God vs. Science

[NAG2I]

Actually I don't know, care to post up what did change? Maybe then I could get a better picture of the old/new bible.

Also, tell me what changed after jesus got crucified. Because from what I know, things changed for the good, right? Do you know of any actual evidence of jesus christ ever existing? Or are you just following what the bible tells you?

ill try my best but those are some pretty big questions.
in the old testament for people to be forgiven of there sins they had to do sacrifices to be forgiven. there were different sacrifices for different sins, mostly it was sacrificing animals. and jesus being crucified was the ultimate sacrifice so people wouldn't have to have there own sacrifice every-time they sin. and yes there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence. many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.

[Maniac1]

ill try my best but those are some pretty big questions.
in the old testament for people to be forgiven of there sins they had to do sacrifices to be forgiven. there were different sacrifices for different sins, mostly it was sacrificing animals. and jesus being crucified was the ultimate sacrifice so people wouldn't have to have there own sacrifice every-time they sin. and yes there is a lot of historical evidence for his existence. many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.

Lol interesting...

[The12lber]

many historians wrote about him and included his name in there writings.

Only one historical writer I know of living in his time, Tacitus, wrote about him. That being said, Tacitus never actually met Jesus or anything of that sort. He just mentioned that some Jew named Jesus was causing trouble in Israel.

Tacitus knew that Jesus existed in the same sense Winston Smith knew Goldstein existed, basically. When you skim over archaelogical evidence you'll actually find that Israel was plagued by would be Messiahs at the time, and that the only thing that differentiates Christ from these others is he lucked out with a religion and the rest are doomed to obscurity.

[NAG2I]

Only one historical writer I know of living in his time, Tacitus, wrote about him. That being said, Tacitus never actually met Jesus or anything of that sort. He just mentioned that some Jew named Jesus was causing trouble in Israel.

Tacitus knew that Jesus existed in the same sense Winston Smith knew Goldstein existed, basically. When you skim over archaelogical evidence you'll actually find that Israel was plagued by would be Messiahs at the time, and that the only thing that differentiates Christ from these others is he lucked out with a religion and the rest are doomed to obscurity.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

[The12lber]

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Phlegon lived in the second century... in Greece.
All that is really known about Thallus himself is that he was wrote around the middle of the 1st century... in Greek.

So far so not so hot.



Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Not even remotely conclusive proof of anything... written 40 or so years after the fact?

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead.

Okay, we've got one guy. He's actually somewhat reputable. I don't know how far you're really going to get on the word of one historian who was born years after the death of Christ, didn't write until many more years after the death and wrote from half the known world away in Rome (or he might have gone on Campaign during the Massada siege, I can't remember), though.

Josephus is one of the better known historical authors, although in this case considering his time and place in history I'm uncertain of why he would write on such a thing. That said, this is doing a little better.

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." This isn't what we call reliable or evidence.

I'm not impressed. Josephus is a pretty credible source for the most part. That being said, when you look at the context of this particular situation, Its not so good.

The main problem with all of this business is, there's archaelogical evidence this good or better (not saying much) for tens of other messiahs. You're better off just concluding that its an article of faith and leaving it at that.

[NAG2I]

I'm not impressed. Josephus is a pretty credible source for the most part. That being said, when you look at the context of this particular situation, Its not so good.

thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.

[The12lber]

thats fine if your not impressed. i was just letting you know that more then one historian wrote about him.

The point of my comment wasn't that, though.

It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.

I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.

Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?

Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.

The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.

Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.

[NAG2I]

The point of my comment wasn't that, though.

It was the circumstances under which he wrote. I said that Tacitus knew that Jesus existed and caused trouble in the same manner that Winston Smith knew about Goldstein and his trouble making.

I'll explain the allusion. Tacitus didn't live in the Holy land. He didn't meet Jesus, see him crucified, meet anyone who met Jesus, etc. He just heard some Jew named Jesus was starting **** and mentioned it in one of his histories. Tacitus was basically writing hearsay, which isn't a big insult for a write of the time considering the way information was disseminated at the time. The point is, Tacitus has no concrete information on Jesus. None.

Winston Smith is the protagonist of 1984 and a citizen of Oceana. This guy called Goldstein is a symbol used by the state, everyone in Oceana knows who he is because the state (an intermediary) tells them about him. However, you find out later on in the book that Goldstein's actions are undoubtedly fabricated by the state and whether or not he even exists is quite ambiguous. Sound familiar?

Its the same situation with all of these sources. All are greatly removed from the event (and man) itself by time and physical remoteness. Some of these sources aren't definitively about Jesus at all. All of these writings that were actually about Jesus were basically written with no evidence in hand at all. There are no first hand accounts.

The conclusion you can draw. Its very likely someone named Jesus existed. Its also very likely all these other equally or better documented Messiahs existed. And that's all the more you can conclude from the archaelogical record.

Honestly, I am not even sure why the faithful are in here trying to refute scientific and historical contradictions to their faith. It is still mind boggling to me today that the faithful actively try to undermine our understanding of the natural world's workings. Why is it that because something can be explained with science (evolution etc) it is a threat to your faith? Just come to the conclusion that just because something can be explained doesn't mean it isn't the work of god. This is a logically sound position to hold. Stop wasting your time, believers. Science and the hypothetical existence of god don't logically contradict one another. That is all.

well there is no threat to my faith. i post the things i post either because someone asked a question or said something that was false about believers and the things they believe. i personally don't need all the scientific facts and archeological facts to prove the things i believe. but i do understand that some people cant wrap there head around it without them. and thats perfectly understandable. I was just trying to answer some questions and shed a little bit of truth. which seems like the same thing you are doing. so no wrong on either sides both just trying to show our opinions and thoughts about the topic.