« Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end · Do Everything Like a Pirate »

18 Comments »

1. kumarei said,

   September 17, 2007 at 2:12 am

   There are some other arguments in favor of Jesus’s life being fictional. There are no mentions of him by any historians until long after his death, and those first mentions simply refer to the beliefs of Christians. In addition, there is no record of anyone being crucified at that time that might be Jesus.

   Of course, it’s impossible to prove that he didn’t exist. There is, however, little evidence to suggest that he actually did.

   I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt that there was a guy named Jesus at the time, but there seems to be a serious lack of evidence for any of the supposed miracles, enough that I think it’s perfectly rational to deny that they happened.

   As a sidenote, could any Christian who believes that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies explain to me how Jesus is of the line of David? I’m just curious, since accounts trace the line through Joeseph’s side, and that kind of runs counter to the virgin birth doctrine.

   I’m not trying to insult anyone or imply that there is no counter argument, but I’m really curious about how this is handled.

2. Richard said,

   September 17, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   I suppose I should have mentioned the time line issue as well. As far as I’m aware, there’s no records of Jesus in any form until at least one (I think it was more like two or three?) generations after his death. But even knowing that, that doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, just that they might have got some details wrong!

   I, like you it seems, was “willing to give the benefit of the doubt” to those who claim a guy named Jesus existed - even if I did think they’d most likely got the details wrong. It seems, however, that the side for Jesus not even existing is getting stronger in my mind.

   Of course, if we ignore all the “son of god”, “born of a virgin”, “performed miracles” stuff, I don’t think it would make any difference to my life one way or another if he was real or not.

   Still, these similarities with previous mythical figures seems to put it all into perspective…

3. Tomjunlee said,

   September 18, 2007 at 3:21 pm

   Hi!
   It’s great to hear debates on religions; asking questions is the best way to uncover answers.
   First, I’ll talk a bit about my background - For the majority of my life, I was born, raised, and brought up as an atheist/agnostic in Australia. Most of my friends are atheists as well, and I almost became one too. I’ve heard the arguments that atheists make; Richard Dawkins, the stringent militant atheist, has merely recycled and accumulated these arguments together in a somewhat poetic fashion.
   But, I became friends with a Christian, but I didn’t associate his “niceness” to his Christian lifestyle - no, I just thought that was who he just was. Later on, he kindly invited me to go to his church (I had time, and I would be a hypocrite if I _didn’t_ go, I needed a way to somehow pay back his EXTREME generosity - driving me to places without me paying for his petrol, giving me lots of money when I didn’t really need to, etc.), and later found compelling truths to life in that church (truth, by the way, is a relative idea… you may need to find your own “truths” of the world).
   You often hear of church leaders of being hypocrites, not practicing what they preach (and this, thus leads to crimes of pedophilia, etc.) However, the actual mainstream Christian church is full of practicing moral people who will never dare even _think_ about the idea of pedophilia. What you have to think of is the Christian next to you, and see for yourself, how they behave.
   But! You have to be careful of fundamentalists if you live in America. They would have put me off Christianity for life if I was ever born there.

   Now, the question of whether Jesus existed is raised time and time again. Obviously, for me, I’ve asking this question so many times I’ve lost count, as I have been an agnostic so far too long. But, I’ve been doing investigations for myself into not just Christianity, but other spiritual movements.
   Firstly, I just have to say, Zeitgeist the movie, although a lengthy and well-illustrated “documentary”, its sources are poor. Its cited sources are out-of-date (or if not, are based on these sources). In fact, some of the claims made in Zeitgeist were so downright outrageous, I just had to laugh.
   In Zeitgeist, there’s this session of words with intense music, each word only mentioned, comparing Jesus to Osiris - its effect is to not make you think, but just assume that it must be true. Well, if one ACTUALLY do the research for themselves, you’ve find how folly Zeitgeist is.

   Since, others have summed up the argument for me, I shall merely quote from them:

   “I have been amazed that some people actually believe that Jesus is a copycat myth based on pagan gods. It, of course, is absolutely ridiculous, but let us look at one of the examples from Zeitgeist: Horus.

   Here is a good outline that examines some of the claims regarding Horus:

   ——–

   Ending the Myth of Horus

   I’ve heard repeated here several times that Horus, an Egyptian god, is carbon copy of Jesus. The obvious implication by those that have made this statement is that Jesus is a copycat version of an earlier Egyptian deity. The purpose of this entry is to disembowel that proposition once and for all.

   When I first heard that Horus was the inspiration for Jesus several years ago, I didn’t give it much credence because I couldn’t establish any source material for the claims. I still can’t, but the internet is as adept at allowing anybody and everybody to pass on misinformation.

   Upon further research, I’ve concluded that this theory originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927. He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt. He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation. The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself. Be forewarned that forced reading of this would be an extremely efficient form of torture.

   It should be noted that Massey’s actual proposition was that Jesus was a copycat from more than just Horus. According to Massey, Jesus was a compilation of an innumerable number of Egyptian deities. There were over 2,000 deities who had every human and godlike characteristic one can think of, excepting Superman’s power to stop a speeding bullet.
   …
   Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.

   Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

   Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)

   As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary. In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is. Seb is Osiris’s father. Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph. Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

   Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

   This is accurate.

   Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.

   I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds. I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds. In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave. Massey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave.

   Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels.

   There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it. Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus. When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth. To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Massey and Massey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor see (from an atheist) further regarding virgin birth and pronouncement by angels [www.frontline-apologetics.com]

   Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wise men.)

