Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Frigidus]

crucifiction

Oh dear. Embarassing typo...

Quite appropriate considering the debate though.

How do you mean?

You know, cruci-fiction. Arguing over whether Christ existed/was God and all that.

[Napoleon Ier]

crucifiction

Oh dear. Embarassing typo...

Quite appropriate considering the debate though.

How do you mean?

You know, cruci-fiction. Arguing over whether Christ existed/was God and all that.

no yeeah exactly...that's what what I meant by embarassing typo

anyway. the rest of my gargantuan quote-fest of a post still stands.

[MeDeFe]

I think we already went over the "prosecution of early christians and disciples/apostles"-business and found out that only 2 apostles were killed/charged with crimes, neither of them because of their faith.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think we already went over the "prosecution of early christians and disciples/apostles"-business and found out that only 2 apostles were killed/charged with crimes, neither of them because of their faith.

(Note: John the Evangelist according to legend was cooked in boiling hot oil but survived. He was the only one of the original twelve Apostles who was not martyred).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs#Apostolic_Age.E2.80.941st_century

...it is wrong ... to dissmiss contemeliously, and out of hand, all the evidence, when ...[insert generic atheist] clearly has no clue what he is talking about.

Dissproved without even having to actually write anything new...

[Snorri1234]

Evidence? They're stories, not history books. The only thing they have to proof is books. Not bones, nothing.

Try and read the evidence though. The Bible is a historical source like any other, and genuine history books corroborate with it.

Yes but we don't use history books as proof.
The writings of Herodotos are very interresting but he only gets credit for the things we actually have archeological proof for too. (Though ofcourse it does lend credibility to his other claims, that don't mean they are "proof".)

Ofcourse, most historians didn't include supernatural events. Are you saying that Homeros' claims of divine inteference by the gods are true because we found the city of Troy?

[Napoleon Ier]

Evidence? They're stories, not history books. The only thing they have to proof is books. Not bones, nothing.

Try and read the evidence though. The Bible is a historical source like any other, and genuine history books corroborate with it.

Yes but we don't use history books as proof.
The writings of Herodotos are very interresting but he only gets credit for the things we actually have archeological proof for too. (Though ofcourse it does lend credibility to his other claims, that don't mean they are "proof".)

Ofcourse, most historians didn't include supernatural events. Are you saying that Homeros' claims of divine inteference by the gods are true because we found the city of Troy?

There are obvious differences between Homer's Iliad and Josephus. I don't think you have quite understood the prrofs I've presented.

[MeDeFe]

I usually don't mind Wikipedia articles as references, but when they only cite one book as their source that has not been peer-reviewed and in fact does not even count as a scientific work I get a little wary.

Still it's good that you have something to add to the discussion about the respective circumstances about the deaths of Jesus disciples. But leave out your feeble attempts at condescension, ok? Especially when I only present you with the condensed version of the result of an earlier discussion and not something that I have made up. It really doesn't make you look good, and btw smilies are overrated.

[Napoleon Ier]

I usually don't mind Wikipedia articles as references, but when they only cite one book as their source that has not been peer-reviewed and in fact does not even count as a scientific work I get a little wary.

Still it's good that you have something to add to the discussion about the respective circumstances about the deaths of Jesus disciples. But leave out your feeble attempts at condescension, ok? Especially when I only present you with the condensed version of the result of an earlier discussion and not something that I have made up. It really doesn't make you look good, and btw smilies are overrated.

Sorry. I get a little carried away...

[MeDeFe]

I usually don't mind Wikipedia articles as references, but when they only cite one book as their source that has not been peer-reviewed and in fact does not even count as a scientific work I get a little wary.

Still it's good that you have something to add to the discussion about the respective circumstances about the deaths of Jesus disciples. But leave out your feeble attempts at condescension, ok? Especially when I only present you with the condensed version of the result of an earlier discussion and not something that I have made up. It really doesn't make you look good, and btw smilies are overrated.

Sorry. I get a little carried away...

You're forgiven.

[Snorri1234]

Evidence? They're stories, not history books. The only thing they have to proof is books. Not bones, nothing.

Try and read the evidence though. The Bible is a historical source like any other, and genuine history books corroborate with it.

