Was Jesus a real person?

[jlprk]

Popular science writers (and TV guys like Carl Sagan) often dumb down their messages into common, trite phrases. That's how they get widely read.

 

[crowTrobot]

Religion is looking to explain creation, the End, our role in things, and to drive our behavior.

religion isn't looking to explain anything about the physical universe. everything happened by magic. no need to look for explanations.

and to drive our behavior (curb CO2 emissions, etc.).

individual scientists might attempt to use science to support their agenda, but unlike religion science itself has no agenda by definition. it's not a religion; it's just a tool.

In his book, "A Brief History of Time," Steven Hawking (the Pope!) wrote:

"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

Seems to me he's admitting that Science and Religion seek the same Truths. Or do tell me what it means to "know the mind of God."

he's an atheist. obviously by knowing the mind of god he means we would have knowledge of how the physical universe works gained through science. religion isn't concerned with knowledge of how the physical universe works. you're trying too hard to make a parallel where there is none.

 

[Denny Crane]

religion isn't looking to explain anything about the physical universe. everything happened by magic. no need to look for explanations.



individual scientists might attempt to use science to support their agenda, but unlike religion science itself has no agenda by definition. it's not a religion; it's just a tool.



he's an atheist. obviously by knowing the mind of god he means we would have knowledge of how the physical universe works gained through science. religion isn't concerned with knowledge of how the physical universe works. you're trying too hard to make a parallel where there is none.

He may be an atheist, but he's DEFINING "God."

I agree that at its core, science has no agenda. However, science is made up of scientists who are human and humans do have agendas.

Intelligent design is at least wrapped in science. It IS an attempt to explain both why and how the physical universe works. Do I believe it? No But it is a hypothesis that can be tested for.

Consider Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the proponents of panspermia (a very scientific pursuit/theory) said, "The odds…" he concluded were about the same as throwing a "sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice." He continued, "Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true."

 

[crowTrobot]

I agree that at its core, science has no agenda. However, science is made up of scientists who are human and humans do have agendas.

so you agree science is just a tool, not a religion.

Intelligent design is at least wrapped in science. It IS an attempt to explain both why and how the physical universe works. Do I believe it? No But it is a hypothesis that can be tested for.

no it's not, at least in any form any proponent of ID has presented to this point in history. all ID proponents have done is try to pawn off god-of-the-gaps arguments to people who don't understand how science works.

you should study the dover trial. ID was found to not even qualify as a scientific theory by a court of law.

Consider Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the proponents of panspermia (a very scientific pursuit/theory) said, "The odds…" he concluded were about the same as throwing a "sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice." He continued, "Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare's plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true."

= god of the gaps

 

[crowTrobot]

He may be an atheist, but he's DEFINING "God."

no, he's just using an allegorical phrase to make science seem more profound and interesting to people who might think it isn't, in order to sell more books. he's just romanticising science.

 

[Denny Crane]

God particle.

 

[MARIS61]

He may be an atheist, but he's DEFINING "God."

Actually, I think he's mocking the notion that people still believe in one.

In Swedish the word god means "self".

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, I think he's mocking the notion that people still believe in one.

In Swedish the word god means "self".

He may "speak" with a Swedish accent, but he's not Swedish.

 

[TripTango]

God particle.

This is one of the most frustrating physics misnomers ever.

 

[TripTango]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/higgs.boson.cern

The Higgs boson is the particle that is thought to give everything else in the universe mass, but that bit of theoretical physics is unlikely to be the reason most people have heard of it. Its theistic nickname was coined by Nobel-prize winning physicist Leon Lederman, but Higgs himself is no fan of the label. "I find it embarrassing because, though I'm not a believer myself, I think it is the kind of misuse of terminology which I think might offend some people."

It wasn't even Lederman's choice. "He wanted to refer to it as that 'goddamn particle' and his editor wouldn't let him," says Higgs.

 

[gatorpops]

I seldom come to this thread, but today I was intrigued by Kingspeed's question. The simple answer to "Was Jesus a real person?" is Yes and No. Yes he was a real preson and no because he still is a real person.

Most of you do not seem to be answering the question and just following rabbit trails or so it seems to me anyway.

I am a Bible believing Christian and so I do believe the Biblical record. Coincidentally, you all either believe in the Biblical record or you believe in something else.

Maybe just in your "self" as Maris said. You accept your own thinking and evidences and believe them. You still believe, because if the question was reversed you would have difficulty supporting your belief with valid facts.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm This is a link to a Catholic Site I believe, that deals with some sources of early writers concerning Jesus of Nazareth. I am not of the Catholic faith but it does a fair job of presenting the sources and some of their quotes.

Most, if not all of you, seem to dismiss the best sources of eye witness accounts. The Apostles. John says that "these things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you might have life thru His name." ". The four witnesses agree that he existed and that he was the promised Messiah/Christ. You may choose to believe or not, certainly up to you but you will believe something. I hope you can validate your position. If I am correct and my sources are correct, you all will bow before him one day and acknowledge Him as Lord and King. If i am wrong then I shall not be any the worse off than you all. To Kingspeed, if you asked this seriously, then I urge you to follow the evidence and choose Him. Gods Speed!

gatorpops

 

[crowTrobot]

Coincidentally, you all either believe in the Biblical record or you believe in something else.

as far as whether the man jesus existed, some of us don't pretend to know things we can't.

Maybe just in your "self" as Maris said. You accept your own thinking and evidences and believe them. You still believe, because if the question was reversed you would have difficulty supporting your belief with valid facts.

only in the sense you would have a difficult time supporting your belief that the FSM doesn't exist.

Most, if not all of you, seem to dismiss the best sources of eye witness accounts. The Apostles. John says that "these things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you might have life thru His name." ". The four witnesses agree that he existed and that he was the promised Messiah/Christ.

all secular and the even the majority of theistic scholars agree the gospels weren't eyewitness accounts, or all even intended to be meant as eyewitness accounts. that notion of the gospels as 4 separate eyewitness accounts didn't emerge until the 2nd century.

You may choose to believe or not, certainly up to you but you will believe something. I hope you can validate your position. If I am correct and my sources are correct, you all will bow before him one day and acknowledge Him as Lord and King. If i am wrong then I shall not be any the worse off than you all.

unless of course you have picked the wrong religion and end up in hell anyway, or god rewards evidence-based atheism and punishes faith-based belief, or you're just dirt after you die and your life ends up being less than it could have been because you spend all your efforts following a primitive superstitious belief (etc.)

 

[TripTango]

only in the sense you would have a difficult time supporting your belief that the FSM doesn't exist.

May you all continue to be touched by His Noodly Appendage in 2012.

 

[crowTrobot]

i always find it interesting when christians resort to pascal's wager, since it's so clearly an excuse made for the fact that they aren't confident in their belief on some level.

obviously a confident believer would be telling people non-believers WILL be punished, not 'will be punished IF you're wrong'. it's like they are really subconsciously aware of the irrationality of their belief, no matter what they convince themselves of consciously.

 

[ABM]

i always find it interesting when christians resort to pascal's wager, since it's so clearly an excuse made for the fact that they aren't confident in their belief on some level.

obviously a confident believer would be telling people non-believers WILL be punished, not 'will be punished IF you're wrong'. it's like they are really subconsciously aware of the irrationality of their belief, no matter what they convince themselves of consciously.

Sometimes, folks call others (even themselves) Christians, when in fact they very well may not be. Only God knows the heart.

As for what I believe? Oh, yeah, those who the Lord doesn't know (non-believers) WILL be eternally punished. No doubt in my mind about that. The Bible declares it, I believe it. End of story.