At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
C.S. Lewis said, "...I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him, "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
In addition to primary sources of documentation, I would also be open to actual physical artifacts that were demonstrably made by or belonged to Jesus Christ as proof of his existence. Living human beings, after all, leave behind artifacts.
Alas, those are nowhere to be found either, and Jesus was supposed to have been a carpenter's son and to have known a thing or two about boating and fishing.
There are no "JC" engraved or monogrammed tools, no signs in the Holy Land saying "This Deck Made By Joseph & Son Carpentry"...not even an autographed fishing lure or a *ahem!* Christ-ened sailboat.
Moreover, the fragments of wood supposedly belonging to his cross have been found to be fakes, And 23 years ago, I read that the so-called "Shroud of Turin" was found to have been a 13th Century forgery made with red ocre and vermillion.
No hard feelings, but somebody has to come correct somewhere to get me to know for sure.
Once again, we see how the standards that skeptics apply to Jesus are no where comparable to those that they apply to other figures of history.
I'm sure it won't get that bad. But it sounds like you like to debate.
You can call debating my weakness, but I do promise to try to keep things logical and fun and friendly. I had enough of reading and jumping into knock-down-drag-out stuff from another forum, so I'm trying to take a different approach for the coming New Year.
Quote:
Does that seem likely considering that the Apostles died for what they believed? Is there a record of any other group of people suffering persecution and dying for a lie?
Sadly, people can and do die all the time over falsehoods, both accidental falsehoods and deliberate falsehoods.
If you ask me, those 19 Islamofascist hijackers on 9/11/2001 and the Islamofascist murder-suicide bombers in the Middle East, Madrid, and London did and do kill themselves and murder innocent people over a falsehood, for an afterworld that doesn't exist. They kill themselves and murder the innocent over nothing; they are consummate Nihilists.
Quote:
Apparently He was a child who didn't do anything noteworthy. Do we have the childhood histories of any other personages of Jesus time?
Do we have the tax records of any other persons of Jesus time?
True. But if we have no one else's records from first century Bethlehem or Jerusalem, why would you expect to have Jesus alone?
Good questions. If we did have childhood records, individual tax records, or birth certificates, those would go a long way toward establishing the existence of Jesus. They're used by Private Investigators, Skip Tracers, Bounty Hunters, and News Reporters all the time. You can't say with certainty that someone exists until you can say with certainty who they are, what they are, where they are, and when they lived in time.
Quote:
Not necessarily. Most historians of that era were interested in their own countrymen's accomplishments. And no one seemed interested in Jewish history except Jews. Jesus had four historians who wrote about Him. Apparently, no one else was interested.
Ah, but the Holy Land was and is a hub area between Roman Europe, Saharan Africa, The Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, and Central Asia. People traded, travelled, and shared stories in this very spot and still do. Surely more than four historians would have known about this great miracle-worker and spread the word if he truly existed.
In all fairness, I may have misheard or misunderstood the exact amount of time Dr. Elliot Lesser gave as the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I'll try to check again.
Nevertheless, the source you gave said that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and got their information second-hand from Peter and others. Also the span of time given for the Gospels is still long enough for a lot of failed memory, exaggeration, or even embellishment, to put it nicely.
Quote:
You have the right to do so, but it certainly makes it hard to explain the existence of the Church, Her Scriptures and Traditions for the past 2000 years.
I wonder if you hold every 1st century historical figure to the same stringent standards? If you do, which 1st century figure do you believe actually existed?
Although I play rough, I try to be fair. Please don't think I'm picking on Jesus or Christianity exclusively.
In all fairness, the last I heard, archeologists and antropologists have found no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Aaron, or the presence of Hebrew people in the land of Egypt, or of an Exodus or 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of Sinai.
Also, there is controversy over the historical existence of Lao Tzu, the patriarch of Taoism.
Scholars also don't know the exact date of the birth and death of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the patriarch of Buddhism, nor do they know much about historical facts of his life or his teachings.
According to ex-Muslim Apostate Ibn Warraq, the first biography of Mohommed wasn't written until about 120 years after his death, The Qu'ran may have had multiple authors, and the contents of The Haddith were hobbled together from many suspect sources, so many things about the life of Mohommed are open to rational scrutiny and criticism.
And, of course, Hinduism and Paganism go so far back, they pre-date writing, so their history is subject to questioning.
Once again, we see how the standards that skeptics apply to Jesus are no where comparable to those that they apply to other figures of history.
That's not true. There's no physical or documentary evidence of the existence of Paul Bunyon and Babe The Blue Ox, so I don't believe in their historicity either.
By contrast, we can acknowledge the historicity of Thomas Jefferson because there exists family records, the estate of Monticello, copies of Notes on the State of Virginia, The Declaration of Independence, a burial site, and other physical and documentary evidence that he existed.
You can call debating my weakness, but I do promise to try to keep things logical and fun and friendly. I had enough of reading and jumping into knock-down-drag-out stuff from another forum, so I'm trying to take a different approach for the coming New Year.
Ditto.
Quote:
Sadly, people can and do die all the time over falsehoods, both accidental falsehoods and deliberate falsehoods.
