Worldviews

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by markg

This is a great debate between 2 PhD's on these topics and is excellent

http://youtu.be/9qT1pp_jCUw

no offense but the clip starts on a false pretense, there is no evidence for a god that's why it's called faith, if we had actual physical eveidence you wouldn't need faith to believe.

[gunmum]

So, why didn't you answer my question? Which 10 Commandments? It's a legitimate question.

Ex. 34 contains a ritual Decalogue that is likely meant to be parallel to the ethical Decalogue (Ex.20),
Ex. 34 as a whole is a narrative of the renewal of the covenant following the golden calf incident.
Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 are addressed to different sets of people with different experiences -- the first set had just been released from Egypt; the second set had never known slavery but were born during the Exodus; moreover, the Deuteronomy covenant would rule those who came afterwards who never knew the toil in Egypt.

You do believe in science don't you? I mean, the physics that allows you to use your computer, the medical help you got you referred to, the medicines that were developed, and of course I can go on and on.
Science developed those, not faith. Using the same scientific process that shows us through geology, biology, astronomy and other specialities that show us how evolution has worked.

Its really quite laughable to me that people think that science and religion are opposites. There is more evidence pointing toward a creator than evolution.
It takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe in a "scientist" that can't find "the link" to our existence! Oh, but it happened billions and billions of years ago? Please...that's just like saying that this watch here with all it's intricate pieces is a direct result of a watch factory explosion!

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

Many evolutionists also converted to Christianity after finding more evidence of a creator!

fact that the rules laid out don't change (molecules are comprised of atoms, which have various parts like electrons and nuclei, every single time you raise the temperature of a subject above burning point, it burns, and it never will get colder then absolute zero).

so? the rules don't change and yet "billions of years" change the rules? Who needs faith now??

In 2005, Australian scientists announced the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!
The fossils are “believed” to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “basically the same as sea turtles do today.”
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “dated” at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,” Discovery reports.

Scientists have found from microscopic examination of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) fossils, dated to be 3.5 billion years old, that they are essentially identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.3 Microscopic algae didn’t change over 3.5 billion years of evolution? Who’s kidding whom?

How do you explain natural selection? Wouldn't it require that you would have a choice that already exists? So now we are waiting on evolution to produce a random mutation to be able to make this choice? And what instances have any of these mutations really panned out?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Can't find anything about that.



First of all, biblical scholars agree NONE of the gospels were written within the life time of Jesus. In fact, most also question even who they were written by. If they were written by disciples, why in not in Aramaic, which was the language Jesus would have used. Especially since we are talking about people who in all likelihood were not literate... they were fishermen, right?

Peter wrote a gospel? Pray tell, where one would find it.

Absolutely right! However, they consider the writings to be accurate accounts, passed along through actual observers, who realized after the event that the accounts needed to be written down to prevent them from being lost or distorted. The individuals writing these accounts would be moved in the same spirit as the ones who wrote the Old Testament. Would this be impossible for God, to direct and move his creation to record these events? To believe it is impossible for Him would be to challenge His power, and makes one believe they are a god for themselves.

You present much factual material in your argument, but don’t provide full disclosure. Likewise I am often guilty of this same practice possible due to my own biases. For example, the Egyptian figures you presented in one of our earlier discussion, to show comparative births to Christ. You chose to omit that their births were not foretold thousands of years before their coming, and as “Saviors” they were not born for the purpose of removing sin once and for all from their people. In addition, these myths do not provide a transition for their people from Old to New, if you understand what I mean. These comparisons are extremely weak, as they might have only one or two things in common. However, I believe you were trying to use them to imply that the events of the birth of Christ were stolen from them.

There is surmounting information that defends the faith, even if you are objectionable to some of it being taken from the Internet. The Internet can be a good resource if there is reference given as to where the information has come from, so one might confirm its authenticity. After all is it not on the Internet we have chosen to present our beliefs and opinions from which our readers will form an opinion?

And in respect to your arguments about the Exodus not being proven. I recently read and article from an Egyptologist (I cannot remember his name at this moment) who likewise held the same opinion as you. However, in his closing statement he admitted that Egyptians were not likely to write about events that would bring them discredit, and the crossing of the Red Sea by Moses definitely would have been a blemish on their records, therefore being kept absent from their records.

