Proving Jesus existed without the bible...

[Maddhattter]

LOL I'd forgotten about the god/man hybrid theory. I also wanted to keep it simple.

I’m not sure how… The predominant hypothesis on Jesus is the god/man hybrid hypothesis. In fact, I’d probably go so far as to say that if you don’t believe that Jesus is a divine being, as well as a man, you’re not really a christian without redefining the term.

Regarding the early church's violence, I agree with you if we're talking 500 AD up through the 1700s.

Actually, Constantine made christianity the state religion in Rome ~380CE. That’s when the government started enforcing the practicing of christiantiy to the public. Until that happened, christians were nothing more than small groups of believers, many going out of their way to attempt to earn martyrdom. The early church believed that suffering demonstrated both the piety of the martyr and the authenticity of the religion itself. An idea that is still seemingly held today, as your post above indicates. Let’s not forget that they believed martyrdom would get you to heaven ASAP. There were reports of fanatics deliberately seeking out the opportunity to die for their faith, including a mob that turned up at the door of a Roman official in Asia Minor, demanding to be martyred, only to be turned away when he couldn’t be bothered to oblige them.

But that's Catholicism, which is a mix of Paganism with Christianity, and a whole lot of government control.

That was when the message began to spread and impact change in the world. Besides, there’s no evidence to support that the bible is not just a mix of paganism with judaism.

That's why we have an eternal hell doctrine. There's record of Constantine burning all of the opposing viewpoints at some point in the Dark Ages.

There is no actual record of Constantine burning opposing viewpoints about christianity. However, there is record to Constantine leading military crusades against the Franks, the Alamanni, the Goths, and the Sarmatians and stripping them of their local religions and replacing them with christianity, the state religion he implemented.

I'd argue that one cannot compare what L. Ron Hubbard did with the account of Jesus due to a major issue. Jesus performed miracles and caused a whole lot of uproar in Israel. And the Jews themselves say He did miracles back in those times, and they recorded the many miraculous signs seen in the sky and other really bizarre happenings at that time that are unexplainable. They say that for a month, I think, no one could keep a candle lit in their homes. lol In other words, the "light of life & truth" has gone out in Israel and transferred to the rest of the world. This is against their religion, but they still say it happened. So there are multiple witnesses, some of which hated Jesus, that confirm these crazy events.

Some people claiming an event happen does not mean that it did. The bible claims that Jesus performed miracles, there is no there is no other source to substanciate thos claims and no evidence that anything like that happened then, or since. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

L. Ron Hubbard is the only one who claims what he claims, and I don't know if he even claimed he saw this stuff.

Actually, every scientologist claims what he claims.

No one else can confirm what he came up with, and no one on a large scale believes it. Most think he lied.

Every scientologist claims to confirm what he came up with and the amount of believers is irrelevant to the validity of the claim.

In Jesus' time, He had thousands of followers, and after He died, His followers were persecuted heavily for the next three hundred years.

Jesus has not been proven to exist. That’s the entire point of this thread. So, any claims made about Jesus, without actual evidence to support it, is invalid.

They were non-violent.

This is not necessarily true.

All of the times of greatest persecution, the religion grew even more (which is counterintuitive) because the people were so loving when persecuted.

No. Christianity was rarely persecuted. In fact, one of the only recorded times christians were persecuted for being christian was when the emperor Diocletian between 303 and 306, christians were expelled from public offices. Funny thing though… How were christians holding public office if they were being persecuted for their beliefs?

When the church was killing its own people back in the 1600s, many of them would be burning at the stake with no pain. Instead, they would just be speaking love to those persecuting them.

Again, there is no evidence that this occurred.

Anyway, we have a lot of eyewitness account, but L. Ron Hubbard doesn't.

Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. Eyewitness accounts are the absolute lowest form of evidence because we, as humans, are terrible data storage devices.

L. Ron Hubbard didn't create a non-existent guy who supposedly lived in the 50's. If no one had seen him, they'd all call BS, especially nowadays with all the ways we have to confirm this stuff. There's quite a difference between the two accounts. But heck, you could still be right.

No, L. Ron Hubbard created an non-existent guy who lived thousands of years ago that no one has seen, but many people claim to be the truth based on what their religion says. Those same people claim that science supports their assertions.

In your opinion. If you're incorrect, then I'm not believing in a non-existent man. Besides, I have other things that prove it for me, and no matter how hard I try, I can't disprove those things. But that's not a discussion I care to have in this forum.

No. There’s been no actual evidence presented to support the existence of an actual Jesus. All that you’ve presented is stuff that only supports your position if you already believe in your position.

Again, I'd point out, it was the violent Pagan emperor with a god complex who "became" Christian and then other emperors who carried out the violent activities who did that. That's when the people followed suit (who were mostly Pagans converted to Christianity).

Irrelevant, as this is how the Christian religion did the majority of it’s spreading and how the majority of it’s impact was made.

Before that, there wasn't much violence at all. I can't attribute any major, or even minor (though I'm sure there must have been a little), violence to the church of the first 300-400 years of Christianity.

The Department of Religious Studies at the University of Alabama disagrees with you. They’ve even gone so far as to have a course discussing the violence of the first 300 hears of the church.

Maybe. Who knows. But there seem to be a lot of writings that aren't in the Bible that confirm the actions of those same people who wrote those books.

No, there isn’t. There are extra biblical writings that state that people believe the things that happened in the bible, but none have been presented that actually asserts that those things happened.

I doubt these people are so powerful they can pull off such a lofty accomplishment.

What lofty accomplishment?

And for what purpose? L. Ron Hubbard had a purpose--to make a lot of money off suckers.

…and Jesus (if he existed) claimed to be the son of god, and the people who followed him claimed to have god on their corner. So, what?

The early Church is mostly comprised of a lot of people who are in poverty. And the people who aren't in poverty are encouraged, if they feel like it, to help out those in poverty by sharing their wealth.

As stated earlier, there were christians in the early church that held public offices and those who had wealth were not “encouraged” to give their wealth to the poor, they were ordered to. As the disciples always describe themselves as being in poverty, you can just follow the money.

Hell, even to this day, churches claim poverty(and therefore in need of the parishioner’s money) while building multi-million dollar buildings and evangelical programs.

But the disciples weren't making hardly any money off these people. Paul gave most of his money to help others, and when he'd run out, he'd start making tents and selling them.

Based on what information? This assertion is making the unsupported assumption that the bible can be regarded as a valid historical source when, it is well known, that the authors of the books of the bible are ghostwriters at best. How do you know that they weren’t claiming those things in order to manipulate and control people?

I agree with you post 312 AD. However, we're talking about the early church--the origin of Christianity. What idiot creates a religion that will most assuredly get him and his followers killed? Lol

There is no reason to believe that this was a valid concern.

None of the early church had anything to gain from Christianity.

How did you determine this?

It was only once the government took over in the 4th-5th centuries and made everything very Pagan that people started making money.

Constantine, by all evidence, implemented the version of christianity being taught and practiced at the time.

[Maddhattter]

Christians had no temples up to that time. No priests. They met in homes and in Jewish synagogues.

Incorrect. There was an edict, put forward by Constantine, that returned the meeting places and other properties to the christians(and compensation paid for their removal) that had been confiscated by rivals for the imperial throne. The rivals had bid for support by either favoring or persecuting christians.

Constantine outlawed all of that--the peaceful, non-profitable Jewish practices (he hated Jews) and implemented the Pagan practices of temples and priests and liturgy, etc.

Again, there is no evidence of this. Constantine put forward the edict of Milan. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose.

Christianity today is nothing like it was in First Century.

This we can agree on.

If there's no church, there's no need to sucker people into giving a bunch of money by propagating a tithe that Paul never asked for.

Except there were christian churches and such at the time.

Jesus only mentioned tithing food once (not tithing money, which is not taught in the Law).

Actually, Jesus’ mention of tithing was specifically in regard to the Pharisee’s tithing valuable commodities at the time, such as mint and rue. Considering that salt and foodstuffs were among the most valuable things at the time, there is no real difference between tithing food and money.

They had no rules (except for the few home churches who wanted some of the Law), every Friday night was more like a party, not a church service. People would play music, sing, dance and have orderves in a home's courtyard. Then they'd have a big meal. Then they'd all talk about what God had taught them and help each other. Very down-to-earth and friendly. They didn't force their religion on anyone. Instead, they went out and helped the poor, widowed, homeless, and orphans. And when those people would ask why they're helping, they'd say their God instructed them to do so and it brings them great joy to do it. They would share their wealth (if they had any) with these people to bring the poor up to a reasonable standard of living. Things are very different now. Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola tracks all of these changes in the church historically. The original "church" was just a way of living based off love.

As Frank Viola has absolutely zero credentials as a historian, secular or not, there is no reason to assume his “research” has any valid evidence to support it.

