Jesus Could Have Walked on Ice, Scientist Says

[Bustem' Down]

There are proselytizers on both sides. For some reason the Christian ones seem to be considered 'evil' while the other ones are "just pointing out the obvious".

I think that's just a fad. Go back 100 years and the atheists were the evil ones. The works of Darwin spewed straight from the mouth of Satan. Now a days, Christians just see atheists as misguided and not evil anymore. I've never considered a Christian evil, I just don't care enough.

 

[Tonio]

I dunno - why do militant atheists come into a religious group and try and stir up crap? Why can't they just be satisfied with their own beliefs? Why can't they just leave everyone else alone?

I agree with you completely. I consider athiesm to be a religion, although I'm not an athiest myself. Born-Again Evangelical Athiests are just as holier-than-thou as evangelists from other religions, and just as annoying. I don't think most athiests act like that, just as most Christians don't act like that. It's the small but extremely vocal minorities in those religions.

 

[Bustem' Down]

But back to the thread topic and the divinity of Christ. If someone invented a time machine tomorrow and took all the christians of the world back to the days of Jesus and it turned out that he was just a man and no miricles happened, those people would still believe. The religion is too set and faith is too strong a power.

 

[Toxick]

If someone invented a time machine tomorrow and took all the christians of the world back to the days of Jesus and it turned out that he was just a man and no miricles happened, those people would still believe.

See - here's the thing about that.


The people who wrote the New Testament - the fishermen, rabbis, carpenters and handy-men - were not religious zealots. They were stragglers and followers that Jesus picked up along the way.

They were not writing about things that were happening in some astral plane. They were not writing about the things they believed about the afterlife - the were writing about things they saw happening right there in their very own hometown. They were writing about things they saw, next to landmarks that they walked by every day. They were writing about miracles they saw happening on hilltops which they would look at from their bedroom window.

These men were the men who would have known if all this was a lie.

And yet - all of them were tortured and martyred rather than admit that what they wrote was crap.

Every religion has zealots - and zealots cheerfully die for what they believe - but nobody - NOBODY - willingly gives up their life for what he KNOWS is a lie.


It may not be as good as a time machine - but it's good enough for me.

 

[Bustem' Down]

See - here's the thing about that.


The people who wrote the New Testament - the fishermen, rabbis, carpenters and handy-men - were not religious zealots. They were stragglers and followers that Jesus picked up along the way.

They were not writing about things that were happening in some astral plane. They were not writing about the things they believed about the afterlife - the were writing about things they saw happening right there in their very own hometown. They were writing about things they saw, next to landmarks that they walked by every day. They were writing about miracles they saw happening on hilltops which they would look at from their bedroom window.

These men were the men who would have known if all this was a lie.

And yet - all of them were tortured and martyred rather than admit that what they wrote was crap.

Every religion has zealots - and zealots cheerfully die for what they believe - but nobody - NOBODY - willingly gives up their life for what he KNOWS is a lie.


It may not be as good as a time machine - but it's good enough for me.

But it wasn't written by them. It was passed by oral tradition and actually written by someone else. Then there is the fact that for centuries it was written down by other people and where is the original copy to verify that it was written down correctly?

 

[Toxick]

But it wasn't written by them. It was passed by oral tradition and actually written by someone else.

I've had this discussion before:

http://forums.somd.com/showpost.php?p=1326652&postcount=218


If you don't want to follow the link- this bears repeating anyway:

Something I posted a few years back...


The oldest manuscripts of ancient writers like Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus (among other) amounts to a small number of copies that were made a thousand years or more after the originals were written. There are no more then ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, and the oldest copy of that was written over 900 years later than the original. Scholars accept these documents as adequate reprentations of the originals.

Why not the bible?

The earliest portions of The New Testament date to within just 25 years of the originals. Some nearly complete books of the new testament date to within one century or less from the originals. And we're not even talking about a handful of copies that can be compared with one another to determine accuracy or consistance. There are nearly 25,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament, with more than 15,000 that date to before the 7th Century A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer). These include 5,300 copies in the original Greek, over 10,000 in Latin Vulgate, 4,100 Slavic tranlations, 2,000 Ethiopian thranslations and about 1,000 other early translations.

Further, in the first centuries after Christ, thousands of letters, and other documents were written in which people quoted from other documents that would later be assembled into what was to become the New Testament.. These quotes are so extensive that even if there wasn't a single bible in existence, you could go back to those letters and documents and using only those written within 250 years after the death of Christ, you could find every word of the New Testament, with the exception of 11 verses.

There are small differences in all those manuscripts - however, all these differences, most are a matter of spelling or word order changes that were made as the styles changed over the ages. In fact a total of only about 200 words, or 1/10 of 1 percent of the entire new testament are subject to more than trivial differences. And no single doctrine of Christiantiy in all it's denominations througout history depend on a piece of disputed text.


