The odds of a Shakespearian sonnet

[ChristineM]

Wait a sec. There are documents that claim Lincoln existed. There are documents that claim Jesus exists, still. Do you take the Lincoln documents on faith or can you show me facts that prove he absolutely existed?

I think that what is happening is that most reasonable people believe in God, and due to your anti-supernatural bias, you believe all religious books are false. I extol the glorious Bible to you and tell you it is self-evident to me that Jesus is alive.

Can you prove that it is not self-evident to me that Jesus is alive?

Let me rephrase there are validated documents proving Lincoln lived, his life was both indipendently and officially witnessed and photographed. Are you saying that millions of Americans are Iiars just so you can force nonsense into my head?

The NT is an added on 15% of to a bronze age fairy story that was selectively compiled from unvalidated material some 360 years after jesus death. The story of the illegitimate son of a bronze age god myth at a time when unmarried mothers were stoned to death. That story has been edited and translated and recompiled over the ages to the state there are now over 200 versions of the English language bible and over 50,000 different sects of Christianity each saying the interpretation of the particular bible they favour is the only correct interpretation.

Actually less and less and less people are believing in god.
Fewer Americans Believe in God — Yet They Still Believe in Afterlifeo
The religion that has the most devout and complete following of god seems to be islam.

You are most welcome to believe whatever you want. When you misrepresent me, lie about what i say, misrepresent atheism and make up horror stories about them just to satisfy your own ego then dont be surprised that your faith is put under the microscope

No, nor can i prove whether you wear a tinfoil hat in bed at night and that is something tangible

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't know ANY born again Christians, not one, who insist on blind faith over evidence and fact.

I don't know any Christian that doesn't esteem faith over evidence.

Romans 1, where it states at length that skeptics indulge in morally degenerate behavior and/or applaud others who are libertines, while finding the gospel offensive.

Huh. Imagine that. I see it the other way around.

I find the people that take their moral virtues from an ancient book that advocates genocide and rape, and condones slavery to be the moral degenerates. Why don't you find that offensive as well?

Truth = something that is always true, with no falsity in it.

Not in my epistemology. Something can be true today and false tomorrow. Norman dies, and "Norman is alive" goes from true to false overnight.

The difference between organic and inorganic matter is energy applied to mass.

Nope.

There are documents that claim Lincoln existed. There are documents that claim Jesus exists, still. Do you take the Lincoln documents on faith or can you show me facts that prove he absolutely existed?

No, I take nothing on faith.

I don't care if Lincoln existed. Or Jesus. Why would the yes or no answer to either of those possibilities matter at all?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Remember 9th commandment?

When some one can provide valid evidence of a god, then they take god on faith.

There is evidence Lincoln existed.

You are evading my point (unintentionally, I hope):

The only evidence you have that Lincoln existed is documentary. There is some alleged forensic evidence as well in museums.

We have documentary evidence that Jesus existed. A lot of the statements you would make like "Julius Caesar existed" would be based on documentary evidence (or artistic renderings) only.

We have much more documentary evidence for the life of Christ than any other contemporaneous person. You are adding a supernatural bias to what you take as evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know any Christian that doesn't esteem faith over evidence.



Huh. Imagine that. I see it the other way around.

I find the people that take their moral virtues from an ancient book that advocates genocide and rape, and condones slavery to be the moral degenerates. Why don't you find that offensive as well?



Not in my epistemology. Something can be true today and false tomorrow. Norman dies, and "Norman is alive" goes from true to false overnight.



Nope.



No, I take nothing on faith.

I don't care if Lincoln existed. Or Jesus. Why would the yes or no answer to either of those possibilities matter at all?

I esteem faith, but you keep interpolating "blind" whereas biblically speaking, correct faith is evidence-based, discounting it being "blind".

I agree, that when people follow books with degenerate morals, such as Mein Kampf (genocide implied), it's a huge problem. Respectfully, I don't find the Bible condones rape or slavery or genocide. If we spend a few weeks exploring those three issues, and you come to understand that the Bible is against rape, against slavery and does not condone genocide, would you become born again?

It matters if Lincoln existed if you care to know what is the truth of a matter. It doesn't matter if Jesus existed if you believe the Bible is still giving a proscription for Heaven and against Hell!

 

[Audie]

I don't know any Christian that doesn't esteem faith over evidence.



Huh. Imagine that. I see it the other way around.

I find the people that take their moral virtues from an ancient book that advocates genocide and rape, and condones slavery to be the moral degenerates. Why don't you find that offensive as well?



Not in my epistemology. Something can be true today and false tomorrow. Norman dies, and "Norman is alive" goes from true to false overnight.