   There is no indication that there ever were 3 wise men. The bible never mentions the number of wise men, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus. See the website referenced in Claim #5.

   Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them.

   There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus. so this is accurate.

   Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.

   There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12. In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple. Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others.

   Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account. There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this. There is nothing.

   Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.

   According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did. Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

   Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers. Horus is not present in this scene. For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural. In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy. Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus. Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene. They did not.

   Claim #10-Both walked on water.

   Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did. Massey does not maintain that Hours did. Massey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus. Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at night. Massey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day.

   As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this.

   Claim #11-Both performed miracles.

   This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

   Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus.

   The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus. It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life. There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story. Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead.

   Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

   These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion. Yet, I can locate none of this. No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection. There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it. I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.

   Massey does compare a story about the Autumn Equinox related to Osiris, not Horus, as the symbolic crucifixion. There is no indication that Horus is involved in any way. There is no mention by Massey of any Sermon on the Mount. No mention or any actual crucifixion, no two thieves, no burial in a tomb. Massey does not maintain that anything of the sort occurred with Horus.

   In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them.”

   It appears that atheists seem to grasp onto anything that even remotely appears to be in their favor in order for them to make their point, without considering actual facts.

   No wonder “Zeitgeist the Movie” was deleted from Wikipedia.

   Now, that being said, the New Testament is not the only historical document from first century and it’s certainly not the only one that refers to Jesus. There are non-Christian and anti-Christian writers from the period, particularly Roman and Jewish historians, whom I also investigated. How can any serious investigation ignore the testimony of contemporary hostile witnesses? Modern theorist speculate on the history of Jesus while ignoring testimonies from contemporaries among whom were some of the greatest historians and public figures of the time.
   One of the most significant Roman historians who lived in the first century was the administrator, and later Roman consul, Pliny the Younger. Pliny declares in his letter to the Emperor Trajan that Pliny had ordered the execution of Christians, releasing only those whom he could force to “worship [the Emperor's] statue and the images of the gods”. Those who refused were executed. He goes on to say that these Christians worshipped Christ as “a God”.
   Tactitus, Suetonius and Mara Bar-Serapion are other first-century anti-Christian historical writers who confirm significant details of the New Testament claims.
   Jesus’ claim to deity also antagonized Jewish writers such as historian Rabbi Eliezer, who said that Jesus was one who dared to:
   “…rise up and seek to make himself God and to cause the whole world to go astray…God is not a man that he should lie and if he says he is a God he is a liar.”
   The main point I noted in all this was that Jewish and Roman history, and anti-Christian/Christian writers confirm that Jesus and his followers claimed he was God. Rather than being caught up in today’s “latest theory”, some of these writers were acclaimed historians, of whom some were actually contemporaries of Jesus’ apostles.

   If you want to test the authenticity of the New Testament writings, that might be for another time. I think both the reader and I are both tired at the end of this comment!

   I hope that has cleared any preconceptions of Jesus not existing

4. Richard said,

   September 19, 2007 at 10:01 pm

   Wow! That’s a long comment… thank you so much for all this information.

   As I hopefully made clear in my post, I’m certainly not about to accept the claims in those videos without some further research, and it seems from what you’ve told me that there are certainly issues with some of the claims.

   While you only addressed a few of the (many) claims made by the movie (and, presumably, the book) It’s interesting that at least some of the claims still seem to have merit. I have no intention of treating the Zeitgeist movie as an authority, but rather a stepping stone towards a more detailed investigation.

   I specifically mentioned Dionysus in my post (not any of the other mythical figures) because I “verified” (very un-scientifically… through a few Google searches) some of the claims. If you can point me in the right direction for some more information about him, I’d certainly appreciate it.

   Anyway, even if all of the claims made by the movie turned out to be false, I still don’t think that makes the existence of Jesus a certainty. I have previously addressed some of the other issues with treating the bible as an authoritative source, and there’s also (as I understand it) significant gaps between our earliest writings of Jesus and his supposed death. Since memory is known to be very unreliable, and passed down stories even less so, a gap as small as 10 or 20 years between the events and the writings can make for some serious errors - my understanding is that the gap is more like 50-60 years (a generation or two!).

   I certainly appreciate your comments, and you’ve encouraged me to look into this in even more detail - I think it’s about time I put together a book list on the topic, and start some reading!

5. kumarei said,

   September 19, 2007 at 10:17 pm

   Tomjunlee,

   I won’t say anything against your criticism of the movie, because it’s probably right. I haven’t done much research on that subject myself, but the movie apparently has religious motives (the creators are new-agers, and the movie is supposed to convert people to their theology).

   As for the references for Jesus’s existance…

   Pliny the younger wrote some sixty years after Jesus’s death, and wrote second hand. He described what the Christians claimed, not any knowledge he had of events. Remember that sixty years is plenty of time for “Elvis isn’t dead” and “Aliens landed at Roswell”, especially in an age where very few in the population are trained in critical thinking.

   As for Tacitus, the authenticity of this passage is still very widely debated, so I think it’s a bit unfair to cite him in support of Jesus’s existence. And again, even if it is true, he’s making reference to the beliefs of the Christians of the time.

   My knowledge of Suetonius and Mara Bar-Serapion are unfortunately lacking. Can you provide a link or citation to some information on them?

6. kumarei said,

   September 20, 2007 at 12:55 am

   More for Tomjunlee:

   Okay, I’ve taken a look at Mara Bar-Serapion. I believe you’re referring to this excerpt: (?)