If you ask me, those 19 Islamofascist hijackers on 9/11/2001 and the Islamofascist murder-suicide bombers in the Middle East, Madrid, and London did and do kill themselves and murder innocent people over a falsehood, for an afterworld that doesn't exist. They kill themselves and murder the innocent over nothing; they are consummate Nihilists.
Ok, lets not pass this up too quickly. I agree that these folks died for a falsehood. But did they believe it was a falsehood? Or did they believe it was true?
I would say they sincerely believed it was true.
My question is more to the point of, is there any group of people who have been known to die for a "lie", without coersion?
It is alleged, for instance, that Mafiosos will die for a lie. But they will be killed if they reveal the truth. So I'm not speaking of a group like that.
And there are individuals who have died for a lie. Probably hoping they will be believed even at the last moment.
But have entire groups ever died for centuries at a time, to conceal a lie. I'm not aware of any.
Quote:
Good questions. If we did have childhood records, individual tax records, or birth certificates, those would go a long way toward establishing the existence of Jesus. They're used by Private Investigators, Skip Tracers, Bounty Hunters, and News Reporters all the time. You can't say with certainty that someone exists until you can say with certainty who they are, what they are, where they are, and when they lived in time.
But, my question is, do we have that for anyone in the first century? If we don't then do we say that all those houses which were built during that time were inhabited by nonexistent people?
Quote:
Ah, but the Holy Land was and is a hub area between Roman Europe, Saharan Africa, The Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, and Central Asia. People traded, travelled, and shared stories in this very spot and still do. Surely more than four historians would have known about this great miracle-worker and spread the word if he truly existed.
How many historians wrote about the conquests of Alexander the Great? How many wrote about the Caesars?
The fact is, the times were harsh, few people were learned or wealthy enough to take time to put pen to paper even if they cared to do so.
Quote:
In all fairness, I may have misheard or misunderstood the exact amount of time Dr. Elliot Lesser gave as the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I'll try to check again.
Nevertheless, the source you gave said that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and got their information second-hand from Peter and others. Also the span of time given for the Gospels is still long enough for a lot of failed memory, exaggeration, or even embellishment, to put it nicely.
Although I play rough, I try to be fair. Please don't think I'm picking on Jesus or Christianity exclusively.
In all fairness, the last I heard, archeologists and antropologists have found no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Aaron, or the presence of Hebrew people in the land of Egypt, or of an Exodus or 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of Sinai.
Also, there is controversy over the historical existence of Lao Tzu, the patriarch of Taoism.
Scholars also don't know the exact date of the birth and death of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the patriarch of Buddhism, nor do they know much about historical facts of his life or his teachings.
According to ex-Muslim Apostate Ibn Warraq, the first biography of Mohommed wasn't written until about 120 years after his death, The Qu'ran may have had multiple authors, and the contents of The Haddith were hobbled together from many suspect sources, so many things about the life of Mohommed are open to rational scrutiny and criticism.
And, of course, Hinduism and Paganism go so far back, they pre-date writing, so their history is subject to questioning.
Now see? That didn't hurt so bad, now did it?
]; -{)>
That is my point. Who do you believe actually existed during that period. Since we have little if any documentation even of great secular figures of that time. Do you believe that no one existed before the first century?
Or do you place your faith in certain historians as opposed to others?
Hello, Friar Chuck. I guess every Robin Hood needs a foil with a quarter-staff to try and keep him in line. Fret not, Friar; the creek's not too deep for either of us, so no real harm will be done in our duel.
]; -{)>
You wrote:
Quote:
Did not notice that someone actually refereced WIKI as a scholarly reference.
Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers beleif.
I agree that you have to be careful with Wikipedia, just as you have to be careful with any written work. That is why I specifically chose an entry that contained external references and links for corroboration.
Here's a big difference and an advantage of Wikipedia over texts held up as dogma:
If someone puts either an accidental or a deliberate untruth in Wikipedia, it can be refuted and corrected by anyone else in minutes or even seconds. Everyone learns something new and nothing is hurt except maybe someone's unearned bravado.
But, if someone puts an accidental or deliberate untruth into a text that is held up as irrefutable dogma, that untruth stays there for hundreds or even thousands of years, perpetuating untold ignorance, suffering, and even death. (Observe how many millions died from leeching, which was founded on Church-instituted dogma about Alchemy and "balancing of humours.")
And the death wrought by uncorrected untruth too often includes the murder of those who disbelieve or who try to correct untruth and this numbers into the millions throughout history.
Needless to say, I'll take my chances with the free-flowing creek of open-source media over a stagnant swamp of holy writ that can't be questioned.
If, as you claim, we become 'partakers of the divine nature'...since divinity cannot exist in finite nature, we automatically become divine!!
Is that something you researched scientifically? Or theologically? Because I made my claim based on Scripture and Catholic Teaching:
2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible / Search
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 460
Quote:
Was that REALLY your intention?
No. So, if you provide your source, I'll compare the reasoning and see if it makes sense.
jusus is loard .I think we shoud respeckt that .He gave evrey thing for you me and all . loves you even if you dont love him .So have that in mind . terraluu
Linear Mode
