What Do You Think The Bible Is?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#101 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]they were and are seperate books, but the christians compiled them under one cover, and no, they are not "chapters" :lol:. thirdly, there is no such thing as "unbias", but its irrelevant because they are still the best sources on the life of Jesus. fourth, there is evidence from teh Gospels and epistles that Jesus lived, and died, and rose again on easter morning.ElectronicMagic

I never said that they weren't separate books. I never said that they were chapters, I said that they are so short they should be considered chapters. I don't doubt that your sources are the best sources on a fictional character such as Jesus. I'm not telling you not to believe in that hocus pocus, I'm simply saying that there isn't any evidence to support what you are proposing.

the new testament, as you should know, IS evidence of Jesus.
Avatar image for ATOMIC_TOAST
ATOMIC_TOAST

536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#102 ATOMIC_TOAST
Member since 2005 • 536 Posts

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death. That would be like a 60 year old writing about Vietnam nowadays. Is that so hard to believe? That they might get the basics right? Are memories or the ability of Romans to do historical research and interviewing that bad that you couldn't believe a single word of it?gameguy6700

Just look at Elvis. 50 years after his death and we've got people going around claiming the man enver died. It doesn't take long for history to become erroneous.

Bersides, Tacitus was born in 56 AD. Not only was the work you're referring to written in 116 AD (that's about, what, 72 years after Jesus's estimated death?), but Tacitus himself was never alive before Jesus was executed. As a result he is not a contemporary source.

yep, if you'll read down, fanofarienoch corrected me. But my point still stands in its merits. Why can't I do a reliable research work on world war II? Does being born in 79 disqualify me from being able to do reliable research and ask people who were there?

Avatar image for Vexx88
Vexx88

33342

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 60

User Lists: 0

#103 Vexx88
Member since 2006 • 33342 Posts
cinematic gold. the next micheal bay film.crazychris
Optimus Prime will be jesus >.> lol
Avatar image for greenprince
greenprince

3332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#104 greenprince
Member since 2006 • 3332 Posts
[QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.Drakorain

EXACTLY!

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

By your "logic," we aren't allowed to write about the Civil War.

Agreed. In fact, you would have to actually believe Alexander the Great was a myth given that we only have a few sources of him existing. These sources are decades or even hundreds after Alexander death. I don't see historians calling him fake.
Avatar image for karriston
karriston

3631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#105 karriston
Member since 2005 • 3631 Posts
To be honest, the Bible is both good and bad for me. The Good: - Teaches some good life lessons - Shows good can triumph over evil - Teaches us to treat eachother with love and respect - It's a damn good read, at parts The Bad: - Its open to interpretation, which is used as an excuse for discrimination for extremists - People, unquestionably, treat it as the word of God, when it could've quite easily have been altered / created by man. - Like Lost, most of it's pretty boring until you get to the good episodes, like the season finale.
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#106 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts
[QUOTE="Drakorain"]

EM: Your question about the age of the Earth is a red herring. I know exactly what you plan to say. If he answers 6,000 years, you'll dismiss him and his arguments (a fallacy) or call him insane.

If he gives the scientifically accepted age of the earth, you'll ask why he believes that, as "the Bible obviously says otherwise, lol" and trail off on an unrelated point.

It's a meaningless question. Nobody has to answer it.

ElectronicMagic

It was just a simple question, I'm not forcing him to answer it. I answered his question, so I thought it was only fair that he answer mine. I was just trying to see what kind of person he was and now I know.

Too funny. You now proclaim the ability to judge what kin of person a person is based on their refusual to answer a single irrelevant off-topic question.

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about the Bible or anything else really when you make statement like that?

Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]

So what about people before Christ are they dammed for all time

blasto65_basic

they were saved through faith.

What faith it was befor Christ who brought the word of God. Say they worshiped the sun because it gave them food and made them warm.

Christ's sacrifice atoned for all sins of all time. the future covenant was predicted in the old testament.
[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.snoopeymaster

EXACTLY!

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

yah i understand, i myself do believe jesus existed, but i dont believe he is what people say he is

i just find it weird that 20 historians lived around this time period and NON mentioned him

that's called an argument from silence, a fallacy.
Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#108 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts
[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.greenprince

EXACTLY!

