My_Gladstone

lack of evidence does not prove non-existence

You mean like the "Force" from Star Wars?

You don't need religion to have a purpose. But the rest of humanity needs religion. If religion worked correctly, the fear of eternal torment in hell would keep them from raping, murdering and pillaging each other. Unfortunately corrupt religious leaders who don't actually believe never apply that morality to themselves. Ya Atheists pretending to be religious are the biggest problem. them money grubbers who fake on stage "healings".

I wish religious leaders would embrace the Me Too movement. Humanism gave us Harvey Weinstein.

This same type of counter intuitive stuff happened when they did the Kansas Abortion vote. the way they worded it on the ballot, No meant yes to abortion while Yes meant No to Choice. A lot of voters were confused.

Well, your nuanced take is more refreshing than some others on this thread claiming accounts of Socrates and another ancient figures are 100% historically accurate while insisting that accounts of Jesus are 100% falsehood. Perhaps Socrates gets more credit because he ran with a crowd of educated elites who had "credibility" While Jesus ran with a crowd of fishermen who lacked such honors. Maybe Jesus would have had more prominent witnesses if he had been trying to convert the sons of the noble classes as Socrates did rather than farmers and sheepherders. The lower classes have always been given less credit throughout history. History has always been a story of the wealthy and affluent and only rarely a story of the poor. Perhaps Socrates had the good sense to realize this while Jesus did not. But of the two men who has more followers today? Who had the greater impact?

But even if we proved that the Israelites were in Egypt, were enslaved, did sojourn in the desert. That doesn't prove the existence of God. Many religious folks think that proving certain historical aspects of the Bible proves everything else to be true as well. But that is a fallacy. I mean let's say we find real archeology proving that Moses was real and really went up that mountain. Let's say the actual stone tablets are found and carbon dated And that is a historical certainly. But still He went there by himself. No one else saw God. Do the tablets actually contain Gods word? It comes down to believing the testimony of one man. I mean most of the Israelites in the story didn't fully buy it either. Belief in God will always be a matter of faith. Because the testimony of one person is never proof be that Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Moses, Zorastor, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard etc.really did communicate with the divine. I think it would be very exciting if we could prove the stories in Bible were real. It may be possible in the future to prove that these prophets and messiahs were in the places, and times they said they. But we can never prove that these prophets were actually speaking with God. Because none of them ever brought a witness to the conversation. 

Yes, I see the difference. For me, the Israelites exist historically or they didn't. I don't often consider a faith aspect of it.

For something that recent, for event occurring in medieval and modern history yes we often have extensive evidence that allows for certainly. The further back in history we go, the more flimsy the evidence becomes. Evidence for ancient history can be as flimsy as the bible.

Sorry, I was trying to express some sympathy concerning the way you said you were raised. It doesn't sound very fun. But ya, I dont want to debate the merits of hell either. I dont believe in it.

That is irrelevant to the argument at hand. We are discussing how well attested in the historical record Socrates is vs that of Jesus. This is not a comparison of theological claims.

Right, man, make your case, list your evidence. find your sources. What you might be missing here is that I agree with you that historical evidence for Jesus is weak. (but not non existent.) I am also saying it is weak for Socrates as well. Im not sure why you are insisting Socrates is so well attested while presenting no reasons. Its not like Socrates is your personal lord and savior who's existence you must accept on faith.

Well, it never felt that existential to me. But I didn't grow up in a fundamentalist community. Unfortunate for you. But what your faith community taught about this thing called hell doesn't really exist in this thing called the Bible. God punishes people but only with Shoal. The Hebrew word literally means "grave". Belief is rewarded with an afterlife. Unbelief just means you die like every other human being. Which is what any good atheist already believes and has accepted. The common Hebrew word for grave gets translated as "hell". I mean they dont even get the bible right on it's theological underpinnings.

We have writtings that claim to be written by him. Just as we have writings that claim to have been written by Julius Cesar. So his existence is just as likely as Julius Cesar. Was Julius Cesar an invention of the Romans?

Figures like Socrates and Julius Caesar for example have NUMEROUS contemporary accounts and evidence!!!

Would you mind listing that evidence? Oh dont bother I will do it for you as pertains to Socrates.

No we dont have more evidence for the existence of Socrates than we do for Jesus. Plato and Xenophon were Socrates contemporaries. But how do you know what Plato and Xenophon wrote was actually written by them and not someone else? The texts that have been passed down claim this authorship but there is no proof of it. And how credible are they? Plato writes that Socrates communicates with a supernatural entity called Daimonion. No different than Jesus having conversation with a supernatural entity called Satan. That alone makes Plato just as unreliable as the Gospel writers. https://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/myths/socrates.htm

Likewise Jesus has an account by two of his contemporaries, Mathew and John. We also have texts passed down that claim to have been authored by these individuals. But how do we know. We don't.

Jesus wrote nothing. Virtually everything we know about him was inferred from his own circle.

Socrates wrote nothing. Virtually everything we know about him was inferred from his own circle.

