Something that I want to talk about with all atheists about science and God.

[columbus]

Not sure what you are talking about. Anything specific you had in mind?... but no, I did not just form an opinion, on this subject, if that's what you are asking.

Yes, you and I both formed opinions on this.
The difference is that mine is based on such evidence as there is(including the lack of evidence, sometimes), put into historical context, then applying rational thought and reason to determine what is most likely to be objectively* true.

The likelihood that the Legend of the Christ, a rather shadowy figure in 1st century Judea, is a Hellenistic(pagan) story is vastly larger than the Legend being historically accurate.

And I specifically included "lack of evidence" as evidence". Many of the most dramatic points in the Gospels should have left evidence, even amongst people who didn't believe in the Legend. But they don't. I see that as evidence that they are fiction invented later rather than eyewitness accounts.
Tom
ETA *By objectively true, I mean true for everyone, regardless of what you prefer to believe.~

 

[ChristineM]

Not sure what you are talking about. Anything specific you had in mind?... but no, I did not just form an opinion, on this subject, if that's what you are asking.

I am pretty sure you formed an opinion otherwise you would have no opinion.

You listened to people reading the bible. You may have read it yourself. On that information you formed your opinion.

And as you said, "The most ignorant persons on earth do that every day"

 

[Darkforbid]

Sheesh, the Talmud mentions Yeshu ben Pentera. Get over the fact that it dies not support theists,it supports knowledge of the time.

Edit: ok, i have solved your problem, you must be using the Jerusalem Talmud, i am using the more authoritative Babylonian Talmud which goes into some detail of Mary's (perhaps willing) rape by Pantera. and uses Yeshu ben Pentera to describe Jesus. Wheras the Jerusalem Talmus simply referers to him as "ha hu"

My mistake? You said Talmud not Talmus

Not that it really makes a difference. The Jerusalem Talmus doesn't say 'Yeshu as son of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera' either. It's like your trying to hide a turd by laying another turd on top

 

[Audie]

Yes, you and I both formed opinions on this.
The difference is that mine is based on such evidence as there is(including the lack of evidence, sometimes), put into historical context, then applying rational thought and reason to determine what is most likely to be objectively* true.

The likelihood that the Legend of the Christ, a rather shadowy figure in 1st century Judea, is a Hellenistic(pagan) story is vastly larger than the Legend being historically accurate.

And I specifically included "lack of evidence" as evidence". Many of the most dramatic points in the Gospels should have left evidence, even amongst people who didn't believe in the Legend. But they don't. I see that as evidence that they are fiction invented later rather than eyewitness accounts.
Tom
ETA *By objectively true, I mean true for everyone, regardless of what you prefer to believe.~

Something like Roman record of the earthquake and dark
sky, of zombies going about!

Id be impressed by that.

I would even be happy with a stoty that
somehow made sense.

 

[ChristineM]

My mistake? You said Talmud not Talmus

View attachment 36401

Not that it really makes a difference. The Jerusalem Talmus doesn't say 'Yeshu as son of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera' either. It's like your trying to hide a turd by laying another turd on top

What are you talking about, we were discussing what was said in the Talmud, i have no idea what this talmus you brought into the argument is. Sounds like a cop out to cover yourself.
And it makes much difference, scholars consider the Babylonian Talmud the more authoritative and that states Yeshu ben pantera (Jesus son of Pantera).

I offered an equitable solutions to our argument in which we were both correct and you cover it in turds. How sad can one get after all the bull you give about making things up.

 

[columbus]

Something like Roman record of the earthquake and dark
sky, of zombies going about!

Needn't even be a Roman records.

The Jews kept all sorts of records, and took the records when they left a few decades later, and kept them intact.

Given everything.....
A pretty clear date. About 30 CE.
Passover, one of the highest holidays celebrating the liberation of the Jews from foreign oppression. By God!
A very superstitious people, who saw things like solar events and earthquakes as portents. Messages from God.

How likely is it that the events described in the Gospel, happened but failed to leave traces in any Jewish lore? How likely is it that the story was created to impress the new pagan audiences that the Christians were trying to reach, who would have no way to check the veracity of the story?

It's pretty clear which explanation for the Gospel account is more plausible.
Tom

 

[Audie]

Needn't even be a Roman records.

The Jews kept all sorts of records, and took the records when they left a few decades later, and kept them intact.

