Thanks, Ark. Unfortunately, we already moved beyond whether Paul actually existed and went on the mssionary journeys. Feel free to spin your wheels there if you want 🙂
According to the NT, Paul was imprisoned for ticking off the Jewish leaders, not because the Romans were concerned about him. So I still think it’s safe to say the authorities wouldn’t have been concerned enough to spend time or resources disproving a belief that few people shared. How many people really spend time trying to disprove Scientology today? Most of us just don’t care enough about it to fool with it. It’s a punchline. I get the feeling Christianity was viewed very similarly in the beginning.
@ Josh
Smile…I haven’t read all of the comments on the post, but was under the impression you believe he actually existed?
If this is not the case …a thousand apologies effendi. But if you are still trying to defend the biblical/christian POV that , like the biblical jesus ,he really was a real live person then, well…goodness me, you truly are still in the dark.
resurrection from the dead only seems reasonable since we’ve been raised on that tale. Step back a moment and just think. If anyone claimed to have seen someone raise from the dead today, would you really find that reasonable or believable? or is the “reasonable believability” only associated with jesus – and why is that reasonable?
But i think nan is on to something. the gospels also say that when jesus died many graves were opened and the dead walked… I’m pretty certain that event is noteworthy – to anyone seeing it. Surely that must have been recorded in contemporary writings… well, if it were true…
Josh, me too, my friend. Ark’s arrogance and patronizing tone staggers me, though, I will admit. I haven’t run into people like that in a long, long time.
JudahFirst-
Kruger’s book was excellent. I found his perspective had a lot of deep truth in it. I’m also going to read St. Athanasius’ The Incarnation of the Word of God. I think I am well on the way to seeing the power in what he is talking about. I’m going to read it again, as well as watch The God’s Aren’t Angry again. I’ll be moving on to Razing Hell and Stricken…? after that. Thank you so much for the suggestions!
@ Josh
”Ark-
Me and Good Old unkleE. Still beating that drum”
Once you have the humility to do a bit of honest research into the utter fallaciousness of the Old Testament then you will begin to understand how untenable your own position as a Chrisatian truly is.
But if you are too scared to even dig a little then I’m afraid you will forever remain as ignorant as you are now.
Choice is a wonderful thing, is it not?
@ Judahfirst
”Josh, me too, my friend. Ark’s arrogance and patronizing tone staggers me, though, I will admit. I haven’t run into people like that in a long, long time.”
Your ignorance and refusal to show even a modicum of humility in the face of archaeological evidence and the utter lack of historical facts far outshines any arrogance on my part, my dear.
Your position is untenable, your religion false and your doctrine insidious.
Thanks for the support, William. I know I’m running into a wall when it comes to christian belief related to the resurrection since without it, there is no christianity (per Paul). But I do like to stir the pot a little once in awhile. And, as I already indicated, I find it very difficult to believe that such an event (especially the dead walking around!) would not have at least been worthy of a mention in the secular writings.
@Nan.
The Zombie Apocalypse is one of the more notable biblical ”happenings” that so many Crispyuns choose to poo poo and neatly sidestep. And you are right to hammer on about such events.
Garbage is garbage and these idiots who believe such nonsense should be brought to account.
As they say. Put up or push off.
There are NO contemporary accounts concerning anything surrounding the Yashua story.
It is all Porkie Pies.
I enjoy your comments, but then if there are sides in this, i am probably on yours…
I think that the others who don’t really listen to your points or that find you offensive do so because of two reasons:
1. your tone can be quite rough and is easily taken as rude and arrogant. It doesn’t bother me, but then i don’t often find myself on the receiving end of it.
2. The bible believer doesn’t typically use any source to validate the bible, instead they seem to use the bible to validate the sources, whether they be scientific or historical in nature. To them, the bible just IS god’s book, just like the sky is blue. There’s no questioning that part for them. So pointing out the evidence (or lack thereof on their part) keeps coming as futile. Doesn’t hurt to try, though.