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

By your "logic," we aren't allowed to write about the Civil War.

Agreed. In fact, you would have to actually believe Alexander the Great was a myth given that we only have a few sources of him existing. These sources are decades or even hundreds after Alexander death. I don't see historians calling him fake.

greenprince, you are mistaken there, the first biography on alexander the great was written by Plutarch, and he lived 400 years after Alexander the great.
Avatar image for postbodetje
postbodetje

894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#109 postbodetje
Member since 2007 • 894 Posts
A bookzombieman666


you think?
Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]they were and are seperate books, but the christians compiled them under one cover, and no, they are not "chapters" :lol:. thirdly, there is no such thing as "unbias", but its irrelevant because they are still the best sources on the life of Jesus. fourth, there is evidence from teh Gospels and epistles that Jesus lived, and died, and rose again on easter morning.fanofazrienoch

I never said that they weren't separate books. I never said that they were chapters, I said that they are so short they should be considered chapters. I don't doubt that your sources are the best sources on a fictional character such as Jesus. I'm not telling you not to believe in that hocus pocus, I'm simply saying that there isn't any evidence to support what you are proposing.

the new testament, as you should know, IS evidence of Jesus.

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

Avatar image for MindFreeze
MindFreeze

2814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 MindFreeze
Member since 2007 • 2814 Posts
A cool book with interesting stories, nothing else. I'm disgusted with religion, so that's probably why there's nothing more to it.
Avatar image for Shad0ki11
Shad0ki11

12576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 Shad0ki11
Member since 2006 • 12576 Posts

The Bible was a work of literature written by various men who were inspired by God and Jesus.

Since it wasn't written or dictated by God himself, I don't consider it to be the literal "Word of God".

"The Word of God" seems like an alternate title to "The Holy Bible"

In my opinion, it is a book that shows people how to live and it's contents are not meant to act as a weapon, a shield, a history book, or a science book.

The Bible teaches good values and morals, but I don't take it literally.

Avatar image for Drakorain
Drakorain

189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113 Drakorain
Member since 2008 • 189 Posts
[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.snoopeymaster

EXACTLY!

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

yah i understand, i myself do believe jesus existed, but i dont believe he is what people say he is

And that's fine.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#114 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

Many ancient writers make reference to Jesus and His followers. They include Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Tallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, Josephus ben Mattathias, Lucian of Samosate, The Babylonian Talmud, and Julius Africanus. They all refer to different aspect of the points made above.
The Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) all mention Jesus as well.

In some posts, posters try to attempt to exclude the Bible as historical evidence for Jesus Christ. I do not buy that false premise and neither does the majority of both religious and secular scholars.

I do not agree with the false premise that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There have been over 25,000 archeological finds confirming people, places and events that are recorded in the Bible. In fact, there has never been one single archeological find that has ever disproven a person, place, or event recorded in the Bible.

The vast majority of biblical scholars date the writing of the entire New Testament before 90 AD. Even the most liberal scholars date it as no later that mid-second century AD, no more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case, in terms of the scholarly rules of acceptance of ancient historical evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences.

The vast majority of scholars, both Christian and secular, agree that the Epistles of Paul were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus´ death. Paul was put to death in 63AD. Here's a clue for you. Dead men can't write. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

In addition, the disciples preached the Gospel at a time when there were many living witnesses to the events they were preaching about. They record over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If the events they were preaching about did not occur, logic dictates that many people, especially the non-believers would have come forward and disputed their claims.

It is also important to remember that in 70 A.D. the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. The Romans burned entire cities to the ground. Under these conditions, logic again dictates that much evidence of Jesus´ existence was destroyed. In addition, many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would probably have been killed. Their has been a concerted effort to destroy the Bible throughout history

Another fact that must be remembered is that Jesus´ ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire. In spite of this , we still have the evidence from the non-Christian writers I listed above.

In closing I will again say, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

All of these points when considered together, give a preponderance of evidence for the truth of the claims of early Christianity.

I realize that deductive reasoning, evidence, and logical thinking, wisdom, or common sense are not the strong points of those that deny Christ, but for me try. Refute EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE POINTS and the final assertion that the preponderance of the evidence supports the truth of the Christian message.

NOTE, PLEASE PROVIDE ONLY SCHOLARLY EVIDENCE AND NOT OPINIONS!

