Is Religion Still Relevant After Science
-
Hitler and aristotle is here. Why ? because there r real human, real papers, real work he had doen to prove they exists. But Jesus ? Wat evidence r there to show he is here before ? Tried in court ? Where do u find the court record ?
Huh what are you talking about? Jesus is pretty well documented outside of the bible. He was certainly mentioned in the records of prominent Greek historians, and the very fact that the Roman empire ultimately believed in him (though I'm not exactly sure that was a good idea) not too long after his time is pretty indicative of his existence.
Of course, if Jesus was nothing more then a hoax, then thousands of christians back then died for no good reason, especially the apostles, had they been spreading the hoax, would have died for something they knew to be totally false, and that falsehood brought them nothing in their lifespans, they certainly didn't make any money out of it, were despised and rejected, and ultimately killed for it all, along with plenty of other people.
If Jesus didn't exist, then a large part of modern history must have been built on a hoax. It seems pretty incredible to me.
No, Jesus almost certainly existed, the real question is not if He walked this earth, but if He was really who He said He was. -
stupidissmart
ok at least we agree that christians r not opposed to science.
If you want evidence, i already told you. evolutionary journal last yr. either october or november. check it out.
i can't help it if you dun check it out. ask someone besides me.. cause u dun believe me.
I am asking u, if science is wrong, why is there a computer in front of u ? The model for some science may change, or there may discover new facts which is negligible. However it is certain tat some theories r correct or at least 99.99999% correct in oder to make up the technologies we have. R u going to say the theories r COMPLETELY wrong, the readings r TOTALLY off the expected ? If not, then it shows science is still relevant.
geez.. i am saying science is not absolute. not that it is WRONG. neither am i saying science is not relevant. if not.. why am i sitting in a room with air-con typing on my computer?
Hitler and aristotle is here. Why ? because there r real human, real papers, real work he had doen to prove they exists. But Jesus ? Wat evidence r there to show he is here before ? Tried in court ? Where do u find the court record ?
once again.. go ask a scientist or a science student what is called the historical evidence method. it is a method of science that is used. if you want me to find sources.. lets keep in contact thru pm. it will take quite a while to find the records.
anyway.. jesus was a human who roamed the earth. evidence.. the church he set up. it didn't spring up from no where. besides that What year is this? 2004 A.D. remember there is also B.C (before christ). if this is not sufficient.. give me some time.. i'll get some articles for you.
Well, studies show tat most scientists r not religious in nature. We can debate on this point till the cow comes home and its still meaningless.
if i am going to use your arguement. What studies are these? quote your sources. (you r good at this right?) kiddin.
Let me ask u... why do u believe in religion in the first place ?
long long story. PM me if you really want to know.
icemoon The argument can go both ways. You have to agree that some of the most renowed scientists are ... atheists.
yup. i agree. what i am saying is that there are many Scientisit out there who believe in religion.
Christians are not anti-science
This is a sweeping statement. It is a fact that some christians are the most anti-science people around.
not sweeping lah... rather stereotyping lol. lets holds a poll here to see lah. but lets agree first what is science defined as? remember that medicince is a science and i dun think many people out there are anti-medicine (lol sounds like another sweepiing statement)
The argument can go both ways. You have to agree that some of the most renowed scientists are ... atheists.
i am not doubting you. But can you name a few those scientist. i am quite interested. have always wanted to conduct a survey on how many scientist are religious. Anyway, a lot of my science lecturers even my sec school physics and chemistry teaher had religions. -
A few comes to mind - Stephen Hawkings, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan. The latter two has passed away.
Here are a few studies.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
.... -
i study science..and the more i study science, the more i can confess that God exists.
-
Huh what are you talking about? Jesus is pretty well documented outside of the bible. He was certainly mentioned in the records of prominent Greek historians
Which Greek historians? Actually contemporary documentations of Christ [outside the faith] is pretty scant. Probably the strongest you can give is Josepheus, the Jewish historian. And Philo maybe.
Of course, if Jesus was nothing more then a hoax, then thousands of christians back then died for no good reason, especially the apostles ...
This is the traditional defense. But it fails to take into account other reasons like political? You do know the state of affairs then, the standoff between the Jews and the Romans. And the preoccupation of the Jewish people with messiahnism. Hence some accounts could be exaggerated.