Yes but we don't use history books as proof.
The writings of Herodotos are very interresting but he only gets credit for the things we actually have archeological proof for too. (Though ofcourse it does lend credibility to his other claims, that don't mean they are "proof".)

Ofcourse, most historians didn't include supernatural events. Are you saying that Homeros' claims of divine inteference by the gods are true because we found the city of Troy?

There are obvious differences between Homer's Iliad and Josephus. I don't think you have quite understood the prrofs I've presented.

Then what are the differences? The only real difference ofcourse is that Homeros wasn't actually there. Just as noone was actually there when Jesus walked the lands after dieing.

[Napoleon Ier]

Evidence? They're stories, not history books. The only thing they have to proof is books. Not bones, nothing.

Try and read the evidence though. The Bible is a historical source like any other, and genuine history books corroborate with it.

Yes but we don't use history books as proof.
The writings of Herodotos are very interresting but he only gets credit for the things we actually have archeological proof for too. (Though ofcourse it does lend credibility to his other claims, that don't mean they are "proof".)

Ofcourse, most historians didn't include supernatural events. Are you saying that Homeros' claims of divine inteference by the gods are true because we found the city of Troy?

There are obvious differences between Homer's Iliad and Josephus. I don't think you have quite understood the prrofs I've presented.

Then what are the differences? The only real difference ofcourse is that Homeros wasn't actually there. Just as noone was actually there when Jesus walked the lands after dieing.

For a start Josephus was a comprehensive history. The Iliad was a poem.

[Snorri1234]

For a start Josephus was a comprehensive history. The Iliad was a poem.

Well, yeah. But it was a poem mainly because it was hard to remember it otherwise.

But anyway, you also said the Bible is a good historical source. I don't think you can use the bible as a source to prove claims about the bible.

[Napoleon Ier]

For a start Josephus was a comprehensive history. The Iliad was a poem.

Well, yeah. But it was a poem mainly because it was hard to remember it otherwise.

But anyway, you also said the Bible is a good historical source. I don't think you can use the bible as a source to prove claims about the bible.

Its a historical source like any other, to be treated skeptically, and as potentially biased, but a source nonetheless. It would make no sense, but gradually, as I've outlined, there is evidence to corroborate cropping up.

[Snorri1234]

For a start Josephus was a comprehensive history. The Iliad was a poem.

Well, yeah. But it was a poem mainly because it was hard to remember it otherwise.

But anyway, you also said the Bible is a good historical source. I don't think you can use the bible as a source to prove claims about the bible.

Its a historical source like any other, to be treated skeptically, and as potentially biased, but a source nonetheless. It would make no sense, but gradually, as I've outlined, there is evidence to corroborate cropping up.

Well yeah I can agree with that.

[Guiscard]

These aren't a few disiples, there were hundreds. They all saw the same things, and they all died for what you claim they knew was perfectly false. Oh, and yeah, they managed to get past trained Roman guards, who just dissappeared(the authoritires would have said if the guards had been attacked).

Oh come on Napoleon...

Firstly, in response to the 'they died for it' claim, I may as well post a comment I made in another thread some time back when someone else made this claim.

...in regards to the argument from Martyrdom, we actually only have two cases of evidence in the New Testement, and elsewhere in the same period, of people martyred in the period after Jesus' death. Firstly, we have Stephen, who was not a witness, and secondly we have James who was executed on a charge of breaking the law. There is no evidence whatsoever that he could have in any way helped his death by renouncing Jesus, nor any specific mention of the resurrection, and we are looking here at both Acts and at the history of Josephus.

So, no, actually, we don't have any concrete evidence whatsoever for the martyrdom of those who witnessed the resurrection.

[MelonanadeMaster]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

There are 3 very good reasons not to kill someone. 1. There is no reason to. 2. They might kill you back. 3. Killing doesn't feel good to me, because I have empathy for others.

Kill you back? Is there any reason why not to? How do you explain your empathy, animals hardly feel empathy?

[Frigidus]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

There are 3 very good reasons not to kill someone. 1. There is no reason to. 2. They might kill you back. 3. Killing doesn't feel good to me, because I have empathy for others.

