I have a question for all you believers and non-believers out there.

Do you believe in only what you have seen or see?
Do you believe that the crusifiction (no clue how to spell that) could've happened and that it couldve been passed down to this year? Or do you just believe what you have seen.

If you answered yes to the latter, think about other situations where information could've been passed down from today into the future, and maybe the people of the future won't think that the event/idea ever happened.

For example, 1000 years later, people may not believe that WWII ever happened, or maybe the attack of 9/11 ever happened, or even that pearl harbor never happened.

Or something less military, maybe the future won't believe the landing on the moon ever happened?

Is it trust? or is it something else?

Is this topic supposed to make us doubt our own skepticism?

Some people already don't believe that the moon landing happened, but it was scientifically documented, and there's still evidence on the moon. You're comparing well documented events (i.e. World War Two) to extremely poorly documented events (i.e. the divinity, crucifixion, ressurection, etc. of Jesus). Are you implying that those who don't believe in the divinity of Christ are so dense as to disregard history because they all 'have to see it to believe it'?
Probably.

Interesting that you brought up written documents to believing. Is the bible not a written document that was written during the time of Jesus? If people don't believe in the bible, why should they believe in written records of wars?

Thousands of records of wars, as opposed to one often-revised book?

History is learned and is therefore not absolute. It is definitely possible that none of the events listed ever happened. Is it plausible? Probably not, but it depends on your perspective.

Exactly. Also, I didn't only bring up written documents, there's other types of evidence as well. There's physical evidence that wouldn't be passed up by historians from a thousand years in the future when researching World War Two, especially considering all the technological advancements we gained from it. (Ever heard of the Manhattan Project?) Keep in mind that the bible was written by folks who probably thought hallucinogens gave one the power of mystical/divine foresight, and that the bible isn't actually meant to be taken literally (I cite my AP History class here).

I believe that when I walk out of a room and close the door behind me, my desk and chairs and bed don't jump up and start running around, singing, doing algebra problems, or playing football, despite the fact that I really have no way of knowing it.

Edited simply to invalidate Norms interpretation in the next post, because it was utterly trivial and not funny.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 17 2009, 2:42 am by Vrael.

That's a pretty good belief, but I once knew of this language, and if I remember correctly "Dancing" meant something similar to what we refer to as remaining stationary in whichever place they were left.

2000 years ago, the world was separated, each nation was alone. History was scattered. Now, history of the world is known everywhere in the world, so in 1000 years, they can go anywhere and hear the same story.

The crucifixion doesn't seem implausible. It's usually the rising from the dead and Jesus being God things that gets people fired up.

The crucifixion did happen, it's historically recorded by not only Jesus' apostles and other believers, but by the Romans themselves who kept very good records, it is a fact that Jesus was crucified, whether or not you believe he rose again and is the Son of God is where you can try to debate it.

==
I think the example events for this thread were rather ill-chosen.

One could argue quite easily that history deals with subjective opinions rather than absolute truths. I'll try to avoid the nature of truth, but I think we have to agree that history as we know it is the piecing together of probable events from physical (written or otherwise) and oral evidence, using one's powers of deductive reasoning.

However, what happens if the evidence is lacking or the historian is trying to approach an issue from a certain angle or lets his prejudices colour his treatment of the subject? Biographies of saints are good examples - they were written in medieval times and contain fantastical accounts of the lives of saints. Today we look at them and think they're full of ****, but in the future perhaps modern historiography will be seen in the way we see saints' biographies.

Maybe some more later...

While we can never really, really, really know something is the truth or not without empirical evidence (and even then, that can't be 100% trusted - just as the sun only appears to go around the earth), it's not unreasonable to accept and try to understand evidence as best we can. As CW basically said, we do our best and make assumptions and deductions based on our understanding of truth about those before us. However, it is also not unreasonable to doubt something that has little evidence to prove it. I could claim that Gandhi ate tapeworms to keep himself looking so thin just to get reactions out of people. I could really really believe that. But I can't provide evidence. And it's not wrong of you to doubt what I said because of my inability to prove it.

Just as the Trojan War was believed to be pure fantasy for so long, evidence was eventually found that suggested it just might have happened (or at least that wars certain events in certain wars inspired Homer's poems), and with that evidence, it was no longer ridiculous to support the idea that the Trojan War might have actually happened.

We are animals that use their senses in the best way they can to survive, and perhaps find some joy and understanding along the way.

Source? Are you talking about Josephus?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_sources

Google man

Unfortunately many of the records of Jesus were burned in the sacking of Rome, but there are still references to them out there.

I was about to be a smart as and refer you to the same source. You're aware Josephus' writings were probably tampered with by early Christians correct?

You may have noticed the other 7 sources mentioned in that article?

And their rebuttals. Just so you know, my questions weren't aimed at disproving Jesus, just to see if you knew what you were talking about (ie your pastor said it, thus you believe it). I see now you shoot first, and ask questions later - you say Jesus is historically true without sources or knowing specifics, but have the faith that if you did Google the sources/specifics, you wouldn't find the contrary.

Personally, I don't think Jesus was completely made up.