Avatar image for greenprince
greenprince

3332

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#115 greenprince
Member since 2006 • 3332 Posts
[QUOTE="greenprince"][QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.fanofazrienoch

EXACTLY!

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

By your "logic," we aren't allowed to write about the Civil War.

Agreed. In fact, you would have to actually believe Alexander the Great was a myth given that we only have a few sources of him existing. These sources are decades or even hundreds after Alexander death. I don't see historians calling him fake.

greenprince, you are mistaken there, the first biography on Alexander the Great was written by Plutarch, and he lived 400 years after Alexander the great.

Yeah, sorry didn't do the research and like I said hundreds of years after Alexander the Great was the source of Plutarch. And many historians consider Alexander a real person even with limited sources.
Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#116 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

ElectronicMagic
that's how we learn about history, through BOOKS! (or scrolls sometimes). Josephus' antiquities are BOOKS! Tacitus' annals are BOOKS! Suetonius' Twelve Caesars are BOOKS! you can't throw it out just because its a book. secondly, its 27 different books by 9 different authors, 5 of whom personally met Jesus, 2 of whom were brothers of Jesus.
Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#117 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]It was just a simple question, I'm not forcing him to answer it. I answered his question, so I thought it was only fair that he answer mine. I was just trying to see what kind of person he was and now I know.

blackregiment

Too funny. You now proclaim the ability to judge what kin of person a person is based on their refusual to answer a single irrelevant off-topic question.

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about the Bible or anything else really when you make statement like that?

I'm glad you're laughing, I had a giggle when you continuously refused to answer a simple question even when I offered to make a thread that would make that question the topic. Your refusal to answer that question told me everything I wanted to know.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#118 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
Its a book, written by a group of people thousands of years ago.
Avatar image for Drakorain
Drakorain

189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 Drakorain
Member since 2008 • 189 Posts

The Bible was a work of literature written by various men who were inspired by God and Jesus.

Since it wasn't written or dictated by God himself, I don't consider it to be the literal "Word of God".

"The Word of God" seems like an alternate title to "The Holy Bible"

In my opinion, it is a book that shows people how to live and it's contents are not meant to act as a weapon, a shield, a history book, or a science book.

The Bible teaches good values and morals, but I don't take it literally.

Shad0ki11

In all technicality Jesus is the Word of God, but that goes into a lot of crap I don't feel like explaining.

Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#120 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts
[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]It was just a simple question, I'm not forcing him to answer it. I answered his question, so I thought it was only fair that he answer mine. I was just trying to see what kind of person he was and now I know.

ElectronicMagic

Too funny. You now proclaim the ability to judge what kin of person a person is based on their refusual to answer a single irrelevant off-topic question.

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about the Bible or anything else really when you make statement like that?

I'm glad you're laughing, I had a giggle when you continuously refused to answer a simple question even when I offered to make a thread that would make that question the topic. Your refusal to answer that question told me everything I wanted to know.

Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

fanofazrienoch

that's how we learn about history, through BOOKS! (or scrolls sometimes). Josephus' antiquities are BOOKS! Tacitus' annals are BOOKS! Suetonius' Twelve Caesars are BOOKS! you can't throw it out just because its a book. secondly, its 27 different books by 9 different authors, 5 of whom personally met Jesus, 2 of whom were brothers of Jesus.

Like I said, the bible talks about many crazy and wacky things, if you want to go putting your whole life into the belief that it's fact, then by all means have at it. It doesn't prove Jesus existed.

Avatar image for MindFreeze
MindFreeze

2814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#122 MindFreeze
Member since 2007 • 2814 Posts

Wall of text...

blackregiment

I don't think many learned opposers of Christianity deny that a man called Jesus existed. He might have been a very smart and hope giving man, and mind you people back then were much more gullible than now, especially when religion and god came in to play. So in other words, the existence of a wise man called Jesus Christ back then does not give any proof to your religion being true or that a God exists.

Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#123 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts
[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

The Bible was a work of literature written by various men who were inspired by God and Jesus.

Since it wasn't written or dictated by God himself, I don't consider it to be the literal "Word of God".

"The Word of God" seems like an alternate title to "The Holy Bible"

In my opinion, it is a book that shows people how to live and it's contents are not meant to act as a weapon, a shield, a history book, or a science book.

