Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If follows that if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth.

Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options.

Why should anyone trust in Christianity over Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, or anything else? It is because there are absolute truths, because only in Christianity is there accurate fulfilled prophecies of a coming Messiah. Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written. Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). All this adds to the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity above all other religions -- all based on the person of Jesus. If follows that if it is all true about what Jesus said and did, then all other religions are false because Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth.

Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options.

Mormonism is a branch of Christianity, faggot.

*Reply reserved for future puntage*

I'm not a faggot as you say. Obviously you cannot have a converstation without casting insults. So here is one for you: You are a pitiful, mentally backward Neanderthal who suffers from a severe vitamin deficiency that has obviously retarded your intellectual development.

Now for real, I'm just kidding you. Help me understand why Mormanism is a branch of Christianity when the teachings of the Mormans contradict the Bible?

Now for real, I'm just kidding you. Help me understand why Mormanism is a branch of Christianity when the teachings of the Mormans contradict the Bible?

The Bible itself contradicts itself many a time. Mormonism draws off the teachings of the Bible, albeit not very well.

Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written.

Prove it. You have nobody to verify that they were accurate - to an extreme or otherwise.

Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life (John 14:6).

You have proof that there was a guy named Jesus, that's all.

Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options.

Option number 3 is that all of them are wrong. Jesus being real is irrelevant to whether Jesus had divine powers or was the voice of god.

[QUOTE=medicforlife;10609238] Only in Christianity do we have the extremely accurate transmission of the eyewitness documents (gospels) so we can trust what was originally written.
/QUOTE]

It's been verified the Bible was edited in the 400's? How is that an accurate eyewitness account?

Mormonism draws off the teachings of the Bible, albeit not very well.

You are correct that Mormons frequently misrepresent scripture and take verses out of context to make it say what they want. Those who do not know what the Bible really teaches will easily be fooled. For example, when the Bible says that there are no other gods besides God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), Mormons quickly add "of this world." That means that there really are other gods out there and that the Bible is talking only about this world and not about others. They often quote 1 Cor. 8:5-6 which mentions the existence of other gods. But when doing this, they fail to read exactly what it says, that there are "so-called gods." In other words, they are called gods, but really are not gods. Paul was speaking about false gods, not the true and living God.

Do you want to trust Morman teaching when even you admit that they do not draw off the teachings of the Bible very well? Just curious?

btw...here are some other areas of concern that do not follow the Bible.

The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, p. 635. They teach there was an apostasy and the true church ceased to exist on earth.
There are many gods, Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.
There is a mother god, Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443.
God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.
After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-347, 354.

/QUOTE]

It's been verified the Bible was edited in the 400's? How is that an accurate eyewitness account?[/QUOTE]


Who edited it, what was edited and who verified that the Bible was edited? Just saying so, does not mean that it happened. :)

/QUOTE]

It's been verified the Bible was edited in the 400's? How is that an accurate eyewitness account?


Who edited it, what was edited and who verified that the Bible was edited? Just saying so, does not mean that it happened. :)[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Prove it. You have nobody to verify that they were accurate - to an extreme or otherwise.



You have proof that there was a guy named Jesus, that's all.



Option number 3 is that all of them are wrong. Jesus being real is irrelevant to whether Jesus had divine powers or was the voice of god.

There is a lot of info to put into a post like this. Following is a list of extra-biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available. More information is available regarding manuscipts that I have not put in this post.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

You will have to read these for yourself. I can't quote all of them here.

Who edited it, what was edited and who verified that the Bible was edited? Just saying so, does not mean that it happened. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea[/QUOTE]

I'm familiar with the Council of Nicaea. That was a time when the scripture was recogonized by the church, not written or rewritten and not edited. Again, If that were the case, what was edited. The link you provided does not provided that information. Thanks!

The story of Jesus is the anthropomorphized tale of how the sun acts during the winder solstice. This tale is not unique to Christianity, and appears in various other religions, such as in Hinduism (which is older then Christianity) as Krishna instead of Jesus.

You can watch it all, here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4555365073003895154&q=christianity+mushrooms).

There is no reason to believe the bible is any more accurate then anything else.

EDIT- in the video, skip to 22:25 to learn about Constantine and The Council of Nicaea.

Skip to 25:50 to lean what I was talking about with Jesus and Krishna.

The story of Jesus is the anthropomorphized tale of how the sun acts during the winder solstice. This tale is not unique to Christianity, and appears in various other religions, such as in Hinduism (which is older then Christianity) as Krishna instead of Jesus.

You can watch it all, here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4555365073003895154&q=christianity+mushrooms).

There is no reason to believe the bible is any more accurate then anything else.

Wrong...the story of Jesus is not a "tale". It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not if some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.
Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts.
Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea verified its existence. Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).
There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

Tales can not be verified.

Within Christianity, the resurrection is vitally important. Without the resurrection our faith is useless (1 Cor. 15:14). It was Jesus' resurrection that changed the lives of the disciples. After Jesus was crucified, the disciples ran and hid. But when they saw the risen Lord, they knew that all that Jesus had said and done proved that He was indeed God in flesh, the Savior.

No other religious leader has died in full view of trained executioners, had a guarded tomb, and then risen three days later to appear to many many people. This resurrection is proof of who Jesus is and that He did accomplish what He set out to do: provide the only means of redemption for mankind.

Buddha did not rise from the dead. Muhammad did not rise from the dead. Confucius did not rise from the dead. Krishna did not rise from the dead, etc. Only Jesus has physically risen from the dead, walked on water, claimed to be God, and raised others from the dead. He has conquered death. Why trust anyone else? Why trust anyone who can be held by physical death when we have a Messiah who is greater than death itself?

Wrong...the story of Jesus is not a "tale".

Then how come the exact same story appears in other religions which are much older then Christianity, only with different names for the savior such as:

Krishna

Mithra

Horus

archaeology

So?

The Mahābhārata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81rata) describes what can only be considered space ships and atomic war, on earth, thousands of years ago. Look at all this "evidence" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=n0&q=ancient+atomic+war+evidence&btnG=Search) too. Believe it happened?

When the first atomic bomb exploded in New Mexico, the desert sand turned to fused green glass. This fact, according to the magazine Free World, has given certain archaeologists a turn. They have been digging in the ancient Euphrates Valley and have uncovered a layer of agrarian culture 8,000 years old, and a layer of herdsman culture much older, and a still older caveman culture. Recently, they reached another layer; of fused green glass.

Edit - Watch my video, and you will understand what is meant by the son's (Suns) "resurrection" after 3 days of being "dead". Skip ahead to around 34:00.

[QUOTE=Obbe;10609813]Then how come the exact same story appears in other religions which are much older then Christianity, only with different names for the savior such as:

Krishna

Mithra

Horus



So?

The Mahābhārata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81rata) describes what can only be considered space ships and atomic war, on earth, thousands of years ago. Look at all this "evidence" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=n0&q=ancient+atomic+war+evidence&btnG=Search) too. Believe it happened?

Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. but, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with the God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), His words become incredibly important.

Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His fantastic words with miraculous deeds? Yes, He did.

Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10).
Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
Jesus healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14).
Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19)
Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12).
Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44).
Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7).
Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35).
Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38).
Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27).
Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39).
Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: One, because what He said and did, agrees with the Old Testament and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

These other religions do not offer the same thing.

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us.

How do you know they are reliable or accurate? How do you know its not fictional?

Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: One, because what He said and did, agrees with the Old Testament and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

These other religions do not offer the same thing.

How do they not offer the same thing? What Krishna said and did are the exact same things jesus said and did. Same with Mithra. And Horus.

How do you know the testimonies are real?

In the Mahābhārata, there was a fucking atomic war that happened in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw. We have discovered ancient fields of fused glass, like those produced by atomic blasts.

Why should we believe in Jesus over this?

"This book is true. I know this, because in the book, it is written this book is true." - That is your argument.

How do you know they are reliable or accurate? How do you know its not fictional?



How do they not offer the same thing? What Krishna said and did are the exact same things jesus said and did. Same with Mithra. And Horus.

How do you know the testimonies are real?

In the Mahābhārata, there was a fucking atomic war that happened in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw. We have discovered ancient fields of fused glass, like those produced by atomic blasts.

Why should we believe in Jesus over this?

"This book is true. I know this, because in the book, it is written this book is true." - That is your argument.

Wrong again, I do not intend to be rude, however, I have not claimed that because it's written in the Bible that it's true. However, I do believe the Bible is true because of many reasons such as;

There is nothing within Christian teaching that denies the facts of history. History and archaeology confirm the Bible. We have many non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people. Josephus a Jewish historian (AD 37-101) mentioned John the Baptist and Herod (Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2), as well as Jesus (Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3) and James (Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19). Tacitus, a Roman historian (AD 55-117), mentions Jesus (Annals XV); Thallus (Circa AD 52), mentions the eclipse of the sun.1

The facts of archaeological and history support the Bible and do not contradict it. Various cities mentioned in it have been discovered: Arad, Bethel, Capernaum, Chorizin, Dan, Ephesus, Gaza, Gezer, Hazor, Hesbon, Jericho, Joppa, Nineveh, Schechem, Susa, etc. The Hittites have been verified, as has the stables of Solomon, etc. The point is, there is nothing in archaeology that contradicts biblical truth. It agrees with and is consistent archaeology and history.

What archaeological and historical facts support the religions that you have been talking about? Please give examples.

[B]

Wrong again, I do not intend to be rude, however, I have not claimed that because it's written in the Bible that it's true. However, I do believe the Bible is true because of many reasons such as;

You have not outright said this statement, but you have used passages from the bible to prove the bible is accurate.

You have not outright said this statement, but you have used passages from the bible to prove the bible is accurate.


Yes, I have quoted from the Bible to demonstrate that the things written in the Bible have not been proven incorrect by history, archeaology etc... I have also used sources from outside the Bible as well.

Christianity claims to be authored by God. Of course, merely making such a claim does not make it true. Anyone can make claims. but, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with the God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), His words become incredibly important.

Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His fantastic words with miraculous deeds? Yes, He did.

Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10).
Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
Jesus healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14).
Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19)
Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12).
Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44).
Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7).
Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35).
Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38).
Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27).
Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39).
Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: One, because what He said and did, agrees with the Old Testament and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

These other religions do not offer the same thing.

I was talking about this. You quoted from the bible to prove that claims made in the bible were true. Your outside sources only support that the people existed, not what actually happened in the bible. You can use all the sources in the world, but there are limits to how and what they can prove. As an example, there is no archeological evidence for any of these miracles.

I was talking about this. You quoted from the bible to prove that claims made in the bible were true. Your outside sources only support that the people existed, not what actually happened in the bible. You can use all the sources in the world, but there are limits to how and what they can prove. As an example, there is no archeological evidence for any of these miracles.

OK...I follow you. I'm believing what the eyewitnesses said as recorded in the Bible.

OK...I follow you. I'm believing what the eyewitnesses said as recorded in the Bible.

OK, that's fine. That is what makes it a religion. Buddhist sutras have tons of eyewitness accounts too, it's just that you don't believe they are true, and as a result, you probably wouldn't accept them as reputable sources.

OK, that's fine. That is what makes it a religion. Buddhist sutras have tons of eyewitness accounts too, it's just that you don't believe they are true, and as a result, you probably wouldn't accept them as reputable sources.


What eyewitness accounts are you refering too? I have not read any and cannot say whether they are true or not.

Pretty much eye witness accounts of the Buddha's teachings and I think a miracle or two if I remember correctly. The Diamond Sutra in particular is said to be a conversation of the Buddha. For reference, under the society tab to the left, you can find religious texts transcribed to text files here on totse. The point here is that it doesn't matter. I could write down my eye witness account of a psychic, it doesn't make it automatically true. Belief in some one's words doesn't make them true. You have to trust that they aren't lying, or that their perception of the events is correct.

Pretty much eye witness accounts of the Buddha's teachings and I think a miracle or two if I remember correctly.


The Diamond Sutra in particular is said to be a conversation of the Buddha. For reference, under the society tab to the left, you can find religious texts transcribed to text files here on totse.


The point here is that it doesn't matter. I could write down my eye witness account of a psychic, it doesn't make it automatically true. Belief in some one's words doesn't make them true. You have to trust that they aren't lying, or that their perception of the events is correct.

What miracles are you thinking of and who were the witness? I will check out the tab you mentioned - Thanks!


What is wrong with relying on the eyewitness testimonies that are in the Bible? What evidence is there that what they said is a lie or incorrect? What did they have to gain by lying? In reality, all but one apostle was put to death for their belief and preaching of the mircles of Jesus Christ. Did they not really believe what they saw or did they die for what they thought could have been a lie? I doubt it!

What miracles are you thinking of and who were the witness? I will check out the tab you mentioned - Thanks!


What is wrong with relying on the eyewitness testimonies that are in the Bible? What evidence is there that what they said is a lie or incorrect? What did they have to gain by lying? In reality, all but one apostle was put to death for their belief and preaching of the mircles of Jesus Christ. Did they not really believe what they saw or did they die for what they thought could have been a lie? I doubt it!

I can't remember any of the miracles, if there were any. The witnesses were the first people he taught(similar to the apostles).

If you can rely on the eyewitnesses of the Bible, then you can rely on the eyewitnesses of every religion with them. This creates a contradiction since Christianity says other religions are false, so you would have to deny other eyewitnesses while selecting ones that are favorable to your argument.

I don't think that they would die for something they knew was a lie. Jesus could have really thought he was the son of god and might not have been. Maybe he thought he was something he wasn't, and others believed him. Son of god or not though, his message was good.

... snipped lots of proof that these people existed...

Thanks for making my point for me. I don't doubt that these people existed at all. So did the Prophet Mohammad. It doesn't prove they did anything miraculous.

As for the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible, catch a clue. The Bible isn't the equivalent of CNN - those "gospels" are simply the writings of people who knew and interacted with Jesus - writings that were reviewed, examined for acceptable content, and assembled on the decision of those that ultimately decided exactly which books would or would not constitute the Old and New Testaments.

I can't remember any of the miracles, if there were any. The witnesses were the first people he taught(similar to the apostles).

If you can rely on the eyewitnesses of the Bible, then you can rely on the eyewitnesses of every religion with them. This creates a contradiction since Christianity says other religions are false, so you would have to deny other eyewitnesses while selecting ones that are favorable to your argument.

I don't think that they would die for something they knew was a lie. Jesus could have really thought he was the son of god and might not have been. Maybe he thought he was something he wasn't, and others believed him. Son of god or not though, his message was good.


If anyone has anything better to offer than the claims, the deeds, and the sacrifice of Christ then perhaps I would go that way. But since no one else has anything better to offer than Jesus and since no one else has fulfilled prophecies, performed miracles, raised people from the dead, risen from the dead, and promised to return for his people, than we are forced by reason and the evidence to continue to believe in Jesus, his teachings, and the truth that Christianity represents as is found in him.

Christianity is true and we are not deceived because Christianity is based on the person of Jesus who fulfilled prophecy, claimed to be God in flesh, performed many miracles, died, and physically rose from the dead, because it is consistent with reason, facts, and shows evidence of God's inspiration. And finally, all other religious systems are either unverifiable or irrational thereby disqualifying them as being true.

If anyone has anything better to offer than the claims, the deeds, and the sacrifice of Christ then perhaps I would go that way. But since no one else has anything better to offer than Jesus and since no one else has fulfilled prophecies, performed miracles, raised people from the dead, risen from the dead, and promised to return for his people, than we are forced by reason and the evidence to continue to believe in Jesus, his teachings, and the truth that Christianity represents as is found in him.

Christianity is true and we are not deceived because Christianity is based on the person of Jesus who fulfilled prophecy, claimed to be God in flesh, performed many miracles, died, and physically rose from the dead, because it is consistent with reason, facts, and shows evidence of God's inspiration. And finally, all other religious systems are either unverifiable or irrational thereby disqualifying them as being true.

I like how you say "irrational and unverifiable" in the same post as talking about raising people from the dead and fulfilling prophecies, things supposedly done by dead people, witnessed by dead people, and completely unprovable by anyone today.

As for the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible, catch a clue. The Bible isn't the equivalent of CNN

Thank goodness...The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low.

those "gospels" are simply the writings of people who knew and interacted with Jesus - writings that were reviewed, examined for acceptable content, and assembled on the decision of those that ultimately decided exactly which books would or would not constitute the Old and New Testaments

You must be referring to the "lost books" of the Bible. From cults to the New Age, people make all sorts of claims about how the Bible is missing books, books that help justify what they hope to believe. Sometimes people claim that the Bible was edited to take out reincarnation, or the teaching of higher planes of existence, or different gods, or ancestor worship, or "at-one-ment" with nature.
The "lost books" were never lost. They were known by the Jews in Old Testament times and the Christians of the New Testament times and were never considered scripture. They weren't lost nor were they removed. They were never in the Bible in the first place.

The additional books were not included in the Bible for several reasons. They lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship, they did not claim to be the Word of God; they contain unbiblical concepts such as prayer for the dead in 2 Macc. 12:45-46; or have some serious historical inaccuracies.

I like how you say "irrational and unverifiable" in the same post as talking about raising people from the dead and fulfilling prophecies, things supposedly done by dead people, witnessed by dead people, and completely unprovable by anyone today.

Why doesn't the testimonies of the apostles; who as you claimed in an earlier post, "interacted with Jesus" count as reliable testimony? As I stated earlier, they had nothing to gain. In fact, all but one was killed for teaching Jesus Christ and his miracles. Just because their testimonies are now old does not mean the are a lie. If thats the case, they died for a lie. I could see someone dying for something they believe in, but not for a lie.

So, your thread boils down to "Because I want to," doesn't it?

Christianity was created out of a melting pot of religious traditions over thousands of years, and didn't become Christianity as you know it until Constantine.

There are no reasons to believe in Christianity over anything else. You say we are forced by reason and evidence to believe in Jesus.

But using your same reasoning and "evidence", we should also believe a huge atomic war happened several thousand years ago. After all, there is just as much reason to believe in that theory as there is to believe in Jesus.

"Jesus" is the sun during the winter solstice. So is Krishna, Mithra, and Horus. The story was anthropomorphized thousands of years ago before literacy, because this is how humans passed information along to their decedents then.

There was also a lot of drug use involved. :o

I could see someone dying for something they believe in, but not for a lie.

They could have believed in a lie. How do you know otherwise?

Did these people even exist? How do you know ... because it says so in the good book?

If I were to tell you I am speaking the Word of God right now, would you believe me?

"Jesus" is the sun during the winter solstice. So is Krishna, Mithra, and Horus. The story was anthropomorphized thousands of years ago before literacy, because this is how humans passed information along to their decedents then.

There was also a lot of drug use involved. :o

As an afterthought, I should include that not only are the saviors metaphors for the Sun, but also for magic mushrooms. The video I posted earlier goes into much more detail.

I also just found this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zaMSok4rPI), haven't watched it all, but the dirty hippie reminds be of my pal Brady. They quote a section of the bible which is about finding mushrooms.

They use evidence dating back to 3500 BC.

Why doesn't the testimonies of the apostles; who as you claimed in an earlier post, "interacted with Jesus" count as reliable testimony?

Because believers are notoriously unreliable. It's important to remember that -Jesus- was the one who was supposed to be perfect, the mortal incarnation of god, blah blah blah. His apostles have no such claim to credibility, and as they all worship the god he's supposed to be, their credibility is suspect, and at the very -least- biased. They don't get a free pass because their his apostles - that's circular reasoning.

Religion is full of deceit, hypocrisy and lies - Christianity as much as any other. You only have to look as far as the newspaper and the antics of the latest Falwellian piece of garbage to see it. Yet we're supposed to simply take their word for it? Their very carefully selected and edited word?

You want to assume that the Bible is proof against such violations but the simple fact is that it is not.

As I stated earlier, they had nothing to gain. In fact, all but one was killed for teaching Jesus Christ and his miracles.

Nothing to gain? Martyrdom is a powerful cause. If they were all killed for teaching Jesus, they're all martyrs and every one of them is assured entrance into the kingdom they believe in. All it takes is delusion and a belief that you are doing the right thing to be willing to die for it. It doesn't actually have to be the right thing.

Just because their testimonies are now old does not mean the are a lie. If thats the case, they died for a lie. I could see someone dying for something they believe in, but not for a lie.

Of course it doesn't mean they're a lie. It doesn't mean they're the truth either.

I'd also like to point out that you are once again employing a hypocritical double standard here - you say that you can't see someone dying for a lie - but you claim that all other religions are a lie, religions that people die for all the time.

If enough people believe the lie, the truth stops being relevant to them. However, you're trying to cite this as proof of a truth, so I need to point out that you're wrong.

Heres more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGCXsAAv-fk&feature=related)reasons why Jesus was a magic mushroom.

Thanks for making my point for me. I don't doubt that these people existed at all. So did the Prophet Mohammad. It doesn't prove they did anything miraculous.

As for the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible, catch a clue. The Bible isn't the equivalent of CNN - those "gospels" are simply the writings of people who knew and interacted with Jesus - writings that were reviewed, examined for acceptable content, and assembled on the decision of those that ultimately decided exactly which books would or would not constitute the Old and New Testaments.

Not even! The gospels were most likely written by non-eyewitnesses years after Jesus' death!

and as they all worship the god he's supposed to be, their credibility is suspect, and at the very -least- biased. They don't get a free pass because their his apostles - that's circular reasoning.


I can't respond to everything in your last post tonight, so I choose the respond to the quote above for now.

Being biased about something does not mean that you cannot tell the truth. Take for example the case of a robbery of a small store. The robber shoots and the wounds two employees, escapes, but is later apprehended. At the trial the employees who have recovered from their injuries are brought in to testify. Both of these witnesses are biased in that they want to see the perpetrator properly punished. So, being biased does not automatically mean that the testimony they give is not true.

The New Testament writers were certainly biased, but their bias was towards honesty and truth, not deceit. Their intention was to accurately record and testify to the events that they had seen. Remember, the disciples were followers of Jesus who taught them to love, to be kind, faithful, and honest. And this wasn't all. Jesus warned against hypocrisy (Matt. 6:1, and against bearing false witness (Matt. 19:18). The whole life of Jesus was based on integrity, character, faithfulness, truthfulness, love, and sacrifice. This is what the disciples learned from Jesus and this is what they taught in their writings. So, if they learned anything from Jesus it was to live in truth for this is exactly what Jesus said, "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. 18"As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19"And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," (John 17:17-19).
Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time. Yes, the disciple were biased. But to what? To lying? To exaggerating? Or were they biased towards the truth of who Jesus is and what He had done?
Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk the lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.

Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk the lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.

Of course its true. Of course it makes sense.

Its because it is a metaphor for the winter solstice.

Jesus was also a mushroom.

Not even! The gospels were most likely written by non-eyewitnesses years after Jesus' death!

Not the case. If you read the Gospels themselves, It's obvious that they were written by either eyewitness or were written down by an eyewitness' associates. As is the case for Luke and Mark. A couple of examples would be:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fullfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servant of the work" (Luke 1:1-2)

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter. 1:16)

"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was slready dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true". (John 19:33-35).

There are many more verses from many different people that give eyewitness testimony within the Bible.

You are just making an assertion when you state "Not Even". Others have made similar asssertions through out this thread as well. You must give evidence that the Gospels were not written by eyewitness. Through out this thread I have presented evidence. What evidence do you have that would indicate that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?

