You make a lot of points.

“Paul and the gospel writers had reason. They needed someone to call their messiah so Jesus was an easy choice “

Quite, that’s exactly my contention, that the genius Paul invented the notion of the miracle-working messiah. I simply believe it is convincing to suppose that behind this myth was a real, charismatic (though entirely human) teacher. Of course I may be wrong, but I am entitles to my supposition which I deem plausible. You are at liberty to disagree.

I’m afraid I don’t read christian propagandist websites. I am not sufficient of an historian to know whether the passages in Josephus are later interpolations


”That's excellent reasoning.” Your compliment is appreciated. I repeat, I believe that my supposition that there was a real human behind the Jesus myth is plausible.

”One would deduce then that you aren't in law.” One would deduce correctly.

“Show me any evidence for a historical Jesus”. There isn’t any, said so in last post.

”Religion does not require basis in real people. “ Correct, it requires faith. I haven’t got it. The reason that Christianity is so powerful (I would contend) is that there is the strong possibility of a real human element behind the myth.

”I do think you are biased somewhat here”. Not biased, just fact. I’m not dismissing other cultures, simply stating the incontrovertible fact that the last 1000 years of a Christian-based culture has produced the greatest, most coherent body of art in history. I don’t discount Chinese, Indian, Moorish or other art. I simply say that it has not had the same influence as Western art.
quote:

”Sorry that is incorrect one cannot just cite the good and forget about all the bad”. I’m not forgetting about the bad, merely reviewing a 1000 years of history and acknowledging that christianity has been guilty of dire deeds (like many religions).

”Anyway, just how does the good outweigh the bad? Does our having a nice picture to look at make up for even a single death which christianity is responsible for.” Reminds me of the famous passage in the Third Man. Orson Welles to Joseph Cotton: In 16 C Italy you had murder, discord, massacres, and they produced Michaelangelo and Da Vinci. Switzerland has had 800 years of peace and prosperity and what has it produced? The cuckoo clock!” I suppose you’ll consider that shallow too!

”So does Islam”. But in a 1000 years Islam has produced nothing artistically speaking on an equivalent scale to Western Europe.

I am not discourteous to African or any other kind of art. It doesn’t have the power and influence of WE art.

Which actually you have done above (try to be consistent). So what, a con is still a con, duping lots of people for a long time doesn't make it better or change what it really is.
quote:


”Yes it is fact but so what - what has it to do with Christianity”. Beethoven and Co were part of a christian-based civilisation which generally encouraged them. Compare this civilisation with Islamic or Judaic which produced virtually no art at all.

The Church persecuted Galileo. So? He escaped death by recanting, sort of (Eppur si muove and all that). The church also went after Darwin, and other scientists. Some Christian sects still do.

Your arguments seem muddled to me.

Anyway I'm off to the art gallery to see the Cranach exhibition.

quote:

Originally posted by MAW:
Quite, that’s exactly my contention, that the genius Paul invented the notion of the miracle-working messiah.

Hardly the inventor given that his gospels were not the first written which mention jesus performing miracles. He certainly does invent some different facets to the myth but miracle working isn't one of them. As for genius, hardly, semi-literate would be a better descriptor. He makes as many mistakes and errors as all the other biblical authors.

quote:

I simply believe it is convincing to suppose that behind this myth was a real, charismatic (though entirely human) teacher. Of course I may be wrong, but I am entitles to my supposition which I deem plausible. You are at liberty to disagree.

I did not say you weren't entitled to believe what you will. I asked how you can say one thing is plausible yet another isn't given there is exactly the same complete lack of evidence for either. So how did you choose to believe in one and not the other? To do that is irrational, illogical and defies reason.

quote:

I’m afraid I don’t read christian propagandist websites. I am not sufficient of an historian to know whether the passages in Josephus are later interpolations

You chose to cite it. If you don't check your facts before typing then don't whinge when your false assertions are commented on. No point trying to make excuses the error was yours - Most people would just acknowledge and apologise for their mistake.

quote:

”That's excellent reasoning.” Your compliment is appreciated.

It was sarcasm.

quote:

I repeat, I believe that my supposition that there was a real human behind the Jesus myth is plausible.