Kill you back? Is there any reason why not to? How do you explain your empathy, animals hardly feel empathy?

Religion is hardly what seperates humans from animals (if there is any seperation to be made at all).

Anyways, random killings did not occur before religions with a moral code were created. People didn't get their kicks off slaughtering their neighbors. Religion set down rules, such as the "thou shalt not kill" bit, because everyone recognized that murder was a Bad Thing. Abrahamic faiths condemned people to hell for doing various Bad Things. The idea of the Bad Things being bad came before the law was set out, not after.

[unriggable]

The rules of religion, at least most of them, represent human morality. It's no coincidence they are basically all the same.

[MelonanadeMaster]

These aren't a few disiples, there were hundreds. They all saw the same things, and they all died for what you claim they knew was perfectly false. Oh, and yeah, they managed to get past trained Roman guards, who just dissappeared(the authoritires would have said if the guards had been attacked).

Oh come on Napoleon...

Firstly, in response to the 'they died for it' claim, I may as well post a comment I made in another thread some time back when someone else made this claim.

...in regards to the argument from Martyrdom, we actually only have two cases of evidence in the New Testement, and elsewhere in the same period, of people martyred in the period after Jesus' death. Firstly, we have Stephen, who was not a witness, and secondly we have James who was executed on a charge of breaking the law. There is no evidence whatsoever that he could have in any way helped his death by renouncing Jesus, nor any specific mention of the resurrection, and we are looking here at both Acts and at the history of Josephus.

So, no, actually, we don't have any concrete evidence whatsoever for the martyrdom of those who witnessed the resurrection.

I don't speak for all Christians, but, as a historical source, (not a religous source) the Bible is just as reliable as any other historical source, and, consequently, vice-versa. Because of this I trust the other early Christian sources on their accounts of the martyres. Yes I admit this in itself isn't "proof" yet its silly to disbelieve everything that doesn't have conclusive proof. If I used that kind of logic it'd be logical to believe that you (saying that inderectly) don't exist. I mean I don't have any proof that you actualy exist realy, I mean you have some recorded writings to your name, but historical proofs are completely insuperior to scientific evidences.

[unriggable]

You're kidding right? Imagine a murder takes place with four witnesses watching the whole thing. Forty years later, as in, FORTY YEARS, the witnesses are brought to testify, assuming they remember everything. Do you think their memories will be a bit bent? Because the first written account of Jesus wasn't until, what, the year 70? Guiscard can back this up.

[MelonanadeMaster]

melonade....if we assume that there is not yet a objective set of moral behavior outside of religious expression, which is in the arena of the subjective....do we not have to attempt to make the best use of the tools that are current available?

If we take a look at perhaps some of the societal constructs that we use in our own societies, ie the right of living beings to continue to persist as a hallmark of a free society, should that right not be granted equally. Shouldnt that alone be a qualifier for condeming large scale murders and genocidal efforts?

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

There are 3 very good reasons not to kill someone. 1. There is no reason to. 2. They might kill you back. 3. Killing doesn't feel good to me, because I have empathy for others.

Kill you back? Is there any reason why not to? How do you explain your empathy, animals hardly feel empathy?

Religion is hardly what seperates humans from animals (if there is any seperation to be made at all).

Anyways, random killings did not occur before religions with a moral code were created. People didn't get their kicks off slaughtering their neighbors. Religion set down rules, such as the "thou shalt not kill" bit, because everyone recognized that murder was a Bad Thing. Abrahamic faiths condemned people to hell for doing various Bad Things. The idea of the Bad Things being bad came before the law was set out, not after.

What would you say is the difference then?

You forget your talking to a crazy Christian who sees no time in which religion didn't exist
Theres no such thing as "random killing." For example, "Bilbo killed Frodo." What we don't know is that Bilbo gets a sick plesure in the thrill of holding someone's life in his hands. Thus there is a reason, if, a sick twisted, reason.

[Frigidus]

I mean I don't have any proof that you actualy exist realy, I mean you have some recorded writings to your name, but historical proofs are completely insuperior to scientific evidences.

