I came across an article the other day from Dr. Aaron Menikoff, a Christian pastor, who asks if the Bible is reliable for “the truth” about Jesus Christ. That’s a great question — one I answer negatively — so I was curious about his perspective. His two main arguments are:
- We should believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible.
- We should believe the Bible because it accurately explains and powerfully changes our lives.
As far as arguments go, I’m afraid I must classify both as terrible.
Christ Believed It
Pullquote: Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we.
Regarding the first point, Menikoff says:
Such reasoning may sound circuitous or circular. It is not…. If Jesus Christ is trustworthy, then His words about the authority of the Bible should be trusted as well. Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we. Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God. With faith in Christ, you cannot help but believe the Bible is God’s Word.
So we should believe the Bible is a reliable guide to the truth about Jesus… because Jesus believed the Bible? Sounds like a circular argument to me. And even if it could be shown that Jesus thought the Bible was reliable, what Bible would he be referring to? Certainly the New Testament wasn’t written when Jesus was alive, so he can’t be referring to that, which is the topic of discussion. We’re asking if the New Testament can be trusted about it’s extraordinary claims about Jesus — you can’t answer it by saying the Jesus of the New Testament trusts the Old Testament, therefore we know we can trust the New Testament. Only a believer could swallow that kind of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to repeat it, insisting it’s not circular.
Menikoff may want the logic to not be circular, but wishing doesn’t make it so. You can’t make logical fallacies go away simply by closing your eyes and insisting they don’t exist.
It’s Life Changing!
Pullquote: People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.
In my experience there is only one argument that remains for why people believe in the Bible and Christianity — the argument from personal experience. This is known as a “testimony” and evangelism classes teach proselytizers to use them because “they are the one thing that cannot be argued against.”
Which is true, in a way. There’s no reason to argue that a person didn’t have an experience. People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.
But they don’t always interpret their experiences rationally. A person may have stopped drinking a bottle of vodka a night, but that doesn’t mean Jesus had anything to do with it. They might claim that at first, saying “I once was a drunk, until Jesus picked me up out of the miry clay and changed my life. Thank you Jesus!” Yet if you dig a little deeper, it ends up there is a lot more to the story — usually you’ll find they had the help of a substance abuse program, a new community of friends to help keep them accountable, and/or a new-found religious obsession to take the place of their old addiction.
My life was changed by Christianity. It has also been changed by books I’ve read and experiences I’ve had. One of my favorite books is East of Eden by John Steinbeck, which powerfully describes human nature. Does that mean it’s divinely inspired because it gives insight into our common struggles? Of course not — it’s just a good book.
The Bible is a myth — a sweeping narrative that tries to explain the human condition. Some people (including myself at one time), find it speaks powerfully and provides a framework for understanding the world. It’s a superstitious framework, but it’s better than nothing. For people who are wandering aimlessly, have trouble being moral, or are in a time of crisis, it can be a stabilizing influence. And I’m glad it works for them!
Yet people have the same experience with the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, and others. Does that mean we must take them all to be reliable guides to truth and their holy prophets? If so, then what truth should we believe — they all contradict each other!
These arguments will not convince someone who is searching for truth. His points will get head nods from the choir, but they are not challenging or persuasive to a skeptic. He’s talking in a different epistemological language that unfortunately makes us talk past each other.
Menikoff already knows his arguments fail. That’s why he says, “Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God.” In other words, you have to already believe the Bible is reliable to know it’s reliable — which doesn’t help any of us who question it’s reliability.
But who needs facts, when you can stick your head in the sands of faith?








252 Comments
So we should believe the Bible is a reliable guide to the truth about Jesus… because Jesus believed the Bible? Sounds like a circular argument to me.
More to the point, we should believe in the bible because the bible says Jesus believed in the bible. If the question is, how can we know a document is accurate, it is utterly ridiculous to rely on assertions made by the document about itself, whoever is being given the voice.
You beat me to it.
Although we can assume that if jesus actually existed he probably believed in the bible (OT that is) just like most of his ignorant and superstitious contemporaries.
[long wall of copy/paste removed. durrrr jane —DF]
You don’t actually know what evolution IS if you believe that crap. I didn’t read it because of the myriad mistakes contained in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of that wall of dreck.
Also, copy/pasting giant blocks of someone else’s text is a no-no ’round here.
Stop talking, Jane. You are making yourself look really, really ill-informed. Why don’t you read the ACTUAL scientific material before you comment.
Here you go:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
I think this is the best example of a circular argument I’ve ever heard, actually. I remember taking Logical Reasoning in university – I wish I would have thought of this example then. It’s TEXTBOOK!!!! (I know the bible is true because the bible says that jesus says the bible is true – awesome – lol)
Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible. Archaeology has therefore played a key role in biblical studies and Christian apologetics (defending the faith) in several ways.
First, archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible. It has verified many ancient sites, civilizations, and biblical characters whose existence was questioned by the academic world and often dismissed as myths. Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible.
Second, archaeology helps us improve our understanding of the Bible. Although we do not have the original writings of the authors, thousands of ancient manuscripts affirm that we have an accurate transmission of the original texts.{1} Archaeology can also help us to understand more accurately the nuances and uses of biblical words as they were used in their day.
Third, archaeology helps illustrate and explain Bible passages. The events of the Bible occurred at a certain time, in a particular culture, influenced by a particular social and political structure. Archaeology gives us insights into these areas. Archaeology also helps to supplement topics not covered in the Bible. Much of what we know of the pagan religions and the intertestamental period comes from archaeological research.
As we approach this study we must keep in mind the limits of archaeology. First, it does not prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. It can only confirm the accuracy of the events. Second, unlike other fields of science, archaeology cannot re-create the process under study. Archaeologists must study and interpret the evidence left behind. All conclusions must allow for revision and reinterpretation based on new discoveries. Third, how archaeological evidence is understood depends on the interpreter’s presuppositions and worldview. It is important to understand that many researchers are skeptics of the Bible and
hostile to its world view.
Fourth, thousands of archives have been discovered, but an enormous amount of material has been lost. For example, the library in Alexandria held over one million volumes, but all were lost in a seventh century fire.
Fifth, only a fraction of available archaeological sites have been surveyed, and only a fraction of surveyed sites have been excavated. In fact, it is estimated that l
ess than two percent of surveyed sites have been worked on. Once work begins, only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined, and only a small part of what is examined is published. For example, the photographs of the Dead Sea Scrolls were withheld from the public for forty years after they were uncovered.
It is important to understand that the Scriptures remain the primary source of authority.
We must not elevate archaeology to the point that it becomes the judge for the validity of Scripture. Randall Price states, “There are indeed instances where the information needed to resolve a historical or chronological question is lacking from both archaeology and the Bible, but it is unwarranted to assume the material evidence taken from the more limited content of archaeological excavations can be used to dispute the literary evidence from the more complete content of the canonical scriptures.”{2} The Bible has proven to be an accurate and trustworthy source of history.
Noted archaeologist Nelson Glueck writes, “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”{3}
The Discovery of the Hittites
The Hittites played a prominent role in Old Testament history. They interacted with biblical figures as early as Abraham and as late as Solomon. They are mentioned in Genesis 15:20 as people who inhabited the land of Canaan. 1 Kings 10:29 records that they purchased chariots and horses from King Solomon. The most prominent Hittite is Uriah the husband of Bathsheba. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East from 1750 B.C. until 1200 B.C. Prior to the late 19th century,
nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors.
In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. He suspected that they might be evidence of the Hittite nation. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.
Winckler’s excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets.
One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered!
Less than a decade after Winckler’s find, Czech scholar Bedrich Hronzny proved the Hittite language
is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. The Hittite language now has a central place in the study of the history of the Indo-European languages.
The discovery also confirmed other biblical facts. Five temples were found containing many tablets with details of the rites and ceremonies that priests performed. These ceremonies described rites for purification from sin and purification of a new temple. The instructions proved to be very elaborate and lengthy.
Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.
The Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations they conquered. Two dozen of these have been translated and provide a better understanding of treaties in the Old Testament. The discovery of the Hittite Empire at Boghaz-koy has significantly advanced our understanding of the patriarchal period. Dr. Fred Wright summarizes the importance of this find in regard to biblical historicity:
Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although the Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date.
Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the Biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologist.{4}
The discovery of the Hittites has proven to be one of the great archaeological finds of all time. It has helped to confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study. Because of it, we have come to a greater understanding of the history of our language, as well as the religious, social, and political practices of the ancient Middle East.
Sodom and Gomorrah
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles. However, throughout the Bible this story is treated as a historical event. The Old Testament prophets refer to the destruction of Sodom on several occasions (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19, Jer. 49:18), and these cities play a key role in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (Matt. 10:15, 2 Pet. 2:6 and Jude 1:7). What has archaeology found to establish the existence of these cities?
Archaeologists have searched the Dead Sea region for many years in search of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 14:3 gives their location as the Valley of Siddim known as the Salt Sea, another name for the Dead Sea. On the east side six wadies, or river valleys, flow into the Dead Sea. Along five of these wadies, ancient cities were discovered. The northern most is named Bab edh-Drha. In 1924, renowned archaeologist Dr. William Albright excavated at this site, searching for Sodom and Gomorrah. He discovered it to be a heavily fortified city. Although he connected this city with one of the biblical “Cities of the Plains,” he could not find conclusive evidence to justify this assumption.
More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.
Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.
Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses,
stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, “The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom.”{5}
Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 24502350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.
What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places.
In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.
Although archaeologists are still disputing these findings, this is one discovery we will be hearing more about in years to come.
The Walls of Jericho
According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930’s, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.
First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. T
he domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua’s description of Rahab’s quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).
Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, “As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city.”{6} This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.
A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. “The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks.”{7}
Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up.
According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.
Although the archaeologists agreed Jericho was violently destroyed, they disagreed on the date of the conquest. Garstang held to the biblical date of 1400 B.C. while Watzinger and Kenyon believed the destruction occurred in 1550 B.C. In other words, if the later date is accurate, Joshua arrived at a previously destroyed Jericho. This earlier date would pose a serious challenge to the historicity of the Old Testament.
Dr. Bryant Wood, who is currently excavating the site, found that Kenyon’s early date was based on faulty assumptions about pottery found at the site. His later date is also based on the discovery of Egyptian amulets in the tombs northwest of Jericho. Inscribed under these amulets were the names of Egyptian Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386 B.C., showing that the cemetery was in use up to the end of the late Bronze Age (1550-1400 B.C.). Finally, a piece of charcoal found in the debris was carbon-14 dated to be 1410 B.C. The evidence leads Wood to this conclusion. “The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 BCE.”{8}
T
hus, current archeological evidence supports the Bible’s account of when and how Jericho fell.
House of David
One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God’s own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel’s history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.
In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon.
Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.
The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read.
Two of the lines included the phrases “The King of Israel” and “House of David.”
This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible.
This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David.
The translation team discovered that the inscription told of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which the Bible refers to during this period. In this find, a ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah. The stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings. In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the son of Ahab,
ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was the ruler over the “House of David” or Judah. These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Kings. Dr. Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeological Review states, “The stele brings to life the biblical text in a very dramatic way. It also gives us more confidence in the historical reality of the biblical text.”{9}
The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term
“House of David” implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed. Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.
Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes the importance of this find this way. “In our day, most scholars, archaeologist and biblical scholars would
take a very critical view of the historical accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. . . . Many scholars have said there never was a David or a Solomon, and now we have a stele that actually mentions David.”{10}
Although many archeologists remain skeptical of the biblical record, the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to build.
I just want to be the first to say it, “Jane you ignorant slut!”
Yes, such collateral proof is available,” and we will at some of it now.
Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}
What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
But what are we to make of Tacitus’ rather enigmatic statement that Christ’s death briefly checked “a most mischievous superstition,” which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here “bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave.”{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?
Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}
At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}
This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny’s statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.
Not only does Pliny’s letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus’ person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny’s reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the “love feast.”{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing “ritual cannibalism.”{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus’ teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.
Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul’s description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord’s brother.”{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that “few scholars have questioned” that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}
As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}
Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}
For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, “if indeed one ought to call him a man,” is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as “the so-called” Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus’ resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!
But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus’ later reference to Jesus as “the so-called Christ,” a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the “biblical Jesus” and the “historical Jesus” are one and the same!
Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”{21}
Let’s examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named “Yeshu.” So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, “Yeshu” (or “Yeshua”) is how Jesus’ name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn’t the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was “hanged”, and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}
The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?
Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus cast out demons “by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus’ miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke’s account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus’ powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.
Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:
The Christians . . . worship a man to this day–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}
Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, “who introduced their novel rites.” And though this man’s followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He “was crucified on that account.”
Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That’s harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It’s not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn’t say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!
Let’s summarize what we’ve learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus’ followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!
I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative “life of Jesus!”
Notes
1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.
5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.
6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.
Or it could be said this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc
You are aware, of course, that all of this “collateral proof” you cite is very much second-hand in nature? The earliest of them, Flavius Josephus, was born AFTER Jesus supposedly died. He had NO direct knowledge of anything about Jesus. Moreover, he wrote his chronicles in Rome in the 90s CE, decades after the last of the events he reports on … meaning he’s not even that reliable concerning things he DID personally witness.
Not to mention, scholars have serious doubts as to whether or not Josephus’ reference to Jesus was even genuine. That particular blurb does not fit into the narrative sequence before or after it. The language itself is not the same as the rest of Josephus’ material. Not to mention, some patristic references to Josephus (e.g. by Origen) state that Josephus had never believed Jesus to be the Messiah … yet the passage you cited calls him “the Christ” which means “the Messiah.”
All the rest of your “collateral proof” is even more deficient than that, having been written even later and even further removed … both in time and physically … than Josephus had been.
Clearly you do not understand something: Historical evidence of something does not actually become valid, merely because you possess the metaphysical belief that it’s valid, or because you can hurl out enough apologetic drivel so as to make it appear valid. It must truly be valid — in its own right — and without regard to anyone’s beliefs. It’s great that you believe in Jesus … but you are not entitled to pronounce him “historical” when he is not, merely because of that belief. Your belief in Jesus’ historicity also does not grant you the credentials to decide what is and what is not “collateral evidence.”
Anyone who would believe in the bible without giving a reason for their belief, just “I believe ” is not following scripture. God tells us to give a reason for the hope that resides in us. In other words, people are going to want proof, and that we should be able to show them why it is reasonable. Science does this over and over and over and over and over. Also, In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey discusses many of the so-called “icons of evolution” that Jonathan Wells documents in his book by that title.{9} These examples show up in nearly every high school and college biology textbook. But these examples which are used to “prove” evolution are either fraudulent or fail to prove evolution.
Let’s start with a piece of evidence for evolution that was found where Charles Darwin first got his inspiration for his theory of evolution: the Galapagos Islands. The islands can be found off the coast of South America. On those islands are finches, which have come to be known as Darwin’s finches. It’s hard to find a biology textbook that doesn’t tell the story of these finches.
One study found that during a period of drought, the average beak size of these finches increased slightly. The reason cited for this is that during these dry periods, the most available seeds are larger and tougher to crack than at other times. So birds with larger beaks do better in conditions of drought.
I spent an afternoon looking at specimens of Darwin’s finches when I was in graduate school at Yale University and should point out that the changes in beak thickness is minimal and thus measured in tens of millimeters (thickness of a thumbnail). Moreover, the changes seem to be cyclical. When the rains returns, the original size seeds appear and the average beak size returns to normal.
This is not evolution. It is an interesting cyclical pattern in natural history. But it’s not evolution. Nevertheless, one science writer enthusiastically proclaimed that this is evolution happening “before [our] very eyes.”{10}
If this is evolution occurring then we should be seeing macro changes that would allow these finches to evolve into another species. But this cyclical pattern shows just the opposite. These minor changes in beak size and thickness actually allow them to remain finches under changing environmental conditions. It does not show them evolving into another species.
So what has been the response from the scientific establishment? The National Academy of Sciences put out a booklet on evolution for teachers. The booklet did not even mention that the average beak size returned to normal after drought. Instead the booklet makes unwarranted speculation about what might happen if these changes were to continue indefinitely for a few hundred years. “If droughts occur about once every ten years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only 200 years.”{11}
Is this an accurate conclusion based upon the facts of natural history? It seems to be a clear example of misleading teachers (who in turn will unintentionally mislead their students). The booklet teaches that the beak sizes in Darwin’s finches are directional and evolutionary rather than cyclical and reversible.
A column in the Wall Street Journal made this point. “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail,” Phillip Johnson said, “you know they are in trouble.”{12}
Ray Bohlin’s review of Jonathan Well’s book, Icons of Evolution, provides further detail on some of these examples.{13}
Peppered Moths
One example that appears in most biology textbooks is the story of the peppered moths in England. The moths appear in two forms: dark gray and light gray. During the Industrial Revolution, the factories produced pollution that darkened the tree trunks. This made it easier for birds to catch and eat the lighter colored moths. Later, when pollution was cleaned up, the tree trunks were lighter and it made it easier for the birds to catch the darker colored moths.
On its face, all this example proves is that the ratio of dark colored and light colored moths changed over time. In many ways, this is nothing more than another example of cyclical changes that we just discussed concerning Darwin’s finches.
But there is much more to the story. Peppered moths don’t actually perch on tree trunks. Actually they are quite torpid during the daylight hours and rest in the upper canopy of the trees.
If you have ever been in a biology class you have seen pictures of these moths on the tree trunks. You might even have seen a film that was made decades ago of birds landing on the trees and catching moths. It turns out that in order to create the photos and the film scientists put the moths in a freezer to immobilize them and then glued them to the tree trunks.
How did this example become such an enduring icon of evolution? Scientists accepted it for many years uncritically because they wanted to believe it and needed a visual example to show evolution. The peppered moth story fit the bill and quickly became “an irrefutable article of faith.”{14}
Now there are journal articles, and even books, that document the scientific scandal surrounding the story of the peppered moths. One leading evolutionist noted that the story was a “prize horse in our stable of examples.” He goes on to say that when he learned the truth, it was like learning “that it was my father and not Santa Claus who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.”{15}
But what is so amazing is that this example still shows up with regularity in biology textbooks, even though most scientists and textbook writers know the story is untrue. One reporter even interviewed a textbook writer who admitted that he knew the photos were faked but used them in the biology textbook anyway. “The advantage of this example,” he argued, “is that it is extremely visual.” He went on to add that “we want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically.”{16}
The examples of the falsified “icons of evolution” demonstrate the extremes to which many Darwinists will go to “prove” the theory of evolution. They keep an incorrect example in the textbooks simply because it is visual and supports the theory of evolution and worldview of naturalism.
Fraudulent Embryos
Nearly every textbook has pictures of developing vertebrate embryos lined up across the page to demonstrate an evolutionary history being replayed in the womb. These pictures are placed there to show common ancestry and thus prove evolution. During this day, Charles Darwin called the similarity of vertebrate embryos “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory of evolution.{17}
In biology class many of us learned the phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” That means that these developing embryos go through similar stages that replay the stages of evolution. So this supposedly was embryological proof of evolution.
But it turns out that the pictures were and are an elaborate hoax. German scientist Ernst Haeckel drew them in order to prove evolution. He deliberately drew the embryos more similar than they really are.
What is so incredible about this hoax is that is was known more than a century ago. Scientists knew the drawings were incorrect, and his colleagues accused him of fraud. An embryologist, writing in the journal Science, called Haeckel’s drawings “one of the most famous fakes in biology.”{18}
Now you would think that a hoax uncovered more than a hundred years ago would certainly not make it into high school and college biology textbooks. But if you assumed that, you would be wrong. Many textbooks continue to reprint drawings labeled as a hoax a century ago.
So why do Darwinists continue to believe in the theory of evolution and even use examples to “prove” evolution that are not true. It may be due to a bias in their worldview. The only theories that they believe are acceptable are those that are developed within a naturalistic framework.
Richard Dawkins noted: “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories.”{19} Think about that statement for a moment. Even if there were no evidence for evolution, Darwinists would still believe it because it is naturalistic.
Another professor made an even more incredible statement. He said: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”{20} Now think about that. Even if the evidence points to intelligent design rather than to evolution, it is excluded from consideration because it is not naturalistic.
As you can see from these two quotes (as well as from some of the other material presented here), the commitment to evolution is more philosophical than scientific. Nancy Pearcey concludes that “the issue is not fundamentally a matter of evidence at all, but of a prior philosophical commitment.”{21}
Again, let me also recommend Probe’s DVD series on “Redeeming Darwin” that is available through Probe’s website http://www.probe.org.
Notes Article found at http://www.probe.org
Johnathan Wells is not a scientist. He’s not a Christian either. He’s a Moonie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)
Intelligent design is not science, it’s pseudo-science:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Jane is not a real poster, she’s full of crap.
“Graduate work at Yale” indeed.
If you are going to do an obvious authority grab like claiming to be a grad student from Yale, then give a full name and years attended, or STFU.
Jane, your habit of pasting massive amount of crap copied out of creationist websites doesn’t make your argument that impressive. From a quick read through all I can see is the same old arguments that have been dismantlement and trashed thousands of times already (same go for your, the buybull is an accurate historical document, post)
Regarding Jesus’ belief in the bible, I suppose a true believer could argue that Jesus did believe in the new testament because he was god and knew what would be written after he was gone. If you think about it, in the eyes of the believer, the bible was written at the beginning of time since god knew every single thing that would happen in the universe past, present and future.
I don’t think the average christian thinks that way. Because then, God would have know that he created Adam to kill practically all his off-spring but Noah, and that would have been horrible and pointless, as he could have created Noah and his mates at the beginning.
ahh yes horrible and pointless indeed. the response to that is, just because you think it’s horrible and pointless doesn’t mean it is – god is all knowing and it’s just part of his plans. the 10 year old dying of cancer? part of his plans – he works in mysterious ways you know.
Yeah right, that is what a dog also thinks when he gets beaten by his master. My master works in mysterious ways, I probably deserved it.
Of course an atheist dog would think, damned he is drunk again.
That one got me to chucklin’
Many atheists say, “I cannot believe in a God Who is so horrible and pointless.” Well, if that is way God is, that is the way He is, and whether you “believe in” Him or not makes no difference.
A thread that will not die.
John wrote:
“Many atheists say, “I cannot believe in a God Who is so horrible and pointless.” Well, if that is way God is, that is the way He is, and whether you “believe in” Him or not makes no difference.”
Is this the best you have to add to an old conversation, “John?”
Many atheists will say they like chicken soup and don’t like cars that get poor gas mileage. Those ideas don’t define them as gourmet cooks or automotive engineers, any more than then your unsupported claim about what “many” atheists say about a non-existent god defines them as atheists.
Whether or not “many” atheists believe as you say they do, is a non-sequitor, John; it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no god. And whether you believe in a god or not doesn’t make any difference, either. There is no god.
By the way, I do like they way your shifted from “many atheists” to “you.”
Actually the nature (not just the existence) of a God determines whether or not he is worthy of worship. An evil God should never be voluntarily be worshipped by any moral person, even if he exists and demanded to be worshipped.
This is the basic mistake that most theists make. They think that, once they’ve “proven” their deity exists … or even merely forced someone to concede their deity might exist … that they have won the battle and thus shown their religion to be valid.
Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. It’s not enough to prove your deity exists or might exist. There’s another step beyond that, which is to show that said deity is worthy of being worshipped. Upstanding, moral people should not worship or submit to an evil deity merely because that deity exists; quite the opposite, the obligation of moral persons is to do everything in their power to resist and defy an evil deity … to the limit of their ability to do so.
As an agnostic, I concede a deity might exist. However, I can say that, if the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God does exist as most JCI believers consider him to be, that he would be a thoroughly malevolent creature who must be rejected, not honored and obeyed.
Why do you believe that God is evil?
It’s right there in the link!
Freakin’ god-bots………
I think he is exactly as evil as Skeletor, from Masters of the Universe cartoons.
Aw, c’mon, Ty! Skeletor was just misunderstood.
:P
Have you read your magic book? Your sky daddy come out as a jealous, homicidal, self absorbed, megalomaniac that make Kim Jong-Il look like Nelson Mandela. And since you claim he wrote the book himself you can’t even claim he’s been misquoted.
I see Yoav is still choosing to see Him in his own light as opposed to seeing Him in the Light He offers us by which we may see in a true Light. Ps 36:9
Yah john, you babbling nincompoop, it’s always a sad time when people judge me not my what I tell them, but by my actions.