In respect to the Fishermen, under what pretence can you conclude they were not literate? Such a comment would be somewhat prejudicial would it not? Should I concluded that all hunters are illiterate, simply because they hunt? I would like to believe that the Fishermen selected by Christ may have been lacking in knowledge, but what better way to become an intellect than to walk, learn, and listen to the Creator of the Universe. Hand picked, selected and learned for the purpose of God.

[gunmum]

After re-reading my last post, perhaps you think I'm standing here, hands on hips, waving my finger...Not really how I intended to sound there. Just wanted to add that I'm learning so much from all of you Thank-you for your honest participation!

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Yeah, christianity makes sense.

This cynicism in itself shows that the truth is within the reach of one’s grasp. And it confirms that there is opposition and division. Some people might be offended by it, yet it is necessary, for without darkness how would one know that there is Light. For darkness in itself is but the absence of Light.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

Because the bible tells you so right? Circular logic.

No. Likely because God tells him so. Do you really believe it is impossible to hear the voice?

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

There is about as much proof to support a claim that wiki info is inspired by god as the bible. In both cases its all pure speculation. There is absolutely no way to know. "Believing" and "trusting" doesn't make it so except in one's own mind. If it makes one feel good to believe in the bible and a church leaders interpretation of that book then I'm happy for that person. But the reality is that any one of us will only KNOW the actual truth of any higher power and afterlife when we pass on.

This is not so. When the Spirit of God comes upon or within a man they can feel it. It provides a peace beyond understanding, which cannot be explain in human terms or words. It exceeds the understanding of the conscience state or soul, because it is not limited to the knowledge that we attain in our minds. The Spirit is all knowledge and all knowing. The Spirit in itself can move the soul to where it is to attain the knowledge to do good works. The host must only listen and obey, for the Spirit brings Life, and is interested in the wellfare of the Soul. The Spirit testifys to the soul that it is a child of God. This is why Paul et al. were compelled to share the Good News to others. They wanted to share something that is beyond words, hoping that the listener will want to receive what they have. When you received a really awesome present, did you ever want to share it with someone? A person does not have to wait until death to learn if there is a "higher power". They can experience it now, today within their soul. The Kingdom of God is at hand, it is in reach right now. If someone asked you, if you died would you go to Heaven? What would your answer be? For those that believe it would be Yes!, for they are given the Spirit and can identify with it. The very testimony you hear gives witness to the Spirit, it is very much alive. The flesh might die but the soul will not taste death.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by avb3

BTW, when Jesus went and did his prayer stuff in the garden of Gethsemane, his disciples kept falling asleep, right? So who was the witness to what Jesus said and did, when all were sleeping? Hmmmm, curious, isn't it?

There sure is a whole bunch of mystical stuff that happens when there are no witnesses, don't you think? Tons of angels appearing to whisper stuff to men removed from those they preach to afterwards.

We may disagree, but I do appreciate an honest debate. You will not change my mind, nor I yours, but it is good to discuss without getting into personalities.

Matthew 26:38-40

Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.

Note:

1. “Jesus said stay here and keep watch with me.” Would it be reasonable to then conclude they were in visible and audible range of Jesus?

2. Going a little further, not a lot further Jesus fell to the ground. Therefore one could conclude that they were still in visible and audible range of Jesus.

3. How long would it take for Jesus to fall to the ground and pray, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will?” Would it take one hour? I don’t think so. However, Jesus returns to his disciples who he finds asleep and asks “could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” Therefore, following what they heard and saw Jesus do, they fell asleep, so what did Jesus do during that remaining time? We might never know because the disciples had fallen asleep. My best quess is that he prayed and meditated on the future events that were about to happen.

I would like to do this with all your arguments, but I do have time restraints. This will definitely improve my typing skills and hopefully grammer, spelling...etc.

"We may disagree, but I do appreciate an honest debate. You will not change my mind, nor I yours, but it is good to discuss without getting into personalities" - ditto

avp3: I asked some questions earlier, but could not find no answers. Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and was manifested in the flesh?

[30Cal]

A quick ammendment to numbers 2 and 3 above for greater clarification:

2. Going a little further, not a lot further Jesus fell to the ground. Therefore one could conclude that they were still in visible and audible range of Jesus; and still awake.

