What Was Jesus Doing In Those 18 Missing Years?

[crowTrobot 2]

For criticisms of many of Bidstrup's positions see http://www.tektonics.org/af/bidstrup01.html.Edit - Updated URL, I originally linked to the wrong article.

unless i'm missing something that looks like it's a counter to claimed internal biblical contradictions, not modern archeological contradictions (lack of corroboration for the exodus story in egyption history etc). the former is mostly irrelevant because ultimately it ends up being "open to interpretation". the latter is not.

[semaj550 0]

unless i'm missing something that looks like it's a counter to claimed internal biblical contradictions, not modern archeological contradictions (lack of corroboration for the exodus story in egyption history etc). the former is mostly irrelevant because ultimately it ends up being "open to interpretation". the latter is not.

You keep citing Scott Bidstrup as an authoritative secular apologist, I'm just helping you see how other scholars view his work.Here is an article more to the point of Christian history: http://www.tektonics.org/af/bidstrup03.html.

[crowTrobot 2]

You keep citing Scott Bidstrup as an authoritative secular apologist, I'm just helping you see how other scholars view his work.

i wouldn't expect theistic scholars to view his work otherwise lol.

[semaj550 0]

i wouldn't expect theistic scholars to view his work otherwise lol.

Okay, until you give up the assumption that any theistic bias is necesarily invalid I've got nothing left to debate with you. Your obvious atheistic bias renders you no more objective than any theistic scholar that you so readily dismiss. Time and again you show your unwillingness to consider how a given explanation clearly fits the facts unless it is devoid of Christianity. You completely neglect to make a decision on the merits of an issue.That's fine if it works for you, good luck in your atheism. The truth of the matter is that it is no more logical, rational or defensible a position than being a Christian is. If you want to debate things on their merits that's worthwhile. What isn't worthwhile is to pretend to debate things when your only response is denonce something's validity with no more evidence than it supports a Christian position so it can't possibly be true.There is a difference between not believing in Christianity and not wanting to believe. You are clearly in the latter group. Again, that's fine, but the fact is that if you don't want to believe you won't, regardless of any evidence someone puts before you. I think you're a very intelligent person but I don't think you are willing to view religious issues objectively.

[crowTrobot 2]

Okay, until you give up the assumption that any theistic bias is necesarily invalid I've got nothing left to debate with you.

i make no biased assumptions. for example i would completely agree that some of bidstrups "contradictions" are rediculous stretches, and i cross-check his archeological references if i'm going to use them in arguments (as i did his claims of egyptian archeological history not matching the bible). i also plan to read the responses to him you linked when i have time.

Your obvious atheistic bias renders you no more objective than any theistic scholar that you so readily dismiss.

the comment in my previous post was meant to be humorous. i don't dismiss scholars automatically due to bias, only specific empirical claims that are unsupported by evidence. however i am always aware where the burden of proof lies. if you claim metaphysics in the bible are to be believed because of historical corroboration the burden lies with you to prove it, and obviously nobody can.

Time and again you show your unwillingness to consider how a given explanation clearly fits the facts unless it is devoid of Christianity. You completely neglect to make a decision on the merits of an issue.

whatever. others can decide for themselves who is being objective. better to just stick to specifics.

The truth of the matter is that it is no more logical, rational or defensible a position than being a Christian is.

i'm technically an agnostic, only an atheist when it comes to specific fundamentalist beliefs.

There is a difference between not believing in Christianity and not wanting to believe. You are clearly in the latter group. Again, that's fine, but the fact is that if you don't want to believe you won't, regardless of any evidence someone puts before you.

you assume your evidence should be compelling to others, except to most of the world it's not. a hindu muslim or buddhist (hard atheist, scientologist, mormon etc etc) would say the exact same thing to you - you are not of their faith because you don't want to be, regardless of evidence.

[semaj550 0]

i make no biased assumptions. for example i would completely agree that some of bidstrups "contradictions" are rediculous stretches, and i cross-check his archeological references if i'm going to use them in arguments (as i did his claims of egyptian archeological history not matching the bible). i also plan to read the responses to him you linked when i have time.

I'm glad that you are.

the comment in my previous post was meant to be humorous. i don't dismiss scholars automatically due to bias, only specific empirical claims that are unsupported by evidence. however i am always aware where the burden of proof lies. if you claim metaphysics in the bible are to be believed because of historical corroboration the burden lies with you to prove it, and obviously nobody can.whatever. others can decide for themselves who is being objective. better to just stick to specifics.