Indeed, everyone is free to believe what they will. That would be the point of an open discussion like this one. But I do not disparage you your beliefs (I’m sure you have some kooky ones unrelated to religion – never met anyone without at least a couple of kooky ideas), so I would expect (at least on Nate’s blog) that you could respect others’ beliefs you find kooky or stupid or insidious or whatever. The fact that you cannot speaks more to your ignorance of people than it does mine of ‘facts’. Rather than promoting a healthy discussion in which all of us stupid idiots might be properly instructed, your attitude moves me away from any desire “dig deeper” as you suggest. I certainly wouldn’t want to become like you in your attitude towards people who believe differently, and digging deeper into *your facts could possibly lead me right there. I’d rather be a tolerant religious nutcase than a pompous ass.
Meanwhile, it is not up to you or Nan to knock down any walls in terms of other people’s beliefs, but, please, do keep trying. So far your disparagement tactics have been SO effective!
@ Judah first.
Firstly, the ”idiots” have had 2000 years to make their claim and so far all they have demonstrated is a sublime skill for obfuscation. Couple this with inculcation and any number of heinous crimes in the name of their god then I think its time to put up or push off.
It is not that you are not entitled to your beliefs – good for you. You want to act like a complete ding bat, go for it. This is NOT the issue. What IS the problem is you are NOT entitled to your own facts, not entitled to inculcate children, NOT entitled to insinuate your beliefs into schools, government and society in general based on the erroneous authority of a book full of lies.
While many folk like to pussy foot around certain issues I prefer to call a spade a spade and Nate (bless him) affords me the honour of calling out twits who espouse this type of garbage.
“Ark-
If I have to be an “idiot” for something, I’m happy to be an Idiot for Jesus. Maybe I’ll create a new blog…”
You are perfectly at liberty to be a complete bonehead for Jesus, if this is what you want. Although, I thought he preferred sunbeams?
Just don’t espouse this nonsense and claim it is fact/truth without stepping up to the plate and demonstrating it.
This is ”grown up show and tell,” Josh.
We are not in kindergarten anymore, so if you want to play, grow up.
“Just don’t espouse this nonsense and claim it is fact/truth”
I find myself in agreement with you here, Ark. I find myself leaning toward seeing this as a mostly fruitless strategy. I will elect not to “grow up”, as you put it, and try to keep my presence from being noticed. Peace, Ark.
Hello everyone, I have really enjoyed reading your comments. I have learned that there is a difference between atheists’ politeness vs. plain rudeness (Nate vs. Ark, respectively). By the way Nate, I applaud you for maintaining respect towards us believers in spite of differences.
Josh has a very good point about the amount of people who knew how to write and bothered to record such a controversial claim about Jesus being the Messiah and resurrecting. Not even Jesus knew how to read (although he was supposedly writing on the ground during the “throw the first stone” incident). Also, I agree that it is impressive how Christianity survived in spite of persecutions from Jews and Romans; and I don’t think that it was an exaggeration, since Romans were brutal and blood thirsty (they had to maintain an empire alive by using all means possible), including the practice of crucifixion as horrific signs of intimidation and power. The Christians’ refusal to participate in Imperial cults was considered an act of treason and was punishable by execution.
In spite of this, it is also important to consider that the Roman Catholic Church was initiated by emperor Constantine as a political agenda to help maintain a falling empire from disappearing and making Christianity the state’s official religion. Of course, the real Christians were able to distant themselves from this pagan driven religious state by creating the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s.
So, yes being a Christian in those difficult times was an impressive thing. as it is still today, given all the attacks and accusations we all have to endure by the “tolerant left”.
Nate (bless him) affords me the honour of calling out twits who espouse this type of garbage.
Well, yes, but I’m not always crazy about it… Honestly, I do wish you’d temper your responses a bit more. We can easily let people know we disagree with them without disparaging them personally.
