I apologize, I am taking this topic too lightly. I personally don't believe historical documents are the best way to prove or disprove the existance of Jesus and I certainly understand the significance of historical documents. I personally believe that if you don't wan't to believe in the existence of Jesus there are ample documents to support such, and if you do want to believe in his existence there are ample documents to support such also. I think an honest examination of His message as written is the best path to coming to believe one way or the other. gifford1967, thank you for pointing out the rudeness in my comments, again I should realize for some this is very serious. I have read alot of documents on this, but I could not possibly go down that road for the reasons stated. Thanks again.
If I can defend Rhester here I don't see anything wrong with what he is saying. Of course Rhester is making a belief statement and that is his belief. He's not stating he will overlook the historical evidence but this is his faith and his faith isn't shaken by contradictory historical evidence. As much as we are rational we are spiritual and I believe it is possible for us to hold a faith belief at the same time as we acknowledge empiracism. If no physical evidence of a historical Jesus can be found or any evidence that he died on the cross and was resurected I don't see why that should change Rhester's belief. Obviously Christianity and the Bible exist so they came from somewhere and whether the are proven as fact doesn't change that the message exists and the message is what is important.
That's not an accurate description of what's happened in this thread. Some people (myself included) have said this looks like an interesting case and there might be compelling evidence that Jesus is buried in this tomb. I don't think anyone accepted that as fact. And no one who was taking this perspective then denied the existence of Jesus. Some people questioned the authenticity of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus as a historical figure. Questioning is not denial. And a slight dig is pretty much the definition of snark.
my fault for reading it wrong then. I guess the better word is there were more leaning towards accepting that this was Jesus tomb, and then it seemed as if there were leanings towards the denial of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. in my opinion, it seemed like a fallback opinion in case one failed. if I read it wrongly, then I am wrong, it is just what I picked up. slight dig sounds so much nicer than snarky though =P
I accept your apology. My personal perspective is that reason and logic are divine gifts, unique to humans. And that using these gifts to examine the world in a search for truth is a divine act. That said, I also believe there are many things outside of the human ability to comprehend with reason and logic. However, I don't think examination of the historical reality of Jesus falls into this category. While the spiritual reality of Jesus as the son of God, would.
Are you not just a little surprised that the most popular man in the history of the world didn't leave behind just a little credible evidence? Seriously, you comparing Jesus to normal people of that time is bit of stretch. Atheism isn't a religion. Is not collecting stamps a hobby? It's always easier to label the opposition than it is to address their points, isn't it?
I always thought a slight dig was like "hey nice shirt, hehe", and snarky would be more like "nice shirt, nice to see your parents love you enough to buy stuff for you". I guess a higher level of slight digginess?
Atheism is a religion. It makes absolute statements about the existence of God. Agnosticism is not a religion.
i disagree. it seeks to answer questions...and does so absolutely...about the existence of God. it requires a measure of "faith" because it can't be "proven" either. agnosticism is different. it's just saying, "look, i don't know."
i agree with you differentiating agnosticism and atheism. however, religion refers to the collective belief in a supreme being/entity.
word play religion- belief in god religion- belief in supernatural religion- belief in satan religion- belief in spiritual religion- belief in 'the One' religion- belief in nature or 'Mother nature' religion- The Force religion- belief in man religion- beliefs of man religion- the belief system that causes man's choices whether based in spiritual/supernatural or physical/natural ideology. drugs used to be my religion but i'm not sure how to classify that... at least that is where I sent my tithes....
max, the position you're taking is tantamount to saying that all human beings are religious or at least on the fence about it. you might as well claim that religion=human consciousness.
Everyone in the world is an atheist. Some just choose to not believe in one more God/religion than others.
why? i don't think i'm saying that at all. i'm saying if you're making absolute statements about God that you can not prove, then that is, by definition, a religion. i'm saying if you come down on the argument on either side you do so with some sense of faith...belief in something that is empirically unknown. i'm drawing a distinction for the guy who says, "geez, i don't know." he's not saying anything absolutely about anything...other than that he does not know!
