There is no proof that Jesus existed. . . . sorry

[neo of the mind]

When I was in school, I was told that a hypocrite was someone who told you not do something but did it himself anyway. A hypocrite functioned under the “do as I say NOT as I do” philosophy. Jesus is said to have condemned the Pharisees for being hypocrites. Hypocrites practice hypocrisy. I was taught this was one of the Earth’s lower moral life forms.
see who's at the top http://whotohate.com/:sorry:

Don't know who you are talking about, if anyone in particular or what your point is in regards to this thread. You need to be a little more clear on that. If your just on a general hypocrisy rant, http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showpost.php?p=847063&postcount=3, which appears so, create a new thread.

[Cedars]

The Trinity makes Jesus, the SON of God.

God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus is not God but part of the Trinity that makes up God. ...
I am utterly shocked by this statement of yours, sub_zero. Jesus IS God. Have you no understanding of the Trinity? If you can believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- how can you turn around and deny the second (and I suspect the third also) part of that statement?!! The Father is God. The Son (and therefore Jesus) is God. The Holy Spirit is God. They are One in God, yes -- but each person of the Trinity IS God, too! They cannot be separated because they are One. As a Christian, you should not have any difficulty saying (or believing) that Jesus is God, and yet you do have difficulty. I am astonished that a fellow Christian would make such a statement. Your faith is confused, and your confusion shows in your proclaiming.

[Cedars]

...Jesus and the Father are one, nothing more needs to be said. The Pope indeed isn't very Biblical. And yes, he isn't being a very good Christian because of that.
The office of the Pope IS actually very biblical (Jesus gave the keys -- the Jewish custom of tending house while the master is away -- to Peter) which is more than I can say for the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"). This doctrine, as I have brought up many times in the past on these threads, was never believed until the Protestant Reformation when Martin Luther created it. No where in the Bible does it say that scripture is the sole authority.

It is interesting that many people today try to interpret the Bible in modern terms -- and while even in modern terms certain ideas and history can be understood, they fail to understand the ancient Jewish audience and their culture and tradition at the time. Some of the meaning gets lost when only applied in modern terms and modern culture. Also, the Bible was not available to the general public until many, many centuries later. Before the printing press, Bibles were hand written and therefore extremely expensive. And the majority of people were illiterate so they couldn't read the Bible anyway. Too, the Bible wasn't even canonized until the fourth century -- so what do you think people did before then? Bibles were rare and not many could read them anyway. Again, What do you think they did back then? The Word spread orally -- yes, ORALLY. I will show you:

"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27)

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:15)

[Cedars]

Oh, and I forgot to add: There is nothing wrong with the Pope's NOT taking a literal interpretation of scripture with regard to the creation. Where in scripture are we commanded to do just that?

[Cedars]

There is no proof that Jesus existed. It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence. Although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable.

The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated. Even if they could they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the auspices of the Church. (Not all of the gospels were approved). Eventually they were translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more attenuated, being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James Version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to argue the question.

For the same reason, it is debatable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later writer. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia. He would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53.

The proof (or disproof) of an asserted fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be prone to proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere.

The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the numerous texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth.
I wonder if 2000 years from now there will be proof that YOU existed!

Seriously, though, I have no doubt that Jesus will be known 2000 years from now. The truth of the matter is that if one adamantly refuses to believe something, one will adamantly refuse to believe anything that corroborates it. To me, it makes no difference whether the Apostles themselves wrote the books of the N.T. or whether others did. The point is that the witness to Christ is in the N.T. "The Gospel According to Matthew," or Mark, or Luke, or John. Does something have to be written down to be True? Does something have to be written down in order to have actually happened? If one constantly looks for roadblocks not to believe, then one will surely find them. It is as simple as that. Does your logic tell you that Christianity cannot be true unless you have data sufficient to your satisfaction? (It shouldn't; that would be illogical -- it might not convince you, yet, of course; that is logical.) Or is it possible that something can be True even if you do not have the pat answers you seek in order to support it? (To deny this would be illogical.) The point I am trying to make is this: the early Church was a small group of people that grew and grew. Christianity first spread by witnesses relating what they had seen. Letters eventually had to be written to reach others more distant. The authors of the gospels were perhaps encouraged or themselves felt compelled to write accounts of Jesus. Does it matter if an Apostle or another disciple wrote a book of the Bible? What matters is the telling.

[sub_zer0]

Oh, and I forgot to add: There is nothing wrong with the Pope's NOT taking a literal interpretation of scripture with regard to the creation. Where in scripture are we commanded to do just that?

Ummm when Jesus said creation not evolution.

[Atticus]

Ummm when Jesus said creation not evolution.Where is that? When did the subject of evolution come up?

[neo of the mind]

Regardless if we want to look at parts of the Genesis account as figuartive and that would explain that the "creation" was accompished via evolution...there is still the "order" of said process.

Genesis 1 has birds coming into existence during or after water life but before land animals. Would that fall under the evolutionary order of events?

If birds evolved from dinosaurs on land, then the order of events would not mesh.

[brainpan]

If birds evolved from dinosaurs on land, then the order of events would not mesh.What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs?

[neo of the mind]

What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs?