I still agree with many of your points, and you know that I appreciate your sense of humor. But I do think it’s important to have as much patience as we can when talking about these issues. Speaking for myself, it was very hard for me to objectively look at my own beliefs when I first began questioning things. I now look at what I used to believe and wonder how I ever held onto it for so long. But I did. And if you and I had run across each other when I was in my questioning period, I probably wouldn’t have appreciated your tone. It might have even stunted my progress a bit. Maybe that’s a problem with me more than it is you — but I can still see that might have happened. And if our motivation is to try to get our points across persuasively, shouldn’t we want to be as accessible as possible?
So I would appreciate it if we could just focus a bit more on the issues and not spend time criticizing people for their approach to the issues. Feel free to explain why you think their approach is incorrect, but let’s try to assume that their motives are pure and leave the personal statements out.
Noel, I get your point about the differing characters of Ark and nate, but i’m not too sure about the rest of it.
why do you say that jesus couldnt read, and doesnt it seem odd for an all knowing deity to not know how to read? and i think the point was being made that some literate roman would have taken the time to pencil the resurrection of christ or of the many others that rose at his death.
To say that the miracles were performed to convince non-believers (as the bible does) but then hide the miracles from those who could help in making it credible seems counter-intuitive.
And I wasnt sure what you were getting about regarding the wonders of Christianity surviving despite persecutions, etc. If you’re pointing that out as some sort of evidence for its divinity, then we could point out other religions that survived their persecutions. If you’re pointing that out merely as a thing of curiosity, then I would also point out other religions.
But your last sentence really seems odd to me. What attacks and accusations have the “tolerant left” made against Christians? are you referring to efforts that would place all other non-christian religions on a fair podium with “christian” religions? Please explain what you mean and where this is happening.
The case for persecution against Christians is really not as strong as people often say. Even the Wikipedia article about it is a pretty good place to start. There’s also a recent book on the subject by Candida Moss, though I haven’t read it yet.
No one’s saying that Christians were never persecuted, but the level and frequency of persecution that we typically hear about seems to be built mostly on myth.
JudahFirst: “Meanwhile, it is not up to you or Nan to knock down any walls in terms of other people’s beliefs …” What????
First, I feel a bit offended to be lumped in with Ark as I feel I’ve been much more respectful in my postings.
Secondly, I’m not trying to knock down any walls since I already know how impossible that is. Remember, I’ve been on your side of the fence and I KNOW how deep your beliefs go.
However, now that I’m on the other side of the fence, I do think it’s fair to ask you (and other believers) to explain why you believe as you do in instances where evidence and faith don’t agree. Besides, doesn’t the bible teach that you should be able to defend your faith?
@ Nate
‘Feel free to explain why you think their approach is incorrect, but let’s try to assume that their motives are pure and leave the personal statements out.
Pretty please?’
My man, from god’s mouth to my ear ..or something.
We’ll try the scholarly approach for a while. But you are much too smart not to realise the likes of Unklee really, really, are so much more patronizing than I could ever be. But you know this of course.
So. archaeological evidence, or rather, lack of, demonstrates quite clearly the fallaciousness of the Old Testament, thus rendering moot the core of the New, largely because Jesus, makes mention of many Old Testament characters, thus rendering divinity claims null and void. It even brings into question the historicity of his character.
To anyone on this post who would care to disagree with this assertion, please feel free, and It would be an excellent idea for all commenters if you could provide evidence if you refute any of the statements I make.
Excellent.Thanking you in advance. Peace.
Finding Truth 
Thanks, Ark. Unfortunately, we already moved beyond whether Paul actually existed and went on the mssionary journeys. Feel free to spin your wheels there if you want 🙂
LikeLike
According to the NT, Paul was imprisoned for ticking off the Jewish leaders, not because the Romans were concerned about him. So I still think it’s safe to say the authorities wouldn’t have been concerned enough to spend time or resources disproving a belief that few people shared. How many people really spend time trying to disprove Scientology today? Most of us just don’t care enough about it to fool with it. It’s a punchline. I get the feeling Christianity was viewed very similarly in the beginning.