3. How long would it take for Jesus to fall to the ground and pray, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will?” Would it take one hour? I don’t think so. However, Jesus returns to his disciples who he finds asleep and asks “could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” Therefore, it is perceivable that following what they heard and saw Jesus do, they fell asleep. Maybe this is why we have such a short account of what Jesus did during that remaining time? And we might never know because the disciples had fallen asleep. My best quess is that he prayed and meditated on the future events that were about to happen.

[nof60]

Originally Posted by markg

Your burden of Historical proof seems a bit unrealistic regarding historical figures.
For example Tacitus "Annals of Imperial Rome" is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of of the New Testament period yet suprisingly it survives in only 2 manuscripts dating from the Middle ages yet we believe people mentioned in his writings were real and existed.

There are only 10 copies of Ceasars Gallic Wars eight copies of Herodotus History and seven copies of Plato all dated over a millenium from the originall and we dont question the historical accuracy of those documents or the people mentioned therin.

So in short i think we can agree Julius Ceasar existed and so did Jesus Christ.

If you want i can compare and contrast the evidence of the biblical manuscripts with that of the above mentioned historical documents Let me know if this would be of interest to you.

True...there are also coins with the image of Julius Caeser, graffiti with his name, busts, carvings, written egyptian and greek records, and his name carved into the many buildings and monuments he had built. There is absolutely no doubt that he existed, conquered large sections of Gall, and became the first emperor of rome. We even know what he looked like as a young man and the injuries he sustained at his murder. The surviving copies of his book are just that, copies of a book that he himself wrote. Quoting a wanted poster with a fairly common name of a man who committed a fairly common crime is a little weak in the evidence department, No? I am not saying I don't believe or do believe he existed. I am just saying for such a historical figure their is absolutely no proof that he existed at all.

Also the reason so little survives is that the church burned everything that did not support their views and pointed to the humanism or against the devinity of Christ.

[nof60]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

Religion is for those who believe, without proof or evidence...as there is none.
In all fairness and accuracy, many are practicing pagmatism not Christianity.

Really? There is proog that the Buddha existed. He is mentioned in several reliable sources written during his long unhappy life. When a prince goes bonkers and starves himself to the edge of death it is newsworthy.
Muhammed is mentioned in many texts written during his life. Again when you are a fairly brutal warlord and sack a few of your enemies city's it is newsworthy.
Even Joseph Smith can be absolutely and beyond all doubt proven to have been a real person. When a con man is murdered it makes good headlines.
However when a hippy is crucified in a backwater of the Roman Empire as a common criminal it does not seem to warrant any mention. Despite the fact that eventually your name will bring down the most advanced civilisation (Roman Empire)the world has ever known and plunge the world into the horror of the dark ages and cause more war and evil to be done than any other name ever right up to present day.

[nof60]

One more comment and i am done but i will watch from the sidelines. I find debating religion to be a very interesting exercise although at the same time very frustrating. I find that when you point out a fact to people and they do not have an answer they fall back on the old "cause God says so" schtick. In the interests of debate lets not use this anymore. You can not prove that oral tradition written 75 years after JCs death were divinely inspired any more that I can disprove it. So lets stick to facts. Just because you believe it to be so is not evidence. So in the words of Mr Friday "The facts, nothing but the facts"

See the trouble is that without faith there is no basis for your faith. Circular logic at best.

I will not change your mind and you have no idea what my beliefs are and would not be able to change my mind even if you did but this is a debate. Debates are great mental exercise and fun. But please, lets just debate with facts and wit, not majic tricks and divine writing? Thats kooky. Like Joseph Smith kooky.

[avb3]

And then, there is this thought:

[nof60]

[QUOTE=30Cal;1296443] For example, the Egyptian figures you presented in one of our earlier discussion, to show comparative births to Christ. You chose to omit that their births were not foretold thousands of years before their coming, and as “Saviors” they were not born for the purpose of removing sin once and for all from their people. In addition, these myths do not provide a transition for their people from Old to New, if you understand what I mean. These comparisons are extremely weak, as they might have only one or two things in common. However, I believe you were trying to use them to imply that the events of the birth of Christ were stolen from them.