John, I choose to see him as described in what is supposedly his own book. Kim Jong-Il’s slaves are ordered to call him beloved leader but that doesn’t make him any less of a homicidal SOB.
I don’t know about anyone else, but my own reasons for concluding that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is malevolent, can be found here.
In my experience, Christians really do believe that The Bible is the oldest authority – that it holds the knowledge about the beginning of time and everything after. This is why so many believe the Earth is a few thousand years old. They also believe that Christianity has been around forever, in some form or another. Judaism was in the Garden of Eden, which is the dawn of the universe, so therefore, The Bible must be that old. No thinking or questioning goes into it.
It is my impression that most Christians don’t or won’t take the trip through Logic Town that non-christians might not be so fearful of – that is, thought experiments that deconstruct their views. Like yours an Noah – or – one I usually like:
God created everything. God created Hell. Those who don’t believe in God, or trip up enough, go to Hell to be tortured unimaginably forever. He created this system of birth and death and a game to be played during it where you simply must believe in something by the end – if you do = paradise, if you don’t = eternal damnation. If God always knew everything about past, present, and future – he knew he was going to do all of this before he did it. Why did he create this game, create the creatures in it, knowing which creatures would be tortured in his dungeon? Why create such a wicked and twisted game?
“He is all knowing.” So an all knowing being decides to create the Absolute torture – there is nothing that exists worse than Hell, and he created it knowing his children – who he loves with a love that cannot be surpassed – will suffer at his hands. (We may hear objections that it is not God hurting them, however that argument would go)
If I build a fire and throw a kitten in it – I do the torturing, not the fire. If I have the power to make that kitten stay alive and the fire to burn forever and keep her in there – I am even more responsible than in the prior scenario. I am not merciful.
Why did he create this game, create the creatures in it, knowing which creatures would be tortured in his dungeon? Why create such a wicked and twisted game?
Heaven must be a F****ing boring place with nothing to do but sit all day and listen to evangelicals singing your praise.
I guess that according to religious people of all faiths (x-tian don’t hold the monopoly on that kind of stupidity) the world is just a really big D&D board for god to pass the time.
Ah, but also they will delight in observing the tormented in Hell. 100% more things to pleasantly engage the mind.
I like that thought experiment. Our lives are pitifully short and yet if we are born into a culture that has no idea about Jesus we’re doomed to suffer for ETERNITY! Yes ETERNITY – after living out say 30 years or so in a hut somewhere worshiping your cultures god. Seems a tad unfair – suffering for something you didn’t even know was wrong. Another thought experiment I like is – Does anything happen outside of god’s will? If the answer to this is no, then every murder or cruel unfair suffering of human beings is god’s will. If the answer if yes then god is not omnipotent. In conjuction with this is Would god create anything in vain? If the answer to this is no, then why did he create the billions upon billions of other galaxies? This one stumps a lot of Christians. It’s comfy to think we’re the sole reason for the universe.
The people in the huts were not ignorant. God said the the whole world would know before the end came.
Jane… In the nicest possible way… STFU.
One thing that always confused me with this go does temporal mechanics. Since god can do anything so he must be able to time travel back in time and change his mistakes he made before they will occur. But somehow the god in the bible has no knowledge of time travel.
>Since god can do anything so he must be able to time travel back in time and change his mistakes<
What a great comment. Perhaps the Christian god is not quite perfect, and has been going back and forth – endlessly – trying, but always failing, to make things right.
That would explain those cracks….
Wibbley wobbley timey wimey!
Thats why Gawd made Doctor Who aka The Time Lord!
I’m not sure that #1 is coherent enough to be circular. I usually hear a variant that goes like this:
1. We know from the ministry of Jesus that God is loving and just.
2. A just and loving God would not leave us with a flawed instrument to guide our lives.
3. Therefore, the Gospels must be reliable and accurate.
This variant has the appeal of being more “coherent” as you said, although it also makes some unprovable assertions at any rate.
I’ve also heard a lot of what I’m going to call “2.a”, per your propostional layout:
2.a. We know that the Bible has been preserved via multiple translations and multiple persecutions that attempted to prevent the Bible from being placed in the hands of the common man and the common vernacular (e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Knox, etc.). These translations are consistent with the earliest known fragments and sources and evidence the Holy Spirit maintaining God’s Word for future generations.
Ehhhh, maybe. Still requires some large assumptions.
Hahahahha. People really use this? Because if I were to say:
1. We know from the ministry of Jesus that God is loving and just.
2. A just and loving God would not send his creation to eternal tortue in hell.
3. Therefore, hell must not exist.
Those same people would say we can’t judge God or what God thinks is loving and just.
Yet obviously they do it ALL THE TIME.
Well, some Christians do make just that argument against the existence of Hell.
“Well, some Christians do make just that argument against the existence of Hell.”
Obviously someone making that argument is no Christian. ;-)
The word ‘hell’ is mentioned int he bible more than any other word. It must be important.
Actually, the word “money” is mentioned in the bible more than any other word…
Yeah, Jane is pretty spectacularly full of crap.
Ah! I stand corrected… the word “Lord” is the most common. My bad.
Dung shows up a lot.
Queue the Pink Floyd song.
Jane keeps digging herself deeper. Hell is the most common word! Ha! Jane stick around you’re hilarious! Let me guess, you have a BS in the Bible!
This is blatantly false, and no one with an ounce of biblical training would fall for it. The word “Hell” appears in the KJV 31 times. If you count ANY appearance of the word “Sheol”, which is sometimes translated as “hell”, sometimes as “grave”, and occasionally as “pit”, then it’s still only 65 times.
Which is, I believe, fewer times than the word “dung” appears.
I think I’m misremembering a sermon in which “money” was more frequently discussed than most other common, every-day-life sorts of items.
Wait! I was right–
http://www.fpch.org/Stewardship/treasure.htm
The bible talks A LOT about money!
“Bread is for the worker, and wine makes the heart rejoice, but money is what meets a response in all things.”
More to the point believing in the bible because Jesus believed in it is like saying believe in the Torah because Noah believed in it. There is absolutely nothing beyond the mythology that proves either lived…
“One of my favorite books is East of Eden by John Steinbeck, which powerfully describes human nature. Does that mean it’s divinely inspired because it gives insight into our common struggles? Of course not — it’s just a good book.”
East of Eden, by John Steinbeck, is a re-working of the Book of Genesis, and a story of good and evil. (The movie, with James Dean, was a waste of celluloid.)
Except for the author’s omnipotent voice, the book explores its characters, and explores the character of what it means to be human, without recourse to the supernatural. And in that sense, the made-up story of the Hamiltons and Trasks is more true than the story of Cain and Able.
You ask “Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ?”, yet you limit your question to only be responded to through the New Testament. If one holds the Old Testament to be true and accurate (which I realize is not your position), then the claims of Christ begin there. There are hundreds of prophecies that he had to fulfill, most that He would have had no control over. His city of origin (bethlehem), His family of origin (line of David), His name, the response of current day leaders to kill children at mention of His arrival, His early life in Egypt… The story of Christ started literally thousands of years before His birth, and these documents were written hundreds and thousands of years before His arrival.
On top of this, so many other prophecies written hundreds of years before He lived were fulfilled through his life, and not one was missed. How He would live, how others would respond to Him, what He would look like, how He would suffer, how He would die… There is no prophecy that is recorded about the coming Messiah in the Old Testament that was not fulfilled – with the exception of those that alert us to His final coming. Do you believe that He busied Himself with the claims of the Old Testament only to keep Himself in line with prophecies that really had nothing to do with Him? If so, He was an extraodinary man. He convinced people to talk about healings (prophesied in the OT) that He never did – because the claims of his healing go well beyond the records of the Bible. He convinced His followers to spread a story about Him (prophesied in the OT) that was not true – even to the point of their own demise – without one dissenter. He orchestrated His own execution by crucifixion (prophesied in the OT) – and the Romans obliged. He even worked it out so that one of His friends would betray Him (prophesied in the OT) – again, this is recorded in places other than the Bible. He was an extraordinary man.
If a book was written 50 years ago detailing my life and death (I am presently 41), I would be amazed, but if a book was written 500 years ago about my life and death, especially if it included details, I would be hesitant to call it a fairy tale or a myth.
Just a thought.
Ken-
Are you familiar with the wealth of criticisms leveled at this argument? Most of these OT prophesies are co-opted by the NT writers but were clearly contextually about something else. Of the 10 or so that might go beyond this there are still very strong arguments against your position. For instance, what evidence do you have that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem?
Sorry for the short and not so precise response but I’m in a hurry and on my way out the door.
Please provide this other source at it is amazing news if true.
Can you say ’self-fulfilling prophecy’? The writers of the books that ended up in the Christian testament were very aware of the prophecies in the Hebrew testament and easily included them in their stories about Jesus. If if could be shown (and it can’t) that Mark, et al, knew nothing of the HT prophecies, we would have to treat Jesus’s fulfillment of those prophecies as, well, miracles. But…
self-fullfilling prophecy? so…..you knew that the Bible said that we Christians would be hated for our faith, and decided to hate us?
John 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when id does come to pass, you may believe that I am him.
self-fulfilling prophecy? So, all the great domineering nations of the world were formed and fell just like the Bible said they would (the bible was written by God almost 3000 years ago, before many of these nations came into existence) because the leaders read the bible and said “oh, well, we better throw this battle so we can align with the bible!” Check your history books against the bible. YOu’ll see it’s true. Of course you’ll also have to find an ancient map on the internet, because the names of the countries have been changed over time, but you can find anything on the internet.
What about all the prophecies that could not be self-fulfilled, unless of course you’re talking about God fulfilling his own prophecies. such as:
Global communications forseen (Revelation 11:9-10; 17:8) The bible prophesies that the entire world will “see” certain events unfold. The invention of the television and the delployment of global satellite networks during the 20 century allow news to travel the world at the speed of light for the first time ever. Remember that in the apostle John’s day, news traveled at the speed of horseback.
Mankind would be capable of destroying all life (Matthew 24:21-22). consider that when Jesus made this prophecy the armaments of his day were swords and spears. but today, with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, it is possible to wipe out all flesh on planet earth.
The use of nuclear weapons anticipated (Zechariah 14: 12). The neutron bomb melts (dissolves its victims-just as God warned 2500 years ago- “Their flesh shall disslve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, and their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.” This was unimaginable in Zechariah’s day.
There would be a move toward global government (Daniel 2:40-44; 7:23; Revelation 13:7-8). The former Roman empire-which encompassed presnt-day Europe – would rvive and eventually dominate the world. The european Union has steadily moved forward intis attempt to unite europe politically and economically. It has succeeded in creating a “European parliament, a cout, and a common currency. And globalizaiton is not unique to Europe, it is lhappening everywhere.
Literal Babylon (formerly called Babel-Genesis 10:10) would reemerge in the land of Shinar-known today as Iraq(Zechariah 5:11; Isaiah 13). saddam Hussein spent over 20 years rebuilding the city of Babylon. Today, with Saddam’s regime overthrown, the international community is discussing how to rebuild Iraq.
The fact that God once flooded the earth would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the sicentific world becasue itwas judgment from God on man’s wickedness
Increased interest in vegetarianism anticipated (1 Timothy 4: 3-4). The New Age Movement has swept the globe during the past 40 years popularizing this.
The Earth wiould be filled with violence (Luke 17:26; Genesis 6:11-13). In the United States along, violent crime has increased nearly 500% since 1960. Fifty years ago abortion (the violent murder of an unborn child) was illegal in most countires. today, abortion is legal in most countreis and 46 million children are aborted each year.
Multitudes would travel two and fro (daniel 12:4). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, few individuals traveled beyond their own communities. Until recently, horse, foot, and boat were the only mode of transportation. Yet today, we travel by car, bus, plane, train, subway, ect. Millions and millions are running to and fro just as Daniel prophesided 2500 years ago!!
Knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4). Today we are witnessing an explostion of avialable knowledge with the advent of the Internet, it is estimated that our cumulative knowledge is doubling every five years. This exponential increase is beyond what anyone could lhave imagained.
Deadly diseases which the bible calls “pestilences”) would be common (Matthew 24:7, Revelation 6:8). emerging diseases such as AIDS, ebola, Hanta virus, Dengue, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, etc., underscore this fact. Ironically, just a few decades ago, some scientists were forecasting that advances in medicine might soon redaicate deadly diseases. A lgobal economic system would exist (Revelation 13:16-18.) This was unthinkable in the apostle John’s day. Yet today, globalists in every level of government are seeking to unite the word. Connecting the world montetarialy is crucial totheir goal.