LikeLike
@ Josh
Smile…I haven’t read all of the comments on the post, but was under the impression you believe he actually existed?
If this is not the case …a thousand apologies effendi. But if you are still trying to defend the biblical/christian POV that , like the biblical jesus ,he really was a real live person then, well…goodness me, you truly are still in the dark.
LikeLike
Ark-
Me and Good Old unkleE. Still beating that drum 🙂
LikeLike
resurrection from the dead only seems reasonable since we’ve been raised on that tale. Step back a moment and just think. If anyone claimed to have seen someone raise from the dead today, would you really find that reasonable or believable? or is the “reasonable believability” only associated with jesus – and why is that reasonable?
But i think nan is on to something. the gospels also say that when jesus died many graves were opened and the dead walked… I’m pretty certain that event is noteworthy – to anyone seeing it. Surely that must have been recorded in contemporary writings… well, if it were true…
LikeLike
Josh, me too, my friend. Ark’s arrogance and patronizing tone staggers me, though, I will admit. I haven’t run into people like that in a long, long time.
LikeLike
JudahFirst-
Kruger’s book was excellent. I found his perspective had a lot of deep truth in it. I’m also going to read St. Athanasius’ The Incarnation of the Word of God. I think I am well on the way to seeing the power in what he is talking about. I’m going to read it again, as well as watch The God’s Aren’t Angry again. I’ll be moving on to Razing Hell and Stricken…? after that. Thank you so much for the suggestions!
LikeLike
@ Josh
”Ark-
Me and Good Old unkleE. Still beating that drum”
Once you have the humility to do a bit of honest research into the utter fallaciousness of the Old Testament then you will begin to understand how untenable your own position as a Chrisatian truly is.
But if you are too scared to even dig a little then I’m afraid you will forever remain as ignorant as you are now.
Choice is a wonderful thing, is it not?
LikeLike
@ Judahfirst
”Josh, me too, my friend. Ark’s arrogance and patronizing tone staggers me, though, I will admit. I haven’t run into people like that in a long, long time.”
Your ignorance and refusal to show even a modicum of humility in the face of archaeological evidence and the utter lack of historical facts far outshines any arrogance on my part, my dear.
Your position is untenable, your religion false and your doctrine insidious.
LikeLike
Thanks for the support, William. I know I’m running into a wall when it comes to christian belief related to the resurrection since without it, there is no christianity (per Paul). But I do like to stir the pot a little once in awhile. And, as I already indicated, I find it very difficult to believe that such an event (especially the dead walking around!) would not have at least been worthy of a mention in the secular writings.
LikeLike
@Nan.
The Zombie Apocalypse is one of the more notable biblical ”happenings” that so many Crispyuns choose to poo poo and neatly sidestep. And you are right to hammer on about such events.
Garbage is garbage and these idiots who believe such nonsense should be brought to account.
As they say. Put up or push off.
There are NO contemporary accounts concerning anything surrounding the Yashua story.
It is all Porkie Pies.
LikeLike
Ark,
I enjoy your comments, but then if there are sides in this, i am probably on yours…
I think that the others who don’t really listen to your points or that find you offensive do so because of two reasons:
1. your tone can be quite rough and is easily taken as rude and arrogant. It doesn’t bother me, but then i don’t often find myself on the receiving end of it.
2. The bible believer doesn’t typically use any source to validate the bible, instead they seem to use the bible to validate the sources, whether they be scientific or historical in nature. To them, the bible just IS god’s book, just like the sky is blue. There’s no questioning that part for them. So pointing out the evidence (or lack thereof on their part) keeps coming as futile. Doesn’t hurt to try, though.
at least, that’s how I see it.
LikeLike
Indeed, everyone is free to believe what they will. That would be the point of an open discussion like this one. But I do not disparage you your beliefs (I’m sure you have some kooky ones unrelated to religion – never met anyone without at least a couple of kooky ideas), so I would expect (at least on Nate’s blog) that you could respect others’ beliefs you find kooky or stupid or insidious or whatever. The fact that you cannot speaks more to your ignorance of people than it does mine of ‘facts’. Rather than promoting a healthy discussion in which all of us stupid idiots might be properly instructed, your attitude moves me away from any desire “dig deeper” as you suggest. I certainly wouldn’t want to become like you in your attitude towards people who believe differently, and digging deeper into *your facts could possibly lead me right there. I’d rather be a tolerant religious nutcase than a pompous ass.
Meanwhile, it is not up to you or Nan to knock down any walls in terms of other people’s beliefs, but, please, do keep trying. So far your disparagement tactics have been SO effective!
LikeLike
Sorry, that last was for Ark (obviously).
LikeLike
Ark-
If I have to be an “idiot” for something, I’m happy to be an Idiot for Jesus. Maybe I’ll create a new blog…
LikeLike
@ Judah first.
Firstly, the ”idiots” have had 2000 years to make their claim and so far all they have demonstrated is a sublime skill for obfuscation. Couple this with inculcation and any number of heinous crimes in the name of their god then I think its time to put up or push off.
It is not that you are not entitled to your beliefs – good for you. You want to act like a complete ding bat, go for it. This is NOT the issue. What IS the problem is you are NOT entitled to your own facts, not entitled to inculcate children, NOT entitled to insinuate your beliefs into schools, government and society in general based on the erroneous authority of a book full of lies.
While many folk like to pussy foot around certain issues I prefer to call a spade a spade and Nate (bless him) affords me the honour of calling out twits who espouse this type of garbage.
LikeLike
“Ark-
If I have to be an “idiot” for something, I’m happy to be an Idiot for Jesus. Maybe I’ll create a new blog…”
You are perfectly at liberty to be a complete bonehead for Jesus, if this is what you want. Although, I thought he preferred sunbeams?
Just don’t espouse this nonsense and claim it is fact/truth without stepping up to the plate and demonstrating it.
This is ”grown up show and tell,” Josh.
We are not in kindergarten anymore, so if you want to play, grow up.
LikeLike
@ William.
Bless you my son. 3 hail Mary’s and stop fiddling with your Rosary. You will go blind.
LikeLike
“Just don’t espouse this nonsense and claim it is fact/truth”
I find myself in agreement with you here, Ark. I find myself leaning toward seeing this as a mostly fruitless strategy. I will elect not to “grow up”, as you put it, and try to keep my presence from being noticed. Peace, Ark.
LikeLike
Hello everyone, I have really enjoyed reading your comments. I have learned that there is a difference between atheists’ politeness vs. plain rudeness (Nate vs. Ark, respectively). By the way Nate, I applaud you for maintaining respect towards us believers in spite of differences.
Josh has a very good point about the amount of people who knew how to write and bothered to record such a controversial claim about Jesus being the Messiah and resurrecting. Not even Jesus knew how to read (although he was supposedly writing on the ground during the “throw the first stone” incident). Also, I agree that it is impressive how Christianity survived in spite of persecutions from Jews and Romans; and I don’t think that it was an exaggeration, since Romans were brutal and blood thirsty (they had to maintain an empire alive by using all means possible), including the practice of crucifixion as horrific signs of intimidation and power. The Christians’ refusal to participate in Imperial cults was considered an act of treason and was punishable by execution.
In spite of this, it is also important to consider that the Roman Catholic Church was initiated by emperor Constantine as a political agenda to help maintain a falling empire from disappearing and making Christianity the state’s official religion. Of course, the real Christians were able to distant themselves from this pagan driven religious state by creating the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s.
