Religion = Delusion?

Do you agree with the comments made about Mormons and Muslims? People of these faiths believe the events their faith is founded on just as much as Christians believe in the events their religion is based on. What makes any of the 3 any more credible than the other 2?

in the Jewish cities is hard to swallow, I'll admit, but that is something that would be clearly evident in our archaeological record. Note to any Mormons out there - my understanding of your religion is limited and I cannot point out any problems with the video's presentation of your beliefs.

My personal belief, though, includes what I consider a fudge factor. A false statement in one part of a religious scripture does not necessarily invalidate the rest. Also, considering God works in mysterious ways, it does not seem unreasonable that a mortal would have trouble fully understanding or comprehending a message from above (you can consider it a translation factor). I like to think of it like this - God is to us as we are to insects... do ants understand what you say?

That was the whole point of Jesus... an opportunity, once and for all, for God to get his message across without any misunderstanding.

in this situation is unrealistic. My point is that the existance of Jesus is, for the most part, solely a matter of faith since there is no practical way of scientifically proving or disproving that he existed or performed any miracles.
The existance of huge cities, on the other hand, is a much easier claim to examine.

For a person to be "delusional" they must believe something that is obviously false. The creator of the video provided nothing beyond "I say so" to prove that Jesus did not exist, nor has anyone else.

One of the scientists in Egypt said that there was no proof that humans evolved. When told that there was no proof of Adam and Eve either, the man was shocked. Of course they were true because it was in the Koran.

Diana

that he existed"
Well, you have at least one historian on your side. H. G. Wells wrote: "The old Roman historians ignored Jesus entirely; he left no impress on the historical records of his time." But is this true?

From one of our publications about Jesus; please investigate these for yourself:
"Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist. Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: "The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ. In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
The New Encyclop

since Clay seemed to be looking for hard, physical evidence such as some grand tomb or something similar. He seems to easily discount early texts as being a bunch of wives' tales.

bits and pieces of objects and texts. The texts, in turn, can be first-hand records or nth-hand or accurate records- of things that never happened. It's someone's business to summarize it and say that Jesus or Pilate or Galileo did exist. Galileo left behind many well-attested texts, some in his own hand, I believe. There were sketchy records about Pilate, including the bible story; just recently an object was discovered: A paving stone of some kind with his name on it. Provenance makes it That Pilate, not some other with the same name. (Did you know that the historian of letters must filter out several William Shakespeares who were real Englishmen but not the playwright?)

The existence of the man Jesus is proven. We can even assign the label 'itinerant religious teacher' based on only secular sources. His execution by the state is proven. The resurrection was discussed by a man who probably did not witness it, but he later gave up his life believing that it did. His evidence? Eyewitnesses whom he trusted, as recorded at 1 Cor 15:1-8. The rest of the chapter is also worth reading.

As to this matter of proof leading to belief, Jesus proved that he knew human nature: Lu 16:31

Jesus and His mother knew the details of His birth. There was no story passed around a circle from mouth to mouth. Jesus personally taught three of the four gospel writers. The fourth researched his book by interviewing eye witnesses. All had direct access to His mother.

The reasons for believing the history are rooted in Jesus Himself. There is no necessity to accept the miracles before looking at Jesus and His claims. He said He is God. His enemies never denied that He made that claim. In fact, they used it as a basis for seeking to kill Him on more than one occasion. The documents which tell us this were written within the life times of those who witnessed the events. There was ample time for many people to review what was written. If the documents contained flights of fancy, many would have pointed this out.

So, how do we explain Jesus? Was His claim to be God a lie? A delusion? The truth? Those are the three choices. If He was an evil liar, or a hopelessly deluded individual, how to we explain His life and teachings? How do we explain the truth within His teaching?

If He is God, the miracles are well within His power. If He was not God, Christianity is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Look at mathematics and the history behind it. Recorded math has been built upon and passed on from generation to generation for thousands of years. With math you can verify the truth of it and the logic behind it.