A man would control all banking and commerce (Revelation 13:16-18). Remember, this prophecy was penned 2000 years before our com0uter-driven society. Yet, until recently, you couldn’t have even dreamed how a person could control all commerce
The nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE DAY (Isaiah 66:8) On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation.
Israel, once a desolate desert, would blossom in the last days and export produce to the world (Isaiah 27:6; 35:1-2;Ezedial 36: 34-36). Israel’s increased rainfall and world-renowned irrigation technology have caused the land to blossom. Incredibly, as foretold, they currently export over 800 million dollars worth of fresh produce each year, includi9ng over 200 million in flowers and ornamental lants!
Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles untilt he times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24). Since 70 A.D., Jerusalem had been trampled by Gentliles until the Jews regained control of the city during the 1967 six-day war.
There are many more which could not be self-fulfilled. But, I have to go now. If you would like for me to give you all of the prophecies that have been, or are being fulfilled at this time, you can e-mail me at janesorganizedhome@yahoo.com. I am willing to talk to you about anything you don’t understand, or doubt about Christianity.
You have a wonderful day, and God Bless!!
“self-fullfilling prophecy? so…..you knew that the Bible said that we Christians would be hated for our faith, and decided to hate us?”
False.
“What about all the prophecies that could not be self-fulfilled, unless of course you’re talking about God fulfilling his own prophecies. such as:”
Where got?
Yeah, I’ll buy that “Christians are hated” crap when it is no longer a requirement that you belong to a very specific and narrow type of Christianity in order to hold public office in this country.
What do you mean by “Where got?”
Don’t be lazy. Google the meaning yourself.
Most of these are either so vague they can mean anything or are Crap.
One example: The nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE DAY (Isaiah 66:8) On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation.
Many countries have an official day they were established, it’s usually called independence day or something of that type and involves fireworks and BBQ s. If you actually learned history you would have known that May 14th 1948 was a result of nearly a century of fighting and political lobbying and was followed by a war that to some extent is still going, hardly a miraculous rebirth in a single day.
Yoav,
The Israel referred to in the Bible is not the Israel you are thinking of. Israel in the Bible refers to the promised land, a literary motif used primarily in the book of Exodus which solidified a covenant between God and Moses. The “rebirth” you speak of was not supposed to be the birth of a country forged from political aggression, but rather, a state of being that all men and women enter into when they learn to love one another.
“If a book was written 50 years ago detailing my life and death (I am presently 41), I would be amazed, but if a book was written 500 years ago about my life and death, especially if it included details, I would be hesitant to call it a fairy tale or a myth.”
Ken – presumably you are a real person. There is no evidence Jesus existed.
It would be just as easy to write a book showing how foolish the OT was – and is. Hey, there ARE books that do just that. How is it you believe a fairy tale book about an imaginary character – Jesus – but don’t believe the many books debunking the obvious nonsense in the OT?
You’re blind to reality because you start with an assumption that Jesus was real, and are therefore willing to believe any amount of nonsense in order to back up your delusion.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if many could fit into the many different prophecies of the bible. You say you would be amazed at someone being able to write about your life before you were even born. I would only be surprised if it accounted for every single detail even those that we all keep hidden from others. A good example of how words can be twisted check out Nostradamus and all the ways things have been said of each of his predictions have been interpreted.
I understand you believe that the NT proves that Jesus fulfilled those predictions of the OT. Now it is known that most of the NT gospels were written well after his supposed death. It is to easy to alter facts when you know that people from the actual time aren’t there to counter that they are false. A good example of this is how writers have alter the personal history of some of the founding fathers to make them into something they weren,t.
Unfortunately, Mr Ivins, a great many of those prophecies that Jesus is said to have fulfilled, are questionable. The quotations of OT prophecy found in the gospels and the rest of the NT, which the evangelists said Jesus fulfilled, actually did not apply to him. A few:
Matthew cites Hos 11:1, saying that it’s a prophecy pointing to Jesus being taken to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter of newborns. But that passage was not prophecy! It was, instead, an allusion to the past (i.e. the Exodus).
Matthew also makes an even bigger mistake when he says the OT predicted Jesus would be called “a Nazarene” … but not only does the OT not contain this word, it was not even a known word in the time when OT books were written; it comes from Aramaic, not Hebrew. (In fact, “Nazarene” had no meaning even during Jesus’ supposed lifetime … it was never used, until the Nazarene movement came into existence in the late 1st century, around the time of the Roman-Jewish War and immediately thereafter.)
Note, this and other facts about the gospels are why they are dated to the late 1st century rather than closer to Jesus’ lifetime. They contain words and phrases, such as “Nazarene,” that would have been gibberish during the time he was supposed to have lived. Given the decades-long lapse between Jesus’ supposed life and the evangelists’ writing, it’s relatively easy for them to have engineered the appearance of fulfilling prophecy. That they did so in rather poor or even erroneous fashion, tells us a great deal. It may not be something you want to acknowledge, but it is there nonetheless.
The aforementioned are just two of MANY problematic “fulfillments of prophecy” which Christians believe are manifest in the NT as reflected from the OT. When you actually backtrack them, however, you find more often than not, that the quotation does not exist (e.g. Matthew and the “Nazarene” thing) or that the “prophecy” is not a prediction at all (e.g. the sojourn in Egypt).
i dont know about your old testament but mine contains the word nazerene, and the laws they live by. Actually Samson was a nazarene. Though my bible is the good news bible which is notoreous for mistranslations.
Samson was a “Nazirite,” not a “Nazarene.” They aren’t the same thing. Here are references to each (Nazirite and Nazarene).
Yeah right so the OT predicted the coming if a Christ. They only forgot to mention when exactly he would be there. So most probably many people have taken this Christ role and failed, one called Jezus was lucky to get his role far enough so people would think he was the real one.
Look predicting is simple.
• I predict a big earthquake will come that will shake the Earth.
• I predict that some person will come and start a big war.
• I predict that some person will become insanely rich overnight.
• I predict that a false prophet will come and lead people to their death.
I predict the next thread will involve a deity-eating feline!
lol
That was a good example!
Your prophecies are very vague, and are not specific. God’s prophecies are detailed. And, he said they would all be fulfilled in ONE GENERATION. Which is the generation that witnessed the rebirth of israel. And, since the rebirth of Israel, these prophecies have started coming true.
John 13:19 Now I tell you before it comes, that when id does come to pass, you may believe that I am him.
self-fulfilling prophecy? So, all the great domineering nations of the world were formed and fell just like the Bible said they would (the bible was written by God almost 3000 years ago, before many of these nations came into existence) because the leaders read the bible and said “oh, well, we better throw this battle so we can align with the bible!” Check your history books against the bible. YOu’ll see it’s true. Of course you’ll also have to find an ancient map on the internet, because the names of the countries have been changed over time, but you can find anything on the internet.
What about all the prophecies that could not be self-fulfilled, unless of course you’re talking about God fulfilling his own prophecies. such as:
Global communications forseen (Revelation 11:9-10; 17:8) The bible prophesies that the entire world will “see” certain events unfold. The invention of the television and the delployment of global satellite networks during the 20 century allow news to travel the world at the speed of light for the first time ever. Remember that in the apostle John’s day, news traveled at the speed of horseback.
Mankind would be capable of destroying all life (Matthew 24:21-22). consider that when Jesus made this prophecy the armaments of his day were swords and spears. but today, with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, it is possible to wipe out all flesh on planet earth.
The use of nuclear weapons anticipated (Zechariah 14: 12). The neutron bomb melts (dissolves its victims-just as God warned 2500 years ago- “Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, and their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths.” This was unimaginable in Zechariah’s day.
There would be a move toward global government (Daniel 2:40-44; 7:23; Revelation 13:7-8). The former Roman empire-which encompassed present-day Europe – would revive and eventually dominate the world. The European Union has steadily moved forward in its attempt to unite Europe politically and economically. It has succeeded in creating a “European parliament, a cout, and a common currency. And globalization is not unique to Europe, it is happening everywhere.
Literal Babylon (formerly called Babel-Genesis 10:10) would reemerge in the land of Shinar-known today as Iraq(Zechariah 5:11; Isaiah 13). saddam Hussein spent over 20 years rebuilding the city of Babylon. Today, with Saddam’s regime overthrown, the international community is discussing how to rebuild Iraq.
The fact that God once flooded the earth would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the sicentific world becasue itwas judgment from God on man’s wickedness
Increased interest in vegetarianism anticipated (1 Timothy 4: 3-4). The New Age Movement has swept the globe during the past 40 years popularizing this.
The Earth wiould be filled with violence (Luke 17:26; Genesis 6:11-13). In the United States along, violent crime has increased nearly 500% since 1960. Fifty years ago abortion (the violent murder of an unborn child) was illegal in most countires. today, abortion is legal in most countreis and 46 million children are aborted each year.
Multitudes would travel two and fro (daniel 12:4). Prior to the Industrial Revolution, few individuals traveled beyond their own communities. Until recently, horse, foot, and boat were the only mode of transportation. Yet today, we travel by car, bus, plane, train, subway, ect. Millions and millions are running to and fro just as Daniel prophesided 2500 years ago!!
Knowledge would increase (Daniel 12:4). Today we are witnessing an explostion of avialable knowledge with the advent of the Internet, it is estimated that our cumulative knowledge is doubling every five years. This exponential increase is beyond what anyone could lhave imagained.
Deadly diseases which the bible calls “pestilences”) would be common (Matthew 24:7, Revelation 6:8). emerging diseases such as AIDS, ebola, Hanta virus, Dengue, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, etc., underscore this fact. Ironically, just a few decades ago, some scientists were forecasting that advances in medicine might soon redaicate deadly diseases. A lgobal economic system would exist (Revelation 13:16-18.) This was unthinkable in the apostle John’s day. Yet today, globalists in every level of government are seeking to unite the word. Connecting the world montetarialy is crucial totheir goal.
A man would control all banking and commerce (Revelation 13:16-18). Remember, this prophecy was penned 2000 years before our com0uter-driven society. Yet, until recently, you couldn’t have even dreamed how a person could control all commerce
The nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE DAY (Isaiah 66:8) On May 14, 1948 Israel became a nation.
Israel, once a desolate desert, would blossom in the last days and export produce to the world (Isaiah 27:6; 35:1-2;Ezedial 36: 34-36). Israel’s increased rainfall and world-renowned irrigation technology have caused the land to blossom. Incredibly, as foretold, they currently export over 800 million dollars worth of fresh produce each year, includi9ng over 200 million in flowers and ornamental lants!
Jerusalem would be trampled by Gentiles untilt he times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24). Since 70 A.D., Jerusalem had been trampled by Gentliles until the Jews regained control of the city during the 1967 six-day war.
Isreal would be partitioned by all nations (Joel 3:2; daniel 11:39). This is another unimaginable prophecy! In 1947, UN Resolution 181 planned the partitioning of Israel. Currently, the West Bank and Gaza have been seperated into Jewish and Palestinian settlements. Dividing Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria are also being negotiated today in order to create a Palestinian state.
Though Israel would be the focus of many fulfilled prophecies, most Jews would remain blind to the fact that Jesus is their Messiah until the very end (Luke 19:41-42; Luke 13:34-35; Romans 11:25-26). Remarkably, in recent years, thousands of Jews have trusted in Jesus as Messiah.
Iran(Persia, Sudan (Cush), and Libya (Put) would also partake in the Ezedial 38 attack with the invaion from the north (Ezekiel 38; 8-11). “Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world is rampant. According to the Koran and Hadith, Muslims are commanded to “fight and slay non-believers in Jihad (holy war) unless they convert to Islam (Surahs 9:5 and 47:4; vol. 1, b. 2, Hadith # 24 and 35. )
Ironically, Egypt and Jordan would not participate in this attack. (Ezekial 38). Interestingly, these two nations have signed recent peace treaties with Israel – Egypt in 1979 and JOrdan in 1994.
Marraige wold be forbidden by many. (1 Timothy 4:3). The bible states that marraige is honorable among all (Hebrews 13:4). Despote this, the Cath9olic Church forbids their 400,000 priest, 800,000 nuns and numerous bishops, cardinals, and monks from marrying. The Orthodox Church, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, and other religious groups also impose mandatory celibacy for certain orders.
Men wold be lovers of themselves (over others, and over God) ( 2 Timothy 3:1-2). This generation, like no other, regards self above all else. Self-love, self-esteem, self-reliance, self-gratifications, are encourged by the media, schools, psychologs, et. In contrast, Jeus taught self-denial. Even many chulrches today preach a “feel good about yourself” message. In other words, noone can do anything wrong. All your problems are your parents,teachers, the bully in school’s, any one else’s fault, but your own. It’s all about me, me, me, me; whatever makes ME happy. No wonder parents leave their children at home alone to go party. There’s no shame in it any more. No wonder people get divorced. Noone wants to put effort into anything that they don’t get immediate gratification from, and does not revolve around them. No wonder, we have so many kidults today. “I dont feel like going to work today. Think I’ll call in, sit on my parents couch, play video games and dream about what new game mom and dad are going to get me for my 35th birthday.” I’m not saying YOU re that way. but, that’s one of the bad things about me’ism.
Youth would become increasingly rebellious (2 Timothy 3: 2-3; Mark 13:12). No comment necessary!!
Humanity would become increasingly materialistic and lovers of pleasure (2 Timothy 3: 1-5). No generation in history has had so many means to entertain and arouse the senses. Every imaginable hedonistic pleasure is available and has become big business.
Jesus said Christians would be hated for His names sake (Luke 21:17; Revelation 6:9-11; 20:4 ). The banning of the Bible, prayer, the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes, Christmas songs, ect.. reflects this trend. Also consider that more Christians were martyered during the past century than during all previous history. What’s so totally awesome is the way in which God is using the martyrdom. In the countries and times of persecution (we’re talking major torture, houses burnt, family members killed, …..) the church grows the most. god said that in the end times he would pour out his spirit on his believers and that they would preach and teach Jesus. That the believers would grow in numbers.
Homeosexuality would be flaunted at the end of the age. Jesus warned tlhat the last days would be like the dys of Lot – whol lived in wicked sodom (Luke 17:28-30). We know that the root of Sodom’s sin was pride and complacency (Ezediel 16:49). – as it is today. However, sodom’s lasting infamy stemmed from their aggressive homosexual sin (Genesis 19; Jude 1:7). today, the homosexual agenda is flaunted and forced upon our entire city.
Environmental devastation of the planet forseen (Revelation 11:18). Our generation has done more to ravage the enviroment than any previous generation.
I have to go now. If you would like for me to give you all of the prophecies that have been, or are being fulfilled at this time, you can e-mail me at janesorganizedhome@yahoo.com. I am willing to talk to you about anything you don’t understand, or doubt about Christianity. I don’t believe everything I hear just become someone said it. Live with your bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the next. You’ll see the alignment. Times that have never been before. And all occuring TOGETHER, on ONE GENERATION .
You have a wonderful day, and God Bless!!
Can somebody PLEASE ban evangelist idiot troll? Evangelist idiot troll is an evangelist idiot and is seriously getting on my nips.
God bless you, Custador. God bless you to hell!
I prophecise Jane will post of her self deception again.
Look, if my name was jezus and I read the OT, then I would find it really cool to try to live and fulfill the prophesies described in the OT. At some point in time I would start to actually believe that I am the real Christ. Look at all the sects round you; many people actually start to believe that they are god.
It is all about marketting.
You believe you are god. As a matter of fact, you are your own God. Anything (cigarettes, money, sex, ) that controls what you do is a God. the problems is that your God (you ) cannot guarantee to take care of yourself. Take example: My God (Jehovah, among other admirable names ), tells me not to worry about anything. That he will take care of me, because I am a child of his (no. not everyone is a child of God), and that I do my best to live within his will. If I lose my job and my rent is due, and I have no food, and my car has a flat tire, NO NEED TO WORRY!!!! he (my God) takes care of me, and makes sure I have what I need. He’s done this numerous times. Your god (you) boasts of being able to take care of you, but there are no guarantees. I mean, your God can’t make an employer find favor with you and hire you instead of someone else. Your god (you) can’t lay it on someones heart to loan you a tire to get to the next job, or make someone give you food until you get your first paycheck. Your god (you) can’t do anything, other than wait on the mercy of the real God. It’s great to live life knowing “If our God is for us, who can be against us?” I’ve lived the secular, non christian life, and I’d be crazy to go back!!!!
Nonsensical poster posts nonsense.
*yawn*
The best you can do is put people down? That’s what we USED to do in middle school.
You used to do that in middle school? God I hated you people. Just leave me alone! And stop stealing my lunch money, I’m hungry!
BTW, if I did worship money as a god… that would mean there’s actual evidence for my god. How about yours? But I don’t worship money. Or sex. Or nasty cigarettes.
I do worship Chili’s molten lava cake though. mmmmm
My god is tasty, filled with chocolatey goodness, and has the benefit of existing. Finally an object worthy of my worship!
Wow, you are a total heretic if you are arguing that chocolate cake is better than sex.
Jihad!!!
omg! have you tried the white chocolate one???
om nom nom nom nom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yummy!
It’s better than some sex.
But good sex is definitely better than chocolate; I repent.
I have to agree with Ty here. If forced to choose between the two, the obvious choice is sex.
Now combining chocolate cake and sex….
I dunno, Ty. Good chocolate is pretty orgasmic! LOL!
How can I combine chocolate and sex? TELL ME NOW
“How can I combine chocolate and sex? TELL ME NOW”
I suggest googling “chocolate cake and sex.”
Don’t do it. You’ll get ants, you know.
Chocolate lava cake, sex, and a garden tub. The trifecta!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Don’t do it. You’ll get ants, you know.”
Googling causes ants?
“I dunno, Ty. Good chocolate is pretty orgasmic! LOL!”
You poor dear woman.
Were I not a married man, I would help you realize that this is not true. :p
Haaaahaa! Now I’m blushing a little. Aw shucks!
:P
“Googling causes ants?”
No combining but chocolate and sex might become threesome with ants.
Oh you poor heathen fools! Choosing between chocolate cake and sex! Do you not know that it is written in the Good Book (“Custador’s Bumper Guide to Shagging and How To Do It in Really Filthy Ways”) that the two can be COMBINED! Can I get a HALLELOOO-JAH!
HALLELOOO-JAH! Where can I get a copy?
Wait for it to come out on video, it’s easier to follow ;-)
“The best you can do is put people down?”
That’s what you are also doing now.
Some arguments are so lacking in merit that the only real response is mockery.
If you argue that the moon is made of cheese, I can give you a lot of scientific information demonstrating you’re wrong. Or, I can recognize that a person making that statement is so lacking in even a baseline understanding of the issues raised by it that there is no common ground for discussion.
You speak nonsense, and any argument that uses rationality to debate you will fail. Hence, mockery.
ignorant people, with nothing to back up their claims only insult others.
Can our gods have a competition? My lava cake against Jehova. I’ll bring the cake…
What would be on the undercard of this fight?
A brownie vs. Vishnu?
Mrs Fields cookies vs Allah?
Thanks for adding another data point to my hypothesis:
Fundies are incapable of recognizing irony.
“You believe you are god. As a matter of fact, you are your own God. Anything (cigarettes, money, sex, ) that controls what you do is a God’
I don’t think “god” means what you think it means. Nor do I think I’m god. That thought would require acknowledgment of god’s existence, which I just can’t do.
“(you ) cannot guarantee to take care of yourself.”
Now this is just sillty. No only do I take care of myself. I take care of a bunch of other people too.
“My God (Jehovah, among other admirable names ), tells me not to worry about anything. That he will take care of me”
Ok, let’s try an experiment. You sit down in one spot. Do nothing. No work. No play. Nothing. Just wait for god to provide you all you need to live. (No asking for help from other living humans, just god.) I will go about life the way I always do, providing for myself and my family. Let’s see who’s still alive in one month.
“your God can’t make an employer find favor with you and hire you instead of someone else”
Actually I can, and have, done exactly this. By helping myself. By getting education. By learning how to interview well. By making myself the most qualified.
“god (you) can’t lay it on someones heart to loan you a tire to get to the next job, or make someone give you food until you get your first paycheck.”
You are stunningly thick. My “god” can get himself to work so that he doesn’t have to rely on strangers for tires and food.
I have had atheist friends help me fix a tire before.
I rarely ask the religious views of the people I pay (with the money I earn at my job that I got all on my own) to fix my tires.
Yes, but friends help for FREE!
Then I can use the money I earn at my job that I got all on my own to buy beer and Xbox games.
Ty – you are clearly smarter than me….and have better friends.
(Please keep in mind I’m a lawyer so people rarely want to be my friend.)
I will be your friend. I like friends with money.
99.99999 percent of the time, I pay with my money too. But, we all need some help sometimes.
…and like friends with xbox games.
Does god make my atheist friends help me when I need help?
“Does god make my atheist friends help me when I need help?”
Probably. I read this book once that said he is totally cool with forced labor.
“99.99999 percent of the time, I pay with my money too. ”
Why? If “god provides” that seems like a rather stupid waste of money.
“I read this book once that said he is totally cool with forced labor.”
Correct – just ask that virgin, Mary.
“…and like friends with xbox games.”
This is a match made in heaven. Should we be picking out china patterns?
Jane you sound like a Bum.
It’s probably more of a 4th century scribe writing the story of jeebus. He has access to the OT some 2nd or 3rd hand stories about jeebus and a clear knowledge that the story better make the emperor look good. With that knowledge he organize the story to fit some OT prophecies and presto we have proof of the prophetic powers of the buybull.
I am not sure that Jesus found the Bible inerrently true. He may have relied on it as having some truth but there is zero evidence he believed it held absolute truth. He worked on the sabbath for one example. He overturned the eye for an eye scripture for another. The way Jesus used the Bible was not the way fundamentalists Christians use it today.
One of the things that ended my belief in Christianity was the fact that Jesus spoke of the flood as though it were an actual event.
“One of the things that ended my belief in Christianity was the fact that Jesus spoke of the flood as though it were an actual event.”
I also found it odd that he made that fig tree wither and die because it had no fruit on it. Being god couldn’t he just conjure up some fruit? I struck me as quite petty and unbecoming of the creator of the universe.
For me it was, “If he can’t even be relied on to know that the flood is pre-babylonian mythology, why should I listen to anything else he is claiming to know?”
What makes you think is a myth?
What makes you think it isn’t?
Have you researched it? have you compared it against archaeology, or anything?
Jane- where did you get your PhD in archaeology again???
I never said I had a phd in archaeology. I was just wondering why he didn’t believe in the flood. Aren’t we SUPPOSED to compare each other’s thoughts on this site as any who will come, or are we required to have a phd? Do you have a phd in Archaeology? seriously. Just wondering. never know. you may. if you do, let’s talk about it. I’m always up to hear what others have to say. Without trying to put them down.
I’m not trying to put you down. I’m trying to point out that you are clearly not engaged in the scholarly conversation concerning artifacts that date from the various millinea of the biblical era. Equally, you are clearly not engaged in the scientific scholarly conversation. For this reason, it seems really ascenine to me that you would criticize what you clearly don’t know about. Ask questions by all means, but don’t criticize.
BTW I have a Masters in molecular bio and neuroscience from Columbia (cc 2004). I am applying for a PhD in interdisciplinary studies for science and society later this year.
That’s a big ‘by the way’ you got there. Now to rain on your parade: It’s spelled asinine.
Aw dude, that was a low blow!
D’oh! LOL! My new computer does not have spell check on the internet. Sometimes I just don’t catch ‘em.
Muhahaahahaha, you cannot stop my grammar justice!
I was thinking “ascertain” as I was spelling “ascenine” which is clearly “asinine”
LRA, use firefox and install a dictionary add-on, it’ll do your internetz spell checking for you.
Internet’s… damn you sarcasm!
ok- got firefox and it is definitely underlining words it doesn’t recognize.
ascenine. yup- underlined in red.
asinine. clearly correct.
:D
YAY! (also underlined)
Ouch!
Yes, yes, and yes. You, clearly, have not.
“The way Jesus used the Bible was not the way fundamentalists Christians use it today.”