As for the Old Testament, the discovey of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that in over 2,000 years those who copied the Old testament were so meticulous that no significant changes were made to the texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls represent a major library of over 800 total documents dating between 250 B.C. to 68 A.D. Every book of the Old Testament is included except for some minor prophets, and Esther.




I can provide citations for all the above facts, if anyone's remotely interested. Might take a while for me to dig that stuff back up though...

 

[Tonio]

And yet - all of them were tortured and martyred rather than admit that what they wrote was crap.

It's an outrage that people want to hurt and kill others with different religious beliefs. It happened in 1st-century Jerusalem, 1692 Salem, 1944 Auschwitz, and almost happened in 2006 Afghanistan.

 

[Toxick]

It's an outrage that people want to hurt and kill others with different religious beliefs.

Yes it is.

However, I hope you've noted from my text, that the men I'm referring to were not killed because of "religous beliefs".

 

[Midnightrider]

I've had this discussion before:

http://forums.somd.com/showpost.php?p=1326652&postcount=218


If you don't want to follow the link- this bears repeating anyway:

I think that the difference is that noone is, or is expecting others to live their lives by the words of aristotle. Additionally, no one is claiming that these works were the inspired words of god. they are just the Ideas posed by old dead men. Great ideas that deserve consideration, i learned lots from the allagory or the cave, but ideas of men none the less.

If we are saying that you evidence indicates the stories have been related orally and then documented in writting accurately, then i'd say sure. But if you feel this proves that the stories are based in fact, i can't agree. I just don't see the connection there.

 

[Nickel]

I can appreciate that. My point is, why does a believer in any religion have to include other people in his or her concept of deity and the afterlife? Why does the believer desperately want others to change their beliefs? Why isn't it enough that the believer regards himself or herself as a sinner? Why isn't it enough for the believer to be on his or her personal spiritual path? In my view, when a believer labels others as sinners, the believer implies that others are not worthy or not good enough. Not in the eyes of the believer's God, but in the eyes of the believer. I can't speak for anyone else, but I hate being told what to believe and what not to believe.

Why did Darwin's concept include all humans evolving, even the ones who don't believe it to be true? It all boils down to one's own personal belief system. My spiritual beliefs are very personal, and sacred, and not up for debate.

To put it in modern terms, it's all about marketing via word of mouth. Say I really love my new shampoo. I think others will love it too. So I say to someone..."Hey, this new shampoo is great. You should try it, I know you'll be happy with it". Such are the feelings of someone who has turned to Christ. It's not an emotion you can explain to someone who isn't familiar with it, you just know you want to share it and revel in it with as many people as possible. Some individuals go out on a limb to try to "save" people, while others are a little more reserved. Just as you think it's haughty for 2A or whoever to try to change you or others, I think it's haughty for someone to harp on the fact that they must be right, and he must be wrong.

 

[Toxick]

I think that the difference is that noone is, or is expecting others to live their lives by the words of aristotle. Additionally, no one is claiming that these works were the inspired words of god. they are just the Ideas posed by old dead men.

I fail to see what difference the intent of the document makes towards its acceptance of authenticity.

If we are saying that you evidence indicates the stories have been related orally and then documented in writting accurately, then i'd say sure.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I didn't even hint at anything like that.

I endorsed the acceptance of the modern Bible as adequate representations of the original : based on the exact same precidents accepted and used for other (secular) documents: and I believe the argument is reinforced by the coincident accuracy that was unarguably proven by other scientific criteria (viz: the dead sea scrolls which indicate that biblical scribes have unerringly maintained the integrity of the Old Testament for at least the past 1900-2100 years).

But if you feel this proves that the stories are based in fact, i can't agree. I just don't see the connection there.

Well, I'm not here to proselytize - I was posting simple facts to dispute a claim that was made. That you choose to dismiss my argument out of hand is fine by me. But it does signify the end of my participation in this conversation.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I don't see why it just can't be metaphores. Jesus walking on water as a metaphore for something else doesn't change anything of his teachings.

Except the miraculous nature of it which denies the power of God.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That and the Council of Nicea agreed by popular vote to deify Jesus. If there had been more Bishops that did not agree on the divinity of Christ, it could have swung the other way.

Would not have changed the fact that Jesus is God come as man. It does not matter what man thinks. What matters is what God is.

 

[2ndAmendment]

But it wasn't written by them. It was passed by oral tradition and actually written by someone else. Then there is the fact that for centuries it was written down by other people and where is the original copy to verify that it was written down correctly?

That is not true. John wrote the books credited to him as did Pete and Jude.

We have so many copies that are virtually identical that to say that the Bible has changed in meaning is just without substantiation. The scribes were meticulous in copying texts.

 

[Tonio]

Why did Darwin's concept include all humans evolving, even the ones who don't believe it to be true? It all boils down to one's own personal belief system. My spiritual beliefs are very personal, and sacred, and not up for debate.

To put it in modern terms, it's all about marketing via word of mouth. Say I really love my new shampoo. I think others will love it too. So I say to someone..."Hey, this new shampoo is great. You should try it, I know you'll be happy with it". Such are the feelings of someone who has turned to Christ. It's not an emotion you can explain to someone who isn't familiar with it, you just know you want to share it and revel in it with as many people as possible. Some individuals go out on a limb to try to "save" people, while others are a little more reserved. Just as you think it's haughty for 2A or whoever to try to change you or others, I think it's haughty for someone to harp on the fact that they must be right, and he must be wrong.

Personally, I see evolution as religion-neutral, and I don't think the origin of life is relevant to any religious belief, although I can see where some believers would disagree.

To my knowledge, Darwin never said that people who rejected the evolution hypothesis were evil and doomed to hell. And Listermint users don't regard Scope users as godless heathens who deserve to suffer in everlasting torment. I can appreciate the emotion of believers who want to "save" others. But whether there is anything to be "saved" from is a matter of personal religious faith.

I hope I don't come across as proclaiming that my religious beliefs are right and everyone else's is wrong. I believe strongly in the individual's right to follow his or her own spiritual path. I know that sounds nebulous. When anyone, Christian or athiest or whatever, condemns others for not having the "right" beliefs, I feel like the person is trying to get into others' minds. Like the person believes that others aren't entitled to their own thoughts and their own consciences.

 

[Nickel]

Personally, I see evolution as religion-neutral, and I don't think the origin of life is relevant to any religious belief, although I can see where some believers would disagree.

I was using Darwin as an analogy. I could've very well said that Old Navy feels that everyone should wear cargo pants, even those who don't particularly like cargo pants, but Darwin was the first thing that popped into my head. It wasn't meant to be a play-by-play comparison.

 

[BuddyLee]

Why did Darwin's concept include all humans evolving, even the ones who don't believe it to be true? It all boils down to one's own personal belief system. My spiritual beliefs are very personal, and sacred, and not up for debate.

To put it in modern terms, it's all about marketing via word of mouth. Say I really love my new shampoo. I think others will love it too. So I say to someone..."Hey, this new shampoo is great. You should try it, I know you'll be happy with it". Such are the feelings of someone who has turned to Christ. It's not an emotion you can explain to someone who isn't familiar with it, you just know you want to share it and revel in it with as many people as possible. Some individuals go out on a limb to try to "save" people, while others are a little more reserved. Just as you think it's haughty for 2A or whoever to try to change you or others, I think it's haughty for someone to harp on the fact that they must be right, and he must be wrong.

Nice.

Although it may be a side-factor, what about loneliness? Would you want to be the only one who believed in something? I sure wouldn't. I'd want to convince others that what I believe is true, even to help validate that belief or better yet to validate that I'm not a crazy-man.

 

[BuddyLee]

I posted this in a thread last year, just thought it was interesting.

I think of that as a sort of great intuition. You cannot possibly prove it for sure but somehow you just know! I myself am at the crossroads, I love questioning things and learning both sides of the debate, that way I tend to learn more about the subject at hand. However, sometimes I will see something or feel something and question that! Some things are just too beautiful and some feelings are just too powerful sometimes for me not to believe there is a higher power. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>

Last year we had a Buddhist guest speaker in one of my philosophy classes. After class I asked him "Do you believe in God and if so why? Why do you believe in God if you have never perceived God before?” He answered with "A few years ago I was introduced to infrared. I could see many things with infrared that I could not with my own eyes without infrared. Who's to say we do not have the ability to see God? Some of us may very well have that ability but not in the technological sense."<o></o>

<o></o>
Even in my own adventures in ghost hunting I myself will admit that just because you cannot see something doesn't mean it's not there. For instance, a blind man has a pencil put in front of him. The blind man cannot see the pencil but that does not exclude the fact that a pencil is still in front of him. <o></o>

<o></o>
I doubt any of this will change anyone's personal beliefs but I just wanted to get these thoughts out of my head and written somewhere.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

 

[Tonio]

Nice.

Although it may be a side-factor, what about loneliness? Would you want to be the only one who believed in something? I sure wouldn't. I'd want to convince others that what I believe is true, even to help validate that belief or better yet to validate that I'm not a crazy-man.

I'm completely the opposite. I like to think that my beliefs have individuality and uniqueness, and that what is inside my head is mine and mine alone.

In an unrelated (and incredibly extreme) context, I imagine Jill Carroll went through this same issue. She was in a situation designed to strip her humanity and her independence of thought, and she probably struggled to retain those things during her captivity.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I've had this discussion before:

http://forums.somd.com/showpost.php?p=1326652&postcount=218


If you don't want to follow the link- this bears repeating anyway:

Your right, and all scholars admit the those works are "attributed" to the author not actually written by him. There is good supporting evidence of it, but nothing that can be proven. Same with the gospels.