So, yes being a Christian in those difficult times was an impressive thing. as it is still today, given all the attacks and accusations we all have to endure by the “tolerant left”.
LikeLike
Well, yes, but I’m not always crazy about it… Honestly, I do wish you’d temper your responses a bit more. We can easily let people know we disagree with them without disparaging them personally.
I still agree with many of your points, and you know that I appreciate your sense of humor. But I do think it’s important to have as much patience as we can when talking about these issues. Speaking for myself, it was very hard for me to objectively look at my own beliefs when I first began questioning things. I now look at what I used to believe and wonder how I ever held onto it for so long. But I did. And if you and I had run across each other when I was in my questioning period, I probably wouldn’t have appreciated your tone. It might have even stunted my progress a bit. Maybe that’s a problem with me more than it is you — but I can still see that might have happened. And if our motivation is to try to get our points across persuasively, shouldn’t we want to be as accessible as possible?
So I would appreciate it if we could just focus a bit more on the issues and not spend time criticizing people for their approach to the issues. Feel free to explain why you think their approach is incorrect, but let’s try to assume that their motives are pure and leave the personal statements out.
Pretty please? 🙂
LikeLike
Noel, I get your point about the differing characters of Ark and nate, but i’m not too sure about the rest of it.
why do you say that jesus couldnt read, and doesnt it seem odd for an all knowing deity to not know how to read? and i think the point was being made that some literate roman would have taken the time to pencil the resurrection of christ or of the many others that rose at his death.
To say that the miracles were performed to convince non-believers (as the bible does) but then hide the miracles from those who could help in making it credible seems counter-intuitive.
And I wasnt sure what you were getting about regarding the wonders of Christianity surviving despite persecutions, etc. If you’re pointing that out as some sort of evidence for its divinity, then we could point out other religions that survived their persecutions. If you’re pointing that out merely as a thing of curiosity, then I would also point out other religions.
But your last sentence really seems odd to me. What attacks and accusations have the “tolerant left” made against Christians? are you referring to efforts that would place all other non-christian religions on a fair podium with “christian” religions? Please explain what you mean and where this is happening.
LikeLike
Thanks for the comment, Noel.
The case for persecution against Christians is really not as strong as people often say. Even the Wikipedia article about it is a pretty good place to start. There’s also a recent book on the subject by Candida Moss, though I haven’t read it yet.
No one’s saying that Christians were never persecuted, but the level and frequency of persecution that we typically hear about seems to be built mostly on myth.
LikeLike
JudahFirst: “Meanwhile, it is not up to you or Nan to knock down any walls in terms of other people’s beliefs …” What????
First, I feel a bit offended to be lumped in with Ark as I feel I’ve been much more respectful in my postings.
Secondly, I’m not trying to knock down any walls since I already know how impossible that is. Remember, I’ve been on your side of the fence and I KNOW how deep your beliefs go.
However, now that I’m on the other side of the fence, I do think it’s fair to ask you (and other believers) to explain why you believe as you do in instances where evidence and faith don’t agree. Besides, doesn’t the bible teach that you should be able to defend your faith?
LikeLike
@ Nate
‘Feel free to explain why you think their approach is incorrect, but let’s try to assume that their motives are pure and leave the personal statements out.
Pretty please?’
My man, from god’s mouth to my ear ..or something.
We’ll try the scholarly approach for a while. But you are much too smart not to realise the likes of Unklee really, really, are so much more patronizing than I could ever be. But you know this of course.
So. archaeological evidence, or rather, lack of, demonstrates quite clearly the fallaciousness of the Old Testament, thus rendering moot the core of the New, largely because Jesus, makes mention of many Old Testament characters, thus rendering divinity claims null and void. It even brings into question the historicity of his character.
To anyone on this post who would care to disagree with this assertion, please feel free, and It would be an excellent idea for all commenters if you could provide evidence if you refute any of the statements I make.
Excellent.Thanking you in advance. Peace.
LikeLike