This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

achromat666's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by achromat666

Comment 17 by T. stillson

OK, well I would probably start with the fact that we do live some 2000 years removed from the time that Jesus was on the earth. The reason I say that is because any part of history, that we haven't actually seen with our own 2 eyes, must be taken by faith in the writings of those who did witness the event(s). For example, I never saw Napolean or Alexander the Great, and what they did or didn't do, with my own eyes, and neither did anyone that's alive today. But I choose to believe, or reject, for myself what history tells us about them.

I have actually spent quite a lot of time researching what secular writers, from the first century, had to say about Jesus. You'll find that Flavious Josephus (who was a Pharisee)mentions Jesus in the Anitquities of the jews, and that Jesus did wonderful works. I am aware of the people who say that those writings have been altered so I went elswhere too. Tacitus referred to "Christus" (Christ) in Tacitus: Annals Book 15 [44].,Pliny the Younger comments on the "Christians" who's name came from Christ.

None of this demonstrates what you're trying to prove. We can investigate the evidence for the people and events we weren't around to see and draw conclusions based on them. and none of this demonstrates that Christ was the son of a deity. Nothing in the statements from your link are evidence of either divinity or of the veracity of the NT. None of the people that are being quoted were there to witness any of the events when they were said to have happened, and the interpretations of the article writer are at best biased to belief through an already existing circular reasoning.

So, if we believe what even secular writers, people who, in their day were VERY much like the Richard Dawkins' of today, have to say regarding the existence of Jesus, then we can agree that He, at least, was a real person that lived. From there we can look at what is said about Jesus and the TRUE first century followers of Jesus. (notice the links above)....And what Jesus said about himself. I know, I know, you're saying, but what difference does it make if he says it about himself. The primary difference lies in what Jesus claimed about himself as compared to ANY other spiritual leader of all time. No one claimed to be the Son of God, no one healed people that were born blind, and no one ever healed anyone that had been crippled for 40 years. Jesus said.."John 14:11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen Me do." And.."John 15:24 "If I hadn't done such miraculous signs among them that no one else could do, they would not be guilty. But as it is, they have seen everything I did, yet they still hate Me and My Father". Either someone else could do what Jesus did , or they couldn't. What other spiritual leader has done, or even claimed to do, what He did ? I personally know of none.

So you're basing all of this on the words in the NT to establish that the NT is true because no other religious leaders have made the claims that are made in the NT? And you don't see the many problems with this reasoning?

It has been said many times: you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true. Quoting from the book doesn't suddenly reconcile all of the numerous issues of the life of Christ, which is different in detail from author to author when you go to each different 'disciple' in regards of what was supposed to have happened. And not a single miracle or event he performed is evidenced in any historical document outside of what is written in the bible.

As for the other spiritual leaders, what of the numerous deities that were being worshiped at the time that Christ is said to have lived? Mithras, Horus, and numerous others have the divine birth, resurrection and other details similar to Christ and most have been around significantly longer.

You haven't proven he did any of the things you or the bible claims, so to claim a victory for pointing out his claims proves nothing.

Jesus also rose from the dead after three days. I understand that that's a difficult thing for one to believe, but either He did or He didn't. We know where the bones of Muhammad are, where the ashes of Buddha are, where the bones of Confucious are and so, but the grave of Jesus is empty. Last but not least , is the question of who would willingly die for something they KNEW was a lie. I'm talking about the first century followers and the Apostles that knew Jesus personally and witnessed the miracles that God performed through Him and were killed by people who opposed them. It helps to understand the political atmosphere of the time. If Jesus isn't who He claimed to be, then we are still dead in our sins and have not been reconciled to God by his blood. Well, this is pretty long already and there's a lot more that could be said, so I'll leave it there for now. But feel free to ask anything you like. Thank you!!

Please give evidence for this. The statement either he did or didn't doesn't take explain away that you haven't proven that he lived or that he did any of the things the bible claims. No one has ever demonstrated proof that they have found the grave of Christ conclusively so the statement itself holds very little weight. If he lived it simply means his grave or bones haven't been found.

As for the apostles, we also have no evidence of the authors of the books being said apostles, or that the events in question took place. Even with the 'secular sources' mentioned at the beginning of all this no one has pointed to a specific biblical event or any of the specific followers in question.

You spend a great deal of time making assertions without proving anything. what is your evidence that Christ died and was ressurected exactly? What is your evidence that the people being quoted lived during Christ's lifetime and had anything other than heresay to base their statements on? What evidence do you have that the events of the old or new testament are grounded in actual events that verify the miracles in it?

You can't jump past these questions and expect to be taken seriously.

Tue, 22 May 2012 13:25:47 UTC | #942817