Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

(Return to the Original Page)

Discussion for "jesus stories religion comments others menu owen"

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-17 at 14:32:34:

I like how you are sensible in how you treat what people submit as worthy of thought and consideration for response. I do the same with my online magazine.

I noticed that you have replied there is no evidence (for various beliefs about Jesus' existence and other concepts) outside of the Bible and I find it hard to let that just go by casually.

First, I wonder why the "other than in the Bible" comment. It sounds as though you believe the Bible is not true or factual. I have provided a great deal of evidence (I have only begun to do the research - over the last 2.5 years) on my site www.lifeinthebible.com (strike that for this blog, but check it out for yourself, please) that is indisputable about the Bible being not only the foundation of all knowledge on every academic subject, but also being the best source for absolute knowledge.

As history, the best (and most well-respected) secular historians and archaeologists (some of which are also atheists) today agree that there is no more verifiable and accurate history available today than the Bible. Its authentication is impeccable. As matter of history, the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was recorded by multiples of scribes, record keepers, and historians (only a few of which were believers or followers of Jesus). It is reported that there were over 500 eye-witnesses of this string of events. Take someone to court with 500 eye-witnesses and the judge will sit up and listen.

My question might be: Why would you believe that George Washington was President of the United States, when you did not see him yourself? For all you know, he is just a myth. Right?

I submit to you that the idea that Jesus was a real person who did exactly what the Bible, and many others, have reported is "a serious and [life-effecting] hypothesis being considered by some really intelligent people."[emphasis mine]

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-17 at 14:32:55:

Oh wow, your so-called evidence for the Bible at www.lifeinthebible.com isn't exactly convincing! Do you really think that those quotes which could be interpreted in many different ways really prove anything? I mean, that pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about stars singing for example. If that's the best you can do, I suggest your evidence is pretty weak!

Apart from that, most of the Old Testament stories are based on earlier myths from other belief systems anyway. And I could take the text of any historical novel and find passages which could be interpreted as being prophetic in some way.

I can prove for a fact that most of Genesis is wrong. Have a look at my web site here: owen2.otago.ac.nz/owen/XuOtherPhilosophy/ReligionCreation.html

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-17 at 14:39:34:

You say "the Bible being not only the foundation of all knowledge on every academic subject, but also being the best source for absolute knowledge".

I don't think many people would take this seriously. Do you really think the Bible is the foundation for all knowledge on evolution, quantum theory, relativity, for example? I work in a University, and I don't know a single researcher who uses the Bible as the basis of their knowledge on any topic at all - apart from Christian studies, maybe.

So you're just plain wrong there. In fact, if you really believe that, you really do live in a fantasy world and we would have to start wondering if you have any sort of reasonable grasp of reality at all!

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-18 at 03:29:51:

Really the best you can do, in response to the evidences offered on my site is say that you find me crazy? Is that the best that your university experience can do for you? Let's get hold of ourselves and get the conversation back to normalcy. I wonder if you would enlighten your blog readers, et al, with some detailed facts and figures. That is, when I read your dissertations, I find only scientist know or many say or I think or that is wrong, but you don't give any hard evidence to back up your statements. This is weak argumentation at the very most and is not, I am afraid, very convincing.

Let me say, though, that I take your statements about me serious, so that I can become strengthen in my weak areas. Thank you for what you have revealed already, in this regard.

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-18 at 09:04:19:

You keep trying to avoid specific issues and revert back to vaguely defined generalities. Could you please respond to the two issues I have raised here and my "Age of the Universe" web page.

My analysis involving the speed of light and age of the Universe is correct. Do you now admit that my conclusion is correct and the Universe cannot be 6000 years old?

I stated that I know of no researchers outside of religious studies who use the Bible as the basis of their knowledge. I did a literature search and found no citations for the Bible. How do you defend your statement that the Bible is the basis of all knowledge?

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-18 at 09:10:28:

In your dissertation titled Did Jesus Really Exist?, you concluded your opening paragraph with “There is no reputable evidence of the existence of Jesus at all that I can find.” Obviously, either the library at the University where you work is in need of some resources, or you have not looked nearly far enough to come to this hypothesis.