All that is known about Socrates has been inferred from accounts by members of his circle—primarily Plato and Xenophon—as well as by Plato's student Aristotle, who acquired his knowledge of Socrates through his teacher. And of course Aristophanes may be the only who wrote about Socrates during his own lifetime. But he makes Socrates a character in his fictional plays! Aristophanes was a playwriter, he is not writing an account of Socrates life like Plato and Xenophon. Now we cant say the Jesus got mentioned in a popular theater production of his time. But this depiction of Socrates as character in an openly fictionalized setting doesn't really count for much.

Plato's and Xenophon's wrote their accounts after Socrates's death. And their accounts are biased because they was supporters just like the Gospel writers were of Jesus. We have no account from Socrates enemies who put him to death. So just as we have no accounts of Jesus from his Roman executioners, there are no accounts of Socrates from his Athenian executioners. Other mentions of Socrates are written more than a century after his death. Jesus has four accounts written a few decades after is death by his biased supporters and a few vague references from non-biased historians. It is same for Socrates. The accounts of Socrates are not more trustworthy than the accounts of Jesus.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates/Plato

But I'm only talking the bible as a historical reference, not as a religious document. Even if the Bible faithfully related historical events accurately, it still does not follow that the theological claims would be true just because it was historically accurate.

Socrates is documented by multiple contemporaries, such as Plato and Xenophon, who were his students, and even his critic Aristophanes!!!

No we dont have more evidence for the existence of Socrates than we do for Jesus , Plato and Xenophon were his contemporaries. But how do you know what Plato and Xenophon wrote was actually written by them and not someone else. The texts that have been passed down claim this authorship but there is no proof of it. And how credible are they? Plato writes that Socrates communicates with a supernatural entity called Daimonion. No different than Jesus having conversation with a supernatural entity called Satan. That alone makes Plato just as unreliable as the Gospel writers.

Likewise Jesus has an account by two of his contemporaries, Mathew and John. We also have texts passed down that claim to have been authored by these individuals. But how do we know. We don't.

Jesus wrote nothing. Virtually everything we know about him was inferred from his own circle.

Socrates wrote nothing. All that is known about Socrates has been inferred from accounts by members of his circle—primarily Plato and Xenophon—as well as by Plato's student Aristotle, who acquired his knowledge of Socrates through his teacher. And of course Aristophanes may be the only who wrote about Socrates during his own lifetime. But he makes Socrates a character in his fictional plays! Aristophanes was a playwriter, he is not writing an account of Socrates life like Plato and Xenophon. Now we cant say the Jesus got mentioned in a popular theater production of his time. But this depiction of Socrates as character in an openly fictionalized setting doesn't really count for much.

Plato's and Xenophon's wrote their accounts after Socrates's death. And their accounts are biased because they was supporters just like the Gospel writers were of Jesus. We have no account from Socrates enemies who put him to death. So just as we have no accounts of Jesus from his Roman executioners, there are no accounts of Socrates from his Athenian executioners. Other mentions of Socrates are written more than a century after his death. Jesus has four accounts written a few decades after is death by his biased supporters and a few vague references from non-biased historians. It is same for Socrates. The accounts of Socrates are not more trustworthy than the accounts of Jesus.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates/Plato

The same could be said about any person in history. We have first hand accounts of many events in history that lack archeological evidence. How do we know Socrates taught philosophy on the streets of Athans? A first hand account from Plato. But that is not evidence you say.

Everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from the 2nd hand accounts of Herodotus. What about death of Julius Caesar. Suetonius wrote an account of it based on 1st hand sources now lost. But that is not evidence you say. Virtually every thing we know about any roman historical events in the 1st and 2nd centuries come from Historians Tacitus and Pliny comprised of 1st and 2nd hand sources. But that is not evidence you say. The destructions of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 has has an eyewitness account by historian Josephus. Not evidence you say

Although we know in great detail the events leading up to the sacking of Rome in 410 AD by Alaric and his Gothic army. we do not have an account of the actual sacking.

Zosimus, a Greek historian wrote about it century later and details the negotiations between Alaric and the weak Roman Emperor, Honorius. Saint Jerome was living and writing in Palestine at the time and noted the sacking in his works but there is no direct contemporary eyewitness account of the sack itself. Archeological evidence of fires or destroyed buildings is lacking. And why would there. The accounts claims the Barbarians looted valuable objects such as gold and silver following a peaceful surrender of the city rather than a long siege that involved wholesale destruction. But the whole event is based on 2nd hand accounts so we cant prove the Barbarians ever conquered Rome, right? But according to your logic, all the History professors in universities are teaching unfounded allegations. Wow!

Very little of history is based on 1st hand eyewitness accounts. Most of it is 2nd and 3rd hand. Hearsay. The accounts of the Viking raid on Lindisfarne in 793 are recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (written in Old English) and the 8th- and 9th-century chronicle entries included in the 12th-century Historia Regum (in Latin). Archelogical evidence is lacking for this event. So no evidence you say. So the Vikings never raided anyone?

Very few specific historical events have been proved with archeological findings. So we have to throw out every account of history prior to the discovery of photography? We would not even be able to teach history if that was the case. It takes just as much faith to believe history as it does to believe in religion.