I believe every single religion on the planet is pushing incorrect beliefs in one way or another. I won't associate myself with any particular religion anymore. I don't like religion. There was no religion in the Garden. Just relationship and freedom (only one rule--don't eat of that tree or things will suck for you LOL). I think Jesus was trying to restore that by fighting against religion. Jesus didn't create a religion--His followers eventually did, though. I think He tried to bring in a way of life that entails freedom and love and no judgment and no rules. That's why Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapters 6 and 10, says "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial." In other words, there are no rules, so learn what's beneficial for you and others, and what's not beneficial, and use that as your teacher.

As you have specific beliefs and dogmas about your theism, you do have religion. It’s just not a mainstream or popular one and, by your own admission, it is just as mutually exclusive.

[Maddhattter]

Science has shown us that this is often unreliable. LOL

No, it hasn’t. The technology that you use to post on this forum and all of the supporting technology that makes this forum possible is a testament to the fact that testable, demonstrable, reproducible evidence are reliable.

Scientists constantly have to go back and rework their theories, because they frequently find out they've misinterpreted something in the universe or on the earth incorrectly despite their repeated testing that appeared to prove a conclusion. When they get new information, it can completely change conclusions. Happens all the time.

Scientists go back and rework theories to take into consideration new evidence that was no present in previous experiments. This is how progress is made. This is not due to a misinterpretation. This is due to a lack of information, which scientists are constantly trying to correct. Ironically, in every case that science has been incorrect; it was science that demonstrated it to be so.

"Forget what you learned yesterday about the *insert topic here*. It's all changed today." That's a good lesson to learn to keep people humble and open minded so they understand they can almost always be wrong about something.

No, it’s not. It’s not a good lesson, nor does it encourage people to be humble or open-minded. The scientific peer-review process is built on the fundamental idea that people can be wrong. Science, itself, it predicated on the idea that things do not it would even be suggested that someone should forget what you learned yesterday.

Yes, but defining reality is quite a daunting task.

Barring hard solipsism… No, it’s not.

20 years ago, we were certain that carbon dating, and all other dating methods, were accurate, because we were certain the half-life of an element was consistent. And yet within the past 10 years, we've proven that half-lives can be greatly corrupted/reduced by outside forces, especially water, which would make things appear way older than they are. And there are a couple more factors to dating that they found aren't consistent either.

We are still certain that radiometric dating is accurate. Science has known, for far longer than 10 years, that external elements can affect the half-life of an element. They’ve been accounted for in the dating process since the beginning. That’s why you’ll never get an answer that gives a specific age. You’ll always get a range. We’ve learned about new factors that can create the appearance of age since then, true, but none of it has given anyone but a layperson any reason to doubt the reliability of radiometric dating.

There's a difference between governmental laws and beliefs. The government can make a law that if you murder someone, there's a penalty for it, because it's not productive for society and harms others. Doesn't matter what my belief system says. The government is designed for safety and ordering society. The belief system is designed to help guide people through life so they can grow and mature. While they may seem closely related, and they are in some ways, they're two different things. I would never tell someone that drowning someone else is bad and against my beliefs. I would say that it's dysfunctional and unloving, and they need to use their best judgment as to whether they should do it to someone else.

The only difference between governmental laws and beliefs is that governmental laws are something that are supported, and forced, by a group large or powerful enough to force on others.

Sorry, I should've clarified. If I try to convert someone, they will not do it unless they want to and they're interested.

This is true, however, people can be persuaded to be interested and to want to. Again, this happens all the time.

But if someone is on the edge about their beliefs or not strongly convicted, and if someone can shame that person to make them feel bad and convince them they're awful and they need that religion, then they'll buy into it to make their self feel better. But that's fear based, usually, and it only works on someone if they're open to it in some way.

Again, people do not have to be open to something they are convinced in or are conned into.

I can guarantee, though, that no one who doesn't want to change their beliefs will change their beliefs till an event changes them and causes them to be open to new beliefs.

This is an axiomatic statement. In all cases it takes an even that changes their mind that causes them to change their beliefs. However, that event can be someone else convincing them just as easily as it can be a hallucination.

If I change my beliefs, it's because something's happened that causes me to want to change them--plain and simple. Forcing beliefs doesn't work. Sharing them can work if someone's open to hearing.

Forcing beliefs can be the cause that makes someone want to change them. That’s how parents teach their children everything. They force their beliefs on them while they are young.

All of them are written accounts by non-Christians, if I remember correctly, and one of them is by a historian who's talking about Caesar's comment and actions. But, like you said, none of them are from Jesus' time and none are firsthand accounts. I wasn't saying these are proofs, necessarily. I'm just saying that these are supposedly some of the best comments people use to prove His existence.

They may be the best, but they are useless from a historical standpoint because they don’t provide any evidence that an actual Jesus existed. So, it’s kinda moot to bring it up.

Like I said earlier, it’ll only convince if you already believe.

I love sharing facts and discussing things, though, so people have more information.

Then, please, verify that what you have are actual facts, not anecdotes and misinformation.

But debates don't sit well with me--lots of pride involved in them rather than friendly discussion. I appreciate that you don't seem to be debating me. You sound like you're just sharing your opinion. Thanks!

Debates, in my opinion, have nothing to do with pride and everything to do with the search for the truth. Debates center around a disagreement on a topic. If no one debated them, there would be no open discourse. That would create the same problems suffered by the ancient world. You’d have people that use guile and subterfuge to misrepresent data in order to keep people believing only what they approve of.

Debates, in the formal sense, are nothing more than structured discussions.

[BrianC]

Actually, Constantine made christianity the state religion in Rome ~380CE... ...Until that happened, christians were nothing more than small groups of believers, many going out of their way to attempt to earn martyrdom...

I don't disagree, except with the simplicity that you've put here. There's tons of documentation that show that a whole lot of people had nothing to do with trying to get martyred.

That was when the message began to spread and impact change in the world.

Actually, Christianity acquired hundreds of thousands of followers very quickly. Droves of people would convert when persecution was highest in the first 3 centuries according to historical records. When Catholicism (a mix of Paganism & Christianity) teamed up with the government, that's when Catholicism/Christianity was spread by force. Catholicism isn't accurately described as a mix of Judaism and Paganism, really, because Constantine removed just about all the Jewish traditions out of it and retained only some of the Christian traditions.

There is no actual record of Constantine burning opposing viewpoints about christianity. However, there is record to Constantine leading military crusades against the Franks, the Alamanni, the Goths, and the Sarmatians and stripping them of their local religions and replacing them with christianity, the state religion he implemented.

Of course there's record of it. Read At the End of the Ages by Bob Evely. He cites some of the scholar's works that record these events. And I agree, Constantine was a tyrant who screwed up original Christianity.

Some people claiming an event happen does not mean that it did. The bible claims that Jesus performed miracles, there is no other source to substantiate those claims and no evidence that anything like that happened then, or since. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually, the Jews themselves report that Jesus performed many miracles, but they claim it wasn't God doing those miracles. And the Jews record that other miracles happened after Jesus' death. Keep in mind that recording those things was a hit against their religion, not for it. And yet they still recorded those vents.

Actually, every scientologist claims what he claims.

Sorry for not clarifying. What I mean is that L. Ron Hubbard originated his claims and on one else can vouch for them. Everyone else just spread what he told them. Jesus' disciples claim they saw what Jesus did. I don't know much about Scientology, though, so I could be misinformed on this point.

Every scientologist claims to confirm what he came up with and the amount of believers is irrelevant to the validity of the claim.

Of course the amount of believers is relevant. You don't see us talking about the tons of religious systems that have spawned and been killed off over the years, because they had no impact on the world. A religion uses the fact that they are widespread in order to "prove" God's hand in it (at least in their minds).

No. Christianity was rarely persecuted. In fact, one of the only recorded times christians were persecuted for being christian was when the emperor Diocletian between 303 and 306, christians were expelled from public offices. Funny thing though… How were christians holding public office if they were being persecuted for their beliefs?

Oh, there's plenty of record. Read a book called Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola. He references the records of these events.

Again, there is no evidence that this occurred [Christians prophesying while burning on the stake].

Of course there is. Read Foxx's Book of Martyrs (also called Martyrs' Mirror). Lots of firsthand accounts there. Lots of journal entries from people back in those times.

Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. Eyewitness accounts are the absolute lowest form of evidence...

Alright, so what you're saying is that even if people in Jesus' time wrote about Him firsthand, it wouldn't be proof, because people are horrible at remembering facts? So, in other words, this topic is pointless. Oh, and when scientists witness things and record them, that's also worthless by your standard. It's a far cry from eyewitnesses picking the wrong guy out of a line-up to seeing events, especially repeatedly, and recording them. What you've just said is that it doesn't matter what evidence you have, you choose not to believe. And that's fine. It lets me know more about you and the way you think, and it's raw honesty coming out subconsciously in your words (according to psychologists). A psychologist will tell you that your desire to believe or not believe has nothing to do with proof or facts, but instead, it has to do with how you were raised in regard to authority figures like your parents. That's one reason I don't debate facts with people in regard to belief. I'm just having a discussion to share what I know to correct some misinformation. And I'm tiring of it, because we're rehashing things and it's taking too much of my time.