Yeah right, did you know Elves exist but Goblins don't. There is no evidence to support either but I just like the idea that Elves exist. BTW this is sarcasm - just in case you miss it again.

quote:

“Show me any evidence for a historical Jesus”. There isn’t any, said so in last post.

And I mentioned that before asking how you could then come to the conclusion you keep reiterating - namely, that a historical Jesus probably existed. It defies logic and reason.

As was stated on that other thread before it was deleted no writer of the time and place mentions Jesus or his works. They mention many others who did what Jesus was accused of but curiously not him. Doesn't that give you cause for concern.

quote:

Correct, it requires faith. I haven’t got it.

Really, so what is believing in something without an iota of evidence, but faith. Have a look at a dictionary for what the word means.

quote:

The reason that Christianity is so powerful (I would contend) is that there is the strong possibility of a real human element behind the myth.

Religion is not about humans it is about gods and the supernatural. Jeez, you really don't understand it at all. If Jesus had merely been human then he certainly wouldn't have been in the bible. Christians don't believe because a purely human Jesus may have existed, they believe in a god who as part of a trinity assumed human form and was called Jesus.

quote:

I don’t discount Chinese, Indian, Moorish or other art. I simply say that it has not had the same influence as Western art.

Their art may not have had a significant effect on us but it had effect on them.

quote:

I’m not forgetting about the bad

You clearly stated the bad need not be mentioned which is essentially the same thing. If you only wish to cite the good you show bias.

quote:

(like many religions).

I don't deny other religions have done wrong too but the records of Judaism and Islam are nowhere near the dire state of christianity.

quote:

"In 16 C Italy you had murder... The cuckoo clock!"

I suppose you’ll consider that shallow too!

It isn't just shallow but totally false - Don't you ever check your "facts"? It really was just a line from a movie.

Let's see, 800 years of peace in Switzerland? The Old Swiss Confederacy began with The Federal Charter of 1291 prior to that it was part of other empires (Frankish, Holy Roman Empire, etc.) So, (major battles only)...

1. Fought the Hapsburgs - 1470s won Battles of Sempach, and Näfels, 1515 lost Battle of Marignano.

2. Inter-cantonal wars in 1529 and 1531

3. Swiss peasant war of 1653.

4. 1656 and 1712 (Protestant vs Catholic cantons) Battles of Villmergen.

Also, Swiss Mercenaries were well known and valued and fought in just about every major war in Europe.

In 1815, following the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna, Switzerland became a neutral country. However, in 1847 the "Sonderbundskrieg" erupted, this was an internal Catholic vs other canton war. It lasted a month, only resulted in about 100 deaths, and truly was their last a actual war (massive mobilisation of their populace did take place during WW2 though they never fought). So, at best, approx 100 years of peace (to when the film line was written) - bit of a difference, eh! And they have certainly produced more than cuckoo clocks, want a list?

Glad you quoted this since it nicely demonstrates how once you choose to believe in one fiction all others become plausible too.

quote:

But in a 1000 years Islam has produced nothing artistically speaking on an equivalent scale to Western Europe.

It was about influence. Art is but a minor part of that - you seem intent on focusing solely on that aspect because you think it is the good which outweighs all the bad.

quote:

I am not discourteous to African or any other kind of art. It doesn’t have the power and influence of WE art.

Really and just how has WE art influenced say, Chinese culture over the centuries? Extremely little, if any, their art, poetry, music etc. still conform to their cultural heritage.

quote:

Beethoven and Co were part of a christian-based civilisation which generally encouraged them.

This argument relies on the false premise that they only produced their art because of christianity. What evidence have you to say that the talents and genius of Mozart, Beethoven, et al would not have emerged without christianity. Anyway, what does it matter if some artist were encouraged by a ruling religion when that selfsame religion persecuted and put to death hundreds more for merely telling the truth.

quote:

Compare this civilisation with Islamic or Judaic which produced virtually no art at all.

I'll repeat it again, yawn. The fallacy of your argument is exposed in the fact that non christian cultures such as those of India and China (for example) have produced myriad amounts of art - it may not be to our western taste but that does not make it non existent or disbar it from consideration.

