7 ms·

What true accounts would you suggest religions are based upon?

by qq4 6y ago

dimitrios1 6y ago
Well in modern times today, eye witness testimony still carries much weight, and still being used to determine truth in a court of law. So therefore, the eye witness testimony of hundreds of commoners, including the inner circle of disciples and apostles who saw Jesus Christ in flesh and blood and attest to his miracles in person, plus the third party accounts by roman and jewish independent observers and historians alike.
- finndark 6y ago
  I have never heard of any true historical proof of the existence of Jesus whatsoever. No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. And to top it off, his story ends with him rising from the dead!8-))
  - cat199 6y ago
    > No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?
  - wolfgang42 6y ago
    It’s hard to be sure of anything that happened so long ago, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence, and scholars almost universally agree that there was at least a person by that name doing things in the area at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of... are two good places to start.
    - finndark 6y ago
      Anecdotal evidence? Two thousand years later? "Consider the source!"
      - wolfgang42 6y ago
        The evidence which I described as ‘anecdotal’ starts a mere twenty or thirty years after Jesus’s death, and comes from sources who didn’t have any particular interest in promoting the Christian agenda. It seems that I may be unlikely to convince you, but if you’ve already got a strong opinion on this it might help to come at it from the other direction and start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independent_eyewitness_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independ... first. Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.
  - throwawaytolk 6y ago
    You can be easily disabused of this ignorant view by reading the wikipedia page for the historicity of jesus. Jesus mysticism is a fringe, crackpot view in historical scholarship. People adopt it because it suits their priors not because it has the weight of literally any scholarship or investigation behind it. It is , simply put, a ridiculous proposal in the light of what is known about the NT.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      My understanding (from reading a book called "who wrote the Bible") is scholars generally agree Jesus existed, but out of the 5 main objective criteria for "did a character exist", he only satisfies 3 of the 5. IIRC, the fact that he plays so prominently in modern life acts as an effect size: in the 3 categories he can be confirmed, he is off the charts. So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC. Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
      - throwawaytolk 6y ago
        Even bart erhman has published in his hostoricity
  - eigenheart 6y ago
    The criteria with which you dismiss the historical Jesus is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical Jesus is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
    - finndark 6y ago
      Jesus is ahistorical - no documents, no records. Everything about him written long after he died. In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title. Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
    - Ste_Evans 6y ago
      "as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response" Surprise, surprise. There may well have been a person, Jesus Christ. We don't know for sure. What we do know is that Gods, Demi-gods and dragons aren't real. If that isn't immediately obvious to you, you should seek psychiatric help for your mental delusions.
    - Ste_Evans 6y ago
      @eigenheart The corollary of your delusion is that you also believe in the demi-god, HERACLES: The criteria with which you dismiss the historical HERACLES is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical HERACLES is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
  - andrewon 6y ago
    Existence of historical Jesus has been well established. First century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus wrote about him... For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
    - wl 6y ago
      > First century Jewish historian Josephus Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians. > For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments. The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts. There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  So you agree then that documented eye witness reports of non-Christian gods prove that those gods also exist? That the Christian god is just one of many?
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  Also, who was there to witness god creating the universe? Any eye witness account of that? And if not surely that part of the bible is just made up?
camhart 6y ago
What religious accounts can you prove are not true?
- tempestn 6y ago
  The onus is on the person making the initial claim; you can't make an assertion without evidence and then expect people who disagree to prove the negative. Could say the same thing about claims of rigged elections.
  - camhart 6y ago
    See my response to arcticbull.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. If someone comes to you one day and tells you a man lives in the clouds with a deep-seated interest in your sex life, the onus is then on you to convince the agnostic. The burden of proof is on you. If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen? We don't generally require proving a negative.
  - camhart 6y ago
    Look at the context of this discussion. The claim was made that all religion is based on misinformation. I argued that that claim is wrong. Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false. The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation. If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation. ~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it? This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN. If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.

What true accounts would you suggest religions are based upon?

by qq4 6y ago

What true accounts would you suggest religions are based upon?

Well in modern times today, eye witness testimony still carries much weight, and still being used to determine truth in a court of law. So therefore, the eye witness testimony of hundreds of commoners, including the inner circle of disciples and apostles who saw Jesus Christ in flesh and blood and attest to his miracles in person, plus the third party accounts by roman and jewish independent observers and historians alike.

finndark 6y ago
I have never heard of any true historical proof of the existence of Jesus whatsoever. No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. And to top it off, his story ends with him rising from the dead!8-))
- cat199 6y ago
  > No eyewitness accounts, no Roman accounts, no Jewish accounts, etc. debate the authenticity all you want, but what exactly do you think the new testament is?
- wolfgang42 6y ago
  It’s hard to be sure of anything that happened so long ago, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence, and scholars almost universally agree that there was at least a person by that name doing things in the area at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of... are two good places to start.
  - finndark 6y ago
    Anecdotal evidence? Two thousand years later? "Consider the source!"
    - wolfgang42 6y ago
      The evidence which I described as ‘anecdotal’ starts a mere twenty or thirty years after Jesus’s death, and comes from sources who didn’t have any particular interest in promoting the Christian agenda. It seems that I may be unlikely to convince you, but if you’ve already got a strong opinion on this it might help to come at it from the other direction and start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independent_eyewitness_accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#No_independ... first. Personally, I don’t really think it matters much either way (the events of a few decades being much less influential than the following two millennia of activities by people who did believe he existed), so I default to taking the word of people who’ve actually studied the matter in depth; but as he was one of several Roman-era Messiah claimants wandering around (we know of at least two others, and there were probably more whose names never made it into the histories we have) it seems reasonable that the group which happened to catch on would have also originally coalesced around an actual person.
- throwawaytolk 6y ago
  You can be easily disabused of this ignorant view by reading the wikipedia page for the historicity of jesus. Jesus mysticism is a fringe, crackpot view in historical scholarship. People adopt it because it suits their priors not because it has the weight of literally any scholarship or investigation behind it. It is , simply put, a ridiculous proposal in the light of what is known about the NT.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    My understanding (from reading a book called "who wrote the Bible") is scholars generally agree Jesus existed, but out of the 5 main objective criteria for "did a character exist", he only satisfies 3 of the 5. IIRC, the fact that he plays so prominently in modern life acts as an effect size: in the 3 categories he can be confirmed, he is off the charts. So it is generally accepted he existed, even if the criteria used to judge other historical characters is loosened for JC. Edit - but please try to not say things like "ignorant" or "disabused" unless you meant to attack OP. Those are pretty loaded words for a collegial discussion.
    - throwawaytolk 6y ago
      Even bart erhman has published in his hostoricity
- eigenheart 6y ago
  The criteria with which you dismiss the historical Jesus is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical Jesus is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
  - finndark 6y ago
    Jesus is ahistorical - no documents, no records. Everything about him written long after he died. In contrast Pontius Pilate is historical - there are extant documents with his name and title. Simply b/c Pontius Pilate was real doesn't mean Jesus Christ was real. And it certainly doesn't mean he rose from the dead!
  - Ste_Evans 6y ago
    "as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response" Surprise, surprise. There may well have been a person, Jesus Christ. We don't know for sure. What we do know is that Gods, Demi-gods and dragons aren't real. If that isn't immediately obvious to you, you should seek psychiatric help for your mental delusions.
  - Ste_Evans 6y ago
    @eigenheart The corollary of your delusion is that you also believe in the demi-god, HERACLES: The criteria with which you dismiss the historical HERACLES is also applicable to any other historical figure of antiquity. By your measure, no one without a photograph, video, or audio recording can be counted as anything other than a myth. The historical HERACLES is very real (as is His Divinity, but that is beyond the scope of this response).
- andrewon 6y ago
  Existence of historical Jesus has been well established. First century Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Tacitus wrote about him... For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments.
  - wl 6y ago
    > First century Jewish historian Josephus Two mentions. One is almost certainly fabricated, or at least heavily rewritten by later Christians. > For eyewitness, you can find first person account in the New Testaments. The Gospels aren't first person accounts. The closest you get to first person accounts of Jesus in the NT are brief mentions of Paul's conversion experiences in his epistles. The Gospels probably draw on first person accounts to some extent, but they themselves aren't first person accounts. There's a very strong case to be made for the historicity of Jesus, but you make a misleading one by leaving out some very important context regarding Josephus and mischaracterizing the accounts of Jesus in the NT.
mbrodersen 6y ago
So you agree then that documented eye witness reports of non-Christian gods prove that those gods also exist? That the Christian god is just one of many?
mbrodersen 6y ago
Also, who was there to witness god creating the universe? Any eye witness account of that? And if not surely that part of the bible is just made up?

camhart 6y ago

What religious accounts can you prove are not true?

tempestn 6y ago
The onus is on the person making the initial claim; you can't make an assertion without evidence and then expect people who disagree to prove the negative. Could say the same thing about claims of rigged elections.
- camhart 6y ago
  See my response to arcticbull.
arcticbull 6y ago
The default state of a human is an agnostic. If you are born and nobody tells you the Good Word, you live your entire life without religion. If someone comes to you one day and tells you a man lives in the clouds with a deep-seated interest in your sex life, the onus is then on you to convince the agnostic. The burden of proof is on you. If I told you the story of our lord and savior Sauron, could you prove to me it's not true? Could you prove to me any of the Lord of the Rings didn't happen? We don't generally require proving a negative.
- camhart 6y ago
  Look at the context of this discussion. The claim was made that all religion is based on misinformation. I argued that that claim is wrong. Someone responded saying, "find one true account that religion is based on". I responded asking whether they could find an account that is proven false. The context here is important--I'm not arguing my belief in religion, or that you must believe in religion. I'm arguing that not all religion is based on misinformation. I brought up my question to point out that his question is irrelevant, and he can't prove anything to be false, therefore he can't prove that it's all misinformation. If I see a bird fly over my head, then claim to you, "a bird flew over my head", I can't prove it. Neither can you disprove it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that my claim isn't real, or that my claim is misinformation. ~2000 years ago people witnessed Christ die and some claim they saw Him come back to life. They wrote about it. Those letters still exist today. I agree that this information alone is not enough to justify someone changing their life to believe the letters--merely existing doesn't "prove" that what's in them is true. But pretend for a second it really did happen. What evidence/proof do you think you'd find that could prove it? This is honestly getting watered down a lot though, with people jumping in without reading everything. I don't blame them--I do the same on HN. If someone wishes to discuss why I personally believe, and what I believe in, that's a different thing altogether that I'm happy to discuss but not here on HN.