I wasn't talking about the Bible with that comment but current scientific theory.

[brainpan]

It makes no sense to introduce dinosaurs into the debate if the Bible failed to mention them.

[Cedars]

Ummm when Jesus said creation not evolution.
You and I are not debating that God created the world. We both agree that God did create the world. What I am asking is, Where in scripture are we commanded to take a literal interpretation on creation or all of scripture? It is enough for us to know that God DID create the world -- and whether or not God's "day" equals one of ours is neither here nor there to the believer. There is nothing wrong with the Pope's NOT taking a literal interpretation of scripture with regard to the creation. We are not commanded in scripture to always take a literal interpretation of scripture. If you think I am in error, please identify where in scripture it says we must interpret scripture literally.

[neo of the mind]

It makes no sense to introduce dinosaurs into the debate if the Bible failed to mention them.

I'm not "introducing" them in for debate, you are. I made a simple observation as to the ORDER of events in Genesis, which is outside of the literal or figurative debate, that from what I know, does not coincide with the order of evolution. If you don't want to comment on that, then don't, but I am not going to derail the orginal question to get into a debate on whether or not dinosaurs are in the Bible or not. Create another thread for that.

[heel31ok]

You and I are not debating that God created the world. We both agree that God did create the world. What I am asking is, Where in scripture are we commanded to take a literal interpretation on creation or all of scripture? It is enough for us to know that God DID create the world -- and whether or not God's "day" equals one of ours is neither here nor there to the believer. There is nothing wrong with the Pope's NOT taking a literal interpretation of scripture with regard to the creation. We are not commanded in scripture to always take a literal interpretation of scripture. If you think I am in error, please identify where in scripture it says we must interpret scripture literally.

The argument against literal interpretation is not a correct one in that it is implied that all scripture is literally interpreted by a scant few fanatics . The fact is the command from scripture is to rightly divide the word of truth. To apply literal interpretation where it is warranted and to apply figurative in its proper place.The problem is that many use other beliefs and preconceptions to determine where to rightly divide.
The only problem I would have with the Pope not taking a literal view of creation is if it led to him promoting an unscriptural view created by the vacuum.If the view he takes or anyone takes cannot walk through the whole of scripture then it is not rightly divided and is in error. The validity of the literal view of creation comes from this ability to be supported wholly by scripture.Contrary to the views of the brilliant minds on this board, scripture is the best commentary on scripture.To use an old religious cliche, it has to line up with the Word of God.

[brainpan]

We can safely dispense with the following:"If birds evolved from dinosaurs on land, then the order of events would not mesh."
Despite denials, you brought it up. Now we can dismiss it.

[neo of the mind]

We can safely dispense with the following:"If birds evolved from dinosaurs on land, then the order of events would not mesh."
Despite denials, you brought it up. Now we can dismiss it.

Despite the "we" can dismiss comment, your the only one arguing over this. It was a secondary aspect to the idea I was conveying. It doesn't matter if I used the word dinosaur or land animals or not considering that evolution states that birds evolved from lifeforms on land and the order of events WAS THE CORE OF MY QUESTION.

You are just arguing for the sake of argument because you don't have any input on the actual question I raised. Stop wasting time and ignore the post if you don't have anything constructive to add to the coversation.

This will be my last response to your combative and irrelevant comments on the subject.

[brainpan]

That was dishonest, but OK.

[steveksux]

I'm not "introducing" them in for debate, you are. I made a simple observation as to the ORDER of events in Genesis, which is outside of the literal or figurative debate, .I don't get why the order of events would be excluded a priori from the literal or figurative debate. What's the rationale for that?

Randy

[neo of the mind]

I don't get why the order of events would be excluded a priori from the literal or figurative debate. What's the rationale for that?

Randy

hmm, good question, I guess that's up for debate. My rationale would be that God may have simplified the description of actions that were taken, but if he went through the trouble of breaking the process down into sectional steps, then I would think those steps would be in order. There would be no point of an order of events given if that order was not accurate, regardless if the events described were figurative.

In other words, simplyfying the details so that we could understand would not be lying but to give an order of those simplyfications would be in my mind. Since it is not in God's nature to lie, according to scripture, then his order of these events would have to be accurate.

[Cedars]

The argument against literal interpretation is not a correct one in that it is implied that all scripture is literally interpreted by a scant few fanatics . The fact is the command from scripture is to rightly divide the word of truth. To apply literal interpretation where it is warranted and to apply figurative in its proper place.The problem is that many use other beliefs and preconceptions to determine where to rightly divide.
The only problem I would have with the Pope not taking a literal view of creation is if it led to him promoting an unscriptural view created by the vacuum.If the view he takes or anyone takes cannot walk through the whole of scripture then it is not rightly divided and is in error. The validity of the literal view of creation comes from this ability to be supported wholly by scripture.Contrary to the views of the brilliant minds on this board, scripture is the best commentary on scripture.To use an old religious cliche, it has to line up with the Word of God.
Yes, to apply literal interpretation where it is warranted and to apply figurative in its proper place. But it seems that many would disagree on what is literal or what is figurative. My question to sub_zero essentially was, Whose authority says that the creation accounts (specifically) must be understood literally (and in our own modern terms)?