I think you meant old testament instead of bible. The bible hadn’t even been assembled in the life of Jesus, as far as I know. The new testament certainly didn’t exist. He probably relied on old testament literature passed down verbally, but I’m just guessing about that. Maybe someone a little better versed in biblical history could expound on that for us.
There was a canon, of sorts, of Jewish scripture in Jesus’ time. Actually it was layered. Some books were “canon” to all Jews, others by certain groups and in different arrangements. Keep in mind that I’m really breezing over this. A blog comment is really not sufficient to explain this.
First, the Torah, the first five books of the OT, were considered scripture, and were spoken of as a body under this name. It’s safe to say all Jews viewed the Torah as canon.
Second, there was a collection known as the Neviim or “the prophets.” These are Joshua, Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and all the rest of the books which are named for prophets. While different sects viewed some of these in various ways, it’s safe to say that the books I named, as well as those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were canon, and even those “prophets” which were not considered wholly canon, were still revered by most Jews.
Third come the Ketuvim or “writings,” but those books were not accepted as a package by all the Jewish sects. Nevertheless those known as the “poetic” books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job) were considered canon by most Jews.
Now, by the 1st century when Jesus lived, most Jews were not literate in Hebrew; they knew the Jewish scriptures in translation … either in Greek, the Septuagint, or in Aramaic, the Targumim. A number of Septuagint and Targumim collections were trafficked, but the overall effect of this was to stabilize what most Jews viewed as “canon” — in a manner similar to Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate having stabilized the Christian canon later on. Particular collections ended up being more common than others.
So by Jesus’ time, there was something of a “canon,” (actually 3 of them) which as it turned out are pretty close to what is now accepted. But which canon you followed, depended on your native language (Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew if you were one of the few who knew it). It was only later in the 1st century, at the Council of Jamnia, that rabbis hammered out once and for all what was “canon.”
And one of the decisions they made was to dispense with the varied translations of the Septuagint and Targumim, and keep only the Hebrew as “canon.” Since then, Jewish scripture has been incredibly stable … much more stable than the Christian canon, which still has a lot of variation.
One final consideration to be recalled is that Judaism was not iconic or unified in Jesus’ time. Josephus famously referred to three main sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) but there were more than that. Groups such as the Therepeutae (made famous by Philo of Alexandria) cannot be counted out, nor can one safely assume that later sects, such as the Nazarenes, did not have precedents in Jesus’ day. So while I can point to some books that all of the many Jewish sects accepted as “canon,” there was no universal “canon” (not even Jamnia accomplished that since it decisions applied only to rabbinic Judaism and not the other sects).
As for the Christian canon, it’d be best if I just refer you to this page and left it at that. I’ve already bored people to tears.
yes in Jesus’ time there was a canon to which the JEWS subscribed. What is telling is when Jesus himself quotes from a Greek mistranslation of that canon! It is the most striking example of the fallacy of the Jesus story.
I’ve already bored people to tears.
Not at all. I knew (and still know) very little about the pre-Christian period of textual adoption and canonization. This was very interesting; provided some place to start. :)
@Ken well if there was any evidence that “Jesus” was actually born and lived on this earth then you might have something there…but you don’t.
Before any discussion about your topic, you should first address the FACT that the biblical character Jesus NEVER HISTORICALLY EXISTED! Do your research! Nowhere in history is any such person mentioned. Anywhere at anytime.
While I tend to believe that you are correct, one cannot disprove a factual assertion by pointing to a lack of confirming evidence.
Exactly.
It is, unfortunately, not possible to “prove” that no Jesus ever existed. Really, the truth about whether or not there was a Jesus, or if there was, what he truly said and did, probably will never be discovered.
Now, what we need is a De Lorean and some plutonium for the flux capacitor…
Do you think we could speak with Jesus and fix the Bible a little bit? I’m thinking about thinks like slavery, genocide or patriarchy…
slavery, the way we know it today, was not condoned in the bible. In Jeremiah, God commanded for all slaves to be let loose. The people let the slaves go, but them recaptured them soon after, and put them back into slavery. Just because something happened in the Bible does not mean that was the way god wanted us to live. A lot of the stories in the Bible showed how things turned out when people didn’t obey God.
By the way, you are a slave. If you have a job, and a boss, you are a slave. And God has very specific guidlines for how a “slave” should be treated. They’re all good.
No they’re not. There is NOTHING good about slavery. Especially if you are made a sex slave after your city has been conquered and your family has been slaughtered, all because you are a virgin. The Israelites were commanded to do this heinous act by God.
What are you talking about? Slaves are held against their will and aren’t paid the last time I checked. What job you do is your choice. Your analogy failed.
Guess again, Jane. Every mention of the word “servant” in your King James version is a DELIBERATE mis-translation of the the word “slave”. I love Christards who know less about their BuyBull than I do, they’re great fun…
“I no longer call you servants…but I call you friends’ John 15:15
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Colossians 3:22
Some of us are slaves without our own knowledge, that is the ultimate enslavement.
“For I say to you, whoever commits sin (lives the lie of the false and fallen nature) is a slave to sin, but a slave does not remain in the ‘house’ (the spiritual house, whose house we are-Heb 3:6) forever, but a son (those in whom the heart of sonship has been awakened, the kind Christ had/has) will remain in the ‘house’ forever and He who the Son sets free shall be free indeed” John 8:34 & 35
You wanna keep playing Bible verses at 40 paces Ty? Love wins in the end friend and you shall know the Truth-He will see to it Himself, the truth of His love for you.
Dylan had it right…ya gotta serve somebody. Self or Christ (Love), those are the only two choices, you have no others. Hint…the latter is Life and Peace. All the best.
That verse you referenced in Colossians is analogous to your boss (in the workplace) telling you that you have to do what he says. But to do it as unto the Lord with ’sincerity of heart’, yes in all things have this humble attitude.
Don’t do the typical John C patented point dodging.
Your lame holy book absolutely has scriptures that support the institution of slavery, and THAT’S the point of my quote. Not to engage you in pointless theological whacking off.
I don’t type one handed as well as you appear to.
Yes, the enslavement is to a false and fallen (foreign, dark-seeded) nature, freedom from it is offered only to those who would long to be set free from it, to be ‘delivered from the bondage of corruption and into the glorious liberty (freedom not enslavement) of the sons of God. Romans 8:21
Nah, you’re not interested (yet) but I love you still Ty. All the best sir.
No, the enslavement was to actual humans who could:
*Be bought and sold like livestock*
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
*Have their children and wives taken away and used a hostages to keep the person enslaved*
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
*Buy and sell young women as sex slaves*
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
*be beaten nearly to death, but not quite all the way to death*
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
*possibly be converted to Christianity by good slaves, but would have no obligation to no longer keep slaves once converted*
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
We’ve all been ‘bought with a price’ Ty. 1 Cor 6:19-20.
You can quote scripture verses all day but (respectfully speaking) you don’t understand what they mean. Not because you aren’t intelligent (to the contrary) but because you are not (yet at least) in the spiritual family. So it will make no sense to you whatsoever, in fact will seem quite foolish as it does.
‘If you don’t have His spirit abiding in you, you are none of His (do not yet belong to Him). Romans 8:9
‘My words are spirit and they are life’ John 6:63
‘Where would we go Lord? Only you have the words of life’. John 6:68 (Pete says to Christ after most of His disciples abandoned Him after a hard teaching).
I’m going to dinner man, all the best Ty.
You are spectacularly full of shit, John.
Just to continue pointing out to those reading how full of crap you are, please explain to use the deep spiritual message in a man selling his daughters as sex slaves.
Or the deep spiritual message in a man holding another man’s wife and children hostage in order to force that man to enslave himself permanently to get them back?
@John:
Strange how God denies sharing himself to anyone of intellect, yet the most straightforward and literal Bible passages, such as the ones Ty mentions, must always be interpreted through some convoluted reasoning.
But then again, you appear to have no other choice, lest the words be read for what they literally say, which puts the lie to the claims of God’s unassailable morality, justice and love.
Ty, they are ‘types and shadows’ (Heb 8:5) as are all the OT ‘picSURE’s for us to see, they are ILL-US-STRAY-SHUNS of our own condition, they speak to our bondage to a lower form of life and nature than that which we were originally created for. The problem is, you are acclimated to this one (kind & quality) of adamic life and living experience and know no other and so to you, this is ‘normal’ but if you really want to see what He originally intentioned man to be like (made in His very image and likeness) then you have to ’see’ (know) Christ in truth, in beauty and yes, even in you (spiritually speaking) as your very life. Of course that makes no sense to you now I realize, I am merely trying to answer your question.
The ‘book’ the Bible is not where the Life itself is found Ty, Jesus said ‘you search the scriptures in hopes of finding again what you lost (eternal kind and quality of life, meaning the kind we had in Him before we went ‘out’ of God and into ourselves in the garden, in the fall) but you refuse to come to Me (personally) that I may give it to you’. John 5:39 & 40.
You keep trying to pin me to an OT verse about slavery as if I am a slave and not the freest (sp? ha) man you will ever meet (save Christ alone). ‘You shall know the truth and (the effect of knowing the Truth Himself) will make you free’.
The kingdom is a paradox, a beautiful paradox. Yes, religion is a terrible bondage, is not the truth, is not liberating. But despite what you think, Jesus did not come to bring ‘religion’ in its cultural context, but life and liberty. What is your answer to why Christ was always at odds with, saved his harshest rebukes for the ‘religious’ types of the day? What do you say about that Ty? I know, this is an ‘atheist’ forum right. No its first a human forum and God will always be found among men (mankind), He is Love.
As far as those OT verses go, I could quote you innumerable verses in the NT that speak to the new (and better covenant, Heb 8:6), to God’s love, to mercy, kindness, compassion, grace, etc ad nauseum and what would you say to those friend? There is no light in unbelief, that’s the starting point of a beautiful, life-long journey that will take you through (if you stay the course) all the religious pooh and doctrines of men, etc until you reach the ’seventh’ day.
Old (secular) song lyrics ‘nothing good comes without some kind of fight, gotta kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight’. All the best.
*yawn*
Ever met a point you couldn’t dodge with nonsense? I’ve never seen it happen.
“slavery, the way we know it today, was not condoned in the bible”
Evidence please.
“Just because something happened in the Bible does not mean that was the way god wanted us to live”
So god isn’t “all powerful?” He’s not capable of stopping things he finds morally repugnant?
“If you have a job, and a boss, you are a slave.”
I don’t think slave means what you think it means. (You seem to have this problem with a lot of words.)
I think god hates jane by putting her in such a bad spot here.
let’s see.
A Hebrew male slave is released on the 7th year but his wife and kids are not so he is forced to choose between leaving them behind or give up his right to be released (notice that this is only apply to a male hebrew slave female and non-hebrew slaves remain slave for ever. You aren’t allowed to beat yor slaves to death but it’s OK to beat them to within an inch as long as they don’t die on the spot (Ex 21).
And of course good old Leviticus never fail to provide:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. (Lev 25:44-6).
Sound like slavery to me.
Re: “By the way, you are a slave. If you have a job, and a boss, you are a slave.”
You cannot seriously be comparing employment with slavery. Can you? Employment is a voluntary contractual relationship between two parties, where one side offers labor in return for remuneration. It can be ended by either party, depending on the circumstances.
Slavery is completely involuntary, does not involve any remuneration for the labor-providing party, and cannot be ended by the latter. It is also not a contract but a form of ownership.
Look, I get that you’re trying to make the Bible look better than it does. Really. But you’re doing yourself no favors by redefining basic words to make them something other than they actually are.
You must be pretty desperate, if you feel the need to make slavery seem this innocuous and normal.
Also, my boss is not allowed to beat me to within an inch of my life, nor to take my wife hostage to keep me from leaving his service.
In fact, early Greek, Roman and Jewish sources make mention of Jesus. These include Tacitus (Annals), Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), Pliny the Younger (Epistles) and Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). As well, there is a letter from a Syrian, Mara Bar-Serapion, to his son. In it, he compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus.
Please do your homewoek before you make such rash assertions
Those sources are from the late 1st and 2nd century. It is false that “nowhere in history is any such person mentioned”, but it is true that there is no mention (of any kind, historical or otherwise) of Jesus during his alleged lifetime or about a hundred years afterward.
“In fact, early Greek, Roman and Jewish sources make mention of Jesus”
If i remember correctly they make mention of Crestus or Christ which is a label meaning the anointed one and could have applied to anyone.