Now, I'm aware that someone will attempt to discredit the evidence I have presented. I would anticipate that. However, I'm willing to look at what is offered.

Hopefully this post reads OK...I'm tired :)

What evidence do you have that would indicate that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?

We don't need any!

You have no evidence proving your eyewitness accounts true. You have nothing that proves that someone couldn't have just made them up. Nothing proving that they are accurate.

If I were to tell you I am speaking the Word of God right now, would you believe me?

NO...Unlike the writters of the Gospel & Jesus Chirst; you have not yet shown credibility. No disrespect intended...:eek:

NO...Unlike the writters of the Gospel & Jesus Chirst; you have not yet shown credibility. No disrespect intended...:eek:

What credibility do they have which I lack?

Anyone can make claims. but, backing up those claims is entirely different. Jesus used the Divine Name for Himself (John 8:58), the same Divine Name used by God when Moses asked God what His name was in (Exodus 3:14). Jesus said that He could do whatever He saw God the Father do (John 5:19), and He claimed to be one with the God the Father (John 10:30; 10:38). Likewise, the disciples also called Him God (John 1:1,14; John 10:27; Col. 2:9). By default, if Jesus is God in flesh, then whatever He said and did would be true. Since Jesus said that He alone was the way, the truth, and the life and that no one can find God without Him (John 14:6), His words become incredibly important.

Again, making a claim is one thing. Backing it up is another. Did Jesus also back up His fantastic words with miraculous deeds? Yes, He did.

Jesus changed water into wine (John 2:6-10).
Jesus cast out demons (Matt. 8:28-32; 15:22-28).
Jesus healed lepers (Matt. 8:3; Luke 17:14).
Jesus healed diseases (Matt. 4:23,24; Luke 6:17-19)
Jesus healed the paralytic (Mark 2:3-12).
Jesus raised the dead (Matt. 9:25; John 11:43-44).
Jesus restored sight to the blind (Matt. 9:27-30; John 9:1-7).
Jesus restored cured deafness (Mark 7:32-35).
Jesus fed the multitude (Matt. 14:15-21; Matt. 15:32-38).
Jesus walked on water (Matt. 8:26-27).
Jesus calmed a storm with a command (Matt. 8:22-27; Mark 4:39).
Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:39; John 20:27).
Jesus appeared to disciples after resurrection (John 20:19).

The eyewitnesses recorded the miracles of Jesus and the gospels have been reliably transmitted to us. Therefore, we can believe what Jesus said about Himself for two reasons: One, because what He said and did, agrees with the Old Testament and two, because Jesus performed many convincing miracles in front of people who testified and wrote about what they saw Him do.

How are the claims backed up at all? Your claim and your support for that claim come from the same source! How do you know this source is credible? How do you know certain parts of the Bible aren't just bullshit?

Just because it might happen to mention a few structures which have be discovered though archeology, doesn't mean the whole fucking book is absolute truth. If it did, then this would be logical:

Steven King wrote a book called It. It is a monster which lives in the sewer. Hey, I've seen sewers ... that must mean It really exists!

Thats exactly what you are doing when you tell me those quotes from the fucking bible support claims made in the fucking bible.

* * *

Now, archaeologists have discovered Ancient Sumerian (the people who began the traditions and writing the passages creating the religion now known as Christianity) etching's showing people dancing with mushrooms. There are stained glass windows in churches with mushrooms hidden in corners, and thousands of other references in religious art. John Allegro was the only non-catholic/Christan or whatever on the team that began deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was also fired, when he was the only one who admitted the importance of mushrooms written in these scrolls.

Watch one of the many videos I have provided for you, and you will find yourself in a sea of information. It will still be questionable, of course. But the claims made in those video have much more support then the ones you are making.

Therefore, I believe Jesus is a magic mushroom. Jesus is the Sun.

Here, I'll create my own credibility the same way you think the Bible creates its own:

And then, as Obbe had said he would, Obbe spoke the Word of God. "What the fuck do you want?" (10616516#post10616516)

I can't respond to everything in your last post tonight, so I choose the respond to the quote above for now.

Fair enough. I haven't responded to all that I'd really like to since it really is a huge topic.

Being biased about something does not mean that you cannot tell the truth... So, being biased does not automatically mean that the testimony they give is not true.

Of course it doesn't mean that you can't tell the truth. However - as I pointed out before, it doesn't automatically make you truthful. Hypothetical scenario, one that REALLY tests the boundaries of their honesty: both people witnessed a crime and have motivation to want the person that committed it jailed. However, what they witnessed isn't enough to convict, and they know it. Can you guarantee their honesty?

The New Testament writers were certainly biased, but their bias was towards honesty and truth, not deceit.

"Bias towards honesty and truth is a garbage soundbite". By definition, bias indicates that you will overlook shortcomings or things that don't add up in what you believe in - something we've repeatedly seen from you, personally. Sure, you believe in something good and holy, but when confronted with the realities of it, you ignore them. That's not honest, or truthful... but I don't believe it's a deliberate lie on your part either. It's your belief, blinding you. Therein lies the problem.

Their intention was to accurately record and testify to the events that they had seen.

You're making the mistake of comparing what they were doing to a modern day news reporter. No. Absolutely not.
They, like you, are what Christians call witnesses. They don't report the things that would sow doubt or disbelief among their readers, because that would be counter to showing someone the greater glory of God. They see, and only see what they think God shows them.

But really, let's look at those individuals, shall we?
- Gospel of Matthew - Written by an anonymous Christian, according to biblical scholars.
- Gospel of Mark - Anonymously written, but ascribed to Mark the Evangelist.
- Gospel of Luke - Written by Luke as a companion of Paul, but unlike the previous gospels that account Jesus's miracles, it's an account of his teachings and parables.
- Gospel of John - Written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses according to Biblical scholars, and attributed to John the Apostle.
- Book of Revelations - Heavily debated, as "John of Patmos" may or may not be John the Apostle. Most important point - they don't know.

This could go on, but I think I've made the point sufficiently.

Remember, the disciples were followers of Jesus who taught them to love, to be kind, faithful, and honest. And this wasn't all.[quote]

And you know as well as I do that people do the wrong thing for the right reason. That Jesus may have been a good and decent man says NOTHING about his followers.
I can point you to any number of Jerry Falwell'esque pieces of garbage that prove that Christianity doesn't make you a good person.

[quote] Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time.

Damnit. I wish I could remember the source on this, because I remember watching a History Channel show on it. There were a LOT of gospels and books written about Jesus, and there was some library that burned down, containing a great number of them.

"Making of the Bible", I think it was called. Need to look it up. I'll get back to you on it.

Yes, the disciple were biased. But to what? To lying? To exaggerating? Or were they biased towards the truth of who Jesus is and what He had done?

I'm not talking about bias to an idea, I'm talking about bias to a belief. You can be the most honest person in the world, and as long as you believe the lie you're telling, it doesn't make you a liar, does it?

Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk the lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.

The same question can be applied to every single faith, and in your blind bias to your own, you can't see that. What about the miracles of Islam? Of Hinduism? Of any other faith? They have reason to lie?

The only ones who will believe the scandalous absurdity that is genuine Christianity are those who are convicted in their soul to believe. The concept of one that is Holy Holy Holy; possessing as attributes infinite love expressed as a revelation of identity: Righteousness, Faith, Mercy, Wrath, Compassion, Jealousy, and on. The concept that this Holy Holy Holy One who declares to those who ask its name, "I AM!" as if the knowledge of its being is all we need to know...the very concept that this tremendously powerful and completely Holy entity would humble itself needlessly and manifest itself in a miraculously born avatar of virgin origin, bear on His shoulders all the iniquities of the world, be put to shame for our sake by the very people He set aside as His, spend three days in the grave, and then rise of His own power for forty days before ascending to His place on the Throne of Heaven. These concepts are not believable. They are impossible. The INSANE cannot even believe these things. No process of thought or effort of the human will or mind will make faith in these things manifest: We who have been called to Christ believe in Christ only because we have been called to believe.

How can I say you are a fool for not believing when every effort of MY OWN thought and will says Christ is fiction? I believe only because I am convicted of, and called to the belief that Christ is Lord; bearing my transgressions and dying for them, and rising so that He may be Lord of the Dead and Living.

I did NOT choose Christ. I was not raised with Christ. I was 19 when He called me to Him, and contrary to every effort of my own, I am His. He chose to save me. I did nothing to earn it, nothing worthy of it. His Grace, for reasons I will never understand, fell upon me. For reasons I will never understand, it may not have fallen on you. I don't know your heart nor your soul, however, so how can I declare whether or not you are called?

NO...Unlike the writters of the Gospel & Jesus Chirst; you have not yet shown credibility. No disrespect intended...:eek:

Brother, if you have been called, I implore you to read Romans. What falls on deaf ears is no fault of the deaf man. The LORD makes us to hear or to be hardened; one vessel to display his righteousness and glory, another to display his wrath first and mercy second. To those who are hardened, Christ cannot be believed. Only by His call can any man be given faith through Grace. Speak the Word, but know that all ears are deaf except those which are opened by the Call.

"How long after the death of Jesus Christ were the Gospels written?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080626133721AAGAKzX

"How long after the death of Jesus Christ were the Gospels written?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080626133721AAGAKzX

Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 79. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.

The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.

Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.

We don't need any!

You have no evidence proving your eyewitness accounts true. You have nothing that proves that someone couldn't have just made them up. Nothing proving that they are accurate.


What about multiple eyewitnesses. According to the scripture, over 500 people saw Jesus Christ at the same time after his resurrection? Is it unreasonable to think that if multiple people saw the same thing that it could be true?

Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

What about multiple eyewitnesses. According to the scripture, over 500 people saw Jesus Christ at the same time after his resurrection? Is it unreasonable to think that if multiple people saw the same thing that it could be true?

Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

How do you know the scripture is right?

What about multiple eyewitnesses. According to the scripture, over 500 people saw Jesus Christ at the same time after his resurrection? Is it unreasonable to think that if multiple people saw the same thing that it could be true?

Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

It's reasonable to question the accuracy of your source. How do you know the scripture is accurate?

How do you know the scripture is right?

Fulfilled prophecy I believe is the best evidence in knowing that the scripture is right. An example would be prophecy about his birth; such as born of a virgin, born at bethleham etc... There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say. But only the Bible has fulled prophecies.


The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, "we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10 to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.

"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the157th power, or 1 in

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0.

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10 to the 79th power. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."

Fulfilled prophecy I believe is the best evidence in knowing that the scripture is right. An example would be prophecy about his birth; such as born of a virgin, born at bethleham etc... There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say. But only the Bible has fulled prophecies.

What prophecies does the Bible fulfill ... the ones made in the fucking Bible?

"This book is true. I know this, because in the book, it is written this book is true."

How do you know any of it is accurate? How do you know these prophecies were actually made, and someone named Jesus actually fulfilled them?

Know who else fulfilled prophecies? Krishna! Oh wait, they're the same anthropomorphized story ...

Fulfilled prophecy I believe is the best evidence in knowing that the scripture is right. An example would be prophecy about his birth; such as born of a virgin, born at bethleham etc... There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say. But only the Bible has fulled prophecies.


The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, "we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10 to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.

"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the157th power, or 1 in

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0.

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 10 to the 79th power. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident."

But the prophecies are fulfilled in the bible. How do we know the Bible is accurate?

What prophecies does the Bible fulfill ... the ones made in the fucking Bible?

"This book is true. I know this, because in the book, it is written this book is true."

How do you know any of it is accurate? How do you know these prophecies were actually made, and someone named Jesus actually fulfilled them?

Know who else fulfilled prophecies? Krishna! Oh wait, they're the same anthropomorphized story ...

I have not had a chance to view the videos that you have suggested and I will look at them. But for now, please tell me what prophecies Krishna fulfilled? Who where the witnesses of Krishna's fulfilled prophecies? When were they fulfilled what year etc...

Obviously you do not believe there is evidence of God or the Bible, If there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God?

Just Curious

You fucking idiot there is is no eye witness documentation about Jesus being even real the bible was written by people like hundreds of years after Jesus's death Fuck Jesus and fuck Christianity. One of the only religions that I know off that have actually documentation about there prophet being real is Muslims the Koran was writing during Mohammad life. The Bible wasn't

Obviously you do not believe there is evidence of God or the Bible, If there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God?

Just Curious

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, if there was proof there was a god, I would believe in he/she/it, there would be no reason not to.

You fucking idiot there is is no eye witness documentation about Jesus being even real the bible was written by people like hundreds of years after Jesus's death Fuck Jesus and fuck Christianity. One of the only religions that I know off that have actually documentation about there prophet being real is Muslims the Koran was writing during Mohammad life. The Bible wasn't

Your already incorrect in saying that I'm a " F...... idiot". I'm guessing the reason why you insult me is because you can't defend your postion. By the way, here is an insult for you:

Are you kidding you jello-headed-simpleton? Have you only recently started to think like a human being? I think not! Your research is atrocious. Your logic is pathetic. Your conclusions are vulgar and your character is only slightly better than a drunkard. Wait, I take that back. You have no character! You reek of banality and idiocy.

Now that is funny right there, I don't care who you are...

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, if there was proof there was a god, I would believe in he/she/it, there would be no reason not to.


I don't think I meant this for you. But since you responded. What kind of evidence would you require to believe? Thanks!

I don't think I meant this for you. But since you responded. What kind of evidence would you require to believe? Thanks!

It's hard to say what exactly. It would have to be something obvious or would make it obvious that a Judeo/Christian god was real and Jesus was the saviour of the Human race. It would have to be something personal, not someone telling me, "God can save you!", "God has helped me!", "I saw Jesus!". That is all I can say right now.

But for now, please tell me what prophecies Krishna fulfilled? Who where the witnesses of Krishna's fulfilled prophecies? When were they fulfilled what year etc...

I don't remember specifics, I do remember them being the exact ones Jesus did (one I remember is crushing the head of a serpent).

But see, what, who, and when don't really make a difference because just like the fucking Bible the prophecies are made and fulfilled in one fucking book. There is no reason to believe either are accurate.

The reason krishna and jesus are so similar is because they are the same story.

Obviously you do not believe there is evidence of God or the Bible, If there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God?

Just Curious

My presuppositions are not in opposition to the existence of God. I fucking believe in God. Just not the Christian God, or any organized religion for that matter.

If there was a way I could know it was the absolute truth? Sure! But there is no way.

My presuppositions are not in opposition to the existence of God. I fucking believe in God. Just not the Christian God, or any organized religion for that matter.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you believed in a god. Please help me understand the difference between the god you believe and the God of the Bible? Also, what evidence or reasons do you have for believing in your god. How do you know he is there? Do you pray to him or communicate in any way? Does he have a name? In addition to that, if you don't mind; what advantage or benefits (that might be a bad way of putting it) does your god offer you or anyone else v. the God of the Bible?

Thanks for your help!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you believed in a god.

Why does that change anything?

Please help me understand the difference between the god you believe and the God of the Bible?

Thats a lot of effort on my part and you will probably not understand.

So to quench your thirsty curiosity, I'll tell you that I believe God to be the infinite; the absolute; the oneness of all; the chaotic illogical; that which exists, etc.

If you are really curious, search it out on your own. You will understand God better through your own perception then you will understand though anyones attempt to explain God using their own understanding.

Also, what evidence or reasons do you have for believing in your god. How do you know he is there?

I believe in God, partly, because I believe that I cannot know anything.

Do you pray to him or communicate in any way?

Everything in life is communication with God.

Does he have a name?

Of course not. I call it God.

In addition to that, if you don't mind; what advantage or benefits (that might be a bad way of putting it) does your god offer you or anyone else v. the God of the Bible?

God offers the infinite.

You do not "benefit" from what God provides but you can from what you choose to do with it.

What prophecies does the Bible fulfill ... the ones made in the fucking Bible?

"This book is true. I know this, because in the book, it is written this book is true."

How do you know any of it is accurate? How do you know these prophecies were actually made, and someone named Jesus actually fulfilled them?

Know who else fulfilled prophecies? Krishna! Oh wait, they're the same anthropomorphized story ...

No Obbe, Krishna does not. Followers of Krishna are not met with world wide animosity because they believe in Krishna as their personal LORD. Krishna has not been spread to the four corners of the world. Krishna was not a Nazarene. Krishna committed murder. Krishna was not persecuted by the authority of his people, rather, he was welcomed into the royal court. Krishna established an earthly kingdom. Krishna was not preceded by a prophet crying, "Make straight the way of the LORD." Krishna ascended to heaven without ever having died.

The story of Krishna and Christ are nothing alike.

Addendum: The only prophecy about the birth of Krishna was that he would kill his uncle. Wow...sounds completely like the same anthropomorphic tale...

The story of Krishna and Christ are nothing alike.

When you get into the astrotheology behind the religions, you see they are quite alike.

Skip ahead to around 20 minutes of the first video I posted and watch the 10 or fifteen following minutes of film.

Here or some of the similarities between jesus and krishna:

The hero/savior has a humble birth in lowly conditions.

Born under a star in the East followed by three kings.

Father was a carpenter.

A tyrant slaughters thousands of infants trying to kill the newborn savior.

Was anointed with oil.

Crushed head of a serpent.

Healed the sick, raised the dead.

Performed miracles and taught in the temple.

He crucified between two thieves and the sun darkened at his death.

He rose from the dead in the sight of men.



Yes, Krishna did all these things according to my source. Yes, krishna was crucified (http://www.truthbeknown.com/kcrucified.htm).

Once you see how the story represents astrological movements and also all of the mushroom symbols used in both religions, it becomes pretty clear the two stories are about the same thing.

This (http://www.truthbeknown.com/spacecrucifixion.jpg)image may look like Jesus ... but it is actually and older drawing, of krishna/wittoba/vishnu. It is also symbolic of the mushroom.

This image may look like Jesus ... but it is actually and older drawing, of krishna/wittoba/vishnu. It is also symbolic of the mushroom.

Can you provide a source for the dating of this imagery? Can you also please provide source for dating of the Krishna legends which do include the following pieces missing from below:

The legend of Krishna precedes Christ by 500 years, but the legend of 500 years prior has nothing of crushing serpent heads, birth under a star, carpenter father (Krishna's father was the brother of royalty), anointing by a harlot, or crucifixion (especially between two thieves), or raising from the dead (in the original, Krishna was alive and meditating under a tree when he ascended).

It's hard to say what exactly. It would have to be something obvious or would make it obvious that a Judeo/Christian god was real and Jesus was the saviour of the Human race.

In light of your quote, could the resurrection of Jesus Christ fit this criteria? The main message of the Bible, is how a person may have eternal life. After Jesus appeared to the apostles, they understood what the resurrection ment. It changed their lives and they began to tell everyone what they have seen and wrote it down. Now, Jusus' resurrection didn't happen in our life time. But Alexander the Great didn't conquer the known world @ 33 years of age in our life time either. Yet we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving scientific methods and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet they will require it of Jesus' existence and resurrection. Doesn't that seem inconsistant?

In light of your quote, could the resurrection of Jesus Christ fit this criteria? The main message of the Bible, is how a person may have eternal life. After Jesus appeared to the apostles, they understood what the resurrection ment. It changed their lives and they began to tell everyone what they have seen and wrote it down. Now, Jusus' resurrection didn't happen in our life time. But Alexander the Great didn't conquer the known world @ 33 years of age in our life time either. Yet we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving scientific methods and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet they will require it of Jesus' existence and resurrection. Doesn't that seem inconsistant?

It would seem that way, but in the way of Alexander the Great, there were multiple sources from different people, or even cultures, telling the same story. While, with Jesus' resurrection, there is only one source, and it is a biased source. But, if Jesus were to resurrect, or have his second coming as it were, then that would be an extreme case of what would be an obvious, undeniable piece of evidence.

Can you provide a source for the dating of this imagery? Can you also please provide source for dating of the Krishna legends which do include the following pieces missing from below:

The legend of Krishna precedes Christ by 500 years, but the legend of 500 years prior has nothing of crushing serpent heads, birth under a star, carpenter father (Krishna's father was the brother of royalty), anointing by a harlot, or crucifixion (especially between two thieves), or raising from the dead (in the original, Krishna was alive and meditating under a tree when he ascended).

I think the image in the video is taken from a book called the Hindu Pantheon.

And I do think they are the same story. I think details change over time, and with language.

According to the link I posted in my last response, Krishna was shot with an arrow while against the tree (stabbed with a spear?). And that the word we have translated into 'tree', back then, was used to refer to a cross.

Then of course there are the numerous little idols and drawings of krisnha/vishnu/wittoba crucified found hidden all over india. Why are they crucified? Why are they hidden?

The accounts of the deaths of most of all virgin-born Saviours of whom we shall speak, are conflicting. It is stated in one place that such an one died in such a manner, and in another place we may find it stated altogether differently. Even the accounts of the death of Jesus are conflicting

The Vishnu Purana speaks of Crishna being shot in the foot with an arrow, and states that this was the cause of his death. Other accounts, however, state that he was suspended on a tree, or in other words, crucified.

The death of Crishna is very differently related. One remarkable and convincing tradition makes him perish on a tree, to which he was nailed by the stroke of an arrow.

Although we do not think he is justified in doing this, as M. Guigniaut has distinctly stated that this bois fatal (which is applied to a gibbet, a cross, a scaffold, etc.) was un arbre (a tree), yet, he is justified in doing so on other accounts, for we find that Crishna is represented hanging on a cross, and we know that a cross was frequently called the so cursed tree. It was an ancient custom to use trees as gibbets for crucifixion, or, if artificial, to call the cross a tree.

I am not saying you can read one version of both stories and that you will conclude they are the same. But I am saying that once you look past the surface and learn what these stories represent, then you see they are the same.

It would seem that way

Yes, it is that way because the skeptic often requires "proof" that God exists, or "absolute proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many skeptics, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus' resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is an impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can't apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Skeptics know this and that is why they require it; therefore, they are being unreasonable. Nevertheless, when the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the skeptic feels vindicated.

It would seem that way, but in the way of Alexander the Great, there were multiple sources from different people, or even cultures, telling the same story.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are many sources outside the Bible that mention Jesus, his resurrection and miracles. Also, they mention the growth of Christians throught their known world. In regards to the multiple sources about Alexander; it makes sence that there were multiple sources because he conquered many many parts of the world at the time. Jesus on the otherhand, was not a military leader and was not engaging in military war-fare. However, it is interesting that his message is almost world wide.

and it is a biased source

I think they were biased as well. Couldn't a person who is biased tell the truth?

But, if Jesus were to resurrect

According to his disciples, Jesus did resurrect. He has already provided extraordinary proof that he is God as the scripture teaches. There is no historical evidence that he did not resurrect; at least that has been presented to me. Lots of assertions from people like "the apostles were lying" but no testimonies from others living in that time indicating that they were lying.

or have his second coming as it were, then that would be an extreme case of what would be an obvious, undeniable piece of evidence

I agree that his second coming will be extreme evidence. When that happens as the Bible says, and you are still on this earth to see it; will you believe it or will you dismiss it away because of your presuppositions?

I think most people will dismiss it.

Yes, it is that way because the skeptic often requires "proof" that God exists, or "absolute proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many skeptics, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus' resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is an impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can't apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Skeptics know this and that is why they require it; therefore, they are being unreasonable. Nevertheless, when the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the skeptic feels vindicated.