Ok one more. You chose to omit the fact that the ones who fortold of Jesus and need the transition from old to new ans need a Saviour do not belive JC was that guy. In case you fail to remember gods covenant was with the jews and they think JC was nothing more than a prophet at best, a nobody at worst. So in order for the Jesus myth to hold more value than the egyptian myths do you not think that the ones who prophesied his coming aught to at least believe rather than still be waiting for a messiah?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by gunmum

Ex. 34 contains a ritual Decalogue that is likely meant to be parallel to the ethical Decalogue (Ex.20),
Ex. 34 as a whole is a narrative of the renewal of the covenant following the golden calf incident.
Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 are addressed to different sets of people with different experiences -- the first set had just been released from Egypt; the second set had never known slavery but were born during the Exodus; moreover, the Deuteronomy covenant would rule those who came afterwards who never knew the toil in Egypt.

I have read your response, went back to the passages, read the ones before and after both, and I can not figure out how your response is relevant or applies.

The simple fact remains, there are 2 different versions of the Decalogue, and they do not match. The EX. 20 is when Moses wandered up the mountain the first time, EX. 34 is the second time.

The timeline represented is pretty clear, what is not clear is the differences.

Its really quite laughable to me that people think that science and religion are opposites. There is more evidence pointing toward a creator than evolution.

No, actually there isn't, unless one ignores scientific realities.

It takes a heck of a lot more faith to believe in a "scientist" that can't find "the link" to our existence! Oh, but it happened billions and billions of years ago? Please...that's just like saying that this watch here with all it's intricate pieces is a direct result of a watch factory explosion!

Explain life around black smokers then.

In 2005, Australian scientists announced the discovery of dozens of fossilized sea turtles that they say have exciting implications for evolution.However, the exciting implications seem rather to be against evolution!
The fossils are “believed” to be 110 millions years old. But contrary to evolutionary expectations, they look “basically the same as sea turtles do today.”
Evolutionists have no idea where the sea turtles came from or what they are related to. They just appear in the fossil record (the oldest, a single specimen found in Brazil in 1998, is “dated” at 115 million years), fully formed and fully recognizable. They have since “remained virtually unchanged for over 100 million years,” Discovery reports.

So? Crocodiles are virtually unchanged also.

It is clear that many animals changed, evolved, mutated and adapted. Some go extinct. New species develop (think of cross-breeding in dogs and how fast a new breed can develop). 500 years ago, the Akita and the Shiba were the same breed and a mid-sized dog. Today the Akita is a large dog, and the Shiba a relatively small one.

[covey ridge]

Wow! Just tuned in to AO. Thought that this forum was about fishing and hunting? This thread I found in new posts tweaked my interest. I enjoyed both sides of the debate and impressed by the fact that there was little blood spilled.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Absolutely right! However, they consider the writings to be accurate accounts, passed along through actual observers, who realized after the event that the accounts needed to be written down to prevent them from being lost or distorted.

There is much evidence that gospels were "re-written" to fit certain "facts" before being "finalized" at the Council of Nicaea.

The individuals writing these accounts would be moved in the same spirit as the ones who wrote the Old Testament. Would this be impossible for God, to direct and move his creation to record these events? To believe it is impossible for Him would be to challenge His power, and makes one believe they are a god for themselves.

The only person involved with the NT who is a confirmed real person is Saul (Paul). All the rest is speculative as to who the person was that a gospel is attributed to. All were written AFTER the Pauline writings.

So, as that is the case, why does Paul not resemble at least the Synoptic gospels?

You present much factual material in your argument, but don’t provide full disclosure. Likewise I am often guilty of this same practice possible due to my own biases. For example, the Egyptian figures you presented in one of our earlier discussion, to show comparative births to Christ. You chose to omit that their births were not foretold thousands of years before their coming, and as “Saviors” they were not born for the purpose of removing sin once and for all from their people. In addition, these myths do not provide a transition for their people from Old to New, if you understand what I mean. These comparisons are extremely weak, as they might have only one or two things in common. However, I believe you were trying to use them to imply that the events of the birth of Christ were stolen from them.

Not only implying, but insisting.

The virgin birth/saviour/resurecion stories in the middle east pre-date the Jesus one by hundreds and some by thousands of years.

As far as a transition from old to new, there were a number of "adjustments" that needed to be made.

Birthplace...Bethlehem or Nazareth?

Connection to David.. how many generations? There is a discrepancy

Connection to David... Jewish standard was that lineage was traced through the father, not the mother. Joesph was the descendant of David, but not the father of Jesus. There is no way that Jesus could have descended from David, is there?

There is surmounting information that defends the faith, even if you are objectionable to some of it being taken from the Internet. The Internet can be a good resource if there is reference given as to where the information has come from, so one might confirm its authenticity. After all is it not on the Internet we have chosen to present our beliefs and opinions from which our readers will form an opinion?

I have no problem with information coming from the internet, as long as it is authentic, and verifiable. Opinions don't count, and you must admit, faith is a form of opinion.

In respect to the Fishermen, under what pretence can you conclude they were not literate? Such a comment would be somewhat prejudicial would it not? Should I concluded that all hunters are illiterate, simply because they hunt? I would like to believe that the Fishermen selected by Christ may have been lacking in knowledge, but what better way to become an intellect than to walk, learn, and listen to the Creator of the Universe. Hand picked, selected and learned for the purpose of God

The preponderance of evidence would suggest that there is a very high percentile of Middle East residents of 2000 years ago who were illiterate.

In fact, outside of some government officials and rabbis, most of the rest of the population was. We can't view the stigma of illiteracy of today with then.

[covey ridge]

Duplicate stuff

[avb3]

Originally Posted by gunmum

After re-reading my last post, perhaps you think I'm standing here, hands on hips, waving my finger...Not really how I intended to sound there. Just wanted to add that I'm learning so much from all of you Thank-you for your honest participation!

Now THAT is a visual... lol.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

No. Likely because God tells him so. Do you really believe it is impossible to hear the voice?

We have kept this thread at a higher level, but do you know how hard it is not to make a comment about hearing voices?

That door was just left too wide open

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

.....
Note:

1. “Jesus said stay here and keep watch with me.” Would it be reasonable to then conclude they were in visible and audible range of Jesus?

2. Going a little further, not a lot further Jesus fell to the ground. Therefore one could conclude that they were still in visible and audible range of Jesus.

3. How long would it take for Jesus to fall to the ground and pray, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will?” Would it take one hour? I don’t think so. However, Jesus returns to his disciples who he finds asleep and asks “could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” Therefore, following what they heard and saw Jesus do, they fell asleep, so what did Jesus do during that remaining time? We might never know because the disciples had fallen asleep. My best quess is that he prayed and meditated on the future events that were about to happen.

I would like to do this with all your arguments, but I do have time restraints. This will definitely improve my typing skills and hopefully grammer, spelling...etc.

But your speculating of "perhaps", "it could have" etc.

My comments were based on what we know is written... they fell asleep and nowhere is there a suggestion that they knew what was going on. To suggest so is just speculation.

avp3: I asked some questions earlier, but could not find no answers. Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and was manifested in the flesh?

Actually, I did answer it here

[avb3]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Wow! Just tuned in to AO. Thought that this forum was about fishing and hunting? This thread I found in new posts tweaked my interest. I enjoyed both sides of the debate and impressed by the fact that there was little blood spilled.

Yeah, one can be civil and disagree. If I was a drinking man, I probably would have a beer with all the contributors here. I would hope they would say the same.

[avb3]

[QUOTE=nof60;1296701]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Ok one more. You chose to omit the fact that the ones who fortold of Jesus and need the transition from old to new ans need a Saviour do not belive JC was that guy. In case you fail to remember gods covenant was with the jews and they think JC was nothing more than a prophet at best, a nobody at worst. So in order for the Jesus myth to hold more value than the egyptian myths do you not think that the ones who prophesied his coming aught to at least believe rather than still be waiting for a messiah?

Great perspective... I never viewed it that way before.

I wonder if a lot has to do with the issue of lineage to David that I commented on earlier; Jewish tradition is lineage is through the father. Joseph, who is traced back to David, is not the father, hence, JC could not be the messiah.

[markg]

I have enjoyed this discussion. I am glad we can agree to disagree and remain friendly. Its one of the reasons i am proud to be an Albertan. We have a tendency to put meat on an arguement and not just resort to sound bites and rhetoric.

All of us have put forth proof and evidence for our arguments, we disagree on the validity of said proofs. I dont think we can discount the fact that some very intelligent people have argued these ideas for centuries. Both sides are legitimate. I do resent being told that "faith' is unreasonable and no facts exist to prove the existence of God. This is offensive and assumes that over 1 Billion People around the world are by definition "idiots" for there beliefs. It also assumes that the person making the statement is somehow intellectully superior, and that is eliteism.

Finally i would like to offer up some of my favorite books and authors that better explain my position. If your interested look these folks up, on there web sites or buy there books.

