Eise

English is not my native language, but afaik 'few events' means that, well, there are at least some events that are universally accepted. That means that the historicity of Jesus is accepted, but that it is close to impossible to make a reliable reconstruction about his life. Sure. And from exactly that article: . You cannot compare Joseph Smith and Mohammed with Jesus. Both Smith and Mohammed were clearly historical persons, who claimed to have gotten insights in the 'true teachings of God'. And the difference between stories about Moses, Noah and Krishna on one side and Jesus on the other, is that the stories about Jesus are placed in a historical context we know of: the occupation of Jewish territory by the Romans. And then you can take as a fact that the first Christian appeared in Rome already in the first century. If Jesus would not have existed at all, his existence would already have been disputed in those days (see citation above). And don't forget: in the 19th and 20th century old documents were discovered that perfectly fit in the picture that present day historians have. So it is not just a question of interpreting the same old stuff again and again.

Ah, forgot about this great web page on reddit. Lifelong atheist with a PhD in New Testament and Early Christianity: AMA. I think that nearly all your objections are discussed there.

1. I backed up my claims in my first posting in this thread. 2. Of course the magical stories are made up. Did I say otherwise? 3. Obvious you do not know how the sciences physics and history differ. 4. I violate no rule: in the first place this is the philosophy forum. In philosophy there is not necessary evidence; but there is rational investigation. In the second place I backed up my assertions with sources, I mentioned a book of a well know scholar in new testamentical history (who is not a christian but an agnostic). And in the third place, in the case of antiquity we often have not the kind of evidence you are asking for. And one other thing: a rational discussion is only possible when you read what others wrote, and do not just repeat view points that were countered already in postings before.

Accepted.

My nick is the first name of Eise Eisinga, my avatar is his picture. My father was born in Franeker, and Eisinga and I are very far relatives. You can guess my nationality now. So no Eisenhower, please. There are hints that Jesus has been a real existing person, but no more than hints. On the basis of these hints, a majority of historians think that the assumption that he existed is the most probable. The mythicists have no positive evidence that it was all a coverup. All the magical stories told about Jesus might just as well be explained by exaggeration and the drive of the authors of Gospels, of Paul and others, to give him a divine status. It seems nearly impossible to me to separate a complete coverup from a lot of projections on a real historical figure. I know there is no strict evidence that Jesus existed. I only say that there are hints that are strong enough that to assume he existed, and therefore the assumption that he existed is the most probable. I could be wrong. Just as you. I suggest you compare how historians decide if some historical or legendary person really existed, and compare the criteria they use with those they use for the question of the historicity of Jesus. But that is nice work for you, not for me. The topic is nearly not as hot as it is obviously for you. I am sorry you get so irritated by this, but for me the question is closed, unless new evidence for another viewpoint is found. We must agree to disagree, Ten Oz.

Ten Oz, You did not pick up anything from what I said, you are just repeating yourself, so going on with this discussion is meaningless. Being a science forum, you should take scientists' word for it, in this case historians. See how they reconstruct Jesus' life. And I can promise you, nobody will state that Jesus changed water into wine, walked on water, or resurrected. I don't believe that either. No. At least 3 sources, possibly 4, for Mark, Luke and Matthew. John is very much different, also written much later than the other ones. It is the gospel with the fewest anecdotes,parables etc, but very much about what Jesus is (Logos into the flesh and so...) Did you really read what I wrote? If there are sources that do hint to the idea that the historical Jesus is a coverup, then that would be highly interesting! But until now I only found arguments from mythicists that sources in favour of the existence of Jesus are totally unreliable. That would count for 'negative arguments'; against Jesus' existence, i.e. dismissing the evidence. But obviously the mythicists are harder than most scholars in their criteria what is reliable. You are making the same error as Ten Oz: I never referred to Paul's hallucinations, but to the few facts in his epistles that match with the gospels. (The chance is not big that the evangelists knew Paul's epistles.) Such matches increase the reliability of the mentioned facts. Which does not mean 'proof the reliability', or 'proof that Jesus existed'. It means 'hints that Jesus probably existed', i.e. an apocalyptic preacher, called Jesus, who was expecting the final day during his lifetime, and that the Jews should prepare for it.

You're kidding. The new testament is one source? There are 4 Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and a few documents. OK, Lukas and Matthew did pick a lot of Mark, but they also had other sources, partially shared (some stories are not in Mark, but both in Lukas and Matthew). From here. That's not a historical theory. That as at most a hypothesis. Where is the evidence? Do you have scripts in which Paul and Peter are discussing how they will make up a whole new religion? Do you understand: there is no positive evidence for the idea that it was all a setup. There are many sources of the life of Jesus, not very reliable, but taken altogether, they point in the direction that he existed.The mythicist position that it is all a mixup of previous existing legends cannot be proven either. And it is also perfectly possible that this mixup was projected on a real existing person, in order to make him divine afterwards. Paul also mentions that he met Peter and James. Acts and the epistle differ however about the question when Paul went to Jerusalem: immediately after his 'insight' or only three years later.

That's fine Ten Oz. Just about Thales: these are all contemporaries of Thales? And why should the non-contempary fragments of Heraclitus be more reliable than the different sources of mere existence of Jesus? From philological research it is already clear that there are different sources about Jesus. If we take those things together on which several independent sources agree we get a pretty clear about what he taught. It fits in the time in which he was living. And don't forget: do you have a better theory than that he really existed? Does this theory not need much more assumptions than the standpoint that he just existed, and many stories about him were exaggerated and fantasized afterwards? (There many great examples of these in apocryphical gospels.) I already said we are both not historians. If you want to have stronger hints for Jesus than are used for other persons, then go ahead. Let's agree that we do not agree.

Yes. And he talked with the people that really met Jesus, like Peter and James (brother of Jesus). And he refers to facts in Jesus' life that are also written in the gospels. Obviously he was referring to events that people knew in those days. I also mentioned Thales. Can you present me with the contemporary texts about Heraclitus and Thales? Thank you. You are right about Socrates: there are contemporary writings of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.

That makes sense. It is exactly what a-theism describes. What they do not believe in. Some might be deists. Or Buddhists. Or humanists. Or nihilists.

Could be my words (if my English would be good enough). Oh? Did they identify more than one person, all of them whose existence is perfectly proofed, but it is not clear which of them was Jesus? If that is not what these scholars say, what should this sentence mean? You could apply a kind of Occam's Razor: what is the easiest hypothesis to explain all the stories about Jesus in so many sources, and the fanaticism with which these stories are spread? Is it not the easiest hypothesis that really some person existed that made a strong impression on a group of people? Of course there is no evidence! This is history, not physics. There are hints of his existence, hints that are as strong as for many other historical persons that are also supposed to exist: Socrates, Heraclitus, Thales. Hey, maybe Shakespeare did not exist! The Josephus and Tacitus fragments are just the oldest and only non-Christian mentioning of Jesus. As such they are hints, but of course, not very strong, but still hints. And you notoriously ignore the Pauline epistles, written only 20 years after Jesus' death.

Yes, and again: I concentrate on the substance because that is my answer on the question of this thread. There lies the source of the conflicts between science and religion. I am not talking about the question if religion logically always must be in conflict with science. That would be another thread. The point is that many religions connect their 'other purposes' with this 'substance': it is true that God created the world in 6 days, and science that denies this, is a threat for morality. I don't understand why you do not see that this is the conflict as the creationists see it. You don't get to the heart of the matter: which religion do you mean? Enlightened modern day moderate Christianity? Or fundamentalist Christianity? Or Jihadism? Or secular Buddhism? You do as if 'religion' is the same for everybody. It isn't. Some religions do not get into conflict with science. Others do. The topic of this thread is why those others get in conflict with science.

I did here. If you want to extend the meaning of 'religion' to encompass all of strong subjective feelings, beliefs; of art and all kind of rituals; of every worldview; then you are stretching the meaning of the word pretty far. And it will still not contain the domains where both religion and science have something to see, and the ideas collide. And that was the question of the OP about: 'Reasons for the conflict between religion and science', not the reason why religion and science must not necessarily collide.

The only reason you know that, is because from science you know that it isn't Thor. A creationist takes the word of the bible literally. Why otherwise do you think that creationists combat evolution? They even call their beliefs 'creationist science', or 'intelligent design'. Again: your vision on religion makes religion and science to two excluding domains of ... Yeah of what? Knowledge? Do creationists know that the earth was created as described in the bible? Do they call this subjective truth? Of course not. And that is why there is a conflict between science and religion. I also hate this idea of 'subjective truth'. It might be true that people believe that the earth was created in seven days. Surely most of those people really think it is true. But it just isn't true, full stop. It is just creating intellectual fog when one says that something is a 'subjective truth' when we just mean he is authentic in his expression of what he believes to be true. Don't take me wrong, I have nothing against religion in general, or people referring to their inner feelings as motivation for what they like or do. But only in the 'enlightened sense' that you are taking as presupposition. Fact however is that many religionists don't have this enlightened view on religion, and so their truths will collide with the 'real' truths of science again and again. Exactly as iNow says:

Sorry, Moontanman, I will not start a quote war: 'Citation please'. Just for the info: I said my quotations come from Wikipedia. You will find them. And you missed my remark about Acharya S above? And now you refer to her home page as a reliable source? She is just an anti-religionist missionary, preaching her own religion (The Gospel According to Acharya S'), denying the existence of more or less all religion founders. She is just on a crusade. And you seem to miss the main point I made. I draw my conclusions. I stick to what the majority of the scientists have to say. Now you can deny that it is a majority. A citation of Richard Carrier next time?

Sorry, no youtubes for me. And about the fragments (Wikipedia): Tacitus: Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Josephus: Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. And I think I have read enough about the 'debate' and have drawn my conclusions. There is also a 'debate' about climate change and creationism. I couldn't be interested less. I just gave my 2 cents. I am much more interested in what academic history has to say about the real Jesus, and I can say you: most Christians, especially fundamentalists would not like it. That is the 'fun part' of the historical Jesus...

Now you ask me to go into the whole discussion... First I repeat my previous quote: Virtually all scholars of various disciplines who have commented on the subject consider Jesus to have existed. That should be an argument: from authority, of course. But I think that referring to the fact that a majority of classical and new testamentical scholars think Jesus existed is a valid argument. Now I have read several books of Ehrman. Should I now repeat every answer he gives at questions you ask me? I cannot argue myself, as I am not a historian (and I suppose you are not too), I do not have any direct knowledge of the sources. But let's give it a try: Ehrman states that it is just not true that the Romans kept perfect track of everything that happened in their empire. Same for the Jews in those days. The 'missing records' idea is a myth: they just are not there because the Romans did not consistently administrated everything. But interesting enough (of course you read the Wikipedia links...) Jesus' death is mentioned in the Talmud. And then the gospels were written many years after Jesus died, but the Pauline Epistles were written only 20 years after Jesus' death. Most of the facts that can be found in the authentic Pauline Epistles (some of the letters are forgeries) about Jesus' life are in sync with the gospels. Paul lived short enough after Jesus' death that he could have met some of the apostles, and in fact he describes meeting them. Now you could still say, well what proves that? He could have lied about everything. Maybe the 'so called authentic Epistles' are also forgeries? But if you do that, you can throw away a lot of what we think really happened in antiquity. Did Socrates exist? Heraclitus? Did Thales predict a solar eclipse? We honestly don't know for sure. But if we know all the historical backgrounds, then in many cases the hypothesis that such a person existed is the most probable one. Same holds for Jesus' existence. Last but not least, after reading a few texts of Richard Carrier, and 2 books by Acharya S, I noticed how angry they are arguing against the historical existence of Jesus. They just push their atheist agenda too hard. It really is no problem to believe that Jesus really existed, and be an atheist. If real Christians would hear what classical and new testamentical scholars have to say about Jesus' teachings, they would not enjoy... Reality is the best antidote.

So you believe in the creation story (literally) and in big bang at the same time? Is that possible? And when I say that I saw Thor yesterday making thunder and lightning there is no conflict with science? In the end it is a deity, and science has nothing to say about that. Not even that I am lying, it does not belong to science's domain.

What? The truth of God making the world in 7 days does not overlap the big bang theory? Wow.

The OP: What else did I do in my posting?

I would say he has narrowed it: to only those religions that have no problem with any worldly truth. Only Buddhism à la Dalai Lama comes into my mind. He once said that if science discovers that a certain Buddhist dogma is in conflict with science, then the Buddhists must give it up. How many of these kind of religions do you know? A very broad spectrum?

That's just not true. Theoretically it is possible to have a religion that is not based on truths about the world, practically most religions are based on supposed truths (creationism, a God that leads the people of Israel through the desert, the flooding and the ark, reincarnation etc). What you describe supposes a quite enlightened way of seeing one's own religion. There is even an abbreviation for it: NOMA. (Just saw that iNow also referred to NOMA...)

In the first place it is of course that religion states its 'truths' without (enough) empirical support. When science discovers that it is not so as was stated in religion, then there is a conflict. Then the conflict continues, because there is much more attached to the religious 'truths': religious people think that the meaning of life and the morality of people depends on their 'truths'. Also their social cohesion is based on these 'truths', so they stick to them, and science becomes a threat.

Wikipedia is your best friend: virtually all scholars of various disciplines who have commented on the subject consider Jesus to have existed And here: Sources for the historicity of Jesus Of course there is no proof in any 'hard scientific way'. But the evidence for an apocalyptic preacher called Jesus is as strong as a historian needs to accept any person in antiquity as having existed. The discussions are sometimes ferocious: 'hard atheists' do everything to deconstruct Christianity; Christians of course everything to state that he did exist. If you are really interested, read Bart Ehrman.

Phi for All, Just my idea. I taste a religious notion in Marshalscienguy's answer. If it turns out that way, then I am done. And this discussion indeed does not belong physics forum. Ophiolite noticed this already many posts ago, and I also said it is a philosophical question, not a physical one.