Nope.



No, I take nothing on faith.

I don't care if Lincoln existed. Or Jesus. Why would the yes or no answer to either of those possibilities matter at all?

Keeping in mind of course that a lot of our Christians equivocate "faith"
to where faith that the car will st art, the sun will rise, an experiment will keep giving the same results as being no different from faith in an undetectable sky-god.

 

[ChristineM]

You are evading my point (unintentionally, I hope):

The only evidence you have that Lincoln existed is documentary. There is some alleged forensic evidence as well in museums.

We have documentary evidence that Jesus existed. A lot of the statements you would make like "Julius Caesar existed" would be based on documentary evidence (or artistic renderings) only.

We have much more documentary evidence for the life of Christ than any other contemporaneous person. You are adding a supernatural bias to what you take as evidence.

Coming from the master of evasion i take that as the compliment of an expert.

Yes, and?

I do not believe there is any valid documentary evidence that Christ existed as depicted in the bible except the bible itself and the odd mention in Hebrew scripture (that contradicts the bible). The relevant part of the Bible, the NT was not compiled (and then selectively so) for 350 years after Jesus death.

There s just as much (perhaps more) evidence that jesus was the illegitimate child of a roman soldier who became an anarchist againbst the ruling government.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I do not believe there is any valid documentary evidence that Christ existed as depicted in the bible except the bible itself and the odd mention in Hebrew scripture (that contradicts the bible).

While there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus, it would appear to be the simplest explanation

Paul wrote letters to a wide range of audiences as far off as Rome that were already aware of the idea of a religious figure named Jesus who was crucified and who allegedly rose from the dead, although there was skepticism about that in some places. This Jesus seems to have been called the Son of God, although that appears to have originally meant as a messianic title than the exotic sense Paul applied. We see in Paul that there were already rival movements centered around Jesus.

In addition, the author of the Gospel of Mark utilizes what sounds like early traditions about Jesus that jibe well with the social, political and religious environment that existed at the putative tie of Jesus, an environment that no longer existed when Mark wrote. Mark adds miracles to the story but these can be seen as serving specific narrative purposes. Considering that Paul knows nothing of miracles except the Resurrection, there is no reason to give credence to the miracle stories as real events.

As I said, assuming the existence of a real historical Jesus is the simplest explanation.

The relevant part of the Bible, the NT was not compiled (and then selectively so) for 350 years after Jesus death.

The parts of the NT relevant to the possible existence of Jesus – the four Gospels and most of the Pauline Epistles were already well known and accepted as legitimate early writings in the 2d century. It was mostly just the lesser books of the NT that were finally agreed on to the exclusion of others in the 4th century. The various apocryphal gospels were already rejected in the 2nd century, being recognized as recent works and therefore not legitimate. The only contentious major work that was finally accepted as canon was Revelation.

There s just as much (perhaps more) evidence that jesus was the illegitimate child of a roman soldier who became an anarchist against the ruling government.

The only source for this is the The True Word of Celsus. That work has not survived intact but Origen’s Contra Celsum quotes from it and describes its content extensively. Celsus wrote in the late 2nd century about 180 years after the events he claims took place. He reports details, like the name of the Roman soldier supposedly involved, even though nobody else in the interim appears to know anything at all about this. Compared to works dating from the mid to late 1st century, as I described above, I do not see why Celsus should be considered as good a source as them. Reading the quotes from Celsus given by Origen, it is rather clear that the source Celsus relied on for material about Jesus to turn upside down was the Gospel of Matthew. This itself was written 80 years or so after the birth of Jesus it describes. A clear agenda can be seen in Matthew, to support which he creates original material that never appeared before. Celsus used agenda-driven fiction as the basis for his own agenda-driven fiction.

There is nothing in Celsus concerning rebellion that I can find. This is part of a urban legends invented in modern times and making unsupported claims like Mary was Vestal Virgin in a pagan Temple or the father of Jesus was part of the Roman force that suppressed the rebellion in Sepphoris. Celsus said none of these things yet they get bandied about as ‘fact’. There is no good reason to think even what Celsus really did say has any basis in reality.


Facts are what they are regardless of what anyone wants them to be. To get close, or at least closer, to what really happened requires honest examination of what evidence can be found prior to reaching a conclusion.

 

[ChristineM]

While there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus, it would appear to be the simplest explanation

Paul wrote letters to a wide range of audiences as far off as Rome that were already aware of the idea of a religious figure named Jesus who was crucified and who allegedly rose from the dead, although there was skepticism about that in some places. This Jesus seems to have been called the Son of God, although that appears to have originally meant as a messianic title than the exotic sense Paul applied. We see in Paul that there were already rival movements centered around Jesus.

