Best way to get to know Jesus

[Anonymous]

Look under the couch. He's hiding there eavesdropping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the significance of all the other thousands of people who died on the cross? The other thousand of humans that suffered through crucifixion? How do you know none of them offered their lives to save someone else? Jesus' death just isn't that remarkable - all those thousands of other crucified people had stories too - Jesus just took all the fame and glory.

Well, possibly. Except that 1) people there knew as soon as Jesus was crucified that something unusual was going on. There was a massive earthquake (Matthew 27: 51- 53) that literally raised other people buried there from the dead. (This earthquake at this time is confirmed historically, BTW.) So it was hardly a routine execution.

And of course 2) He came back from the dead 3 days later, another unusual circumstance.

Show me the historical confirmation of the earthquake. Supposedly the temple was torn apart --no evidence of that. And if others rose form the dead, then Jesus isn't so special, is he?

I can hardly believe that someone who knows how to operate a computer would believe this stuff. These are stories and that's all.

Here is one article on the topic; there are others that I don't have time to research right now:

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/jesus-crucifixion-120524.htm

Yes, others rose from the dead as well, but that was because of Jesus. You have to keep reading. He is the one who then physically asended into Heaven.

And as for your last quip, I can't believe that someone who purports to be such an intellectual is not more curious about this, and has obviously not studied Christianity from its historic and big-picture perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the significance of all the other thousands of people who died on the cross? The other thousand of humans that suffered through crucifixion? How do you know none of them offered their lives to save someone else? Jesus' death just isn't that remarkable - all those thousands of other crucified people had stories too - Jesus just took all the fame and glory.

Well, possibly. Except that 1) people there knew as soon as Jesus was crucified that something unusual was going on. There was a massive earthquake (Matthew 27: 51- 53) that literally raised other people buried there from the dead. (This earthquake at this time is confirmed historically, BTW.) So it was hardly a routine execution.

And of course 2) He came back from the dead 3 days later, another unusual circumstance.

Show me the historical confirmation of the earthquake. Supposedly the temple was torn apart --no evidence of that. And if others rose form the dead, then Jesus isn't so special, is he?

I can hardly believe that someone who knows how to operate a computer would believe this stuff. These are stories and that's all.

Here is one article on the topic; there are others that I don't have time to research right now:

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/jesus-crucifixion-120524.htm

Yes, others rose from the dead as well, but that was because of Jesus. You have to keep reading. He is the one who then physically asended into Heaven.

And as for your last quip, I can't believe that someone who purports to be such an intellectual is not more curious about this, and has obviously not studied Christianity from its historic and big-picture perspective.

Where have I purported to be an intellectual?

And I have studied Christianity form a purely historical perspective and if you had you would know that historians separate myth from fact and don't make any claims about things that happen outside nature (like rising from the dead) because historians work only with tangible evidence and there can be no evidence for anything that is said to have happened outside of nature -- i.e. supernatural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the significance of all the other thousands of people who died on the cross? The other thousand of humans that suffered through crucifixion? How do you know none of them offered their lives to save someone else? Jesus' death just isn't that remarkable - all those thousands of other crucified people had stories too - Jesus just took all the fame and glory.

Well, possibly. Except that 1) people there knew as soon as Jesus was crucified that something unusual was going on. There was a massive earthquake (Matthew 27: 51- 53) that literally raised other people buried there from the dead. (This earthquake at this time is confirmed historically, BTW.) So it was hardly a routine execution.

And of course 2) He came back from the dead 3 days later, another unusual circumstance.

Show me the historical confirmation of the earthquake. Supposedly the temple was torn apart --no evidence of that. And if others rose form the dead, then Jesus isn't so special, is he?

I can hardly believe that someone who knows how to operate a computer would believe this stuff. These are stories and that's all.

Not the temple itself. The veil in the sanctuary. If you are going to question evidence, at least get your points straight.

OK, where's the evidence for that?