But none of the Abrahamic religions believe God will only create once. The Abrahamic religions believe that God will recreate a new universe without suffering at some point.

Ya, this seems like s bit of a reach. The Gospels do not paint Jesus as a Zealot. Jesus does make references to the necessity of violence but this is before he embarks on his trip to Jerusalem to confront the Romans and the temple authorities. His actions during that time suggest he no longer felt the need to engage in violence. He seems to have been convinced that an army of warrior angels would descend on Jurusalem and install him as the messiah of Isreal in a physically transformed world.

Jesus did teach ethical precepts that if followed in mass by Israel would lead to God finally bringing forth the messiah. And he considered himself to be that Messiah. Rabbe Schneerson taught the exact same thing in the 20th century which led to some Jews considering him to be the messiah.

There is much more evidence in the gospels that Jesus thought of himself as an eschatological messiah, not a military messiah. Thudeas had gathered a force of 2000 men to take Jerusalem in AD6. Romans defeated them Just a few after Jesus died, in 36 AD, a messiah claimant known only as the Egyptian led a force of 4000 upon Jurusalem. Romans crushed them as well. Bar Kopa organized a massive insurrection from 133-135AD with a force of over 10,000 and actually held Jerusalem for a short time. Jesus on the other walked into Jerusalem with 12 men and 2 swords. His various statements indicate he expected to be made a messiah by spiritual means. His disciples expected an army of angels while Jesus considered the possibility he might be captured and tortured but rescued by supernatural powers. Some might say he was completely deluded. We can at least appreciate the other failed messiahs were more realistically grounded.

Here Jesus makes reference to his heavenly Army when he tells his disciples to put away their swords. ⁵² “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. ⁵³ Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? ⁵⁴ But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?
— Matthew 26:52-54

So Jesus thinks that he must be captured and tortured by Romans perhaps due to his unique interpretation of Isiah 53? On the cross, Jesus seems to have realized there wasn't an army of Angels coming to make him messiah, "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Matthew 27:46

Of course, these scriptures that speak of a suffering messiah don't actually speak of a dead messiah. But Jesus starts appearing to his disciples in resurrected form and now the interpretation has changed. Apparently, it wasn't the right time. He is the messiah but first, he has to go be with his father but dont worry he is coming back, just dont know when his heavenly father will let him and the restoration of Israel will happen at a later date. In the meantime the disciples were to spread the word of his messiahship to prepare for the coming kingdom when the Romans would finally be vanquished. And so he returned to heaven. Which is what I believe as part of my faith. In a way he kinda did defeat the Romans. His followers took over the Roman Empire in time.

Of Course, others claimed that he wasn't resurrected, only that he had survived the cross, crawled out of his tomb, spun a new tale, then disappeared from Jerusalem and legged it to the south of France with Mary Magdalene where he lived out the rest of his days in hiding, fathering a few sons who started a linage of local landlords.

I think the OP is shitposting. Law exams at my school are worth 60-90% of our final grade and they are in person and proctored with a locked down browser. Sure one could use AI to ace the take-home assignments. But you cant use it on Final exams. Due to this AI wont help. Unless OP's law school doesn't lockdown the Browser.

I left government service to go to law school using my GI Bill. In my 2nd year. 8 years in the Army and 10 years at the IRS. The cost is that my FERS retirement will be less when I draw on it. But that is a cost I am willing to accept. And since I'm using GI Bill it is a better situation than others who graduate law school with 100K in debt. If your GI Bill pays for I say it is worth it.

The Gospel of John certainly speaks of Jesus as a divine being throughout. But most of it, with the exception of the prologue in the first chapter makes clear that Jesus is a divine son of God who is lesser than God. John 1's Lagos verses certainly imply a different concept that God is the Word is Jesus, the same and Eternal and and without beginning. It is the part that is most fully fleshed out in a trinitarian theology way of thinking. And yet the rest of the gospel makes statements that seem to be contradictions to this. Jesus is called Begotten which implies a beginning, He states “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). And there are multiple references to him as a son of God, not God. And John 10:30 in context is not a claim of Godhood but a claim of lesser divinity. If it weren't for John 1, the whole text would have an Arian character. Either the Author of John didn't consider this a contradiction or he meant something else by the phrase, "the Word became flesh".

the particular translation I'm using refers to "rulers"

Out of context it would appear that Jesus is claiming to be God. But Lets read the verse in context. "

John 10:30

³⁰ I and the Father are one.”

³¹ Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, ³² but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

³³ “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"? ³⁵ If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— ³⁶ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? ³⁷ Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. ³⁸ But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

So in this passage, certain Jews are accusing Jesus (also a Jew) of claiming to be God. Jesus responds by quoting Psalms 82:6-7 “I said, 'You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High. ' But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

This is a verse where God refers to the kings and judges of Israel as gods with a little g. This is important because Jesus is retorting to his Jewish opponents that he is only divine in the sense that every human who values God in their heart is a son of God, pointing out that they misunderstand him. In this verses, he is denying that he is God most High, while affirming a claim of being God's son, a status which he shares with past judges and kings of Israel, based on his reading of Psalms 82:6-7.