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.
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.
A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.
People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.
Quote:
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?...[clipped for brevity]
Do you believe that no one existed before the first century?
Or do you place your faith in certain historians as opposed to others?
To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.
To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication, but can also include houses, burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.
The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.
In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.
Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.
1. of course most of the records from the time of christ do not exist, the idea that the complete tax record would be there is beyond silly
2. and no all people esp of that time frame do not leave behind remains, but in the case of Jesus there was, there were writings, of the many people that knew him and told of his works, And each wrote at various times, from varoius view points.
The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself. Man does not wish to, and I can accept that issue that you don't. So why are you so firm to be on the Christian board to fight agaisnt him, a person who don't beleive, should not care if others do,
It would appear you have more motive to attack the faith, in which actually shows many more true colors, since a true non beleive has no interst in discussion, But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.
The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself.
The number of people in the world who already accept a power higher than "thierself" is certainly much larger than the number of people who believe in Jesus' historicity and divinity, so that can't explain why those people don't accept him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.
If you can't conceive that anyone could reject your belief except out of evil motives, then you'll see the Devil in everyone who disagrees with you.
Dear De Maria,
A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.
I guess the key words here are "could be". If we think about it, anyone could be deluded into thinking their beliefs are true. Atheists might be deluded. Hindus, Hebrews, Buddhists or Christians might be deluded. But the point I'm making is that we believe our beliefs are true. Is there a record of a group of people who, have died and will die for something they know to be false? And again, I'm not including people who are commanded to lie on pain of death as certain people in the criminal element are alleged to do.
Quote:
People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.
In this statement, you allege that faith is opposed to reason. In my opinion, reason is a subset of faith. As I understand reason, it is only faith in ones cognitive powers.
So, lets compare faith and reason.
For instance. I have faith that my car will start every morning. I have reason for that faith. My car starts every morning. But one day, my car doesn't start. Did my faith fail me? Or did my reason fail me?
Again, Scientists told me that coffee was bad for me. So, I had faith in their research. I had reason to have faith on their research. My teachers told me that Scientists were good people who would not make irresponsible comments without making certain they were correct. That sounded reasonable to me. So I placed my faith in my teachers and in the Scientists in which they placed their faith.
Twenty years later, Scientists are now saying that people who drink coffee regularly are healthier than the ones who don't? What failed me? My faith in Scientists? My faith in my teachers? Or my reason based on what allegedly reasonable people of science told me?
So, tell me, how do you distinguish reason from faith?
Quote:
To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.
My question is, are there such records for anybody else? And if there aren't, does that mean that first century Nazareth didn't exist?
Quote:
To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication,
Such as the Scriptures.
Quote:
but can also include houses,
Such as the house of Nazareth, traditional sites of Jesus' birth, major events and passion, death and resurrection.
Quote:
burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.
There are many 1st century personages for which we have none of these. Is it mandatory that we have these or otherwise they didn't exist?
Quote:
The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.
Disputations which came much later in history. Not by His contemporaries.
Quote:
In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.
But we aren't speaking of apes. We're speaking of 1st century personages. One in particular. We also have specimens of prehistoric dogs, horses and elephants. So what?
Quote:
Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers
Nor I to you or anyone else who is willing to exchange ideas in a civil tone.
Quote:
and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.
Thanks. Perhaps. Where else do you post? I mostly post in the religious sections.
1. of course most of the records from the time of christ do not exist, the idea that the complete tax record would be there is beyond silly
2. and no all people esp of that time frame do not leave behind remains, but in the case of Jesus there was, there were writings, of the many people that knew him and told of his works, And each wrote at various times, from varoius view points.
The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself. Man does not wish to, and I can accept that issue that you don't. So why are you so firm to be on the Christian board to fight agaisnt him, a person who don't beleive, should not care if others do,
It would appear you have more motive to attack the faith, in which actually shows many more true colors, since a true non beleive has no interst in discussion, But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.
Why do you impute Evil motives to those who do not accept Jesus as GOD. More than two thirds of the world's people reject the notion of Jesus being God, and many reject the idea that he even existed. Are they ALL evil??????? My undestanding of this board is that it is a question and answer venue regarding Christianity, NOT a Christian apologetics page. Are we to assume that you are an evil person because you reject the notion that Krishna or Mithra or Atum were GOD????? Is it a Christian notion to impute evil motive to those who do not agree with your beliefs. Certainly not among the Christians that I know.
A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.
People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.
To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.
To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication, but can also include houses, burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.
The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.
In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.
Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.
The basic flaw in the 'lack of records' argument is that there ARE records of the period and place in which Jesus was alleged to have lived and taught. One of these, Philo Judaeus was living in Jerusalem when Jesus performed his miricles, yet mentions not one word about him. As Remsburg points out in "The Christ":
"Philo was born int he beginning of the Christian era, and lived long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occured. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with it's attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place.........These marvelous events must have filled the world with wonder.....but Philo saw it not." If eyewitnesses to the time and place have nothing to say about Jesus, how can we ever arrive at a concensus regarding his historical existence. We are back to faith and belief in the bible.....nothing else is possible for believers, yet impossible for non-believers.
Is this a little consiparcy theory you coppied of the internet?..lol FYI For every major historic event there is a conspiracy theory. I can find 5K websites that will argue that the Holocaust never happened and another 10K that will say the US never landed a man on the moon on the first mission. So to me your little blurb about Christ bearing no Historical evidence is nothing but another rediculous conspiracy theory writen by crazy people who are almost as crazy as the people who believe them.
You seem to be trying to juggle apples and bananas. The Holocaust was witnessed by millions of people throughout the world...many of whom left vivid accounts of their suffering, and the deaths of millions of Jews, Poles, Catholics, Lutherans...etc. Those who deny ACTUAL evidence are, indeed, crazy! There are NO such records regarding JESUS OF NAZARETH. Although the massacre of the children by Herod, the earthquake, dimming of the sun, raising of the dead at the Crucifixion, the entry into Jerusalem, THE MIRACLES...etc. etc. etc...should have been noticed by SOMEONE!!! There are records and artifacts from every civilization and religion that existed contemporaneously with Jesus....but NONE from Jesus, or Mary, or Joseph.
There are, all told, SEVEN alleged references to a 'Christ' or 'Chrestus' that are used to establish the existence of Jesus...none of which are of value in establishing the existing of Jesus of Nazareth, but only of the existence of Christianity in the 2nd Century after the alleged Resurrection of Jesus.
Your belief in the existence of Jesus is based on FAITH, not Fact. That is commendable, but not an argument to be used in trying to convince others of the viablitiy of Christianity. To resort to trying to prove the unprovable weakens your proselytizing efforts.
Linear Mode
