God is a myth.

Post Reply New Topic

^^^This is a good point.

He did a job trying to compare the gospels as they were all apparently consistent and similarities about Jesus miracles and his resurrection, so the conclusion must be taken as evidence according to him. I don't know how these legal stuf works, but I think testimonies like that are not enough to get a solid conclusion.

First of all, that was made in the 19 century, a lot of how the legal system works have changed since then, new methods, DNA, the use of labs, new scientific methods, etc.

Second, the gospels can be taken just like people's words (my word against his word) like rumors, opinions or narration by people, adding to that, these suposse "evidence" should be studied in a more detailed and scientific way, and getting a real solid physical evidence based on results from labs, not just by word from people. At least that's my view.

Third, it seems that at least three of the gospels can have a same origin, either there was another gospel who was a source for three of them (q gospel) or two of them had one as a source (mark). There is a debate on this, so there is no conclusive evidence on this either. However there is something they missed then, they didn't get the scrolls from the dead sea, neither the ones from nag hammadi at that time.

If the burden of proof in any legal system rested solely with what a scholar from Harvard said, then I'm afraid we are all f*cked. I know there is a thing called circumstantial evidence, but cold hard physical evidence in any trial is generally what is relied upon to prove or disprove a case. Merely having statements by 4 apostles as to the existence of their leader is not concrete proof. Check any law book on the burden of proof and it will tell you that. Now, we know that a several men named Jesus existed in the time of Christ, and that some were actually the son of several couples name Joseph and Mary, and there were multiple cases where there was even a brother James. Also, there was a bone box discovered in a tomb with the name Mariamne inscribed upon it, and it was discovered in the Joseph/Jesus/James tomb. Mariamne was proved by DNA evidence not to be related to the bones taken from the Jesus box, so therefore even though the odds of that tomb being that of Christ were in excess of 30,000 to 1, it was a different tomb. The search still continues for the exact tomb of Christ and the family of Joseph. Now, THAT would prove the existence of Jesus the MAN, but you have nothing except scripture that proves the 'son of god' theory, and that's where the argument falls on it's face. I mean, greenblue, Sopho, LKL and myself could write statements to say Ragtime exists, but without actual eyewitness testimony to that fact, they would be inadmissible.

But we could print out copies of text written by someone calling themself 'Ragtime,' which is pretty good evidence. We can point out this website, and they can read these writings for themselves. This is something that xians cannot do for christ: there is nothing written about christ that is contemporary with christ, and there is nothing written about christ whose evidence did not originate with christians.

Exactly. Which brings me back to the point about the bone boxes. The one that contained the Mariamne remains was in the same tomb as those of an infant, and the theory was that it was the son of Jesus and Mary Magdelene (Mariamne); but when it was decided that it was the wrong tomb, the archaeologists had to keep searching until they found the right one. All this was shown in a National Geographic documentary called 'The Lost Tomb Of Jesus'. It would also be like Ragtime saying that the 'water into wine' miracle was fact, just because someone wrote about it. We know that it is impossible to do without equipment and chemical reactions etc, to perform such a trick in those days would have had to have been the best form of 'sleight-of-hand' that I can think of. Same with the loaves and fishes. As has been said before, why were there no Roman or other accounts of these 'happenings'? Some of the gospels were written long after jesus died, and it's been said that at least a couple of the writers never met Christ at all, yet claimed they were in his 'inner sanctum'. With that many inaccuracies, can you see now why I refer to it all as folklore?

I know a very brilliant computer programmer that thinks the Federal government is in contact with aliens and co-operates woth them.

Someone on the ABC (Australian, not American) channel said that a comedian was someone who could get up in front of a crowd of people and admit he was human. Didn't Jesus do just this when he told the crowd that followed him he wasn't the messiah? Proof then that was one of the great comedians of his time. No son of god, however.

Are you trying to be a comedian??

Oh, if it's comedy you want....

Jesus and the apostles were sitting around Matthew's pad one day, bored out of their minds. Suddenly Jesus jumps up and says, 'hey, let's put on a concert! We'll do some songs, comedy and really get the crowd going. You know, something like that big festival they had at Galilee a couple of years ago!' Everyone said yeah, why not. Jesus then said 'right, Peter, Paul & Mary I want you to go on first, do a few songs, get them in the mood. Jimi, OK, James then. You can do a few guitar solos. John? You get together with Paul and do a few of those songs you wrote, you know 'Hey Jude' or whatever. Timothy? you go out and get them to 'turn on, tune in and drop out'. and Timothy, stop looking so leery. Meanwhile I'll be waiting for Andrew to get back with this play he's been writing... Ah he's here now. Andrew? What's this one about? A group of fellas being hounded and oppressed, and someone having to give the ultimate sacrifice, like it. What's it called?'
'Jesus Christ Superstar' says Andrew, and Jesus says, 'oh yeah, I bet the poor bugger being sacrificed is me, right?' Jesus then sits down, shakes his head and says, 'bloody typical, why am I always the martyr?'

The bible lends itsself more towards farce if you ask me.

Something maybe Shakespeare would have been proud to have written....

Or maybe Terry Pratchett? Don't laugh, L Ron Hubbard, the scientologist god was an author; even if he was a crackpot.

Last edited by The_Chosen_One on 23 Aug 2007, 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

fixed.

O I C. Yeah, I guess Hamlet or Richard the III or even Romeo and Juliet would have been easier to follow..... And in some case probably would have made more sense

Sweet.
But aren't you forgetting..Simon (Le Bon- 'Save a prayer'!), Andrew (Rigley of Wham fame- 'Last Christmas' ), James (Brown-'I Got The Feelin'), John (see above), Philip (of the Lynott Clan, Thin Lizzy- 'Don't believe a Word'), Bartholomew (Do the Bart Man!), Thomas (Petty..'A Rebel Without A Clue'?), Matthew (eh hem), James The Younger (Blunt- 'nough said), Thaddeus(whatever), Simon the Zealot (Simple Simon?), Judas Iscariot (Judas Priest- 'Hell bent for Leather', or 'Sinner') and last and least: Matthias (ok). Heck

Just hope he would have made a few shekels out of it, instead of the half a dinari the poor ex-leper got.

Brian: There's no pleasing some people
Ex-leper: That's what Jesus said sir.

Don't forget Tom Waits for no man......