DR. William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Greg Kouckle (master in philosophy) web site is stand to reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

Books:
I dont have enough faith to be an atheist Dr Norman Kiesler
Case For Christ Lee Stroble
In the Fullness of Time Dr Paul L Maier
Darwins Black Box Dr Michael Behe

[eastcoast]

Originally Posted by markg

I have enjoyed this discussion. I am glad we can agree to disagree and remain friendly. Its one of the reasons i am proud to be an Albertan. We have a tendency to put meat on an arguement and not just resort to sound bites and rhetoric.

All of us have put forth proof and evidence for our arguments, we disagree on the validity of said proofs. I dont think we can discount the fact that some very intelligent people have argued these ideas for centuries. Both sides are legitimate. I do resent being told that "faith' is unreasonable and no facts exist to prove the existence of God. This is offensive and assumes that over 1 Billion People around the world are by definition "idiots" for there beliefs. It also assumes that the person making the statement is somehow intellectully superior, and that is eliteism.

Finally i would like to offer up some of my favorite books and authors that better explain my position. If your interested look these folks up, on there web sites or buy there books.

DR. William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Greg Kouckle (master in philosophy) web site is stand to reason http://www.str.org/site/PageServer

Books:
I dont have enough faith to be an atheist Dr Norman Kiesler
Case For Christ Lee Stroble
In the Fullness of Time Dr Paul L Maier
Darwins Black Box Dr Michael Behe

A proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition.

what you have is an opinion, you do not have proof of any exhistance of a god, and as far as a billion people believing it does that really matter? 99.9% of the population of the world thought the sun rotated around the earth, and 99.9% of the population thought the world was flat, just because people belive something that does not make it true or a fact.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by nof60

True...there are also coins with the image of Julius Caeser, graffiti with his name, busts, carvings, written egyptian and greek records, and his name carved into the many buildings and monuments he had built. There is absolutely no doubt that he existed, conquered large sections of Gall, and became the first emperor of rome. We even know what he looked like as a young man and the injuries he sustained at his murder. The surviving copies of his book are just that, copies of a book that he himself wrote. Quoting a wanted poster with a fairly common name of a man who committed a fairly common crime is a little weak in the evidence department, No? I am not saying I don't believe or do believe he existed. I am just saying for such a historical figure their is absolutely no proof that he existed at all.

Also the reason so little survives is that the church burned everything that did not support their views and pointed to the humanism or against the devinity of Christ.

Evidence for the existence of Jesus would need to be bases on various sources. The authenticity of Josephus is often challenged because it was handed down to us from the early church and therefore is believed to have been altered with fictitious details. However, in 240 AD Origen made reference to Josephus which predated all presently known Joseph manuscript. In his notes, Origen made reference to Jesus being the brother of James and went on to note that Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ. This would indicate that there was likely an earlier works by Josephus than the one that is commonly used.

The writings of Tertullian (a Roman citizen 155-160 AD), in his defence to the senate about his faith states: “At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives. But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty... All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.”

This is describing the account of the death of Jesus, kept in the Roman’s archives, written and given to the emperor by Pilate. To my knowledge there has not been any Roman document that denies or objected to the Christian claims that Christ was crucified at their hands. Considering the legalistic minds of the Romans, before and during their attempt to purge the earth of Christians, I would think there would be in existence a written objection?

Julian the apostate (331-363 AD), the last Roman Emperor to apposed Christianity, made reference to their records of Jesus being put to death. One can only conclude then that these records were genuine and still available during his time.

[eastcoast]

to paraphrase from bill maher's recent new rules.

until someone claims to see christopher hitchens face in a tree stump, then idiots must stop claiming that athiesm is a religion.

there is one little difference religion is defined at the belief in and worship of a super human controlling power, and athiesm is precisely not that.

athiesm is a religion like abstenence is a sex position.

there is a growing trend in this country that needs to be called out, and that is to label any evidence based belief a religion, many conservatives now say that man made belief in climate change is a religion, and darwinism is a religion, and of course athiesm the total lack of a religion is a religion.according to the always reliable encycolpedia moronica.

now it's a dodge of course straight out of the grand intelectual position of I know you are but what am i.

it's a way of saying hey we all believe in some sort of faith based malarky so lets call it a push, no, no no no no no, it's not fair that people who can't defend their own nonsense get to create a fake, fair and balanced argument, the way they do when inserting that evolution and creationism are equally valid.

when it comes to religion we are not 2 sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf as my reason, your stuff has to go over there on the shelf with zeus and thor and cracken, with the stuff that is not evidence based,stuff that religious people never change their mind about no matter what happens, that's not athiesm, I am open to anything to which there is evidence, show me a god and I will believe in him. if jesus were to come down tommorow I will say my bad praise the lord.

and short of that if you still insist athiesm is a religion then it's only fair that we got to do all the loony stuff you get to do.