   “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion.”

   You’ll notice that this passage is extremely vague, and could refer to multiple different stories in which a Jewish king is cast down by his people. There are multiple accounts where such an event happened. And again, all the previous arguments for the other sources apply. Wrote late, doesn’t suggest knowledge of events as they were happening, and if he even is referring to Jesus (which is debatable), it could be information heard from Christians of the time.

   Suetonius and Rabbi Elizer may be valid (although I’m having some trouble finding good reports on the latter, so if you could provide any links regarding his statements, it would be nice). As I said, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt that a man named Jesus existed, but the rest is on the shoulders of believers to prove.

   Also, when giving examples, please limit yourself to sources that aren’t widely debated, or at least make mention that they are. For three of the five historians you mentioned, their contribution is either under heavy debate or their contribution is minimal. Using them as if they are solid examples of your point is somewhat misleading.

7. Tomjunlee said,

   September 20, 2007 at 2:06 am

   Like I say to everyone, just do your research and come to your own conclusions! The way I do my research is see the arguments both for and against the points that you are concerned in; and see the arguments for those points too! And repeat.

   In reply to Richard’s post, basically the society I grew up in were predominately atheists, and I’ve heard their point of view and I agreed to them with a great extent. However, I never believed in prejudices until I do my research. (For example, even today, people are paranoid about the Jews - I don’t plan to ignore them. I will speak to them about their opinions on this - what I’ve realised is that they’re still people - the same as the person next to them.) And during this research, I weighed the points from both atheists and Christians; and particularly I’ve met real true Christians.
   I still remember myself being an agnostic, questioning why anyone would believe in something that they cannot see, but I didn’t become antagonistic (like how some other people see Jews). So I did my own investigation.
   The section below is my own anecdotal experience with real Christians - and therefore is my own point of view:
   Now, when I first met a Christian he was strangely pleasant. Too pleasant perhaps for my liking. I became friends this Christian, but I did not associate his behaviour as a Christian - I just thought that was just the way he was. But, over time, I just realised that I’ve asked so much from him (money, help, organising social activities for me), STILL remained pleasant, and yet he’s never caved in from peer pressure going out for drinks, partying, and the like, even though he looked like kind of guy. I had to question the strengths of his motives, and later on I realised that his Christian background had a lot to do with it. It’s A LOT more than I realised. It was then, I had to do my own research into Christianity, and slowly but surely my skepticism became less and less.
   Of course, I did my research into other non-Christian areas - the occult, wicca (”witchcraft”), the paranormal. What I am absolutely convinced of is that there are a lot of unusual phenomena that occur, that science probably can never explain (even if it did, it still would be unusual). But, science can merely explain the how, not anything else. This is where atheism goes terribly wrong - from even my own experiences (deja vu for instance) there are a lot of unexplainable things/unseeable things that just exist. I have met a few regular guys, but will not deny having an out of body experience. Normal people, regardless of religious preference, just not denying having an out of body experience. Atheists like Richard Dawkins will deny even that.
   The problem with Christians though, is that they prefer to huddle amongst themselves - and I can see why: most are introverted, tend to be ignored and what better friends is there than to have those with your same beliefs?
   But, given the chance, they’ll do good - above and beyond any other on this planet, and I can guarantee that. And what’s their excuse? It’s simply God. And true Christians acknowledge God as a simple fact.
   I’ve come to realise that; and despite questioning whether we can still be good above and beyond without this “God”, I’ve come to the conclusion that that’s extremely doubtful.
   Is Richard Dawkins right in saying that God is a delusion (despite making outrageous claims in his books)? I cannot absolutely know - God might exist, or God might not. But I know for sure, this God of the Christian faith has changed people’s lives, even mine. I’ve come to acknowledge, like any other Christian, that good cannot just be for oneself, but it should also be spread out. And you know - what if I’m wrong about God? The outrageous claims of Jesus amounting himself to God? Well, at least I tried to make an impact in giving those lost (people who have become hopeless) some relief that there are people willing to help out there.
   What has given me inspiration as a Christian, is to have the strength to argue my point of view in various blogs around the Internet despite the prejudices and hatred that I’m about to face. (Which I personally find ironic! I was once like those who argued against Christians, but now I’m the one being targeted!)

   Also, I almost forgot to add: If you live in America, there are a lot of people who claim to be Christians but appear to be hypocrites; if there is a fundamentalist (Personally, I don’t understand how Christianity and politics ever got mixed up in America in the first place), stay away from them - they do not adhere to the teachings that have been laid down in the bible. Teachings about going pointing people to hell is extremely unbiblical; no wonder people are becoming atheists in America. Christians are also not above the law - anyone caught in paedophilia as you often hear on the news should be treated by the law. For some reason, individual churches seem to be forgetting that. And don’t mistake Christians for “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, or “Mormons”, since they are their own movements.

8. kumarei said,

   September 20, 2007 at 2:31 am

   Tomjunelee,

   I don’t think that anyone is saying that Christians are bad people. My sister is a Christian, and she’s one of the most moral people that I know. And she is opposed to crazy fundamentalists more, if it’s possible, than me. In fact, she’s gotten hatemail from fundamentalists before.

   While it’s perfectly fine to say that you believe because you think that there are things that can’t be explained naturally, the reason why we’re atheists is that we don’t share your belief. If something has any effect on the world, that means that it can, in principle, be studied. Thus, if something can be observed in any way, that automatically puts it in the domain of science. That’s the reason that a lot of us don’t believe in spirituality. If there really is something there, than either it doesn’t actually effect the world (in which case there’s no point in speculating about it), or it can be studied. And since our studies have suggested that these things don’t exist, pending further evidence, I’ll stick with that camp.

   It’s a matter of how you view the world, really. I am an empiricist at heart, so in order to call something a truth, I want some kind of evidence for it. Not the kind that comes from thinking things out in your head, but the kind that comes from observing the world.

   I don’t think you’ll be flamed or “targeted” here (at least I certainly hope you aren’t), but you have to understand that just because we don’t believe in god doesn’t mean we’re immoral. The behaviors you list as being special that drew you to Christianity, I see embodied in my friends all the time. We help each other out whenever we can. People can be good or bad (I won’t say evil, as that has certain connotations) on their own, without having a father figure behind them all the time saying “Be nice.”

9. Tomjunlee said,

   September 20, 2007 at 3:28 am

   kumarei,
   maybe I should mention that I am a science/engineering student? Like I once said, I was a practical atheist myself, and I can say that it is perfectly reasonable to say what you believe in! I have no problems with that. And I don’t mind being targeted - if someone, for some reason, tried to track me down in Australia and resorted to violence, well… I spent a lot of time training in competitive judo a long time ago :).

   I even have confidence enough to say that science and religion are compatible. One of the myths most people have of Christians is along the lines of “Christians are illogical” - and I can see why: fundamentalists have perpetrated the figurative narrative of creationism as fact into the media. Most Christians, especially those who study science, will never agree with the “God of the gaps” theory - if something cannot be explained, it is the work of God - but rather, science is the art of studying God’s footsteps (and don’t take that literally either!). I mean, who says that God _didn’t_ come up with the idea of evolution? You have to understand that the very idea, the concept of God is that this “thing”/”being” is ultimately unimaginable, unthinkable, unknowable, and it is only through time has revealed itself to us and written down through the scriptures. By defining God that way, doesn’t that sound perfectly rational since we are talking about something ultimately unknowable?

   I mean, you have to agree with this - there are some things which are just beautiful: Euler’s identity in mathematics, the constant “e” for exponential growth, Newton’s theories. What made me realise the beauty of God’s handiwork is how there are constants in the universe at all.

   Science explains the “how”, but not the “why”. And what defines morals? Does Science?

   The very idea of creationism as pointed out in Genesis Chapters 1-3 talks about the creationism of Adam and Eve, as well as god walking in the garden in the cool of the day… and that should strike any literal believers a problem given that I had defined God above. My point is that those crucial chapters isn’t a videotaped account. The change in tone is noticed in Chapter 4 when it does become more of a journalistic account of what happens.
   You can read the book of Genesis yourself - it doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian or not, it’s still an interesting read: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201

   And…
   I’m going to stop here. It’s 3 AM here in Australia, been writing on various blogs since 12 AM. I need to sleep, have food, study physics, and exercise.

10. Tomjunlee said,

    September 20, 2007 at 3:38 am

    Oh, and before I forget:
    This is my friend’s website: Philosophy based on Christian perspective - http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.com/

11. Richard said,

    September 20, 2007 at 10:18 am

    I think kumarei answered your suggestion about “having to agree” about an unknowable god before you ever said it - “If there really is something there, than either it doesn’t actually effect the world (in which case there’s no point in speculating about it), or it can be studied.”

    If you define God as “ultimately unimaginable, unthinkable, unknowable”, then even through time, with many sacred texts, visions, prophets, etc. you still can’t imagine, think about, or know what or who God really is.

    If you suggest as an axiom that God is unknowable, then I’d suggest from that axiom you can’t possibly look to your bible (or ANY other source) for information about how to please this God, and thus Christianity (and most other religions) become absolutely pointless. How can you ever be the slightest bit confident that you’re living your life the way God would want you to (as is, I assume, your goal)?

12. Tomjunlee said,

    September 20, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    “If there really is something there, than either it doesn’t actually effect the world (in which case there’s no point in speculating about it), or it can be studied.”
    -Maybe I should elaborate: What I did answer, is that things effecting the world can be studied through empirical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). But, what do you say about Out of Body Experiences, when they are acknowledged to exist but unable to be studied; meanwhile are already acknowledged in a collection of books called the bible written almost 2000 years ago?

    I am Christian: I follow Jesus Christ - who lived a blameless life, and yet said set himself up to say he was God. Jesus gave us instructions, fulfilled promises set in the Old Testament, and gave promise and hope. As Christians, we don’t have to please God - God has already done the hard work for us. Rather, we do things because we know this in the trust we have placed on Jesus’ promises.
    Perhaps I’m wrong, Jesus never existed, we are delusional, but hey! 3 of the 5 major religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) acknowledge Jesus Christ exists. From Judaism, the people were promised that Abraham’s descendants will be blessed and spread among the land. If Christians are wrong, well… there’s no unfortunate drawback for me anyway. There’s absolutely nothing that I can gain from being a Christian (which I should remind is just a label) but nothing to lose either.

    Wouldn’t you agree if the words written in the bible is true, wouldn’t it have a disclaimer of some kind? And yes, it does - the book of Luke begins with a disclaimer that it is an “orderly account…so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
    Regardless of whether Jesus was real or not, Luke is a historical account of what has happened, and what Christians are on about. (Read here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201;&version=31; )
    But when I see the work of others travelling to poverty stricken countries, supporting others financially, providing them with food, clothes, education - this is what Christians do - giving people hope and a better life, despite remaining positive themselves despite the hardships that these guys face. Maybe that seems bizarre (I thought it did too) but I believe that such behaviour warrants a personal investigation.

    I’m not a student of theology and philosophy (although they both look like good options to study) but, I’ll point to two articles:
    Perhaps this two might satisfy any further reading:
    http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.com/2005/11/plantingas-argument-to-properly-basic.html
    http://joveiaphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/01/michael-martins-disproof-of-god.html

13. Tomjunlee said,

    September 20, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    Just to elaborate on the evidence that anti-Christian historians verify:
    The Jewish historian Josephus recorded that Jesus died on the cross briefly (read Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 Chapter 3 - http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm).

    Josephus’ works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

    Tacitus (as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it: “probably the greatest historian…who wrote in the Latin language”)
    “As for Tacitus, the authenticity of this passage is still very widely debated, so I think it’s a bit unfair to cite him in support of Jesus’s existence.” - it should be noted that there are only a few people who will debate it, just as there are a few people who believe September-11 attacks was perpetrated by the Government.

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html - the passage from the Annals of Imperial Rome, and the arguments for and against.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus - Wikipedia article.

    In any modern courtroom it would be ridiculous to hear evidence only from prosecution witnesses. But the evidence from non-Christian sources is such that even if the New Testament had never been written, Jesus’ crucifixion could still be verified.

    “Dr Sim Greenleaf was more qualified to examine such evidence than any man who ever lived. He was the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University and was declared by the chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to be the greatest authority on evidence that could be quoted in any English speaking courtroom in the world. After writing voluminously on the laws of the legals evidences he decided to turn the searchlight of his knowledge of evidence and his ability to sift the true from the false toward the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
    He examined each thread of evidence concerning the resurrection of Christ and concluded that in any unbiased courtoom in the world, if the evidence for the resurrection of Christ were presented it would be adjudged to be an absolute historical fact.”

    Surely only a lunatic would carry on a hoax when there was nothing to gain from it but death by crucifixion.
    If Jesus went all the way to his death carrying out a self-deluded or deliberate fraud, then obviously he didn’t come back from the dead. That is why the “lunatic” or self-delusion theory fails. If he claimed to be God and was self-deluded, then the whole story would come to an abrupt end at his death, just as with many cult leaders. But here is where it only gets more complicated. Rather than ending at his death, in some ways it only begins. If his claims weren’t true, we now have to add as liars or deluded the hundreds of people who claimed to have witnessed his resurrection from the dead. The penalty for maintaining this claim was often death. It’s one thing to propose that Jesus was a liar, dying for a hoax, but we now have to imagine those claiming to be eyewitnesses to his resurrection also dying torturous deaths of execution just to keep the hoax going. (the hatred and detail into how they die is written in Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome). Those martyrs claiming to be eyewitnesses would be dying these gruesome deaths while _knowing_ it was a deception.

    It’s worth noting that these eyewitnesses were not especially brave “follow him to the death” people before Jesus was crucified. Not only did they scatter like cowards when he was arrested, but the apostle Peter had cursed and sworn he never even know Jesus just to avoid his own arrest (sounds somewhat like me when I first became a Christian). After the alleged resurrection, we see a different story. Something clearly transformed his resolve. Peter was crucified upside down, holding onto his testimony. Of the other apostles, execution, crucifixion, the sword (James), beheading and so on. All because they wouldn’t deny having seen a risen Christ. If the resurrection didn’t happen, why were the apostles and others so determined to die for it? After all, plenty of people in history have died for something they believed in. But _no one_ dies for something they _don’t_ believe in.

    Author Josh McDowell set out as a skeptic to disprove the resurrection but eventually became convinced it was an historical fact. He points out that even if you include only the apostles, you would be hard pressed to find that many people in the whole of history who all willingly died for the same lie, while knowing it was a lie!

    What about a mistaken identity? Like kumarei said, there are even people who claim to have seen Elvis alive. (Wasn’t it the coroner who performed the autopsy who said that if Elvis wasn’t dead when he got started, he was surely dead by the time he had finished?) But there is a tremendous difference here. The eyewitnesses to Jesus after the resurrection were not just reported fleeting glimpses, as in “We saw Elvis in the car park”. Rather, these eyewitnesses were people who knew Jesus and claimed intimate contact, having conversations and even eating meals with him during his resurrection appearances. Such detailed reports cannot be dismissed as merely mistaken: they must be either genuine or deliberate fabrication.
    And this situation wasn’t one of mass hysteria (like a “one in, all in”) as with the Waco cult or Jonestown massacres, where questions still remain as to whether the events included suicide or murder. The followers of Christ were executed publicly and individually, at different places, and some even decades apart. Hardly the setting required for mass emotional and irrational action. For example, the martyrdom of Jesus’ brother James in 62 AD is recorded by Josephus. James had not been a follower of Jesus until he saw Jesus alive after the resurrection. He eventually wrote one of the New Testament books. James was stoned to death for refusing to recant. He held on to his claim that he had seen the risen Christ.
    James was not the only skeptic to change his thinking dramatically after the resurrection. If we are looking to discredit the New Testament record on the grounds that “it was written only by hopeful supporters of Christ”, then we are looking in the wrong place. One Roman citizen and a Jew of some high standing was among the greatest opponents of the first followers of Christ. He persecuted them with great zeal and brought many of them to trial and execution. He was door knocking everyone’s homes to check any Christ followers systematically. There was a sudden change in his attitude after he claimed that he too had seen Jesus after the resurrection. This man, Paul of Tarsus, had become apostle to the Gentiles (non-Jews). He wrote more books of the New Testament than any other writer, and was eventually martyred himself for his belief when Nero cut off his head in about 67 AD.

    And all this for a lie?

14. Tomjunlee said,

    September 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    I’d like to quote the problem of religion (including atheism) from “Religion is for fools”, a letter for Rita turned into a book by comedian and former skeptic Bill Medley.
    I remember the first time I fell in love at high school. I had this overwhelming feeling (in fact I was _certain_) that this girl was going to feel the same way that I did. It was a definite! now you are not going to believe this - but it turned out I was wrong! What could that girl possibly have been thinking!

    Well, we’ve all been wrong sometime - even when we’ve been “certain”. So even if you have that great intuition and and are 99% reliable, you still could never be certain of anything based on feelings. What about a spiritual experience? Some say they know God, or know about God, because they have had a great experience. But even that doesn’t prove anything. Most people believe there is good and bad in all of us. If there is good and bad in us, then this could apply in the spiritual realm. If you had a genuine spiritual experience, then how do you know it is from a good or truthful source? “Oh I know its good because it felt so right, and the experience gave me the assurance that it was good and from God.” But how do you know it was not a bad source _telling_ you it was good? You can’t be certain - even with the most profound spiritual experience.

    So what about our intellect? I remember doing a gig one night at a conference with about 1,000 doctors. I got talking with a specialist MD who told me that you could be certain about God. He said you could be certain that there was no God, because God is an absolute, and there is no such thing as an absolute. I said to him, “Are you _absolutely_ sure about that?” - He gazed into the night…
    In other words, you would have to know absolutely everything before you could really know the answers to these great questions.
    Suffice it to say that the only thing we know for sure is that we just don’t know everything. Whether it is our feelings, our spiritual experiences or our intellect, the bottom line is that from ourselves, there is no way any of us could ever know anything for certain about God or the afterlife, or any of these great mysteries. This is what led me to believe that “religion is for fools”. People are grasping at ideas and placing all their hopes in them, without having any real basis. And no matter how heartfelt these beliefs are - in the end they are just (albeit sincerely) - guessing.

    And I suppose we have to include people who are sure that no religion is true. They are guessing as well. Then there are people who say that all the religions are true. They must be the biggest “guessers” of them all. They are just “hedging” their guesses. And then there are those who say that truth in religion is relative. That is, “all beliefs are true - as long as it’s true for you.” Great! And where did you get that “truth” from? “Well, er … I guess it’s my own idea…” Wonderful! You might do well at politics, but in the end it’s just another stab in the dark. Another guess. All because it “feels” right.

    So we are all in this together, Rita. It’s not enough to say that each person’s opinion is as good as another. Take a look at what we are dealing with here. We might as well be trying to guess how many specks of dust are on the moon. Let’s say it straight. Each person’s opinion is as _bad_ as another’s!

    The only way we could ever know anything for certain about any of these great “unknowable” questions concerning God, is if someone who knew absolutely everything was to tell us. It would have to be someone completely outside our limited knowledge. Someone who was not dependent on our finite feelings or our unreliable experiences. In fact, it would have to be no one less than God - “him”, “her”, “itself” (whoever or whatever God is), to be the one to reveal who or what God is, and answer for us those “unknowable” afterlife questions.

15. kumarei said,

    September 20, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    Tomjunlee,

    You have made a lot of comments. I will address them in order.

    1) Out of body experiments are currently under investigation by science, and we are already to the point where we can stimulate them quite easily in normal individuals.

    2) You’re making an appeal to numbers. Even if everyone in the world believed that god existed, this would not prove his existence.

    3) Next you claim that the bible is true, because the bible says so. I don’t even know where to start with this, it’s so far from any kind of valid argument.

    4) Next you appeal to emotion by making the claim that Christians all over are doing good things. You (rather offensively, in my way of thinking) ignore any contributions made by atheists, and in fact deny that atheists are capable of making such contributions. I assure you that we have morals and feelings, and we are just as capable of helping people as anyone else.

    5) The links. The second one I don’t really care about, but as a cognitive science student, the first is painful to read. First of all, as for 2+2=4, you may have heard of the Principia Mathematica, in which over 100 pages are spent proving that 1+1=2. It then goes on to establish algebra. You also may note that the basics of algebra and mathematics came from observation of the world. First we could enumerate objects, then perform operations on them. Math is an abstraction of counting. People certainly can’t perform math without learning it first.

    As for god being a primitive, there is no evidence to suggest this. This is a testable hypothesis here. Raise a child with no notion of god, and see if s/he becomes a believer with no prompting from anyone. In addition, even if god was a primitive, the idea of god could be built in due to evolutionary advantage. You would have a long way to go if you wanted to use this route to prove god.

    6) Now we move on to your next comment. I’m not sure exactly how much of this is a quote and how much is yours, so I’ll answer it as one big chunk.

    There is a reason that I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic. I want to state that I have a firm belief that God does not exist in any form. Notice I don’t say certainty. I said a firm belief. It is, as you say, impossible to absolutely know anything. But that doesn’t mean that nothing is more likely than anything else.