No, L. Ron Hubbard created an non-existent guy who lived thousands of years ago that no one has seen, but many people claim to be the truth based on what their religion says. Those same people claim that science supports their assertions.

Again, anyone can say a non-existent guy lived thousands of years ago. L. Ron Hubbard is not saying he was hanging around with the guy in the 50s. That's completely different, because it can be checked out. People back in Jesus' day could check out the facts about Jesus. They could go see where He was entombed and see the sheered off spike there. They could ask the Jews if a man caused an uprising, because it was all over Judea. People would confirm it, because they saw it happen. L. Ron Hubbard couldn't do that. He just made up a story from long ago. There is no comparison, period. If Jesus didn't exist, the Jews would've jumped all over it and said, "This is absurd. No guy ever caused an uproar in Israel. There was never a guy named Jesus whom we crucified. You people are all crazy for claiming this." And that's exactly what they would've done back then if Jesus never existed. But they didn't do that did they? That alone is the best proof for His existence. Nothing else needs to be said. What Jews would be stupid enough to make up stories about an uprising they themselves quailed and then say this Jesus guy wasn't really a prophet or God, but just a rabblerouser? Why would they lie when they had stronger evidence to show this guy never existed? Sorry, but that lone kills any other arguments.

The Department of Religious Studies at the University of Alabama disagrees with you. They’ve even gone so far as to have a course discussing the violence of the first 300 hears of the church.

Just because there's a course on it doesn't mean it was majorly widespread. The course could be discussing some cherry-picked incidences through that time period. However, I'll admit that I don't know a ton about this subject. And even if there were a decent amount of violent Christians back then, I'd believe it. Christianity was made up of mostly Pagans becoming Christians and bringing many of their own beliefs into the religion, as well as their emotional baggage. You'll always get violence. But the early church's stance on violence was that you turn the other cheek, and you do things in love, not violence. That was dominate among Christians. But sure, you're going to always get some violent sects.

What lofty accomplishment?

The accomplishment of fooling the entire Jewish, Roman, and Greek world that Jesus existed.

…and Jesus (if he existed) claimed to be the son of god, and the people who followed him claimed to have god on their corner. So, what?

The point is that there's nothing whatsoever to gain from that. L. Ron Hubbard got rich, and that was motivation for doing what he did. Why do you think detectives always look for motive when finding a killer? There has to be motive. And yet if these people claimed God was in their corner, it would get them killed very quickly, especially in Israel where they originated.

As stated earlier, there were christians in the early church that held public offices and those who had wealth were not “encouraged” to give their wealth to the poor, they were ordered to. As the disciples always describe themselves as being in poverty, you can just follow the money.

Anyone can be in a public office and become Christian. And anyone can be a Christian and keep it secret for a while. This gives no proof.

Hell, even to this day, churches claim poverty(and therefore in need of the parishioner’s money) while building multi-million dollar buildings and evangelical programs.

This is irrelevant. We're talking about the originator(s) of the religion. They had nothing to gain. Money was not the draw, because these people had jobs, some of them very lucrative jobs, like Matthew the tax collector or Luke the doctor. In Israel, your family owned land. You always had a place to stay if you were a Jew, unless your family's estate was used to pay for debts. So these guys had it made. Why give that all up to roam around and get killed and make a lot less money?

[BrianC]

Based on what information? This assertion is making the unsupported assumption that the bible can be regarded as a valid historical source when, it is well known, that the authors of the books of the bible are ghostwriters at best. How do you know that they weren’t claiming those things in order to manipulate and control people?

Well, when you have money, you buy things with it. You have a nice house, lots of things, etc. You acquire "wealth" basically. Why else have all of that money? The fact that they were roaming around teaching instead of buying huge estates shows that they weren't acquiring wealth. And yes, there are records back then of this stuff. Read The Untold Story of the New Testament Church. Paul wrote some of his books himself, and he says it, and others he dictated due to his vision being bad when he got older. My friend is a ghostwriter. He strictly uses facts given to him by the person for whom he's writing. He doesn't embellish or make up anything. Ghostwriting doesn't lessen the authenticity of something or we'd all be in an uproar every time someone put out a ghostwritten novel. This is irrelevant.

There is no reason to believe that this was a valid concern [that you'd be killed for propagating a fake religion].

How did you determine this [that there was nothing to gain from creating Christianity]?

Really? So the fact that the Jews had laws they used to kill false teachers, the fact that the Romans would kill rabblerousers if there was good cause to do so, and the fact that we have documented incidences of every single disciple being martyred isn't enough to prove that creating Christianity and following it was dangerous and there was nothing to gain from it? Wow. Well, we're no longer having a reasonable discussion then. We've gone off the reservation now.

Constantine, by all evidence, implemented the version of christianity being taught and practiced at the time.

That's just flat out false. Read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola for plenty of references to historical documentation. You'll see that Constantine implemented tons of things that were Pagan into Christianity, and outlawed the Jewish traditions from the religion.

[BrianC]

Incorrect. There was an edict, put forward by Constantine, that returned the meeting places and other properties to the christians(and compensation paid for their removal) that had been confiscated by rivals for the imperial throne. The rivals had bid for support by either favoring or persecuting christians.

You're jumping too far ahead in history.

Originally, the Christians met in homes and went to the Jewish synagogues daily. Eventually, it was difficult to even go to the synagogues. Then Constantine made Christianity a legal religion and eventually outlawed Paganism in favor of Christianity (two separate instances). He outlawed meeting in homes and made it required to meet in temples, most of which were Pagan temples. Again, read Pagan Christianity to get plenty of references for all of this stuff.

Again, there is no evidence of this. Constantine put forward the edict of Milan. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose.

This was the first edict that made Christianity legal. There was a later edict that made Christianity the only legal religion and stripped Christianity of Jewish traditions. Again, Pagan Christianity will give you all the references you need.

Except there were christian churches and such at the time.

Incorrect. Read Pagan Christianity. The Christian started out with no churches whatsoever. The word "church" means "assembly," as in "assembly of believers." The groups would meet once a day at a Jewish synagogue, and once a day in their small home groups. And during the feasts, the home churches would all come together in a large building somewhere in the city for a massive gathering. The people were called the "church" of [insert city name here], but there was no physical church building. They didn't have to pay for churches or pastors salaries or any of that. The only talk of collecting money was to fulfill the needs of the poor or help people in the home group.

Actually, Jesus’ mention of tithing was specifically in regard to the Pharisee’s tithing valuable commodities at the time, such as mint and rue. Considering that salt and foodstuffs were among the most valuable things at the time, there is no real difference between tithing food and money.

I disagree quite heavily on this one. The OT only speaks of tithing food. Now, let's say a Jew lives in Jerusalem (the city) and their business is pottery. They may have a small garden, but they have to buy the majority of their food, especially meats. They have very little to 'tithe' except for what they grow and purchase. They have a lot of money that has nothing to do with food and will never get tithed. Today, pastors say we're supposed to tithe 10 percent of our total income before taxes. And yet if you figure up your monthly food bill, which for us is probably $700 a month, and take 10 percent of that, you'll have about $70 a month to "tithe" if one is going by the old Law. Yet Paul said the Law was obsolete and not to follow it. Jesus was talking to Jews specifically who were religious. And so He was telling them they should have followed the Law, because the Jews are the Keepers of the Law. It was required of them. What He said to the Jewish religious leaders was strictly past tense. He ushered in a new time and a new way of living that abolished religion and the Law. The Law (more accurately translated as the Teachings, and more accurately understood as 'the mark to shoot for') was mainly for running a culture, not necessarily for directing one's life. But parts of it could help with that. The Jews made the Law a religion, though. Jesus came to put an end to that. People have shame, so they create a religion to make themselves feel better. Jesus came to cut off the shame by eliminating "right and wrong" (black and white) thinking with the implementation of no rules whatsoever. This eliminates shame, which breaks a ton of dysfunctional habits, and religion is no longer necessary. Our religions use shame to enslave people to them. Tithing is just another part of that.

As Frank Viola has absolutely zero credentials as a historian, secular or not, there is no reason to assume his “research” has any valid evidence to support it.

Irrelevant. He cites tons of historical evidence/documents and scholars' works. If I get a degree in Biblical History and I cite the same references as Frank Viola, it doesn't make what I present any better than what he presents. It's a moot argument.

As you have specific beliefs and dogmas about your theism, you do have religion. It’s just not a mainstream or popular one and, by your own admission, it is just as mutually exclusive.

You define religion very differently than I do. I'm a guy who "believes" that a guy came 2,000 years ago and died for to save everyone, and that guy was likely God in the flesh. I "believe" God is real and that things can't exist unless someone (a God) created them. I do not make any rules for my beliefs. I do not have any traditions. I do not believe in shame, and therefore, I have no need for a religion. I have no followers and I am not a follower. I'm just a human being who has some beliefs. That's not a religion, in my reckoning of the word.

Let's look at an Atheist. An Atheist "believes" there is no God. He "believes" that there are no rules by which to live, and that he needs to decide how to live. He "believes" that science and scientific theories are all we really have that's proof of anything, and anything we can't prove is non-existent. He follows no one except others teaching what he agrees with. He has no basis for shame, though he probably has some (just like everyone typically does growing up in our society). When you compare me with an Atheist, I'm not much different except I have a few different "beliefs." But regardless, they're just beliefs. So, by your standard, I could say you have a "religion" of Atheism or "anti-religion" and "anti-God." I, too, am anti-religion. Religion, at a base level, really just equates to beliefs.

So everyone can be said to have a "religion." But I think of religion in the traditional sense of a system of beliefs and traditions. I don't have those things. I've come up with my beliefs and they're very different than most people's. Very different. Yours are very different than most people's, too, but they are beliefs, all the same. You could show a Christian 100% accurate proof of God not existing (which I'm not sure how it's possible to prove something doesn't exist) and they'll laugh at you. And a Christian could show you 100% proof that God does exist, and you'd laugh at him. Which means this is a belief issue, which means it's a heart issue deep down which always tracks back to early childhood development when a person is developing their views of the world. That's just human nature and we're all subjected to it. No one escapes that. That's why this conversation about "proof" is pointless, and why I will be bailing on it very quickly. I use these conversations just to learn stuff I didn't know, basically. I like people to check me on my facts and let me know if I've missed something. And I like to see if I can recall stuff well enough. It's a good reminder.

[Maddhattter]

I don't disagree, except with the simplicity that you've put here. There's tons of documentation that show that a whole lot of people had nothing to do with trying to get martyred.

I'm sure there were. I never stated there wasn't. In fact, I stated that many were, not all. By the fact that people have survived to this day, of course there were tons of people that weren't going out of their way to get martyred.

Actually, Christianity acquired hundreds of thousands of followers very quickly.

No, it didn't. Hundreds of thousands of followers would have been a dozen or so countries full of people.

Droves of people would convert when persecution was highest in the first 3 centuries according to historical records.

Except there are no actual historical records that show this.

When Catholicism (a mix of Paganism & Christianity) teamed up with the government, that's when Catholicism/Christianity was spread by force.

That's when it started to spread with any significance.

Catholicism isn't accurately described as a mix of Judaism and Paganism, really, because Constantine removed just about all the Jewish traditions out of it and retained only some of the Christian traditions.

Again, there is no indication that Constantine did anything other than impliment the christianity being practised at the time.

Of course there's record of it. Read At the End of the Ages by Bob Evely. He cites some of the scholar's works that record these events. And I agree, Constantine was a tyrant who screwed up original Christianity.

He's also an untrained source that has a distinct bias just as is Frank Viola. There is no reason to believe that he would know a valid historical source.

Actually, the Jews themselves report that Jesus performed many miracles, but they claim it wasn't God doing those miracles. And the Jews record that other miracles happened after Jesus' death. Keep in mind that recording those things was a hit against their religion, not for it. And yet they still recorded those vents.

So? Even if we had actual contemporary sources, many people of the area claimed the dgyptian, roman, and greek gods bestowed upon people the power to perform miraculous feats. Many people claimed those feats to have occurred. That doesn't mean that it actually did. This is why using valid historical sources is important. None of these events are recorded by contemporary historians of the time. Only by people who wrote about it much later.

[quote=BrianC]Sorry for not clarifying. What I mean is that L. Ron Hubbard originated his claims and on one else can vouch for them. Everyone else just spread what he told them. Jesus' disciples claim they saw what Jesus did. I don't know much about Scientology, though, so I could be misinformed on this point.[QUOTE=BrianC]

We have no real idea what Jesus' disciples claimed as it's well understood that the records of the events were most likely not written by the disciples, but attributed to them by later authors.

Of course the amount of believers is relevant.

Perhaps I was unclear in the intent of my statement. The volume and/or fervor of believers is irrelevant to the accuracy of the claim. Hence my statement that the amount of believers is irrelevant to the validity of the claim.

You don't see us talking about the tons of religious systems that have spawned and been killed off over the years, because they had no impact on the world.

Actually, we're not talking about it because that's not what this thread is about. I use them as examples all the time, as I did above. Also, many of those old religions are still discussed to this day because they influenced our culture at the time, which ultimately influenced our modern culture.

A religion uses the fact that they are widespread in order to "prove" God's hand in it (at least in their minds).

The number of people who believe a claim has no bearing on it's accuracy.

Oh, there's plenty of record. Read a book called Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola. He references the records of these events.

Again, Frank, like Bob above, has no credentials as a historian. There's no reason to believe that his book would have any valid historical information.

Can you provide an actual historical source that provides these records?

Of course there is. Read Foxx's Book of Martyrs (also called Martyrs' Mirror). Lots of firsthand accounts there. Lots of journal entries from people back in those times.

Actually, Foxx's Book of Martyrs is a book about sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation didn't occur until the early 16th century. The book doesn't cover the first three centuries of christianity.

You also didn't account for how christians were holding public offices if they were being persecuted for being christian...

Alright, so what you're saying is that even if people in Jesus' time wrote about Him firsthand, it wouldn't be proof, because people are horrible at remembering facts?

No, if people wrote about him firsthand, during the time he was alive, that would be evidence to support the claim that he actually existed. Unfortunately, there aren't any such documents.

So, in other words, this topic is pointless. Oh, and when scientists witness things and record them, that's also worthless by your standard.

If that's all the evidence they are using to support their claim, that is correct. However, fortunately, that's not how science works. This is the very reason the peer-review process came about. It's not about what any scientist witnesses, it's about what can be reproduced, tested, and demonstrated.

It's a far cry from eyewitnesses picking the wrong guy out of a line-up to seeing events, especially repeatedly, and recording them.

You're right. The evidence for Jesus would be you picking out a guy out of a line-up after I told someone what happened and then they told you.

What you've just said is that it doesn't matter what evidence you have, you choose not to believe.

No. I've stated that actual evidence will be required for me to believe.

A psychologist will tell you that your desire to believe or not believe has nothing to do with proof or facts, but instead, it has to do with how you were raised in regard to authority figures like your parents.

Actually, a psychologist would state nothing of the sort. Sure, they would say that my behaviors were influenced by how I was raied but to claim that it has nothing to do with proof or facts only shows a lack of understanding of psychology. A person's environment constantly affects their thought processes, even long after they've left the home. Also, considering that I was raised in a christian household by parents who are, still today, believers the claim makes no sense.

That's one reason I don't debate facts with people in regard to belief. I'm just having a discussion to share what I know to correct some misinformation.

And I'm tiring of it, because we're rehashing things and it's taking too much of my time.

Then bring some actual evidence to the table and we can discuss that. If you look at all of my posts in the theology corner, I've pretty much discussed what other people have said. So, if we're rehashing things, it's only because you've not brought anything new to the table. If you've brought nothing new to the table, then you can't correct any misinformation.

Again, anyone can say a non-existent guy lived thousands of years ago. L. Ron Hubbard is not saying he was hanging around with the guy in the 50s.

So what? If no one can find the guy from the 50's, nor any evidence of that guy (outside of someone's claim that they existed) there is no practical difference between the two scenarios.

That's completely different, because it can be checked out. People back in Jesus' day could check out the facts about Jesus. They could go see where He was entombed and see the sheered off spike there. They could ask the Jews if a man caused an uprising, because it was all over Judea. People would confirm it, because they saw it happen.

Then why did no contemporary historian at the time record any of those things?

L. Ron Hubbard couldn't do that. He just made up a story from long ago. There is no comparison, period.

Incorrect. L. Ron Hubbard, and all scientologists by extension, claim that their technologies allow people to verify his claims and those very same people state that it does. The comparison is apt.

If Jesus didn't exist, the Jews would've jumped all over it and said, "This is absurd. No guy ever caused an uproar in Israel. There was never a guy named Jesus whom we crucified. You people are all crazy for claiming this."

Or, there would be no contemporary historical record of an uproar. Which, there isn't.

[Maddhattter]

And that's exactly what they would've done back then if Jesus never existed. But they didn't do that did they?

Considering, by all historical documents, christianity was nothing more than than small groups of believers, there's no reason to think that they were given any more attention that we give the railiens or zarathustraists today(read: none). In fact, you even provided a document, that you claimed to be a non-biblical account of Jesus, that was actively mocking what christians believed.

That alone is the best proof for His existence. Nothing else needs to be said.

No, it's not evidence of anything. In fact, you'd have more evidence to an actual Jesus existing if the jews of the time had actually done exactly what you admit they didn't. Then, there would have been contemporary sources of people decrying Jesus and his claims and you'd have some actual evidence to
present.