I can't quote the times you've responded to one of my posts with something along the lines of, "He's a Christian, what else would you expect him to say?". It's really neither here nor there, though.

i'm technically an agnostic, only an atheist when it comes to specific fundamentalist beliefs.

I think you'd be a lot happier if God didn't exist and we knew that definitively. At least a position of inability to know is more reasonable than claiming the ability to know He doesn't.

you assume your evidence should be compelling to others, except to most of the world it's not. a hindu muslim or buddhist (hard atheist, scientologist, mormon etc etc) would say the exact same thing to you - you are not of their faith because you don't want to be, regardless of evidence.

Actually, I don't assume that. I admitted as much in another thread. I believe that the evidence exists such that a person can rationally and logically conclude either for or against the existence of God. What I do assume is that evidence is no more or less valid due to any bias of its provider. Evidence can objectively be judged on its merits. I would love nothing more than for people to see what I see about Christianity but I'm also fine if they don't. I just don't see a whole lot of point to a debate in which a theistic position is presumed necessarily invalid. If the conclusion is assumed, the debate is moot.

[crowTrobot 2]

I can't quote the times you've responded to one of my posts with something along the lines of, "He's a Christian, what else would you expect him to say?".

i have never used that statement in response to a specific claim.

Actually, I don't assume that. I admitted as much in another thread. I believe that the evidence exists such that a person can rationally and logically conclude either for or against the existence of God. What I do assume is that evidence is no more or less valid due to any bias of its provider. Evidence can objectively be judged on its merits. I would love nothing more than for people to see what I see about Christianity but I'm also fine if they don't. I just don't see a whole lot of point to a debate in which a theistic position is presumed necessarily invalid. If the conclusion is assumed, the debate is moot.

i have never dismissed anything you've said or linked due to bias. my responses to specific evidence have always been objective and specific. no idea where you're getting any of that, although claiming a conspiricy of bias when there is none does seem to be a typical last resort for theistic apologists.

[Mercury69 3]

"The historicity of the gospels can be proven without an appeal to faith. If I have time tonight I'll start a new thread on it. If you're really interested, though, Strobel interviews some great experts in the area in The Case for Christ.It's pretty much a pointless argument without an open mind though. The pointlessness comes from the fact that there is a very small set of people who don't already accept Christianity but are willing to objectively consider evidence in support of it."What does an open mind have to do with fact? There is truth and then there is truth. Being "open minded" simply allows you to conform to and support whichever truth you decide is the one that suits your point of view. There is tons of truth supporting evolution (sorry to bring that one up), but Creationists don't seem to have an open mind regarding the science of it all and are more than happy to point out any flaws or holes in the various threoies that abound. That's all very well and good, but where is YOUR open mind? Nowhere to be found.That being said, this discussion was predicated NOT on whether Jesus is/was a real person or not, simply on what people think He was up to during the "absent" period.PS: You devout Christians, please don't give me crap about not having an open mind. When your Judgement Day comes, you will not be exempt from answering to a higher power about your beliefs, should this arrive. When I look in my heart and soul, I know my convictions are true, yet malleable, and I have an open and accepting view of people in general. Any judgement I might be held accountable for is a reaction to those who would judge me as being less than themselves due to my beliefs.PS: Yes, I'm in a poor mood.

[semaj550 0]

What does an open mind have to do with fact? There is truth and then there is truth. Being "open minded" simply allows you to conform to and support whichever truth you decide is the one that suits your point of view. There is tons of truth supporting evolution (sorry to bring that one up), but Creationists don't seem to have an open mind regarding the science of it all and are more than happy to point out any flaws or holes in the various threoies that abound. That's all very well and good, but where is YOUR open mind? Nowhere to be found.That being said, this discussion was predicated NOT on whether Jesus is/was a real person or not, simply on what people think He was up to during the "absent" period.PS: You devout Christians, please don't give me crap about not having an open mind. When your Judgement Day comes, you will not be exempt from answering to a higher power about your beliefs, should this arrive. When I look in my heart and soul, I know my convictions are true, yet malleable, and I have an open and accepting view of people in general. Any judgement I might be held accountable for is a reaction to those who would judge me as being less than themselves due to my beliefs.PS: Yes, I'm in a poor mood.