If Jesus didn't exist, then a large part of modern history must have been built on a hoax. It seems pretty incredible to me.
You know la, modern day also has its share of urban hoaxes/legends. And stuffs like UFOs (Roswell?) and crop circles are pretty incredible too. You believe in them?
2000 years ago, communication was slow. News were easy to spread [by mouth], but hard to get verified. Not like today you can have reporters recording all over the world.
Come on la, today we can have a whole generation of Japanese growing up without knowledge of atrocities commited by their forefathers, like the Rape of Nanking? -
Well you are not wrong, but then again, are any of your points a strong argument against the existence of Jesus? Of more of a issue of asking "what ifs"?
In the end, the onus of evidence is still on those who want to prove that Jesus was a mythical figure rather then a real person, of course, the traditional Jews, who reject Jesus as the messiah, would have every reason to buy the theory that He did not exist but I don't see them doing that so far. Their arguments have always rested on thelogical grounds, rather then questioning if he really existed at all.
I'm also a little confused as to why people have no trouble believing in plenty of stuff given scant evidence but when it comes to Jesus they demand absolute proof, often to the degree that for it to be that obvious, it has to smack them across the face. I doubt God thinks we, puny as we are, are that silly. Even from a non-religious grounds, I don't see how Jesus is can be any less credible then any other historical character.
The greatest head scratcher of all is why people usually regard the testimony of the Bible as invalid when it comes to determining historical fact. Granted I do not expect non-believers to buy it wholesale, but at very least it should be treated like every other historical account... Granted, a large amount of our archelogy in the middle east was with the bible as the reference, and the documented history of the early church checks out so far (bizzare if Jesus was an invention). Politically, despite great expectation for a messiah, one needs to know that Jesus was rejected in general, and even killed. Jewish christians were in the very, small minority and most of the early christians turned out to be the gentiles, which had, as far as they were concerned, talk of a messiah was smack to them, much less political.
It's very strange why Jesus should be singled out as the missing link admist all this, given we haven't been really given any red flags on his existence at all. -
I'm also a little confused as to why people have no trouble believing in plenty of stuff given scant evidence but when it comes to Jesus they demand absolute proof
Goodness ... don't you think extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary evidence?
If I tell you belief in this man, who is God by the way, can mean heaven or hell, you think can still play play? -
hi guys read this:
JEWISH TESTIMONY
The earliest non-Christian testimony to the Lord’s existence is that of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100). In Antiquities of the Jews, the historian twice referred to Jesus. In one passage he called Jesus “the Christ,” referred to His “marvelous deeds,” and alluded to His death and resurrection (18.3.3). Though some would dispute the genuineness of much of this reference, suggesting that it was embellished by an over-zealous Christian scribe, the passage, as it stands in all standard texts, can be defended (Jackson, 1991, pp. 29-30). In another place, Josephus commented on the trial of James, and identified Him as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ” (20.9.1).
Additionally, the Jewish Babylonian Talmud took note of the Lord’s existence. Collected into a final form in the fifth century A.D., it is derived from earlier materials, some of which originated in the first century. Its testimony to Jesus’ existence is all the more valuable, as it is extremely hostile. It charges that Christ (Who is called Ben Pandera) was born out of wedlock after His mother had been seduced by a Roman soldier named Pandera or Panthera. Respected scholar Bruce Metzger has commented upon this appellation: “The defamatory account of his birth seems to reflect a knowledge of the Christian tradition that Jesus was the son of the virgin Mary, the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, being distorted into the name Pandera” (1965, p. 76). The Talmud also refers to Jesus’ miracles as “magic,” and records that He claimed to be God. It further mentions His execution on the eve of the Passover. Jewish testimony thus supports the New Testament position on the historical existence of Jesus.
ROMAN SOURCES
There are allusions to Christ in Roman times (see Bettenson, 1961, pp. 3-7).
Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epist. X.96).
The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44).
Writing about A.D. 120, Suetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Vita Claudii XXV.4). “Chrestus” is a corrupted form of Christos (Christ). Luke alluded to this situation in Acts 18:2.
ANTAGONISTS OF CHRISTIANITY
Another line of evidence establishing the historicity of Jesus is the fact that the earliest enemies of the Christian faith did not deny that Christ actually lived (see Hurst, 1897, 1:180-189).
Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 17 was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera (see above). As he grew , He announced Himself to be God, deceiving many. Celsus charged that ChristÂ’s own people killed Him, and that His resurrection was a deception. But Celsus never questioned the historicity of Jesus.
Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” Who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.
Porphyry of Tyre was born about A.D. 233, studied philosophy in Greece, and lived in Sicily where he wrote fifteen books against the Christian faith. In one of his books, “Life of Pythagoras,” he contended that magicians of the pagan world exhibited greater powers than Christ. His argument was an inadvertent concession of Jesus’ existence, and power.
THE PATRISTIC WRITERS
The Patristic writers authored significant works between the end of the first and eighth centuries A.D. These so-called “church fathers” (patres) produced volumes important to understanding the changes occurring in the Christian religion during the post-apostolic age, and testify profusely to the historical Christ (see Bettenson, 1956).
Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), for example, lived in the city of Smyrna in Asia Minor. He spoke passionately of Christ, and wrote against certain heretics of his day. Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) said that Polycarp had personal association with the apostle John, and with others who “had seen the Lord” (Eusebius V.XX). He died a martyr, having served Jesus Christ for eighty-six years (suggesting that almost his entire life was dedicated to the Savior). The testimony of the “church fathers” certainly is more compelling than the trifling objections of biased critics who are twenty centuries removed from the facts.
THE ROMAN CATACOMBS
Beneath Rome there exists a maze of galleries that served, from the second to the fifth centuries A.D., as tombs (and secret places of worship during persecution) for early Christians. It has been estimated that there are some six hundred miles of these subterranean passages, representing 1,175,000 to 4,000,000 graves (Blaiklock, 1970, p. 159). The catacomb vaults are filled with art work, which testifies to the deep faith in Christ that was embraced by legions in the capital of the Roman empire. Common among these inscriptions was the figure of a fish, frequently containing the word ichthus (Greek for “fish”; Boyd, 1969, p. 203). The letters, however, were an acrostic for the declaration, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. Did millions, living in the shadows of the first century, die for a “myth”? Such a theory makes no sense. -
guys.. do a search on the net.. all there. so many studes done. anyone i chose the 1 posted on top b'coz... even the opposers of Christians ackowledged that Jesus did roam the earth.
the maiin point is.. y would they do so?? they hated christians soo much. but they acknowledged that he roam the earth. you need more evdence go to googles type historical+evidence+jesus+christ. have fun with the articles.
stupidissmart: religion is not something that appeals to the intellect. it's hard to describe.. it's a feeling. a faith. i dunno. all the debates that we had.. all these are seondary.
But i believe in Christ.. i really do. i believe that Jesus died for my sins more than i believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. and i know that at the end of my life.. i am going to be accountable to him. and i am going to persevere in my faith. -
Ah so He was nothing ordinary?Originally posted by Icemoon:If I tell you belief in this man, who is God by the way, can mean heaven or hell, you think can still play play?
Fair enough, but of course, to those who see Him as nothing more then a man, is there a need to go into overdrive? After all, even if He was nothing special, would He still exist?
In the end, the question is not if He existed or not, but if He was really who He claimed to be. That is the true question. -
In the end, the question is not if He existed or not, but if He was really who He claimed to be. That is the true question.
You are right. I have no problem with him existing. The real mystery is whether he is God as the New Testament seems to claim and later christians affirm. -
that comes down to faith!
-
Well, in the end, we can't keep cashing a bad check forever. Our universe while wonderful and vast, is a finite system that is bound to the law of cause and effect by it's finite nature. No matter how things started, in the end we are forced to conclude that there will be a supernatural cause for our natural world. A infinite first cause that did not require itself to be caused
Finite system bound by the law of cause and nature ??!!? Infinite first cause tat did not require itself to be cause ?!?! Frankly I do not really get wat u r trying to say here, can use simpler english ?
I believe that the creator did not need to be created, after all, he was the very one who wrote the law of cause and effect itself, if He was any less, is there any need to worship Him?
A creator did not need to be created. Then why don't u believe instead a big gigantic mass tat do not need to be created ? It seems in nature tat a simple thing in existence is more convincing than a infinitely complex being.
I cut the below fromt he freethough website.