What Jews would be stupid enough to make up stories about an uprising they themselves quailed and then say this Jesus guy wasn't really a prophet or God, but just a rabblerouser? Why would they lie when they had stronger evidence to show this guy never existed? Sorry, but that lone kills any other arguments.

It doesn't even dent any argument. There's no evidence to support that any account of Jesus' life was anything other than fiction, copy and pasted, in the same way scientologists parrot what L. Ron asserted in his books.

Just because there's a course on it doesn't mean it was majorly widespread. The course could be discussing some cherry-picked incidences through that time period. However, I'll admit that I don't know a ton about this subject. And even if there were a decent amount of violent Christians back then, I'd believe it. Christianity was made up of mostly Pagans becoming Christians and bringing many of their own beliefs into the religion, as well as their emotional baggage. You'll always get violence. But the early church's stance on violence was that you turn the other cheek, and you do things in love, not violence. That was dominate among Christians. But sure, you're going to always get some violent sects.

The official stance of the church has always been non-violence. It's just a matter of justifying that violence to spread the word. Something that we have evidence that the christian church did a great many times. One can perform acts of violence motivated by love.

The accomplishment of fooling the entire Jewish, Roman, and Greek world that Jesus existed.

Except there is no evidence that this happened. Constantine implemented his religion, taught to him by his mother, some 300 years after Jesus's supposed existence.

The point is that there's nothing whatsoever to gain from that. L. Ron Hubbard got rich, and that was motivation for doing what he did. Why do you think detectives always look for motive when finding a killer? There has to be motive.

Motive is only a small piece of the puzzle. Facts and evidence are the majority of it.

And yet if these people claimed God was in their corner, it would get them killed very quickly, especially in Israel where they originated.

Except, for the vast majority of time that christianity wasn't the state religion, that didn't happen. Did it happen on occasion? Sure. I even admitted that there was some opression of christians for nothing more than their christianity. However, by all historical records, it was the minority. In the overwhelming majority of situations, people let the christians believe what they wanted.

Anyone can be in a public office and become Christian. And anyone can be a Christian and keep it secret for a while. This gives no proof.

Except, if they kept it secret, they would never have had any of prosecution that would have had to be noted. By specifically referencing public officals with christian beliefs, it shows that they were aware of their existance and that those people weren't persecuted.

This is irrelevant. We're talking about the originator(s) of the religion. They had nothing to gain. Money was not the draw, because these people had jobs, some of them very lucrative jobs, like Matthew the tax collector or Luke the doctor. In Israel, your family owned land. You always had a place to stay if you were a Jew, unless your family's estate was used to pay for debts. So these guys had it made. Why give that all up to roam around and get killed and make a lot less money?

It is relevant because if it's common practice to lie about their wealth today, there is no reason to assume that the wouldn't have done the same. Not to mention that none of the examples you used are authoritative historical documents, nor were they contemporary.

Well, when you have money, you buy things with it. You have a nice house, lots of things, etc. You acquire "wealth" basically. Why else have all of that money?

Because we still have instinctual evolutionary left overs from the times when we had to be concerned about whether or not we'd get our next meal. This produced a hoarding tentancy. As this tendancy provided an evolutionary benefit at the time, those with that trait had better survival and provcration rates than those who didn't. Since that time, that hoarding tendancy has not proven to be an evolutionary disadvantage, so it's not been a selective pressure.

The fact that they were roaming around teaching instead of buying huge estates shows that they weren't acquiring wealth. And yes, there are records back then of this stuff. Read The Untold Story of the New Testament Church. Paul wrote some of his books himself, and he says it, and others he dictated due to his vision being bad when he got older.

There is no evidence that any of the books of the New Testament were written by their claimed authors.

My friend is a ghostwriter. He strictly uses facts given to him by the person for whom he's writing. He doesn't embellish or make up anything. Ghostwriting doesn't lessen the authenticity of something or we'd all be in an uproar every time someone put out a ghostwritten novel. This is irrelevant.

It does when the ghostwriter is documenting a situation that didn't even happen within their lifetime, in an age that didn't have a lot of historical documentation to begin with.

You do realize that ghostwriting is nothing more than writing something under someone elses name, correct? That means, at the very start, the author is being dishonest about who is penning the document. Not to mention the fact that there isn't any contemporary sources to back up the claims made by those people.

Also note, that the authors of the books of the bible are ghostwriters at best. Considering there's not any contemporary sources to confirm their statements, there's no reason to beleive that are even that.

Really? So the fact that the Jews had laws they used to kill false teachers, the fact that the Romans would kill rabblerousers if there was good cause to do so, and the fact that we have documented incidences of every single disciple being martyred isn't enough to prove that creating Christianity and following it was dangerous and there was nothing to gain from it?

Considering that the Jews weren't in charge of the Roman Empire, Romans killed rabble-rousers that stirred up voilence(The "persecuted christians" would have been causing problems first to be a rabble-rouser. It's well known that Jesus wasn't special in being a street preacher, nor claiming to be a messiah at the time. It happened at nearly every street corner and those people weren't killed either. So, it logically follows that the rabble-rousers being killed would have been the ones that incited violence.), we have documentation of many people of many beliefs going out of their way to get themselves martyred, and we have evidence that the Romans at the time were tolerant to other religions at the time; there isn't any evidence to support your claim, no.

That's just flat out false. Read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola for plenty of references to historical documentation. You'll see that Constantine implemented tons of things that were Pagan into Christianity, and outlawed the Jewish traditions from the religion.

That's odd, considering that the actual historians don't agree with Frank and that Frank has no credentials in the topic being discussed preventing him from being a credible authority.

[Maddhattter]

LOL. I completely missed this post... Anyway, on with the show!

You're jumping too far ahead in history.

Originally, the Christians met in homes and went to the Jewish synagogues daily.

Of course, christianity is an offshoot of judaism. There's no reason why it wouldn't have started in such a way. However, it didn't stay that way for terribly long. There were placese like the pre-Constantinian Christian buildings like the Dura-Europos Christian meeting house.

Eventually, it was difficult to even go to the synagogues. Then Constantine made Christianity a legal religion

Christianity was a legal religion before Constantine.

and eventually outlawed Paganism in favor of Christianity (two separate instances).

Constantine only prevented the construction of new pagan temples. He never outlawed paganism and, in fact, put forward multiple edicts such as "Let no one disturb another, let each man hold fast to that which his soil wishes". He even went so far as to erect several statues of Apollo as well as other pagan gods. While he did, later in life, starte to persecute pagans, it was a result of his christianity late in his reign.

He outlawed meeting in homes and made it required to meet in temples, most of which were Pagan temples.

Again, there is no evidence of this. In fact, he explicitly allowed public divination and issues laws confirming the rights of other religions at the time. The only thing he "banned" from christians was the right to participate in state sacrifices.

Again, read Pagan Christianity to get plenty of references for all of this stuff.

I've already stated why there is no reason for me to. That doesn't even take into consideration that actual historians don't agree with Frank.

This was the first edict that made Christianity legal.

No, it wasn't. Christianity was already legal. The edict required all people to show tolerance.

There was a later edict that made Christianity the only legal religion and stripped Christianity of Jewish traditions.

Which edict and when?

Again, Pagan Christianity will give you all the references you need.

See above.

Incorrect. Read Pagan Christianity. The Christian started out with no churches whatsoever.

Of course they started with no churches. However, there were churches before Constantine cemented christianity as the state religion. I gave on example above.

The word "church" means "assembly," as in "assembly of believers."

If that were true, which it's not, that would mean your statement above about early christians having no churches is false, yet your statment below would indicate that it is, in fact, true.

This is what "church" means...

CHURCH

1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship
2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body
3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians
b : denomination <the Presbyterian church>
c : congregation
4 : a public divine worship <goes to church every Sunday>
5 : the clerical profession <considered the church as a possible career>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church

The groups would meet once a day at a Jewish synagogue, and once a day in their small home groups. And during the feasts, the home churches would all come together in a large building somewhere in the city for a massive gathering. The people were called the "church" of [insert city name here], but there was no physical church building. They didn't have to pay for churches or pastors salaries or any of that. The only talk of collecting money was to fulfill the needs of the poor or help people in the home group.

Not only is there no actual evidence to support your claims, you contradict yourself(as I explained above), actual historians disagree with you.

I disagree quite heavily on this one. The OT only speaks of tithing food. Now, let's say a Jew lives in Jerusalem (the city) and their business is pottery. They may have a small garden, but they have to buy the majority of their food, especially meats. They have very little to 'tithe' except for what they grow and purchase. They have a lot of money that has nothing to do with food and will never get tithed.

Assuming that they only tithed food and not wealth of other types like Jesus referred to...

Today, pastors say we're supposed to tithe 10 percent of our total income before taxes. And yet if you figure up your monthly food bill, which for us is probably $700 a month, and take 10 percent of that, you'll have about $70 a month to "tithe" if one is going by the old Law.