As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are many sources outside the Bible that mention Jesus, his resurrection and miracles. Also, they mention the growth of Christians throught their known world. In regards to the multiple sources about Alexander; it makes sence that there were multiple sources because he conquered many many parts of the world at the time. Jesus on the otherhand, was not a military leader and was not engaging in military war-fare. However, it is interesting that his message is almost world wide.



I think they were biased as well. Couldn't a person who is biased tell the truth?



According to his disciples, Jesus did resurrect. He has already provided extraordinary proof that he is God as the scripture teaches. There is no historical evidence that he did not resurrect; at least that has been presented to me. Lots of assertions from people like "the apostles were lying" but no testimonies from others living in that time indicating that they were lying.



I agree that his second coming will be extreme evidence. When that happens as the Bible says, and you are still on this earth to see it; will you believe it or will you dismiss it away because of your presuppositions?

I think most people will dismiss it.

There were many sources that mention Jesus, I do not deny his existence. But these sources either do not mention his miracles, or were written by Christians. It's not that a biased person can't tell the truth, it's that a biased person is more willing to deny truth for what they would like to be true. Jesus resurrected, according to his disciples. Don't you think his disciples would be more likely to believe he resurrected? It's not that they would intentionally lie to people, it's that they might believe something is true, when it isn't. A little kid will sometimes answer a math problem wrong, that doesn't make him a liar, it just makes him wrong.

/QUOTE]

It's been verified the Bible was edited in the 400's? How is that an accurate eyewitness account?


Who edited it, what was edited and who verified that the Bible was edited? Just saying so, does not mean that it happened. :)[/QUOTE]

two words,

King James.

Who edited it, what was edited and who verified that the Bible was edited? Just saying so, does not mean that it happened. :)

two words,

King James.[/QUOTE]

King James I of England commissioned an English translation of the Bible, he did not edit the Bible. For the next 400 years the King James Version, which was commissioned in 1604 and completed in 1611, became the most cherished Bible in the English speaking world. It's important to recognize that the translators themselves were the leading academicians of prestigious institutions like Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster.

But these sources either do not mention his miracles, or were written by Christians.

Josephus does mention "surprising feats" that Jesus did. The mention is called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64) Josephus was not a Christian.

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”

Don't you think his disciples would be more likely to believe he resurrected? It's not that they would intentionally lie to people, it's that they might believe something is true, when it isn't.

I do think his desciples would be more likely to believe because they were eyewitnesses. I would be more likely to believe they could be wrong if they were only witness to one event. However, they were witnesses to many miracles that took place. Also, when reading about these miracles, there were many witnesses that had seen these miracles as well. Furthermore, these miracles happened to people such as; healing of the blind man and the person who was healed of leprosy. These people are also witnesses.

All religions pretty much have the "This is why we are right and others are false" built into the religious meme itself.

Whichever mind virus gets to you first, is the one you will probably be stuck with. Picture the virus inside your mind designed to fight off all other memes that threaten it, including other religions.

It would be a safe bet to assume if you take 10 random people from the United States, 10 random people from Iran, and 10 random people from france, what the majority of each of those 10 believe.

In the end it has little to do with, which message is better, which seems to have more truth, which is better for you, your family and your country. It has to do with the culture you were raised in.

In conclusion, for most, the answer to the OP's question "Why Believe in Christianity over all other religions?" comes down to this:

Geographical location and/or the first meme I was infected with told me X was better.

If you are a believer, I wouldn't expect you to grasp this, or even acknowledge what you posses to be a meme instead of faith, b/c being a religious person means you are likely not firing on all cylinders.

Josephus does mention "surprising feats" that Jesus did. The mention is called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64) Josephus was not a Christian.

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”



I do think his desciples would be more likely to believe because they were eyewitnesses. I would be more likely to believe they could be wrong if they were only witness to one event. However, they were witnesses to many miracles that took place. Also, when reading about these miracles, there were many witnesses that had seen these miracles as well. Furthermore, these miracles happened to people such as; healing of the blind man and the person who was healed of leprosy. These people are also witnesses.

Josephus was a jewish historian, and lived around the same time as Jesus when Christianity wasn't even founded yet.

What makes the numeracy more credible? I can say that I have witnessed my brother heal the blind, walk on water and turn water into wine. My neighbor could write a book that mentions these things. Is it true?

Josephus does mention "surprising feats" that Jesus did. The mention is called the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64) Josephus was not a Christian.

The one paragraph concerning what Josephus (a follower of judaism) apparently felt was the savior of mankind (which would have made him christian), has long been thought and mountains of evidence indicate it was a forgery made around the 14th century, for various reasons.

I won't list them, I will simply give you the resource on the man who 'wrote' what most consider a bullshit paragraph, written by bullshit priests, of a bullshit religion, in an effort to bullshit everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_against_authenticity

What makes the numeracy more credible?

Well, here is an example from my career field. Most of the time, if someone calls 911 because they see smoke coming from a building, in most cases the building is not on fire. However, when we get multiple reports(calls) of smoke coming from a building; usually, it's a working structure fire. Multiple eyewitnesses to the smoke coming from the building is a very reliable indication that something is on fire. This removes any doubt that the building is on fire. Therefore, a full fire response is sent based on the multiple calls recieved.

The same principle applies to the multiple eyewitnesses in the Bible. Do you believe that all of the eyewitness are wrong? If so, what evidence is there that they are wrong? Why couldn't they be correct in their testimony? In 1 Cor. 15: 3-8 the apostle Paul states.

"... that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5) and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6) After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8) and last of all he appeared to me also..."

Did you notice that Paul states to the Corinthians that "most of whom (eyewitnesses) are still living"? This indicates that his letter to the Corinthians has been written early instead of late. Obviously this was not written hundreds of years later or else all the witnesses would be dead.

But the difference is that you can go and see that it is a fire. It could, for all you know from over the phone, just be a bonfire that is out of sight, maybe a small, unnoticed chimney, or someone could be playing a prank, getting groups of people to call, or faking a fire. I could also say that The Great Land Spirit appeared before me. All you would have to go on is my testimony. There would be no proof for why I would be wrong.

I could also say that The Great Land Spirit appeared before me. All you would have to go on is my testimony. There would be no proof for why I would be wrong.



You are correct. However, if over 500 people said they saw "The Great Land Spirit" that would surely increase the credibility of your testimony. Especially if they were all able to describe the same thing with accuracy etc... Also, the appearences of Christ involved them speaking, eating and walking with him. Not just a passing glimps. This happened multiple times over a period of many days. Hardly a flash in the pan.

btw...have you ever read the Gospels?

You are correct. However, if over 500 people said they saw "The Great Land Spirit" that would surely increase the credibility of your testimony. Especially if they were all able to describe the same thing with accuracy etc... Also, the appearences of Christ involved them speaking, eating and walking with him. Not just a passing glimps. This happened multiple times over a period of many days. Hardly a flash in the pan.

btw...have you ever read the Gospels?

I know and recognize that he existed. It would not be a great increase in our testimony if all 500 of us were in constant contact. The appearances involved them eating, speaking, and walking with him separately. In other words, people who knew what he looked like saw him and did different things. This means they could have imagined it. The shock of the person who they believed to be their savior dieing could lead them to ultimately deny the event of his death and imagine that he has returned.

I know and recognize that he existed. It would not be a great increase in our testimony if all 500 of us were in constant contact. The appearances involved them eating, speaking, and walking with him separately. In other words, people who knew what he looked like saw him and did different things. This means they could have imagined it. The shock of the person who they believed to be their savior dieing could lead them to ultimately deny the event of his death and imagine that he has returned.


Have you ever read the Gospels. Or any part of the Bible for that matter. If so, how long ago?

Have you ever read the Gospels. Or any part of the Bible for that matter. If so, how long ago?

I've read them when i was younger.

This means they could have imagined it.

I could buy into the fact that one person could have imagined it. But not over 500 people. Especially when he was seen several different times and places.


I've read them when i was younger.

Would you be willing to read the book of John in the New Testiment? It would only take about an hour of your time. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts after you have read John. Especially, the events of the resurrection etc... In fact, you could read it @ biblegateway.com. Also, I would recommend the New American Standard Verson.

Only in Christianity do we have the person of Christ who claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove His claim of divinity, who died and rose from the dead, and who said that He alone was the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). The way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). It could not be that Jesus is the only way and truth and other religions also be the truth.

Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options.

Your line of logic is limited.

Think about it, Jesus calls us his Brothers and Sisters. So we spiritually are of the same nature as he. Now keep this in mind, Jesus also says:

"For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." - Matthew 12:50

So, do you think God (the one who is infinite) is so limited as to have but one religion do the work of God? No, everyone does the will of the father regardless if they are aware of it or not. Keep in mind Muhammad did the will of the father, So with Moses and Abraham. Those who seek Spirit will find God, that is the will of the father, to seek the spirit, spiritual evolution, not some static "whatever." Judaism has some truth to it, Christianity has truth to it, Islam has truth to it because they associate the Jewish Figures and Christ with their religion as well.

Also, Christianity is founded by Pagan and Jewish thought. So Hermeticism, The Western Mysteries, Greek Philosophy, Egyptian Spiritual thought all of these things play into Christianity. To say no, would mean you are ignorant and need to do more research. The Cross is not a Christian symbol it has been used since before the Advent of Christianity. Christ is not a real person, but a metaphor, the bible is a spiritual book and The Christos is a spiritual entity born into the physical by way of incarnation (or spiritual adoption) into Jesus of Nazareth.

I could buy into the fact that one person could have imagined it. But not over 500 people. Especially when he was seen several different times and places.




Would you be willing to read the book of John in the New Testiment? It would only take about an hour of your time. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts after you have read John. Especially, the events of the resurrection etc... In fact, you could read it @ biblegateway.com. Also, I would recommend the New American Standard Verson.

Several hundred people still see Elvis walking around at different times and places. These 500 people knew Jesus and believed that he was their savior. When he died, it would be a shocking event. It isn't a huge feat for them to imagine that he would appear before them.

Sure, I'll start as soon as I can.

Several hundred people still see Elvis walking around at different times and places. These 500 people knew Jesus and believed that he was their savior. When he died, it would be a shocking event. It isn't a huge feat for them to imagine that he would appear before them.

Sure, I'll start as soon as I can.

To my knowledge, these sightings of Elvis have been by one person at a time. Again, one person can have hallucinations, not mutlple people having the same hallucination at the same time. Also, these people who have "seen" Elvis did not claim to have spoken, eaten, walked with or touched him.

To my knowledge, these sightings of Elvis have been by one person at a time. Again, one person can have hallucinations, not mutlple people having the same hallucination at the same time. Also, these people who have "seen" Elvis did not claim to have spoken, eaten, walked with or touched him.

As to my knowledge, the sightings of Jesus didn't happen to multiple people at the same time in the same place with the same sighting. Different things happened to different people. There have been people who have "seen" Elvis and "talked" with him. Also, imagining that you are talking, eating, walking with some one is possible. Little kids eat, talk, and walk with imaginary friends.

As to my knowledge, the sightings of Jesus didn't happen to multiple people at the same time in the same place with the same sighting. Different things happened to different people.

According to the scripture the appearances of Jesus did happen to multiple people etc... read John starting @ Chpt. 20 etc... Also, read the other Gospels - Mathew, Mark and Luke. For more information read the book of Acts as well.

There have been people who have "seen" Elvis and "talked" with him. Also, imagining that you are talking, eating, walking with some one is possible. Little kids eat, talk, and walk with imaginary friends.

Agreed. However the appearances of Jesus are very different.

^A little something for some of y'all to consider:

"Jejune and barren speculations may unfold the plicatures of Truth's garment, but they cannot discover her lovely face." -- John Smith, the Platonist

Your line of logic is limited.

Think about it, Jesus calls us his Brothers and Sisters. So we spiritually are of the same nature as he.

We are not the same nature of Jesus. Phllipians 2: 5 states we are to have the same attitude as Jesus who being the very nature God. If we were spiritually the same nature as he, then we would already have the same attitude. But since we are to have the same attitude, this implies that we don’t have the same attitude. Thus, we do not have the same nature as Jesus. Furthermore, if we as humans have the same nature of Jesus, we would not be able to tell a lie. In Hebrews 6: 8 it states that God is unable to lie. If we had the same nature as Jesus we would not be able to lie. A person can’t violate his own nature, because that is who a person is. The Bible is clear that man has a sinful nature. Eph. 2:3 states “…gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts…” God does not have a sinful nature. God's nature and our nature are two different natures.

So, do you think God (the one who is infinite) is so limited as to have but one religion do the work of God?

No, I don’t believe God is so limited. However, God is not a God of confusion (1Cor. 14:33). Religions that contradict each other cannot be true. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true regardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim.

Keep in mind Muhammad did the will of the father

When did Muhammad do the will of the father? Are your talking about Allah, who is not the same God of the Bible? Allah and the God of the Bible contradict each other so they cannot be the same.

Also, Christianity is founded by Pagan and Jewish thought. So Hermeticism, The Western Mysteries, Greek Philosophy, Egyptian Spiritual thought all of these things play into Christianity. To say no, would mean you are ignorant and need to do more research.

Please show me your research.

Christ is not a real person, but a metaphor, the bible is a spiritual book and The Christos is a spiritual entity born into the physical by way of incarnation (or spiritual adoption) into Jesus of Nazareth.

Wrong...this is an assertion. There are eyewitnesses to the person of Christ and non-biblical writtings that make reference to the person of Christ etc... What evidence do you have to make such an assertion? Just because you state "Christ is not a real person" does not make it so.

Wrong...this is an assertion. There are eyewitnesses to the person of Christ and non-biblical writtings that make reference to the person of Christ etc... What evidence do you have to make such an assertion? Just because you state "Christ is not a real person" does not make it so.

There are not eyewitnesses to the person of Christ, that are alive. There are stories of other people (who may or may not have existed) who suggest they were eyewitnesses, and these exist in the bible.

Most all accounts of Jesus Christ come from the bible.

The bible cannot be sourced as evidence, any more than Harry Potter can be sourced as actual evidence of a hidden wizard school called Hogswarts.

The highly disputed Josephus was the only historian at the time who mentioned him by name, and has largely been considered a fraudulant entry into his records for quite some time now for numerous reasons.

----

Just b/c you state Christ was a real person, does not make it so. Just b/c you wave the bible and tell us all he is real b/c it told you so, does not make it so.

Much like the boogeyman, bigfoot, santa claus, the tooth fairy, the loch ness monster, and the ghost of elvis, I will not believe in Jesus without actual evidence no matter how good it makes me feel to think I will live forever in paradise with all my dead relatives when I die (though that is one hell of a warm fuzzy) or no matter how frightened I become at the thought of my eternal soul burning forever in a hellish nightmare.

There are not eyewitnesses to the person of Christ, that are alive. There are stories of other people (who may or may not have existed) who suggest they were eyewitnesses, and these exist in the bible.


Agreed...there are no living eyewitnesses to the person of Christ today. I didn't mean to imply that there were. Never the less, these eyewitnesses did exist. These men have been written about in other ancient writings from people such as Polycarp, Ignatius & Clement of Rome. Polycarp & Ignatius were disciples of the Apostle Paul. Clement met with Paul and Luke in the city of Phillipi in AD 57.

Most all accounts of Jesus Christ come from the bible.

The bible cannot be sourced as evidence, any more than Harry Potter can be sourced as actual evidence of a hidden wizard school called Hogswarts

Why not? The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not if some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.
Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people named Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts accurately.
Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea proving it existed. Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet of people who had been crucified have been uncovered demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).
There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

The author of the Harry Potter series claims that her writtings are fictional. That in itself disqualifies the Harry Potter books as evidence of anything real.

Just b/c you state Christ was a real person, does not make it so. Just b/c you wave the bible and tell us all he is real b/c it told you so, does not make it so.

Much like the boogeyman, bigfoot, santa claus, the tooth fairy, the loch ness monster, and the ghost of elvis, I will not believe in Jesus without actual evidence no matter how good it makes me feel to think I will live forever in paradise with all my dead relatives when I die (though that is one hell of a warm fuzzy) or no matter how frightened I become at the thought of my eternal soul burning forever in a hellish nightmare.

True...you must look at the evidence. However, I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.

The one thing I have come to realize is this; with all the evidence that is out there I have reasonable faith to believe that the God of the Bible is real etc... You on the other hand has to have blind faith to believe that God is not real.:)

King James I of England commissioned an English translation of the Bible, he did not edit the Bible. For the next 400 years the King James Version, which was commissioned in 1604 and completed in 1611, became the most cherished Bible in the English speaking world. It's important to recognize that the translators themselves were the leading academicians of prestigious institutions like Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster.

Three words

Lost in Translation

and a bonus just for you

Corruption

When did Muhammad do the will of the father? Are your talking about Allah, who is not the same God of the Bible? Allah and the God of the Bible contradict each other so they cannot be the same.





ok now im certain you're an idiot.

Allah of the Quran and God of the Bible ARE THE SAME GOD
just like Protestants and Catholics have the same God but differ to as what the God preaches

islam judaism christianity are all known as the Abrahamic Religions, they have one God in common in all three, the god of Abraham Who does not exist, because if he did he would of united the religions a long time ago. if he was benevolent he would not want to see religious wars of all his people, if he was omnipotent he would have the power to stop the bickering. if he was omniscient he would of handed down his religion in the way as to not have all this division.

go back under your bridge, no one can be this stupid...Oh wait, bible-thumping christians...

ok now im certain you're an idiot.

Allah of the Quran and God of the Bible ARE THE SAME GOD
just like Protestants and Catholics have the same God but differ to as what the God preaches

islam judaism christianity are all known as the Abrahamic Religions, they have one God in common in all three, the god of Abraham Who does not exist, because if he did he would of united the religions a long time ago. if he was benevolent he would not want to see religious wars of all his people, if he was omnipotent he would have the power to stop the bickering. if he was omniscient he would of handed down his religion in the way as to not have all this division.

go back under your bridge, no one can be this stupid...Oh wait, bible-thumping christians...

OK... pwntbypancakes you are obviously a little slow! Just calling me an idiot does not make me an idiot. So here is your chance to prove it. Explain to me why the God of the Bible and Allah are the same God. Your quote above has failed to explain why they are the same God. Then I will explain to you why they are different.

I will also address the Protestant/Catholic comment as well.

Three words

Lost in Translation

and a bonus just for you

Corruption

What was lost and what corruption?

I think Christianity is true because there have actually been true examples of miracles.

One such miracle was that the wine at a mass symbolizing the blood of christ, at one mass actually turned into real human blood, and tests were rune that proved that it actually was human blood. It was also found that the blood was way too old for anyone to have been able to get it and switch it with the wine. When the blood dried , the clumps were put on a scale, and it was like 10 ounces or something, and then it was taken off and then one little piece was put on the scale and it still read 10 ounces

Buddha can kiss my ass

OK... pwntbypancakes you are obviously a little slow! Just calling me an idiot does not make me an idiot. So here is your chance to prove it. Explain to me why the God of the Bible and Allah are the same God. Your quote above has failed to explain why they are the same God. Then I will explain to you why they are different.

I will also address the Protestant/Catholic comment as well.

me a little slow? you're the one that cant read, i told you why, they all follow the god of Abraham, all three religions are based on that god. abraham was in islam "ibrahim" as well as in the old testament(judaism, and therefore christianity)

what followers of any of those 3 religions dont realize is they all have the same God, just practice what he preaches differently, proving my point, you're an idiot. funny how i know more about your religion than you do. and i'm an athiest.

I just had an epiphany of the cycle of what happens in this forum. people come to totse as believers, some more fundamental than others. And eventually after years of hearing approaches from others and obtaining a more objective worldwide view that isnt self centered in their own faith-bubble they begin to doubt, after the doubt begins, questioning begins. The acolyte then becomes more critical as his critical thinking skills increase by critiquing others faiths. The doubt of his own faith causes him to begin looking at his own faith more critically finding more and more flaws. Coupled by the older members sharing their own beliefs developed through critical logic, and not blind faith. The acolyte slowly begins to lose faith as he becomes a more rational critical person.

i came as a muslim but i had already realized realized my faith was on a shakey logical base so my transition was a little easier and quicker than most.

my advice? don't fight it. dont be so defensive, dont get emotionally involved(i know its hard realizing you're whole childhood you were lied to, all that time you wasted in bible school), think about the idea, not the person saying it. , learn to think for your self. Give up any allegiances to outside things that have nothing to do with you and only have an allegiance to your self(which includes friends family, things you WANT to believe in)

We are not the same nature of Jesus. Philippians 2: 5 states we are to have the same attitude as Jesus who being the very nature God. If we were spiritually the same nature as he, then we would already have the same attitude. But since we are to have the same attitude, this implies that we don’t have the same attitude. Thus, we do not have the same nature as Jesus. Furthermore, if we as humans have the same nature of Jesus, we would not be able to tell a lie. In Hebrews 6: 8 it states that God is unable to lie. If we had the same nature as Jesus we would not be able to lie. A person can’t violate his own nature, because that is who a person is. The Bible is clear that man has a sinful nature. Eph. 2:3 states “…gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts…” God does not have a sinful nature. God's nature and our nature are two different natures.

I tend to look to Christ when it comes to truth, not the Pauline Letters (AS MUCH) because, Paul is lying down dogma not necessarily spiritual truth a great portion of the time.

> "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)

Now the only reason why he would say that is because it is already within us. Outside we are body and soul but inside we are spirit we are his brother and sister. We are Children of God. Now think would you? A child INHERITS what belongs to the Father. A Child is the Offspring of The Father. We are not animals in the eyes of God, we have a divine nature being created in the image and likeness of God. That image and likeness is not a physical rendition but a spiritual rendition. We have The All within us even if we are NOT THE ALL in All. We are a microcosm of the greater macrocosm that is what we call God.

> (Luke 16: 11-42): "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate."

The Story of the Prodigal Son should be a clear example. We had our home in the Father's Estate (The Kingdom) that is where we grew up that is where we were born. But because we are in a foreign land (the world) we have squandered our wealth for wild living and extravagance but when bad times occur that is when we realize God is more important than me materialistic desires and what not. We seek to return where we come from, our root. Our essence is in the Divine, not in the dirt. That is the way with our body but not our Spirit.

No, I don’t believe God is so limited. However, God is not a God of confusion (1Cor. 14:33). Religions that contradict each other cannot be true. Mormonism teaches that there are many gods in existence and that you can become a god. Christianity teaches that there is only one God and you cannot become a god. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God in flesh where Christianity does. Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time. Some religions teach that we reincarnate while others do not. Some teach there is a hell and others do not. They cannot all be true. If they cannot all be true, it cannot be true that all religions lead to God. Furthermore, it means that some religions are, at the very least, false in their claims to reveal the true God (or gods). Remember, truth does not contradict itself. If God exists, He will not institute mutually exclusive and contradictory belief systems in an attempt to get people to believe in Him. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there can be an absolute spiritual truth and that not all systems can be true regardless of whether or not they claim to be true. There must be more than a mere claim.

If you want to look at confusion and contradiction just look at the Bible. Who says contradiction and paradoxes are "bad?" Dont you know what Jesus said to us: "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."(Matthew 16:25)

That is a contradiction if I have ever heard one. The Bible itself is meant to be contradicting, and so it is with other Spiritual Paths. Contradiction and Paradoxes are part of the divine. We can spend a whole other thread discussing the contradictions so just because things contradict does not mean it is wrong. It is a mystery and it needs to be experienced not analyzed in a objective way.

And your running on the pre-dominate Christian tradition being true, but how do you know if it is than? What if the preacher of "No Hell" is right? You cant just wave the Bible and say "it is written" that is why people are spiritual seekers and why their is so much debate in religious realm today we don't simply take it as a given thing, we should explore, in fact the spirit is unconfined and because it is unconfined we have the ability to take from all religions and be inclusive. Seekers will not let fear or deceit determine their faith or their spiritual standings, only love and willpower will determine how much you understand.

Now i can go around quoting here and than you give me a counter quote there, this only proves contradictory behavior even within Christianity. So keep in mind their is always more: "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known."(Matthew 10:26)

When did Muhammad do the will of the father? Are your talking about Allah, who is not the same God of the Bible? Allah and the God of the Bible contradict each other so they cannot be the same.

God of the Bible (Both old and New) do not contradict The Koran Allah. They have variations. But their are things that both the Islamic Allah have in common with the Judeo-Christian God. You need to understand that the infinitude of The One is all encompassing and we need to understand that all religious understandings posses a certain degree of truth as well as its own shortfalls. I mean really I see more morally obligated Muslims than I do see Christians. However, those Muslims who are not morally obligated I see as particularly more dangerous than a non-morally obligated Christian. They're are very few Spiritually driven Christians and more religiously driven Christians so it tells me most Christians are obsessed with form more so than substance.

Please show me your research.

Well for starters why not look into how influenced the Early Church Fathers were influenced by (Neo)Platonic thought. From their trace the history of Platonism to the teacher and the teachers teacher and you will see that it all ends up in Egypt and the Middle East. Am I saying I am a pagan? No, and besides that name is derogatory... I am a Christian a Christian with a different view than the orthodoxy that has been believed to be true. Pagan ideas have really influenced Christian Dogma, including Biblical Christianity.

Clement of Alexandria -> He used the term "gnostic" for Christians who had attained the deeper teaching of the Logos.[1] He developed a Christian Platonism.[2] He presented the goal of Christian life as deification, identified both as Platonism's assimilation into God and the biblical imitation of God. Like Origen, he arose from Alexandria's Catechetical School and was well versed in pagan literature.[2] Origen succeeded Clement as head of the school. Alexandria had a major Christian community in early Christianity, noted for its scholarship and its high-quality copies of Scripture. Clement is counted as one of the early Church Fathers.

Origen -> According to tradition, he is held to have been an Egyptian who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School of Alexandria where Clement of Alexandria had taught. The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch's permission. He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there after being tortured during a persecution. He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God.

Augustine of Hippo -> Augustine, a Latin church father, is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. Augustine was heavily influenced by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus.

Wrong...this is an assertion. There are eyewitnesses to the person of Christ and non-biblical writings that make reference to the person of Christ etc... What evidence do you have to make such an assertion? Just because you state "Christ is not a real person" does not make it so.

Your closed minded... I feel like Bill Maher in that movie he made... always wrong in the eyes of religious orthodoxy. If you cant understand however, Matthew was not written by Matthew and that the Gospels where not written by the Apostles named after their respective Gospel than I find you to be ignorant and tell you to do more research, these Gospels where written quite some time AFTER Christ was Crucified.

On top of that even the early church fathers said that The Story of the New Testament is from earlier mythologies. For example, It was not until 354 A.D. that the Church chose December 25th as the anniversary of the birthday of Christ. Rome was then the leading Church; and why Rome hesitated so long, and why in the middle of the fourth century (when it was, with imperial aid, trying to bring in the whole Roman Empire) it had to choose December 25th? December 25th in Pagan folklore represented "The Birthday of the Unconquered Sun", and put it right in the middle of the feast of Saturnalia. (Saturnalia lasted a week.) This was always a time of great merry making there were big dinners, halls bedecked with laurels and green trees, people carrying lighted candles through the streets, and the giving of gifts was a common practice. In fact, you might say that the Christmas spirit is really the spirit of Saturnalia passed on over time. Christ is the story of Osiris invoked as Sol or Sun => Son.

Your already incorrect in saying that I'm a " F...... idiot". I'm guessing the reason why you insult me is because you can't defend your postion. By the way, here is an insult for you:

Are you kidding you jello-headed-simpleton? Have you only recently started to think like a human being? I think not! Your research is atrocious. Your logic is pathetic. Your conclusions are vulgar and your character is only slightly better than a drunkard. Wait, I take that back. You have no character! You reek of banality and idiocy.

Now that is funny right there, I don't care who you are...

Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).:D

Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).:D

LOL, that is priceless looks like that guy may just be a self-righteous fundie.

people come to totse as believers, some more fundamental than others. And eventually after years of hearing approaches from others and obtaining a more objective worldwide view that isnt self centered in their own faith-bubble they begin to doubt, after the doubt begins, questioning begins. The acolyte then becomes more critical as his critical thinking skills increase by critiquing others faiths. The doubt of his own faith causes him to begin looking at his own faith more critically finding more and more flaws. Coupled by the older members sharing their own beliefs developed through critical logic, and not blind faith. The acolyte slowly begins to lose faith as he becomes a more rational critical person.


If I could just add something to this for the theistic thinkers:

When you come to Totse Religious Forum or any forum really you start out like with an immature "my view only" worldview but as you get older and as you talk more on this forum in particular. Your worldview makes compromises and comes to deeper understanding. Because we all come here looking for an argument we all need to present our claims with its evidence. This helps release BLIND Faith and allows us to put our true faith into greater focus with our ability to use Reason. From this point you are led to a fork in the road where you need to make a decisions:

1. Give Up On Your Faith - Become an atheist who no longer believes and does not bother to try to find out or gather understanding.

2. Look Around / Go Deeper into Your Religion - Be more devout in your worldview and work to gain further understanding in any and all aspects of the Spiritual. Perhaps going deeper seeking to be transformed, seeking change, seeking God.

I would say a third option but that would be revert back to blind faith but, I have not seen anyone yet who reverts back to blind faith to prove the existence of the spiritual side of things. Me I have chosen the 2nd Path because, blind faith is childish, it is what keeps people down from maturing both spiritually and mentally. Explore, the spirit is free and you are of the spirit, be free to explore.

your stupid. there is no proof that jesus, or any of these other people even existed back then.

how can you prove that jesus was even a real person? much less the son of god. not to mention all the stories/traditions in the bible are rip-offs of previous religions.

if jesus was real, he was a jew...so fuck him ;)

(edit) on second thought, jesus was probably a nigger, because he didn't know who his father was.

your stupid. there is no proof that jesus, or any of these other people even existed back then.

how can you prove that jesus was even a real person? much less the son of god. not to mention all the stories/traditions in the bible are rip-offs of previous religions.

if jesus was real, he was a jew...so fuck him ;)

(edit) on second thought, jesus was probably a nigger, because he didn't know who his father was.

I'm curious to know if anyone has ever presented to you evidence for the existence of Jesus? If so, what was that evidence?


btw...I'm not stupid. However, since you hurled the first insult, I have an insult for you LOL: You are such an inane moron that even my slobbering lazy dog could give better arguments than what you’ve carelessly slopped onto your idiotic post. Aren't you embarrassed to breathe? :D

I'm curious to know if anyone has ever presented to you evidence for the existence of Jesus? If so, what was that evidence?


btw...I'm not stupid. However, since you hurled the first insult, I have an insult for you LOL: You are such an inane moron that even my slobbering lazy dog could give better arguments than what you’ve carelessly slopped onto your idiotic post. Aren't you embarrassed to breathe? :D

you can believe whatever you like. what i meant is that you cant even prove someone existed that long ago, but you believe he performed miracles because it's in some old book? i see david blane do "miracles" not just read about him doing them, but i dont even believe he has any "powers" that i dont have myself. however, i would believe him to be the son of god if he claimed to be before i believed that someone who i dont even know existed was the son of god.

what followers of any of those 3 religions dont realize is they all have the same God, just practice what he preaches differently, proving my point, you're an idiot. funny how i know more about your religion than you do. and i'm an athiest.[/

Wrong….it’s not a matter of practicing what he preaches, the problem is that the message that is preached is different. So, how then can they be the same God and give a different message on important subjects such as how to get to heaven etc…The message that the God of the Bible teaches on how to get to heaven contradicts the message of Allah on how to get to heaven. The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. 1 Cor. 14:33 states “for God is not a God of confusion but of peace…”

The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the God of Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is this true?

Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the case?

The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin. James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)

Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:

Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little. S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan

And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54

Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S. 7:99 Pickthall

Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30

And when We make people taste of mercy after an affliction touches them, lo! they devise schemes (makrun) against Our communication. Say: Allah is quicker to scheme (makran); surely Our apostles write down what you plan. S. 10:21

And those before them did indeed scheme (makara), but all scheming (al-makru) is Allah's; He knows what every soul earns, and the unbelievers shall come to know for whom is the (better) issue of the abode. S. 13:42

So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not. S. 27:50

The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver, one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.

This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by Muslim theologians as well.

For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York Press, Albany], p. 165)

After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)

Moreover, here is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad interpreted Q. 8:30:

Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)

In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah adopts in devising evil:

Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43

Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.

And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16

Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.

They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14

Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their work.

Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157

According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,

"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."

And,

"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186

"If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.’" S. 11:118-119

Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim tradition:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:

Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422

To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.

A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:

"O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived." King James Version

Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity as a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James translates as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars see it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break, smash, crush." (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments, p. 232)

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some of which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief (#7451 of the Hebrew Dictionary Section).

Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in sin and a refusal to come into repentance.

The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is pathath. Strong's lists it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following meanings; allure, enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. In light of the wide range of meanings, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant that God was actually deceiving him.

In fact the context itself shows that the word can only mean "persuade" since Jeremiah is complaining that God is persuading him to continue his ministry, even though he doesn't want to:

"O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
YOU ARE STRONGER THAN I, AND HAVE PREVAILED.
I am in derision daily;
Everyone mocks me.
For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, ‘Violence and plunder!’
Because the word of the LORD was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, ‘I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.’
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not." Jeremiah 20:8-9 NKJV

God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.

Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel 20:25 where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly suggests that God is the author of evil.

The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own desires (all of chapter 20).

Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to embrace the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that they might continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring upon them the judgement that they deserve for their evil (c.f. Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as accurately reflected in the New King James Version:

"Therefore, I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgements by which they could not live."

Yet, the Arabic makara does not allow for other possible meanings. And the Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin to fulfill his will.

you can believe whatever you like. what i meant is that you cant even prove someone existed that long ago, but you believe he performed miracles because it's in some old book? i see david blane do "miracles" not just read about him doing them, but i dont even believe he has any "powers" that i dont have myself. however, i would believe him to be the son of god if he claimed to be before i believed that someone who i dont even know existed was the son of god.

There is evidence that obviously points toward the existance of Jesus that come from sources outside the bible as well. However, I can no more prove to you that Jesus is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem.

There is a big difference between the "Acts of Illusion" that Blane has done v. the miracles of Jesus. The miracles happend to real people according to the eyewitness. Such as the blind can see and the lame can now walk etc... Blanes illusions did nothing for anyone other than provide entertainment. Jesus' miracles changed lives.

Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire (Matt 5:22).:D

I'm not angry. These insults are for fun. One deserves another...wink wink :D

There is evidence that obviously points toward the existance of Jesus that come from sources outside the bible as well. However, I can no more prove to you that Jesus is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem.

There is a big difference between the "Acts of Illusion" that Blane has done v. the miracles of Jesus. The miracles happend to real people according to the eyewitness. Such as the blind can see and the lame can now walk etc... Blanes illusions did nothing for anyone other than provide entertainment. Jesus' miracles changed lives.

they changed lives if you believe they happened. a person can believe what they like, but i think their beliefs should make them happy somehow. will trying to be more like christ really make you happy? to me, trying to be more like christ would be like bending over, and telling the world to stick it in (if you honestly tried to be like christ, and not just say that). not to say that being an atheist is a good thing either. you should love your family, and believe that you have some kind of purpose, but you shouldn't just accept being societies bitch.

and what i was saying, is that something a magician does on tv holds more weight to me than a story about someone doing something. even if i saw alot of the stuff some of these guys do in real life, i still wouldn't believe they had powers or anything.

they changed lives if you believe they happened. a person can believe what they like, but i think their beliefs should make them happy somehow. will trying to be more like christ really make you happy? to me, trying to be more like christ would be like bending over, and telling the world to stick it in (if you honestly tried to be like christ, and not just say that). not to say that being an atheist is a good thing either. you should love your family, and believe that you have some kind of purpose, but you shouldn't just accept being societies bitch.

and what i was saying, is that something a magician does on tv holds more weight to me than a story about someone doing something. even if i saw alot of the stuff some of these guys do in real life, i still wouldn't believe they had powers or anything.


Would you be willing to read the Gospel of John? Most people have not read these books of the bible for themselves. I would recommend reading the New American Standard Bible or the New Internation Verson. I would be intrested in knowing what you think after you have read the Gospel of John. It should take about an hour to read it. Would you do it?

I'm not angry. These insults are for fun. One deserves another...wink wink :D

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. Matthew 5:38-40:D

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. Matthew 5:38-40:D


I get it:)

On top of that even the early church fathers said that The Story of the New Testament is from earlier mythologies.

Which church father said this?

The acolyte then becomes

Sorry to be so lame, but what is an acolyte? I looked it up and this does not apply to me. Is there something I'm missing?

The doubt of his own faith causes him to begin looking at his own faith more critically finding more and more flaws. Coupled by the older members sharing their own beliefs developed through critical logic, and not blind faith. The acolyte slowly begins to lose faith as he becomes a more rational critical person.


This is not the case for me. In fact, just the opposite. As I began to investigate my faith, I found that my faith was no longer blind. I discovered that the evidence for Christ is very compelling and now I have a reasonable and logical faith. When studing the Bible and the evidence that gives credibility to the bible and learning about other religious systems; Jesus Christ becomes the obvious choice. My OP is a brief explaination as to why I have taken a step of faith, not a blind leap of faith.

I was never lied too as a child. In fact the truth was given to me as a child. However, I did need to spend more time studying the scriptures, history, archeology and so forth. Therefore, when the skeptic make assertions or false claims etc.... I don't doubt my faith or my personal relationship with Christ.

What I find interesting is this; Most skeptics make an assertion that Christians just believe what we were told as a child, or we have blind faith. This may be true for some, which is why many doubt and give up their Christian faith. Yet there is more evidence for Jesus Christ and Christianity then atheism.

Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend? If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?

Sorry to be so lame, but what is an acolyte? I looked it up and this does not apply to me. Is there something I'm missing?



This is not the case for me. In fact, just the opposite. As I began to investigate my faith, I found that my faith was no longer blind. I discovered that the evidence for Christ is very compelling and now I have a reasonable and logical faith. When studing the Bible and the evidence that gives credibility to the bible and learning about other religious systems; Jesus Christ becomes the obvious choice. My OP is a brief explaination as to why I have taken a step of faith, not a blind leap of faith.

I was never lied too as a child. In fact the truth was given to me as a child. However, I did need to spend more time studying the scriptures, history, archeology and so forth. Therefore, when the skeptic make assertions or false claims etc.... I don't doubt my faith or my personal relationship with Christ.

What I find interesting is this; Most skeptics make an assertion that Christians just believe what we were told as a child, or we have blind faith. This may be true for some, which is why many doubt and give up their Christian faith. Yet there is more evidence for Jesus Christ and Christianity then atheism.

Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic, and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend? If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?


An acolyte is someone who is new to this forum, it is under your name when you look at your post

Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. I am an athiest because i find no compelling evidence to believe in any theistic faith. Therefore it is not a belief, therefore it does not require evidence or reason. The burden of proof is on you, the believer. you are the one with the position. i just merely deny your position on the basis of no reasonable empirical/scientific evidence.

There are two types of people in this world. People who believe first and weed out second, and people who weed out first and then believe second.


what i do believe in is science. Science is what made our reality what it is today. Science is all about forgetting the subjective, and viewing the world in an objective manner, with no I/We/You. Therefore science helps us BECOME like God, with an objective view(not true objectivity, objective in the sense of Mass subjectivity). when we are objective, we view the world for what it is, there is no Right or Wrong, that can be manipulated by power, there is only truth and the objectivity to preserve that truth. It requires a form of ego loss that you probably haven't aquired yet. To let go of your personal fantasies and accept truth.

Example. If a religious person is told he is wrong with proof that he is wrong, he will attack and defend to justify, as to justify why he is actually right
if a scientific person is told he is wrong, with proof that he is wrong he will rejoice because the actual truth prevailed due to the scientific method.

Whats the difference? the scientific person does not let his ego come in the way for the search of truth. therefore there is progression, not passive stagnation as with the religious belief. A true scientific person has none of the fears of a religious person, because the scientific person realizes that there is no reason to fear what he cannot control (i.e. death,) Therefore he is not compelled to take a position that tells him he does have control of death when he dies.

On morality, one could argue a religious person only does good out of fear/Love of God where as a scientific person does good for the fear(money)/love of humanity

What if the religious person one day realized his religion was false? to him there would be no reason to continue being a good person. There was a study posted on this forum some time ago, you should search for it, that said the higher the Christian population in a state, the higher the crime rate...Either people are fearful of crime and turn to christianity, Or people slowly realize there is no christianity but still consider themselves christian and commit crimes with no fear. Im sure its both.

Now my request to you...

give me Empirical, Scientific evidence of the existence of God and His son jesus Christ and i will accept christianity.
Empirical,scientific means no scriptures, nothing from the bible, no evidence from anything religious. Face it, the gospels weren't written by investigative journalists, they were written by Jesus-Fans.
if you can prove the existence of God, but jesus Christ not being his son, i will reject christianity(again) because that seems to invalidate christianity and the holy trinity.

An acolyte is someone who is new to this forum, it is under your name when you look at your post


Thanks

Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."

I am an athiest because i find no compelling evidence to believe in any theistic faith.


OK...so you have seen evidence. Just not compelling. It appears to me you may be agnostic not an atheist.

i just merely deny your position on the basis of no reasonable empirical/scientific evidence.


Ok..so once again you have seen empirical/scientific evidence. Just not reasonable enough.

Science is all about forgetting the subjective, and viewing the world in an objective manner, with no I/We/You. Therefore science helps us BECOME like God, with an objective view

I thought you said you were an atheist? We can't become like God if there isn't a god. It can't be both ways. From your quotes above, you claim to have seen evidence as well. You are contradicting yourself.

It requires a form of ego loss that you probably haven't aquired yet. To let go of your personal fantasies and accept truth.


Subtle, but it's here....Ad hominim!

give me Empirical, Scientific evidence of the existence of God

Well for starters, the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument or the Anthropic principle.

Scientific evidence is not the only evidence to be considered. Is scientific evidence the only acceptable evidence to you?

Face it, the gospels weren't written by investigative journalists

Thank goodness! I rather have eyewitness testimony, if the investigative journalists are like what we see today. However, if journalist were writting the gospels, who would they try and get their information from...the eyewitnesses. There is no indication that the eyewitnesses lied. There testimonies are reliable. If they were not reliable, people could have challenged their testimonies at that time, but they did not. Their testimonies stand.

Either Jesus is true and all other religions are false or other religions are true and Jesus is false. There are no other options.

OR, they are all fake and composed of supernatural fake shit no one has seen, and their differences lie within the culture from which they were born.


That's more realistic.

OR, they are all fake and composed of supernatural fake shit no one has seen, and their differences lie within the culture from which they were born.


That's more realistic.

This is a very small possibility, but the evidence indicate otherwise. Therefore, the qoute above is not very realistic.

Thanks



Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."



OK...so you have seen evidence. Just not compelling. It appears to me you may be agnostic not an atheist.



Ok..so once again you have seen empirical/scientific evidence. Just not reasonable enough.



I thought you said you were an atheist? We can't become like God if there isn't a god. It can't be both ways. From your quotes above, you claim to have seen evidence as well. You are contradicting yourself.



Subtle, but it's here....Ad hominim!



Well for starters, the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument or the Anthropic principle.

Scientific evidence is not the only evidence to be considered. Is scientific evidence the only acceptable evidence to you?



Thank goodness! I rather have eyewitness testimony, if the investigative journalists are like what we see today. However, if journalist were writting the gospels, who wouldd they try and get their information from...the eyewitnesses. There is no indication that the eyewitnesses lied. There testimonies are reliable. If they were not reliable, people could have challenged their testimonies at that time, but they did not. Their testimonies stand.

there is so much bullshit in your responses i dont even have the energy to refute them, but here goes, ill do as much as i can in 5 minutes, they will be half-assed but im done arguing with you.

Lacking belief is a non-statement because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief."


you think it is such a perfect duality like that? i'll have you know, your initial state was without belief as was mine, i decided to preserve my initial state. i was not born knowing Christianity or Islam, it was shoved down my throat in my highly susceptible youth. read up on Existentialism, get out of your bubble and broaden your horizon.

OK...so you have seen evidence. Just not compelling. It appears to me you may be agnostic not an atheist.
Ok..so once again you have seen empirical/scientific evidence. Just not reasonable enough.


Actually i have no seen any evidence at all, lets not get into semantics shall we? you know what i was trying to say. don't try to twist my words, i did not say Reasonable ENOUGH. things are either reasonable or they aren't. there is no grey area for reason. thats why i trust it more than emotional connections(like the one you have with your faith)

I thought you said you were an atheist? We can't become like God if there isn't a god. It can't be both ways. From your quotes above, you claim to have seen evidence as well. You are contradicting yourself.

like the concept of God*, i have not contradicted my self,and i have not claimed to see any evidence. i understand the concept of god i just dont believe there is one. why do you have the habit of nitpicking irrelevant shit from my posts? i would place a bet that you read my posts not trying to understand the ideas behind them but by trying to find any way to justify not listening to me by denouncing my credibility. Its a common habit of religious people to attack the person and not the idea.

Subtle, but it's here....Ad hominim!

hey if you can do it, i can too. except you have thirteen pages of every logical fallacy known to man.(exaggeration dont go nitpicking now)

Well for starters, the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument or the Anthropic principle.

the cosmological argument is the worst argument i have ever read. It makes too many assumptions the jumps to conclusions, (i.e. the initial necessary Cause MUST BE GOD)(i.e2. assuming that infinite causal chains can't exist, how can anyone prove time is finite?)

the teleological arguement? pah, same stupid assumptions

By the way these are philosophical ARGUMENTS, not evidence. Arguments can be refuted/objected/dismissed. take a philosophy of Religion class, you'll benefit from it.

Scientific evidence is not the only evidence to be considered. Is scientific evidence the only acceptable evidence to you?

well lets define scientific.
Of, or having to do with science; Having the quality of being derived from, or consistent with, the scientific method
lets define the scientific method.
is a procedure for conducting research that states that a testable hypothesis should be verifiable and the results repeatable

Scientific Evidence is based on facts. Testable and reproduceable results. to make sure it the phenomenom is question is truly a fact. having said this. yes, it is the only acceptable evidence unless you want to make leaps of blind faith. Which i am against.



Thank goodness! I rather have eyewitness testimony, if the investigative journalists are like what we see today. However, if journalist were writting the gospels, who wouldd they try and get their information from...the eyewitnesses. There is no indication that the eyewitnesses lied. There testimonies are reliable. If they were not reliable, people could have challenged their testimonies at that time, but they did not. Their testimonies stand.
If you knew a thing about psychology you would know the eyewitness testimony is not reliable at all. you love to twist my ideas into a form that is easily refutable by your bullshit excuse for logic. the people who wrote the gospels did not have the qualities of an investigative journalist. they could not rationally make sense of anything. they were eyewitnesses that do not know what they saw. probably were schizophrenic. this happened 2000 years ago...

i'm done with this thread, i really hope you don't die before realizing your faith was phony living life without God gives you a freedom of mind that which is what you are truly looking for . And if you are right(which i HIGHLY DOUBT(99.99999999%) come visit me in hell.

there is so much bullshit in your responses i dont even have the energy to refute them, but here goes, ill do as much as i can in 5 minutes, they will be half-assed but im done arguing with you.

I’m sure you consider any refute to your responses B.S. Just because you call it B.S. doesn’t mean they are. Also, I wasn’t arguing with you. I was enjoying what I felt was good conversation.

i'll have you know, your initial state was without belief as was mine

Agreed

i decided to preserve my initial state.

You cannot preserve your initial state because you have been exposed to the concept of God and have made a decision to accept or reject. Therefore, you either believe there is a God or you do not...or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of "lack of belief." You have made your decision to reject God.

i was not born knowing Christianity or Islam, it was shoved down my throat in my highly susceptible youth. read up on Existentialism, get out of your bubble and broaden your horizon

This was not the case for me. Nothing was shoved down my throat. I made the decision to follow Christ. He did not force himself on me. Rev. 3:20 states “Behold I stand at the door and knock. If any man shall hear and open the door, I will come in…” You see, I had to make a choice to open the door, he did not force his way into my life. Could he be knocking on your door and you don’t want to open?

Now, your parents may have forced you to go to church or some type of religious service and exposed you to their religion. But you still made your own choice to believe or not. I’m thankful that my parents took me to church, but they couldn’t make me believe.

Btw…my horizon is as far as the east is from the west.

Actually i have no seen any evidence at all, lets not get into semantics shall we? you know what i was trying to say. don't try to twist my words, i did not say Reasonable ENOUGH. things are either reasonable or they aren't. there is no grey area for reason. thats why i trust it more than emotional connections(like the one you have with your faith)

In order to call “something” reasonable or not, there has to be a “thing”. In this case that “something” is evidence. As I go back and read your other posts, it was not until your quote above that you have claimed not to see any evidence at all. In fact, in your post numbered #118 you state “I find no compelling evidence to believe in any theistic faith” also, “I just merely deny your position on the basis of no reasonable empirical/scientific evidence.” This implies that you have seen evidence. You are the one that described this evidence as not compelling or reasonable. These are the words you typed. Not mine. How did I twist your words?

like the concept of God*, i have not contradicted my self,and i have not claimed to see any evidence. i understand the concept of god i just dont believe there is one. why do you have the habit of nitpicking irrelevant shit from my posts?

You stated that “science helps us become like God” Now if you claim to be an atheist…you know, someone who says there is no God; How can science help us become like God. There either is a God or not. It can’t be both.. Or do you believe you can become a God. In either case, you cannot be an atheist.

If anything in your post is irrelevant to the topic, why do you post it? The reason why I reply is because they are fallacious.

Its a common habit of religious people to attack the person and not the idea.
hey if you can do it, i can too. except you have thirteen pages of every logical fallacy known to man.(exaggeration dont go nitpicking now)


Good grief! It’s not just religious people who attack. Intellectual intimidation and ridicule can generate an uneven psychological playing field. Politeness can be mistaken for submissiveness when it takes place in an atmosphere of subtle (or not so subtle!) condescension and this can then have the effect of making another's argument APPEAR weak, not that it actually is. In fact, in this thread, you attacked me in multiple post. Please read all of your post in this thread. I don’t think I have attacked you back accept maybe once. The reason why I attack back is in order to point out your intimidation is not working and to help gain the psychological edge back.

Now, I know that I haven’t committed every logical fallacy either. However, I would be interested in knowing which ones you feel I have broken.

the cosmological argument is the worst argument i have ever read. It makes too many assumptions the jumps to conclusions, (i.e. the initial necessary Cause MUST BE GOD)(i.e2. assuming that infinite causal chains can't exist, how can anyone prove time is finite?)

the teleological arguement? pah, same stupid assumptions

By the way these are philosophical ARGUMENTS, not evidence. Arguments can be refuted/objected/dismissed. take a philosophy of Religion class, you'll benefit from it.

well lets define scientific.
Of, or having to do with science; Having the quality of being derived from, or consistent with, the scientific method
lets define the scientific method.
is a procedure for conducting research that states that a testable hypothesis should be verifiable and the results repeatable

Scientific Evidence is based on facts. Testable and reproduceable results. to make sure it the phenomenom is question is truly a fact. having said this. yes, it is the only acceptable evidence unless you want to make leaps of blind faith. Which i am against.


You are unable to accept any evidence given because your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, your presuppositional base is that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence; you would have to change your presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in your belief structure of being an atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

If you knew a thing about psychology you would know the eyewitness testimony is not reliable at all. you love to twist my ideas into a form that is easily refutable by your bullshit excuse for logic. the people who wrote the gospels did not have the qualities of an investigative journalist. they could not rationally make sense of anything. they were eyewitnesses that do not know what they saw. probably were schizophrenic. this happened 2000 years ago...


It is fallacious to suggest that no amount of human testimony can be considered reliable enough to validate that a 'miracle' has taken place or that the resurrection really happend. For example, despite public demonstrations and eyewitness testimonies, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by most American scientists.

The scientific community viewed heavier than air flight as a violation of natural laws; to fly would be a miracle. But hundreds of Americans were witnessing the miracle of flight long before scientists came up with equations that would validate it as a possibility. Yet according to Hume a skeptic, American scientists were totally reasonable in dismissing the legitimacy of the flights, because no human testimony could be considered reliable enough to validate such a claim. That's right! The ignorant masses had accepted air flight as a demonstrable reality, while the scientific elite walked around for an entire year, pompously dismissing it as an utter impossibility. You are doing the same thing in regards to the eyewitness of the Bible.

i'm done with this thread, i really hope you don't die before realizing your faith was phony living life without God gives you a freedom of mind that which is what you are truly looking for . And if you are right(which i HIGHLY DOUBT(99.99999999%) come visit me in hell.

Sorry to hear you are done with this thread. I have enjoyed your post. If I die, and my faith was wrong, I have not been cheated one bit as I have enjoyed my life with my wife and kids, career etc…my life has been great.

Because you have given me a very small chance of being right in your quote above, you must still think there could be a God. I believe he is knocking on the door of your heart. I hope you let him in because I would rather visit with you in Heaven.

Warm Regards!

(no pun intended...)

Whilst I applaud your ability to retain a sense of humour, you do seem somewhat naive and maybe even brainwashed. Did you ever actually read the history of King James? As for the Gospel of John, which version should I read? I have a New Kingdom translation by the JW's that says "In the beginning the word was with God and the Word was 'a' god." John1:1 and, having read many different translations it seems much of the differences in dogma between religions turns on such small things as a single letter. For example In the Gospel of John, Jesus is made to say "God is Spirit" - in half the translations, and 'God is 'a' spirit"- in the other half. Which is it? Plus the incident with Jesus driving the merchants from the temple occurs at the beginning of his ministry in John whereas it's towards the end in the other Gospels.

Here's another, you say there is but one God and ther is no other mentioned in the bible yet in the Gospel of John chapter 10 Jesus is accosted by the Jews for being a blasphemer: Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Notice the accusation is: being a mere man Jesus was claiming to be God. Jesus defence: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? Quoting the Psalms, Jesus points out their own tradition and law says you are gods how does that match with you saying there are no other gods?

Then Jesus proceeds to use that as a defence:"If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 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'?"

In essence Jesus legal defence to a charge of blaspheming the Jews laws is, to point out that their laws actually calls them all gods and; by using that as a defence against their charges of blasphemy, Jesus is saying there is no difference between him and any other child of God. We could all claim as he did "The Father and I are one".

Further the Gospel of John concludes with the story of doubting Thomas and if it's ok for him to want physical truth then ditto for any other and, until such time, the position of agnosticism is the only defensible position as no one has been able to prove God exists, or not, one way or the other.

Namaste:)

Whilst I applaud your ability to retain a sense of humour, you do seem somewhat naive and maybe even brainwashed.

I see you too have a sense of humor. I looked up the meaning of brainwashed with the Dictionary Online. It defines brainwashed as: “subjected to intensive forced indoctrination resulting in the rejection of old beliefs and acceptance of new ones” You are wrong. This definition does not define me accurately. As I have mentioned in an earlier post; I have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ and that he is the only way to heaven according to the scriptures found in the Holy Bible.

Did you ever actually read the history of King James?

What part of this history are you concerned with…what’s on you mind?

As for the Gospel of John, which version should I read? I have a New Kingdom translation by the JW's that says "In the beginning the word was with God and the Word was 'a' god." John1:1 and, having read many different translations it seems much of the differences in dogma between religions turns on such small things as a single letter. For example In the Gospel of John, Jesus is made to say "God is Spirit" - in half the translations, and 'God is 'a' spirit"- in the other half. Which is it?

The JW’s (and other religions) do not believe in some or all the essential doctrines of Christianity. For example the JW deny the deity of Christ and his psychical resurrection or salvation by grace. This contradicts the Holy Bible therefore Christianity. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower organization (which is the author and teacher of all official Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings. Thus they have the New World Translation (NWT). Your example above (John 1:1) is just one of those alterations. Here are some more:

1. Gen. 1:1-2 - "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." (New World Translation, Emphasis added)
A. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive, third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of "...the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say "...and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."
2. Zech. 12:10 - In this verse God is speaking and says "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10, NASB).
. The Jehovah's Witnesses change the word "me" to "the one" so that it says in their Bible, "...they will look upon the one whom they have pierced..."
Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it.
3. John 1:1 - They mistranslate the verse as "a god." Again it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah's Witness version is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
4. Col. 1:15-17 - The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek, nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things, implying that He is created.
. There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.
5. Heb. 1:6 - In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect, even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9.
6. Heb. 1:8 - This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as "...God is your throne..." The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as "...Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!

Here's another, you say there is but one God and ther is no other mentioned in the bible yet in the Gospel of John chapter 10 Jesus is accosted by the Jews for being a blasphemer: Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Notice the accusation is: being a mere man Jesus was claiming to be God. Jesus defence: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? Quoting the Psalms, Jesus points out their own tradition and law says you are gods how does that match with you saying there are no other gods?

Then Jesus proceeds to use that as a defence:"If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 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'?"

In essence Jesus legal defence to a charge of blaspheming the Jews laws is, to point out that their laws actually calls them all gods and; by using that as a defence against their charges of blasphemy, Jesus is saying there is no difference between him and any other child of God. We could all claim as he did "The Father and I are one".


I never said there are not other gods mentioned in the bible, where did I type this? The bible does mentions other false gods and idols. These gods are not the true and living God. There is a big difference between them.

Jesus defends his claim using language they should be able to understand, through an appeal to the law. He cites a text that uses the word god of those who are not God: Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are gods"? (v. 34). It is unclear who is being referred to in Psalm 82:6. Of the several proposals made by scholars (cf. Beasley-Murray 1987:176-77), the most likely takes this as a reference either to Israel's judges or to the people of Israel as they receive the law. The latter is a common understanding among the rabbis (for example, b. 'Aboda Zara 5a; Exodus Rabbah 32:7), but the former is also represented in Jewish interpretation (Midrash Psalms; b. Sanhedrin 6b; 7a; b. Sota 47b). Jesus' explanation that these gods are those to whom the word of God came (v. 35) might point to the Israelites receiving the law. In this case the contrast between these gods and Jesus would be that Jesus is the one who both fulfills the law and is greater than the law. But this expression to whom the word of God came could also refer to the judges (as suggested by the rest of Ps 82) who have received a commission from God to exercise the divine prerogative of judgment on his behalf. The psalm is actually a condemnation of the judges for not exercising their responsibility faithfully, thus corresponding both to the condemnation of these Jewish leaders in John and to Jesus as the true judge.
To make his point Jesus uses an argument from the lesser to the greater, a very common form of argument in the ancient world, not least among the rabbis. He compares the people who are called gods to himself, the Son of God. They merely received the word of God, whereas he is the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world (v. 36). Here is a succinct summary of the central truth of his identity, which has been emphasized throughout this Gospel. He is using the language of an agent (see note on 5:21), but the implication is that he existed with the Father before coming into the world. Thus, he is putting himself in the category of the law that was given by God rather than in the category of one of the recipients of that law. By saying he was set apart ("consecrated," hagiazo) he is claiming a status similar to the temple, whose reconsecration these opponents are celebrating at this feast.

Thanks for your lengthy replies, however they do not mitigate the facts, in fact it seems you've avoided them. Your lengthy passage on the JW's, not necessary friend, I was simply using that as an example of how much the meaning of a passage can change through the use of a single letter to illustrate the difficulty facing anyone who tries to treat translations of the bible literally.

Second, your assertions re gods and the Psalm. Remember this, take note, this is the point, Jesus was defending himself against a charge of blasphemy! To use as his defence the line from the Psalm as a legitimate, honest defence, Jesus had to be placing himself at the same level as those referred to in the Psalm! To do otherwise would be nothing short of deception. Think about it.

Thanks for your lengthy replies, however they do not mitigate the facts, in fact it seems you've avoided them. Your lengthy passage on the JW's, not necessary friend, I was simply using that as an example of how much the meaning of a passage can change through the use of a single letter to illustrate the difficulty facing anyone who tries to treat translations of the bible literally.

Second, your assertions re gods and the Psalm. Remember this, take note, this is the point, Jesus was defending himself against a charge of blasphemy! To use as his defence the line from the Psalm as a legitimate, honest defence, Jesus had to be placing himself at the same level as those referred to in the Psalm! To do otherwise would be nothing short of deception. Think about it.

What an asshole god... being so vague with people who he loves.

this is why i dont confine my self to the ideas of religion, if the world was so simple as it says in the books of abraham's god, i'd be severely dissapointed.

Second, your assertions re gods and the Psalm. Remember this, take note, this is the point, Jesus was defending himself against a charge of blasphemy! To use as his defence the line from the Psalm as a legitimate, honest defence, Jesus had to be placing himself at the same level as those referred to in the Psalm! To do otherwise would be nothing short of deception. Think about it.

After reading your previous post again. It is clear that Jesus does not put himself on the same level as the Jews. Jesus ask the Jews "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" The difference is that in the Psalms they were called "gods". He called himself "God's Son" So if at this point he does not call himself a god, why do they accuse him of blasphemy when they were called gods and they were not accused of blasphemy? I think this is a fair question.

What an asshole god... being so vague with people who he loves.

Please explain how Jesus is being so vague?

this is why i dont confine my self to the ideas of religion, if the world was so simple as it says in the books of abraham's god, i'd be severely dissapointed.

I do not confine myself to the ideas of religion either. But I do believe in the fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was ressurected from the dead as described in the Gospels. Therefore proving his deity. If Jesus did not rise from the dead etc... then I would not be a follower of Jesus Christ. But the evidence points to the fact that he did raise from the dead.

Where in the books of "Abraham's God" does it say that the world is simple?

btw...Im glad you decided to post in this thread again. You bring up good points to think about.

After reading your previous post again. It is clear that Jesus does not put himself on the same level as the Jews. Jesus ask the Jews "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" The difference is that in the Psalms they were called "gods". He called himself "God's Son" So if at this point he does not call himself a god, why do they accuse him of blasphemy when they were called gods and they were not accused of blasphemy? I think this is a fair question.

This is why you seem 'naive', 'brainwashed'*, you seem to be avoiding the point by resorting to semantics. The clear message of the incident is the jews were going to stone Jesus to death because he claimed equality with God, in their dogma. Jesus defence rests on denying that charge by giving it context. He uses the Psalm to do that. The context Jesus places his claims in, is one where all are gods, therefore the male offspring of a god can logically be a son of god, and there is no legitimate reason to kill him.

*brainwash: to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), especially by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, etc. [Concise Collins Dictionary]

Seeing as it's unlikely you were born believing as you do, and your beliefs are not universal, is it not reasonable to state your "ideas and beliefs" have been garnered in a system where the methods are "based on isolation"? Is this not what most religious organisations/teachings do, isolate themselves? Are not the responses to your post evidence of how isolated from general beliefs yours are?

In what way is Jesus existence different from any other? You say he existed from the beginning with God? Well where did the rest of us spring from? Nowhere? Nothingness?

This is why you seem 'naive', 'brainwashed'*, you seem to be avoiding the point by resorting to semantics. The clear message of the incident is the jews were going to stone Jesus to death because he claimed equality with God, in their dogma. Jesus defence rests on denying that charge by giving it context. He uses the Psalm to do that. The context Jesus places his claims in, is one where all are gods, therefore the male offspring of a god can logically be a son of god, and there is no legitimate reason to kill him.

If I was avoiding the point, which I was not; how does that make me brainwashed? You obviously disagree with my answer in the previous post...that does not make me brainwashed.


brainwash: to effect a radical change in the ideas and beliefs of (a person), especially by methods based on isolation, sleeplessness, etc. [Concise Collins Dictionary]

Again, this does not apply to me .

Seeing as it's unlikely you were born believing as you do, and your beliefs are not universal, is it not reasonable to state your "ideas and beliefs" have been garnered in a system where the methods are "based on isolation"?

No, this is not reasonable.


Is this not what most religious organisations/teachings do, isolate themselves?

This may be true of some. As for me and my church; no, we do not isolate ourselves. I live in a neighborhood and have real neighbors too. Also, I have a full time job and work side by side with people who do not claim to be Christians. Some are even atheist. Get this...I even went to a non-christian school and college. Also, I spend time on the internet "chating" with people like yourself who obviously are not Christians and are often hostile to the thought of there being a real God. I visit with people and talk politics with folks who have a totally different world view then I. I play drums/percussion in a symphony and also play drums in a band. There are some really interesting people in the Arts.

So as you can imagine, I have been exposed to many religions & atheist. I have studied many of these different religions and still do. Non of them compare to Christianity, which is why I have made my choice as to whom I believe in, which is based on external and personal evidence.

Are not the responses to your post evidence of how isolated from general beliefs yours are?

On this site....yes. However, many people believed the world was flat too.

In what way is Jesus existence different from any other?

Well for starters, he was the only one born of a virgin, crucified and rose from the dead and performed many miracles. Furthermore, he was prophicied about and was the fulfillment of many prophecies. He also prophecied and his prophecies were fulfilled.

You say he existed from the beginning with God? Well where did the rest of us spring from? Nowhere? Nothingness?

Genisis 1: 27,28 is a good start...

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Well for starters, he was the only one born of a virgin, crucified and rose from the dead and performed many miracles. Furthermore, he was prophicied about and was the fulfillment of many prophecies. He also prophecied and his prophecies were fulfilled.
With your own words you confirm my comment re: 'brainwashed'. Had you not been raised in the "isolated" environment of what you term 'christianity', you would know that Jesus is one amongst many saviours, sons of god, born of a virgin, crucified, rose from the dead, miracles ... .

You still seem to avoid answering my questions, this time with bible quotes that a child would know. How does it answer my question? All you raise are further questions? Out of what were we made? Where did that substance originate? They are vital to the question of whether Jesus was divine; an issue that dates back to Constantine who decided to impose his will on the church settling the issue of "Aryanism": a heresy that contended that Jesus, though the son of God, was not himself divine. Constantine imposed his will perhaps because it is easier to control sheep fearful of God's wrath than those who cognise the divine as a Unity.

Please explain how Jesus is being so vague?

just the fact that two people(let alone numerous denominations of christianity) can argue over the meaning of the bible



Where in the books of "Abraham's God" does it say that the world is simple?



well just the fact that the history of the universe and the answers of our most sacred questions can be answered a single chapter of a book.

See what im doing here? its called critical thinking, thinking outside of the box, you should try it sometime.

a favorite quotation of mine.. i cant remember who said it though

"the most true answers to all our questions will not come in the form of pretty poems or elegant verses of song, or even words for that matter. The answers will come in numbers and mathmatics, the language of god*"

*please dont get started on semantics again, the word god isnt limited to your and your faith alone.

you seem to be avoiding the point by resorting to semantics

this what made me leave this thread in the first place, but i came back out of love for my fellow human that maybe i can somehow change him for the better. or maybe we just got the shit trolled out of us.

With your own words you confirm my comment re: 'brainwashed'

You have failed in proving that I'm brainwashed. In fact, you have failed to show any evidence that I'm brainwashed. Maybe you're attempting to brainwash me in thinking that I'm brainwashed. I know...maybe your trying to convince the others that are reading these posts that I'm brainwashed. Your definition of brainwashed does not apply to me. Enough said!


Had you not been raised in the "isolated" environment of what you term 'christianity', you would know that Jesus is one amongst many saviours, sons of god, born of a virgin, crucified, rose from the dead, miracles ... .

Who are these "saviours"? I have read about some of them and there are many differences in their story that would nullify any claims of deity. Also, please give me the source of these "saviours". What's the name of their "bibles" when were these books written and by whom? Also, what is the name of all these virgins that gave birth to all of these "saviours"? Who were the eyewitnesses, how many eyewitnesses were there, what miracles did they perform and who were the recipients of these miracles? How did these "saviours" die and where were they buried? Why did they die, was there a purpose in their deaths? What prophesies were fulfilled by these "saviours". What prophesies did these "saviours" speak and which ones were fulfilled?


You still seem to avoid answering my questions, this time with bible quotes that a child would know. How does it answer my question? All you raise are further questions?

What's wrong with answering questions using the Bible?

Out of what were we made? Where did that substance originate?

The answer is found in Genesis 2

7) the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

19) Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20) So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21) So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22) Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Now, I'm not sure how God created man. I don't understand the science behind how he did this. But just because I don't understand it doesn't mean he didn't create man and women.

They are vital to the question of whether Jesus was divine;

How?

an issue that dates back to Constantine who decided to impose his will on the church settling the issue of "Aryanism": a heresy that contended that Jesus, though the son of God, was not himself divine. Constantine imposed his will perhaps because it is easier to control sheep fearful of God's wrath than those who cognise the divine as a Unity.

I've read about this, but please give me your sources for this information. There is no evidence in what you claim about Constantine imposing his will to control sheep etc...As you stated above, this is heresy. The early church fathers recognized these heresy long before Constantine.

What's wrong with answering questions using the Bible?




because it is illogical to prove the divinity of jesus christ (or anything the bible says) using the very thing that says he is divine(bible).


im still awaiting your reply to my previous post.

because it is illogical to prove the divinity of jesus christ (or anything the bible says) using the very thing that says he is divine(bible).


im still awaiting your reply to my previous post.

I think I understand your thought here so bare with me. Please tell me why you believe that it is illogical to use the bible as proof. Thanks!