In addition, the author of the Gospel of Mark utilizes what sounds like early traditions about Jesus that jibe well with the social, political and religious environment that existed at the putative tie of Jesus, an environment that no longer existed when Mark wrote. Mark adds miracles to the story but these can be seen as serving specific narrative purposes. Considering that Paul knows nothing of miracles except the Resurrection, there is no reason to give credence to the miracle stories as real events.

As I said, assuming the existence of a real historical Jesus is the simplest explanation.



The parts of the NT relevant to the possible existence of Jesus – the four Gospels and most of the Pauline Epistles were already well known and accepted as legitimate early writings in the 2d century. It was mostly just the lesser books of the NT that were finally agreed on to the exclusion of others in the 4th century. The various apocryphal gospels were already rejected in the 2nd century, being recognized as recent works and therefore not legitimate. The only contentious major work that was finally accepted as canon was Revelation.



The only source for this is the The True Word of Celsus. That work has not survived intact but Origen’s Contra Celsum quotes from it and describes its content extensively. Celsus wrote in the late 2nd century about 180 years after the events he claims took place. He reports details, like the name of the Roman soldier supposedly involved, even though nobody else in the interim appears to know anything at all about this. Compared to works dating from the mid to late 1st century, as I described above, I do not see why Celsus should be considered as good a source as them. Reading the quotes from Celsus given by Origen, it is rather clear that the source Celsus relied on for material about Jesus to turn upside down was the Gospel of Matthew. This itself was written 80 years or so after the birth of Jesus it describes. A clear agenda can be seen in Matthew, to support which he creates original material that never appeared before. Celsus used agenda-driven fiction as the basis for his own agenda-driven fiction.

There is nothing in Celsus concerning rebellion that I can find. This is part of a urban legends invented in modern times and making unsupported claims like Mary was Vestal Virgin in a pagan Temple or the father of Jesus was part of the Roman force that suppressed the rebellion in Sepphoris. Celsus said none of these things yet they get bandied about as ‘fact’. There is no good reason to think even what Celsus really did say has any basis in reality.


Facts are what they are regardless of what anyone wants them to be. To get close, or at least closer, to what really happened requires honest examination of what evidence can be found prior to reaching a conclusion.

The bible (NT) was not "compiled" until 350 years after Jesus death, it's contents were selectively put together. When the original documents were actually written (or if) is open to interpretation. There is no known copy of that original book, the closest there is was compiled some 80 years after the original. How it is possible to get closer is a mystery to me


The Talmud reinforces the pantera story.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I esteem faith, but you keep interpolating "blind" whereas biblically speaking, correct faith is evidence-based, discounting it being "blind".

When I use the word faith, I am referring to unsupported belief. Evidence based belief, assuming that all of the relevant evidence is considered, and that the belief is no more certain that the quality and quantity of that evidence supports, is not faith in the sense just defined.

Thus, all beliefs are either justified or insufficiently justified (faith), making all faith blind. Remember, the word evidence is related to the word evident. Believing without evidence is blind belief.

Respectfully, I don't find the Bible condones rape or slavery or genocide.

Here's the first definition of condone that I encountered: "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue." Do the authors of the Bible explicitly forbid or condemn either of these practices when discussing them? If not, they condone them.

I think this word is frequently misunderstood to mean endorse or approve. That's not what it means. You might even disapprove, but if you don't express an objection, your condoning that behavior.

We see this continually in the political drama playing out in America today. If you aren't objecting to certain moral and legal crimes, you're condoning them.

If we spend a few weeks exploring those three issues, and you come to understand that the Bible is against rape, against slavery and does not condone genocide, would you become born again?

I don't see much chance of my returning to the faith short of convincing evidence that there is a god and that it is the God of the Christian Bible. Do you have that?

If not, thanks for the offer anyway.

Why would it take weeks to explore whether the Bible condemns or condones rape, slavery or genocide? What other book takes so much effort to read and understand?

It matters if Lincoln existed if you care to know what is the truth of a matter.

I would like to know the truth, but you are correct that it is just barely possible that Lincoln was a fictional character and the story of his life was a hoax. The truth of the matter is that he almost certainly lived, but that there is room for doubt. Remember that quantity and quality of available evidence factor discussed above. There is a lot of good quality evidence that Lincoln lived, and so my confidence level of that being a fact is over 99%, but not 100%. Albeit just a small leap, it would still be a leap of faith to claim 100% certitude, which is not justified.

It doesn't matter if Jesus existed if you believe the Bible is still giving a proscription for Heaven and against Hell!