Is there any evidence that the miraculous stories described in the Gospels are true? Given the fact that we have accounts from many historians writing in this era, one would expect that if the miraculous stories were true that many of the historians would have made some mention of them. Did they? According to McKlintock and Strong's Cyclopædia of Theological Literature, "enough of the writings of [these] authors . . . remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author [Josephus], and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers [Tacitus and Seutonius], there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." A common myth among both Christians and non-Christians is that there is ample evidence showing that there was an historical Jesus. The truth is that there is little or no historical evidence for Jesus that is not contested by serious scholars. (For more information on the historical evidence for Jesus, see Historicitiy of Jesus, Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?, and Christ a Fiction.) The point here is not to claim that there was no historical Jesus, but to point out that the historical evidence does not even come close to justifying the Christians' claims of unambiguous proof of an historical Jesus. Of course, it is possible that there was a Jesus on which the character in the Bible is based. If he did nothing extraordinary, it would not be surprising that there is hardly any mention of him in secular histories, but according to the Bible, there were extraordinary events taking place in Jesus' time. For example, Matthew 27:50-54 describes an earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death. If this had actually happened, surely many of the historians would have mentioned it. Yet this event is conspicuously absent from the secular histories. The overwhelming lack of evidence for the events described in the Bible, combined with the fact that there were many historians who would have written about the events had they actually occurred, constitutes strong evidence that the events did not take place as described. (If you think that this is an example of the "absence of proof equals proof of absence" fallacy, you need to read the Lack of Evidence section of Arguments for Atheism.)
I believe the arguments here seems to be able to counter the one given by others. -
double post
-
Jewish Babylonian Talmud
McDowell cites six lines of evidence for the historical Jesus from the Talmudic writings:
(a) The Tol'doth Yeshu. At the outset, note that the Tol'doth Yeshu is not in any sense a part of the Talmud; in ETDAV McDowell erroneously lists the Tol'doth Yeshu as if it were a part of the Talmud. (In fairness to McDowell, I should note that he does not repeat this error in his later book, He Walked Among Us; in that volume, the Tol'doth Yeshu is listed under the heading of "References from the Rabbis."[45]) Anyway, McDowell states that the Tol'doth Yeshu is a reference to Jesus; in that document "Jesus is referred to as `Ben Pandera'".[46] Yet Joseph Klausner--who McDowell relies on heavily in his section on the Talmud--believed the Tol'doth Yeshu "contains no history worth the name."[47] Furthermore, Klausner stated, "The present Hebrew Tol'Doth Yeshu, even in its simplest form, is not earlier than the present Yosippon, i.e. it was not composed before the tenth century. Therefore it cannot possibly possess any historical value nor in any way be used as material for the life of Jesus."[48] Even on McDowell's view, this is more than enough time for legendary development. And in He Walked Among Us, McDowell and Wilson list the Tol'doth Yeshu among the "unreliable [rabbinic] references to Jesus."
(b) The Babylonian Talmud. McDowell next lists the opinion of the Amoraim that Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.[49] However, Klausner thinks that the Amoraim traditions "can have no objective historical value (since by the time of the Amoraim there was certainly no clear recollection of Jesus' life and works)."[50] Morris Goldstein states that the passage "cannot be fixed at a definite date within the Tannaitic time-area."[51] The value of this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus is therefore uncertain.
(c) The tradition about Jesus as the son of Pantera. Commenting on the Talmud's references to Jesus as "Ben Pandera (or 'Ben Pantere')" and "Jeshu ben Pandera," McDowell writes, "Many scholars say `pandera' is a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for virgin `parthenos,' calling him `son of a virgin.'"[52] However, "Jesus is never referred to as `the son of the virgin' in the Christian material preserved from the first century of the Church (30-130), nor in the second century apologists."[53] As Herford argues, this passage "cannot be earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in Babylonia, not Palestine."[54]
(d) The Baraitha describing hanging Yeshu on the eve of Passover. McDowell considers "of great historical value" the following Jewish tradition about the hanging of Jesus:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defence and hanged him on the eve of Passover.[55]
It is unclear whether this passage refers to Jesus. As Goldstein admits, "the possibility of the Jesus named in the Talmud being someone other than Jesus of Nazareth, and identified as such only because of confusion, cannot be entirely dismissed."[56] But even if the passage does refer to the Jesus of the New Testament, according to Goldstein, "it is of no help one way or the other in the question of the historicity of Jesus."[57]
Following this Baraitha are some remarks of the Amora 'Ulla, a disciple of R. Yochanan and who lived in Palestine at the end of the third century. McDowell quotes these remarks as follows:
'Ulla said: And do you suppose that for [Yeshu of Nazareth] there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him. It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority.[58]
Both McDowell and Klausner conclude, "The Talmud authorities do not deny that Jesus worked signs and wonders, but they look upon them as acts of sorcery."[59] However, given our ignorance of both the date of these passages as well as the author's sources, we simply can't assume these passages represent independent traditions about Jesus.