The Bible teaches good values and morals, but I don't take it literally.

Drakorain

In all technicality Jesus is the Word of God, but that goes into a lot of crap I don't feel like explaining.

Jesus is logos amirite?
Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#124 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]It was just a simple question, I'm not forcing him to answer it. I answered his question, so I thought it was only fair that he answer mine. I was just trying to see what kind of person he was and now I know.

fanofazrienoch

Too funny. You now proclaim the ability to judge what kin of person a person is based on their refusual to answer a single irrelevant off-topic question.

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about the Bible or anything else really when you make statement like that?

I'm glad you're laughing, I had a giggle when you continuously refused to answer a simple question even when I offered to make a thread that would make that question the topic. Your refusal to answer that question told me everything I wanted to know.

I've had to do that atleast a dozen times talking with you guys.

Avatar image for Mr_sprinkles
Mr_sprinkles

6461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#125 Mr_sprinkles
Member since 2005 • 6461 Posts

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



blackregiment
The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.
Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#126 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts
[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

ElectronicMagic

that's how we learn about history, through BOOKS! (or scrolls sometimes). Josephus' antiquities are BOOKS! Tacitus' annals are BOOKS! Suetonius' Twelve Caesars are BOOKS! you can't throw it out just because its a book. secondly, its 27 different books by 9 different authors, 5 of whom personally met Jesus, 2 of whom were brothers of Jesus.

Like I said, the bible talks about many crazy and wacky things, if you want to go putting your whole life into the belief that it's fact, then by all means have at it. It doesn't prove Jesus existed.

no such thing as "prove" but it is idisputable evidence. secondly, other works of history, including the aforementioned sources, also talk of supernatural phenomena as if it were fact.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Wall of text...

MindFreeze

I don't think many learned opposers of Christianity deny that a man called Jesus existed. He might have been a very smart and hope giving man, and mind you people back then were much more gullible than now, especially when religion and god came in to play. So in other words, the existence of a wise man called Jesus Christ back then does not give any proof to your religion being true or that a God exists.

this really is just the same outdated generalizations of ancients used around new testament scholarship in the victorian era. some would argue that the ancients were wiser (street terms, not necessarily book smart) then modern western humans. but I don't want to get into that.
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#127 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

Extra Biblical Historical Evidence for the LIFE DEATH and RESURRECTION of JESUS

ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a ****hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.

Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."

Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:

"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"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 practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

GNOSTICS SOURCES

The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:

"For when they had seen him and had heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father. ... For he came by means of fleshly appearance." Other passages affirm that the Son of God came in the flesh and "the Word came into the midst. ... it became a body."

"Jesus, was patient in accepting sufferings. . . since he knows that his death is life for many. . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross. ... He draws himself down to death through life. ... eternal clothes him. Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him."

The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:

"It happened one day when John, the brother of James,--who are the sons of Zebedee--went up and came to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, `Where is your master whom you followed?' And he said to him, 'He has gone to the place from which he came.' The Pharisee said to him, 'This Nazarene deceived you with deception and filled your ears with lies and closed your hearts and turned you from the traditions of your fathers.'"

The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:

Contain many references to and alleged quotations of Jesus.

The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos:

"The Lord ... existed in flesh and ... revealed himself as Son of God ... Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of the Truth, before this structure of the cosmos had come into being."

"For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, 'He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe.' Great are those who believe."

"The Savior swallowed up death. ... He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality."

"Do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth. Indeed, it is more fitting to say that the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ."

". . . already you have the resurrection ... why not consider yourself as risen and already brought to this?" Rheginos was thus encouraged not to "continue as if you are to die."

LOST WORKS QUOTED IN OTHER SOURCES

Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):

"And the expression, 'They pierced my hands and my feet,' was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after he was crucified, they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen you can ascertain the 'Acts' of Pontius Pilate." Later Justin lists several healing miracles and asserts, "And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."

Phlegon, born about 80 AD, as reported by Origen (185-254 AD), mentioned that Jesus made certain predictions which had been fulfilled.

ANCIENT CHRISTIAN SOURCES
(extra-biblical)

Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe."

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

"Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him."

Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):

"He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptised by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we--that is, of his most blessed passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all ages through His resurrection."