Except, in that case, you are not tithing food. You are tithing valuable commodities at the time, in the example above it's money. There is nothing that states it couldn't or shouldn't be money. In fact, money was regularly used when the tithe had to be transported and could perish. However, Jesus didn't speak of a food tithe. He spoke of tithing things like mint and rue.

Yet Paul said the Law was obsolete and not to follow it. Jesus was talking to Jews specifically who were religious. And so He was telling them they should have followed the Law, because the Jews are the Keepers of the Law. It was required of them. What He said to the Jewish religious leaders was strictly past tense. He ushered in a new time and a new way of living that abolished religion and the Law.

Actually, his statement was quite in the present tense.

The Law (more accurately translated as the Teachings, and more accurately understood as 'the mark to shoot for') was mainly for running a culture, not necessarily for directing one's life.

They why were all the mandates explicitly stating what an individial can and cannot do?

But parts of it could help with that. The Jews made the Law a religion, though. Jesus came to put an end to that.

(Assuming that Jesus existed)There's no way he could have. He set forth dogma and edicts from a position of divine authority. He created a religion in doing so.

People have shame, so they create a religion to make themselves feel better.

Not nessicarily. If anything, history suggests that religion is created as a way of explaining what we do not understand.

Jesus came to cut off the shame by eliminating "right and wrong" (black and white) thinking with the implementation of no rules whatsoever.

Except his actions and statements did the opposite of this.

This eliminates shame, which breaks a ton of dysfunctional habits, and religion is no longer necessary.

No it doesn't. It doesn't even come close.

Our religions use shame to enslave people to them. Tithing is just another part of that.

Not all religions past or present use shame.

Irrelevant. He cites tons of historical evidence/documents and scholars' works.

As he's not an authority on the topic, there's no reason th think that he'd know a valid work if he saw one. So, there's no reason to believe he actually "cites tons of historical evidence/documents and scholars' works" when actual historians disagree with just about every point of his that you've put forward here.

If I get a degree in Biblical History and I cite the same references as Frank Viola, it doesn't make what I present any better than what he presents.

Right, because he's a bad source. No matter what credentials you have, he will still not be an authority on the topic and there would be no reason to believe that he knows what he's talking about.

It's a moot argument.

No, accurately using an authority is critical when having a discorse that is to involve facts. Otherwise, you'll continue doing as you've done and making fallacious arguments from authority.

[Maddhattter]

You define religion very differently than I do. I'm a guy who "believes" that a guy came 2,000 years ago and died for to save everyone, and that guy was likely God in the flesh. I "believe" God is real and that things can't exist unless someone (a God) created them. I do not make any rules for my beliefs. I do not have any traditions. I do not believe in shame, and therefore, I have no need for a religion. I have no followers and I am not a follower. I'm just a human being who has some beliefs. That's not a religion, in my reckoning of the word.

It's a religion by the definition of the word...

RELIGION

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Let's look at an Atheist.

Okay.

An Atheist "believes" there is no God.

Incorrect.

He "believes" that there are no rules by which to live, and that he needs to decide how to live.

Incorrect.

He "believes" that science and scientific theories are all we really have that's proof of anything, and anything we can't prove is non-existent.

Incorrect.

He follows no one except others teaching what he agrees with.

Incorrect, only because this is true for everyone.

He has no basis for shame, though he probably has some (just like everyone typically does growing up in our society).

Incorrect.

When you compare me with an Atheist, I'm not much different except I have a few different "beliefs."

Actually, you are as different as can you can possibly be because you are a theist.

But regardless, they're just beliefs. So, by your standard, I could say you have a "religion" of Atheism or "anti-religion" and "anti-God."

No, you couldn't.

I, too, am anti-religion. Religion, at a base level, really just equates to beliefs.

Actually, religion is defined above. You have it. I don't.

So everyone can be said to have a "religion."

Not by the definition of the word.

But I think of religion in the traditional sense of a system of beliefs and traditions.

Who decides what is traditional to meet the your definition?

I don't have those things.

By your statement above, yes you do.

I've come up with my beliefs and they're very different than most people's. Very different.

Not really. You have some that other people don't share, but that is the case for everyone's religion.

V

Yours are very different than most people's, too, but they are beliefs, all the same.

No, they are not.

You could show a Christian 100% accurate proof of God not existing (which I'm not sure how it's possible to prove something doesn't exist)

There is no square circle.
There is no married bachelor.

Look, I provided 2 proofs that something doesn't exist.

and they'll laugh at you.

Agreed. That's because they believe what they do on faith, which is devoid of evidence.

And a Christian could show you 100% proof that God does exist, and you'd laugh at him.

Incorrect. If someone were to show me actual proof that the god of the bible exists, I would start believing that very moment. I would still think that it's a evil monster, but I would believe it exists.

Which means this is a belief issue, which means it's a heart issue deep down which always tracks back to early childhood development when a person is developing their views of the world.

No, it doesn't.

That's just human nature and we're all subjected to it. No one escapes that. That's why this conversation about "proof" is pointless, and why I will be bailing on it very quickly.

Discussing proof is only important because that's how we, as a whole, determine what objectively does and does not exist. If you don't care whether what you believe conforms with reality, you are right. Discussing proof is pointless.

I use these conversations just to learn stuff I didn't know, basically. I like people to check me on my facts and let me know if I've missed something. And I like to see if I can recall stuff well enough. It's a good reminder.

I just like to have these conversations because there my be proof out there that I've not been presented. If something actually exists, there will be evidence that meets my criteria. Of course, I may never get to see that proof due to technological limitations, but there isn't sufficient reason to believe in something until there is actual proof supporting the claim.

[BrianC]

No, it hasn’t. The technology that you use to post on this forum and all of the supporting technology that makes this forum possible is a testament to the fact that testable, demonstrable, reproducible evidence are reliable.

I completely agree when it comes to testable, demonstrable, and reproducible evidence...like gravity. What I was referring to was more along the lines of scientific theories. Yet, there are some things that are testable, demonstrable, and reproducible that actually have been misinterpreted for many years until a scientist starts researching it and finds something everyone missed. This absolutely happens. Half-lives is one decent example, but there are others more stark than that one. I kid you not, there is some pretty compelling evidence that likely shows that we've been misinterpreting the electron. Electrons haven't ever been witnessed, but we can do experiments that prove the force is there. Yet we may have had it wrong this whole time about how they work and even their physical make-up. However, it's important to keep in mind that electrons are still considered theoretical since we can't physically prove their existence the way we currently define them. All we really know is that there is a force that we think is an electron. I don't know which is accurate. I'm just saying, what you stated is not 100% accurate when it comes to some supposedly demonstrable "facts" of science. But even gravity we don't understand, and we can test it. We don't know how it works exactly.

Scientists go back and rework theories to take into consideration new evidence that was no present in previous experiments. This is how progress is made. This is not due to a misinterpretation. This is due to a lack of information, which scientists are constantly trying to correct. Ironically, in every case that science has been incorrect; it was science that demonstrated it to be so.

Of course. But the point is that we're constantly finding that we're missing information and having to rework theories. I don't want to get into science, though. Too many rabbit holes...

No, it’s not. It’s not a good lesson, nor does it encourage people to be humble or open-minded. The scientific peer-review process is built on the fundamental idea that people can be wrong. Science, itself, it predicated on the idea that things do not it would even be suggested that someone should forget what you learned yesterday.

You're taking it way too literally. His point was that things change in science, specially in the realm of brain science, so understand that you need to keep researching and know that you could be wrong about anything.

Barring hard solipsism… No, it’s not [hard to define reality].

We'll agree to disagree on this one.

We are still certain that radiometric dating is accurate. Science has known, for far longer than 10 years, that external elements can affect the half-life of an element. They’ve been accounted for in the dating process since the beginning. That’s why you’ll never get an answer that gives a specific age. You’ll always get a range. We’ve learned about new factors that can create the appearance of age since then, true, but none of it has given anyone but a layperson any reason to doubt the reliability of radiometric dating.

Then you'll want to read some of the more recent articles about studies done in this area by secular scientist. Scientists are starting to see just how incredibly inaccurate carbon dating, as well as all other dating methods are. In fact, because they have to predict exactly how much of the dating element was in the animal (or object) at the time of its death, it's completely inaccurate. There's no way to know, period. Again, I'm not going into a science discussion. Far too wide a subject and proof is pointless. This isn't an issue of proof--it's a subconscious heart issue.

This is true, however, people can be persuaded to be interested and to want to. Again, this happens all the time.

I encourage you do some research on psychology then. Where religion is concerned, if someone is interested in something, it always comes back to some kind of need within them. One friend I have is perfectly happy simply knowing there's a God. No evangelists have any effect on him whatsoever, because he has no need to fill. He doesn't harbor shame. He had to find his own way as a kid and wasn't exposed to religion. If he could be convinced that he is shameful, and then starts feeling it, then he could be susceptible to evangelizing. But I guarantee, as is, no one will ever convert him to anything right now. He's one of the most solid people I know. Very trustworthy and good natured. He didn't need religion to teach him that. He found it within himself. I'd go to him if I needed help before I'd go to my Christian friends most likely.

