Hey guys,
Quick recap of my life. I grew up Evangelical. I was heavily involved in apologetics. In college I converted to Catholicism after realizing the Catholics showed up pretty early in Christian history...and Evangelicals were pretty late. I abandoned the project of apologetics and settled for theology. I also abandoned ID for evolution. I allegorized much of the Old Testament to get around the hard bits. I adopted universalism to solve the problem of eternal suffering (via some early Christians like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa and modern ones like David Bentley Hart). I also agreed with most NT scholarship on how the NT authors sometimes lied about their identity or how the events actually went down. Basically here I am in my 20s and I have a ton of knowledge of Christian theology and feel pretty secure in my beliefs. I arrogantly see myself sometimes as being a jedi-Christian with a super-nuanced view of what Christian teaching actually is. I look down on silly atheists who basically think they've disproven Christianity because they realized there's mistakes in the Bible. I always told myself that the atheists are basically ex-fundi Christians who never learned about Divine Simplicity (and hence believe in a sort of pagan Christian god) or never learned about a proper theology of the inspiration of scripture (and hence believe the Spirit actually teaches us through scripture that the big bang is a lie or that God likes to kill Canaanite babies).
But then the other day I did some brushing up on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. And something bothered me. For the first time in my life, I saw that Jesus *might* not have raised from the dead. Like I saw it only as a possibility. I rated it at like a 1-5% chance when I played it out in my head.
Then I realized something. If I knew of a natural explanation of where the first Christians got their ideas from, why wouldn't it be rational to believe that over a supernatural explanation?
Now I'm terrified. I'm invested so much of my life into Christian theology, apologetics, fighting atheism, etc. I always thought most atheists suck at arguing against Christians too because I always knew of better arguments against Christianity than they. But now I think I beat myself at my own game. My faith has been slowly falling away. I've cursed out God because I sometimes think He's abandoning me. I'm terrified I'm making a mistake.
Anyways, I'm finished spilling my guts. Looking forward to hearing from atheists on this site. Be easy on me. I've been a closet agnostic for a few days now.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
To be completely honest with you, after 30+ years researching the Bible by actually traveling to those places, I found there is no evidence Jesus ever existed. The only evidence I ever saw was a document written by Josephus that only mentions the creation of a cult centered around a person named Yeshua (Jesus).
Searching for knowledge is what it is to be human instead of a robot that is force fed data. There is no shame in being self-taught, searching for knowledge and learning. The only shame is not searching in the first place.
rmfr
@arakish
There are several outside-the-gospel sources that mention Jesus. Here is are a few articles: https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-chr...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/j...
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-out...
You are right that there is no shame in learning things for yourself, but it is also wise to seek the input of experts devoted their field of study. I am certain you believe the planet Neptune exists even though you didn't dig for evidence of it. :)
@mailman
There is not a single (known) contemporary source for the character of Jesus, despite what the apologists say. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or is foolishly repeating the lies of others.
When attempting the verify the if historical figures existed or not, contemporary sources are not required. Historians agree on this. I presume you believe Alexander the Great was an actual person? Are you aware the earliest accounts of his life appear 300 years after his death? Should we discount him as a historical figure?
I strongly recommend watching the following video: It gets at some of what you talk about above. I would love to hear your thoughts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
In addition, the book of James (Jesus' half brother) talks about Jesus. He did not write the book while Jesus was on earth, but writing it years after Jesus was on earth does not discount its witness to Jesus being an actual person.
What is funny is when I tell apologists there is no contemporary source for Jesus, they often reply (almost by reflex) that there is no contemporary source for person X either.
EVERY single time, the person they claim has no contemporary sources, has contemporary sources. Almost like they just don't give a damn about the truth of what they are saying, so long as they think it defends their mythology. Last time it was Hannibal, this time it is Alexander. I wonder who will be next?
Nyarlathotep - If you can point me to contemporary sources for Alexander the Great, I will retract my comment. Sources are excellent ways to validate ideas and refine our thinking - something which members of this group I am sure appreciate. Please give me some sources and I will read them.
My main point is that contemporary sources are not needed to validate if historical figures existed or not.
I am trying to give information to encourage healthy debate in the hopes that my presented information will be refuted with other good information. Instead I am finding that many people are hanging onto their beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. Isn't this what you accuse Christians of?
This is a serious question of mine: Is my approach wrong?
@ Mailamn
We have heard this nonsense before. Not only is there physical evidence by the way of archeology for Alexanders existence, his enemies wrote a lot about him, in addition there coins, pottery and other contemporaneous items that confirm his existence.
The same cannot be said for jesus (the christ) or any of the writers of the gospels.
.
"My main point is that contemporary sources are not needed to validate if historical figures existed or not.
and the point you are missing is that the Romans were great record keepers, yet until the early part of the Second Century CE there is not one mention of the Jesus as described in the gospels. Not one, not a skerrick. No one wrote about the darkness at the resurrection, no one wrote about the Rabbis coming back to life and wandering around Jerusalem. Not one reference, Yet we do know that a roman soldier was very pissed off with the repair job done on his boots and being stationed in Judea.
The silence on jesus is deafening. So yes, your approach is very much in error.