Tell you what. Why don't you find the *untorn* sanctuary veil, and prove the Gospels (written by people who talked to actual witnesses) wrong.

First of all, none of the gospels were written by witnesses and the likelihood that the gospel writers talked to any witnesses is small. The earliest gospel is Mark and it was written in 70 AD in Rome. They're going off an oral tradition.

Secondly, Christians are the people who have the burden of proof here. If you propose something fantastical, "This man was the Son of God and performed miracles" the burden is on you to prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the significance of all the other thousands of people who died on the cross? The other thousand of humans that suffered through crucifixion? How do you know none of them offered their lives to save someone else? Jesus' death just isn't that remarkable - all those thousands of other crucified people had stories too - Jesus just took all the fame and glory.

Well, possibly. Except that 1) people there knew as soon as Jesus was crucified that something unusual was going on. There was a massive earthquake (Matthew 27: 51- 53) that literally raised other people buried there from the dead. (This earthquake at this time is confirmed historically, BTW.) So it was hardly a routine execution.

And of course 2) He came back from the dead 3 days later, another unusual circumstance.

Show me the historical confirmation of the earthquake. Supposedly the temple was torn apart --no evidence of that. And if others rose form the dead, then Jesus isn't so special, is he?

I can hardly believe that someone who knows how to operate a computer would believe this stuff. These are stories and that's all.

Not the temple itself. The veil in the sanctuary. If you are going to question evidence, at least get your points straight.

OK, where's the evidence for that?

Tell you what. Why don't you find the *untorn* sanctuary veil, and prove the Gospels (written by people who talked to actual witnesses) wrong.

If there is such a thing as a sanctuary veil, you can bet archeologists have looked for it -- and not found it -- or it would be big news. They also looked for and didn't find any evidence that the red sea parted, no evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt, no signs of anyone living in the desert and lots of evidence of early jews being in Israel during that time, no Noah's ark, no mount Sinai (they just named a mountain that much later) Moses supposedly broke the rock the 10 commandments were written on (very convenient) and there were no signs of any walls around the city of Jericho.

These are stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

First of all, none of the gospels were written by witnesses and the likelihood that the gospel writers talked to any witnesses is small. The earliest gospel is Mark and it was written in 70 AD in Rome. They're going off an oral tradition.

Secondly, Christians are the people who have the burden of proof here. If you propose something fantastical, "This man was the Son of God and performed miracles" the burden is on you to prove it.

Nobody here has claimed the gospels were written by witnesses.

70AD is maybe 40 years after Jesus death. That's not all that long afterwards. Even considering shorter lifespans back then, it's plausible that the gospel writers were within just a few degrees (in Kevin Bacon speak) of what the witnesses reported. So as far as "proof" goes, that's probably as close as we're going to get for something that happened almost 2,000 years ago. It's good enough for me. It isn't good enough for you, and that's fine with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If there is such a thing as a sanctuary veil, you can bet archeologists have looked for it -- and not found it -- or it would be big news. They also looked for and didn't find any evidence that the red sea parted, no evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt, no signs of anyone living in the desert and lots of evidence of early jews being in Israel during that time, no Noah's ark, no mount Sinai (they just named a mountain that much later) Moses supposedly broke the rock the 10 commandments were written on (very convenient) and there were no signs of any walls around the city of Jericho.

These are stories.

I'm curious: do you think you've converted a single person to atheism (or islam, if you're Muslim Woman) with this approach?

A major problem with your approach (besides the off-putting aggression) is that you aren't the greatest historian. So people roll their eyes and move on.

For example, there is a whole lot of evidence that there was a huge flood around the Black Sea before Christ; yet nobody actually thinks a wooden ark would have survived to the present day, or more than a few hundred years. Similarly, a piece of fabric/temple veil will not have survived 2000 years, or even 1000 years. I'm also pretty sure you're wrong on the archeological evidence for the parts of historical Judaism you've cited, but maybe someone else wants to take that on.