An open mind has everything to do with it. If you already assume the conclusion there isn't a whole lot of point to looking at the facts. I'm not going to get into any more discussions regarding evolution (it's been beaten to death by lots of people on this board) but I will reinforce my comment that the evidence exists such that a rational, intelligent person can soundly draw the conclusion to either believe in or disbelieve in God. The difference between believers and non-believers is their metaphyiscal viewpoint. And I do think I have an open mind when it comes to these issues. I don't recall once saying that something had to fit with Christian teaching in order to be valid. I said that my interpretation of the evidence leads me to believe in the validity of Christianity. I wasn't always a Christian.I also acknowledge that the discussion in this particular thread got WAY off course. My firsts posts in this thread dealt with the original topic but when crow and I got into it our discussion quickly went away from there. Those posts really have no bearing on the point the OP intended to discuss.In response to your post-script: please don't lump me in with "you devout Christians". Christians are not a homogeneous group and stereotyping doesn't get anyone anywhere. I don't judge non-believers, I understand that it is not my place to do so. As far as I am concerned, you are a perfectly valid and equally as valuable a human being as anyone. In the end I believe that God will judge both you and I. I will be made to account for my life and you yours. I also believe that God wouldn't be too fond of me if I thought less of you as a person because you aren't a Christian.

[Mercury69 3]

An open mind has everything to do with it. If you already assume the conclusion there isn't a whole lot of point to looking at the facts. I'm not going to get into any more discussions regarding evolution (it's been beaten to death by lots of people on this board) but I will reinforce my comment that the evidence exists such that a rational, intelligent person can soundly draw the conclusion to either believe in or disbelieve in God. The difference between believers and non-believers is their metaphyiscal viewpoint. And I do think I have an open mind when it comes to these issues. I don't recall once saying that something had to fit with Christian teaching in order to be valid. I said that my interpretation of the evidence leads me to believe in the validity of Christianity. I wasn't always a Christian.I also acknowledge that the discussion in this particular thread got WAY off course. My firsts posts in this thread dealt with the original topic but when crow and I got into it our discussion quickly went away from there. Those posts really have no bearing on the point the OP intended to discuss.In response to your post-script: please don't lump me in with "you devout Christians". Christians are not a homogeneous group and stereotyping doesn't get anyone anywhere. I don't judge non-believers, I understand that it is not my place to do so. As far as I am concerned, you are a perfectly valid and equally as valuable a human being as anyone. In the end I believe that God will judge both you and I. I will be made to account for my life and you yours. I also believe that God wouldn't be too fond of me if I thought less of you as a person because you aren't a Christian.

Fair enough. I'm just not fond of "sound" arguments that obscure or ignore rational thought and/or scientific proof. Also, I wasn't directing my postscript solely at you. Rather, it was a preemptive (sp? lol) swing at anyone who blindly espouses a point of view and excludes information that refutes their stance. I hereby retract my "you devout Christians" statement and throw my arms wider to include all people who have blinders on, which includes me from time to time. No offense meant, sir.

[semaj550 0]

Fair enough. I'm just not fond of "sound" arguments that obscure or ignore rational thought and/or scientific proof. Also, I wasn't directing my postscript solely at you. Rather, it was a preemptive (sp? lol) swing at anyone who blindly espouses a point of view and excludes information that refutes their stance. I hereby retract my "you devout Christians" statement and throw my arms wider to include all people who have blinders on, which includes me from time to time. No offense meant, sir.

None taken, instead I agree with you. No one should be fond of such arguments, regardless of the position they support. And with that comment I know I'm inviting crow to have a field day. ;-)

[crowTrobot 2]

None taken, instead I agree with you. No one should be fond of such arguments, regardless of the position they support. And with that comment I know I'm inviting crow to have a field day. ;-)

not a field day. i would just like to know, given the complete lack of verifiable modern evidence for the christian god (or anything at all metaphysical for that matter) you can possibly think *any* level of historical correlation in the bible can be used to prove jesus was god. there is an irrational (faith-based) leap involved in getting from some level (whatever it is) of historical correlation to the divinity of jesus there that you apparently aren't even aware you're making.

[BWToth 0]

None taken, instead I agree with you. No one should be fond of such arguments, regardless of the position they support. And with that comment I know I'm inviting crow to have a field day. ;-)

What is this difference in metaphysical viewpoint you are referring to?

[semaj550 0]

not a field day. i would just like to know, given the complete lack of verifiable modern evidence for the christian god (or anything at all metaphysical for that matter) you can possibly think *any* level of historical correlation in the bible can be used to prove jesus was god. there is an irrational (faith-based) leap involved in getting from some level (whatever it is) of historical correlation to the divinity of jesus there that you apparently aren't even aware you're making.