Babylonian astronomers (although I would call them astrologers) in the temple of Marduk in Babylon kept a daily diary of their observations of the sky and local events (which of course they thought were connected). As such they recorded the death of Alexander the Great in that diary, when he died locally.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@mailman
"This is a serious question of mine: Is my approach wrong?"
Yes
When you are challenged to provide proof for your assertion(s), you do not. Instead you go off on a tangent of delay and avoidance. If you come in here with a claim, be prepared to back it up. Saying "so-and-so did too" is not proof.
mailman,
"In addition, the book of James (Jesus' half brother) talks about Jesus. He did not write the book while Jesus was on earth, but writing it years after Jesus was on earth does not discount its witness to Jesus being an actual person."
You are embarrassing yourself. Learn actual history instead of silly ancient fairy tales. There were no "J" words in English, such as James & Jesus, until the 17th Century. https://www.etymonline.com/word/j
The character known as Jesus didn't get that name until 1632. So if such a person as depicted in the NT existed 2,000 years ago his name was not Jesus and his brother's name was not James.
Are you Retarded? The Gospel of James was written in AD 145. NO BROTHER OF JESUS WROTE IT.
mailman,
Jesus Died in 33. If James was 2 years old at the time of his brother's death, he would have been 114 years old when he wrote the frigging book. (Talk about embarrassing yourself..... sheeeesh!)
THERE ARE NO (NO) WITNESSES TO THE LIFE OF JESUS. (NONE!)
Learn Actual history and stop embarrassing yourself.
mailman Yes, but there’s no non-biblical evidence that he actually did the things that the NT says that he did, now is there?
@ Mailman.
There is not one independent contemporary reference to a Jesus or a christ figure as described in the gospels. Not. One.
Putting links to apologist propaganda sites is just ridiculous.
Take off your bible glasses and start really looking for evidence...you will, come up, in the end with nothing, exactly the same as every serious scholar.
Sheesh.
See the comment above this one regarding contemporary sources.
Please read past the domain names. I gave evidence but you didn't read it. I could have found secular sources also, but this was easier. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucian and The Babylonian Talmud are not apologists. They do not go into detail like the gospels but they do attest to a man named Jesus.
@ Mailman
And there you go. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Typical half assed apologist. Trotting out tired and inaccurate references.
1> Tacitus, writing some 40 - 60 years after the events refers only to the beliefs of the jewish christians in Rome blamed for the Great Fire in 60CE.
2> Josephus makes only one direct reference to "jesus" and that is a late 3rd century interpolation, aka fraud. Neither is it contemporary. The other reference is to James at the Jerusalem Temple. Scholars are still debating which Jesus is referred to, also the phrase brother 'in' christ or brother 'of christ' Again Josephus was writing many years after the events. Not contemporary.
3> Pliny was writing in 112 CE...hardly contemporary and was writing about the legal status of christians, he didn't mention a physical Jesus or christ.
4>Lucian: You are joking aren't you? I quote: "Lucian's statement was written near 170 CE (about 140 years after the crucifixion), and Lucian himself was born in 125 CE (about 95 years after the crucifixion). It seems rather unlikely that Lucian was an eyewitness."
5> Babylonian Talmud a 3rd century CE (at the earliest) document that parodies the gospel stories and christianity in general. Not contemporary and contradicts most of the gospel narratives.
What your comment proves is that you have neither read or made the effort to research anything to do with your religion, but exist on a diet of shit Youtube videos from apologists and your own fantasy.
Once again I state there are NO contemporary references to a jesus as described in the gospels.
Old man shouts...
Many of your issues with contemporary sources are addressed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Please watch it with an open mind and I would love to debate it with you.
@ Mailman
Debate away....I prefer the sources of scholars to youtube apologist videos.
What you think you can debate when I clearly stated contemporary independent sources and you came up with none is fascinating.
I will clarify my position, I would love to find some evidence of this Jesus but I am not in the business of making stuff up or wishful thinking.
Okay...After watching the Gary Habermas video, what specifically do you disagree with? (I am sure you saw that he is using scholarly sources in his talk.)
@Mailman
If I wanted to debate a video I would make one. I am not debating Habermas and his error strewn apologetics. You asked me to debate you. Tell me your opinions, dont link to third party, show me your research.
What you are trying is a circuitous and dishonest appeal to authority.
Now, I have established to my satisfaction that there are no contemporary writings or evidence for the jesus figure as described in the gospels. How do you refute that?
@ Old Man
I agree with you. I ain't listening to some stupid idiotic apologists for more than 5 minutes. 10 minutes at most. If those retards can't sum it up any faster... well, I'd get up and walk out. Got better things to do.
BTW: I only saw about three seconds which was long enough to see it was well over an hour long.
rmfr
@ arakish
The show( I will call it that) was very long on showmanship and oratorical tricks, very short on actual information and the sources he quotes are in the main apologetics of a similar ilk. This show was designed for students entering college for the first time and obviously designed to counter some of the obvious absences of evidence that they will encounter in the real world.
It is apologetics at its very finest with no real substance to the oratory.