Islam by its doctrines confines art somewhat but Judaism is a different matter. (Both are religions BTW not civilizations). Anyway christianity certainly was a driving force in the persecution of jews throughout Europe so maybe they thought saving their skins was more important than drawing pretty pictures?

quote:

The Church persecuted Galileo. So? He escaped death by recanting, sort of (Eppur si muove and all that).

Facts again? It is most unlikely he ever said such - it certainly wouldn't have been a wise thing to do. Don't forget they had to use forged documents as evidence to convict him.

quote:

The church also went after Darwin, and other scientists.

And they got their asses kicked when they did because the days when the church could force people to their psuedo-science or enforce their "religious truth" were long gone.

quote:

Your arguments seem muddled to me.

Given your statements so far that truly is an insult.

quote:

Originally posted by MAW:
(re Josephus)

I’m afraid I don’t read christian propagandist websites.

Really, so just where did you get this gem of information from. The only people who ever list it as real evidence for Jesus are christian propagandist sites. Certainly no legitimate historian or unbiased site would cite it as such.

It's condemnation as forgery isn't even new. In 1770 Bishop Warburton of Gloucester described it as "...a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too.".

quote:

Really, so just where did you get this gem of information from.

I read rather widely, on a variety of topics and Josephus flew across my radar screen. He's not exactly unknown, you know.

Not exactly a meeting of minds here, Joliet, is it?

I believe it is plausible to assert that there may be a real human being behind the myth of Jesus. Just as there may be a real warrior behind King Arthur, for whom there is also no historical evidence except a couple of dubious references in two chronicles. From this slender account, Geoffrey of Monmouth wove a terrific myth which involved the idea of King Arthur being resurrected at a future date to save his people from defeat.

Is it proven beyond doubt that the Josephus reference is a later interpolation or is it simply a plausible hypothesis?

Thank you for the potted history of Switzerland. As you perceptively noted, my quote was a poor transcription of Orson Welles' witty observation.

Have you read SGF Brandon's The trial of Jesus of Nazareth? It is a scholalry and convincing account of events in Judea.

Hey Joliet, with your marathonic posts you have killed the thread. Oh, well.

Happens all the time.....

I fear, Milan K and Mr Woolf, that I must shoulder some of the blame for the untimely demise of the thread.

its not dead, its just resting....

bit like jesus?

Perhaps on the third day it will be resurrected and the trumpets of joy will sound across the world.

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
[People with addictive behaviour patterns, normally persue drugs, drink, sex... is that what you have us down as? People with addictive personalities?

Shall we have a look at the evidence? Try looking up "Addictive personality" and "religion", there seem to be quite a few academic papers/ studies on this (most of which need registering/ payment for but some of the headlines are quite intriguing).

Firstly, this gives some of the as "Rigidity, black and white thinking, low self-esteem, magical thinking,(and) judgmental attitudes" and that "The religious addict seeks to avoid pain and overcome shame by becoming involved in a belief system which offers security through its rigidity and its absolute values."

More usefully is no.33 inSo (loosely based on the above link);
1 - Did you "find God" after some particular difficulty/ trauma in your life?
2 - Would you describe yourself as "dependent" on God (or your church)?
3 - Do you give the credit for your actions to God?
4 - Have you ever been addicted to anything else (drugs/ alcohol/ skydiving/ free climbing/ whatever)?
5 - Could you "walk away" from your God (or church)?
&
6 - Have any of your personal relationships suffered because of your religion?

The more yeses, the more likely it seems that you have an addiction...

Should mention at this point that there's an obvious difference between an "addiction" & a "delusion" and that I'm not describing every religious person as an addict.

Well maybe you have a point... and maybe you really don't?

Let me explain - I went to a graduation ceremony on Friday for those who had come through a rehab programme run by Christians called Teen Challenge (look it up on t'internet).

Young people who had been heavily into drugs; users, dealers etc - had no intention on becomming Christians. For some it was their last hope, for others to get their parents off their back, escape imprisonment etc. Nothing rammed down their throats, just shown love and access to the Gospel.

Around 80 lives transformed after a years detox and rehab programme - testimonies of those who had come to faith and eager to share the Good News with others. Main speaker, was a guy who went through the programme in the early 70's.

So maybe you have a point - but what are you addicted to? Is it possible to be a Christian and not exhibit addictive behaviour patterns - should we all just take a passing interest, but not get too serious for fear of becomming "addicted"?

I think being addicted to Jesus is a very, VERY good thing!

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:
Is this really what it's come to? A vacuous appeal to just be less rational? Wouldn't it be great if...?
Yes, it'd be great if...
...The Invisible Pink Unicorn returned my socks;
...The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched me with his noddly appendage;
...Zeus REALLY was wandering around Greek cities impregnating women in various guises;
...Thor threw down thunder & lightning.
but I still don't think it'd be great if someone else was punished for my "sins".

Well, Mr Dawkins, an interesting point you have about some bedazzling, ficticious characters from your brainbox. Characters that we have no written documents (we have the Bible) for and evidence of (Creation, historical documents, testimonies, lives changed, healings).

p.s. I loved watching you on the 'Big Questions' programme on Sunday morning... your grin does not look very natural... looks like you have to put a fair bit into doing something you don't have much experience of!

p.p.s Cheer up!!!

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
Characters that we have no written documents (we have the Bible) for and evidence of (Creation, historical documents, testimonies, lives changed, healings).

First off, creation is not evidence for a god. It is in fact quite the reverse.
If the biblical account tallied perfectly, or even pretty well, with what we can observe and know to be true you might have a bit of a case. The fact that biblical creation account is utterly unsupported by evidence makes it the opposite of evidence for your god.

Secondly, there are NO contemporaneous historical documents supporting the case for a real jesus doing the things he is supposed to have done.

Thirdly, are those your criteria for a valid god?
If so I think you may find they are equally valid for virtually every religion invented by man and, as such, makes your god no more valid than anyone else's.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

First off, creation is not evidence for a god. It is in fact quite the reverse.
If the biblical account tallied perfectly, or even pretty well, with what we can observe and know to be true you might have a bit of a case. The fact that biblical creation account is utterly unsupported by evidence makes it the opposite of evidence for your god.

Secondly, there are NO contemporaneous historical documents supporting the case for a real jesus doing the things he is supposed to have done.

Thirdly, are those your criteria for a valid god?
If so I think you may find they are equally valid for virtually every religion invented by man and, as such, makes your god no more valid than anyone else's.

Well, first off, the evidence for the Darwinian model of 'evolution' is tenuous to say the least and yet you are able to put YOUR trust in this out-dated and un-evidenced form of science there is! All the evidence that has been presented on this website has been cockroach milk and BMP4... which is slender to say the least!

Evidence for flood of Noah's time - millions of dead things buried in sedimentary layers of rock, found all over the Earth... and that's what we find!

Secondly, if you require 'contemoraneous' evidence for everything historical, you're going to have to dismiss most of history. documents written around 60AD, writing of Paul all point to the real character of Jesus! If it had been written 500 years after...

Thirdly, I am only suggesting some forms of evidence that may appease your Dawkins-like brain... a life transformed, is compelling evidence!

Where to start with this constantly repeated untruths.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
Well, first off, the evidence for the Darwinian model of 'evolution' is tenuous to say the least and yet you are able to put YOUR trust in this out-dated and un-evidenced form of science there is! All the evidence that has been presented on this website has been cockroach milk and BMP4... which is slender to say the least!

There has been far more evidence presented here than the two items you list and an overwhelming excess of self-supporting, observable, testable evidence elsewhere.
Indeed, in Feb Luis Garcia listed 15 questions that creationism cannot answer (you certainly couldn't) that in themselves constitute evidence for ToE.
You have also been told about the fossil record, nested hierarchies and ring species, to name but three.
Did you forget about them or are you deliberately mis-representing what has been posted here because you know you have no answer. There is a three letter word for the latter.
And, are you planning anytime soon to answer the simplest of questions: What do you think ToE means?

quote:

Evidence for flood of Noah's time - millions of dead things buried in sedimentary layers of rock, found all over the Earth... and that's what we find!

quote:

Once again... (this is getting tedious) the stratification of the fossil record is simply not consistent with a flood event. Any detailed, or even cursory, examination of fossils shows a flood cannot possibly be the explanation.

Secondly, if you require 'contemoraneous' evidence for everything historical, you're going to have to dismiss most of history. documents written around 60AD, writing of Paul all point to the real character of Jesus! If it had been written 500 years after...