[wheaty]

Sorry to say East Coast your flat out wrong. I have looked at both sides of this argument and there are good points and proofs put forward by both sides in this discussion. If you dont like someones argument it doesnt mean it is not valid. Your critisism of some posts considering the historicity of the evidence of Christs existence shows that you have a poor understand of what makes a document an acceptable piece of evidence. You may not like it but it still is evidence. Evidence accepted by a large number of historians.

Many people with incredible high IQ's and seriouls levels of education who have honestly and sincerly examined the facts have come to different conclusions regarding the question of wether god exists or not. You cannot discount those people who chose the opposite side of the arguement becasue you simply disagree with them. That is not fair and frankly its intellectually small.

[wheaty]

I have seen alot of questions asked of the Christians in the discussion. Hear are a few for the athesits

How is it possible for everything to come from nothing in the big bang?

How did living systems come from non intelligent non self replicating materials?
Why do so many evolutionary biologist struggle with the origins question?

If there is No God or Afterlife can there be any Transendenant meaning to life?

If there is no God are objective morals possible?

If the material universe is all that exists how can you explain emotions like love.

[30Cal]

[QUOTE=nof60;1296701]

Originally Posted by 30Cal

Ok one more. You chose to omit the fact that the ones who fortold of Jesus and need the transition from old to new ans need a Saviour do not belive JC was that guy. In case you fail to remember gods covenant was with the jews and they think JC was nothing more than a prophet at best, a nobody at worst. So in order for the Jesus myth to hold more value than the egyptian myths do you not think that the ones who prophesied his coming aught to at least believe rather than still be waiting for a messiah?

The above noted was not written by me, I believe it was written by nof60. I have no idea how my call sign was attached to it; nevertheless here is my response:

What you are saying is supposition at most. A study of the Old Testament will show that God’s covenant people walked away from Him on numerous occasions, often resulting in their enslavement. If one were to study the New Testament they might see that the laws, rituals...etc. of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ. In other words, as a Jew, Jesus did all that was required of Him by law. Therefore, when He allowed Himself to be placed upon the cross, after fulfilling all the requirements, death also came to the old covenant. In those times when a King was taken captive they were hung by a tree as a display that they had become a curse. Therefore everything that was summed up in Christ became a curse the moment He was hung and died upon the tree (cross). And it remains a curse or stumbling block for those who chose to continue following in the Old ways. This is why Jesus sat with his disciples, broke bread, and drank the wine in the making of a new covenant, because He was about to bring the Old to an end in order to begin in the New - “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). Paul well versed as a Pharisee, one who was originally against Christ, spoke about this in His epistles after his conversion - “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Galatians 3:13). Even the parables of Jesus Christ make reference to the change that was about to happen in that you do not put Old into New - “no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins" (Mark 2:22). Jesus in every since of the word was God; and was preparing to make His presence and path of salvation known or available to the entire World. The Devil believed he was putting an end to Christ upon the cross, without realizing that he involuntarily aiding in the fulfillment and prophesy of God’s word.

Many Jews did believe He was the Messiah, as stated above Paul was a Jewish Pharisee (an interpreter and teacher of the law). And the initial churches were composed of Jews who embraced Jesus as their Messiah. God’s plan was not solely focused on the Jewish nation; His focus was on the world – "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Afterall, He created it so why would He not want to fill it? This is why there had to be a New Covenant, so that the blessing would also be for the Gentiles as it was for the Jews. In Christ there is no discrimination between Jew and Gentile and there never was – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). However, much of the process began with the Jews. Do you think Abraham was a Jew? The word Jew came from the name 'Judah', who was one of the original 12 sons of Jacob, who was after Abraham the father of all nations. You might consider study, to see how many Jewish-Christian reside in present day Jerusalem. Many Jewish people have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. The ones that are still waiting have missed the boat, but there is still hope for them because they have witnesses in their land.