"For I know and believe that He was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, 'Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body.' And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto His flesh and His blood. Wherefore also they despised death, nay they were found superior to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them and drank with them."

Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD):

"Be ye fully persuaded concerning the birth and the passion and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate; for these things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ our hope."

Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:

"The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."

(Pseudo-)Barnabas, written 130-138 AD:

"He must needs be manifested in the flesh. ... He preached teaching Israel and performing so many wonders and miracles, and He loved them exceedingly. ... He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel. ... But He Himself desired so to suffer; for it was necessary for Him to suffer on a tree."

Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:

After referring to Jesus's birth of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem, and that His physical line of descent came through the tribe of Judah and the family of Jesse, Justin wrote, "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea."

"Accordingly, after He was crucified, even all His acquaintances forsook Him, having denied Him; and afterwards, when He had risen from the dead and appeared to them, and had taught them to read the prophecies in which all these things were foretold as coming to pass, and when they had seen Him ascending into heaven, and had believed, and had received power sent thence by Him upon them, and went to every race of men, they taught these things, and were called apostles."

Justin Martyr, in Dialogue with Trypho, around 150 AD:

"For at the time of His birth, Magi who came from Arabia worshipped Him, coming first to Herod, who then was sovereign in your land."

"For when they crucified Him, driving in the nails, they pierced His hands and feet; and those who crucified Him parted His garments among themselves, each casting lots for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot."

"Christ said amongst you that He would give the sign of Jonah, exhorting you to repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead ... yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that 'a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him by night from the tomb, where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.'"

"For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#128 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

I've had to do that atleast a dozen times talking with you guys.

ElectronicMagic

I just want to smack that smug face of yours right now, but unfortunately that technology has not been invented as of yet, for I cannot smack your smug face through the internet. however, unlike you, we do not perpetuate red herrings and strawman arguments. you, as stated earlier, continue to do nothing but present red herrings as though they were arguments

just so we're on the same page, you do know what a red herring is right?

Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#129 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

fanofazrienoch

that's how we learn about history, through BOOKS! (or scrolls sometimes). Josephus' antiquities are BOOKS! Tacitus' annals are BOOKS! Suetonius' Twelve Caesarsare BOOKS! you can't throw it out just because its a book. secondly, its 27 different books by 9 different authors, 5 of whom personally met Jesus, 2 of whom were brothers of Jesus.

Like I said, the bible talks about many crazy and wacky things, if you want to go putting your whole life into the belief that it's fact, then by all means have at it. It doesn't prove Jesus existed.

no such thing as "prove" but it is idisputable evidence. secondly, other works of history, including the aforementioned sources, also talk of supernatural phenomena as if it were fact.

Are you saying "prove" isn't a word? That evidence isn't "indisputable". It's only that way because it's something you believe. You were the one that started this discussion about whether or not Jesus existed and all you have done is repeated yourself, forcing me to repeat myself. If you believe that, fine. But it doesn't make it in anyway fact.

Avatar image for MindFreeze
MindFreeze

2814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#130 MindFreeze
Member since 2007 • 2814 Posts
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



Mr_sprinkles

The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.

Very simple answers but enough to discredit your supposed proof of god.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#131 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University and author of A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, examined the value of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He applied the principles contained in his three-volume treatise on evidence. His findings were recorded in his book, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, according to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history.

He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the c l a s s i c, Testimony of the Evangelists.

"Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth."

Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#132 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

I've had to do that atleast a dozen times talking with you guys.

fanofazrienoch

I just want to smack that smug face of yours right now, but unfortunately that technology has not been invented as of yet, for I cannot smack your smug face through the internet. however, unlike you, we do not perpetuate red herrings and strawman arguments. you, as stated earlier, continue to do nothing but present red herrings as though they were arguments

just so we're on the same page, you do know what a red herring is right?

I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to violence because you haven't made any progress in your quest to prove that Jesus existed. Is that what Jesus would do? lol. Yes, I do know what a red herring is.

Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#133 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

Are you saying "prove" isn't a word? ElectronicMagic

no, im saying that "proof" is a concept that does not belong inside science.

That evidence isn't "indisputable". It's only that way because it's something you believe. ElectronicMagic

no, actually its because the evidence strongly indicates that the authors of these books were very close to Jesus during his ministry.

You were the one that started this discussion about whether or not Jesus existed and all you have done is repeated yourself, forcing me to repeat myself. ElectronicMagic

i've started this discussion because its a starting point in "proving" that Jesus was resurrected.

If you believe that, fine. But it doesn't make it in anyway fact.

ElectronicMagic
it (the evidence from the new testament for the existence of Jesus) is taken as fact by nearly all historians and scholars of the new testament.
Avatar image for skilfulgary
skilfulgary

820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#134 skilfulgary
Member since 2008 • 820 Posts
behave
Avatar image for ATOMIC_TOAST
ATOMIC_TOAST

536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#135 ATOMIC_TOAST
Member since 2005 • 536 Posts
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



Mr_sprinkles

The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.

Exactly what is your field?

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#136 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts
[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



MindFreeze

The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.

Very simple answers but enough to discredit your supposed proof of god.

You mean simple answers based on personal opinion and totally lacking of any supporting evidence.

Hey, by the way, do you want to buy some swamp land?

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#137 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38684 Posts

good for keeping my desk level.

Avatar image for Mr_sprinkles
Mr_sprinkles

6461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#138 Mr_sprinkles
Member since 2005 • 6461 Posts
[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



ATOMIC_TOAST

The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.

Exactly what is your field?

Physics and a wee bit of biology. The religious texty stuff is what I can't be bothered with.
Avatar image for blasto65_basic
blasto65_basic

496

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#139 blasto65_basic
Member since 2002 • 496 Posts
[QUOTE="MindFreeze"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



blackregiment

The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.

Very simple answers but enough to discredit your supposed proof of god.

You mean simple answers based on personal opinion and totally lacking of any supporting evidence.

Hey, by the way, do you want to buy some swamp land?

LOL you are "The pot calling the kettle black"

Avatar image for ElectronicMagic
ElectronicMagic

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#140 ElectronicMagic
Member since 2005 • 5412 Posts
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

Are you saying "prove" isn't a word? fanofazrienoch

no, im saying that "proof" is a concept that does not belong inside science.

That evidence isn't "indisputable". It's only that way because it's something you believe. ElectronicMagic

no, actually its because the evidence strongly indicates that the authors of these books were very close to Jesus during his ministry.

You were the one that started this discussion about whether or not Jesus existed and all you have done is repeated yourself, forcing me to repeat myself. ElectronicMagic

i've started this discussion because its a starting point in "proving" that Jesus was resurrected.

If you believe that, fine. But it doesn't make it in anyway fact.

ElectronicMagic

it (the evidence from the new testament for the existence of Jesus) is taken as fact by nearly all historians and scholars of the new testament.

You can't prove that Jesus was resurrected, so this discussion you made was pointless from the beginning. If I was given evidence that Jesus existed, I would accept it. But there just isn't any. Since there isn't any proof for or against the existence of Jesus, you have the right to believe he existed and I have the right to disagree.

Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#141 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

As far as evidence for God, it is overwhelming. Those that choose to ignore it have their God give free will to ignore it but that doesn't change the truth. Here are just a few.

1.scientific confirmation the origin of the universe coming into existence from a singularity, from nothing as the Bible details. Singularity =/= nothing, funnily enough. thats why they have different names


2.the violation of first principle of cause and effect of the secular origins theory. As does god.


3.the impossibility of the warm pond theory of amino acid formation Ain't the only theory, bud. Besides, so far you've only got the god of the gaps.

4.the violation of the principle of biogenesis of the secular origins theory of the beginning of life, life from non life Secular origins? Besides, life from non life is entirely possible. Life is just a chemical process, not some magical extra-physical quality


5.the origin of the language of DNA and the intelligence it requires DNA isn't a language, it's a chemical. It reacts with other chemicals and makes proteins. Nothing magical or godly about that.

6.the implausibility of one species evolving into another, macroevolution, which never been observed Actually it has. Google it.

7.the circular reasoning of homology, which has never been observed It's been proved. Genetics and all that.

8.the absence of transitional life forms both today and in the fossil record BS.

9.the Cambrian explosion Proves god how exactly?

10. the development of irreducibly complex organs and biological systems requiring numerous and extremely rare "beneficial mutations" occurring virtually simultaneously Irreducible complexity is a hypothesis that was used to try and discredit evolution. Did some experiments. Looked at some animals. Found out that all the supposed 'irreducibly complex' systems were infact just complex, not irreducible.

11. the development of human morality Morality is man made. If it were some god given quality, morals across the world would all be the same, unchanging through time.

12. the development of human reason Reasoning is a function of the brain. Lots of brains do it, not just ours.


13. the origin of human conscious thought Function of brain.


14. the origin of dark matter I bet you don't even know what that is. And hold on a minute, in 7. you were saying somethingorother wasn't true because it hadn't been observed. Neither has dark matter. That's why it's called dark.


15. the origin of dark energy How do you know it even exists?


16. the violation of the first and second laws of Thermodynamics by the secular theories of the origin of the universe and descent by Darwinism If you knew what those were, you'd know why you're BSing

17. the impossibility of dozens and dozens of finely tuned anthropic principles required for life occurring by random chance from the wiki "the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If this were a different sort of universe, we would not be there to see it" Which basically means we are here because of those things, not the other way round.



Mr_sprinkles

The rest I can't be bothered to answer. It's not my field really.

Thanks for you personal opinions totally unsupported by any evidence. What a waqste of bandwith.

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Avatar image for Drakorain
Drakorain

189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#142 Drakorain
Member since 2008 • 189 Posts

Physics and a wee bit of biology. The religious texty stuff is what I can't be bothered with.
Mr_sprinkles

Why don't you just cut all fun out of your life?:o

Avatar image for ATOMIC_TOAST
ATOMIC_TOAST

536

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#143 ATOMIC_TOAST
Member since 2005 • 536 Posts

Physics and a wee bit of biology. The religious texty stuff is what I can't be bothered with.
Mr_sprinkles

Small world, I'm also a physicist. When did you get your bachelors?

Avatar image for Drakorain
Drakorain

189

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#144 Drakorain
Member since 2008 • 189 Posts

You can't prove that Jesus was resurrected, so this discussion you made was pointless from the beginning. If I was given evidence that Jesus existed, I would accept it. But there just isn't any. Since there isn't any proof for or against the existence of Jesus, you have the right to believe he existed and I have the right to disagree.

ElectronicMagic

Uh, hello? Several people have given you evidence in here. The one and only reason you continuously ignore them is because you have some irrational bias towards all things religious.

Jesus existed. Deal with it.

Avatar image for Mr_sprinkles
Mr_sprinkles

6461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#145 Mr_sprinkles
Member since 2005 • 6461 Posts

You mean simple answers based on personal opinion and totally lacking of any supporting evidence.

blackregiment

Please highlight your facts and supporting evidence, because I don't see any.

I find it funny though how you deny evolution, a well thoroughly observed, proved and established fact, and then go on to use dark energy (which is still no more than a hypothetical) as supposed proof of god.

Avatar image for btaylor2404
btaylor2404

11353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#146 btaylor2404
Member since 2003 • 11353 Posts
A old book of myths and legends sprinkled with morality tales to capture an audience that at the time needed it.
Avatar image for blackregiment
blackregiment

11937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#147 blackregiment
Member since 2007 • 11937 Posts

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers

Avatar image for Mr_sprinkles
Mr_sprinkles

6461

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#148 Mr_sprinkles
Member since 2005 • 6461 Posts
[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]

Physics and a wee bit of biology. The religious texty stuff is what I can't be bothered with.
ATOMIC_TOAST

Small world, I'm also a physicist. When did you get your bachelors?

Haha, I've not got that far yet. Bristol next year though if all goes well.
Avatar image for fanofazrienoch
fanofazrienoch

1573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#149 fanofazrienoch
Member since 2008 • 1573 Posts

You can't prove that Jesus was resurrected, so this discussion you made was pointless from the beginning. If I was given evidence that Jesus existed, I would accept it. But there just isn't any. Since there isn't any proof for or against the existence of Jesus, you have the right to believe he existed and I have the right to disagree.

ElectronicMagic
1: YEs, there IS evidence that Jesus was resurrected, 2nd, what would you consider as evidence that jesus existed?
Avatar image for MindFreeze
MindFreeze

2814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#150 MindFreeze
Member since 2007 • 2814 Posts

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers

blackregiment

"A witty saying proves nothing."

François-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire