Excellent question 2011. We could spend a lot of time getting into this. Not all moral laws fall into this category, but In short, morals exist as attributes of God. God is love, for example. William Lane Craig has some interesting stuff on the subject, such as the Euthyphro Argument: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main

PeaceAndHarmony, Religion may be one of many reasons why one may or may not believe something, but as you said, it is the actual belief itself that functions as the motivation for action. The truth of the matter is that this is the case for atheists as well as all manner of theists. Trouble is, the atheist has no where to run. Regardless of what may think about the conscience, if it is the product...more

PeaceAndHarmony, Religion may be one of many reasons why one may or may not believe something, but as you said, it is the actual belief itself that functions as the motivation for action. The truth of the matter is that this is the case for atheists as well as all manner of theists. Trouble is, the atheist has no where to run. Regardless of what may think about the conscience, if it is the product of evolution, then it is only an issue of private opinion, subjective in nature. Therefore the atheist really has no universal foundation to stand on when he has a moral objection or a moral prescription.less

All laws are moral by nature. When you say someone has a right, perhaps you mean free will?

We need to pray for Hitchens, that God will heal his body and that he will also come to know the God who is real.

Cudd???

Ravi Zacharias points out that “at the center of life lie four questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny.” The naturalist tries to express moral permissiveness, while at the same time excluding those who would disagree. Because the foundation lacks the necessary stability to build on, he must take great leaps of faith, from one faulty premise to another. He must assure and reassur...more

Ravi Zacharias points out that “at the center of life lie four questions of origin, meaning, morality and destiny.”

The naturalist tries to express moral permissiveness, while at the same time excluding those who would disagree. Because the foundation lacks the necessary stability to build on, he must take great leaps of faith, from one faulty premise to another. He must assure and reassure himself that it is his own prerogative to define the terms and make his own rules and that to each his own, that is, with the exception of Christian believers, who he recklessly blames for society's ills. For the atheist, life is a moral free-for-all, but “believers” on the other hand, are very dangerous.less

2011, That is a very interesting qualifier. Do you really base morality on the premise of one's taste or personal preference?

Know God, know peace. No God, no peace.

"Science is a wonderful thing, philosophy is a wonderful thing, but neither give any meaning in life." -Richard Morgan For many people the existential predicament is a critical element, not just in order to explain life, but to live life to its fullest. Jesus said, The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have ...more

"Science is a wonderful thing, philosophy is a wonderful thing, but neither give any meaning in life." -Richard Morgan

For many people the existential predicament is a critical element, not just in order to explain life, but to live life to its fullest. Jesus said, The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

The wonderful thing about God is that great intelligence and great riches and affluence mean absolutely nothing to him. Presidents and popes and princes, must first relinquish their self-serving "pride." To those desiring HIM, it is a simple matter of humbling one's self at the foot of the cross. Oh, the scandal of it all! There will be no room at the banquet for the one whose self image means more to him, where personal glory and vain ambition are his only companions, when he would rather shake his fist at God, than accept his unreserved grace. God help the man!less

First of all, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God, it only expresses ignorance as to who God is or what God's objective might be. As long as God has a good reason for allowing evil, then it is reasonable to think that God is up to something. Furthermore, without God, you have no way of defining evil in the first place.

"...paranoia and a morbid delight in hopes for an imminent Apocalypse." Hmmmm, not too much different from Dawkins and Hawking. Will the universe die a slow death, meaningless and irrelevant or will it end, only to bring about a new beginning? Perhaps it will end in catastrophe at the hands of another militant atheist?

But, this argument is based on the "Golden Rule:" Treat others the way you want them to treat you. How is it that this is a derivative of natural evolution, a.k.a. survival of the fittest?

I find it curious that you would so quickly become enthralled with other men named Jesus and James, which have very little historical support, individually speaking, while rejecting the well attested Jesus, the Christ. Cudd, I do appreciate your attempt at responding to the challenge. But, you have become guilty of doing the very the very thing that you have accused Christian copiests of doin...more

I find it curious that you would so quickly become enthralled with other men named Jesus and James, which have very little historical support, individually speaking, while rejecting the well attested Jesus, the Christ.

Cudd, I do appreciate your attempt at responding to the challenge. But, you have become guilty of doing the very the very thing that you have accused Christian copiests of doing. Is there really any good reason to accept your interpolation? There is nothing to warrant such an outlandish revision of the text. The fact is, there are two references to Jesus who was called the Christ. deleting words to make the text fit your personal opinions about history is absurd.

Furthermore, you still have yet to engage my arguments regarding the unlikely senario of Josephus and Origen to have been wrong.

BTW, if you have sources for your arguments or if you are quoting someone else, please post them. Thank you!less

Josephus gives historical corroboration for the following people and groups: Jesus who was called the Christ James, the brother of Jesus John the Baptist Pontius Pilate Herod the Great Agrippa I Agrippa II Annas, the High Priest Quirinius Sadducees Pharisees Zealots The individuals listed above, along with certain historical events discussed by Josephus that pertain to Jesus can b...more

Josephus gives historical corroboration for the following people and groups:

Jesus who was called the Christ
James, the brother of Jesus
John the Baptist
Pontius Pilate
Herod the Great
Agrippa I
Agrippa II
Annas, the High Priest
Quirinius
Sadducees
Pharisees
Zealots

The individuals listed above, along with certain historical events discussed by Josephus that pertain to Jesus can be cross referenced in the New Testament as well as with other ancient documents and historians, including:

The Epistles of Paul
The Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Matthew
The Gospel of Luke
The Book of Acts
The Gospel of John
Tacitus (56-117 A.D.), Annuls
The Talmud (70 - 200 A.D.)
Lucian of Samosata (125 - after 180 A.D.), The Death of Peregrine
Mara bar Sarapion, a letter to his son
Q Source (hypothetical recorded document prior to the synoptic gospels)
The Acts of Pontius Pilate (no surviving manuscripts)

Falling back on my prior comments, to suggest that these cross references could be all be the result of Christian interpolations is simply put, absurd.less

Yawn... it's still a cop-out, Cudd. Are you really insisting on me reposting Origen's reference to Josephus for a third time? Give me a break! While he stated that Josephus did not consider Jesus the Christ, the fact that he stated that Josephus said that he “was called the Christ” is enough to suffice. Ultimately your argument is with the majority of scholars. Although you have offered tw...more

Yawn... it's still a cop-out, Cudd. Are you really insisting on me reposting Origen's reference to Josephus for a third time? Give me a break! While he stated that Josephus did not consider Jesus the Christ, the fact that he stated that Josephus said that he “was called the Christ” is enough to suffice.

Ultimately your argument is with the majority of scholars. Although you have offered two arguments both of them are based on the absence of specifically selected evidence, which proves nothing but your extreme cynical bias. Furthermore, you ask for more evidence when you have not even attempted to deal with the little evidence I have already offered.

Submitted evidence:

Josephus' works
Origen's testimony of Josephus' works

Evidence offered via Cudd that Josephus' works are unreliable:
1.Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus, which means we need a cross reference.
1b.Lack of references by other historians.
2.It's a forgery.

First of all, to state that it is unreliable because it is a forgery is trying to prove what you are trying to prove (circular reasoning). As I already stated at the beginning, that while there is evidence that there was an interpolation as per Antiquities 18.3.3, the majority of scholars consider the basic entry original (per Wikipedia, Professor Louis H. Feldman, Prof Paul Maier). The fact that it is included in the Arabic and Syriac translations, without Josephus calling “Jesus, the Christ,” is evidence that at least some of this passage was an original entry by Josephus pertaining to Jesus. James Charlesworth, a leading New Testament scholar at Princeton, states that this Arabic version "provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18."1

Secondly, Origen DOES in fact reference Josephus' entry on Jesus at least twice!!! While he clearly states that Josephus did not consider Jesus the Christ, HE DOES SAY that Josephus mentions “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” in Matthew X, XVII. Then Origen states in Against Celsus I, XLVII that “Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist.”less

That being the case, it sounds like dismissing the evidence that we do have is just a cop-out. Rather than dealing with the implications of such a historical figure, I can see why it is much easier just to deny that he ever existed. If there were only one single little entry on Jesus, I don't think you would doubt his existence. But there is ample evidence and the impact of his life continues to r...more

That being the case, it sounds like dismissing the evidence that we do have is just a cop-out. Rather than dealing with the implications of such a historical figure, I can see why it is much easier just to deny that he ever existed. If there were only one single little entry on Jesus, I don't think you would doubt his existence. But there is ample evidence and the impact of his life continues to reverberate throughout the world, transforming cultures and lives, which makes all the difference. The denial position is an easy escape from dealing with the historical facts and implications by insulating skeptics from dealing with reality. Similar to the flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, moon-landing deniers and the like, the argument rests on an irrational skepticism and relies on unfounded conspiracy theories. As it were, you still have yet to post a response on the evidence that I offered and you have offered no evidence to support your accusation that Josephus' entries are forgeries.less

Well it would seem that if you would reject the evidence of an actual physical body then it is no wonder that you would reject all historical writings. It is not evidence that you need, it is a reality check. Still, you offer absolutely no supporting evidence that it is a forgery and you fail to even attempt to refute the evidence that I have offered. That doesn't sound like a problem of evide...more

Well it would seem that if you would reject the evidence of an actual physical body then it is no wonder that you would reject all historical writings. It is not evidence that you need, it is a reality check.

Still, you offer absolutely no supporting evidence that it is a forgery and you fail to even attempt to refute the evidence that I have offered. That doesn't sound like a problem of evidence, but a matter of personal bias. Prove me wrong.less

Now then, I have a question that is related to the topic. Let's say the unbelievable were to happen and archeologists discovered the actual body of Jesus and it was nearly beyond question; if the only written documents that we had at our disposal that mentioned Jesus was Josephus and Origen would you still dismiss him as non-historical?

Well then, it seems that we both have been talking past each other, for I did not at any time claim that Origen quoted from the "golden" passage as you call it, nor have I been arguing in favor of it, at least not in its entirety. I said that it is obvious that the longer interpolation was unknown to Origen, but the fact that he referred to Josephus in two separate works as pertaining to his brief...more

Well then, it seems that we both have been talking past each other, for I did not at any time claim that Origen quoted from the "golden" passage as you call it, nor have I been arguing in favor of it, at least not in its entirety. I said that it is obvious that the longer interpolation was unknown to Origen, but the fact that he referred to Josephus in two separate works as pertaining to his brief sketch of Jesus, reveals that Josephus definitely considered him historical and had a few things to say about him.

Even if we reject the entire passage found in Antiquities 18.3.3, the entry in Antiquities 20.9.1 is as solid as it can get. The fact that Jesus and James were so quickly mentioned for one thing and the fact that Jesus was not the subject of attention. And then there is the reference by Origen that places it at 200 A.D. Now a skeptic may try to accuse Christians of another interpolation anyway, but then how could this have happened within one hundred years, when most skeptics don't even want to admit that the Gospels predate the second century? This would mean that Christians would of gained such an incredible amount of influence within a handful of years, enough to have full control of all of the copiests and all of the translations in regard to the work of Josephus and disposed of all conflicting copies prior to the writing of Origen, otherwise he would not have been able to use it as a reliable source. They would have needed power, organization and lots of people, all at a time when Rome was persecuting them.less

I'm beginning to wonder if you're even reading my posts. It would help if you paid a little closer attention to my arguments, it will help you to know how to come back with your argument. I did not claim that Josephus is the only first century reference to Jesus, but I think he is enough to embed him in history. You accuse Josephus of being a “notorious forgery,” but you don't seem to be able ...more

I'm beginning to wonder if you're even reading my posts. It would help if you paid a little closer attention to my arguments, it will help you to know how to come back with your argument. I did not claim that Josephus is the only first century reference to Jesus, but I think he is enough to embed him in history. You accuse Josephus of being a “notorious forgery,” but you don't seem to be able to back it up with any evidence or serious scholarship. Accusations mean nothing if you can't establish a conviction.

Meanwhile, I offered one of the most mainstream references, one that tends to lean toward the liberal side of the debate on the historical Jesus and you completely ignore it without so much as a single explanation. You claimed Origen was silent on Josephus to which I responded by posting one of his two references for the second time. I then proceeded to offer a logical argument as to why Origen's note on Josephus proves that there was an embellishment (that you have well noted), while at the same time showing that Josephus did in fact refer to Jesus as an historical person. You seem to want to stretch this one Christian interpolation over his entire writing.

It was my suggestion that Josephus did not get his information from Christians and I offered support to back it up. You are arguing about why Josephus included and excluded any number of historical details. Big deal, you weren't the one writing his books. An argument from silence is an inconclusive argument. You seem unwilling to admit that the arguments against Josephus are weak at best. This reveals an illogical bias on your part that has nothing to do with the facts.

...And yes, Josephus not only references Jesus. I believe that I mentioned several other noteworthy individuals that are connected to Jesus. "Vast" might be an over-statement, but there is enough to talk about for a long time. What is important is that they are spread throughout his work and at least two reference Jesus, while they are completely unrelated as individual specific events.less