Wrong again. Plenty of history even as long ago as the Romans and Egyptians was recorded contemporaneously, and everything of any significance in the last 1000 years was if we consider a 1 to 2 year window to allow for news of wars etc to travel back home.

quote:

Thirdly, I am only suggesting some forms of evidence that may appease your Dawkins-like brain... a life transformed, is compelling evidence!

It is compelling evidence for nothing more than the gullibility of some people and their ability to delude themselves.
What you implied is that your god is valid because you claim such evidence.
I asked what distinguishes the supposed evidence you offer from that of any other religion.
Yet another question you failed to answer.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

There has been far more evidence presented here than the two items you list and an overwhelming excess of self-supporting, observable, testable evidence elsewhere.

This is like watching the LOST series (of which I am part way through series 3)... you get answers, but then you suddenly realise that you have not been given any answers and are twice as confused as when you started... you only give the illusion of answers!

quote:

You have also been told about the fossil record, nested hierarchies and ring species, to name but three.

Fossil record = only proves that there were once animals that no longer exist - sudden Cambrian Explosion - Darwinists try and mix and match what they find to suit a theory that only demonstrates adaptation (in observable science)!

Nested hierarchies = only shows that there are some similarities within species - hardly evidence as they don't become something different or aquire something they didn't have before!

Ring Species = Seagulls are Seagulls; some look slightly different to each other... but they are all Seagulls!

quote:

And, are you planning anytime soon to answer the simplest of questions: What do you think ToE means?

ToE's tenuous ramblings are that over time, little changes... little by little, eyes pop out of areas where there were no eyes before (for example)... because the skin thought it needed something to see other things that perhaps couldn't see and needed to eat and live, so, for some unknown reason, little teeny crude lenses burst open on the skin... and... oh oh, I feel one of those LOST moments coming on???

quote:

Once again... (this is getting tedious) the stratification of the fossil record is simply not consistent with a flood event. Any detailed, or even cursory, examination of fossils shows a flood cannot possibly be the explanation.

So what did make them all appear in sedimentary rock?? Rapid burial is needed for fossilisation, if only it weren't for the story of Noah, science would by now have confirmed that there was a flood that led to the extinction event! Sorry about that!!

quote:

Wrong again. Plenty of history even as long ago as the Romans and Egyptians was recorded contemporaneously, and everything of any significance in the last 1000 years was if we consider a 1 to 2 year window to allow for news of wars etc to travel back home.

I'm talking 2,000 years ago, in the Middle-East amongst poor people and documents written within a generation!

quote:

It is compelling evidence for nothing more than the gullibility of some people and their ability to delude themselves.
What you implied is that your god is valid because you claim such evidence.
I asked what distinguishes the supposed evidence you offer from that of any other religion.
Yet another question you failed to answer.

Black... pot and kettle!

I am only suggesting certain forms of evidence as that's all the Dawkinsians bleet on about... we have a faith and if we had absolute evidence to tick all your boxes, you would have to believe - you would have NO choice!

quote:

Originally posted by gatz:

Right, now, let's see. Did Jesus die on the cross? No!

Next.

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by gatz:

Right, now, let's see. Did Jesus die on the cross? No!

Next.

That's not the way it works H... you're so black and white sometimes!!

Like virtually all Christians, RJ has issues with what constitues reality, evidence and truth. He thinks that something is true if he believes it to be true, that something is real if he imagines it to be real, and that if it is written down, that is evidence. He truly doesn't understand that this is an incorrect worldview and labours under the conspiracy theory that science is out to get him.

That's why he believes the world was created 6000 years ago. He believes Noah and associates lived for over 900 years apiece and that it is possible to house all the species of the earth in a wooden ship too large to be structurally stable. He believes in divine plagues, magic fruit and talking donkeys. He believes homosexuals and people who work on the sabbath should be stoned to death, as should children who are unruly, or brides who are not virgins on their wedding night. He believes in witches and demons, and the devil, and of course it is the devil that makes people do bad things. He believes that he will be forgiven for any bad deed he carries out because of a human sacrifice carried out 2000 years ago. Moreover he believes that the guy who was sacrificed on his behalf came back to life and is still alive today and RJ has frequent telepathic conversations with him.

He is a very disturbed individual indeed, and will probably never be cured, so please, go easy when you mock him.