    It is extremely unlikely that the earth is flat. It is extremely unlikely that everything orbits the earth. It is extremely unlikely that we are held to earth by the force of our perfect being wanting to inhabit its home below the ground.

    In the same way, I would claim that god is extremely unlikely. EXTREMELY unlikely. Unlikely enough that I have no problem in applying a nice swoop of Occam’s Razor and taking him out of the equation all together. I am certain enough to chance being wrong and risking hell. I am certain enough to declare it in the face of people who hate me for it. I’m certain enough that I’ve decided to live my life the best that I can, because I don’t get anything else.

    That’s how certain I am.

16. Tomjunlee said,

    September 20, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    You seem to be misrepresenting what I am saying - or rather, I seem to not make my point across. Or maybe both. I’m just going to talk about the fallacy of your arguments:

    1. Out of body experiments are currently under investigation by science, and we are already to the point where we can stimulate them quite easily in normal individuals.
    -Really? I’ve studied these over two years and nothing has been conclusive. The latest news (or breakthrough) that scientists have had was a new method of triggering it with some success in normal healthy humans, if you have been watching the news. But techniques have been out there for ages - you can just use Google to find them. The “breakthrough” is nothing more than a mere technique. In the occult circles, the alias for OBE are called “Astral Projections”, and Google has plenty of results for both. I personally tried these methods - and I failed in my attempts. But I have met a few people with real success.
    Don’t forget, scientists have been studying other parapsychological phenomena, most whom know exist but cannot prove (James Randi will boast his $1000000 challenge) - the study of telepathy, telekinesis (also known as “psychokinesis”). One example - There’s a document at http://www.firedocs.com/ (somewhere amongst the links) - which is a Government funded remote viewing research, from a branch of the CIA in America.
    I’m trying to avoid the “God of the gaps” theory here, but the very nature of parapsychological phenomena (unique, one-off, contrary to the laws of mechanics) means that it cannot be studied to a satisfactory effect by the standards outlined in empirical sciences (which is to demonstrate, test, demonstrate, test, and check resemblances).
    In fact, if I stopped studying science and engineering, I would have studied parapsychology (in some obscure university, no doubt).

    2) You’re making an appeal to numbers. Even if everyone in the world believed that god existed, this would not prove his existence.
    An appeal to numbers? That’s a first. I doubt anyone is appealed to seemingly random figures. I never used numbers to _support_ my point of view; I used numbers to merely quote the context in which they were numbers were there as a quote from other

    3) Next you claim that the bible is true, because the bible says so. I don’t even know where to start with this, it’s so far from any kind of valid argument.
    Never made a claim that the “bible is true, because the bible says so”. Rather, I have avoided that argument because like you, I believe that is sheer stupidity to say such a thing. I feel strongly against fundamentalists who make that point. Putting what I have said in context, it was an assumption: “if the bible was true”.

    4) Next you appeal to emotion by making the claim that Christians all over are doing good things. You (rather offensively, in my way of thinking) ignore any contributions made by atheists, and in fact deny that atheists are capable of making such contributions. I assure you that we have morals and feelings, and we are just as capable of helping people as anyone else.

    I’m pretty sure there are contributions made by atheists all around the world, but why take offense, by any means rationally thinking?
    I’m not suggesting atheists are sub-human simply because I did not mention them. I merely pointed out that there a plenty of people who have given generously - but of the people I’ve met, I’ve been inspired by people who have given their all, for the sake of other people’s lives. I’ve met one who gave away ALL their money and lived in poverty and came up to scratch to society again. Call that foolishness, but I call that inspiration. The Christian mindset is to give because money belongs to this world and Christians, in their quest to be more and more spiritual. Money is of little concern to Christians and that the money they have is a blessing from this “God” - initially I myself was surprised at this, coming from an atheist background. A selfish Christian is a contradiction - if there is someone who considers themselves Christian and yet selfish, either they are not true Christians or must be taught about their wrongdoing to strengthen their morals. A selfish atheist - they exist. There is a branch of Satanism who live for themselves and themselves only. This branch of Satanism isn’t a religion - its an atheist society against religion (hence, being called “Satanism”). Of course, that might be an extreme example, but its the same underlying idea - atheism can lead to selfishness. Yet Christians don’t think they’re just doing good enough to help society - they need to do more than just that. We don’t self-justify ourselves. I mean, Christians themselves don’t think we’re being good enough at all.

    Faced with the choice of donating a spare $10 to your favourite charity or frittering it away at your favourite High Street shop, what would you do … honestly?

    5) “The links. The second one I don’t really care about, but as a cognitive science student, the first is painful to read…”

    Again, I can’t see the arguments disproving or proving God. Like I said above, God and science are fully compatible. Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Max Planck: ALL Christians who believed in God. ALL made a significant contribution to the scientific community. Even though Albert Einstein was not Christian, he himself believed in some form of God, let me repeat: he believed in “a god”.

    Francis S. Collins is the director of the human genome project. Without him, we would not know our DNA as we would know it today. And you know what inspired him to tackle this gargantuan task of mapping out human DNA?
    It’s God.
    [On a personal note, I just find it ironic, almost hilarious to an extent, that atheists accuse Christians of being unscientific when Christians first proposed the very notion of empirical sciences to better understand God]

    “As for god being a primitive, there is no evidence to suggest this. This is a testable hypothesis here. Raise a child with no notion of god, and see if s/he becomes a believer with no prompting from anyone. In addition, even if god was a primitive, the idea of god could be built in due to evolutionary advantage. You would have a long way to go if you wanted to use this route to prove god.”