You've set up some straw men here ("you haven't found a 2,000-year-old piece of fabric! So your religion must be false!") that just makes most readers roll their eyes and conclude you aren't too bright.

[Anonymous]

Just remember, as Bonhoffer said, "A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there is such a thing as a sanctuary veil, you can bet archeologists have looked for it -- and not found it -- or it would be big news. They also looked for and didn't find any evidence that the red sea parted, no evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt, no signs of anyone living in the desert and lots of evidence of early jews being in Israel during that time, no Noah's ark, no mount Sinai (they just named a mountain that much later) Moses supposedly broke the rock the 10 commandments were written on (very convenient) and there were no signs of any walls around the city of Jericho.

These are stories.

I'm curious: do you think you've converted a single person to atheism (or islam, if you're Muslim Woman) with this approach?

A major problem with your approach (besides the off-putting aggression) is that you aren't the greatest historian. So people roll their eyes and move on.

For example, there is a whole lot of evidence that there was a huge flood around the Black Sea before Christ; yet nobody actually thinks a wooden ark would have survived to the present day, or more than a few hundred years. Similarly, a piece of fabric/temple veil will not have survived 2000 years, or even 1000 years. I'm also pretty sure you're wrong on the archeological evidence for the parts of historical Judaism you've cited, but maybe someone else wants to take that on.

You've set up some straw men here ("you haven't found a 2,000-year-old piece of fabric! So your religion must be false!") that just makes most readers roll their eyes and conclude you aren't too bright.

People don't "convert" others to atheism. It's not a religion.

And I really, really, doubt that Muslims are posting here. That's paranoia.

Pointing out inconsistencies and asking questions is the name of the game on a Religion Forum. That's what this is. It doesn't mean someone's a hater, not too bright, an atheist, a Muslim, or a troll. It means they are participating in a debate. Respond or just move on to the Gardening Forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there is such a thing as a sanctuary veil, you can bet archeologists have looked for it -- and not found it -- or it would be big news. They also looked for and didn't find any evidence that the red sea parted, no evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt, no signs of anyone living in the desert and lots of evidence of early jews being in Israel during that time, no Noah's ark, no mount Sinai (they just named a mountain that much later) Moses supposedly broke the rock the 10 commandments were written on (very convenient) and there were no signs of any walls around the city of Jericho.

These are stories.

I'm curious: do you think you've converted a single person to atheism (or islam, if you're Muslim Woman) with this approach?

A major problem with your approach (besides the off-putting aggression) is that you aren't the greatest historian. So people roll their eyes and move on.

For example, there is a whole lot of evidence that there was a huge flood around the Black Sea before Christ; yet nobody actually thinks a wooden ark would have survived to the present day, or more than a few hundred years. Similarly, a piece of fabric/temple veil will not have survived 2000 years, or even 1000 years. I'm also pretty sure you're wrong on the archeological evidence for the parts of historical Judaism you've cited, but maybe someone else wants to take that on.

You've set up some straw men here ("you haven't found a 2,000-year-old piece of fabric! So your religion must be false!") that just makes most readers roll their eyes and conclude you aren't too bright.

People don't "convert" others to atheism. It's not a religion.

And I really, really, doubt that Muslims are posting here. That's paranoia.

Pointing out inconsistencies and asking questions is the name of the game on a Religion Forum. That's what this is. It doesn't mean someone's a hater, not too bright, an atheist, a Muslim, or a troll. It means they are participating in a debate. Respond or just move on to the Gardening Forum.

Oh yes indeedy, atheists proselytize with the best of them, it's like the continued existence of believers drives some of you crazy. You're only fooling yourself if you deny this. Also, how have you managed to miss self-identified "Muslim Woman" here, and her many scourges of other peoples' (non-Islamic) religions? Pointing these things out doesn't make anybody paranoid, it makes them grounded in reality.

