Zone1 As an Atheist, if you had to leave all of your worldly belongings with someone for a week, who would you trust more, an Atheist or someone of Faith?

[shockedcanadian]

It doesn't matter the Faith really though you can be as specific as you'd like, be it Judaism, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, whatever.

Let's assume you don't really know the two people for whom you have to decide between very well, so it is an emergency situation of an extreme nature and you have to choose between two alternatives, two exact people except for this one difference. Same socio-economic status, same gender, race, general upbringing etc.

Many Atheists say "hey, I live a principled life, I don't need G-d". Fair enough, I won't disagree with that premise. In that context, consider the scenario.

This is where the rubber meets the road. I believe it reveals more about our true beliefs and perception when we choose accordingly.

 

[TNHarley]

Religion wouldnt be a consideration for something like that. Thats kind of silly.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Religion wouldnt be a consideration for something like that. Thats kind of silly.

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the comparison between the choices as it might force you to focus on the way you perceive the two.

 

[Crepitus]

It doesn't matter the Faith really though you can be as specific as you'd like, be it Judaism, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, whatever.

Let's assume you don't really know the two people for whom you have to decide between very well, so it is an emergency situation of an extreme nature and you have to choose between two alternatives, two exact people except for this one difference. Same socio-economic status, same gender, race, general upbringing etc.

Many Atheists say "hey, I live a principled life, I don't need G-d". Fair enough, I won't disagree with that premise. In that context, consider the scenario.

This is where the rubber meets the road. I believe it reveals more about our true beliefs and perception when we choose accordingly.

An atheist.

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the comparison between the choices as it might force you to focus on the way you perceive the two.

ummm no. I simply dont give a about that.
Im worrying about responsibility and if they are trustworthy or not.
Whether they believe in magic or not doesnt concern me.

 

[rightwinger]

It doesn't matter the Faith really though you can be as specific as you'd like, be it Judaism, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, whatever.

Let's assume you don't really know the two people for whom you have to decide between very well, so it is an emergency situation of an extreme nature and you have to choose between two alternatives, two exact people except for this one difference. Same socio-economic status, same gender, race, general upbringing etc.

Many Atheists say "hey, I live a principled life, I don't need G-d". Fair enough, I won't disagree with that premise. In that context, consider the scenario.

This is where the rubber meets the road. I believe it reveals more about our true beliefs and perception when we choose accordingly.

I wouldn’t consider someone’s belief in God in making that decision

Doesn’t matter to me either way
I don’t trust some Christians, don’t trust some atheists
Depends on the person

 

[alang1216]

It doesn't matter the Faith really though you can be as specific as you'd like, be it Judaism, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, whatever.

Let's assume you don't really know the two people for whom you have to decide between very well, so it is an emergency situation of an extreme nature and you have to choose between two alternatives, two exact people except for this one difference. Same socio-economic status, same gender, race, general upbringing etc.

Many Atheists say "hey, I live a principled life, I don't need G-d". Fair enough, I won't disagree with that premise. In that context, consider the scenario.

This is where the rubber meets the road. I believe it reveals more about our true beliefs and perception when we choose accordingly.

Of all the religion I know, Mormons seem to be the most honest. Not very scientific but if I had to generalize.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I wouldn’t consider someone’s belief in God in making that decision

Doesn’t matter to me either way
I don’t trust some Christians, don’t trust some atheists
Depends on the person

That is why I suggested that everything being equal about the two except for that one distinction.

There may be some evidence that those in positions of power in the U.S are copying the same principles of those in other countries such as Europe, Canada and the like. As such, you may all get to experience a system run and enforced by Atheists.

We will see if the next generations opinions change under such a regime or if they feel more free and righteous.

 

[TNHarley]

I assume this silly thread is just an implication that for some reason, the OP thinks people that believe in magic are superior to people that dont.

 

[rightwinger]

That is why I suggested that everything being equal about the two except for that one distinction.

There may be some evidence that those in positions of power in the U.S are copying the same principles of those in other countries such as Europe, Canada and the like. As such, you may all get to experience a system run and enforced by Atheists.

We will see if the next generations opinions change under such a regime or if they feel more free and righteous.

If that is the case, I would worry about a religious person donating my possessions to the Church

 

[shockedcanadian]

If that is the case, I would worry about a religious person donating my possessions to the Church

What if it were a Hindu?

 

[shockedcanadian]

I assume this silly thread is just an implication that for some reason, the OP thinks people that believe in magic are superior to people that dont.

 

[sealybobo]

It doesn't matter the Faith really though you can be as specific as you'd like, be it Judaism, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, whatever.

Let's assume you don't really know the two people for whom you have to decide between very well, so it is an emergency situation of an extreme nature and you have to choose between two alternatives, two exact people except for this one difference. Same socio-economic status, same gender, race, general upbringing etc.

Many Atheists say "hey, I live a principled life, I don't need G-d". Fair enough, I won't disagree with that premise. In that context, consider the scenario.

This is where the rubber meets the road. I believe it reveals more about our true beliefs and perception when we choose accordingly.

So you are thinking that theists have an invisible man watching their every action. So if they promised not to look in your things, they would be more likely not to look because they know god's watching. Right? That makes sense.

So if I were a serial killer or murderer and I had to ask either an atheist or theist to hold this bag and don't look inside, it's smarter to give the evidence that you are guilty to a religious person. Because they are gullible. LOL.

 

[sparky]

As an Atheist, if you had to leave all of your worldly belongings with someone for a week, who would you trust more, an Atheist or someone of Faith?​

does my dog count?

~S~

 

[BreezeWood]

which do you consider - judas ...

 

[sealybobo]

As an Atheist, if you had to leave all of your worldly belongings with someone for a week, who would you trust more, an Atheist or someone of Faith?​

does my dog count?

~S~

Yes your dog will go to either an atheist or theist like

...last Tuesday, evangelist and part-time Governor Kristi Noem said something about the love her Christianity drives her to profess toward her critics:....

 

[marvin martian]

So you are thinking that theists have an invisible man watching their every action. So if they promised not to look in your things, they would be more likely not to look because they know god's watching. Right? That makes sense.

So if I were a serial killer or murderer and I had to ask either an atheist or theist to hold this bag and don't look inside, it's smarter to give the evidence that you are guilty to a religious person. Because they are gullible. LOL.

^^^The Christophobia of the left is a mystery to me.

You would never say this to a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu. You just hate Christians (and Jews).

Childhood trauma, I assume.

 

[sealybobo]

^^^The Christophobia of the left is a mystery to me.

You would never say this to a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu. You just hate Christians (and Jews).

Childhood trauma, I assume.

No I was free to think. Parents didn't try to scare me into irrational beliefs. Funny my brother is religious. I turned out not. No biggy. We're both going to heaven if there is one because the religion he follows (doesn't matter which one) is made up.

Debating if there is a god was a lot more fun before you guys lied and said he visited you and wrote you a freakin book.

Muslims are worse! But there aren't a lot of those here or boy would I let them have it You must have an unholy alliance with them. They don't talk about how your walking on water stories are fake and your churches don't attack them either. Think about it. Jews say it didn't happen. And Joseph Smith said your religion has been corrupted and lost it's connection with god and you should actually join the Mormon faith bro.

 

[ding]

We're both going to heaven if there is one because the religion he follows (doesn't matter which one) is made up.

If you think that is the point of faith, you have missed to boat.

 

[ding]

Think about it.

We have.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....[5]

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.[7] How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger​

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus​

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud​

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans! [24]

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian​

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Conclusion​

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources​