn't really matter - we know that there was some Emperor who led Rome during its rise to power, even if it was Steve from Sicily and not Gaius Julius from Subura.

And if Aristotle didn't exist, or was an amalgam of several people, it doesn't really matter either. Aristotle is remembered as a great man because of the ideas attributed to him, not the other way around. If Aristotle never existed at all, Aristotelian philosophy would still have just as much merit as it always did.

Jesus, on the other hand, depends on the historical accuracy of his story. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians, "if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile". If Jesus was really mortal human Bob from Syria or if he was an amalgam of other figures (whether mythic or historical), then this diminishes his importance.

F.F. Bruce writes in "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the NT affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

But that only gets you so far as agreeing that the text you have now is the text the author intended. This doesn't get you to the conclusion that the text is accurate.

 

[Charity]

You're kind of missing the point, it's not really important whether or not julius caesar lived. Because nobody is saying that julius caesar performed miracles. What's important is determining whether or not the things he said are of any value. Not to mention we actually have things that julius caesar wrote, we have text from his friends and family. He also created a form of government that lasted for hundreds of years. But nobody is claiming that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead and performed miracles. Those claims need much more validation than just the bible's say so.

My point was in response to another post that the NT are as reliable as any other manuscripts on which history has accepted as fact and that the NT is considered to be based on unsubstantiated evidence....I could care less about Julius just using it to compare History and the NT....
But thank you for your response to my post.....

 

[AK4]

You're kind of missing the point, it's not really important whether or not julius caesar lived. Because nobody is saying that julius caesar performed miracles. What's important is determining whether or not the things he said are of any value. Not to mention we actually have things that julius caesar wrote, we have text from his friends and family. He also created a form of government that lasted for hundreds of years. But nobody is claiming that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead and performed miracles. Those claims need much more validation than just the bible's say so.

You have all the witnesses from the apostles to secualr writings even the jewish talmud of Jesus physically existing. Why is this not proof enough? Is it not the same as julius ceasars friends and family.

Jesus created a "new"religion [new covenant] which you can say as a government that will be in the future --on His timing. Jesus "created a religion" thats lasted over 2000 years and somehow this still isnt valid?

More than the bible speaks of His miracles and rising from the dead.

 

[Charity]

But we have other sources for both - ancient scholars commented on writings about both people. And for Julius Caesar, we have mountains of physical evidence for major events in his reign.


But that's still no guarantee of correctness, especially in the nitty-gritty details.

And Jesus is a different sort of figure than the other two examples you gave. Even if the person Julius Caesar didn't actually exist, it doesn't really matter - we know that there was some Emperor who led Rome during its rise to power, even if it was Steve from Sicily and not Gaius Julius from Subura.

And if Aristotle didn't exist, or was an amalgam of several people, it doesn't really matter either. Aristotle is remembered as a great man because of the ideas attributed to him, not the other way around. If Aristotle never existed at all, Aristotelian philosophy would still have just as much merit as it always did.

Jesus, on the other hand, depends on the historical accuracy of his story. As Paul put it in 1 Corinthians, "if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile". If Jesus was really mortal human Bob from Syria or if he was an amalgam of other figures (whether mythic or historical), then this diminishes his importance.


But that only gets you so far as agreeing that the text you have now is the text the author intended. This doesn't get you to the conclusion that the text is accurate.

I didn't expect you would agree on this but it does lead me to the conclusion that the text may not be inaccurate either......
Thank you and remember anything is possible.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point was in response to another post that the NT are as reliable as any other manuscripts on which history has accepted as fact and that the NT is considered to be based on unsubstantiated evidence....I could care less about Julius just using it to compare History and the NT....
But thank you for your response to my post.....

Using Julius Caesar as a parallel example again: history records that after his death, the Senate declared him to be a god. While I accept many details of his life as probably true, I don't accept that he actually did become a god. In that respect, my treatment of Caesar and Jesus is no different.