Given everything.....
A pretty clear date. About 30 CE.
Passover, one of the highest holidays celebrating the liberation of the Jews from foreign oppression. By God!
A very superstitious people, who saw things like solar events and earthquakes as portents. Messages from God.

How likely is it that the events described in the Gospel, happened but failed to leave traces in any Jewish lore? How likely is it that the story was created to impress the new pagan audiences that the Christians were trying to reach, who would have no way to check the veracity of the story?

It's pretty clear which explanation for the Gospel account is more plausible.
Tom

I doubt our theists would believe me,
but I would be ever so hapoy to find
that it is all true

 

[Skwim]

Wait a minute! You claim to believe the Jehovah's Witness religion. JW's see praying to Jesus as blasphemy since they do not view him as God. So why would you want us to pray to him?

For what it's worth. From The 11 Beliefs You Should Know about Jehovah’s Witnesses When They Knock at the Door

"Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the archangel Michael before the physical world existed, and is a lesser, though mighty, god."

So evidently they don't believe Jesus is thee god, but do believe he is a lesser god, and does possess:

• omnipresence (Ps. 139:7; Jer. 23:23-24; Matt. 28:20),
• omniscience (Ps. 147:5; John 16:30; 1 Cor. 2:10-11),
• omnipotence (Jer. 32:17; John 2:1-11; Rom. 15:19), and
• eternality (Ps. 90:2; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 22:13).

source

.

.​

.

 

[Darkforbid]

What are you talking about, we were discussing what was said in the Talmud, i have no idea what this talmus you brought into the argument is. Sounds like a cop out to cover yourself.
And it makes much difference, scholars consider the Babylonian Talmud the more authoritative and that states Yeshu ben pantera (Jesus son of Pantera).

I offered an equitable solutions to our argument and you cover it in turds. How sad can one get after all the bull you give about making things up.

I don't know, where did I get that Talmus you've never heard of and brought into the discussion

THE SECOND FROM BOTTOM LINE IN YOUR POST I WAS RESPONDING TO

That right from your post in which you pretend I must be using a less authoritative Talmud

But what's worse is you're now pretending you offered equitable solutions to our argument

Your version: 'Babylonian Talmud the more authoritative and that states Yeshu ben pantera (Jesus son of Pantera).'

My first post:

 

[ChristineM]

I don't know, where did I get that Talmus you've never heard of and brought into the discussion

THE SECOND FROM BOTTOM LINE IN YOUR POST I WAS RESPONDING TO

View attachment 36402

That right from your post in which you pretend I must be using a less authoritative Talmud

But what's worse is your now pretending you offered equitable solutions to our argument

Your version: 'Babylonian Talmud the more authoritative and that states Yeshu ben pantera (Jesus son of Pantera).'

My first post:

View attachment 36404

A simple spelling error and you know it so you protest much because you lost your fight

And what is worse is lying about the authority of a version on the Talmud

You just cannot accept the fact that you falsely accused me of lying and you have been proven wrong.

 

[Samael_Khan]

For what it's worth. From, The 11 Beliefs You Should Know about Jehovah’s Witnesses When They Knock at the Door

"Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah as the archangel Michael before the physical world existed, and is a lesser, though mighty, god."

So evidently they don't believe Jesus is thee god, but do believe he is a lesser god, and does possess

• omnipresence (Ps. 139:7; Jer. 23:23-24; Matt. 28:20),
• omniscience (Ps. 147:5; John 16:30; 1 Cor. 2:10-11),
• omnipotence (Jer. 32:17; John 2:1-11; Rom. 15:19), and
• eternality (Ps. 90:2; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 22:13).

source

.

.​

.

Having been an JW for 7 years until the beginning of last year (happy i left) i would say that their view of the type of god Jesus is more nuanced than that and not fleshed out well. They compare his being called a god to the judges of israel being called gods in the old testament. So he is called a god because of his authority and power as opposed to actually being a deity of any sort. It is like saying that Ozzy Osbourne is a god of heavy metal.

Christians dont actually understand the JWs views well because they are actually pretty complexed and nuanced. Mental gymnastics 101. They are actually masters at mental gymnastics. I appreciate learning that skill though. It helps me to detect it and combat it when people use it.

By the way, JWs do not believe that Jehovah God is omnipresent because he is spoken of as having a location which is on his thrown in heaven. They also believe that He isnt omnispresent because they reject predestination. They do believe he possesses foreknowledge. And that Jesus is a creation so he isnt eternal but after his death will exist for eternity.

 

[Darkforbid]

A simple spelling error and you know it so you protest much because you lost your fight

And what is worse is lying about the authority of a version on the Talmud

You just cannot accept the fact that you falsely accused me of lying and you have been proven wrong.

A simple spelling error would not give the very specific words used for Jesus's name in the Talmus, let alone pretend they appear in the Talmud. Which they don't!

 

[nPeace]

Yes, you and I both formed opinions on this.
The difference is that mine is based on such evidence as there is(including the lack of evidence, sometimes), put into historical context, then applying rational thought and reason to determine what is most likely to be objectively* true.

The likelihood that the Legend of the Christ, a rather shadowy figure in 1st century Judea, is a Hellenistic(pagan) story is vastly larger than the Legend being historically accurate.

And I specifically included "lack of evidence" as evidence". Many of the most dramatic points in the Gospels should have left evidence, even amongst people who didn't believe in the Legend. But they don't. I see that as evidence that they are fiction invented later rather than eyewitness accounts.
Tom
ETA *By objectively true, I mean true for everyone, regardless of what you prefer to believe.~

Oh. I'm sorry. I must have missed the evidence you used. What evidence is that?

I read where you said...
The story, as told, is bizarrely implausible and irrational and unevidenced. But as I came to understand the context from which it arose, it started to make some sense. By context, I'm including everything from circumstances of 1st century Judea to the political landscape when some bishops decided what to include in the creed and canon( and what to declare heresy).

Many of Jesus's most pointed Teachings and doings and parables, ( as quoted)that seemed irrational before, started making sense in a way that they hadn't before.

Were you talking about what you read in the Bible, or something else?

 

[columbus]

Were you talking about what you read in the Bible, or something else?

Both what I read in the Bible as well as a ton of other stuff.
I don't put too much stock in the magical powers of ancient bishops to decide what is true and from God.

Neither do you, or you'd be a Catholic.
Tom

 

[nPeace]

Both what I read in the Bible as well as a ton of other stuff.
I don't put too much stock in the magical powers of ancient bishops to decide what is true and from God.

Neither do you, or you'd be a Catholic.
Tom

So do you dismiss the references to Jesus, made by Jewish and Roman historians, not long after the Gospels.

I don't consider the authors of the Bible to be liars, and I think the evidence is very strong, in favor of what is written.
The fact that these historians confirm, just a few details, is impressive, and added reason for confidence in the truthfulness of the writers.
Their candor, give me no reason to doubt, but neither does the many other feature that I observe.

 

[blü 2]

I think it would be cool if science one day proved jesus is real.Because then I think it would make atheists want to pray to jesus more.

Real in what sense? That there was an historical Jesus at all? Yes, that'd be interesting.

When I think of all the atheists that are dying without christ it makes me cry.

Perhaps if you understood some of the reasons for unbelief you'd have greater empathy for the position of nonbelievers and less regret?

What about all the believers who aren't Christians, the followers of Judaism and Islam, the Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Confucianists, the followers of the Great Spirit or the Rainbow Serpent, and so on? Are you also desolate on their account?

 

[ChristineM]

A simple spelling error would not give the very specific words used for Jesus's name in the Talmus, let alone pretend they appear in the Talmud. Which they don't!

I said it before with correct spelling. If all you have is a one letter spelling error to save your face then you are not the person i thought you were

There is no pretence, Yeshu ben Pantera (jesus son of Pantera) appears in the Babylonian Talmud. It is easy to research, you demanded that of me now i return the favour. Look it up and stop whinging

 

[Darkforbid]

I said it before with correct spelling. If all you have is a one letter spelling error to save your face then you are not the person i thought you were

There is no pretence, Yeshu ben Pantera (jesus son of Pantera) appears in the Babylonian Talmud. It is easy to research, you demanded that of me now i return the favour. Look it up and stop whinging

Yes, I go away and look up exactly what I put in my first post and have repetitive with since then

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I go away and look up exactly what I put in my first post and have repetitive with since then

And it was wrong and repetitively wrong, and not repetitive, your second post contradicted your first

Shame you cannot admit your errors

 

[Darkforbid]

And it was wrong and repetitively wrong. Shame you cannot admit that

Well it's from the Babylonian Talmud and exactly the same as you just posted:

'There is no pretence, Yeshu ben Pantera (jesus son of Pantera) appears in the Babylonian Talmud'

Your post where you claim it says something very different