Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Napoleon Ier]

Big G denying the Christian Persecutions...

You don't know a guy called David Irving do ya ?

low blow, low blow...

[MelonanadeMaster]

These aren't a few disiples, there were hundreds. They all saw the same things, and they all died for what you claim they knew was perfectly false. Oh, and yeah, they managed to get past trained Roman guards, who just dissappeared(the authoritires would have said if the guards had been attacked).

Oh come on Napoleon...

Firstly, in response to the 'they died for it' claim, I may as well post a comment I made in another thread some time back when someone else made this claim.

...in regards to the argument from Martyrdom, we actually only have two cases of evidence in the New Testement, and elsewhere in the same period, of people martyred in the period after Jesus' death. Firstly, we have Stephen, who was not a witness, and secondly we have James who was executed on a charge of breaking the law. There is no evidence whatsoever that he could have in any way helped his death by renouncing Jesus, nor any specific mention of the resurrection, and we are looking here at both Acts and at the history of Josephus.

So, no, actually, we don't have any concrete evidence whatsoever for the martyrdom of those who witnessed the resurrection.

I don't speak for all Christians, but, as a historical source, (not a religous source) the Bible is just as reliable as any other historical source, and, consequently, vice-versa. Because of this I trust the other early Christian sources on their accounts of the martyres. Yes I admit this in itself isn't "proof" yet its silly to disbelieve everything that doesn't have conclusive proof. If I used that kind of logic it'd be logical to believe that you (saying that inderectly) don't exist. I mean I don't have any proof that you actualy exist realy, I mean you have some recorded writings to your name, but historical proofs are completely insuperior to scientific evidences.

I don't think I've spoken to you before on the site, and I don't mean to be at all patronising, but I'm a historian by profession. Historical 'proofs' can be defined very widely, but in this case I think we'd like to see a contemporary account which speaks of someone who witnessed the resurrection being killed because they will not renounce it. Its a simple requirement. There are no sources categorically which say anything like that. None.

And certainly I'm all for the Bible as a historical source. Its a wonderful document which details centuries of history! As an undergraduate I did a lot of research into ancient Assyria and Babylonia. Without the Bible we'd know much less of those early empires. I can tell you that both the Bible and Assyrian inscriptions tell us that in 701BC Sennacherib marched on Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that he was turned back by the wrath of the Angel of the Lord, whereas the Assyrian chronicle tells us that Judah paid him the tribute he requested and he left. Valid historical sources certainly confirm events, but they do not confirm the spiritual implications. As with ANY other historical source, you must read it critically. We could read Homer and conclude the Greek Gods must exist because he references real places and real events. But we don't, and I doubt you do either. I personally view it as a very valid source in terms of the life of Jesus. I'm sure a man named Jesus must have existed because it is written about by authors in the Bible and also elsewhere. History is all about doubt.

I respect your possition as a historian and I'm very glad you are one , there arn't enough out there
I must ask you to reword the first paragraph, I couldn't clearly understand what you were getting at. Besides that, the second paragraph I generaly agreed with although I fail to see why the Biblical account of the Assyrian account is any less reliable than the Assyrian account. Unless you pre-decided that non-miraculous accounts are more reliable than miraculous ones, which woluld show clear bias. I'm going to have to go practice my violin for a bit now, but I will gladly return to the discussion.

[Guiscard]

Big G denying the Christian Persecutions...

You don't know a guy called David Irving do ya ?

low blow, low blow...

Err... No what I'm denying is any single account of a martyrdom of someone who witnessed the resurrection. Any single account. I'm not denying or trying to disprove anything. Just trying to make sure people don't think you're making historical claims where there are none.

Not the persecution of early Christians.

[Napoleon Ier]

Big G denying the Christian Persecutions...

You don't know a guy called David Irving do ya ?

low blow, low blow...

Err... No what I'm denying is any single account of a martyrdom of someone who witnessed the resurrection. Any single account. I'm not denying or trying to disprove anything. Just trying to make sure people don't think you're making historical claims where there are none.

Not the persecution of early Christians.

Come on, dont be ridiculous. Everyone agrees that the apostles were pretty much all martyred.

Don't manipulate people on based your excellent reputation

If not you know full well they spent their lives preaching the gospel, under fear andpersecution from authoritites.

[Guiscard]

I respect your possition as a historian and I'm very glad you are one , there arn't enough out there
I must ask you to reword the first paragraph, I couldn't clearly understand what you were getting at. Besides that, the second paragraph I generaly agreed with although I fail to see why the Biblical account of the Assyrian account is any less reliable than the Assyrian account. Unless you pre-decided that non-miraculous accounts are more reliable than miraculous ones, which woluld show clear bias. I'm going to have to go practice my violin for a bit now, but I will gladly return to the discussion.