You're ignoring the point, which is that you've set up some fairly ridiculous straw men: "prove your religion by showing me a piece of fabric that's 2,000 years old!" Instead, you try to turn into calling others paranoid, but it can't hide the basic silliness of what you were criticized for.

[Anonymous]

^^^ instead! you try to deflect with ad hominems like calling others paranoid, but....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, as Bonhoffer said, "A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol."

nice way to get an invisible god off the hook. Yet there are believers who take comfort in thinking that there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and Jesus's return from the dead. Funny - no-one talks about the many others who supposedly came out of the grave when Jesus dies on the cross. What happened to them? did they keep walking around and go back to their old lives? You'd think there'd be some witnesses to that. Did they crawl back into their graves? Given that there were so many of them, there could be evidence of quite a few stones overturned. Nothing -- no one's even looked for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If there is such a thing as a sanctuary veil, you can bet archeologists have looked for it -- and not found it -- or it would be big news. They also looked for and didn't find any evidence that the red sea parted, no evidence for Jews being enslaved in Egypt, no signs of anyone living in the desert and lots of evidence of early jews being in Israel during that time, no Noah's ark, no mount Sinai (they just named a mountain that much later) Moses supposedly broke the rock the 10 commandments were written on (very convenient) and there were no signs of any walls around the city of Jericho.

These are stories.

I'm curious: do you think you've converted a single person to atheism (or islam, if you're Muslim Woman) with this approach?

A major problem with your approach (besides the off-putting aggression) is that you aren't the greatest historian. So people roll their eyes and move on.

For example, there is a whole lot of evidence that there was a huge flood around the Black Sea before Christ; yet nobody actually thinks a wooden ark would have survived to the present day, or more than a few hundred years. Similarly, a piece of fabric/temple veil will not have survived 2000 years, or even 1000 years. I'm also pretty sure you're wrong on the archeological evidence for the parts of historical Judaism you've cited, but maybe someone else wants to take that on.

You've set up some straw men here ("you haven't found a 2,000-year-old piece of fabric! So your religion must be false!") that just makes most readers roll their eyes and conclude you aren't too bright.

Pretty sure I'm wrong? -- just look it up yourself -- it's quite easy to find that there's no evidence for the exodus -- it's been written about by Jewish archeologists and biblical scholars. I'll make it easy for you. Here's a start: http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Ancient/dp/0684869136
and this http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html and this http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/29/arts/bible-history-flunks-new-archaeological-tests-hotly-debated-studies-cast-doubt.html

Let me saying advance, that I don't expect evidence to sway some people, who will use something like "eyewitness accounts" as long as it suits their needs and fall back on 'faith' when scientific evidence refutes what they think they know.

[Anonymous]

You might ask -- if this research was published 14 years ago, why are you just hearing about it now? Well, it was in the NY Times, after all, but sometimes unpopular news doesn't get spread around that much.

It's the kind of thing your local pastor might know, but might figure wouldn't be a popular subject for a sermon.

The bad news on prayer (if you're a believer) was reported in the NY Times as well, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 but was largely ignored after that. You can bet it would still be talked about in churches around the world if the scientific research on prayer had come out showing that it worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just remember, as Bonhoffer said, "A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol."

nice way to get an invisible god off the hook. Yet there are believers who take comfort in thinking that there were eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and Jesus's return from the dead. Funny - no-one talks about the many others who supposedly came out of the grave when Jesus dies on the cross. What happened to them? did they keep walking around and go back to their old lives? You'd think there'd be some witnesses to that. Did they crawl back into their graves? Given that there were so many of them, there could be evidence of quite a few stones overturned. Nothing -- no one's even looked for it.

You think it's "letting an invisible god off the hook." I think it's precisely what ensures that we have free will. Think about the alternative. If God showed up periodically to parade her existence, or to smite people each time someone behaved badly, then there would be no role for choice and free will in our actions. We'd simply be obedient robots. I don't believe God wants obedient robots any more than we'd find that a fulfilling existence.