Again, people do not have to be open to something they are convinced in or are conned into.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Psychology would disagree with you on this in regard to religion. And people who are very engineer-minded often have trouble processing and understanding this one, because they don't have a good handle on how emotions work due to the fact that they don't realize they've turned off the ability to feel most of their emotions and they don't know it. But psychology is not a discussion I wish to pursue here either, because it's too abstract and subjective, which makes it incredibly hard to prove sufficiently to a scientist or science-minded person.

This is an axiomatic statement. In all cases it takes an even that changes their mind that causes them to change their beliefs. However, that event can be someone else convincing them just as easily as it can be a hallucination.

Alright, let me go deeper then. The person will not be able to be convinced of a need for religion if they don't already have some need inside they're trying to fill. Nothing will convince them, because they do not see or feel a need. Or if they do feel a need, they're not connecting it with a lack of religion. And I'd applaud them for that. Religion isn't the solution. Accepting and loving one's self is. It's pretty simple.

[BrianC]

Forcing beliefs can be the cause that makes someone want to change them. That’s how parents teach their children everything. They force their beliefs on them while they are young.

Ahhh, but you're now getting into the beginning stages of the psychological shaping. I'm not talking about kids. I'm talking about adults. When someone is a kid, that's when their needs are being formed by them. It's when they're choosing things consciously and subconsciously. You are absolutely correct that at this stage, kids are susceptible to having a religious teaching shift their thinking. But, this will likely only work if the child is being raised in an environment where beliefs are being forced on him and where he's being molded into something. This causes a need in the child depending on what the child chooses while going through these events. And rarely to children come to the correct conclusions about what's happening to them. This is why it's so important for everyone to go back to their past and figure out what shaped them and why.

However, I disagree that all parents do this to children. I don't force my beliefs on my child one bit. If he asks questions, I'll tell him what I believe. But then I'll tell him that he needs to figure out what he believes and why he believes it. He's not quite old enough to really research this stuff out or care about it yet. But on the rare instance that he does say something about it, I always try to be mindful of not telling him what he should believe. Studies show that it works best if kids are given complete freedom to figure this stuff out for themselves. In fact, I hope I don't mold my child in any way whatsoever. I will enforce my boundaries with him, but nothing else. I would much rather him find out who he is inside, what his talents are, and decide what he believes all on his own. Summerhill, by A. S. Neill is an excellent book on the subject with real-world example. And A. S. Neill couldn't stand religion, but was excellent with psychology and children. Great book. I hope to garner support to start a private democratic school like Summerhill here in Irving at some point so my son can attend it.

They may be the best, but they are useless from a historical standpoint because they don’t provide any evidence that an actual Jesus existed. So, it’s kinda moot to bring it up.

But like you said, even eyewitness accounts are unreliable and useless to you, so this whole conversation is pointless. lol Which, again, is why I'll be bailing on it after this post.

Then, please, verify that what you have are actual facts, not anecdotes and misinformation.

Go read Pagan Christianity and you'll find all your references there. Doesn't matter if the book was written by a non-historian. The scholars' works cited in the back are done by historians. I never said that the historical references prove anything. I'm not interested in proof. All I said is that the link I shared has some of the better known references to Jesus' life. Whether that's convincing to a person is a heart issue, not a facts issue.

Debates, in my opinion, have nothing to do with pride and everything to do with the search for the truth. Debates center around a disagreement on a topic. If no one debated them, there would be no open discourse. That would create the same problems suffered by the ancient world. You’d have people that use guile and subterfuge to misrepresent data in order to keep people believing only what they approve of.

Debates, in the formal sense, are nothing more than structured discussions.

Then I would disagree with the terminology used. What you're talking about is discussion. Two people with opposing views come together in an effort to find truth by sharing information with each other. That accomplishes what you're talking about.

But with debates, there's a stark difference. The two people typically want to change the view of the other person to meet their own, or they want to boost theirself up by making the other person's argument seem inaccurate. This makes them feel better and feel justified in what they believe, and that's due to an underlying feeling of not being good enough. That comes from a lack of truly loving and approving of oneself which is typically propagated by the parents (due to their religion or just the way they interact with their children) when growing up.

I have zero desire to debate anyone, because I have to risk publicly humiliating someone if my arguments are better than the other guy's. That's just messed up and cruel. I've been like that before and eventually I saw how awful it made me feel. I want nothing to do with it now. Discussions I'll have all day. Those are fun. But when someone is so sure they're right and they keep telling me I'm wrong, that's not discussion. That's self-righteousness and I'll have no part in that. This conversation feels a little like it's gone that direction, so I care to participate in it anymore. And besides--I came here to take a break for a bit, not spend a bunch of time posting, so I should get back to my writing and other errands.

Thanks for the conversation.

[BrianC]

I just like to have these conversations because there my be proof out there that I've not been presented. If something actually exists, there will be evidence that meets my criteria. Of course, I may never get to see that proof due to technological limitations, but there isn't sufficient reason to believe in something until there is actual proof supporting the claim.

If you truly are looking for proof and would change your beliefs if you saw it, then good for you. There are tons of people who aren't like that. And since I can't know your heart, I can't say that's true about you. In fact, I dare say that you may not even know for sure what's true about you, because most of us don't really know ourselves, even if we think we do. I was given the smartest psychologist at this practice of about 8 psychologists. Other psychologists come to this practice for help. They send them to her. She said that when she started working with me, she thought to herself, "Oh, crap. This guy's smarter than me. How am I'm going to help him." I'm not saying that in a prideful way. You seem to like proof, so I'm sharing that to let you know I'm very good with psychology, and even I have trouble, at times, figuring out why I truly act the way I act and feel the way I feel. People often don't like to acknowledge that, though, because it feels unsafe to think that you don't know and understand yourself.

Regarding proof of God, I believe you're 100% correct. If you saw actual proof, I believe you'd believe in God. But I'm guessing that the proof that you'd need would be something very emotionally crippling that brought you to your knees. Often, it's not physical facts that causes people to believe, because those who really don't want to believe (but don't realize that) will take solid facts and toss them to the curb by creating some kind of argument that makes those facts seem incorrect. People reason away facts all the time. But I have friends who've tried to disprove God, and when they couldn't, they ended up believing. lol Anything's possible. Emotions are usually the trigger for belief, though. If proof were, there'd be no Christians. lol Very few people know what the real proofs of Christianity are, and even those proofs get reasoned away illogically.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else believe. I was just having a fun discussion and it started to feel a little odd to me. Now, it's not enjoyable. I appreciate the discussion, but I'm pretty much done now. Thanks!

[Maddhattter]

I completely agree when it comes to testable, demonstrable, and reproducible evidence...like gravity. What I was referring to was more along the lines of scientific theories.

Gravity is a theory. It never gets any better than a theory in science.

Yet, there are some things that are testable, demonstrable, and reproducible that actually have been misinterpreted for many years until a scientist starts researching it and finds something everyone missed. This absolutely happens.

Give one actual example...

Half-lives is one decent example, but there are others more stark than that one.

No, it's not.

I kid you not, there is some pretty compelling evidence that likely shows that we've been misinterpreting the electron.

Judging from your overall accuracy on the wide range of topics we've discussed here, I'm not compelled to take your word on this, nor have I been able to find any actual scientific data to support this claim.

Electrons haven't ever been witnessed, but we can do experiments that prove the force is there. Yet we may have had it wrong this whole time about how they work and even their physical make-up.

If we have it all wrong, then none of the tests we use to prove that the force is there would work. Is it possible that we don't have the details all correct? Sure, but we'd have to have the gist of it correct for the tests we're doing to work.

Also, we've seen electrons. We've got pictures of them from years ago. We've even got pictures of electrons in orbit of their nuclei. A quick google search would have told you that.

However, it's important to keep in mind that electrons are still considered theoretical since we can't physically prove their existence the way we currently define them.

"Theoretical" is as good as it gets in science. So, yes. Electrons are theoretical, just like germs, gravity and evolution.

All we really know is that there is a force that we think is an electron. I don't know which is accurate. I'm just saying, what you stated is not 100% accurate when it comes to some supposedly demonstrable "facts" of science.

100% accurate? Nope. However, it's the best and most reliable way to prove anything.

But even gravity we don't understand, and we can test it. We don't know how it works exactly.

We understand it. We just don't know what causes it.

Of course. But the point is that we're constantly finding that we're missing information and having to rework theories. I don't want to get into science, though. Too many rabbit holes...

Right. We rework theories. We're not tossing it all out the window and starting from scratch as your post implies.

You're taking it way too literally. His point was that things change in science, specially in the realm of brain science, so understand that you need to keep researching and know that you could be wrong about anything.

Our understanding changes in science, yes. However, there is not a good reason to forget anything you've learned until it's actually demonstrated that something else is more accurate. Via demonstrable, testable, reproducible evidence.

We'll agree to disagree on this one.

This is one of those time where I have to be that asshole and say that we don't agree to disagree. Reality is simple to define, barring hard solipsism.

Then you'll want to read some of the more recent articles about studies done in this area by secular scientist. Scientists are starting to see just how incredibly inaccurate carbon dating, as well as all other dating methods are. In fact, because they have to predict exactly how much of the dating element was in the animal (or object) at the time of its death, it's completely inaccurate. There's no way to know, period.

I have, and none of this is true. Again, radiometric dating doesn't give you a precise answer, but scientists already knew this.

Again, I'm not going into a science discussion. Far too wide a subject and proof is pointless. This isn't an issue of proof--it's a subconscious heart issue.

This entire thread is about proving the existence of Jesus. So, proof is at the heart of the issue.

I encourage you do some research on psychology then. Where religion is concerned, if someone is interested in something, it always comes back to some kind of need within them.

No, it doesn't.

One friend I have is perfectly happy simply knowing there's a God. No evangelists have any effect on him whatsoever, because he has no need to fill.

No evangelists have an affect on him because they haven't convinced him. It has nothing to do with having a "hole".

He doesn't harbor shame. He had to find his own way as a kid and wasn't exposed to religion. If he could be convinced that he is shameful, and then starts feeling it, then he could be susceptible to evangelizing.

He could be susceptible to evangelizing by bad data and misinformation as well.

But I guarantee, as is, no one will ever convert him to anything right now. He's one of the most solid people I know. Very trustworthy and good natured. He didn't need religion to teach him that. He found it within himself. I'd go to him if I needed help before I'd go to my Christian friends most likely.

Let's just assume that you can actually make that guarantee. So what? The plural of anecdote != evidence.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Psychology would disagree with you on this in regard to religion.

No, they wouldn't.

And people who are very engineer-minded often have trouble processing and understanding this one, because they don't have a good handle on how emotions work due to the fact that they don't realize they've turned off the ability to feel most of their emotions and they don't know it.

No, they haven't.

But psychology is not a discussion I wish to pursue here either, because it's too abstract and subjective, which makes it incredibly hard to prove sufficiently to a scientist or science-minded person.

I'll agree that it can be abstract, but that doesn't prevent any student of hard sciences from understanding it. They'll just remind you that psychology is a soft science, so none of the blanket assertions your making can be true because the details will vary from person to person. Funny, actual psychologists will tell you the same thing.

Alright, let me go deeper then. The person will not be able to be convinced of a need for religion if they don't already have some need inside they're trying to fill. Nothing will convince them, because they do not see or feel a need. Or if they do feel a need, they're not connecting it with a lack of religion.

This is incorrect. All one has to do is convince another that a religion is true. It can be via actual evidence, or via manipulation. There is no requirement for a "need" to be filled.

And I'd applaud them for that. Religion isn't the solution. Accepting and loving one's self is. It's pretty simple.

If they have a "need" for religion, then it would be the solution. That's just how that works.

[Maddhattter]

Ahhh, but you're now getting into the beginning stages of the psychological shaping. I'm not talking about kids. I'm talking about adults. When someone is a kid, that's when their needs are being formed by them. It's when they're choosing things consciously and subconsciously. You are absolutely correct that at this stage, kids are susceptible to having a religious teaching shift their thinking.

I know, but it doesn't stop there. All of the things above are consistently happening all throughout a person's life.

But, this will likely only work if the child is being raised in an environment where beliefs are being forced on him and where he's being molded into something.

No, it generally comes from trusting an authority figure. Like a parent or teacher when they say something is true.

This causes a need in the child depending on what the child chooses while going through these events. And rarely to children come to the correct conclusions about what's happening to them. This is why it's so important for everyone to go back to their past and figure out what shaped them and why.

It's just as important to understand everything after those events to understand what has shaped them and why.

However, I disagree that all parents do this to children. I don't force my beliefs on my child one bit. If he asks questions, I'll tell him what I believe. But then I'll tell him that he needs to figure out what he believes and why he believes it. He's not quite old enough to really research this stuff out or care about it yet. But on the rare instance that he does say something about it, I always try to be mindful of not telling him what he should believe.

When you tell them what is true, they will trust you as an authority figure. They become convinced of the same bad arguments that have been made time and time again in this forum and of the misinformation you've been providing here. Whether you like it or not, you are forcing your beliefs on your children. If I were to have any, I would do the same to mine. It's unavoidable because they are not old enough to understand the complexities of the answers until long after you've given them the answer.

When you tell them something is true and tell them to research it to find out, the will generally do research of the same level that you've provided here.

Studies show that it works best if kids are given complete freedom to figure this stuff out for themselves.

Can you link one?

In fact, I hope I don't mold my child in any way whatsoever. I will enforce my boundaries with him, but nothing else. I would much rather him find out who he is inside, what his talents are, and decide what he believes all on his own.

This is impossible. You will always affect your child's development, for better or for worse.

Summerhill, by A. S. Neill is an excellent book on the subject with real-world example. And A. S. Neill couldn't stand religion, but was excellent with psychology and children. Great book. I hope to garner support to start a private democratic school like Summerhill here in Irving at some point so my son can attend it.

Based on the ideas of someone with no training in either psychology or nor education? Good luck.

But like you said, even eyewitness accounts are unreliable and useless to you, so this whole conversation is pointless. lol Which, again, is why I'll be bailing on it after this post.

It's not just useless to me. Eyewitness testimony is the absolute lowest form of evidence. Unfortunately, you couldn't even provide that.

Go read Pagan Christianity and you'll find all your references there. Doesn't matter if the book was written by a non-historian. The scholars' works cited in the back are done by historians.

I don't have to read the book. A bad source is a bad source. Frank is a bad source. There is no reason to even think that Frank would know a good historical source if he found one.

I never said that the historical references prove anything. I'm not interested in proof. All I said is that the link I shared has some of the better known references to Jesus' life. Whether that's convincing to a person is a heart issue, not a facts issue.

Except none of them were references to Jesus's life. They all referenced people that believed in a Jesus character.

Then I would disagree with the terminology used. What you're talking about is discussion. Two people with opposing views come together in an effort to find truth by sharing information with each other. That accomplishes what you're talking about.

No, I was talking about a debate.

But with debates, there's a stark difference. The two people typically want to change the view of the other person to meet their own, or they want to boost theirself up by making the other person's argument seem inaccurate. This makes them feel better and feel justified in what they believe, and that's due to an underlying feeling of not being good enough. That comes from a lack of truly loving and approving of oneself which is typically propagated by the parents (due to their religion or just the way they interact with their children) when growing up.

Incorrect.

I have zero desire to debate anyone, because I have to risk publicly humiliating someone if my arguments are better than the other guy's. That's just messed up and cruel. I've been like that before and eventually I saw how awful it made me feel. I want nothing to do with it now. Discussions I'll have all day. Those are fun. But when someone is so sure they're right and they keep telling me I'm wrong, that's not discussion. That's self-righteousness and I'll have no part in that. This conversation feels a little like it's gone that direction, so I care to participate in it anymore. And besides--I came here to take a break for a bit, not spend a bunch of time posting, so I should get back to my writing and other errands.

You've not even come close to presenting an argument that would be better than anyone elses, so there's no need to worry about being cruel. You've not made any supportable claims, so, really, you don't have any arguments of merit.

If you truly are looking for proof and would change your beliefs if you saw it, then good for you. There are tons of people who aren't like that. And since I can't know your heart, I can't say that's true about you. In fact, I dare say that you may not even know for sure what's true about you, because most of us don't really know ourselves, even if we think we do.

I've changed my mind about a great many things due to the evidence, or lack thereof. Religion is but one example of that.

Regarding proof of God, I believe you're 100% correct. If you saw actual proof, I believe you'd believe in God. But I'm guessing that the proof that you'd need would be something very emotionally crippling that brought you to your knees.

Then you'd guess wrong. An appeal to emotion is not what's going to convince me. Actual evidence will, however.

Often, it's not physical facts that causes people to believe, because those who really don't want to believe (but don't realize that) will take solid facts and toss them to the curb by creating some kind of argument that makes those facts seem incorrect.

You lost me at the end of that. You are correct that facts aren't what convice people of the validity of religion. However, while surely the rest of it happens on occasion, there is nothing to support that claim with any regularity.

People reason away facts all the time. But I have friends who've tried to disprove God, and when they couldn't, they ended up believing. lol Anything's possible. Emotions are usually the trigger for belief, though. If proof were, there'd be no Christians. lol Very few people know what the real proofs of Christianity are, and even those proofs get reasoned away illogically.

Then can you provide any of those proofs? No one else has been able to.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. I couldn't care less what you or anyone else believe. I was just having a fun discussion and it started to feel a little odd to me. Now, it's not enjoyable. I appreciate the discussion, but I'm pretty much done now. Thanks!

No problem. Like I said in a previous post, I'll generally let the other person guide these conversations, so if you every want to discuss it more feel free to post.