Also, I will reply to your other post shortly. I have been short on time and will try to get back with you tonight or tomorrow.

I think I understand your thought here so bare with me. Please tell me why you believe that it is illogical to use the bible as proof. Thanks!

Also, I will reply to your other post shortly. I have been short on time and will try to get back with you tonight or tomorrow.

I'll use your saying for this one

"just because [the bible] says it, doesn't mean its true"

I'll use your saying for this one

"just because [the bible] says it, doesn't mean its true"

True that!

However, since the Bible has demonstrated that it is reliable in the areas of history and archeology; since the information the bible contains about Jesus has not been proven wrong either, doesn't that make a good case for the bible being an accurate document that can be trusted?

True that!

However, since the Bible has demonstrated that it is reliable in the areas of history and archeology; since the information the bible contains about Jesus has not been proven wrong either, doesn't that make a good case for the bible being an accurate document that can be trusted?
It's horribly unreliable. Moses supposedly led the Jews out of captivity in Egypt and wandered the the Sanai Desert for forty years. During his wanderings, according to the scripture, Moses often talked to God, obtained the Ten Commandments, and made a covenant between the people of Israel and Yahweh. With God's guidance, Moses finally brought his people to the Promised Land (the one place in the Middle East without oil).

No archaeological evidence has been found of an Israelite presence in Egypt prior to the thirteenth century BCE, when most scholars believe the Exodus took place. This was around the time of Pharaoh Ramses II. According to the Biblical account, six hundred thousand Jews participated in the escape from Egypt. Not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has even been identified in Sanai. Modern archaeological techniques are capable of tracing even the very meager remains of small bands of far more ancient hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world.

Lack of evidence from outside scripture surrounds the most important tale of the New Testament- Jesus' crucification and resurrection. Christian literature is filled with claims that these events were foretold. But again we have nothing outside of the Gospels that rules out what is the more plausible account: the authors of the Gospels formulated the life and death of Jesus to conform to their conception of the Messiah of the Old Testament.

Many people say they believe because of the many eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus walking after he was supposed to be dead. However, the testimony is only recorded in the Bible, second hand, and years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony would still be opened to question two thousand years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded decades later is hardly extraordinary evidence.

There are many other unreliable passages from the Bible I can list for you if you like- but it really doesn't matter. If it has demonstrated that the Harry Potter books are reliable in the areas of history and archeology, does that make those books an accurate document regarding sorcery? If I show you the Quran has demonstrated it is reliable in the areas of history and archeology, is it then an accurate document that can be trusted?

You believe based on faith and pick and choose what counts as the Bible as a whole being accurate. A book claiming that supernatural acts have taken place is not evidence that they have. I'm going with brainwashing.

See what im doing here? its called critical thinking, thinking outside of the box, you should try it sometime.

Your funny! Because when I apply critical thinking to your posts, you claim that I'm nit picking and semantics etc... Usually, when people play the semantics card, they realize that their argument is lacking substance. Then they often resort to casting insults and start to put down the other person etc to cover up their weak argument and to gain a pyscholigical edge. We have talked about this in an earlier post remember?


this what made me leave this thread in the first place, but i came back out of love for my fellow human that maybe i can somehow change him for the better. or maybe we just got the shit trolled out of us.

We have something in common here. I too have a love for my fellow human as well. The difference between you and me is this; I don't try to change the person, I leave that up to Christ. In fact, it wasn't until I realized that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and rose again that I had a real motivation to change. Hopefully for the better. That is why I spend time talking with folks on this thread as well.

In fact, I dare to say that the reason most people (not all), choose not to accept the free gift of salvation offerd by Jesus Christ is because they feel that there may have to be a change in their lifestyle. Could this be the case for you, or do you have a real intellectual road block to Christianity? Often times, people have been burned by so called "christians" and have left a bad taste in their mouth. Maybe this is the case for you as well.

In fact, it wasn't until I realized that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins and rose again that I had a real motivation to change.
In what ways did you change?


In fact, I dare to say that the reason most people (not all), choose not to accept the free gift of salvation offerd by Jesus Christ is because they feel that there may have to be a change in their lifestyle.
No, most of us are aware of the cultish claims Christians make about being saved for believing history happened a certain way and even people living more moral lives won't be without that belief. Pretty silly when you think about it, eh?


Could this be the case for you, or do you have a real intellectual road block to Christianity?
You know better than that. We lack belief in incredible claims without incredible evidence accompanying them- that is all. Attempting to claim we're intellectually deficient is intellectually bankrupt.

You know better than that. We lack belief in incredible claims without incredible evidence accompanying them- that is all.

Your demand of incredible evidence precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence? Also, what criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence?


Attempting to claim we're intellectually deficient is intellectually bankrupt.

Agreed! I could have worded myself better.

What I was attempting to ask is if he was not able to accept Christianity intellectually or was it because of an experience he had in the past that turned him off of Christianity. I don't believe I said anything about him being intellectually deficient.

Your demand of incredible evidence precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
What types of evidence have I precluded, what presuppositions do I have and why won't these presuppositions allow this evidence? These aren't rhetorical questions, btw, I'd really like to know where you get this stuff from.

Interesting how your inability to provide evidence that should lead a rational person to accept that an omniscient, omnipotent being exists is my fault, and you don't know much about me at all.



Agreed! I could have worded myself better.

What I was attempting to ask is if he was not able to accept Christianity intellectually or was it because of an experience he had in the past that turned him off of Christianity.
You know the answer; he's made himself quite clear that his lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. Questioning his intellect is a dishonest ploy to get the reader to believe atheists lack belief because of a mental inability.


I don't believe I said anything about him being intellectually deficient.
Please. You don't draw that much of a distinction between having an intellectual roadblock and being mentally deficient, do you? Whatever.

What types of evidence have I precluded,

Eyewitness testimony.

Interesting how your inability to provide evidence that should lead a rational person to accept that an omniscient, omnipotent being exists is my fault, and you don't know much about me at all.

Most rational people accept eyewitness testimony. In real life, we depend on eyewitness testimony. How do we determine what reliable testismony is?

1) Confidence that an eyewitness, a reporter of hearsay, and the one reported to have said the hearsay, is honest, trustworthy and reliable.

Much of what we believe depends upon the character of the person making the claim or allegation. It is reasonable to believe those who have a reputation for honesty; it is gullible to believe those who are known liars.

A subset of this rule is establishing a lack of incentive that would cause an otherwise honest person to lie. If the person has something to gain by making the claim, there is a chance that he has lied in order to benefit himself. If the person stands to lose by making the claim, the probability of him lying decreases.

2) Corroboration amongst witnesses and other evidences.

If one person tells you that they saw a UFO (and by that, I mean just that, an unidentified flying object - I'm not making a case for alien life) hovering above the mall on Friday night, you may dismiss it as a trick of that person's visual perception. If two dozen people report it independently of each other, at the same time, I'd say that would be reasonable evidence to believe that a UFO of some type was in the area. When the mall reports scorch marks on its roof the next morning, I'd say it would be unreasonable to not believe at that point!

3) Upon close examination, there is an absence of evidence to the contrary.

While it may be considered acceptable to believe in the probability of something being true with little supportive evidence, it would be unreasonable in believing something when there is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it is untrue.

The eyewitnesses of the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are honest and trustworthy. Two of the Gospels were written by the eyewitnesses themselves and two were written by close associates of the eyewitnesses as is the case of John Mark and Luke.


Questioning his intellect is a dishonest ploy to get the reader to believe atheists lack belief because of a mental inability.

The only dishonest ploy here is your quote above. I didn't question his intellect.

.

Your funny! Because when I apply critical thinking to your posts, you claim that I'm nit picking and semantics etc... Usually, when people play the semantics card, they realize that their argument is lacking substance. Then they often resort to casting insults and start to put down the other person etc to cover up their weak argument and to gain a pyscholigical edge. We have talked about this in an earlier post remember?



i believe it to be the exact opposite, when someone plays the semantics card it usually means the other person has no substance to their reply and fills it in by pointing out everything besides the idea the person is trying to communicate. you dont answer my questions, you avoid everything that you have no reply to and only reply to things that you can reply to(usually because i worded it in a way that left me vulnerable).

btw i was applying critical thinking to your IDEAS, not your POST, theres a difference. im sorry but i dont think you completely understand what i mean by "critical thinking"

i believe it to be the exact opposite, when someone plays the semantics card it usually means the other person has no substance to their reply and fills it in by pointing out everything besides the idea the person is trying to communicate. you dont answer my questions, you avoid everything that you have no reply to and only reply to things that you can reply to(usually because i worded it in a way that left me vulnerable).

btw i was applying critical thinking to your IDEAS, not your POST, theres a difference. im sorry but i dont think you completely understand what i mean by "critical thinking"

OK... when I go back and look at both our posts, there are questions that both of us have not answered. I will try to respond to those un-answered questions. Will you do the same?

Eyewitness testimony.



Most rational people accept eyewitness testimony. In real life, we depend on eyewitness testimony. How do we determine what reliable testismony is?

1) Confidence that an eyewitness, a reporter of hearsay, and the one reported to have said the hearsay, is honest, trustworthy and reliable.

Much of what we believe depends upon the character of the person making the claim or allegation. It is reasonable to believe those who have a reputation for honesty; it is gullible to believe those who are known liars.

A subset of this rule is establishing a lack of incentive that would cause an otherwise honest person to lie. If the person has something to gain by making the claim, there is a chance that he has lied in order to benefit himself. If the person stands to lose by making the claim, the probability of him lying decreases.

2) Corroboration amongst witnesses and other evidences.

If one person tells you that they saw a UFO (and by that, I mean just that, an unidentified flying object - I'm not making a case for alien life) hovering above the mall on Friday night, you may dismiss it as a trick of that person's visual perception. If two dozen people report it independently of each other, at the same time, I'd say that would be reasonable evidence to believe that a UFO of some type was in the area. When the mall reports scorch marks on its roof the next morning, I'd say it would be unreasonable to not believe at that point!

3) Upon close examination, there is an absence of evidence to the contrary.

While it may be considered acceptable to believe in the probability of something being true with little supportive evidence, it would be unreasonable in believing something when there is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it is untrue.

The eyewitnesses of the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are honest and trustworthy. Two of the Gospels were written by the eyewitnesses themselves and two were written by close associates of the eyewitnesses as is the case of John Mark and Luke.




The only dishonest ploy here is your quote above. I didn't question his intellect.

who are these people, luke mark, and john? how can you prove that they are they trustworthy? how do you prove that these are not fictional characters?

your logic is false.

Eyewitness testimony.
Another lie. I've precluded no such thing. What I said:

However, the testimony is only recorded in the Bible, second hand, and years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony would still be opened to question two thousand years after the fact. Eyewitness testimony recorded decades later is hardly extraordinary evidence.

You don't see the difference between not counting eyewitness testimony as evidence and not doing so for the reasons I gave? Of course you do. You've been dishonest throughout this thread and continue to be.

Are you so confident that eyewitnesses area very reliable source?

"Muhammad’s great miracles were witnessed by thousands of believers and skeptics, following which verses of the Quran were revealed mentioning the supernatural events." http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/150/

One of them is a nice moon-split miracle with many eyewitnesses: "The splitting of the moon is confirmed through eye-witness testimony transmitted through an unbroken chain of reliable scholars so many that is it impossible that it could be false (hadith mutawatir)."

There are numerous eyewitnesses to other miracles and miracle workers in history, even in historical times. For example, numerous Mormons swore that they saw Brigham Young briefly transform into Joseph Smith (visibly and vocally) when he took leadership of the LDS Church after Smith's murder, tens of thousands of people supposedly witnessed the sun dancing at Fatima on 13 October 1917, many people claimed to have been healed by Rasputin or to have witnessed the Tsarevich practically brought back from certain death by the man, and many Hindu holy men have had people who claimed they witnessed their levitation or other miracles. For that matter Simon Magus supposedly had witnesses to his levitation, and there were all manner of other miracle working holy men throughout the Middle East, and beyond for that matter.

Are you willing to accept the eyewitness testimonies of those above? If not, why not?

An eyewitness testimony can only be as trustworthy as the evidence that confirms that it is an eyewitness testimony. If you only have the Bible to back up that claim, the argument is effectively "IF (the Bible is accurate) THEN (the Bible is accurate)", which is meaningless.



Most rational people would accept eyewitness testimony. In real life, we depend on eyewitness testimony. So what is the difference between someone who is gullable and someone who is not?
You're not gullible; you just choose to give your god and the Bible special protection from rational scrutiny that you wouldn't give to any other claims, which is why you dismiss the claims of all other religions.

The more extraordinary (incredible, veering from the understood norm...) a claim is, the more extraordinary (detailed, convincing, precise, data-filled...) needs be the evidence. Little would be needed to support a claim that you were late because you slept in and missed the bus for it to be believed and/or accepted. More that terrorists held your bus up for an hour. Quite a bit more that a 600 kg Pink cigar Smoking Canary sat on your bus. The claim of there being a supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time that designed and created the universe and takes an active interest in our day to day lives and listens to our thoughts, and perhaps is willing to alter his divine plan a little and/or defy the laws of physics if we ask (through telepathy) nicely enough, is at the very least in the realm of the Pink Canary level of claim and evidence requirement.



The eyewitnesses of the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are honest and trustworthy. Two of the Gospels were written by the eyewitnesses themselves and two were written by close associates of the eyewitnesses as is the case of John Mark and Luke

What do we know about Mark and Luke to consider them trustworthy? And where does that information come from?



The authors of all four Canonical Gospels are unknown.

None of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves.

The first gospel written is Mark. Mark is not by tradition an eyewitness account but 2nd century tradition casts him as a secretary of the Apostle Peter who haphazardly wrote down everything Peter said in no particular order.

The basis for this tradition stems from a single claim by Papias (as quoted by Eusebius, so we don't even really have a primary claim for Papias) who said (c. 130 CE) that he got the information from John the Presbyter (not to be confused with John the Apostle). That's it. That's the entire case for Mark as a secretary of Peter.

Now let's examine the credibility of this claim.

First, Mark does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness.

Secondly, the author is extremely hostile to Peter. Mark is a decidedly Pauline, anti-Jewish and anti-Petrine diatribe. Mark is very hostile to the apostles in general and to Peter in particular. He takes every opportunity to depict the apostles as being dense and not getting Jesus' true message (reflecting the tension between Pauline communities and the Jerusalem cult in the last half of the first century). More to the point (and this is important) Mark does not give Peter any redemption after his betrayal. Mark does not grant Peter and appearance from Jesus. Mark's Peter denies Jesus, runs away and that's it. Now why would a Petrine memoir not include a Petrine witness of the resurrection? Wouldn't that be the most important part? How does it make any sense to exclude it?

Thirdly, the book is quite obviously a literary construction and is manifestly not a transcription of oral anecdotes. The literary structure of Mark, both in its chiastic forms and its use of the Hebrew Bible as a illusory template or "hypotext" preclude the possibility of transcribed oral tradition. GMark is a carefully constructed literary work.

It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic, the language of Peter and the language he would have dictated his memoirs in.

Fourth, Mark makes a number of errors regarding Palestinian geography and Jewish laws and customs which show that his information could not have been collected from a Palestinian Jew. Mark's passion, in particular, is so riddled with factual. historical and legal inaccuracies that it cannot be historical and cannot have come from an eyewitness. [I can address the specific errors in a separate post if anyone desires]

Fifth, the book could not have been written during the lifetime of Peter. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which means that Peter was dead (at least by Christian tradition) when the book was written.


To summarize, the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine.



In 130 CE some guy said he heard from another guy that a secretary pf Peter's wrote a memoir and then decided that this particular book with an unknown author must have been that memoir.


Let's move on to Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew, by tradition, is attributed to the apostle of that name. Like Mark, this authorship tradition stems from Papias (it was also claimed by Irenaeus but he was probably parroting Papias). Papias claimed that, "Matthew composed the sayings [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1.

If such a Logia ever existed, it is not Canonical Matthew. GMatt is not a sayings gospel for one thing and was not written in Hebrew for another. Furthermore, GMatt is largely dependent on Mark and (most probably)another written sayings tradition (in Greek, not Hebrew) called Q. Matt's dependence on Mark also puts its date somewhere around 80 CE (if not later) which is pushing the envelope for the plausibility of the author being a contemporary of Jesus. It's not impossible, of course, but this is an era when people generally didn't live much past forty or fifty years of age.

The bigger obstacle for apostolic authorship is that fact that Matthew copies so extensively from secondary sources. An eyewitness should not be expected to copy verbatim from a non-eyewitness.

There is also the fact that GMatt contains some of the more demonstrable fictions and signs of OT cannibalism.

It also bears repeating that the author Matthew never claims to have been an apostle or a witness, never states his name and never claims to have known any other witnesses.

(To be continued)

To sum up for Matthew:

Papias claims that an apostle named Matthew compiled a sayings Gospel in Hebrew.

The Canonical Gospel of Matthew is written in literary Greek and is not a sayings gospel. The author never claims to have been an apostle or an eyewitness. It relies heavily on secondary Greek sources as well as the Septuagint. Once again, an eyewitness would not rely on the accounts of non-witnesses to recount events that he had supposedly seen for himself. It was written at least 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. The author includes demonstrable fictions which can clearly be shown to have been derived from the Septuagint.

Papias' Logia, if it existed, has never been found.


Let's do Luke.

The traditional author of Luke-Acts is supposedly a physician and travelling companion of Paul named Luke.This is a dubious tradition at best. First of all, the author of Luke-Acts never claims to have known Paul. The earliest known claim for this tradition comes from Irenaeus in the late 2nd century who probably based his conclusion on the "we passages" from Acts as well as a stray mention of someone named Luke in Philemon (the name turns up in a couple of the non-authentic Pauline letters as well but the authentic corpus only mentions the name once in passing).

There is no reason whatever to suppose that the Luke mentioned by Paul has anything to do with either GLuke or Acts.

The "we" passages in Acts are those passages during which the narrative voice changes from third person to first person plural. This is the source of the supposition that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul's. Some scholars like Vernon Robbins has made a strong case that this was merely a Greek literary device for describing sea voyages (http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/WeSeaVoyages.pdf) (pdf), but it's not the only explanation (the author of Luke-Acts could have used a previous written source, for instance, as he did with Mark and Q).

Furthermore, Luke knew Josephus, which puts that gospel into the mid 90's CE at a bare minimum and probably later. This means that Paul had been dead 30 years before Luke-Acts was written. It is highly unlikely, then, that the book was written by a companion of Paul and there is absolutely no reason to connect the "Luke" who is so casually mentioned by Paul in one letter to the composition of Luke-Acts.

Furthermore, Luke is dependent on both Mark and Q which (contrary to some Christian folklore) means that Luke had no access to first hand accounts from other witnesses.

There are also historical inaccuracies in Luke as well as contradictions with other Gospels which I can address if anyone requests.

So, to sum up Luke, it is an anonymous gospel whose author makes no claim to first hand knowledge and no claim to knowledge even of Paul. It was written more than a half century after the crucifixion, is dependent on secondary sources and contains numerous historical errors and contradictions with the other gospels.

The fable of a physician named Luke who traveled with Paul comes from a claim made 150 years after the crucifixion and is corroborated by nothing in the text itself.


Time for John.

By tradition, the GJohn is written by the apostle of that name and is also identified as the mysterious "Beloved Disciple" mentioned within the text. This tradition, like Luke, stems from a late 2nd century claim by Irenaeus (who is known to have confused John the Apostle with another John, called 'the Presbyter" and may have been doing so again).

As with the other canonical Gospels, the author of GJohn does not identify himself or claim to be a witness (The seeming self-identification in 21:24 is a later redaction to the book, not part of the original manuscript and did not name the author "John" in any case. It is also not really a first person singular assertion, ("I wrote this") but a first person plural a vowel that "we know" these were the words of a disciple (without naming the disciple).

Looking at the text of GJohn, we can see that any claim to the book as an eyewitness or apostolic account does not hold water. First of all there is the very late date (c. 100 CE if not later) which puts it at the absolute edge of any plausible lifespan for a contemporary of Jesus. It also shows a heavy Hellenistic influence, both in its literary style and its theology. How does an illiterate Palestinian fisherman suddenly become proficient in stylized literary Greek and become aware of Alexandrian Jewish-Greek concepts like the Logos?

GJohn is also arguably the most anti-Jewish work. It goes beyond being just a polemic against the Pharisees or the priests and becomes a full on indictment of all Jewish people. Kind of weird since the author (like Jesus) was allegedly a Jew.

GJohn contains some of the longest, most otherwordly and most implausible speeches for Jesus. The length of the discourses in itself mitigates against their historicity simply by virtue of the implausibility of those speeches surviving verbatim for 70 or more years in the memory of this fisherman (and nowhere else. These discourses are found nowhere else in early Christian literature). They do not have the short and sweet anecdotal quality of the Q pericopes which are easy to remember and transmit through oral tradition.

GJohn also shows layered authorship. It is not the contiguous work of a single author but the result of multiple redactions by multiple hands.

What is really the nail in the coffin, though, is that GJohn anachronistically retrojects the expulsion of Christians from Jewish synagogues (an event which occurred c. 85-95 CE) to within the life of Jesus. A contemporary of Jesus could not have made this mistake.

To sum up for John, it is an early 2nd century book which is heavily Hellenistic in its language and theology. It is markedly anti-Jewish, it contains speeches for Jesus which are not only incompatible with the character of Jesus as he is presented in the synoptics (not to mention that it simply strains all credulity that a 1st century Jewish audience would tolerate a guy claiming he was God) but simply cannot be plausibly defended as authentic transcriptions of speeches remembered verbatim for 70 years by an illiterate Palestinian fisherman (and by nobody else) and then translated into Greek by that same fisherman. It contains contradictions with the synoptics, it shows multiple hands of authorship and it contains an anachronism so glaring that it is a fatal blow to any consideration of eyewitness testimony.

Its traditional authorship stems from a single unreliable claim by Irenaeus (a guy who couldn't keep his "Johns" straight) around 180 CE.

There is also the well-known problem that the alleged eyewitnesses contradict each other repeatedly, including on the miracles they are supposed to have witnessed.

The Resurrection Story in Matthew (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=28&version=31)
The Resurrection Story in Mark (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016&version=31)
The Resurrection Story in Luke (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=24&version=31) and Acts (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%201;&version=31;).
The Resurrection Story in John (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020-21;&version=31;). (The last chapter of John looks to be a couple of passages that should have appeared earlier in the story--especially 21:15-25--but have either gotten detached from their proper place in the narrative, or alternatively were added later on. Textual corruption being another issue with the reliability of the Bible.)