A Biblical Definition: comparing scripture with scripture
“…We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.”
John 1:41
“…I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ…”
John 4:25
These two passages of scripture define Christ as Messiah. Therefore, we can say that the word Christ means the same as Messiah or:
Christ = Messiah
There is NOTHING circular about this at all!
Nope.
10 PRINT “It must be true because it says so in the bible.”
20 GOTO 10
RUN
The bible says it’s true, and the bible wouldn’t lie, because then it wouldn’t be true, and the bible says it’s true. . .
Sorry
“Homework”
The Tacitus and Pliny mentions are very questionable, with significant evidence that they are later additions to the text.
The most reliable mentions don’t ascribe any mystical powers to him, or describe him as much more than an itinerant rabbi preaching an apocalyptic message at about the same time that a hundred other itinerant rabbis were wandering around preaching apocalypse. The Roman occupation of Jerusalem was a fertile breeding ground for this sort of message. The fact that the name Yeshua, and incredibly common name in Judea is attached to one or more of those rabbis is pretty unremarkable.
Honestly? Your list of mentions is pretty thin sauce. There are any number of minor Roman functionaries and legionaries from the same time period that we know much much more about. Odd, considering that this mas supposedly raised the dead, and the world went dark when he died that no one ever mentions either thing.
Doing the homework on this issue is not good for building faith.
Also, what Rodney said.
FWIW using the name “Yeshua” had some symbolic importance for the movement, in addition to it having been a common name. This name is identical to that of Moses’ successor (usually called in English “Joshua” — but despite this difference in translation, they were originally the same name). Calling the new sage “Yeshua,” then, indicated the end of “the Mosaic age” and the start of a new era, “the Yeshuan age” I guess one could call it.
You don’t believe anything you can’t understand? I don’t understand why we can fell and see the effects of the wind, but can’t see the wind. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Two minutes on google would answer that question.
http://tinyurl.com/25ch859
You keep thinking that your own ignorance makes good debating points. It doesn’t.
but but… Jesus used that analogy, too! Ty by trying to educate Jane you’re insulting Jesus!
Well, if Jesus hadn’t been so damn ignorant, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
There’s really no way to wrap your mind around such terrible logic. Xians (not xtians because that would be christtians) aren’t really thinking when they say this stuff. In their own circles, you can say anything you want without being challenged. How useful is logic in such a scenario?
I love the argument against the appeal to emotion ‘It changed my life for the better, it can change yours too, therefore it’s true’. For an 18 year old who’d just gone through my first major depressive episode having recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, I guess you could say I was perfectly primed for my life to ‘change for the better’. Since leaving the church I realise that much of the great change in my life came through the social aspects of the church (the sense of community in a church really can be something special), and can be traced easily to rational explanations that have nothing to do with ‘being saved’ or ‘having divine revelation of God’s Word as through the Holy Spirit’.
Now when I look back I recognise just how many of those life-changing moments I’ve had over the years, many from books, fiction and non-fiction alike. I remember feeling completely changed at 14 or 15 when I first read Neal Donald Walsch’s Conversations with God – a couple of years later the same thing happened when I was reading the Lord of The Rings. Again recently when reading the last installment of the Harry Potter series. It’s not so much what the books had to offer as to what I was able to see in them all. Life changed because that’s what happens, all the time.
Please excuse my Christian ignorance, but many of you seem to deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Where do you get evidence for this (or what are the major claims)? I would really like to know. Thanks!
You first … I’d be intrested in your evidence for a historical Jesus and the major claims you would make for him?
There is no evidence of his existence outside your own mythology. Using the bible to say Jesus existed is like using the flood story to prove Noah existed. Please come back with a better argument for his existence…
ali -
The argument is that Jesus was a mythical character, along the lines of Hercules or Robin Hood. There are a number of lines of argument, but it mostly comes down to arguments that the stories in the gospel are literary and theological rather than historical. The folks who promote this theory are usually called ‘mythicists.’
For a quick summary, you can read Robert M. Price’s essay Christ a Fiction. Another good starter guide is Richard Carrier’s interview on “Faith and Freethought Radio” entitled How Not to Argue a Mythicist Position.
It does not matter. It is not about Jesus. Anyone can see the way things are and what is true. We can not escape it.
There is still another option: Jesus was real but his tales on the bible weren’t. His life was “improved” to justify his deification
If he was real the romans took no notice and wrote nothing down, which would be odd because they recorded the most petty of crap in triplicate and then had it translated for good measure.
If he existed, he was a pretty ordinary man. He only could convince a bunch of followers, unlike Mohammad :-)
You wouldn’t expect references about every man, even in the roman empire, would you?
In fact, if he existed and was not a god or if he didn’t existed at all, I don’t think that makes any difference.
This is very possible. The problem is that any evidence that would point to such a person specifically, has been trampled by Christianity since that time. Barring some sort of major discovery, we will never know anything certain about a Jesus who may have lived but was not the Jesus of the gospels.
There is far more evidence that Santa Clause exists since many people have seen him even spoken to him than jezus. Many different books all talk about santa clause whil only one book talks about jezus.
Sometimes I wish I had an example that wasn’t so insulting to believers, but Santa Claus is the quintessential analogy for unreasonable faith.
Jesus believed it, so we should believe it? Seriously?
This is my favorite verse to prove how Jesus believed the Old Testament:
Remember Christians … Jesus believed you should kill any child that curses his father or mother. Jesus believed it, so you should believe it too.
Well…
They’re welcome to try.
I thought the oldest written records were from Sumeria and are receipts. Life changing book “Republic” by Plato. Great book. Way older than the bible written by a real guy we have empirical proof of. Maybe some Aristotle of whom we only have pieces. The biggest life change I ever had was writing about Epicurius and coming to understand what he was really about. He was not interested in just going out and having a good time, but about enjoying your life. After reading his philosophy, I really did make a change. If you use Christian reasoning, he must be God not a Greek man with a good idea. I do recommend just reading philosophy to find how others have believed. Opens the mind greatly. Evangelicals would say I have been taking over by the devil. Oh well. I like to know things and have an open mind.
I consider myself something of an Epicurean too. In the most positive sense of the word.
“Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ?”
No.
How about a really tough question, like…what is Dark Energy? Or…how many licks DOES it actually take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? http://www.tootsie.com/comp_faq.php
The circularity of the argument is so bloody obvious, prima facie blatant that it must have taken some effort to describe it. (“describe how you walk” “dunno, just do”) I mean of *course* TInkerbell is real; if you don’t believe it, Peter Pan will vouch for her!
And I think people with genuine human intuitive experiences or epiphanies (“gotta get outta this gutter”) have plenty of xians around just shitting their britches to tell them what’s really causing their experience.
Well crowed!
Francesc:
“There is still another option: Jesus was real but his tales on the bible weren’t. His life was “improved” to justify his deification”
I think this is a really lame cop-out. Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.
So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence? If (and a big IF) the veracity of the Scriptures describing Jesus existence was proven, would atheism be falsified?
“Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.”
Fortunately, no one cares about your opinion on the topic.
“So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence? If (and a big IF) the veracity of the Scriptures describing Jesus existence was proven, would atheism be falsified?”
Joseph Smith was a real person. Does that make Mormonism true?
The historicity of an itinerant apocalyptic rabbi named Yeshua says absolutely nothing about the existence of a god/gods.
“I think this is a really lame cop-out. Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter”
Yep, I think christians should just decide that slavery and child abuse is inmoral and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter. Atheism is not even a philosophy, it is just the lack of religious beliefs; we are not a “we”. Different opinions on some matters are natural.
And by the way, how could you “decide” that? I don’t know wether Jesus existed or not. I don’t have enough evidence of his existence, but there is a book who state he existed; and we know that a few people “close” to that moment believed he existed. I think doubt then is justified.
But don’t worry, as opinions, doubt is also natural. I don’t need to KNOW anything by divine revelation, I just can live without being certain.
Lastly, I’m not sure about the existence of an historical jesus, but I’m pretty sure that, if (and that’s a big IF) he existed, he wasn’t the son of God
Atheism would be falsified by the proven existence of god – in any of its million incarnations.
And even if someone proved, beyond doubt, that a god exists – doesn’t mean I’d worship it.
Ali:
Re “Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.”
Why is that? Who are you to decide that atheists are ONLY permitted to think that? This is a transparent attempt to invoke the fallacy of the false dilemma. Reality is that there are MANY possibilities available, not just two (i.e. that Jesus existed and was exactly as portrayed in the gospels, or that there was no such person at all). There is, for example, the possibility that there was someone named Jesus who maybe had a few followers and who died young; his followers embellished the truth of his life and said he’d been killed, ascended, and would return, in order to explain his absence. There might also have been a Jesus, about whom different stories were told, not all of them accurate and some embellished; but the groups later got together, collected all of the stories into one, and thus telescoped the embellishment. There might also have been a group of people who had certain ideas, and in order to package them conveniently and lend them some credence, they followed an old Hellenic tradition of attributing those ideas to a single charismatic teacher and came up with a life for him to explain how he taught it all.
I could go on with more proposed scenarios, but doing so is unnecessary. I’ve already shown that your forced choice between only two options, is invalid.
Re “So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence?”
Atheists are atheists because they don’t see any evidence for God’s existence … at all … and that refers not merely to the historicity of Jesus specifically, but to every other possible deity as well. Being an atheist means believing in NO gods, not merely not believing in the Christian God.
Atheists should just decide that Jesus was totally fictional and leave it at that; rather than having divided views on the matter.
Why? Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. Beyond that, it’s got nothin. We’ve got no creed, no gospel, no church, no central organization, nothin. It’s not a life philosophy or a worldview or a set of traditions. So there’s really no need for people to share the same views on every matter.
Plus, as Carrier pointed out, the mythicist arguments can be really arcane. You really have to know something about Hellenistic Jewish mysticism, mystery cults and ancient historiography to really get deep into the debate. Mythicism itself is really an extension of 150 years or so of Higher Criticism, so it also helps to know something about those methods. The short of it is that it’s hard to be too critical of folks who don’t accept the theory.
So, am I to say that the main basis for atheism is the lack of historical evidence?
Well, no. Firstly, as Ty pointed out, the fact that other religions may have accurate historical records do not make them true. If Muhammad was real, that doesn’t necessairly make Islam true. (and yes, there are mythicists who say that Muhammad is fictional. I don’t know their arguments, though.)
And there are plenty of Christian scholars who go at least half-way towards mythicism and still remain Christians. I’ve heard theologians and Christian historians who argue that the gospels are literary and theological works that are not reliable as history.
And of course, the mythicist argument is that the first Christians didn’t believe in a historical Jesus. They believed in a divine or semi-divine figure who never came to earth, and the stories of his baptism and crucifixion are extensive parables teaching the theology of the movement. So they believed that the gospels were fiction – since they wrote them that way – and still believed in a divine Jesus who remained in heaven.
I’m hard pressed to think of a single “main basis” for atheism, but I think a simple “lack of evidence for the existence of a deity” would probably be safest.
Hey vorjack, thanks for asking my question simply and clearly. It was a helpful response.
This may not be a related, but could I ask something else? If we look at statistics, it seems that most of the world still believes in the major religions — Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc — only a\small percentage (maybe abt 8%?) have declared themselves atheist. Of course, this is not a case AGAINST atheism, because statistics don’t prove anything. But what I want to ask is this: if atheism is true, then why isn’t it more obvious to the populations of the world? What is it that keeps us back from this simple truth that god does not exist? Is it a lack of intelligence?
It is often the lack of applied intelligence, but more often than not it is kept alive buy tradition, indoctrination, fear, ostracization, economics, politics, and good old ignorance.
Also, culture (tradition implies this a bit but not completely).
Quite a few imagined fairy tales, myths, and superstitions that some might not consider religious are still kept alive. Breaking mirrors, umbrella inside, Santa, Bigfoot, electoral college, profit based health care. Some of these belief systems are not logical, not rational, not proven, not scientific – but they have been around so long we hold to them simply because we are used to them.
I also forgot to add religion is a social institution. Go to any church ask the pastor what he preaches or more importantly what the particular tenets of his denomination are and then go and ask regular attendees if they believe the same thing and as often as not they won’t. They attend because friends or family do and they want to be part of the gang or not upset wife/in-laws. I can cite many times my friends (as teenagers) showed up at one church or another so a girl’s parents would let her date them. I, as a well known teenage agnostic, even officially belonged to the the local parish so I could remain a member of the softball team. As I was a kick ass short stop and had no love for the obnoxious baptist team was accepted as a nominal catholic.
“if atheism is true, then why isn’t it more obvious to the populations of the world? What is it that keeps us back from this simple truth that god does not exist? Is it a lack of intelligence?”
I shouldn’t answer for vorjack, and I’m not, this is my thought: humans are brainwashed from infancy – by their parents, by culture – to believe the otherwise incredible. I’m not sure intelligence has anything to do with it. I’m guessing those less well educated are more likely to believe something obviously absurd than those who have a broader understanding of how the world operates.
Just look at the cases of those who have suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome. For example, there is the case of the young woman kidnapped in California 18 years ago, at age 11 – after a time, she came under the spell of the monster who kidnapped her.
Patty joined her new Symbionese Liberation Army comrades after she was locked in a closet and raped repeatedly over the course of a few weeks.
We coe into the world as infants with a blank slate, which makes it easy for our parents and for our culture to instill a belief system in us, one that even the truth can’t easily rip away.
What is it that keeps us back from this simple truth that god does not exist? Is it a lack of intelligence?
That’s a good question. The problem isn’t that I don’t have an answer. The problem is that I have too many answers, and I’m not sure which ones are useful or meaningful.
Obviously, I think part of the answer lies in what other comments have said: the greatest determinate of what faith you accept is what faith your family and your society accept – and I don’t think most believers would argue with that. We’re social animals, and we’re socialized by the people in our communities. This establishes our preconceptions, and our preconceptions control what makes sense to us.
So the religion you were brought up with just makes more sense to you. To break away from that frequently requires a “de-conversion” experience that’s often just as profound as the conversion experience of born-again Christians. Read lukeprog’s story over at Common Sense Atheism for a very well written example.
So the fact that there aren’t many atheists could simply be because there aren’t many atheists. We’re not breeding fast enough and raising kids in non-religious communities. In light of that, the fact that we’re growing at all is pretty impressive.
But I think there’s something more than that. I tend to think that religion fulfills a number of cravings in the human animal.
I talk with people, and I find that many of them crave some feeling of overarching purpose to their life. Religion gives them a role in the universal narrative of God’s creation. Others need to feel that there’s some guiding force to the apparent randomness in life. Everything must happen for a reason. Some folks just don’t seem to feel comfortable without an authority figure overhead, giving their actions a stamp of approval.
Religions seem to fill some of those cravings. But different people have different cravings, which explains the different flavors within a religion – compare Rob Bell’s “emergent Church” to neo-orthodoxy. Atheists frequently seem to be people for whom these cravings are weaker, or who just have different sorts of cravings altogether. We’re therefore less attached to religion, and when doubts creep in – as they do for everybody – they meet less resistance.
So I think part of the answer may be that the conditions aren’t right for most of the world’s population to lack those cravings. I think ti’s clear that affluence plays a part of it; the world’s most naturally atheistic countries (rather than those countries where atheism is imposed) are usually the most affluent countries: Denmark and Sweden are good examples. But most of the world remains dirt poor.
Last stats I saw said the non-religious were the 3rd largest group in the world, comprising 16% of people worldwide.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
confusion :1) The bible tells us God said to love our enemies but he is going to kill his without end
2) Isaiah 45:7 God says he created Evil and all things
3) An angel told Mary she will bear Gods son – so if Jesus was Gods son in heaven before the foundation of the earth, he has to cheat on his heavenly wife and put his seed into a very young earthly girl (which today would be an act of pediphillia) via surrogate Holy Spirit. Mary did not have a choice in the matter, only that she found favor with God who is not a respector of persons, impregnant her so Jesus can be his earthly son as well. Now that is a miracle, but very confusing! However, I do think there are a lot of helpful and loving verses to draw on to help humans in their lives, i.e. love one another, forgive etc.
If you know the early history of the church hierarchy — e.g. the fact that they murdered anyone, like Arius, who disagreed with their dogma — you know that the Christians were born in blood and born dedicated to promulgation of myth at any cost. So many questions are begged by the creation of the canonicals it is impossible to tell myth from fiction, and as Robert Anton Wilson once pointed out, the original writings were in koine Greek. It so happens that koine had no punctuation, so the line “God is not here” could just as easily have been “God is nowhere.” Josephus’ accounts of the guy we call Jesus have been discredited; among other things he did not live in Jesus’ time. What do we end up with over 2,000 years later? Pedophile priest and a Poop who is covering for them.
To all athiests: what if you’re wrong?
“To all athiests: what if you’re wrong?”
Have you chosen a religion to believe in? Which one? What if picked, out of the thousands available, the wrong one?
Then God will forgive me. On the other hand, it YOU’RE wrong, you’ve wasted your whole life. Sleep tight now!
If we’re wrong it doesn’t mean you’re right.
In that case I guess we’ll share the same destiny as the billions and billions of religious people who worshiped the wrong god, or worshiped him the wrong way.
Then we are wrong.
I guess it never occurred to you that you could be wrong? If we are wrong, you may also be wrong. Or you could be wrong, and we are right, or you are right, but probably not.
Why should it matter whether or not we are “right” or “wrong”? Why should our eternal fates depend on believing a preposterous story? Why does an omnipotent being care so deeply about whether or not people believe in him and the ridiculous scenario that he (Christians claim) cooked up, sight unseen?
Why does it matter to a supposedly self-sufficient being that people have “faith” in him? What does he get out our having “faith” in him, that he cannot seem to get, any other way? And if he can get it no other way, then can he even be omnipotent at all (omnipotence means — among other things — always have infinite choices of doing anything or getting anything he wants)?
Have you even begun to ask even one of these questions? If so, why not? Are you so intellectually deficient that they’ve never crossed your mind?
To Shrek: what if Donkey doesn’t really like you?
well at least you’re responding to real scholars. A local pastor? wow. Next you can take on little girls coming out of Sunday School.
Most Christians are not reading Tillich and Kierkegaard. What they know of their religion they learn from their local pastor, and so these pastors more than anyone define and shape the nature of what Christianity is, how it is practiced out here in the world.
Why am I not surprised that Elemeno is familiar with both of these fine gentlemen, Tillich and Kierkegaard? The latter strikes me as a rather melancholy, almost afflicted and lonely soul while Tillich very much the cerebral, bordering on what is often called ‘new thought’ Christianity.
Ever read any Walter Lanyon?
Faith, the trusting suspension of disbelief, fails the sniff test
• canonic xian texts approved 400 years after their alleged events
The “Good News” did not drop out of the sky into eager hands of true believers. There was no Newsweek for Occupied Roman Palestine in the first century CE. No xian text in Aramaic, the language Jesus would have spoken, has ever been found. They are written in a Greek used by traders and international commerce throughout the eastern Mediterranean.
Xian texts which appear together under a (question begging) name, ‘New Testament’ were written in koine (common) Greek over a span of about a century 50CE-150CE. The gospels were authored (70CE-110CE), later altered and added to by persons who are unknown. Paul (fl 50-65CE) like Mohammed, started out as an artisan and trader. He made tents. Not all the letters attributed to Paul are genuine.
The 27 canonical books of NT were selected from a large number of xian texts and variants in circulation in the mid-fifth century CE. Leftovers were confiscated and burned. By good fortune single copies were discovered in a cave at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945 — a treasure urn filled with gnostic texts deliberately saved from the flames.
• xian texts are historical comix and fifth-rate fan fiction
Only taboo prevents grasping that the life of Jesus is identical to the life of Sherlock Holmes. They had no lives.
They are fictional characters. Holmes and Jesus/Christ have also taken on a “life of their own” outside of canonic primary writings “about” them. Witness first-rate Holmesian fan fiction novel, ‘The 7% Solution’ — the title refers to Holmes’ addiction to injectable cocaine. Theology starting with Paul (fl. 50-65 CE) is fifth-rate fan fiction about a typical hellenistic world divine personal savior.
Perhaps best known hellenized personal svaior: Isis. Without social standing and the money to go with it, membership in Queen Isis’ entourage proved impossible. However, for poor folk was the rather rude phallic god Sabazius. From his hand gesture bestowing blessing xians appropriated the one still seen today.
Even if a stage set is historically appropriate, Holmes’s England and Jesus’ Palestine are also fictionalized. There never has been a 221B Baker Street. Dr Watson did not write The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Pilate was never governor of Judea — that higher office did not exist until after Jesus’ alleged death. None of the four gospels was written by the people whose name each bears.
In the so-called “good news” Pilate was an important minor figure. Pilate’s personality and actions had to be improved for political reasons to protect underground xian cells. Jesus did not talk to Pilate, certainly not using the grandiloquent rhetoric attributed to him by “John”. Pilate was noted for cruelty and disdain for the people. Jesus was an apostate from Judaism according to xians; such local affairs were of no interest to Rome. The penalty for his religious crime was being stoned to death by religious authorities.
Now Rome had no problem putting upstart rebels to death on a cross — but there was no crucifixion, no stoning because Jesus could no more die on a cross than Holmes could die from a cocaine overdose.
Only after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 CE) did xians commit to writing an antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jewish religious authorities and “the people” accused Jesus of claiming to be “King of the Jews.” Siding with Rome in appearance — as Paul also advises — was a xian survival strategy. Jews were tolerated, but not appreciated, by the Roman state and its educated elites.
In 40CE Emperor Claudius had expelled the Jews from Alexandria (Egypt) for rioting. Xians, emerging as they had from jewish roots, had to distance themselves from those traitors in Palestine and possible sympathizers in large cities of Rome’s empire: Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome itself.
Pilate had to get his coat of whitewash — thus the famous Ecce Homo scene where he is willing to return Jesus to his fellow Jews or release another criminal. “Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, ‘I find no basis for a charge against this man.’” Luke23:4 NIV. Pilate (and the Empire) were not at fault. So, the “Jews” took the rap. Those lying xians happily portraying Jews as guilty of claiming that Jesus was a traitor to Rome. Even if he had been aware of it, Pilate certainly would not have observed a Jewish custom of mercy during Passover. In the middle ages an even more sanitized Pilate became a minor saint.
Xians are fond of claiming that better evidence is available for Jesus’ life than for that of Julius Caesar. They lie. Our evidence for Sherlock Holmes is more solid than that for Jesus. And, that’s the “gospel truth”.
the anti_supernaturalist
The link for this was just above and to the right of today’s post of Tim Minchin and the Good Book. So appropriate!
“I know the Good Book’s good because the Good Book says it’s good;
I know the Good Book knows it’s good because a really good book would”
http://donstuff.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/circular-reasoning1.jpg
Those who deny anti-circular-reasoning are anti-christ.
I like your point about all religious books touching lives. As a Christian, I find that God puts many things in our lives to mold and shape us. The Bible has moved me, the Book of Mormon has moved me, but I would sat the Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price have moved me the most.
My biggest grip about my fellow Christians, regardless of their faiths, is when faulty logic like this is used. Another I dislike – “Be good and believe, just in case!” While it is true that our faith grows as we do, fear and illogical conclusions are not going to help anyone. We all have faith in something, even if your faith is in nothing. My prayer is that we let God make us in His image, rather than us trying to make God in ours.
Enjoyed reading you opinions, God bless!
You do know that the Book of Abraham is really not about Abraham, right? They found the actual papyri that Smith “translated” and they are from ancient Egypt, and are about rituals associated with preparing a body for burial.
“Jane… In the nicest possible way… STFU”
“Jane is pretty spectacularly full of crap”
“Jane you ignorant slut!”
It appears Jane has had an easy time collecting goats here.
Well, that second quote is right after having demonstrated that Jane made a factually incorrect statement, one of many, that was incredibly easy to demonstrate. That fits the criteria for full of crap.
And the last quote there is from a famous Saturday Night Live skit.
the first one, on the other hand, was me telling a mosron to shut the f*%k up ;-)
*Moron.
Ironically.
You can detect irony.
According to my hypothesis, that means you are not a fundie.
John C. wrote: “you are none of His (do not yet belong to Him).”
John C., you’re such a Johnny One-Note, in for the long haul with your single vision. A salute to you for your tenacity.
Your above quote, though, while lovely, merely points up how limited in power your god is in your own mind, a god, I will presume, that is a projection of someone you know.
One Trackback
[...] Is the Bible Reliable for Truth about Jesus Christ? [...]