[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[BadFish]

Even though christians (and other religions) and atheists do convert to Islam
Why would a christian convert to Islam after seeing Jesus in their dreams?

The power of Jesus's touch can be overwhelming.

 

[kuzushi]

I dislike religion, but ( and i think most will agree), we have religious freedom in this country and I will defend their right to the last for them to spout their nonsense.

With that freedom to promote your religion comes the right for other people to criticize it.
I got some grief a few years back on NSC for defending Anjem Choudary promoting his utopian Islam according to sharia.

It was vile stuff (according to many opinions including mine) but what people failed to realise was it was his religious truth. Criticize the content by all means, but he should be allowed to spout his horrible religious beliefs even if we disagree.

Important to remember he was not jailed for his horrible religious beliefs, he went on for years winding people up. It was only when he stepped into supporting terrorism that his time was up.

What I've noticed is the almost hysterical reactions to me simply saying that Jesus's disciples believed that he rose from the dead.
Of course they did, that's why they did everything they could to spread the gospel.

 

[kuzushi]

Even though christians (and other religions) and atheists do convert to Islam
Why would a christian convert to Islam after seeing Jesus in their dreams?

I haven't heard of any cases of Christians converting to Islam after seeing Muhammad in their dreams, although I suppose that could be because Muhammad is dead. His tomb is in Medina.

 

[pastafarian]

What I've noticed is the almost hysterical reactions to me simply saying that Jesus's disciples believed that he rose from the dead.
Of course they did, that's why they did everything they could to spread the gospel.

No one is hysterical or even almost hysterical.
In fact a number of people have gone out of their way to say you are entitled to your religious opinions even if they dont agree with them.
There is no need to play the victime card.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Even though christians (and other religions) and atheists do convert to Islam
Why would a christian convert to Islam after seeing Jesus in their dreams?

Because Jesus is an Islamic prophet. Perhaps he told them the truth? (Not believing, just saying)

 

[BadFish]

I haven't heard of any cases of Christians converting to Islam after seeing Muhammad in their dreams, although I suppose that could be because Muhammad is dead. His tomb is in Medina.

This is right, you can't dream of dead people. Everyone knows that.

It is a great point.

 

[pastafarian]

I haven't heard of any cases of Christians converting to Islam after seeing Muhammad in their dreams, although I suppose that could be because Muhammad is dead. His tomb is in Medina.

How would they know its Muhammad in ther dreams anyway....what does he look like?
Do you have a picture you can share?

 

[Eeyore]

I dislike religion, but ( and i think most will agree), we have religious freedom in this country and I will defend their right to the last for them to spout their nonsense.

With that freedom to promote your religion comes the right for other people to criticize it.
I got some grief a few years back on NSC for defending Anjem Choudary promoting his utopian Islam according to sharia.

It was vile stuff (according to many opinions including mine) but what people failed to realise was it was his religious truth. Criticize the content by all means, but he should be allowed to spout his horrible religious beliefs even if we disagree.

Important to remember he was not jailed for his horrible religious beliefs, he went on for years winding people up. It was only when he stepped into supporting terrorism that his time was up.

I honestly see your point. It is a difficult one. And essentially moves towards another debate too big for the keyboard.

We live in a society where values and beliefs are often divided down cultural lines, including cultures within cultures. The conspicuous elephant in the room. Governments try to get around it by hate laws, but then there is the application of those laws to consider.

We seem to be highjacked by extremes and they seem to dominate the biggest media platforms.

I think I'll go back to debating England's wicket keeping issues. It's much more benign. Well, mostly.

 

[kuzushi]

How would they know its Muhammad in ther dreams anyway....what does he look like?
Do you have a picture you can share?

No. I have a picture of Jesus, though.

 

[kuzushi]

I honestly see your point. It is a difficult one. And essentially moves towards another debate too big for the keyboard.

We live in a society where values and beliefs are often divided down cultural lines, including cultures within cultures. The conspicuous elephant in the room. Governments try to get around it by hate laws, but then there is the application of those laws to consider.

We seem to be highjacked by extremes and they seem to dominate the biggest media platforms.

I think I'll go back to debating England's wicket keeping issues. It's much more benign.

Why do you find it difficult to discuss this topic?
What is it you struggle with? If there's anything not benign here, I trust it hasn't been from me. I don't think I've been rude to anyone. I've aimed to be polite the whole time, anyway.

 

[kuzushi]

This is right, you can't dream of dead people. Everyone knows that.

It is a great point.

Well, you can, but I've never heard of any instances of it that way round for whatever reason.

 

[kuzushi]

Bart "group hallucination" Ehrman

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

First of all, you have provided no evidence for what you are saying here whatsoever, and as far as I know there is none.
Read this: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[9] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][12] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

So not only are virtually all scholars in agreement that the man Jesus existed, but there is almost universal assent that he was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. There are elements that are disputed, which does not mean they are refuted, it just means that there is not consensus on those points. Let's not have any more nonsense regarding whether or not Jesus existed as a person.

Secondly, what you say is a logical fallacy. The fact that so many gospels were written does not indicate that there was a myriad of leaders of religious sects in the region at the time - and does not demonstrate that it is likely the Jesus of the modern bible was an amalgam of the story of a number of different individuals. This is utterly spurious. It would be like saying the fact that lots of journalists have written about Lionel Messi indicates that there are a lot of footballers and that the Messi we see on TV is an amalgam of a whole bunch of different individuals.

Of course you are free to say what you like, but it would be more helpful if your contributions were factually based rather than mere conjecture, and if you still insist on doing so, at least understand that you are going against virtually all scholars of antiquity. I say unfounded because you have said it without reference to any sources or anything to back it up at all. If you want to say something that goes against the consensus of experts in this field, you have to do better than just pulling things out of thin air. If you do have something solid to back up what you are saying, by all means let us know, and while you're at it you could submit it for peer review by experts.


Er, no. All I said is that they chose the most correct ones. Don't know how you get from that to talking about America.


My understanding that Jesus existed is supported by scholarly opinion. If anything, you're the one flying in the face of reality here.



Yes we do. He's as much as figure of history as Caesar or Cleopatra or anyone else.



That's not true either. Let me ask you a question: Was Pontius Pilate a real person? Was there ever a historical figure of Pontius Pilate?

1. Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that wikipedia is utter useless as a historical source (and I say that as a person who holds a PhD in history, teaches history, is a recognised historian and has had numerous peer reviewed publications).

2. Of the four sources that you link from wikipedia - 3 support the assertion that Jesus was a historical figure and1 dismissed it - none of them claim that Jesus was the son of God (for which there could not be any historical evidence).

3. I have stated here that it is probable that a historical figure of Jesus did exist (with also the possibility that he was an amalgam of different religious figures in the area at the time). Again - and I also stated this - if he did exist he most likely was a member of the sect led by John the Baptist and led a breakaway doomsday cult. But - and this is important - not one single biblical scholar can definitely prove that a historical figure of Jesus existed as there is no significant historical evidence from the period that suggest he did. History is about interpreting evidence and formulating an opinion based on that evidence - and that is where the assertion of Jesus as a historical figure comes from (or at least the probability that he is a historical figure).

4. It is far more likely the the different gospels (over 80 of them - at least), which contain such variations of details that they are telling the story of significantly more than one individual - indeed, taken at face value, it would be impossible for it to be one individual given the contradictions in the different gospels. This should not be a surprise - Judea at the beginning of CE contained a myriad of different religious sects and all of them led by different religious leaders. Indeed the sect that is attributed to Jesus was far from the biggest - the sect led by John the Baptist was significantly bigger and continued to be for many years after the time given for the death of Jesus (again - assuming he was an actual historical figure). It wasn't until Paul took over this Christian sect that it began to grow in any significant way. Indeed most of these religious sects can be regarded as revolutionary movements who promoted a form of Judean nationalism (for want of a better description). By the way - it is also likely that Judas led a breakaway from the Nazarian sect which is why he ends up being castigated by later Christian commentators.

5. Your analogy about Messi is laughable - unless you are suggesting that Messi is not a real person (something that we have clear an unequivocal evidence for - i.e. we can see him in the flesh - it helps with the credibility).

6. As a historian my comments are always factually based - it is my job and it is a job that I take very seriously. It is also the reason why it is necessary to challenge assertions of so-called 'historical truths'. While you purport to be making historical claims - you singularly fail to demonstrate any historical knowledge of this period and made no effort to address the historical events around the formulation of the New Testament as a religious - and political - (but not historical) text.

7. Antiquity is a historical period before the Middle Ages - it spans thousands of years, most of which did not involve any Christian sect. The majority of scholars of antiquity do not even study the period of the emergence of Christianity. Indeed the vast majority of scholars who study Christianity and the bible are biblical scholars or theologians - not historians. Furthermore - those who are biblical scholars (not the theologians) are far, far more skeptical of the historical Jesus than you dare to suggest. Why? - because the know the limitations of the evidence from this period of history. I am not going against what 'experts in the field' say - I am actually reproducing all the caution and limitations that they themselves put on their assertions. You will get a few that will attempt to make definitive statements about the existence of Jesus but they generally have religious, rather than historical reasons for doing so.