(e) Talmudic references to the disciples of Jesus. McDowell writes, "Sanhedrin 43a also makes references to the disciples of Jesus."[60] Turning to Joseph Klausner, we read:
Immediately after this Baraita comes a second (Sanh. 43a): Jesus had five disciples, Mattai, Naqai, Netser, Buni and Todah.[61]
Yet as Klausner notes, "In any case the Baraita itself is lacking in accuracy, for although the names are those of real disciples, they include some who were not disciples of Jesus himself, but disciples of the second generation."[62] In other words, the list of names is simply a list of Christians, not a list of contemporaries of Jesus.[63]
Laible has suggested that "the story refers to the prosecution of Christians under Bar Cocheba"[64] because (1) the story occurs in the same passage which describes the death of Jesus and (2) "the key to the understanding of the statements there made about Jesus in the anti-Christian hatred of Bar Cocheba, and more especially of Aqiba, his chief supporter."[65] If that is the case, then the passage can be dated to the second century, which would prevent it from providing independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
(f) The reference to such-an-one as a bastard of an adulteress. McDowell, following the lead of Klausner, cites the following passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 4.49a:
R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: 'I found a geneaological roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress.'"[66]
McDowell takes this to be a reliable reference to Jesus.[67]
However, there are good reasons to doubt that this passage represents an independent tradition about Jesus. First, the passage comes from the Babylonian Talmud, which dates to around the sixth century. Second, the gospel of Matthew begins with the words, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ."[68] This "genealogical roll" or "Book of Pedigrees" may have been influenced by the gospels. Third, this passage fits the pattern of Rabbinical polemic. Thus this reference may not be based upon an independent source. Of course, it's also possible that this passage was based on independent sources. The available evidence does not favor one view over the other; thus, we can't use this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
(g) The reference to the 'hire of a harlot.' Finally, McDowell quotes the following passage from the Talmud:
He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper market (Tosefta reads 'street') of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads 'Sakkanin') was his name. He said to me, It is written in your Law, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc.' What was to be done with it--a latrine for the High Priest? But I answered nothing. He said to me, so [Jesus of Nazareth] taught me (Tosefta reads, 'Yeshu ben Pantere'): 'For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return'; from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I transgressed against what is written in the Law; 'Keep thy way far from here'--that is Minuth; 'and come not nigh the door of her house'--that is the civil government.[69]
What is crucial to the evidential force of this passage is the words in parentheses; yet McDowell never defends them. He simply quotes Klausner, who in turn quoted an obscure, 19th century manuscript.[70] Nonetheless, most scholars would reject the passage as McDowell has it:
To establish the reliability of this passage, Klausner must engage in a contorted argument that includes an appeal to Hegesippus' account of the martyrdom of James--something that would not inspire confidence in many scholars today. Joachim Jeremias weighs the pros and cons of the argument about authenticity and decides in the negative--rightly in my view. The saying is a polemical invention meant to make Jesus look ridiculous.[71]
In conclusion, the value of the Talmud as a witness to the historicity of Jesus is at best uncertain. John Meier argues that the Talmud contains "no clear or probable reference to Jesus."[72] And Twelftree states that the Talmud is "of almost no value to the historian in his search for the historical Jesus."[73] Of course, as McDowell and Wilson point out, the Talmud never questions the historicity of Jesus.[74] But that fact cannot itself be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, for two reasons. First, as Goldstein points out,
we must be careful not to make too much of [the] argument [that had Jews doubted the historicity of Jesus, they would have said so]. It is not conclusive. Can we attribute to ancient peoples our modern concept of myth, or historicity? Furthermore, this manner of logic lends itself to fallacious extension whereby one could attempt to prove that whatever the early Jewish tradition does not specifically mention in contradiction to the Christian tradition must have taken place.[75]
Second, the Talmud can only provide independent confirmation of Jesus's existence if it relied on independent sources. Given our ignorance of the sources for the Talmud as well as its late date, it simply can't be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. -
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
There is a lot of info here tat seems to counter the ones song has given. I just paste a segment of it and the post got too long
-
The greatest head scratcher of all is why people usually regard the testimony of the Bible as invalid
Tat is of course INVALID because it contains the story of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and many other Old Testaments stories which is surely off history.guys.. do a search on the net.. all there. so many studes done. anyone i chose the 1 posted on top b'coz... even the opposers of Christians ackowledged that Jesus did roam the earth.