What I am talking about in the first paragraph is the supposed 'proof' that the resurrection must have happened because those who witnessed it were martyred. Why would you die for something you knew to be a lie? The answer is that there is no evidence that anyone who witnessed the resurrection WAS martyred. Its a misconception held by a lot of theists which is simply not based on any evidence, biblical or not.

As for the Assyria comparison, all I mean by that is that just because the Bible is a source it does not mean it is the ONLY source. We also have plenty of Assyrian sources which give spiritual characteristics, divine wrath etc. etc. Should those be considered on an equal basis with those of Christianity? One of my associates once told me of an example of a ninth century hagiography which detailed something the author claimed to see with his own eyes... I think it was something like a pig turning into a tree... and that story was also written about by another eye witness, and by someone through word of mouth. Is that source as valid as the Biblical account?

[unriggable]

You're kidding right? Imagine a murder takes place with four witnesses watching the whole thing. Forty years later, as in, FORTY YEARS, the witnesses are brought to testify, assuming they remember everything. Do you think their memories will be a bit bent? Because the first written account of Jesus wasn't until, what, the year 70? Guiscard can back this up.

The point was that many other historical figures, have no records till MUCH later than the comparitevely short period of time in the case of the Gospels. Take the Greek philosephers for example. Plus I was never arguing they had perfect memories that remembered every detail. In fact the scriptures say this, (and I'm paraphraising) "There are many things concering Jesus that have not been recorded in this writing"

The greek philosophers wrote their own books.

[MelonanadeMaster]

I respect your possition as a historian and I'm very glad you are one , there arn't enough out there
I must ask you to reword the first paragraph, I couldn't clearly understand what you were getting at. Besides that, the second paragraph I generaly agreed with although I fail to see why the Biblical account of the Assyrian account is any less reliable than the Assyrian account. Unless you pre-decided that non-miraculous accounts are more reliable than miraculous ones, which woluld show clear bias. I'm going to have to go practice my violin for a bit now, but I will gladly return to the discussion.

What I am talking about in the first paragraph is the supposed 'proof' that the resurrection must have happened because those who witnessed it were martyred. Why would you die for something you knew to be a lie? The answer is that there is no evidence that anyone who witnessed the resurrection WAS martyred. Its a misconception held by a lot of theists which is simply not based on any evidence, biblical or not.

As for the Assyria comparison, all I mean by that is that just because the Bible is a source it does not mean it is the ONLY source. We also have plenty of Assyrian sources which give spiritual characteristics, divine wrath etc. etc. Should those be considered on an equal basis with those of Christianity? One of my associates once told me of an example of a ninth century hagiography which detailed something the author claimed to see with his own eyes... I think it was something like a pig turning into a tree... and that story was also written about by another eye witness, and by someone through word of mouth. Is that source as valid as the Biblical account?

I can assure you, I'm not like some of the circular logigistical Christians out there, I believe in the Bible based off what I know of the religion itself, (that is Christianity) anything in the Bible not strictly relating to philosiphy, theology, or metaphysics, is up for debate. Although I personaly do beieve in miracles, I don't believe every miracle recorded actualy took place (even some in the Bible )
Yes there is no comlete evidence for the martyredoms, but I already covered these supposed "lacks of evidence" in another post.

[MelonanadeMaster]

You're kidding right? Imagine a murder takes place with four witnesses watching the whole thing. Forty years later, as in, FORTY YEARS, the witnesses are brought to testify, assuming they remember everything. Do you think their memories will be a bit bent? Because the first written account of Jesus wasn't until, what, the year 70? Guiscard can back this up.

The point was that many other historical figures, have no records till MUCH later than the comparitevely short period of time in the case of the Gospels. Take the Greek philosephers for example. Plus I was never arguing they had perfect memories that remembered every detail. In fact the scriptures say this, (and I'm paraphraising) "There are many things concering Jesus that have not been recorded in this writing"

The greek philosophers wrote their own books.

Am I expected to disagree with this?
That was, beyond the point of what I was using the example to illustrate.

[bradleybadly]

Interesting stuff to say the least Napoleon. I think you would need a little more than church tradition to convince someone though. The Josephus quote is an interesting read.

Someone once told me that there was a document from one of Pilate's friends years after the crucifixion in which this friend referenced the sky turning dark in the middle of the day, which would sort of confirm that part of the story. I've never been able to find it.