Matthew: The empty tomb discovered by Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary". A single angel in the tomb. Jesus himself appears to the women while they're on the way to tell the others; Jesus then meets up with everyone at a mountain in Galilee.
Mark: The empty tomb discovered by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. A single "young man" (possibly an angel) appears in the tomb. Some textual corruption here--the earliest manuscripts just cut off at 16:8; the remaining verses indicate that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene; then to "two of them", then to "the Eleven" at dinner. No mention of everyone taking a road trip back up to Galilee.
Luke: The empty tomb found by "the women". Two men (angels) are in the tomb. The women go and tell the others; in the meantime, Jesus appears to "two of them", who don't recognize him. He has dinner with these people, who still don't recognize him until Jesus gives them bread; Jesus then vanishes. Jesus appears to everyone in Jerusalem, before ascending to heaven in Bethany. No mention of anyone schlepping back up to Galilee. In Acts it's stated that Jesus remained with the disciples for forty days following his resurrection.
John: Mary Magdalene alone finds the empty tomb. She tells Peter "and the other disciple". Peter and the other disciple inspect the tomb, but see no angels. Mary Magdalene then goes inside and sees two angels, then Jesus, whom she doesn't recognize. Jesus appears to the disciples (indoors, not on a mountain in Galilee). Thomas misses out on this and doesn't believe the rest, until Jesus appears to him a week later. And, as previously mentioned, some textual corruption.

The gospels vary widely on exactly who found what, precisely what they saw, and the subsequent events. Much of this variation is too great to just be a question of "Well, this is what happened to Matthew, but of course Luke had a different set of experiences". Some of the various writers must at minimum be factually mistaken about some of these events. Also--bearing in mind Mark is generally believed to be the oldest gospel--note that the later gospels seem to have more elaborate stories than the oldest account. If this were eyewitness testimony, one would expect the testimony given soonest after the events to be most detailed, but if this is a case of people "telling stories" (not necessarily consciously lying, of course), it's perfectly natural that things get more embellished as time passes.

It is commonly argued that at least the synoptic gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels) (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) show evidence of copying; as indicated above, this is not just because they tell the same story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem), but they tell the same story in such a very similar way.

Of course, where the synoptics are independent of each other, they wind up not agreeing at all (as in the two almost completely different and even contradictory accounts of Jesus' birth and childhood found in Matthew and Luke).

Mainstream scholarship has long regarded the authorship traditions of the Gospels as inauthentic and it is difficult to impossible to really try to defend them.





The only dishonest ploy here is your quote above. I didn't question his intellect.
You asked if he has "a real intellectual road block to Christianity". He gave you his reasons for not accepting your claims and they were based on reason. You didn't expect him to answer "why yes' I believe i have an intellectual roadblock." Your question was not an attempt to bring introspection to the poster, it was to malign his intellect. You're a dishonest poster.

Are you so confident that eyewitnesses area very reliable source?

Your tactic here isn’t particularly sound. I may as well appeal to eyewitness accounts of spectacular events that HAVE been proven reliable and say, “Why not like this?” Not that it matters. Your premise assumes I won’t accept these as valid. But you’re missing the boat anyway:


Are you willing to accept the eyewitness testimonies of those above? If not, why not?

No doubt you’re salivating over assuming I’ll say “no.” Sorry to disappoint you, but it’s not that simple. Put it this way: I’m not willing to simply dismiss them a priori just because they favor someone else’s religion. Let’s use the Joseph Smith thing as an example. My rejection of Mormonism isn’t based on that event or any other single event. It’s based on multiple lines of evidence that show it is false: Lack of New World archaeological evidence; Smith’s poor exegesis of Biblical texts, and so on. Maybe Young did undergo some sort of transformation; maybe he didn’t, but I won’t accept or reject Mormonism on that basis alone. At the same time, on the basis of the unreliability of Mormon truth claims on other subjects, I *do* have good reason to suspect a cause other than a supernatural one.

So sorry, again, to disappoint you, but you’ll just have to argue facts rather than rehashing Hume’s repeatedly defeated philosophical musings.

If you only have the Bible to back up that claim, the argument is effectively "IF (the Bible is accurate) THEN (the Bible is accurate)", which is meaningless.

Hmmm. Is this how eyewitness testimony is handled in courts, too? “IF (this witness is accurate), THEN (this witness is accurate)?” Do you know something that historians and courts don’t about this subject? Or maybe you’re not getting OUR argument right.

You're not gullible; you just choose to give your god and the Bible special protection from rational scrutiny that you wouldn't give to any other claims, which is why you dismiss the claims of all other religions.

Oops, though….I don’t. So where does that leave you?

The more extraordinary (incredible, veering from the understood norm...) a claim is, the more extraordinary (detailed, convincing, precise, data-filled...) needs be the evidence.

That’s a rule that Carl Sagan simply made up, and it’s not found in any rules of evidence for courts or anywhere else. It’s based ultimately on Hume, who arbitrarily defined what was extraordinary based on nothing but his own subjective experience. As Earman shows in the book Hume’s Abject Failure, Hume had to pull in his horns when he was embarrassed by the “tropical prince” analogy showing that by his own rules, “ice” was an “extraordinary” phenomenon that a tropical prince would be obliged to reject as real. “Extraordinary” is just another way of saying, “what I personally have not experienced.” And that’s worthless as an epistemology.

In any event, we DO have extraordinary evidence – and that comes of testimony recorded in the NT, the growth of the Christian movement, and a case for the Resurrection. How about you address those with some real arguments?

The authors of all four Canonical Gospels are unkown.

Oh, do tell. Did you happen to have an epistemology for ascertaining the authorship of ancient documents, or did you just get this idea from someone else and copy it without critically analyzing it?

Sorry, no. The authors of all four Gospels are known as well as they are for any ancient document, whether it be the Annals of Tacitus or the histories of Livy. I have an idea. Why don’t you explain to us how YOU know, say, Tacitus wrote the Annals? Then we’ll compare evidence for the Gospels. How about that? In fact, let’s do that now:

None of the four canonical Gospels names its own author

Wrong. They name their authors at the very beginning – same as the Annals of Tacitus.

none of them claim to be eyewitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus.

Tacitus doesn’t claim to be an eyewitness, or to have spoken to an eyewitness, to/for nearly all of what he records either. In fact much of it is from before his time. Your point is what? Did you know something that historians don’t?

All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves.

Writing in third person was a normal affectation for ancient historians; Josephus does it part of the time too. It says nothing about whether a document was by (or sourced from) an eyewitness. Tacitus says nothing about himself in the Annals. Again, what’s your point? You seem to have made these rules up on the spot.


The first gospel written is Mark. Mark is not by tradition an eyewitness account but 2nd century tradition casts him as a secretary of the Apostle Peter who haphazardly wrote down everything Peter said in no particular order.

That’s a lot better than what we have for Tacitus. The Annals were probably published in 116 AD. The first mention we have of Tacitus writing anything, by name, comes from the third century – between 200 and 300 AD, 100 years or more later. A Christian writer named Tertullian gives Tacitus credit not for the Annals, but for his other historical work, the Histories.

As the years pass there are a number of signs that different writers knew of Tacitus or read his work, but we don’t get a clear indication that he wrote the Annals from any of these. Some do refer to the Histories, the other work, but not the Annals. Around 400 AD an author named Sulpicius has clearly used the Annals as a source, but he does not name Tacitus as the author. About the same time, a church writer named Jerome says that Tacitus wrote a history of the Caesars in 30 books – that happens to match perfectly a desc of the Annals and the Histories. So it is not until 400 AD, about 300 years later, that we have an external affirmation that Tacitus wrote Annals – and it isn’t a direct confirmation, as in saying, “Tacitus wrote this.”

Funny – do you have a different set of rules for the Gospels, then? Why? Because you say so?

First, Mark does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness.

Why does he have to? Papias said so. This is a rule you just made up on the spot to disqualify Mark.

Secondly, the author is extremely hostile to Peter. Mark is a decidedly Pauline, anti-Jewish and anti-Petrine diatribe. Mark is very hostile to the apostles in general and to Peter in particular

That’s a pretty stale argument. Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke. He is also the most true to life character in the Gospel other than Jesus. There are also many personal touches reflecting Peter, including the frequent and incidental mention of his house (5 times in Mark); phrases such as "Simon and his companions" (1:36) and Andrew being identified as Simon's brother (1:16); and the direct address to Simon by Jesus (14:37). Many third-person verses, if shifted to first- or second-person, would fit right in the mouth of Peter. (1:29, 5:1, 5:38, 6:53-4, 8:22, 10:32, 11:1, 14:18, etc. -

He takes every opportunity to depict the apostles as being dense and not getting Jesus' true message (reflecting the tension between Pauline communities and the Jerusalem cult in the last half of the first century).

That sure is an imaginative reading. I suppose you’ve never heard of confessional autobiography. There’s nothing extraordinary about Peter admitting to his own errors. Once again, you’re just making up rules as you go along.

Now why would a Petrine memoir not include a Petrine witness of the resurrection? Wouldn't that be the most important part? How does it make any sense to exclude it?

It may well have, in the ending that was lost after the current v. 8. But there’s a redemption in there even so. Jesus tells the women to specifically inform Peter (16:7), which is a pretty darned significant honor.

Thirdly, the book is quite obviously a literary construction and is manifestly not a transcription of oral anecdotes. The literary structure of Mark, both in its chiastic forms and its use of the Hebrew Bible as a illusory template or "hypotext" preclude the possibility of transcribed oral tradition. GMark is a carefully constructed literary work.

Wow, you’re not particularly well educated in oral forms, are you? Chiastic forms and templates are precisely what ancient composers used to create a text that was able to be transmitted orally. In fact, you really need to read Shiner’s work on the oral performance of Mark; it’s filled with aural cues and constructs that show that it was originally an “oral performance.”


It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic, the language of Peter and the language he would have dictated his memoirs in.

Hate to tell you this, but a very proficient translator, or a free composition from Greek, explains that just as well; but you’re wrong anyway. I guess you haven’t seen Casey’s study on the Aramaic sources of Mark’s Gospel?

To be continued...

Fourth, mark makes a number of errors regarding Palestinian geography and Jewish laws and customs which show that his information could not have been collected from a Palestinian Jew.

These are all old, stale news…lay out the specifics so we can see how out of date you are….

Fifth, the book could not have been written during the lifetime of Peter. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which means that Peter was dead (at least by Christian tradition) when the book was written.

THIS again? Sorry, no. Three problems:

The context of Mark 13 indicates a time before the temple was destroyed. Verses 13:1, 3 and 11 imply that the temple is still standing, referring to it in a very casual way.

The warning of fleeing to the mountains does not fit the picture. By AD 68, Jerusalem was isolated, and there were Romans and hostile Sicarii in the mountains - people fled INTO Jerusalem, and to forts like Masada and Herodion - NOT from Jerusalem and into the mountains. Christians, according to Eusebius, fled to Pella in the Decapolis, which is decidedly not where Jesus said to flee.

Finally, a prediction of the destruction of the Temple is hardly unique anyway. First, destruction of the temple (or Jerusalem) would not be too wild a guess, in light of how turbulent relations with the Romans were. Second, several contemporaries of Jesus made similar predictions; they were a dime a dozen, and seemingly about as common as modern Americans suggesting blowing up the White House. The most familiar of these predictors, mentioned by Josephus, was Jesus the son of Ananias, a bit of a madman who made predictions of the Temple's destruction between 63-70 AD. Third, warnings of the Temple being completely torn down - which to a Jewish mind, would have beem the only conceivable method of judgment involving the Temple are found throughout the OT and in the Book of 2 Maccabees.

Therefore, sorry -- there is no reason to use this section of Mark 13 as an argument for dating the whole of Mark at 70 or later.

Given your lack of homework on this issue, I’ll stop there. More information on all four gospels can be found at http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html which is where much of this comes from.

Mainstream scholarship has long regarded the authorship traditions of the Gospels as inauthentic and it is difficult to impossible to really try to defend them.

Says you….now it’s your turn. Why don’t we start with how you know Tacitus wrote the Annals, please? I’ll wait.

roxberry, please do not reply. i respect you, and i do not want you to see you waste your time with this fool. He asserts his rebuttals with the same vigor that you assert yours nevermind the actual content of the post. his points of defense are of the same substance of your points of attack in his view(in my view they are more rational therefore i accept them over his), this debate will go nowhere. and i have already went there and back. you've won, let it go. The self-defense mechanism of religion is stronger than reason. you cant reason someone out of a position they didnt reason themselves into.

The self-defense mechanism of religion is stronger than reason. you cant reason someone out of a position they didnt reason themselves into.

You keep making assertions that you can't support. Please explain how I didn't reason myself into my current position? Also, please explain what this "self-defense mechanism" of religion is?

btw...I'm not into religion either. I'm into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

You keep making assertions that you can't support. Please explain how I didn't reason myself into my current position? Also, please explain what this "self-defense mechanism" of religion is?

btw...I'm not into religion either. I'm into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

i have 15 pages of support, read this thread again. Also look up what reason is, because you are obviously confused.. How about you explain how you DID reason yourself into your current position and i will point out every illogical point behind your reasoning (again). i'm not an expert on scripture and i dont need to be to point out lack of logic because logic goes deeper than words, it goes beyond the idea to the roots of it, to the "Why". Expain
why your imaginary friend led you to believe in him and why he does this.
why Your imaginary friend is better than the imaginary friend of a Muslim.
Why he wants to save your soul.
Why does he believe your soul to be worth saving
why do you feel the need to believe in him?
Why would a God want a personal relationship with you? is he trying to exploit you?
Why does The bible exist?
Why does the bible need to believed in?
Why can't you write your own bible?
Why did jesus feel the need to spread his word?
Why did it happen 2000 years ago? and not today when there would be more people?

Reasonable concrete answers only please,( do not use the abstract concept of love)

You ask and answer all the wrong questions, in your mentality you take his existence for granted. in every word you say its there. i was trying to debate with you over the "why?' to your belief yet you ignore it and point out what is to me, semantics. This is no longer a problem of naivety this might be psychological.

i have 15 pages of support, read this thread again. Also look up what reason is, because you are obviously confused.. How about you explain how you DID reason yourself into your current position and i will point out every illogical point behind your reasoning (again). i'm not an expert on scripture and i dont need to be to point out lack of logic because logic goes deeper than words, it goes beyond the idea to the roots of it, to the "Why". Expain
why your imaginary friend led you to believe in him and why he does this.
why Your imaginary friend is better than the imaginary friend of a Muslim.
Why he wants to save your soul.
Why does he believe your soul to be worth saving
why do you feel the need to believe in him?
Why would a God want a personal relationship with you? is he trying to exploit you?
Why does The bible exist?
Why does the bible need to believed in?
Why can't you write your own bible?
Why did jesus feel the need to spread his word?
Why did it happen 2000 years ago? and not today when there would be more people?

Reasonable concrete answers only please,( do not use the abstract concept of love)

You ask and answer all the wrong questions, in your mentality you take his existence for granted. in every word you say its there. i was trying to debate with you over the "why?' to your belief yet you ignore it and point out what is to me, semantics. This is no longer a problem of naivety this might be psychological.

Once again you failed to answer my question. Please explain to me how I didn't reason myself into my current position. Anyone can read your post above and realize that you didn't answer the question. What about these 15 pages, how does this explain that I didn't reason for myself?

The second question I have for you is this; Why do you hold to the postion that you hold too? In my opening post of this thread, I give a summary as to why I hold my position. You have not given any reasons. I have given several pieces of evidence to support my postion; though you do not accept them. Yet you have not given any evidence. You have attacked my position but have failed to support yours or explain why you are correct. Please tell me why you are correct. If you are so confident that I'm wrong and your right; what gives you the confidence that your correct? What do you base this on...faith?

the people who wrote the gospels did not have the qualities of an investigative journalist.

This sounds like good investigative journalism to me:

(Luke 1: 1-4)

1)Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2) just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3) it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4) so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

^ How is they claiming they carried out investigation, investigative journalism?

^ How is they claiming they carried out investigation, investigative journalism?

Well, the evidence will be in what they wrote in their gospels; According to (Luke 1: 1-4)

1)Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2) just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3) it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4) so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Luke is clearly saying he intended to write accurately about the things he investigated and found to be well supported by witnesses. In the Gospel of John chap. 20:31 'These are written that you may believe you may have life in his name'. The gospels are written in a sober and responsible fashion, with accurate incidental details, with obvious care and exactitude. It seems quite apparent that the goal of the gospel writers was to attempt to record what had actually occurred.

Below are just a few of examples of the details that Luke includes in his narrative to accurately document the time frames by mentioning some of the people who were in power at the time that these events took place. There are many more to point out, but time and space prevents it for now. Please read the Gospel of Luke for yourself for further examples.

Luke 1

5) In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
9) according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot…

Luke 2

1) Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. 2) This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3) And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. 4) Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David...

Luke 3

1) Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2) in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.


Another reasons why I believe the gospels are accurate is this; If critics who were present could have attacked the early Christian movement on the basis that it was full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have. There is no indication of this happening. Later in Jewish writings Jesus was called a sorcerer who led Israel astray. This acknowledges that he really did work marvelous wonders. However, the writers of the gospels dispute the source of his power.

Futhermore, we can learn through non-Christian sources many facts about Jesus that corroborate key teachings and events in his life as described in the gospels.

So basically, your argument is that you believe their word. That's it. I reiterate: They are claiming they carried out accurate investigations. That is meaningless to someone who remains neutral in the case of the Bible (ironically, what a journalist would do).

So basically, your argument is that you believe their word. That's it. I reiterate: They are claiming they carried out accurate investigations. That is meaningless to someone who remains neutral in the case of the Bible (ironically, what a journalist would do).

By reading your quote above, I don't believe you have read any of the gospels. At least not recently anyways. How do you argue something that you have not read; does that seem reasonable to you? In case you have read them and have done your own studing;why don't you tell me why their word can't be trusted. Was there any evidence of dishonesty or immorality that might taint the gospel writter's ability or willingness to transmit history accurately? If so, please tell me where they were dishonest or where they didn't transmit history accurately. When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they tell the truth or are they wrong? If so, please give me your reasons and evidence of this.

By reading your quote above, I don't believe you have read any of the gospels. At least not recently anyways. How do you argue something that you have not read; does that seem reasonable to you?

I have read them. Keep your baseless accusation to yourself, thank you very much.

why don't you tell me why their word can't be trusted. Was there any evidence of dishonesty or immorality that might taint the gospel writter's ability or willingness to transmit history accurately? If so, please tell me where they were dishonest or where they didn't transmit history accurately. When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they tell the truth or are they wrong? If so, please give me your reasons and evidence of this.

1. You're changing argument while ignoring the point I made: Your argument amounts to you taking their word for what they said.

Whether I'm able to find "evidence of dishonesty or immorality " or not, does not refute that point. Moreover, that is a false dichotomy to begin with because "dishonesty or immorality" aren't the only flaws that would make people no trust their claims. For example, ineptitude (i.e. "They suck at journalism"), inadequate resources (i.e. "They didn't have enough time and resources to paint an accurate picture), come to mind, and neither of those would be "dishonesty or immorality".


2. The reason I hesitate to post any flaws in the gospel writings is because I don't doubt your ability to rationalize the flaws at all costs.

For example, there are conflicting accounts in the gospel regarding Jesus' lasts words. Apologists rationalize this by saying things like "Oh, that's just because each gospel writer emphasized things he thought was important. If you read them all together you get the full picture". Now that might sound like a good answer, but in reality it's a pathetic cop-out. If I were a court stenographer who ignored certain lines of dialogue or changed their order, or a NBC journalist that said, "Hey just join my notes with the notes from Fox News and you get the full story" I would be fired immediately. Applying a stronger standard to a fallible human being than to a supposedly infallible document is a ridiculous rationalization.

When the gospels mention people, places, and events, do they tell the truth or are they wrong? If so, please give me your reasons and evidence of this.

Here's a relevant article by a recognised bible authority:

Bishop Spong Q&A

Jeanie from Minnesota asks:
How do we really know what Jesus said? They get so much wrong. Is it not a house of cards?
Dear Jeannie,
It is not easy to determine what Jesus actually said or did, but I believe it is more substantial than a house of cards. Probably the reason traditional Catholics and evangelical Protestant fundamentalists try to literalize the Bible is that they recognize how fragile their grasp on truth really is and, unable to be secure in that fragility, they make incredible claims for the literal words of scripture or for the teaching authority of the church. Literalism in any form is little more than pious hysteria.
The problems are that we have nothing in writing from the time Jesus lived. The earliest material in the New Testament would be Paul's Epistles, written 20-34 years after the crucifixion and by a man who did not know the human Jesus. Paul's conversion is dated some one to six years after the crucifixion. From Paul we learn that Jesus was crucified, that he introduced the Lord's Supper and that he was perceived as alive in some way following the crucifixion and little more.
The gospels are written between 70 at the earliest (Mark) and 100 at the latest (John). Yet all four gospels reveal the impact of this Jesus on a variety of people. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar spent more than a decade going over everything that the four gospels record Jesus as ever having said. When they completed this study, they determined that no more than 16% of the sayings of Jesus are authentic to the man Jesus which, of course, means that some 84% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are not historically accurate. The Seminar did not find a single word attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (John) to be authentic. The Jesus of John's gospel speaks to the concerns of the Christian Church near the end of the first century, not the literal words of a man of history.
I think I can demonstrate that all four of the gospel writers knew they were not writing either history or biography. Each was interpreting Jesus in the context of their relationship with the Synagogue and their time in history, most especially following the Jewish-Roman War when in 70 CE the city of Jerusalem was leveled by the Roman invaders.
If we looked at the gospels as portraits of Jesus painted by the second or even third generation of Christians and not as photographs or tape recordings capturing his exact deeds and words, I think we would be closer to the truth.
I believe the gospels give us insight into the impact of a man of history and they open the doors for an exploration into the mystery and wonders of God. That is why I treasure them.
– John Shelby Spong


"84% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are not historically accurate"! "do they tell the truth or are they wrong?" your call!

"84% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are not historically accurate"!

84%. How the fuck do you figure that if you dont even read the bible?

Do you realize how drastic a claim that is.

I could understanding if you were claiming some of his actions were historically inaccurate.

But 84% of sayings?

So only 16% of what jesus says in the bible is what he actually said?

Justify your extreme statement.

You understand the bible is not historical book; of course anything that is in the past is history; but the point of the book is spiritual therefore it is measured by its spiritual accuracy not its historical accuracy.

Nevertheless if you believe historical accuracy is the measurement; how the did you calculate 84%?

84%. How the fuck do you figure that if you dont even read the bible?

Do you realize how drastic a claim that is.

I could understanding if you were claiming some of his actions were historically inaccurate.

But 84% of sayings?

So only 16% of what jesus says in the bible is what he actually said?

Justify your extreme statement.

You understand the bible is not historical book; of course anything that is in the past is history; but the point of the book is spiritual therefore it is measured by its spiritual accuracy not its historical accuracy.

Nevertheless if you believe historical accuracy is the measurement; how the did you calculate 84%?

It was his quote from the passage he posted, hence the quotes around it.

For example, ineptitude (i.e. "They suck at journalism"), inadequate resources (i.e. "They didn't have enough time and resources to paint an accurate picture), come to mind, and neither of those would be "dishonesty or immorality".

Hey Rust, an honest question for you; do you believe that this is really the case, and if so why? Many times people make these "assertions" when there is no concrete reason to think that this would be the case. At least no credible reasons that have been presented to me.

Also, one other question for you. What is the primary message of the bible, or what is the most important message that the bible is trying to communicate to people?

Thanks!

Hey Rust, an honest question for you; do you believe that this is really the case, and if so why? Many times people make these "assertions" when there is no concrete reason to think that this would be the case. At least no credible reasons that have been presented to me.

I have absolutely no reason to believe, save for poor rationalizations, that the authors had accurate information. In fact, I have reason to believe there are mistakes in their writing's as I already gave you an example that could easily fit both of those descriptions (i.e. ineptitude and/or lack of resources), and you simply ignored it.

"For example, there are conflicting accounts in the gospel regarding Jesus' lasts words. Apologists rationalize this by saying things like "Oh, that's just because each gospel writer emphasized things he thought was important. If you read them all together you get the full picture". Now that might sound like a good answer, but in reality it's a pathetic cop-out. If I were a court stenographer who ignored certain lines of dialogue or changed their order, or a NBC journalist that said, "Hey just join my notes with the notes from Fox News and you get the full story" I would be fired immediately. Applying a stronger standard to a fallible human being than to a supposedly infallible document is a ridiculous rationalization."


Also, one other question for you. What is the primary message of the bible, or what is the most important message that the bible is trying to communicate to people?

What does this have to do with the point at hand? This thread is asking why someone should believe in Christianity over all other religions. In relation to that, you brought up the alleged journalistic integrity of the gospel writers. I pointed out how your argument essentially amounts to you just buying into their claims. Whether I know what the "primary message of the bible" is or not, wouldn't change this in the least; so it seems to me that you're merely trying to change the subject at hand.

If you were honestly curious, and if this wasn't just a dishonest way to ignore the criticism of your argument, you would have chosen a more relevant avenue, like a thread dealing with that actual topic (i.e. "What do you guys think is the central message of the Bible?"), or a personal e-mail; more importantly you wouldn't have ignored every single one of my points.

Now even though I'm betting this will just open a can of worms - allowing you to claim I don't know the Bible just because I don't happen to agree with what you think is the primary message - I'll bite, in the honest hopes that you either don't continue these red-herrings or that if you do, other people see them for what they are. To answer your question, I would say the primary message of the Bible, in a Christian perspective, is the awesome love of God for his creation. A love so big that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

"[I]For example, there are conflicting accounts in the gospel regarding Jesus' lasts words.

Please give me the references to the contradictions that you are referencing

or lack of resources

What resources are they lacking that they should have used and was available to them during the time that they wrote to gospels?

and if this wasn't just a dishonest way to ignore the criticism of your argument,

Your wrong!

I pointed out how your argument essentially amounts to you just buying into their claims.

Wrong again, I do not just buy into their claims.

Please give me the references to the contradictions that you are referencing

Huh? What do you mean references? The gospels are the references. Are you unaware, or denying, that the gospels have differing accounts regarding Jesus' lasts words? I'm not sure if you you want me to quote the gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion (which would be quite odd given how much you've talked about reading the bible) or if you think I need some sort of source (from a theologian for example) in order for what I said to be true...


What resources are they lacking that they should have used and was available to them during the time that they wrote to gospels?

Read what I said again. I said that I had no reason to believe what they wrote was accurate, and in fact had reason to believe it was inaccurate. I gave an example of an inaccuracy (be it a full blown contradiction or merely incomplete story-telling) in the bible, and mentioned that this could be explained either by incompetency or lack of resources. That does not mean I am claiming to know which one it is, much less that I know which specific resources they lacked.

Your wrong!

So then please tell me what explains you avoiding my points and asking me an irrelvant question?


Wrong again, I do not just buy into their claims.

Sorry but when someone said they (the gospel writers) didn't have the qualities of an investigative journalist your response was to quote them (the gospel writers) essentially stating that they did (i.e. citing Luke 1: 1-4). How is that not just buing into their claims? Had you provided something else as proof, then it would be another story.

84%. How the fuck do you figure that if you dont even read the bible?

Do you realize how drastic a claim that is.

I could understanding if you were claiming some of his actions were historically inaccurate.

But 84% of sayings?

So only 16% of what jesus says in the bible is what he actually said?

Justify your extreme statement.

You understand the bible is not historical book; of course anything that is in the past is history; but the point of the book is spiritual therefore it is measured by its spiritual accuracy not its historical accuracy.

Nevertheless if you believe historical accuracy is the measurement; how the did you calculate 84%?
KATWM what makes you think I don't read the bible? It was having the contradictions constantly before my mind that caused me to question the literal interpretations. There are of course many people who read the bible for all sorts of purposes, theological students, historians, archeologists, scholars. A group of those scholars published a book called "The Five Gospels" "The search for the authentic words of Jesus. Here's the quote from my previous post:
The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar spent more than a decade going over everything that the four gospels record Jesus as ever having said. When they completed this study, they determined that no more than 16% of the sayings of Jesus are authentic to the man Jesus which, of course, means that some 84% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are not historically accurate. The Seminar did not find a single word attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (John) to be authentic. The Jesus of John's gospel speaks to the concerns of the Christian Church near the end of the first century, not the literal words of a man of history.
Challenging? Yes! For someone like myself, raised and taught in a christian culture, to have the bible's integrity questioned, it's so far outside the box it's almost unthinkable. Read about it for yourself, make up your own mind.

"A bold and fascinating project ... Its editors are willing to take stands on the difficult question. "What did Jesus really say?" --Elaine Pagels, Princeton University

"The Five Gospels is a red-letter day for the ethics of scholarship, for the moral demand that scholars of the Bible state clearly, openlu, and honestly what are their sources, tehir methods, and their results, and, above all, that they come before teh eschaton to conclusion and consensus. I am honoured to be among the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar" --John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University, author of The Historical Jesus.

"This is a bold experiment by leading New Testament scholars to penetrate the gospel texts in search of the historical jesus. It provides a powerful new tool that future scholarship will ignore at its peril." --Hershel Shanks, publisher of Bible Review and Biblical Archeology Review, editor of Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"The Five Godpels answers the question 'What did Jesus really say?' in a comprehensive and knowledgeable way for those souls not sharing hte official church confidence in the Gospels' historical reliability." --John Dart, Los Angeles Times

"One of the most significant religious books ever published is The Five Gospels." --Christian Social Action.

"Readers of this book will have received a magnificent education in the methods and conclusions of serious biblical scholarship." --Free Inquiry

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Huh? What do you mean references? The gospels are the references.

Okay, let me try this again. I think my blood sugar was low when I was typing last night...LOL. What verses in the bible are you referring too. Give me the quotes that are contradicting each other and where they are found in the bible. I ask this to ensure that we are talking about the same thing.

Are you unaware, or denying, that the gospels have differing accounts regarding Jesus' lasts words?

No, I'm not unaware or denying...Thanks! I'm also aware that there are other alleged contradictions as well.

Read what I said again. I said that I had no reason to believe what they wrote was accurateand in fact had reason to believe it was inaccurate. I gave an example of an inaccuracy (be it a full blown contradiction or merely incomplete story-telling) in the bible, and mentioned that this could be explained either by incompetency or lack of resources. That does not mean I am claiming to know which one it is, much less that I know which specific resources they lacked.

Fair enough

So then please tell me what explains you avoiding my points and asking me an irrelvant question.

I have not avoided answering your question but it's more complicated than answering just yes or no.

I believe what the gospels writers have written based on the fact that history & archeology has not proven them to be wrong. I do not believe the bible just because "thats what the bible said" or what many call "blind faith." I have spent time myself studying and looking at the evidence that exsist and have come to a conculsion about who Jesus Christ is and what he did. In fact, history and archeology has corroborated with the gospels. I'm also aware that archeology has not confirmed everything in the bible, but it has not disproved anything in the bible. Furthermore, I have also spent time looking into the alleged contradictions of the bible as well.

Something I have come to realize about these alleged contradictions is this; there are no contradictions from the gospels to the most important message of what the bible is communicating and that is this; Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died for our sins, the tomb was empty, Jesus was seen alive after he was crucified, he performed many miracles and he asscended into Heaven.

Your answer to my "not irrelvent" question was for the most part correct and there are no contradictions found in the gospels to what you claimed to be the most important message of the bible.

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Nice poem, it rhymes!

btw...maybe your wrong and you will someday know.

Give me the quotes that are contradicting each other and where they are found in the bible. I ask this to ensure that we are talking about the same thing.


Sure thing. These are the accounts of Jesus' death according to the gospels (I've omitted Mark since it's essentially the same as Matthew's account in this particular segment at least).

" 45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him." 50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit."
--- Matthew 27:45-50


"44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the tempe was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. 47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man." 48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things."
--- Luke 23:44-49:


"28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
-- John 19:28-30


These accounts are either a full blown contradiction (i.e. Once is saying that X were Jesus' lasts words and another one is saying Y were) or, if the usual rationalization is to be believed (that Jesus actually said all those phrases and each gospel writer merely decided to concentrate on a specific phrase), then an admitted of it being incomplete information (i.e. terrible journalism).



I have not avoided answering your question but it's more complicated than answering just yes or no. I find that hard to believe since your initial response to my question ignored all my points and instead asked a complete irrelevant question.

If you're not trying to avoid answering the problems, then you're doing a good job at making it look that way.



I do not believe the bible just because "thats what the bible said" or what many call "blind faith."
You're changing the argument now. I specifically responded to your claims regarding the journalistic integrity of the gospel writers. You claimed they carried out very good journalism. To support that claim you merely cited their statements. That's it.

I'm also aware that archeology has not confirmed everything in the bible, but it has not disproved anything in the bible. Furthermore, I have also spent time looking into the alleged contradictions of the bible as well.

28 Concerning Kedar, and concerning the kingdoms of Hazor, which Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon shall smite, thus saith the LORD; Arise ye, go up to Kedar, and spoil the men of the east. 29 Their tents and their flocks shall they take away: they shall take to themselves their curtains, and all their vessels, and their camels; and they shall cry unto them, Fear is on every side. 30 Flee, get you far off, dwell deep, O ye inhabitants of Hazor, saith the LORD; for Nebuchadrez'zar king of Babylon hath taken counsel against you, and hath conceived a purpose against you. 31 Arise, get you up unto the wealthy nation, that dwelleth without care, saith the LORD, which have neither gates nor bars, which dwell alone. 32 And their camels shall be a booty, and the multitude of their cattle a spoil: and I will scatter into all winds them that are in the utmost corners; and I will bring their calamity from all sides thereof, saith the LORD. 33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

-- Jeremiah 49.


Completely contradicted by "History" since people do in fact dwell in Hazor.



Something I have come to realize about these alleged contradictions is this; there are no contradictions from the gospels to the most important message of what the bible is communicating and that is this; Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died for our sins, the tomb was empty, Jesus was seen alive after he was crucified, he performed many miracles and he asscended into Heaven.

Your answer to my "not irrelvent" question was for the most part correct and there are no contradictions found in the gospels to what you claimed to be the most important message of the bible.1. Just how in the world have you proven an absence of contradictions? At best you could say that nobody has shown one to you, which doesn't prove the claim.

2. That you essentially concede that there are, or could be, contradictions in the areas that aren't the "primary purpose" would already contradict the pretty important claim that the Bible is infallible.

3. There being no internal contradictions - assuming what you claim is true for the sake of argument - does not mean there aren't things that are wrong.

A contradiction implies the Bible saying 'A' and 'Not A' (i.e. two statements that are opposite of each other). I can create a book full of falsehoods without internal contradictions.

Matt. 27:46,50 (see also Mark 15:34): "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?' that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, 'Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:' and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished:' and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Do we have different and contradictory stories here? Before declaring error or contradiction, there are a number of issues of perspective to consider. What is the effect of oral tradition and/or literary selection? Could John know things the others did not because he was near the cross (John 19:25), and in a position at that time to hear things that people farther away - which would include perhaps Matthew, or people interviewed by Matthew and Luke - did not? Is John supplementing the Synoptics and therefore purposely reporting different things?

Here's a sensible reconstruction.

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."

Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).

So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.

Got to http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html for more information on harmonization.

^ Clearly you haven't even bothered to read what I said carefully because I already covered that.

"For example, there are conflicting accounts in the gospel regarding Jesus' lasts words. Apologists rationalize this by saying things like "Oh, that's just because each gospel writer emphasized things he thought was important. If you read them all together you get the full picture". Now that might sound like a good answer, but in reality it's a pathetic cop-out. If I were a court stenographer who ignored certain lines of dialogue or changed their order, or a NBC journalist that said, "Hey just join my notes with the notes from Fox News and you get the full story" I would be fired immediately. Applying a stronger standard to a fallible human being than to a supposedly infallible document is a ridiculous rationalization."


I know the excuse you posted. I'm very familiar with it. I'm telling you it sucks. We apply greater standards of jounralism to human journalists so to excuse this shoddy behaviour in supposedly infallible sources is utterly ridiculous.


P.S. Are you goign to respond to the other points (e.g. the utter refutation of Biblical prophecy by reality and History when it concenrs Hazor)? You don't want me to accuse you of ignoring my points, but you failed to respond to all of them yet again!

I know the excuse you posted. I'm very familiar with it. I'm telling you it sucks. We apply greater standards of jounralism to human journalists so to excuse this shoddy behaviour in supposedly infallible sources is utterly ridiculous.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I hope you had a nice holliday season. The bad wheather has as forced me to work for many more hours then usual. Unfortunately, I'm salaried and therefore do not get OT or double time like some of the others. I think I'm tired of snow...In fact, I know i'm tired of snow!

Now, regarding your quote, whether you like it or not, this is just normal historical reporting practice. I hate to break the news to you, but no modern historian thinks Tacitus, Livy, etc were stenographers, and no modern historian (like the ones who wrote on Lincoln) would say they were either. Your application of such standards is arbitrary and unjustified.

You can say "it sucks" all you want, but that's not an answer to that argument, and you don't set the standard. The simple fact is that historical reports of the same events DO often choose a concetration. If you haven't studied ancient history, or even modern historical reporting, you have no basis to deny it. Many other historical writings do the same. Would you discredit Tacitus & Livy?

In regards to Hazor, I will have to look into this further...Thanks!

What you forget is:

1. Moderns historians don't consider Tacitus and Livy to be infallible. In fact, they consider them to be quite fallible. Historians have spent countless books, hours and resources showing just how fallible these ancient historians (and plenty of others) got things not quite right.

So I understand that this is "just normal historical reporting practice". It being common practice does not show infallibility or correctness; it's merely an excuse for poor journalistic standards. A reasonable excuse given the lack of resources they had back then and still do, sure, but still and admittance that there are errors within the accounts.


2. That you admit that the authors didn't paint the full picture by themselves (i.e. one concentrated on aspect A, another on aspect B, etc.) already leaves the door open for the possibility of many other gospel accounts that could change the claims of Christians who are focusing on those four. Whose to say those four are the complete set? Had they all said exactly the same thing, we could reasonably say that all observers have the full picture by themselves. However, when you admit that they don't, you essentially admit that many other Gospels could exist, that don't paint the full picture.

Your position is that we have Jesus' final words. How do you know?

3. The standard isn't arbitrary or unjustified. It comes from seeing the standard we lay for human journalists (i.e. journalists whose work isn't claimed to be the infallible word of God ) and then establishing that as the minimum requirement of those who claim to be better, those who claim to have written the infallible word of God.

Are you seriously suggesting that infallible writers not be held to an equal or higher standard than fallible human beings?


P.S. I wait you response regarding Hazor. No offense, but I'd hate to see that be ignored completely which is what usually happens, in my experience, when a Christian is shown something he cannot explain.

If it hadn’t become an issue it wouldn’t have been an issue, but now it is…To me the question is simply do we have a perfect copy of the Word of God in our times. If you believe we have a mostly perfect copy or a pretty good copy your answer to the above question is no. My answer to the above is Yes. I happen to believe God has not left us without His word, and that means all His words. I believe the God who gave us His word is able to also preserve His word. I believe in the miracle of inspiration and I believe in the miracle of preservation.

The next question is if we have it where is it ? It can’t be all Bible versions because they are all different, some by little some by much. I believe God has given English speaking people a perfect Word of God in the King James Bible, because of the superior texts it was translated from and because of the superior translation methods that were used. I do not believe that the Wescott and Hort texts are better. They are recent discoveries and I for one do not believe God was waiting 1800 years to give us the true Bible. Nor can I accept that He was hiding this better manuscript in the Vatican ( does something smell fishy here…) and in the deserts of Egypt just waiting for the Laodecian church to find them. We already had the best manuscripts and they are the ones our King James Bible comes from. There are many excellent websites that go into detail about all this and you should visit there if you want to study the details.

Do I believe someone can get saved from another version ? Yes I do, in fact I believe you could get saved from a talking donkey if you told you enough true things. Of course four footed talking donkeys are not all that common…the two footed ones much easier to find. I am glad I did not receive the kind of education that taught me there was no true Word of God in our day…Pity those that did. Blinded by arrogant intellectualism and trapped now by their college loyalties they become evangelists in the cause of persuading others that they too have no reliable Word of God. What a sad situation. Professing themselves to be wise they have become fools…

Glad I could enlighten you all.

God Bless,
Dr Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

Hi troll.

http://www.thesimpletruth.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=1&Itemid=28

Perhaps you should observe my totse profile page for more info about me. See my other posts for yet more links to my website (see the religion and science thread).
http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10895395&postcount=17

God Bless,
Doctor Pastor Emeritus Wayne Sehmish

2009 years (based on guesstimation) divided by 15,000,000,000 years (more or less scientifically proven) = unmatched ignorance and pretentiousness.

1. Moderns historians don't consider Tacitus and Livy to be infallible. In fact, they consider them to be quite fallible. Historians have spent countless books, hours and resources showing just how fallible these ancient historians (and plenty of others) got things not quite right.

What books and resources have proven that Tacitus and Livy haven't got things quite right?

2. That you admit that the authors didn't paint the full picture by themselves (i.e. one concentrated on aspect A, another on aspect B, etc.) already leaves the door open for the possibility of many other gospel accounts that could change the claims of Christians who are focusing on those four. Whose to say those four are the complete set? Had they all said exactly the same thing, we could reasonably say that all observers have the full picture by themselves. However, when you admit that they don't, you essentially admit that many other Gospels could exist, that don't paint the full picture.

Your position is that we have Jesus' final words. How do you know?

That has never been my position. I never once said that we have Jesus' final words. Please read all my post again. I never made that claim.

If the four gospels had been exactly the same, or word for word, you would raise the charge that the writers had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, and that would have cast doubt on them. In otherwords, if the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law school, and author of an influential treatise on evidence; after studying the consistency among the four gospels gave this evaluation:
"There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narratiors of the same great transaction." Furthermore, classical historian a German scholar Hans Stier has concurred that agreement over basic data and divergence of detials suggest credibility, because fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistnet and harmonized. "Every historian," he wrote, "is especially skeptical at that moment when an extradordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradictions."

3. The standard isn't arbitrary or unjustified. It comes from seeing the standard we lay for human journalists (i.e. journalists whose work isn't claimed to be the infallible word of God ) and then establishing that as the minimum requirement of those who claim to be better, those who claim to have written the infallible word of God.

Are you seriously suggesting that infallible writers not be held to an equal or higher standard than fallible human beings?

No...I'm saying that the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by anceint standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them. In the event that a new claim of infallibilty were to surface today, then a modern standard would be fair to impose on that new writing.


P.S. I wait you response regarding Hazor. No offense, but I'd hate to see that be ignored completely which is what usually happens, in my experience, when a Christian is shown something he cannot explain.

As of now, I do not have a good answer in regards to Hazor. I will have to study this further. However, I will say this; within the last hundred years archaeolgy has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly the gospel of John. The gospel that's supposedly so suspect.

So there are still some unresolved issues, but those are a tiny minority compared with the number of examples of corroboration. As far as I'm concerned Hazor my be one of those unresolved issues, I don't know.

divided by 15,000,000,000 years (more or less scientifically proven)

Yawn....really, you don't say. Can't you do better then making up numbers?

medicforlife, i'm not going to try and disprove you, as proof denies faith. I'll just say as a christian (or any monotheist, really) you may see only what you want to see.

Even if a huge hand came out of the sky and denounced christianity and ordered us to follow islam, do you think we would all convert? Of course not.

What books and resources have proven that Tacitus and Livy haven't got things quite right?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

There's a link that covers some of the questioning historians have done regarding the accounts of ancient historians, Tacitus included.

However, what's important is that they do not think Tacitus or Livy where either infallible or inspired by gods. They were fallible human beings, and thus it's no surprise that they would use imperfect journalistic practices.



That has never been my position. I never once said that we have Jesus' final words. Please read all my post again. I never made that claim.


You are right. I apologize. I assumed that was your position. Allow me to detail what the two positions are, and how they both are bad ones for the Christian side:

1. The accounts, when taken in full, pain the full picture of Christ's death and his exact words.

That is a claim that has no substantiation, for all you know there could be yet another gospel that fits between the ones we know about, that adds other occurances or other words that differ from these four.


2. The accounts do not paint the full picture of Christ's death and his exact words.

My point is then made! Why are we to trust what they say, when they paint an incomplete picture. Are we to base our lives and our salvation on incomplete, possibly incorrect, accounts?


Which one is yours?


If the four gospels had been exactly the same, or word for word, you would raise the charge that the writers had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, and that would have cast doubt on them. In otherwords, if the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law school, and author of an influential treatise on evidence; after studying the consistency among the four gospels gave this evaluation:

"There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narratiors of the same great transaction." Furthermore, classical historian a German scholar Hans Stier has concurred that agreement over basic data and divergence of detials suggest credibility, because fabricated accounts tend to be fully consistnet and harmonized. "Every historian," he wrote, "is especially skeptical at that moment when an extradordinary happening is only reported in accounts which are completely free of contradictions."


Yet that is only true of human accounts that are not infallible, and have not been inspired by gods! Historians would say that the inconsistencies are an indication that they were not coroborating to make it seem as if the accounts were legitimate. However inconsistencies, contradictions and mistakes are not things we would expect from an infallble source, or something that has been inspired by an omnipotent god either!

In other words, historians are indeed suspicious of an absence of contradictions, but only because we expect them from fallible works from fallible people that weren't inspired by an infallible source!


No...I'm saying that the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by anceint standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them. In the event that a new claim of infallibilty were to surface today, then a modern standard would be fair to impose on that new writing.



No, you are saying more than that. You are claiming these gospels contain the word of god. That automatically implies a much higher standard. God isn't supposed to do shoddy work. To treat a godly source as weakly as we treat a human source is utterly ridiculous.


As of now, I do not have a good answer in regards to Hazor. I will have to study this further. However, I will say this; within the last hundred years archaeolgy has repeatedly unearthed discoveries that have confirmed specific references in the gospels, particularly the gospel of John. The gospel that's supposedly so suspect.

So there are still some unresolved issues, but those are a tiny minority compared with the number of examples of corroboration. As far as I'm concerned Hazor my be one of those unresolved issues, I don't know.

1. Let's be honest here please, you have no answer because there is none that you find satisfying. You do not want to admit the inevtiable: The Bible claims no man would live in Hazor. Man lives in Hazor. The bible has been contradicted by history. Period.


2. The discoveries that have confirmed accounts in the bible have been of natural and historic accounts. I don't know of any atheist or non-Christian that does not admit the Bible can be, and has been, a source of political and social history of the time. It has. It has been a source of the location of ancient cities (like Hazor, which is how we can refute the ridiculous claim made in the bible that no people would live there), a description of wars, trade, and political figures. That's not the problem.

The problem is it's claim of the supernatural. Show me proof that these things actually occured (not that people were convinced they did). That's what we doubt.