Yup, but there r many sources tat deny the existence of christ too. Such as the website I have given above. In the end, most of the info has sources tat r unreliable.religion is not something that appeals to the intellect. it's hard to describe.. it's a feeling. a faith. i dunno. all the debates that we had.. all these are seondary.
Yup yup yup, u r bound to it by faith which is... well baseless. Because every religion force the believer to believe blindly, tat is why there r so many different religions now and so many problems. Faith cannot tell wat is right or wrong. Faith is not rational. If one person can use faith to justify a belief, another person can use faith to justify a diametrically opposed belief. For example, faith provides no way of discerning who is correct when someone says that they have faith that God created the universe and someone else says that they have faith that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe. Since it is clear that faith cannot be used to reliably justify any belief, we have to conclude that faith is irrational. In fact, in the entire history of human civilization, the only methods that we have been able to come up with for determining whether or not some claim is true are reason and objective experimentation that is repeatable, i.e., the scientific method. -
geez.. i pasted the whole article. but you chose to comment that most of them are on early Christians? aren't you approaching this debate with a narrow perspective?
The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (c. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44).
1st proof.
Writing about A.D. 120, Suetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus
2nd proof
Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century A.D., produced the oldest extant literary attack against Christianity. His True Discourse (c. A.D. 17 was a bitter assault upon Christ. Celsus argued that Jesus was born in low circumstances, being the illegitimate son of a soldier named Panthera
3rd proof
Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 115-200) was called “the Voltaire of Grecian literature.” He wrote against Christianity more with patronizing contempt than volatile hostility. He said Christians worshipped the well-known “sophist” Who was crucified in Palestine because He introduced new mysteries. He never denied the existence of Jesus.
4th proof
there's more!! LOL
hey if we are going to debate, you've got to be more fair. i bothered to search out an article for you and you brush it aside saying "christians not jesus". come on..
anyway, like i said.. you've got to do research before you come to your conclusion. If you really want to disprove Christianity.. go do your research. You are debating with your gut feling and preconceived prejudices. (i'm not trying to be hostile 
but this is a debate right?)
ok.. from your passage
The truth is that there is little or no historical evidence for Jesus that is not contested by serious scholars. (For more information on the historical evidence for Jesus, see Historicitiy of Jesus, Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?, and Christ a Fiction.)
Josh Mcdowell.. 1 of my favorite authors! Did you realise that he didn't show how he disproved of Josh Mcdowell's arguement?
Go read some of his books. More than a carpenter (less than a 100pages) or "a ready defense".. its a more indepth study of christian faith. Why do you jump to conclusions without first reading more about it? try to look over the fence .
lastly, once again.. Christian faith is not something that is easy to defend. because there are so many things written in it. Its about faith. whats more.. if i can't answer you successfully at the end of this debate.. try approaching a theologian. they would be soo much more appropriate to answer your question. they spent their whole life studying these things.
For myself.. i always like the saying.. "happier the man who don't see yet believes".
feel free to rebut my points. -
Pliny the Younger, writing near 100 CE, corresponded regularly with the emperor Trajan. In these writings, Pliny specifically mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, and asks Trajan's advice about what action to take against them, if any. However, Pliny's writings provide no independent confirmation of the events of the New Testament, but merely show that there were indeed Christians living in Asia Minor.
Roman
In his The Lives of the Caesars, Suetonius, writing around 120 CE, states:
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)
Occasionally this passage is cited as evidence for Jesus's historicity. However, there are serious problems with this interpretation:
"Chrestus" is the correct Latin form of an actual Greek name, and is not obviously a mispelling of "Christus", meaning Christ.
The passage seems to imply that there was actually someone named Chrestus at Rome at the time. This rules out a reference to Jesus.