From my own point of view I see a big problem with Christianity. There are so many different sects of it that how would a person know which one is correct. Who's to say that Protestants aren't right and the Catholics screwed it all up? I mean the Catholic Church has killed a lot of people in the name of God. Don't misunderstand me. I admire the founder of your belief, Jesus. He's the only one that actually lived up to what he preached if the Bible is correct. I've seen so many hypocrites on TV that I want to throw up.



That's just one example - and before you ask, no, I'm not saying that you're from the same stock.

[muy_thaiguy]

bradley, those people that you see on TV that claim they can perfom miracles for a small fee, are not considered actual Christians by anyone else, and that's the short story of it. Also, I know that many have killed others in the name of Christianity, but the same can be said of many things, in actuality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say it wasn't wrong, just that Chrisitians were far from the frist to do so, and far from the last as well.

[bradleybadly]

bradley, those people that you see on TV that claim they can perfom miracles for a small fee, are not considered actual Christians by anyone else, and that's the short story of it.

well I don't see more of these true Christians coming out and denouncing them

Also, I know that many have killed others in the name of Christianity, but the same can be said of many things, in actuality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say it wasn't wrong, just that Chrisitians were far from the frist to do so, and far from the last as well.

I'll concede this because any asshole can come out and say they belong to a religion in order to serve themselves. After all, the 9/11 idiots said they believed in Islam and then flew planes into buildings. I'm not sure a lot of Muslims would want to include them within their flock.

But how would you justify the Southern Baptists being for slavery?

[unriggable]

You're kidding right? Imagine a murder takes place with four witnesses watching the whole thing. Forty years later, as in, FORTY YEARS, the witnesses are brought to testify, assuming they remember everything. Do you think their memories will be a bit bent? Because the first written account of Jesus wasn't until, what, the year 70? Guiscard can back this up.

The point was that many other historical figures, have no records till MUCH later than the comparitevely short period of time in the case of the Gospels. Take the Greek philosephers for example. Plus I was never arguing they had perfect memories that remembered every detail. In fact the scriptures say this, (and I'm paraphraising) "There are many things concering Jesus that have not been recorded in this writing"

The greek philosophers wrote their own books.

Am I expected to disagree with this?
That was, beyond the point of what I was using the example to illustrate.

Well if Jesus wrote his own philosophy, it would be stupid to say "Maybe he didn't actually exist". But he didn't.

[MelonanadeMaster]

You're kidding right? Imagine a murder takes place with four witnesses watching the whole thing. Forty years later, as in, FORTY YEARS, the witnesses are brought to testify, assuming they remember everything. Do you think their memories will be a bit bent? Because the first written account of Jesus wasn't until, what, the year 70? Guiscard can back this up.

The point was that many other historical figures, have no records till MUCH later than the comparitevely short period of time in the case of the Gospels. Take the Greek philosephers for example. Plus I was never arguing they had perfect memories that remembered every detail. In fact the scriptures say this, (and I'm paraphraising) "There are many things concering Jesus that have not been recorded in this writing"

The greek philosophers wrote their own books.

Am I expected to disagree with this?
That was, beyond the point of what I was using the example to illustrate.

Well if Jesus wrote his own philosophy, it would be stupid to say "Maybe he didn't actually exist". But he didn't.

I aree it'd be stupid to do so, but it would be done all the same, with the same conspiracy plots I presented for analysis. I'm not disagreeing with you here, your'e just going down a path that I wasn't trailing on.

[MelonanadeMaster]

Interesting stuff to say the least Napoleon. I think you would need a little more than church tradition to convince someone though. The Josephus quote is an interesting read.

Someone once told me that there was a document from one of Pilate's friends years after the crucifixion in which this friend referenced the sky turning dark in the middle of the day, which would sort of confirm that part of the story. I've never been able to find it.

From my own point of view I see a big problem with Christianity. There are so many different sects of it that how would a person know which one is correct. Who's to say that Protestants aren't right and the Catholics screwed it all up? I mean the Catholic Church has killed a lot of people in the name of God. Don't misunderstand me. I admire the founder of your belief, Jesus. He's the only one that actually lived up to what he preached if the Bible is correct. I've seen so many hypocrites on TV that I want to throw up.



That's just one example - and before you ask, no, I'm not saying that you're from the same stock.

The denomenations of Christianity, while important, are amost all theology and philosophy. Trying to reword that Although only one denomination can be the truth, the fundamental truths are accepted by all churches (no Mormons are not Christians.) I happen to be a Lutheran turned Catholic, and although I like to convince people to become Catholic, the most important thing is just to become a Christian, then decide what denomination is best fitting (that isn't to say all denomenations are equal.)