Before I could even entertain a comment on this idea, I would have to know how do you find what or who is “reputable” on the subject of whether or not Jesus walked this earth? It sounds like you, for some very personal reason(s), have completely closed your mind on the very idea that He existed, as if your merely thinking that He did not exist will make Him perish (poof!).

Would you please take a more studious approach to what you say is right, wrong, or indifferent. Or, at least, say that this is just your opinion rather than saying that it is a fact (‘cause you say so). Then people will be more willing to listen to what you have to say. I believe that you have a good mind and have much to say and would like to read more about your sources.

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-18 at 09:53:34:

You ask me "How do [I] defend [my] statement that the Bible is the basis of all knowledge?", whereas, I created an entire website telling about that, with very few generalities and many facts. You say you read them, but then contended that they were weak arguments and not true, and you could not begin to refute or answer specifically how the information I provided there could be proven wrong. Then, you set upon me with this attitude that I am being general and vague. Does this paint a picture for you of how little progress is being made by your rather crass answers?

Nearly all the people I quoted are founders of disciplines that you say disagree with me, such as those in scientific disciplines, mathematic disciplines, and simply respected men of recent and past history. Some were founders of universities. I asked you, as I have before, who is it that you hold as reputable in these areas?

I'll have you know that there is a great deal more information at my website than you took the time to read.

The reason I have not been more specific (though I did give you a good, thorough answer) about your age of the earth and speed of light hypothesis is that they were (1) vague and (2) built upon shaky and false information that you have taken to be true. This is why I ask you who you hold as reputable for the foundation of your knowledge?

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-18 at 10:06:20:

When I said there was no evidence that I could find I thought it was fairly clear that I was presenting an opinion. If I had said there was no evidence at all it would have been more absolute.

Maybe you can refer me to some credible evidence of the existence of Jesus? By that I mean a record of his existence by anyone who wrote about other figures of the time. And that there should be no sign of later tampering by Christians!

The basis of my knowledge is science. Scientific knowledge is never 100% proven but it is rarely shown to be completely wrong either. It is science which has given us modern technology and is constantly replacing religious dogma as the basis of knowledge.

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-19 at 03:26:18:

Thank you, Owen, for making it clear that these points you make are only your opinion. I, for one, will respect that you truly believe they are also true.

You asked me for "some credible evidence of the existence of Jesus," and then added the qualifier that it should be "by anyone who wrote about other figures of the time." Elsewhere, in your writings, you have said you do no accept the greatest secular historians, such as Josepheus, Pliny, and Cicero (you might know there are many others as well). So, I wonder if you have decided that, since you are the "expert" on who is acceptable and who is not, you will deny any one of the various scribes and historians of the time, which I might mention? I see that as a futile avenue, so let me try the Bible itself. I know, I know! You think the Bible was simply made up of wives tales and fairy tales passed down to the people over hundreds of years and cannot be held credible either. Right? But, I implore your patience long enough for me to lay the following proposal before you as evidence of Jesus.

Let's just suppose, for sake of the argument here, I came to you and said, "Owen. Guess what? I found a letter that was written about you by your great, great, great, etc. grandfather, to his brother, that states that 'There will come a boy who will be called Owen, born (he names the date of your birth) in (he names the place of your birth) who will be a programmer and will work at (he names the University where you work)...'" and I go on to name (from the content of this letter) many exacting details about you and your current existance. Knowing that this ancient letter that was found was authenticated by many impartial scholars as to the date, time, and even place that he wrote the letter, would you then turn around and say, being a reasonable man, that all the scholars who examined the letter were mistaken, that the letter was a hoax, that your ancient grandfather must have been a lucky guesser (or learned about this from the writings of some earlier civilization), or could you find it somewhere in your undertanding to think, he might have had some insite, somehow, as to the very distant future, that might only be privy to one who knew more than even the greatest thinker today. Perhaps he even (I know you believe I am stretching it here) got this future insite from his Creator (someone, wouldn't you agree, had to have been omniscient).