I'm guessing that you meant that it does matter if Jesus existed.

What I meant was that if he wasn't a god or sent by a god, it doesn't matter how much of the rest of the story is historical and how much is fabricated. I'm assuming that the supernatural feats attributed to Jesus such as a virgin birth and resurrection are very unlikely to be historical, so none of the rest matters.

assuming the existence of a real historical Jesus is the simplest explanation.

Why assume that? Remaining agnostic works well. It isn't possible or necessary to say yes or no.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They CANNOT be. Either Jesus rose or didn't, either Christians have eternal life or not, either the Bible is consistent on preaching trust in God or it isn't. For most Bible doctrines, there are two interpretations only, not many and not "whatever you think it says".

The almost countless number of Christian denominations out there who can't agree on how to interpret the Bible suggests to me that interpreting it isn't as obvious as you imply

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The bible (NT) was not "compiled" until 350 years after Jesus death, it's contents were selectively put together. When the original documents were actually written (or if) is open to interpretation. There is no known copy of that original book, the closest there is was compiled some 80 years after the original. How it is possible to get closer is a mystery to me


The Talmud reinforces the pantera story.

There was extensive reference to, quoting from and discussion of NT documents in the 2nd century. There are a number of lists compiled in that era that include the core of the NT, the four gospels and most of the works of Paul. If one looks at the Gospels a clear progression of thought from Mark through John can be seen related to events in the world and the passage of time. To think that they are not the product of the late 1st century requires a lot of explaining away. But that is a huge topic in itself.

There was no 'original book', the various books of the NT having been separate works to begin with. The idea of a canon started with various individuals speculating on what books were suitable for teaching and reading in church. Marcion inventing his own list in the early 2nd century lent force to the idea of an official canon. The primary attributes required for acceptance were tradition, meaning that the works were known and used from early times, that they could be associated with figures who were themselves associated with Jesus, which is how the several anonymous works got names, and adherence to or at least non-contradiction of basic Pauline theology. Essential to that last was a real physical Jesus who really died and really rose in bodily form. Without that, the resurrection and judgment ideas went down the drain along with all of what had become mainstream Christianity.

The Talmud copied the Pantera story. Is every repetition of episodes from the Bible confirmation that the Bible is true? There is nothing about the Pantera story prior to the late 2nd century, yet Celsus who is not even part of the Christian community somehow knows the name of the Roman soldier. Sure.

I am often surprised (though why I should be is the question) that those who wish to debunk religion at all costs can have as low a standard of ‘proof’ as those who wish to support religion at all costs.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Why assume that? Remaining agnostic works well. It isn't possible or necessary to say yes or no.

If one is interested in what might have really happened and how the associated thought system(s) came about, which I am, developing a working hypothesis against which subsequent evidence and reasoning can be compared is a valuable methodology. If you are not interested in the subject, that is your privilege. I am and will continue to pursue the subject just because I like to. Remaining agnostic when evidence supports a particular option as the simplest explanation implies not caring abut the subject. Again it is your privilege to remain agnostic. Just as it is my privilege to not be satisfied with ignorance when there is evidence to examine.

 

[ChristineM]

There was extensive reference to, quoting from and discussion of NT documents in the 2nd century. There are a number of lists compiled in that era that include the core of the NT, the four gospels and most of the works of Paul. If one looks at the Gospels a clear progression of thought from Mark through John can be seen related to events in the world and the passage of time. To think that they are not the product of the late 1st century requires a lot of explaining away. But that is a huge topic in itself.

There was no 'original book', the various books of the NT having been separate works to begin with. The idea of a canon started with various individuals speculating on what books were suitable for teaching and reading in church. Marcion inventing his own list in the early 2nd century lent force to the idea of an official canon. The primary attributes required for acceptance were tradition, meaning that the works were known and used from early times, that they could be associated with figures who were themselves associated with Jesus, which is how the several anonymous works got names, and adherence to or at least non-contradiction of basic Pauline theology. Essential to that last was a real physical Jesus who really died and really rose in bodily form. Without that, the resurrection and judgment ideas went down the drain along with all of what had become mainstream Christianity.

The Talmud copied the Pantera story. Is every repetition of episodes from the Bible confirmation that the Bible is true? There is nothing about the Pantera story prior to the late 2nd century, yet Celsus who is not even part of the Christian community somehow knows the name of the Roman soldier. Sure.

I am often surprised (though why I should be is the question) that those who wish to debunk religion at all costs can have as low a standard of ‘proof’ as those who wish to support religion at all costs.

It seems several assumption are made here and glossed over.

By 'book' i was meaning the collection of books into one volume to make the 15% of the Bible (library) that is the nt

Btw, i do not wish to debunk religion, but i would welcome evidence over hearsay.