Even if Suetonius is referring to Christians in Rome, this only confirms the existence of Christians, not the existence of Jesus. There is no doubt that there were Christians in Rome during the first century CE--this of course does NOT imply that Jesus actually lived during the first half of this century.
Thus, Suetonius fails to confirm the historicity of Jesus.
In his Annals, Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 CE) writes that Christians
"derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44)
Two questions arise concerning this passage:
Did Tacitus really write this, or is this a later Christian interpolation?
Is this really an independent confirmation of Jesus's story, or is Tacitus just repeating what some Christians told him?
Some scholars believe the passage may be a Christian interpolation into the text. However, this is not at all certain, and unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, no clear evidence of textual tampering exists.
The second objection is much more serious. Conceivably, Tacitus may just be repeating what he was told by Christians about Jesus. If so, then this passage merely confirms that there were Christians in Tacitus' time, and that they believed that Pilate killed Jesus during the reign of Tiberius. This would not be independent confirmation of Jesus's existence. If, on the other hand, Tacitus found this information in Roman imperial records (to which he had access) then that could constitute independent confirmation. There are good reasons to doubt that Tacitus is working from Roman records here, however. For one, he refers to Pilate by the wrong title (Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator). Secondly, he refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos". Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but presumably by his given name. Thus, there is excellent reason to suppose that Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus, and so can tell us nothing new about Jesus's historicity. -
The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, writing during the second half of the first century CE, produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews. Two apparent references to Jesus occur in the second of these works. The longer, and more famous passage, occurs in Book 18 of Antiquities and reads as follows (taken from the standard accepted Greek text of Antiquities 18:63-64 by L. H. Feldman in the Loeb Classical Library):
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:
The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.
Many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a later Christian insertion. However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus. These scholars cite such phrases as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" as being atypical Christian usages, but plausible if coming from a first century Palestinian Jew. Of course, a suitably clever Christian wishing to "dress up" Josephus would not have much trouble imitating his style.
Philip Burns (pib@merle.acns.nwu.edu) has provided some of the following material on the following alternate versions or reconstructions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.
In Charlesworth's version, references to Jesus' resurrection, Messiahship, and possible divinity ("if indeed one ought to call him a man") are removed. These elements are clearly unacceptable coming from a non-Christian Jew such as Josephus. If in fact Josephus's original text mentioned Jesus at all, it was certainly much closer to this version than to the highly pro-Christian one which has survived. One possible problem with Charlesworth's reconstruction is the use of the term "Christians"--it is not clear from the reconstructed text why "Christians" would be named after Jesus, unless Josephus had previously referred to him as "Christ". It seems inconsistent to delete the reference to Jesus being "Christ", but to keep the suggestion that this is how Christians got their name.
A reconstruction by F.F. Bruce sidesteps this particular problem by having Josephus take a more hostile stance towards Jesus:
"Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extinct even today.
Bruce's version also seems somewhat inconsistent, calling Jesus a "wise man" while also identifying him as a source of trouble and as someone who "led away many Jews". A further problem concerns the reference to Jesus's ministry among the Gentiles. In Jesus: A Historian's Review of the Gospels, Michael Grant argues that Jesus in fact avoided ministering to Gentiles, and that a Christian Gentile ministry arose only after his death. If Grant is right, then Josephus is confusing the actions of Jesus with the actions of the early Christian church.
A late Arabic recension of this passage in Josephus comes from Agapius's Book of the Title, a history of the world from its beginning to 941/942 C.E. Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. The following translation is by S. Pines:
"Similarly Josephus, the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance (?) of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
While some have argued that this passage may be close to the original, one should note especially that this version is from a much later text, and that Josephus at least admits the possibility that Jesus was the Messiah, which seems unlikely. These two facts make this version suspect. In fact, E. Bammel argues that the passage reflects the conflicts between Christianity and Islam in Agapius's time, rather than being a genuine reflection of the original text.
The consensus, if there is such a thing, would seem to be that:
The Testimonium Flavianium preserved in the extant Greek is not the original text. At best, certain phrases within it are later Christian insertions. At worst, the entire passage is a later insertion.
In particular, Josephus probably did not claim that Jesus was the Messiah, or that he rose from the dead. At best, he only confirms that Jesus existed and perhaps was killed by Pilate.
