Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 44, here:
EarthScienceguy wrote: Yea, I get it. You wanted your sin of choice whatever that might be. It will not make sense it will be a drive and desire to know Christ when the Holy Spirit convicts a person of their sin. The Holy Spirit has not convicted you of the sin in your life and He may never convict you of the sin in your life. But until that happens you cannot and you will not become a Chrisitan.
For debate:

What the heck is that all about, and can any of y'all put any truth to it.

Mostly the putting truth to it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #121

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:55 pm Replying to Goat in post #117]
What extra biblical contemporary evidence do have that he even did exist, even as a human being? That means, evidence from writing that were written before his alleged execution. There is a great deal of evidence that the writings of Josephus were modified by Christians, and it was 60+ years after the supposed death of Jesus anyway. If you read the stories in the New Testament, he made quite a stir in the time period he was supposed to be alive, yet no contemporary historian talked about him. There is physical evidence that at least the stories of John the Baptist were based on a real religious movement, yet, none for Jesus. The evidence that the city now called 'Nazareth' was just a small bunch of hovels in the early part of the 1st century, and no evidence that that bunch of hovels was called "Nazareth". There is evidence that dates to when Emperor Constantine's mother came around the area as a religious tourist, so apparently a town got renamed for the religious pilgrim trade.

That's above and beyond the lack of evidence from the supernatural claims about Jesus.
The existence of Jesus is not even really debated any longer.

Bart Ernman atheist/agnostic not sure what he calls himself now even believes that Jesus existed.

His book https://www.bartehrman.com/did-jesus-exist/
  • "In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not."
What an odd way to admit that there is no extra biblical contemporary evidence that he existed, even as a human being.

'I' personally think a Jesus character existed for some of the stories to be told about. My thinking on this does not negate the fact that we have nothing from outside of religious promotional material. You might as well quote me next time you are asked for evidence for Jesus from outside the Bible, or be honest and admit that this is the case.

He can still be your lord and savior if you are willing to believe on faith as faith is the mechanism that is required in order to believe in god concepts (not evidence that suggests their reality like was asked of you).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #122

Post by Goat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 1:55 pm Replying to Goat in post #117]
What extra biblical contemporary evidence do have that he even did exist, even as a human being? That means, evidence from writing that were written before his alleged execution. There is a great deal of evidence that the writings of Josephus were modified by Christians, and it was 60+ years after the supposed death of Jesus anyway. If you read the stories in the New Testament, he made quite a stir in the time period he was supposed to be alive, yet no contemporary historian talked about him. There is physical evidence that at least the stories of John the Baptist were based on a real religious movement, yet, none for Jesus. The evidence that the city now called 'Nazareth' was just a small bunch of hovels in the early part of the 1st century, and no evidence that that bunch of hovels was called "Nazareth". There is evidence that dates to when Emperor Constantine's mother came around the area as a religious tourist, so apparently a town got renamed for the religious pilgrim trade.

That's above and beyond the lack of evidence from the supernatural claims about Jesus.
The existence of Jesus is not even really debated any longer.

Bart Ernman atheist/agnostic not sure what he calls himself now even believes that Jesus existed.

His book https://www.bartehrman.com/did-jesus-exist/
  • "In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not."
Yes, bart thinks that. He has taken the position that a historical Jesus was reinterpreted to become God. But, just because he believes it, doesn't mean that there was indeed a historical Jesus. If you look at the stories in the New Testament, and then try to confirm them with outside sources, particularly when it comes to Jesus, why, no, you can't. The extra-biblical sources for Jesus either were from decades later, and/or show signs of modification by Christians.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #123

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Goat in post #122]
Yes, Bart thinks that. He has taken the position that a historical Jesus was reinterpreted to become God. But, just because he believes it, doesn't mean that there was indeed a historical Jesus. If you look at the stories in the New Testament, and then try to confirm them with outside sources, particularly when it comes to Jesus, why, no, you can't. The extra-biblical sources for Jesus either were from decades later, and/or show signs of modification by Christians.
The only way for someone to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus did not exist is to believe things about sources that are simply not true. Why don't you read Bart Erman's book he gives 15 or so different sources about the existence of Jesus?

Good Luck with that thought that Jesus does not exist.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #124

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #121]
What an odd way to admit that there is no extra biblical contemporary evidence that he existed, even as a human being.
No that is an understanding that the person trying to make the argument is not read enough on the subject matter for me to take the time to engage in a conversation.

Good luck with your belief.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #125

Post by JoeyKnothead »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:40 pm The only way for someone to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus did not exist is to believe things about sources that are simply not true.
Says the guy who thinks he hopped him up from the dead.
Why don't you read Bart Erman's book he gives 15 or so different sources about the existence of Jesus?
Meh. A dude wandering the mideast is plausible. It's the supernatural claims that cause a fuss.
Good Luck with that thought that Jesus does not exist.
Good luck with the trying to show your claims, as presented in the OP, are truth.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #126

Post by Goat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 3:40 pm [Replying to Goat in post #122]
Yes, Bart thinks that. He has taken the position that a historical Jesus was reinterpreted to become God. But, just because he believes it, doesn't mean that there was indeed a historical Jesus. If you look at the stories in the New Testament, and then try to confirm them with outside sources, particularly when it comes to Jesus, why, no, you can't. The extra-biblical sources for Jesus either were from decades later, and/or show signs of modification by Christians.
The only way for someone to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus did not exist is to believe things about sources that are simply not true. Why don't you read Bart Erman's book he gives 15 or so different sources about the existence of Jesus?

Good Luck with that thought that Jesus does not exist.
Can you give example of 'those things about sources'? Let's examine your claim, piece of evidence by piece of evidence. Let's publicly look at the examples you think he has correct, and lets see how reliable that is. Many people say Bart got things wrong. Can you show he got any of his claims right?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Folks, sin, and the holy thing there

Post #127

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Goat in post #126]

Can you give example of 'those things about sources'? Let's examine your claim, piece of evidence by piece of evidence. Let's publicly look at the examples you think he has correct, and lets see how reliable that is. Many people say Bart got things wrong. Can you show he got any of his claims right?
Dude really?

Stanton (2002, p. 145): Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Wells (2007, p. 446):"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure."


Ehrman (2012b, pp. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."

Robert E. Van Voorst, referring to G. A. Wells: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted".Robert E. Van Voorst (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-4368-5. Archived from the original on 19 August 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2016.

Michael Grant, a classicist, states: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus', or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." Grant, Michael (2004). Jesus. Orion. p. 200. ISBN 978-1-898799-88-7.

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. William B. Eerdmans. pp. 34. ISBN 978-0-8028-0977-3.

Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications." Casey, Maurice (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 243. ISBN 978-0-56744-762-3.

Post Reply