With religious beliefs this is not the case. All we have is he said she said he said and there is no evidence to verify it. Mormons claim that Joe said that the angel said that God said. The Muslims claim that Mohammed said that the angel said that God said. Christians claim that Paul said the holy ghost said that Jesus said. In the end we have nothing to verify any of these stories, no witnesses to these events, no artifacts. Nothing but a mans word that they happened when these men were alone. Without that there is no reason to believe that any of the ARE true, only that they might be possible.

We have what Jesus said. We have His claim. Until you deal with Him, the matter of what Paul said is irrelevant.

What is/was Jesus? Liar, lunatic, or God? If not God, how do you explain the source of His character and the content of His teaching. Paul is completely irrelevant unless you first accept Jesus. If you do, then the rest follows.

Other religious leaders like Joseph Smith and Mohammad are irrelevant.

Jesus said He is God. When He spoke, we have the words of God directly from God's mouth. There is no comparable claim in any other religion. If He is God, what He says is true.

In the end, there are many, many witnesses to the events recorded in the four gospels. Claiming that the witnesses do not exist is an exercise in futility which denies historical fact. If you don't accept the historical record of what Jesus said, there is nothing that can convince you. So, why keep asking? No one can change an opinion that rejects the evidence.

without debating its points, you are still left with a problem - that in no way can anyone label Christians as delusional. It's not as if there should be some grand historical record containing thousands of pieces of evidence - we're talking about a single man here.

Now on to debate your post:
As for what evidence we do have, the Bible itself has been around for 1700 hundred years or so, and the oldest surviving Bible is approx 1500 years old. While there have been slight changes due to translation and transcription, the overall content has not changed in that time.

That leaves us with 300 years or so from the time of Jesus to when the first Bible was written by the Christian Church. The Bible was comprised of various writings from those who lived at the time of Jesus.

Now looking at our recent history, we base our historical knowledge on numerous documents that are 300+ old and when multiple documents from different sources state the same thing, researchers usually assume the writings as factual.

Given all this, it is in no way surprising that many such as myself believe in Christ and his teachings.

written within 70 years after Jesus left the scene. The church did not write the Bible. You may be thinking of the meeting where church leaders formalized the list of books included in the New Testament. There are many early copies or fragments of the books involved.

with this statement.

"The church did not write the Bible."

Perhaps I am not certain what you consider to be "the church".

Some might argue that the apostolic fathers as the builders of the early church were actually the first "bricks". They gathered more as they journeyed as commissioned. They produced the "New Testament" scriptures. I don't think Jesus invented the word we call "church". He was part of one already. That one produced the "Old Testament" scriptures.

I won't try to argue the exact moment the church came into existence but we can cite a time when it did not but was planned for....that being the Peter and rock passages. It was obvious that Jesus' intentions for the future were for a church of His teachings to be established and nourished. If a church consists of people who worship, lead, teach and pass on their faith, the apostolic fathers....the writers of NT scriptures....could be said to have once been the church.

The books of the Bible were written by individual authors. None were written by a group of people. The church is a group of people. Protestants believe that the church refers to all those who are believers.

I think that's a huge difference. While the authors may have been members, or even leaders of the church, the church did not author the Bible. To suggest that it did is to fall into the trap that the church modified and edited the documents to meet the needs of an organized group.

BTW, the 'apostolic fathers' did not write the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, John, and Paul were the principal writers. Some think that Peter may have been Luke's source, and Peter wrote two other small books. Many of the apostles were not involved at all. Also, Jesus did not say that He was part of the church. He said that the church is His, and that He would build it.

what you considered as the church. That issue alone would require volumes of discussion and I doubt there would be much common ground to be found. Thus, I used the word quite loosely to allow multiple interpretations because that's how I understand it. It can be used to mean the Lord's house, the assembly in it, the house with the assembly in it. It can be used to describe the entire communion of persons of similar worship including those who are gone. Some say the church is both visible and invisible and some say invisible only. Jesus was a Jew. They had houses of teaching and worship and Jesus was a part of that community. In essence, it functioned as a church. I cannot provide the word Jesus used for church but would likely refer to the Ecclesia such as is used writers denoting that which Jesus founded. As well, ecclesiastical buildings can refer to many types of structures where worship is performed...a church (building) being one.

Buildings don't write. Members of the community associated with (and as) the church do. I would suggest that individuals who wrote the scriptures did so not as themselves, but as the (establishing) church itself as obedient instruments of God. Whether the written contribution was one person, 2, 3, or all of the Apostles makes not a wit of difference. Yes, some may have only taught. Perhaps they wrote but their letters weren't found or never validated. They were still all, in a sense, the body of the early church. A writing from Paul, therefore, comes not just from Paul but from the church Jesus built. That the scriptures were later assembled by other members or church "officials" into the format we now call the Bible neither adds nor takes away from that. I'd say that, as a part of the "body" you represent and affect the whole of it. Bottom line, the Bible...word of God...in it's written form was a product Jesus' church.

they did. Peter tells us quite explicitly.

2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
NIV

Peter says that individual men spoke. It was not a group of men. However you define it, I think we can agree that the church is a group. An individual is never the church. Since individuals wrote the books in the Bible, it was not the church which produced it.

Further, the Bible was not produced by the church. It was produced by the Holy Spirit who 'carried along' the men who wrote. The church is under the authority of the Bible. It does not have any authority over the Bible, but must answer to what has been written through God's direct action.

I think it is a serious error to speak loosely on this issue. The church has played a role in ratifying the books included in the canon, and in preserving the scriptures. IMO, it played no role in the writing of the scriptures.

Jesus was raised in the synagogue. That was apparently not what He had in mind when He said:

Matt 16:18-19 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. NASU

He seemed to be referring to something new and different which was not yet in existence.

It's a mincing of words issue. My reference to the production of the Bible speaks to the tangible product that was the teaching tool adopted for then and the ages so that all could have other than word of mouth. You may take issue with my reference to "teaching tool". I can accept and understand that if you do.

As I learned it, there was some nervousness developing when the return of Jesus was no longer considered as imminent. It was imperative to preserve the integrity of what existed in writing. Such is probably why it was important to trace all contents to the 12. Those writings were known to have been guided and true to the words of their teacher. That the OT was included is evidence of it's value as well. The Apostles taught from those scriptures and they came in more than one form. This created its own dilemma for those doing the compiling. Not getting into that here.

I believe it's true that when we reference scripture we first point to the Bible itself and then, perhaps, to the specific author of the passage...maybe to add some clarity. If we say "Paul wrote....", we are doing so from within the Bible already.

I do think it's interesting to note that when we want to be critical of actions, behavior, etc. of individuals within a specific ecclesiastical body, we tend to condemn the church as a whole. Suddenly it's the church and not just one or a few people within it. This hasn't been limited to one named body. As well, I did not credit or give specific name to the church compiling scripture into the form of the book we call the Bible. There was no name to give.

(And believe, otherwise I'll ... oops )
For purposes of discussion let's take the bible as something like the Iliad: Clearly mythical, but built on some unknown foundation of actual events. Part of that record, dateable certainly to no earlier than 100 CE (round numbers), says that Jesus was born in a town known as Bethlehem. A town with that name exists today, 5+ miles from Jerusalem. Many people, for many reasons, believe that's The Town. (John 7:40-42)

Another part of the record, dateable to no later than 150 BCE, says as a prophecy or prediction that a Very Special Person would be born in Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2; read the context to see why many point to the VSP as Jesus. And the only other significant person born there was King David, dead by Micah's time.)

But in Micah's day (the "Old Testament") there were two towns named Bethlehem. The one already mentioned was in the S of the nation of Israel, in the province of Judah. (Ge 35:19; 48:7) The other was in the N, not far from Nazareth, in Zebulun. (Josh 19:10,15) Jesus' family was from Nazareth and he grew up there (again, according to the myth), thus the discussion noted at John 7.

In every copy of the old record Micah specifies "Bethlehem Ephrathah," which points to the southern town. The northern is rarely mentioned in the bible, and then only in records dateable to well before Micah. In fact, Micah's Israel had long since split into a southern, two-tribe kingdom ("Judah") and a northern, ten-tribe one ("Samaria"). Hence his references in his first verse. (Micah 1:1) It's evident from all this that the northern town declined into oblivion sometime before the Gospel era, but not before Micah found it necessary to distinguish the two.

That's 500 years (atheist) or 700 years (Christian) of accurate prophecy. Like Babe Ruth's claimed prophecy (you believe in the other Babe, don't you?) Micah pointed, not just to a home run but one over the right field wall.

In that one verse of one "Minor Prophet" I count three other points that make sense only as accurate prophecy, which is sometimes called 'history written in advance'. And Micah was handed down in writing; not verbally, as in a parlor game.

While you're pondering, think of how it is you "know" what you know about Julius Caesar, Ghengis or the other Khans (not counting Chaka), or many other "historical" figures. Better yet, don't think about it. The truth will be disquieting, and "disquieting" is a clear violation of TOS.
Say, how did Jim Morrison die?

I don't seem to have much success with them. Anyway, I'm like Captain Kirk in one of the even-numbered Star Trek movies: Give me a book any day, and don't laugh when I put on my glasses.

I would ask you this, though: What do you mean when you talk about "Immaculate Conception"? I find that many don't clearly understand what the theologians mean by it.

Not telling you anything new. Still some...probably even Catholics....think it was the conception of Jesus. Of course it was that of the mother of Jesus...Mary....but has not a thing to do with the biological processes of fertilization. Only that Mary was not encumbered with "original sin". Of course the actual instant of conception wasn't as well pinpointed as it is today. It was thought to be the moment that the new being was given a "soul". Of course that time couldn't be accurately predicted either and so, as I learned it, the soul was present at (or by the time of) animation...sometimes called "quickening" (no reference to the Intuit product) or detectable movement within the womb. This did not mean it wasn't there earlier but was definitely present at that time.

Be this fact, conjecture or myth, such is my understanding. It's a Catholic feast day as well and on the calendar. Of course, as I look at the Catholic calendar all the days are already filled so, unless someone drops off, I see no point in expecting there will ever be a feast day in my name.

get irritated when I tried to point that out. Thought I was taking even more away from poor Jesus.

I've mentioned before that the 'adding of the soul' business is nowhere found in the bible. Like Imm. Conc. and the Assumption, it's wholly a product of "tradition", to which the Church lends equal weight.

the "best" answer based current knowledge and run with that until other reasonable information is available that disputes it. It will make that the current belief. Humans do the same. If we toss someone over a 1000' cliff to jagged rocks below and go examine the person only to find them dead and repeat that several times we might conclude that no human can survive this type of plunge. So, if we toss over another person we may not go down to examine them but conclude they are dead. If a period of time lapses and that person shows up walking on the street, we're going to re-examine the process and criteria used to make that presumption. Don't try this at home.

I'm not sure what that has to do with supposed events in Mary's life which were plainly outside the norm. (We all die and stay dead and our corpses are the evidence of that; we don't usually(!) claim to be perfect.) The brief mentions of Mary in the bible say nothing about these. Church tradition, meaning mostly "the writings of the Fathers", contains many speculations which, because of statements from the See, are taken as equal to biblical statements.

I've been wondering where and how you've been.

Other than the record-breaking rainfall getting a bit depressing, all is good with us.

All's fine here, thanks. Glad to hear you've not floated away.

Dan