This hypothesis, that I just laid out for you, is exactly what we have in the Scriptures. We have literally hundreds of prophecies that were spoken of a boy that would be born, who would be named Jesus, on a specific date, in a specific town, to a specific lineage (family line), who would suffer, die, and be buried, and then after the third day in the grave, be raised from the dead and walk among many witnesses. Note that it has been recorded, and can be found by your own research, that 100% of the percentage of prophecies about Jesus that were predicted have come true to the exact letter, as of today. There are still some to be fulfilled, but the 90% or so of the ones that were set to occur in the span of history up to today have been fulfilled exactly. A reasonable man would have to admit that this is powerful evidence that Jesus not only walked this earth, but was exactly who He said He was (The Christ).

Allow me to point out that prophecy is not prophecy unless what is prophecied actually happens. In the Old Testament times, if someone made a prophecy that did not become true, that prophet was stoned to death. That prophet was known to be a false prophet. If "science" was held by those same standards of accuracy and consistency, it would have been tossed out and discredited long ago. Even though we no longer stone false prophets today, there is no knowledge or truth more accurate than prophecy. Prophecy is the only non-changing, "absolute" knowledge there is today.

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-19 at 08:34:59:

So, yet again, you fail to deliver! I asked for credible records of Jesus' life and you only give me the names I have already discredited. Then you launch off on a tangent with prophecies that most people place no credence in whatsoever.

I seems to me that your whole belief system is very weak and I'm able to discredit it one step at a time. If you accept that you don't have anything new on the historical Jesus debate (we could say his existence was uncertain, at best) then I can start destroying your prophecies!

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-19 at 08:45:01:

That was a very childish response, Owen. No more than I expected from you, judging from earlier responses.

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-19 at 08:58:43:

Well, you think it was childish, but leaving that aside, how do you respond? Are there any historical sources apart from the ones I have already discredited? I want to deal with one issue at a time. Lets worry about the history before we get onto the prophecies. A common trick people use when backed into a corner is to change the subject!

Comment by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-20 at 03:52:10:

Note that I stated that "Prophecy is the only non-changing, 'absolute' knowledge there is today." I did not say that Owen is the only non-changing, "absolute" knowledge there is today. The reason you are called "childish" is that you do not listen to good reason. All you seem to be able to do (your actual game) is to take whatever anyone writes that disagrees with your philosophy and say that it is wrong. That, I'll inform you now, is not debating. That is why you gave me no choice but to call you childish.

As for changing the subject: If you find that people change the subject on you, it is probably due to the fact that you will not be reasonable with a discussion thread. They are simply trying to find something you will discuss sensibly. Second, they are probably people who care about you and your soul a whole lot more than you apparently do.

As for historians that you try to discredit: You simply say that they are not within your (very-limited) scope of reason, because you have discredited them (end of discussion). By analogy (not changing the subject), if I said that the letters of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were not valid in a debate on say "What the Presidents have said in history," would you say that I won the debate or answered irrationally? You can SAY that anyone is wrong or unreputable, but does that make it fact, just because Owen said it? I wonder where you got such a notion as this?

I am not even certain that you know what you believe (other than in negativity). From what I have noticed, scientists who do not believe in creation, the Bible, and Jesus most always have an agenda that serves as a stimulus for them to fight against the reality of these things. If scientists admit there is no evidence for evolution, or against the authenticity of the Bible or the historical Jesus, they would be admitting they have been wrong. They would have to leave the scientific community, drop their research funding, and their whole game would be up. Therefore, even though they know that what they teach and write is in error, they remain politically correct, living the lie, in order to keep their status quo and their meager livelihood. This is quite understandable, for those who have abandoned God and now have to depend on men for their everything in this life. This is a syndrome called "fear of man." Many brave scientists have overcome this fear and have let it be known that they are now believers (noe of these have changed their mind or given up their belief, due to the proponderance of evidence they have (both experimentally and experientually). These disciplinarians have been embraced and applauded. Their ideas are sound and supported by some of the wisest scientists on earth. If people could conquer their fear of what other people think about them, they would be free to speak the truth and this world would be better for it. But, unfortunately, they will not, due to the lusts and fears that master them.

You have probably (I just suppose) listened to a bunch of secular humanist school teachers and professors espouse their godless philosophies for several years and have created a foundation of false information on which to build a barometer for measuring truth. You measure everything by the Owen barometer, which is actually a collection of false, worldly premises that have long been refuted.