Josephus apparently refers to Jesus in passing later in the "Antiquities", where we find this passage:
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)
Opinion about this passage is mixed. Some scholars believe that it is a later Christian insertion, like the Testimonium Flavianium may be, but of course much less blatantly so. Others believe that the passage may in fact be genuine. No adequate means of deciding the issue exists at this time. However, those who argue for Jesus's non-existence note that Josephus spends much more time discussing John the Baptist and various other supposed Messiahs than he does discussing Jesus. However, while there is some reason to believe that this second passage is a fabrication, there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude this.
On the whole, it seems at least plausible that Josephus made some references to Jesus in the original version of Antiquities of the Jews. However, the extent of these references is very uncertain, and clear evidence of textual corruption does exist. While Josephus may be the best non-Christian source on Jesus, that is not saying much.
More detailed information and references to other discussions on Josephus may be found in:
Bruce, F. F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. Eerdmans, 1974.
Charlesworth, James H. Jesus Within Judaism. Doubleday (Anchor Books) 1988.
France, Richard T. The Evidence for Jesus. Intervarsity Press, 1986. -
And most of song story have a 2 major flaws
These stories only tell the existence of Christians, not Christ. (Roman Catacomb, pliny)
Second, the people giving the account r already manay many years after christ, which make them more likely hear from christians other than see jesus himself. (Polycarb, Irenaeus, Lucian, Porphyry, Tacitus, Suetonius)
In fact all your so called "enemies" of christ r too young. They can only see the effect by christians, not christ. -
Huh? All this seems to be a case of making an argument for, or against an elusive character rather then actually making any headway.
After this long post, the onus of evidence still lies on those trying to say that Jesus was mere vapour, which I find usually to be a case of grasping at straws, or simply refusing to believe that He existed short of Him walking up our door and said hello
While people can wax a lot of lyrical and say plenty of stuff about the "historic" nature of Jesus, I have yet to see them produce any plausible theories on what really happened, they all still seem pretty wild to me. -
Lucian of Samosata and Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century?? u didn't cover these 2. anyway.. i got a lot more literature that i haven't included.. are you going to disprove all the literature that states there was a Jesus? in any case, the literature that you included doesn't disprove anything. - The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy.
have you heard about the apostle paul (before conversion he was also a pharisee)?
However, some maintain that Josephus's work originally did refer to Jesus, but that Christian copyists later expanded and made the text more favorable to Jesus.
wad do we make of this? so is there or isn't there? i'm confused.
One possible reconstruction of the Testimonium Flavianum, suggested by James Charlesworth, goes like this, with probably Christian interpolations enclosed in brackets:
About this time there was Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed one ought to call him a man]. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and also many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been loving (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), [for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him]. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct.
again.. wad do we make of this? so is there or isn't there? i'm still confused
and if you haven't realised they are suggesting. how does all these prove everything. let me quote you an example: i am a pharisee.. i saw jesus die on the cross. following this.. he rose again! would i be converted? i would.. b'coz i saw and believe.
once again.. i challenge you to read some of Josh Mcdowell's books or better still read the bible and then.. form your perceptions -
For example, faith provides no way of discerning who is correct when someone says that they have faith that God created the universe and someone else says that they have faith that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe.
I don't understand why people like to use this pink unicorn argument to evaluate the faith as a whole. Sure, a comparison between God and the pink unicorn is fun to discuss about, in a purely philosophical discussion. But now, if you're to evaluate a faith system, it is how well the worldview can explain reality that matters. The christian worldview has pretty good explanation on issues like suffering, problem of evil, purpose and other human conditions. May I know how does your worldview with the Invisible Pink Unicorn explain such issues?
Since it is clear that faith cannot be used to reliably justify any belief, we have to conclude that faith is irrational.
Wait a minute, this is a very big thing to proclaim, that faith is irrational. Do I get you right, that you're saying any kind of faith (other than religious faith) is irrational?
In fact, in the entire history of human civilization, the only methods that we have been able to come up with for determining whether or not some claim is true are reason and objective experimentation that is repeatable, i.e., the scientific method.
Is there a qualitative difference between proving in the mathematical sense and proving using the scientific method? -
We've strayed to proving the validity of Christianity? Just a reminder that the topic is about religion's relevance in today's society
Is it still relevant?
Personal point of view, it is still so very relevant especially in the circle of politics. It is still very much used by political parties (e.g. Al Qaeda) to move people's heart. Science in it's natural form won't be able to do that in that same effectiveness.