Define modern evidence. Christ lived 2000 years ago so any evidence regarding Him is going to come from that time period. Parts of that evidence are still being discoverd today. If you want evidence for the divinity of Jesus from artifacts dated back to last week it's not going to happen. If you want evidence for the divinity of Jesus from artifacts unearthed last week (figuratively, not literally) we have those.There is what you call a faith-based leap regardless of which way you decide on the evidence. Tell me how you believe what do you about God and I will show you how that requires faith. Like I've said all along, to go one way or the other requires faith but the leap from evidence to belief isn't as great as you would make it out to be.

[crowTrobot 2]

Define modern evidence.

a documentable miracle would be a good place to start. any undisputable evidence that the universe/life/consciousness don't all operate on entirely mechanical principals based on known physical laws would also help.

There is what you call a faith-based leap regardless of which way you decide on the evidence.

shifting the burden of proof again. it does not require faith to say something isn't proven.

the leap from evidence to belief isn't as great as you would make it out to be.

a muslem, hindu, etc would say the exact same thing. christianity requires no less faith than other beliefs with which it is mutually exclusive. it is nothing special in that regard.

[Jam-Fly 8]

is it possible Jesus spent it as a normal teenager? Just doing whatever else other teenagers did 2000 years ago?Any evidence to support or proof it wrong?

[SuitedAces21 2,723]

is it possible Jesus spent it as a normal teenager? Just doing whatever else other teenagers did 2000 years ago?Any evidence to support or proof it wrong?

you mean banging drunk chicks and smoking weed??? Yes, I like to think Jesus did.

[11 to 1 0]

a documentable miracle would be a good place to start. any undisputable evidence that the universe/life/consciousness don't all operate on entirely mechanical principals based on known physical laws would also help. shifting the burden of proof again. it does not require faith to say something isn't proven.a muslem, hindu, etc would say the exact same thing. christianity requires no less faith than other beliefs with which it is mutually exclusive. it is nothing special in that regard.

If you don't know about modern miracles, you simply haven't looked. You define the word "miracle" and what "documentation" you'll accept and I'll give you citatations. But, I fear you are neither skeptic nor in any way unbiased, but instead a cynic and intransigent fundamentalist as most self-proclaimed atheists are. If your dead grandmother appeared and cooked you dinner, you'd claim it was a dream. Even after she left you with the dishes. Oh, and there is no proof whatsoever that consciousness is generated by any mechanical or biomechanical anything. Nor is there a definition of consciousness that scientists agree on. And there is quite a lot of evidence for a variety of phenomena like ESP, mediumship and other things you refuse to simply research. The facts are available, but you have decided they are not facts, that facts are only what you personally believe they are. Which only supports this fact: everyone lives in a universe unique to themselves.

[crowTrobot 2]

If you don't know about modern miracles, you simply haven't looked. You define the word "miracle" and what "documentation" you'll accept and I'll give you citatations. But, I fear you are neither skeptic nor in any way unbiased, but instead a cynic and intransigent fundamentalist as most self-proclaimed atheists are.

you presuppose wrong. i'm an agnostic who spent a good part of his life looking for a reason to believe the physical world isn't all there is and found none.

If your dead grandmother appeared and cooked you dinner, you'd claim it was a dream. Even after she left you with the dishes.

if my dead grandmother appeared only to me i would have REASON to think it was a dream or hallucination. however if something similar to metaphysical events described in the bible is witnessed by multiple objective observers and documented i would absolutely reassess my opinions of biblical claims. the trouble is THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN MODERN HISTORY, nor is there any valid reason to think it ever will.

Oh, and there is no proof whatsoever that consciousness is generated by any mechanical or biomechanical anything.

the sense of self isn't exactly something we understand, but otherwise there is tons of evidence that indicates consciousness is due to purely physical processes in the body. there are numerous experiments where scientists have controlled different aspects of consciousness by tampering with different parts of the physical brain.

And there is quite a lot of evidence for a variety of phenomena like ESP, mediumship and other things you refuse to simply research. The facts are available, but you have decided they are not facts, that facts are only what you personally believe they are. Which only supports this fact: everyone lives in a universe unique to themselves.

you're confused. facts by definition are verifiable truths that are independant of personal belief. if everyone actually lived in their own unique universe mutual facts can't exist and everyone might as well just believe whatever they want. that's a pretty useless (dangerous actually) philosophy.if however you use the real definition of facts (mutually verifiable), there aren't any that support the validity of metaphysical claims.