No... you have not yet "discredited" or "destroyed" a single statement I have submitted to your blog. I am not in the least daunted by Owen's powers of persuasion. I have not surrendered. I pray that your readers have not. It has been fun though! Thanks.

Comment by OJB on 2006-07-20 at 09:17:27:

You stated prophecy is the only non-changing absolute knowledge, but that is just an opinion based on no objective evidence that I have seen. My "philosophy" is to use logic and science to establish what is true and what isn't. I don't apologise if I reject beliefs which aren't based on these. I have answered your questions and posted your comments on my web site. That sounds like debating. Would you allow me to comment on the material on your site?

This discussion thread was related to the historical accuracy of Jesus. When you tried to start on the subject of prophecies I just tried to move you back to the original topic. Unless a topic can be concluded before another is started nothing is ever achieved. Again, I don't apologise for doing this.

By pointing out that a historian's writings have been tampered with by Christians after they were written how am I demonstrating "limited scope of reason"? Its accepted by most historians that this is a fact. What, exactly, have I done wrong there?

As for what I believe in... Well, I'm using a non-religious meaning of "believe" here, OK? First, I believe that the best way to establish the truth is to use logic and scientific method. Therefore I apply those methods to this debate. When I do its obvious Christianity is mostly myth. The Universe is a wonderful place without having to invoke superstition.

You suggest scientists reject creation and accept evolution because they don't want to admit they're wrong, and that they have to continue existing science because they would lose funding. That's just a nonsensical conspiracy theory. If a scientist really showed evolution was untrue he would be a hero for revolutionising biology. He'd get the Nobel Prize, for sure. I don't even want to comment on the rest of your ranting in that section.

I have listened to secular teachers. I have listened to very religious people. I have listened to every side of the the debate. Opinions don't matter. Facts do. The facts support science. I don't expect to ever change your self-delusional beliefs, but maybe I have introduced a little bit of doubt into your limited little world.

Comment by OJB on 2006-08-15 at 22:52:40:

So despite numerous attempts to move the discussion away from uncomfortable areas, and confuse the issue with false claims, I believe I have shown my original contention is accurate: there really is no good evidence outside the Bible for the existence of Jesus.

When I first learned this I was surprised myself. The whole of Christianity is based on very thin evidence. Its reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the Bible, given that its a religious text (with some real history admittedly), but once that's gone there's really nothing left. Christianity is based on nothing!

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-09-11 at 04:41:35:

I was having this disussion in RS (year 8) and was set prep to find evidence that shows us Jesus did walk the planet and was son of God. I first thought of the Bible but then soon afterwards was told not to use the Bible and see who did see him and make their own evidence by writing a book or even a painting (at the time he was alive and not years afterwards, which I see is highlighted strongly in this text!) I have to say this text is quite different story to what the Bible writes but I agree with some of what is said although some is quite 'ott'(!!!) You have helped me with my prep but I ask 'Is YOUR evidence true?'

Comment by OJB on 2007-09-11 at 08:04:09:

What I have said is all true as far as I can ascertain from a variety of sources. There is absolutely no reliable evidence outside of the Bible which supports Jesus existing. The usual sources (especially Josephus) are either fakes or based on second or third hand evidence. The Romans were very reliable record keepers and recorded all sorts of details about relatively trivial events but they have no record at all of the events described in the Bible.

I believe the consensus amongst historians is that the Jesus story is probably based on one or more real figures and then has been grossly exaggerated to fill in the miraculous details, but I think the evidence supports no realistic historical basis at all and I think that view might be gaining support from historians too.

Comment by Richard Head on 2013-08-18 at 14:00:18:

If you have ever had a dream about evil spirits, then by the law of averages, then you certainly must believe in the Devil that roams around in your head.

Comment by OJB on 2013-08-28 at 16:51:11:

I don't think I've ever dreamed about demons or the devil myself because those just aren't subjects I concern myself with, but yeah sure, the devil exists as an idea to some people but that doesn't mean he has any real existence. People imagine many things which don't actually exist in the real world.

You can add a comment to this discussion by clicking the "Discuss" button below.
Or click the "Return" button to return to the original page.

Contact: OJB, OJB@mac.com. Site Features: Blog, RSS Feeds, Podcasts, Feedback, Log. Modified: 07 Jul 2006. Hits: 166,984,195 118 ....................