Yeah, but he posts and replies to you. It isn't like he never posted on this board and one day somebody said "Hey guys, there's this history buff named Guiscard, he knows his stuff. Here's a quote of his, intriguing eh?", which is a very, very rough equivalent of theism.

[MelonanadeMaster]

You're kidding right? Imagine a murder takes place with four witnesses watching the whole thing. Forty years later, as in, FORTY YEARS, the witnesses are brought to testify, assuming they remember everything. Do you think their memories will be a bit bent? Because the first written account of Jesus wasn't until, what, the year 70? Guiscard can back this up.

The point was that many other historical figures, have no records till MUCH later than the comparitevely short period of time in the case of the Gospels. Take the Greek philosephers for example. Plus I was never arguing they had perfect memories that remembered every detail. In fact the scriptures say this, (and I'm paraphraising) "There are many things concering Jesus that have not been recorded in this writing"

[Guiscard]

These aren't a few disiples, there were hundreds. They all saw the same things, and they all died for what you claim they knew was perfectly false. Oh, and yeah, they managed to get past trained Roman guards, who just dissappeared(the authoritires would have said if the guards had been attacked).

Oh come on Napoleon...

Firstly, in response to the 'they died for it' claim, I may as well post a comment I made in another thread some time back when someone else made this claim.

...in regards to the argument from Martyrdom, we actually only have two cases of evidence in the New Testement, and elsewhere in the same period, of people martyred in the period after Jesus' death. Firstly, we have Stephen, who was not a witness, and secondly we have James who was executed on a charge of breaking the law. There is no evidence whatsoever that he could have in any way helped his death by renouncing Jesus, nor any specific mention of the resurrection, and we are looking here at both Acts and at the history of Josephus.

So, no, actually, we don't have any concrete evidence whatsoever for the martyrdom of those who witnessed the resurrection.

I don't speak for all Christians, but, as a historical source, (not a religous source) the Bible is just as reliable as any other historical source, and, consequently, vice-versa. Because of this I trust the other early Christian sources on their accounts of the martyres. Yes I admit this in itself isn't "proof" yet its silly to disbelieve everything that doesn't have conclusive proof. If I used that kind of logic it'd be logical to believe that you (saying that inderectly) don't exist. I mean I don't have any proof that you actualy exist realy, I mean you have some recorded writings to your name, but historical proofs are completely insuperior to scientific evidences.

I don't think I've spoken to you before on the site, and I don't mean to be at all patronising, but I'm a historian by profession. Historical 'proofs' can be defined very widely, but in this case I think we'd like to see a contemporary account which speaks of someone who witnessed the resurrection being killed because they will not renounce it. Its a simple requirement. There are no sources categorically which say anything like that. None.

And certainly I'm all for the Bible as a historical source. Its a wonderful document which details centuries of history! As an undergraduate I did a lot of research into ancient Assyria and Babylonia. Without the Bible we'd know much less of those early empires. I can tell you that both the Bible and Assyrian inscriptions tell us that in 701BC Sennacherib marched on Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that he was turned back by the wrath of the Angel of the Lord, whereas the Assyrian chronicle tells us that Judah paid him the tribute he requested and he left. Valid historical sources certainly confirm events, but they do not confirm the spiritual implications. As with ANY other historical source, you must read it critically. We could read Homer and conclude the Greek Gods must exist because he references real places and real events. But we don't, and I doubt you do either. I personally view it as a very valid source in terms of the life of Jesus. I'm sure a man named Jesus must have existed because it is written about by authors in the Bible and also elsewhere. History is all about doubt.

[MelonanadeMaster]

I mean I don't have any proof that you actualy exist realy, I mean you have some recorded writings to your name, but historical proofs are completely insuperior to scientific evidences.

Yeah, but he posts and replies to you. It isn't like he never posted on this board and one day somebody said "Hey guys, there's this history buff named Guiscard, he knows his stuff. Here's a quote of his, intriguing eh?", which is a very, very rough equivalent of theism.

....But God has "written" before in the scriptures, why is that not as much proof to you as the posts mase by Guiscard?

Besides that's irrelevent to my original claim, even if he did post on this forum, (like he does) its still not enough proof given the silly standards that has been expected by people to proof certain things about Christianity.