    Ah, see, another misconception: Who said God was a primitive? Who even said God lived “in the sky”? Who said God was a male? And I myself was raised as a child with no notion of God - if you don’t believe in miracles then you should believe now

    “It is extremely unlikely that the earth is flat. It is extremely unlikely that everything orbits the earth. It is extremely unlikely that we are held to earth by the force of our perfect being wanting to inhabit its home below the ground.”

    Who said that the earth was flat? Who said that everything orbits around the earth? Who said we are held to earth by the force of a perfect being? Not only is what you say “extremely unlikely”, Christians believe this is “impossible”.
    If you are accusing Christians of believing in something we don’t even believe ourselves, in its full unscientific and unbiblical glory…then good luck trying to get a Christian crowd to be swayed, even remotely, to listen to such a point of view

    Have you even read a book of the New Testament to even know what Christians are on about? Remove the ideas of God in the bible. And I assure you, you will still be surprised at what you might learn.

    Next, give me one quote that Jesus said from the bible (always putting it into context) and criticize him for it. That’s my challenge.

    And if you can’t - Why accuse Christians then, who simply see Jesus as their role model?

17. kumarei said,

    September 21, 2007 at 7:02 am

    Tomjunlee,

    1) Scientists have been looking for evidence for psychic phenomena for a long time. There is no evidence that they exist. Remember, I believe that science is perfectly equipped to deal with such phenomena if it exists. It affects the world, people claim that they can do certain things with it, we should be able to study it. Yet it mysteriously doesn’t work in the presence of skeptics. Maybe because it’s not true?

    2) “Perhaps I’m wrong, Jesus never existed, we are delusional, but hey! 3 of the 5 major religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) acknowledge Jesus Christ exists. From Judaism, the people were promised that Abraham’s descendants will be blessed and spread among the land.”

    Appeal to numbers

    3) “Wouldn’t you agree if the words written in the bible is true, wouldn’t it have a disclaimer of some kind?”, etc.

    Claim that the bible is true because it says it is.

    4) You’re saying that Christians can’t be bad, because then they aren’t Christians. And yet, they worship the same person that you do. Hmm…

    And what about a person who, instead of spending all their money to feed a few people, makes a new kind of corn that can grow in rough conditions to feed thousands? Is he not doing the greater good?

    5) Christians invented science: Yes, well, Greeks invented philosophy and Muslims invented the algebras, yet you don’t have to worship Zeus to be a good philosopher or Allah to be a good mathematician. The fact is that science has a method now, which one can apply to the world.

    You can’t find god by applying the scientific method, you need to use faith. And I don’t have any of the stuff.

    Sure, there are a lot of famous people and very smart people that have been Christian. But in this modern age at least, it isn’t reason that lead them there. It’s faith.

    As for god being a “primitive”:

    “One Christian to reach this conclusion was Alvin Plantinga, and he formulated a solution to keep Christian belief reasonable by saying Christian belief is ‘properly basic’.”

    Note that I was using ‘primitive’ in the programing sense, which is synonymous with ‘properly basic.’ I’m sorry for that, but it’s a habit from being immersed in Computer Science.

    Many Christians now disbelieve those things (although many, especially in the US, don’t), but I wasn’t saying that those were things that you believed. The last example, in fact, has nothing to do with Christianity, but was a belief of Plato. The point was that there are things that were believed in the past that turned out to have no relation to the current scientific paradigm. And yet it’s still possible that THEY COULD BE TRUE. We can never know for sure. And yet, most people discard them out of hand, as I’m sure you did. This is the same way that I discard god.

    I, unlike you, grew up in a Christian house. I have two bibles on my bookshelf (one King James, the other NRSV). I have read them (although I admit that I skipped over some of the really really boring parts in the old testament).

    I will mention some quotes from the new testament in my next post. This one is getting too long.

18. kumarei said,

    September 21, 2007 at 7:39 am

    Alright, let’s look at the new testament. You seem to have a few misconceptions about it.

    Let’s start with Luke 16:18. “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    This section is a quote of Jesus. I have quite a few problems with this. If you come to no longer love your spouse is it really that bad to marry again? It disturbs me that Jesus had this opinion.

    Ah, but that’s not really the point. The point is the context. The point is the reason that Jesus believes this.

    Luke 16:17. “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.”

    Interesting. Jesus believes that the Jewish law of the old testament is absolute. This runs counter to your argument that the parts of the old testament that I was criticizing have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity inherits the rules of the old testament, and everything that goes with them.

    Matthew 15:3-7. “Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!”

    When Jesus is called out for washing his hands before he eats, he says that they are much worse, because they ignore the word of god and don’t kill children who don’t show the proper filial piety. That Jesus would want this law upheld is disturbing in the extreme.

    But of course he does, because JESUS BELIEVES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT LAWS.

    So, by your liberal reading of the bible, you’re cherry picking the things that you think are nice.

    If you take out the mentions of god, what you get is a series of extremely vague parables. And you can get things like that from many places. Heck, I could make up some extremely vague parables. I don’t necessarily think that would make me a great man.

    But that’s not the point. The point is that the new testament is about god, and you can’t just remove the reference, because even the more vague parables are meant to uphold old testament law, some of which are good, some of which are absolutely awful. Some of which you would be locked up today for following.

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URI

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail