"It has never been contentioned..."
LOL... That's just because contentioned isn't a word.
Sorry I couldn't resist, in fairness, yes, most historians believe that there was a jesus. But there was also a historical St. Nick, but he didn't have freakin flying reindeer... see where this is going?

 

If the Pope had been born in downtown Tehran, he'd be a devout Muslim.

Where you were born and raised decided your experience for belief. If you have NOT read the other belief's books, you don't have a basis for argument. If you don't understand how the books came into being (fables, editing, inclusion/deletion, translation) you don't have a basis for argument.

Everything we do has evolved with science and technology over the years except idol worship. Only religion has a "special" acceptance. Life on other planets? Prove it. Bigfoot and Nessie? Prove it. Deity? Why, you just have to believe.

No I don't.

 

All of this debating has gotten me thinking.
What makes Jesus so special? We are all considered sons and daughters of God.

 

I touched on that briefly but well said.

In regards to us being sons and daughters of god, sure, whatever. Hell, since he is made up anyways you can make up any relation to him you want.
By christian faith he is special because he was part of the trinity and you aren't. Jewish people (the people he actually lived amongst mind you) don't believe he is a part of any trinity and thus, he's not special to them.

 

Lol, you're right... I guess the phrase I was looking for was "held in contention"

Well, my only point was that I was retorting to the statement that Jesus never existed...anyhow from now on, I'll use the word disputed.

 

^Cool deal, I didn't mean to take a cheap shot or anything. But my rebuttal to you is that just because he existed does not mean he had any magical powers or special abilities, just like santa clause...

 

There are some that say he in fact was a person and was basically the David Copperfield/Criss Angel of his time.

 

So a question for you non-theists out there... since you're content with saying you don't know how the world started, but eveything else has a cause and reatcion...

How did the first single cell happen???? If one looks to the complexity and size of a single cell, it is totally improbable that this cell was created by cheer chance. A common argument is that there was a lot of time, but actually, there isn't. The `lot of time' argument might go as follows: while it is very improbable that a single cell was created by chance, there was so much time since the start of the world that this chance becomes large enough. However, nobody has ever done the probability theoretic calculations that show this! Actually, given the enormous complexity of a single cell, I believe that probability theory tells us that we cannot assume that molecules in the sea of Earth have spontaneously have formed a single cell by chance. To tell the truth: I haven't either carried out the calculations, but if one reads how complex a cell is, then my guess as a mathematician would be that the size of the oceans times the age of the earth would be insufficient to make the probability of spontaneous creation of a cell large enough. (We know how large the oceans are. For the age of the earth, let's take in this calculation the current prediction of the age of the earth from physics: a few hundred million years.)

Also, how come we aren't seeing new species of animals? They're just dying off. I do believe we see micro-evolution, but show me macro.

Also, why are there so many gaps and lack of evidence for macro evolution? If macro evolution was true, there would be so many examples of mid-transformed creatures that we would find them everywhere?

Also, evolutino tells us how small changes can be made, but a DNA change that makes a spontaneous creation of something as complicated as an eye or ear is too unlikely to assume. Thus, when following evolution theory, we could assume that complicated body parts like eyes, ears, livers, etc. etc. etc. were gradually formed, with small changes between different species. However, it is not clear what is the use of some part of a body that is a start of an ear, but which cannot hear. Most of these body parts are only useful if they can perform their function, perhaps not yet optimally, but at least a little. But this contradicts evolution theory: a not functional body part would just be something bad for the animal, and thus the animal with the not yet finished ear would have a smaller chance of survival, and thus not enough chance of getting children. And hence, no animals with a slightly further developped ear, etc.
My conclusion is that evolution theory has no valid explanation how complicated body parts were formed for the first time.

It is remarkable that a theory with such big and unsolved problems is so often presented as the ultimate truth - look to how it is presented in school books and musea. It is sad, when people draw conclusions from it of the type: I do not believe in God, because I know the evolution theory is true. That conclusion is wrong in two ways: as I argued here, the theory is not proven, so in the least, one replaces one faith by another, but also, even if it were true, it does not mean God does not exist.

 

Wow!!! BRAV FREAKIN O!!! A theist thinking slightly outside of the box, willing to consider logical alternatives. Do I care if you change your beliefs? NO! Do I want you to? NO! Do I enjoy a rational conversation with people? YES! And you bring up a very valid point. David Blaine makes people think he soes some crazy stuff in this modern era so who is to say jesus couldn't lay down some rocks just below the surface of a murky pond to walk on water?

 

Oh... and for mitchell... attacking evolution is a lame defense because I advocate the idea of researching answers yes, but the particular idea of evolution I am not so sure about. Sorry you wrote such a long piece for nothing.

 

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?

To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules got born as a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene, his mother. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. Historical review has yet to achieve the reliability of scientific investigation, (and in fact, many times ignores it). If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

 

Simply because complexity exists, says nothing about intelligence or a designer. Again, designs do not require a monogenetic single designer, much less an intelligent one. Complexity and order occurs many times without a designer at all. Snowflakes, hurricanes...all with out a designer. All present workable scientific theories about the universe and life-forms do not require a designer for their understanding, much less from an intelligent designer or many designers.

Faith depends on hope and ignorance. And faith of a creator does not agree with the best scientific theories about the universe. Faith in god determines nothing about nature. Consider that every mathematical equation, every single advance of science throughout human history has never required a variable of god.

we have not one iota of evidence to support an intelligent outside input, much less an intelligence in other solar systems, on the "inside." All intelligent life that we know of comes from earthly life based on DNA, an unintelligent complex molecule modified by evolution and natural selection. One can equally propose that a universe came into existence and intelligence came afterward. This appears consistent with all life as we know it as it comes conceived "dumb" from two cells (sperm & egg) which grow into more cells. Intelligent life always comes afterward, never before.

Furthermore, it would not solve the creation problem, for if an "outside" designer created the universe, who created the designer? How did the "outside" come into existence? What created the conditions for the designer and the "outside"? This presents even more difficult questions that leads to endless circular reasoning, absurdum ad infinitum.

Typically a Christian will answer: "Well, God always existed." But we could just as well say the Universe always existed. Why introduce an unnecessary variable? Applying Occam's Razor usually proves prudent to trim out unnecessary trash in our theories.

I propose that we do not know enough about the universe(s) to make a determination about the history of its origin or if it had one. And to introduce a creator adds nothing to our knowledge of the universe but has only created insurmountable or inconsistent problems. To date, all useful knowledge about nature and the universe holds consistent with a non-designer universe.

 

All I am saying is this. The Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but they did write about him. So, he existed in that sense. He wasn't the Son of God, but he was a person in history. Maybe...just maybe the people that made the Holy Bible what is today used the story of Yeshua's life as a basis for God's son?

 

Those early historical documents can PROVEnothing about an actual jesus but they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of jewish, hellenized and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular religious times.

 

And here is another problem, athiests look at stuff like the trinity, and see how some "religious" people believe in it (most christians) and people who don't (jewish etc...) and can't understand why some people believe in it and some dont.

Now please if you will for just a moment, think about if you did believe in God/Creation. Ok? Just try to put yourself in that state of mind. NO where in the bible does it say that Jesus, God, and the holy spirit are the same deity. If Jesus was God, why did he pray to himself? How did he resurrect himself? That dosen't make sense. I don't believe in the Trinity. Why? Because thats not what Gods word (the Bible) teaches.

I think the main problem is that people believe that Religion is wrong because of the widespread problems that most religion has. They just plain don't want to believe in God. "Smart" people fill their heads with ideas that they really don't understand themselves, and tell people, that if you don't believe the same as me, then youre stupid and uneducated. They think that evolution is so much easier to understand, believe in. The fact is, you believe something that someone tells you with "proof". I believe what I read from the Bible and I consider that "proof". You believe in a religion every bit as much as I do. You just don't want to admit it. You don't call it a religion. But thats exactly what it is.

Im a religious person. I'm not perfect. Youre not. Nobody on the earth is perfect.

George Bush says God told him to invade Iraq. As I mentioned before, Catholics on both sides (Axis and Allies) both were "blessed" in order to win the war. Hardcore violent sects exists in almost all religions today. Does that mean religion as a whole is wrong? No. Does it mean that most religion is wrong? Yes.

 

Early magician claiming to be son of god to gain notoriety + a people exponentially more superstisious and exponentially less technologically advanced + a game of telephone lasting hundreds of years = Jesus the son of God

Hmmmm... Any reason this couldn't be true?

 

Well, I know for a fact the reason Jesus' birthday was chosen to be December 25th is because of the pagan festival of Sol Invictus, or the re-birth of the sun. So, I definitely agree about the hodgepodge of stories.

 

"Does that mean most religion is wrong? Yes."
As many people as churches shelter and clothe, as many hungry homeless that are fed in the name of religion... I would not say that most religion is wrong.

 

Christmas, Birthdays, Easter, all those "religious" holidays that so called christians celebrate have nothing to do with true Christianity.

 

Krusty... how can you say that you know the bible is right when we already established that were you born in parts of India you would be worshipping multiple gods and probly wouldn't even know what the bible was?

Hindu = no cheeseburgers =