 

[ChristineM]

If one is interested in what might have really happened and how the associated thought system(s) came about, which I am, developing a working hypothesis against which subsequent evidence and reasoning can be compared is a valuable methodology. If you are not interested in the subject, that is your privilege. I am and will continue to pursue the subject just because I like to. Remaining agnostic when evidence supports a particular option as the simplest explanation implies not caring abut the subject. Again it is your privilege to remain agnostic. Just as it is my privilege to not be satisfied with ignorance when there is evidence to examine.

Please provide valid citation to said evidence.

It could be that the evidence you claim satisfies you but would not satisfy a more skeptical mind

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Remaining agnostic when evidence supports a particular option as the simplest explanation implies not caring abut the subject.

Not at all. Remaining agnostic when it is not possible to decide by applying reason to evidence is the only reasonable option. When one cannot know, he should say that he does not know. Guessing one way or the other is a leap of faith.

is my privilege to not be satisfied with ignorance when there is evidence to examine.

It is your privilege to leap to unsupported conclusions and claim that doing so resolves ignorance. You are free to consider it a fact that the Jesus of the New Testament lived, and that others not joining you are somehow more ignorant..

I will remain agnostic until I have definitive evidence one way or the other.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Please provide valid citation to said evidence.

It could be that the evidence you claim satisfies you but would not satisfy a more skeptical mind

I already presented the evidence supporting my opinion in a prior post. I do not cite the opinions of others concerning these matters because one can find a wide range of opinions, all claiming to be authoritative and too often based on ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence.

If you wish to debate me on this subject, read what I said about it in post #87 and reply to that in detail.

I never said the evidence satisfies me. What I said was "While there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus, it would appear to be the simplest explanation." If you have any other evidence I should consider please present it.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Not at all. Remaining agnostic when it is not possible to decide by applying reason to evidence is the only reasonable option. When one cannot know, he should say that he does not know. Guessing one way or the other is a leap of faith.

It is your privilege to leap to unsupported conclusions and claim that doing so resolves ignorance. You are free to consider it a fact that the Jesus of the New Testament lived, and that others not joining you are somehow more ignorant..

I will remain agnostic until I have definitive evidence one way or the other.

There is no leap of faith involved. I presented evidence to support what appeared to be the simplest explanation. (My exact words) I never presented it as a fact. Nor did I ever accuse anyone of ignorance.

Your stance appears to be that you do not want to have an opinion and you do not want anyone else to have an opinion. Is it possible that you might be afraid of the 'wrong' answer turning out to be true? Your acrimonious misrepresentation of where I stand on the matter raises exactly that suspicion.

 

[ChristineM]

I already presented the evidence supporting my opinion in a prior post. I do not cite the opinions of others concerning these matters because one can find a wide range of opinions, all claiming to be authoritative and too often based on ignoring inconvenient contrary evidence.

If you wish to debate me on this subject, read what I said about it in post #87 and reply to that in detail.

I never said the evidence satisfies me. What I said was "While there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus, it would appear to be the simplest explanation." If you have any other evidence I should consider please present it.

Nope, you presented opinion. Do you want me to help you with the definition of evidence?

Yes seen your post 87 and replied to it to the extent warranted in post 88.

And my view is there is no proof of JC living as depicted in the Bible, definite or otherwise, therefore no need to waste time feeding a blind faith

 

[ChristineM]

There is no leap of faith involved. I presented evidence to support what appeared to be the simplest explanation. (My exact words) I never presented it as a fact. Nor did I ever accuse anyone of ignorance.

Your stance appears to be that you do not want to have an opinion and you do not want anyone else to have an opinion. Is it possible that you might be afraid of the 'wrong' answer turning out to be true? Your acrimonious misrepresentation of where I stand on the matter raises exactly that suspicion.

Do you need help with the definition of acrimonious as well?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

While there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus, it would appear to be the simplest explanation

Do you need help with the definition of acrimonious as well?

Not at all. It Aint Necessarily So said that I was “guessing” instead of presenting an evidence supported opinion and that this presentation of what appeared to be the simplest explanation (but not a proof), was “a leap of faith”. My opinion, for which I presented reasons for holding, was in fact “applying reason to evidence” despite me being criticized for not doing that. [I was accused of stating “that the Jesus of the New Testament’ when I made it clear in the opening sentence that there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus but only that it would appear to be the simplest explanation. The language “Jesus of the New Testament” implies belief in a supernatural miracle working entity, which I explicitly ruled out. I was also accused of calling others “ignorant” which I never did.

Yes, that was acrimonious.