Christ is Risen

[byco42]

I don't blame you. I'd believe this, too. The problem is that all of these reasons are bible based. None of them come from actual recorded history. There are accounts of Jesus many decades after his death from people who weren't even alive when he supposedly lived, but that's not the point.

The people who recorded these accounts were real. Jesus' life is chronicled in recorded history. Many scholars of antiquity affirm that. His encounter with Pontius Pilate is one example. The apostles lived; they witnessed and they died. Most of them martyred for believing. That's all recorded history. So why can't what they wrote themselves be considered as recorded history? I do.

I'd also suggest the author look back at how Christianity was actually spread. It took nearly 300 years to become more than a local religion.

Local to what? Isreal? Christianity spread in areas throughout the Mediterranean in spite of the Roman Persecutions by 325. The author is a Catholic priest so I think he has a firm idea on how Christianity spread.

 

[Michchamp]

The people who recorded these accounts were real. Jesus' life is chronicled in recorded history. Many scholars of antiquity affirm that. His encounter with Pontius Pilate is one example. The apostles lived; they witnessed and they died. Most of them martyred for believing. That's all recorded history. So why can't what they wrote themselves be considered as recorded history? I do.

...

Personally, I don't consider these sources (and the Church authorities that have collected, interpreted, translated & curated these sources over the intervening 2,000 years) to be credible, unbiased, and impartial observers and recorders of the events.

 

[jdeb]

the only proof that Jesus existed as the Son of God is contained within the four Gospels in the Bible ( New Testament). Simply, it is up to individuals to believe he existed and exists within themselves today. to argue this in this particular format is a waste of time as its faith based.

 

[byco42]

the only proof that Jesus existed as the Son of God is contained within the four Gospels in the Bible ( New Testament). Simply, it is up to individuals to believe he existed and exists within themselves today. to argue this in this particular format is a waste of time as its faith based.

If you read the OT there is a lot of typology that forecasts the existence of Jesus.

 

[Thumb]

I don't think anyone is debating the fact that Jesus actually existed. It's clear he did and had a great deal of influence over people, and was crucified. Now whether or not he rose from the dead, or was the son of god is another matter.

 

[Thumb]

Personally, I don't consider these sources (and the Church authorities that have collected, interpreted, translated & curated these sources over the intervening 2,000 years) to be credible, unbiased, and impartial observers and recorders of the events.

Exactly. It sure would be nice to see some of the rough drafts of the bible/gospels, before the scholars and translators got their hands on them, each adding their own interpretations.

I have had debates with people, and ever read people here (KAWDUP I believe) say that the actual text of the bible does not always mean what it says literally. So how could anyone accept that as a historical document any more than 'Huckleberry Finn' could be considered one?

 

[Monster]

The people who recorded these accounts were real. Jesus' life is chronicled in recorded history. Many scholars of antiquity affirm that. His encounter with Pontius Pilate is one example. The apostles lived; they witnessed and they died. Most of them martyred for believing. That's all recorded history. So why can't what they wrote themselves be considered as recorded history? I do.



Local to what? Isreal? Christianity spread in areas throughout the Mediterranean in spite of the Roman Persecutions by 325. The author is a Catholic priest so I think he has a firm idea on how Christianity spread.

I had written something here that was long and well thought out, but I'm done. I can't keep arguing with someone who has already made a decision on what to believe and no amount of argument or evidence could change that.

Maybe I am stubborn and I hate being wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't have an open mind. If there was actual evidence provided I'd probably be on your side. Until that time, which will never come, I remain skeptical.

I hope your belief gives you peace until the day you die. That's the one positive I see in your religion.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So how could anyone accept that as a historical document any more than 'Huckleberry Finn' could be considered one?

Judgement. Reason. For those of us that only sink typical amounts of time into theological study, a lot of guessing and assuming. A lot of interpreting. Trying to figure out what what said by who and why and who changed what through the year is a bigger topic than anyone could tackle in a lifetime. Authorities disagree.

I'll go farther than to just say some things aren't to be taken literally. I believe there are translation mistakes...actual things that are wrong with my version of the Bible. That doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I seem to remember some study showing the Encyclopedia Britannica had about as many errors as Wikipedia; the point being, those things are still useful, even if they aren't batting 1.000.

Of course, faith is involved, but I don't believe the Bible was written so that you have to be a scholar to find truth if you're reading with a open mind...and that goes both ways, not just open to divinity. Taking it "literally" (even though people that claim to take it literally still only do so selectively, just a different selection from others) and rejecting science and all that isn't the intent either. The sweet spot is in the middle.

 

[byco42]

Personally, I don't consider these sources (and the Church authorities that have collected, interpreted, translated & curated these sources over the intervening 2,000 years) to be credible, unbiased, and impartial observers and recorders of the events.

That's your own bias talking, not theirs.

 

[byco42]

I had written something here that was long and well thought out, but I'm done. I can't keep arguing with someone who has already made a decision on what to believe and no amount of argument or evidence could change that.

You've only provided your opinion. I was where you are now years ago. My transformation was neither sudden nor arbitrary.

Maybe I am stubborn and I hate being wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't have an open mind. If there was actual evidence provided I'd probably be on your side. Until that time, which will never come, I remain skeptical.

There more available evidence than you can possibly imagine. You are simply not acknowledging it.

I hope your belief gives you peace until the day you die. That's the one positive I see in your religion.

That's not why I believe.

 

[Gulo Blue]

COSMOS got under my skin a little again last night. Dragged the talking point of Christmas being a re-purposed Saturnalia into a discussion of lead, and I really don't see the tie to science or science history. It goes beyond atheism, they're anti-theist. ...and I'm not even saying anti-theists get under my skin, it's just when they cloak their views in science. It's no better than the intellectual designers trying to reappropriate science to support theism.

 

[Thumb]

I'll go farther than to just say some things aren't to be taken literally. I believe there are translation mistakes...actual things that are wrong with my version of the Bible. That doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And yet many things from the bible are taken to be black and white, no grey area, no middle ground.

Any number of things that religious people hold dear, could be mistakes made from mistranslation or just popular opinion of the time it was translated.

What if Eve wasn't the one who made the original sin? What if Moses didn't part the red sea? What if Mary wasn't really a virgin? What of god really doesn't care if gay people get married?

 

[Gulo Blue]

And yet many things from the bible are taken to be black and white, no grey area, no middle ground.

Any number of things that religious people hold dear, could be mistakes made from mistranslation or just popular opinion of the time it was translated.

What if Eve wasn't the one who made the original sin? What if Moses didn't part the red sea? What if Mary wasn't really a virgin? What of god really doesn't care if gay people get married?

Yeah, what if? What do you do with a few millennia of divine inspiration combined with a few more millenia of human errors? A lot of your reaction comes down to whether or not you believe there's divine inspiration behind it all. If yes, then it's probably safe to assume that the divine intent is still there and can be learned in spite of human error. If not, it's still a fascinating document containing ideas humanity has treasured for an incredibly long time.

 

[Monster]

What if Eve wasn't the one who made the original sin? What if Moses didn't part the red sea? What if Mary wasn't really a virgin? What of god really doesn't care if gay people get married?

Anarchy.

 

[byco42]

COSMOS got under my skin a little again last night. Dragged the talking point of Christmas being a re-purposed Saturnalia into a discussion of lead, and I really don't see the tie to science or science history. It goes beyond atheism, they're anti-theist. ...and I'm not even saying anti-theists get under my skin, it's just when they cloak their views in science. It's no better than the intellectual designers trying to reappropriate science to support theism.

COSMOS is about "look what we discovered, aren't we amazing!" No, we're not, because we did not make it in the first place.

 

[Gulo Blue]

COSMOS is about "look what we discovered, aren't we amazing!" No, we're not, because we did not make it in the first place.

I'd be happy with it if all they said was "look what we discovered, aren't we amazing!" But they go further. I think there's a clear anti-religion thread through it that goes beyond just an agnostic or atheist telling of science history.

It also bugs me that the writers and producers put their names in the opening credits 3 or 4 times.

 

[byco42]

I'd be happy with it if all they said was "look what we discovered, aren't we amazing!" But they go further. I think there's a clear anti-religion thread through it that goes beyond just an agnostic or atheist telling of science history.

The whole premise, IMO, is to disprove God's existence.

It also bugs me that the writers and producers put their names in the opening credits 3 or 4 times.

Because it's all about them. The hubris meter needle is bent at 90 degrees.

 

[Monster]

COSMOS is about "look what we discovered, aren't we amazing!" No, we're not, because we did not make it in the first place.

What? So, because you believe in God, all of science's discoveries are bullshit? Or is it because the more you learn about science, the less likely it is that your faith is well placed?

The show doesn't seek to destroy religion, only to explore the Universe and explain in an uncomplicated way about why we are here and how it came to happen. Not based on belief or faith, but actual experimentation and observable facts. There are a bit of educated guessing that goes into certain fields, but they are educated guesses. Not based off of some book from 2,000+ years ago full of symbolism and outright baloney.

This is what I said in my last (was supposed to be my last) response to you. You are completely blinded by your faith and can not make clear headed decisions when it comes to thinks like this. I, and several others on this board, just ask for some shred of evidence for what you say. That is science. It's not a religion. It's an actual path toward knowledge.

The more you deny things that are accepted by the most educated men and women in the world, the deeper you fall into ignorance. Show us some proof. Give us something that says, "You're so wrong and this is why". I am not swayed by some God who created us to be imperfect and then punishes us for being imperfect. I'm not swayed by some God who thinks it's cool to end the world every time his imperfect creations are too imperfect. I mean, the Christian God is all knowing. He knows everything that has ever happened, is happening now, and will happen. So why not create us a little less imperfect and know that it will turn out better?

I forget who actually had the original comment about Cosmos, but what is the problem with it? Christmas stole a lot of traditions from different religious holidays. Maybe not the Christian religious part of Christmas, but the traditions; The Tree, the gifts, Santa, etc. I don't think anyone can actually dispute that.

 

[Monster]

I just don't understand why religious people get so upset when I ask for proof. It's like they're offended at the simple concept of asking for proof. Gee, maybe I should live my life according to what some God says I should despite not having any evidence that he or she is real. If you want to be ignorant enough to do that, I'd like to introduce you to my favorite deity, The Noodly FSM. R'Amen.

 

[Monster]

I'd be happy with it if all they said was "look what we discovered, aren't we amazing!" But they go further. I think there's a clear anti-religion thread through it that goes beyond just an agnostic or atheist telling of science history.

It also bugs me that the writers and producers put their names in the opening credits 3 or 4 times.

Well, if the writers and producers have 3 or 4 roles in making the show...

It's just like any other show or movie. YOu get credit for every job you have.

I don't see where you're seeing the idea that the show is anti-religion. They do challenge some Christian beliefs like the universe being 6,000 years old and being the center of the universe, but I don't see any obvious anti-religion content. Tune into Fox News whenever they have atheists on. They're treated like scum and any time they make an actual point, they have a catholic priest and a jewish rabbi to tag team him/her. Do you get offended by that, too?