8. You say - they 'chose the correct ones' for the gospels for the bible - but as others have pointed out - how do you know they were the 'correct ones' ? - indeed how would religious and political figures 500 years later know what were 'the correct ones'. Now religious fundamentalists would argue that 'God' guided them - but that does not hold any weight from a historical context.

9. Your assertion that the existence of Jesus is supported by scholarly opinion is false - the correct assertion is that the probability that there existed a historical figure as Jesus is supported by scholarly opinion. Furthermore - there is a graduation from historians to biblical scholars to theologians and the further your travel from left to right, the greater the assertion for the probability of the existence of Jesus.

As an example of the reality of scholarly opinion - here is the assessment of Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, probably the foremost biblical scholar in Britain today, and someone who actually argues in favour of a historical figure of Jesus (this is taken from an interview on the MythVision Podcast). In this interview she demonstrates the limitations of the historical evidence for a 'Jesus' figure - I have edited it down for brevity - (and by the way Stavrakopoulou regards the New Testament not as a historical text but as a work of antiquarian literature) -
'Yea - there was probably a guy... and not the guy that is described or talked about in the gospels, certainly not the guy that's described or talked about... (in) the later Christian traditions and texts. There was probably a guy and the only reason I say that is because of the relatively short period of time in between... the writings of Paul... and the likely execution that occurred... there was a guy who was executed... It makes sense to me that there a John the Baptist type (figure), we know there were lots of these kinds of figures wondering around... the John the Baptist / Jesus thing that looks to me like a massive kind of polemic as a way of trying to say 'what's the relationship between these two figures'... John the Baptist had his head cut off, this Jesus guy was crucified, so you have two executed figures who have been brought together. That to me suggests that there is somebody that's trying to reconcile these two popular cult leaders - so its that and the relatively early date of the Paul stuff. But Paul didn't meet the guy, Paul is very clear that he didn't meet the guy at all, so who knows. Whoever he was, I suspect that at the very least there was probably a guy or maybe a series of guys or leaders, one of them was executed and it was devastating (for the cult)... It's more probable than improbable that some guy existed and was executed, probably had some kind of relationship with a kind of John the Baptist type figure but beyond that, who knows?'

10. It is utter nonsense to suggest that Jesus is on the same plane as Caesar or Cleopatra (and by the way Caesar was a title so I am assuming your are talking about Julius Caesar). There is copious amounts of historical evidence - archaeological and written - on the existence of both Julius Caesar and Cleopatra - there is very, very, very little evidence in comparison for the existence of Jesus.

11. In regards to Pontius Pilate - did he exist? - Probably - there is certainly more evidence for Pontius Pilate as a historical figure than there is of Jesus and he is widely accepted as being the fifth Roman governor of Judea. The questions arise from the fact that the main source of material is from writings of Josephus (which leads to other questions because Josephus, like most of the 'historians' of this period, was more of a propagandist than a historian). Nothing is known about Pilate's life before he became governor, no letters or documents exist from Pilate to Rome (something which should be the case), only a smattering of references by Roman 'historians' and a few 'Pilate coins' thought to be from this period in Judea. There are still questions over the Pilate coins - over their actual date - and notably that absent from the coins is the name of Pilate, at a time when the governors in the Roman Empire would, by routine, put their name on any coin (in a way showing they were subjugated by the Emperor). Up until about 60 years ago there was zero concrete evidence for the existence of Pilate - the discovery of the Pilate stone has given much more substantial authority to the claims that Pilate is an actual historical figure and is accepted as such today. But even then there are questions - the writing with Pilate's name is different from the rest of the text on the stone and some scholars have questioned whether it was added later to add credence to the Christian story.

12. Now - while it has been interesting discussing the historical stuff - it is noteworthy that you decided to ignore my response to your claims about God dabbling with life - and your failure to address what kind of deity would create a parasitic worm that would burrow into the eyes of thousands of children every year, cause intolerable itching and pain and quite often leading to blindness. I would pose the following questions - (a) why would a 'loving' God impose such cruelty on young innocent children? and (b) why shouldn't we condemn rather than worship such a psychopath?

 

[Baldseagull]

What I've noticed is the almost hysterical reactions to me simply saying that Jesus's disciples believed that he rose from the dead.
Of course they did, that's why they did everything they could to spread the gospel.

I just want you to admit that you need faith, because there is no proof, instead you keep insisting that you have facts that prove it.
I don't believe in magic, and if God wants me, he can talk to me directly, not via an old mistranslated book, and strange men in frocks.

Well, you can, but I've never heard of any instances of it that way round for whatever reason.

View attachment 162561

You Tube comments are possibly slightly more reliable testimony than the Gospels.

 

[BadFish]

Well, you can, but I've never heard of any instances of it that way round for whatever reason.

View attachment 162561

That's right. More proof of God.

Keep it coming, they are cracking. We'll get them.

 

[BadFish]

I just want you to admit that you need faith, because there is no proof, instead you keep insisting that you have facts that prove it.
I don't believe in magic, and if God wants me, he can talk to me directly, not via an old mistranslated book, and strange men in frocks.

You Tube comments are possibly slightly more reliable testimony than the Gospels.

You just need to be touched by the strange men in frocks and you'll find god . . . You'll need god (but it's not trauma . . ITS NOT TRAUMA)

 

[kuzushi]

1. Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that wikipedia is utter useless as a historical source (and I say that as a person who holds a PhD in history, teaches history, is a recognised historian and has had numerous peer reviewed publications).

Out of curiosity, what is your area of historical expertise?

2. Of the four sources that you link from wikipedia - 3 support the assertion that Jesus was a historical figure and1 dismissed it - none of them claim that Jesus was the son of God (for which there could not be any historical evidence).

I'm not trying to convince anyone that he was the Son of God.
I'm making the case that the Christians who knew Jesus personally during his ministry were convinced of the truth of the resurrection, which is why Christianity established itself and thrived despite its leader being murdered and despite the persecution.

3. I have stated here that it is probable that a historical figure of Jesus did exist (with also the possibility that he was an amalgam of different religious figures in the area at the time). Again - and I also stated this - if he did exist he most likely was a member of the sect led by John the Baptist and led a breakaway doomsday cult. But - and this is important - not one single biblical scholar can definitely prove that a historical figure of Jesus existed as there is no significant historical evidence from the period that suggest he did. History is about interpreting evidence and formulating an opinion based on that evidence - and that is where the assertion of Jesus as a historical figure comes from (or at least the probability that he is a historical figure).

4. It is far more likely the the different gospels (over 80 of them - at least), which contain such variations of details that they are telling the story of significantly more than one individual - indeed, taken at face value, it would be impossible for it to be one individual given the contradictions in the different gospels. This should not be a surprise - Judea at the beginning of CE contained a myriad of different religious sects and all of them led by different religious leaders. Indeed the sect that is attributed to Jesus was far from the biggest - the sect led by John the Baptist was significantly bigger and continued to be for many years after the time given for the death of Jesus (again - assuming he was an actual historical figure). It wasn't until Paul took over this Christian sect that it began to grow in any significant way. Indeed most of these religious sects can be regarded as revolutionary movements who promoted a form of Judean nationalism (for want of a better description). By the way - it is also likely that Judas led a breakaway from the Nazarian sect which is why he ends up being castigated by later Christian commentators.

5. Your analogy about Messi is laughable - unless you are suggesting that Messi is not a real person (something that we have clear an unequivocal evidence for - i.e. we can see him in the flesh - it helps with the credibility).

6. As a historian my comments are always factually based - it is my job and it is a job that I take very seriously. It is also the reason why it is necessary to challenge assertions of so-called 'historical truths'. While you purport to be making historical claims - you singularly fail to demonstrate any historical knowledge of this period and made no effort to address the historical events around the formulation of the New Testament as a religious - and political - (but not historical) text.

7. Antiquity is a historical period before the Middle Ages - and spans far more time than the period that is excluded from antiquity. The majority of scholars of antiquity do not even study the period of the emergence of Christianity. Indeed the vast majority of scholars who study Christianity and the bible are biblical scholars or theologians - not historians. Furthermore - those who are biblical scholars (not the theologians) are far, far more skeptical of the historical Jesus than you dare to suggest. Why? - because the know the limitations of the evidence from this period of history. I am not going against what 'experts in the field' say - I am actually reproducing all the caution and limitations that they themselves put on their assertions. You will get a few that will attempt to make definitive statements about the existence of Jesus but they generally have religious, rather than historical reasons for doing so.

8. You say - they 'chose the correct ones' for the gospels for the bible - but as others have pointed out - how do you know they were the 'correct ones' ? - indeed how would religious and political figures 500 years later know what were 'the correct ones'. Now religious fundamentalists would argue that 'God' guided them - but that does not hold any weight from a historical context.

9. Your assertion that the existence of Jesus is supported by scholarly opinion is false - the correct assertion is that the probability that there existed a historical figure as Jesus is supported by scholarly opinion. Furthermore - there is a graduation from historians to biblical scholars to theologians and the further your travel from left to right, the greater the assertion for the probability of the existence of Jesus.

As an example of the reality of scholarly opinion - here is the assessment of Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou, probably the foremost biblical scholar in Britain today, and someone who actually argues in favour of a historical figure of Jesus (this is taken from an interview on the MythVision Podcast). In this interview she demonstrates the limitations of the historical evidence for a 'Jesus' figure - I have edited it down for brevity - (and by the way Stavrakopoulou regards the New Testament not as a historical text but as a work of antiquarian literature) -
'Yea - there was probably a guy... and not the guy that is described or talked about in the gospels, certainly not the guy that's described or talked about... (in) the later Christian traditions and texts. There was probably a guy and the only reason I say that is because of the relatively short period of time in between... the writings of Paul... and the likely execution that occurred... there was a guy who was executed... It makes sense to me that there a John the Baptist type (figure), we know there were lots of these kinds of figures wondering around... the John the Baptist / Jesus thing that looks to me like a massive kind of polemic as a way of trying to say 'what's the relationship between these two figures'... John the Baptist had his head cut off, this Jesus guy was crucified, so you have two executed figures who have been brought together. That to me suggests that there is somebody that's trying to reconcile these two popular cult leaders - so its that and the relatively early date of the Paul stuff. But Paul didn't meet the guy, Paul is very clear that he didn't meet the guy at all, so who knows. Whoever he was, I suspect that at the very least there was probably a guy or maybe a series of guys or leaders, one of them was executed and it was devastating (for the cult)... It's more probable than improbable that some guy existed and was executed, probably had some kind of relationship with a kind of John the Baptist type figure but beyond that, who knows?'

10. It is utter nonsense to suggest that Jesus is on the same plane as Caesar or Cleopatra (and by the way Caesar was a title so I am assuming your are talking about Julius Caesar). There is copious amounts of historical evidence - archaeological and written - on the existence of both Julius Caesar and Cleopatra - there is very, very, very little evidence in comparison for the existence of Jesus.

Yes. In his case it was not a title. It was his surname.

11. In regards to Pontius Pilate - did he exist? - Probably - there is certainly more evidence for Pontius Pilate as a historical figure than there is of Jesus and he is widely accepted as being the fifth Roman governor of Judea. The questions arise from the fact that the main source of material is from writings of Josephus (which leads to other questions because Josephus, like most of the 'historians' of this period, was more of a propagandist than a historian). Nothing is known about Pilate's life before he became governor, no letters or documents exist from Pilate to Rome (something which should be the case), only a smattering of references by Roman 'historians' and a few 'Pilate coins' thought to be from this period in Judea. There are still questions over the Pilate coins - over their actual date - and notably that absent from the coins is the name of Pilate, at a time when the governors in the Roman Empire would, by routine, put their name on any coin (in a way showing they were subjugated by the Emperor). Up until about 60 years ago there was zero concrete evidence for the existence of Pilate - the discovery of the Pilate stone has given much more substantial authority to the claims that Pilate is an actual historical figure and is accepted as such today. But even then there are questions - the writing with Pilate's name is different from the rest of the text on the stone and some scholars have questioned whether it was added later to add credence to the Christian story.

12. Now - while it has been interesting discussing the historical stuff - it is noteworthy that you decided to ignore my response to your claims about God dabbling with life - and your failure to address what kind of deity would create a parasitic worm that would burrow into the eyes of thousands of children every year, cause intolerable itching and pain and quite often leading to blindness. I would pose the following questions - (a) why would a 'loving' God impose such cruelty on young innocent children? and (b) why shouldn't we condemn rather than worship such a psychopath?

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I haven't heard of any cases of Christians converting to Islam after seeing Muhammad in their dreams, although I suppose that could be because Muhammad is dead. His tomb is in Medina.

Well at least that is historical evidence for the existence of Muhammad

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

The power of Jesus's touch can be overwhelming.

Ask any of the children 'touched' by the paedophiles who were doing 'God's work'.

 

[kuzushi]

12. Now - while it has been interesting discussing the historical stuff - it is noteworthy that you decided to ignore my response to your claims about God dabbling with life - and your failure to address what kind of deity would create a parasitic worm that would burrow into the eyes of thousands of children every year, cause intolerable itching and pain and quite often leading to blindness. I would pose the following questions - (a) why would a 'loving' God impose such cruelty on young innocent children? and (b) why shouldn't we condemn rather than worship such a psychopath?

You want an answer to that.
From a Christian point of view, who or what is the ultimate source of all evil and suffering?