[MelonanadeMaster]

bradley, those people that you see on TV that claim they can perfom miracles for a small fee, are not considered actual Christians by anyone else, and that's the short story of it.

well I don't see more of these true Christians coming out and denouncing them

Also, I know that many have killed others in the name of Christianity, but the same can be said of many things, in actuality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say it wasn't wrong, just that Chrisitians were far from the frist to do so, and far from the last as well.

I'll concede this because any asshole can come out and say they belong to a religion in order to serve themselves. After all, the 9/11 idiots said they believed in Islam and then flew planes into buildings. I'm not sure a lot of Muslims would want to include them within their flock.

But how would you justify the Southern Baptists being for slavery?

Although I may recieve flaming for this, they were (the terrorists) following their religion the way it was. I'm not saying that all Muslims do, but those Muslims who don't believe in the jihads, don't believe in an original part of their faith.

[Guiscard]

Although I may recieve flaming for this, they were (the terrorists) following their religion the way it was. I'm not saying that all Muslims do, but those Muslims who don't believe in the jihads, don't believe in an original part of their faith.

I'm not gonna flame you, but this comes up time and time again...

I am primarily a crusader historian. One of the areas of study I've become most interested in (and, indeed, considered for my doctorate) is the development of Holy War or Jihad within the Muslim World. The idea that Muslims were religiously bound to drive kill all those who opposed Islam began to gain ideological tender as a direct result of the invasion of Muslim lands by the Franks. It certainly wasn't an inherent part of their religion. Now what you're going to do, most likely, is give me quotes from the Koran. There are also equally contradictory quotes I can give you back. So lets not bother shall we? The Koran WASN'T interpreted like that I'm afraid. Perhaps the best example I can give is Saladin. After the Third Crusade took Jaffa the diplomatic efforts between the two 'sides' (in themselves an example of the inapplicability of 'never suffer the infidel...') were stepped up to move towards perhaps even a shared rule of the Holy Land. He was willing to actually give lands to the Christians, to allow Muslims to be ruled by Christians and Muslims in turn to rule Christians. This is Saladin, seen as the great unifying force of Islam. His commitment to religious orthodoxy is stronger than most leaders and we can tell this through the biographies written by his staff. There was certainly a rise in literature espousing the ideas of Holy War we may associate with Islam now, but that must be seen as reactionary and certainly only an interpretation of scriptures not considered valid by many Muslims. It was more 'They've taken our land. Lets take it back. Here's a verse which agrees.' than 'Here's a verse which tells us to take our land back so lets do it.' Did you know that Saladin spent something like 80% of his reign fighting other Muslims. Now we can't say that none of them were committed religiously, so why weren't they pouring everything they had into fighting the infidel?

At the end of the day, violence within Islam is just as much open to interpretation as violence within the Bible. The idea of Jihad developed after 1096. It was not present with the inception of the religion itself and is certainly not an inherent part of their faith

[Symmetry]

Great post, Guiscard.

[Backglass]

Feeling vitriolic today are you? Whatever sparked your sudden pugnacious attitude?

You're arrogance has pushed me too far.

Hello Kettle..Meet pot!

[muy_thaiguy]

Although I may recieve flaming for this, they were (the terrorists) following their religion the way it was. I'm not saying that all Muslims do, but those Muslims who don't believe in the jihads, don't believe in an original part of their faith.

I'm not gonna flame you, but this comes up time and time again...

I am primarily a crusader historian. One of the areas of study I've become most interested in (and, indeed, considered for my doctorate) is the development of Holy War or Jihad within the Muslim World. The idea that Muslims were religiously bound to drive kill all those who opposed Islam began to gain ideological tender as a direct result of the invasion of Muslim lands by the Franks. It certainly wasn't an inherent part of their religion. Now what you're going to do, most likely, is give me quotes from the Koran. There are also equally contradictory quotes I can give you back. So lets not bother shall we? The Koran WASN'T interpreted like that I'm afraid. Perhaps the best example I can give is Saladin. After the Third Crusade took Jaffa the diplomatic efforts between the two 'sides' (in themselves an example of the inapplicability of 'never suffer the infidel...') were stepped up to move towards perhaps even a shared rule of the Holy Land. He was willing to actually give lands to the Christians, to allow Muslims to be ruled by Christians and Muslims in turn to rule Christians. This is Saladin, seen as the great unifying force of Islam. His commitment to religious orthodoxy is stronger than most leaders and we can tell this through the biographies written by his staff. There was certainly a rise in literature espousing the ideas of Holy War we may associate with Islam now, but that must be seen as reactionary and certainly only an interpretation of scriptures not considered valid by many Muslims. It was more 'They've taken our land. Lets take it back. Here's a verse which agrees.' than 'Here's a verse which tells us to take our land back so lets do it.' Did you know that Saladin spent something like 80% of his reign fighting other Muslims. Now we can't say that none of them were committed religiously, so why weren't they pouring everything they had into fighting the infidel?

At the end of the day, violence within Islam is just as much open to interpretation as violence within the Bible. The idea of Jihad developed after 1096. It was not present with the inception of the religion itself and is certainly not an inherent part of their faith

Saladin, yes. But, what about the other Muslim rulers at the time, and before it? Especially the ones Saladin fought with, as I am not sure if many were happy, or even content with Saladin's views on things. Please fill me in on this.

[Napoleon Ier]

Although I may recieve flaming for this, they were (the terrorists) following their religion the way it was. I'm not saying that all Muslims do, but those Muslims who don't believe in the jihads, don't believe in an original part of their faith.

I'm not gonna flame you, but this comes up time and time again...

I am primarily a crusader historian. One of the areas of study I've become most interested in (and, indeed, considered for my doctorate) is the development of Holy War or Jihad within the Muslim World. The idea that Muslims were religiously bound to drive kill all those who opposed Islam began to gain ideological tender as a direct result of the invasion of Muslim lands by the Franks. It certainly wasn't an inherent part of their religion. Now what you're going to do, most likely, is give me quotes from the Koran. There are also equally contradictory quotes I can give you back. So lets not bother shall we? The Koran WASN'T interpreted like that I'm afraid. Perhaps the best example I can give is Saladin. After the Third Crusade took Jaffa the diplomatic efforts between the two 'sides' (in themselves an example of the inapplicability of 'never suffer the infidel...') were stepped up to move towards perhaps even a shared rule of the Holy Land. He was willing to actually give lands to the Christians, to allow Muslims to be ruled by Christians and Muslims in turn to rule Christians. This is Saladin, seen as the great unifying force of Islam. His commitment to religious orthodoxy is stronger than most leaders and we can tell this through the biographies written by his staff. There was certainly a rise in literature espousing the ideas of Holy War we may associate with Islam now, but that must be seen as reactionary and certainly only an interpretation of scriptures not considered valid by many Muslims. It was more 'They've taken our land. Lets take it back. Here's a verse which agrees.' than 'Here's a verse which tells us to take our land back so lets do it.' Did you know that Saladin spent something like 80% of his reign fighting other Muslims. Now we can't say that none of them were committed religiously, so why weren't they pouring everything they had into fighting the infidel?

At the end of the day, violence within Islam is just as much open to interpretation as violence within the Bible. The idea of Jihad developed after 1096. It was not present with the inception of the religion itself and is certainly not an inherent part of their faith

Interesting debate. I would wholeheartedly support a post in its honour.

[Backglass]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

[Napoleon Ier]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

Yes. And wheteher or not you realise it, you sort of believe in god. You probably know him through your superego. Satan through your id.

[Guiscard]

Saladin, yes. But, what about the other Muslim rulers at the time, and before it? Especially the ones Saladin fought with, as I am not sure if many were happy, or even content with Saladin's views on things. Please fill me in on this.

I don't quite follow you... Other leaders, as Saladin was, were committed to driving the Crusaders out of the Holy Land as a matter of course. The Franks were an offensive power in the region looking to increase their territory at the expense of the Islamic lands. What I'm saying is that the utter and unceasing quest for the death of the infidel was not a part of Islam itself. There were constant diplomatic agreements in force throughout the Islamic world. At times, warfare against the infidel was justified by scripture. However, we can identify quotes which easily contradict such a notion, and the evidence of Muslims living peacefully alongside Christians in the Near East at various points gives us further evidence of the extent to which this was simply warfare with added justification from scripture rather than scripture prompting warfare. It was a concept which gradually evolved, not one that was born with Muhammad.

[Backglass]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

Yes. And wheteher or not you realise it, you sort of believe in god. You probably know him through your superego. Satan through your id.

Sorry Freud, but I do not believe in gods OR satans OR demons OR minotaurs OR pegasi. Unlike you, I am firmly grounded in reality.

One does not need to believe in such creatures to lead a moral and decent life. Millions do it everyday without the crutches.

[Guiscard]

Nope If I was atheist I would, like whoever this person is, (to lazy to press back to find his name) run around with no care in the world about killing things including humans.

Ah...so atheists run around killing do they? After all they have no morals because it takes RELIGION to do that...right?

Yes. And wheteher or not you realise it, you sort of believe in god. You probably know him through your superego. Satan through your id.

...or do you believe in your superego through God and your id through Satan?