In short, you missed nothing my friend. Like our friend Mailman I doubt if any apologist student will bother to actually read the content of Pliny, Tacitus, et al in English, never mind the original, but just hurl the names about like a protective spell against the daemon truth.
That's the problem with youtube education...it isn't! The algorithms just feed you more and more of the same stuff, feeding the confirmation bias and stifling any impulse for original research. Youtube is useful but not when its purpose (to feed advertisers and thus Google) is not understood.
@ Old Man
I have to disagree that YouTube ain't no education. Aron Ra is a very excellent educational orator. So is Paulogia. I keep learning from those two the most. There are many others, but they are in my sciences listing and would be boring to anyone but me. Actually not just me. But I doubt anyone here would find them fascinating.
However, I will agree, using JUST YouTube ain't going to get you much. It will give you some knowledge, but it damn sure ain't going to give you an MSc or ScD.
Youtube is useful but not when its purpose (to feed advertisers and thus Google) is not understood.
And that is why I told AUS-LGBT I use Bing instead of Google. The only thing Google I use is Google Earth Pro with Geo Plug-In and YouTube. Otherwise I don't use Google because of their "pay for position" listing algorithm where Bing uses "relevance" listing. Thus, I can find things faster with Bing than I ever can with Google.
rmfr
Bing and Google both use a complicated scheme for placing ads above search results, and they both are a function of how much money you pay:
Yes there are ads in Bing searches. However, once past the ads is what I am talking about. Google still uses the "pay for position" listing for your search. Bing uses a "relevance" listing for your search.
Yes, they both have ad revenues, but what I was specifically talking about is the search results. Google is still "pay for position".
rmfr
If I told you the earth is flat and you presented to me all types of evidence for a round earth (which you would have to get from other sources) could I discount it since you don't have any of YOUR research?
If that is how you see things, we are at an impasse and there is no point in going further. I am not an expert in historical documents, which is why I do need to appeal to other, higher authority, sources, and I freely admit this. If we can get past this, then I will continue on this thread. Have a nice night everyone.
@ mailman
I do not need historical documents, nor your Bible to completely trash and destroy your philosophical beliefs. Can you do the same without your Bible?
rmfr
EDIT: Just wait until Tin-Man finds you. Then you are really in trouble...
@arakish,
I am trying to present you (and others) information from outside the Bible about Jesus actually existing, but no one on this forum will watch the video. Watch this video and let me know your thoughts. Please be specific with your critique and please don't say broad statements like, "he is wrong" or "he is just a crazy guy". That is not a good argument for debating anything.
Here is the link one more time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
Cheers.
@ Mailman
I was veryu specific having read all the supposed sources you supplied...unlike yourself by the way you carry on here. I refuted every one and gave you the reasons why.
If you cannot think for yourself and stop parroting youtube apologists then you will fail, look it up. Learn come to a conclusion independent of the apologists. Sort truth from lies and wishful thinking.
I will debate YOU not a third party. Tell me what you believe, tell the sources YOU think are valid and contemporary.
@ mailman
First if MUST be 10 minutes or less. Most of the atheists I watch on YouTube make their point in 5 to 10 minutes. Sometimes, depending upon if they are debunking another video that long, then their videos will be longer. But most, like Godless Cranium, makes his point in less than 10 minutes. If I click that link and it is even one second over 10 minutes, I shall not watch it. You are probably trying to get me to watch an apologetic video. I cannot handle any such video longer than 10 minutes without literally getting physically sick. Sometimes violently.
Also remember this. I have been an Atheist my entire life. Even at three years age when me mom used the Bible to teach me to read, even then I saw it as nothing more than faerie tales. Additionally, I am also an Anti-Theist. And an Anti-Religionist. When I was 13, Age of Minority in me dad's traditions, I was able to choose whether or not I wanted to keep going to church. Hell No! I wanted to stay home and watch the "science" shows me dad watched and read his "science" magazines he collected. I even asked me dad one Sunday while I was home with as to why I could not believe the Bible or its religion. He said the most perfect answer, "You're mind and brain are like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute."
And there are some persons who are literally born with a mind and brain that is exactly like a computer. That also explained why I have such hard time understanding "humor." Ever watch Star Trek: The Next Generation? Well, Data was my favoritest character. Ever watch Star Trek: The Original Series? I am old enough that I was watching it as a kid when originally aired on TV. And Spock was my greatest hero. Logic, reasoning, rationality. That is how my thinks.
Additionally, in my many, many decades, I have since learned the concept of humor. Ask anyone here, they'll tell you about all the jokes they never laughed at.
Anyway, if any video yu link to is NOT ≤9:59, I ain't watching it. Period.
rmfr
@ mailman
Same damned video 1½ hours long. See this is why I do not like you Religious Absolutists. Generally, they are so stupid and retarded it takes them at minimum an hour to make their point.
I ain't watching a video that damned long spewing mind diarrhea from a Religious Absolutist Apologist.
BTW: Like Old Man, I read your web page links. However, I have no trust for anything written in them. Did you happen to notice the authors were apologists as well as the web sites? Religious apologist web sites and authors are the most disreputable sources for information. Next time, do better
rmfr
Pages