So you know Reformedevangelist to! He taught me a great deal about open air preaching when I was a Christian . It's too bad according to his theology your headed for hell!
I'm an atheist I could care less about your theological positions or biblical interpretations. You see you only validate the atheistic argument from confusion so keep up the good work lol
Nice try but of many of the context of the verses you quote in to back up your synergistic it becomes clear that your misapplying the text. It also demonstrates the fact that u don't read Hebrew or koine Greek and are relying on a translation. By citing these verses you also show that you know nothing about the talmudic back ground information of the tanach Aka OT.
If u ever debated me u would lose and look like a fool! I am an atheist well acquainted with koine Greek ,church history, Christian orthodox theology. U teach a synergistic gospel and according to Galatians 1:6-9 your condemned for preaching a works gospel. Check out the two words translated "another" in verses 6 and 7.
@jstillwell1980 Neither Galatians nor any other book in the Bible classifies repentance and faith as "works". Therefore, to say that salvation requires man's cooperation in repentance and faith is not what the Bible condemns as works based salvation. Works based salvation is earning salvation through merit, which is opposed to grace, NOT repenting of your sins and believing the gospel, which merits nothing at all.
@jstillwell1980 See the following for verses that refute monergism and affirm synergism: (Deut. 10:16; Eze. 24:13; Eze. 18:31; Jer. 4:14; Jas. 4:8; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
wow Gods obviously using you in a grand way keep going :) God law is so the basis of morality, sex outside of marriage equals unwanted children, the only way to justify sex outside marriage is a condom, how cheap!!. Drunkeness nums you, you exist on the highlife on the buzz of alcohol and then it destroys you, what a waste of time... God bless you :)
I feel sorry for this poor Christian who has been brainwashed by his surroundings and on this video is fighting for non-logic and anti-reason. If only he would understand the world as I do now. His mind is inprisoned and there is no autority for him who will tell him God (like Santa) doesn't actually exist. His future grandchildren would realy feel ashamed seeing him on video like this, but they will also be atheists. It is the only logical evolution if we want progress in the future.
lol... I think its great that these nut cases publicly embarrass both them and their cause in front of college students. This type of proselytizing which uses reason devoid fear mongering which fundamentalists engage in do more to drive people away from religion than most atheists ever could.
These fallacious arguments are easily refuted, and its nice to see virtually no one in the crowd taking this crack pot seriously.
I don't know how it could work from a regular christian perspective. But how about a more "deist" one? like he just created us, told us these rules, and is seeing how well we do.
How was god moral before he made us? who was he being moral to?
We are apparently subject to the morals imposed on us by god but he is not subject to his own morals. His commandments are about loving and worshipping him. Clearly he doesn't love and worship himself. He is free to kill and punish by torture whilst we are commanded not to. Just how is he moral?
I have. He can have no meaningful morality without his creations. Morality in the absence of others to be moral to is meaningless. God alone in his eternity can have no morality. The first part of the morality he imposes on us is to love him. Clearly we are not enjoined to be moral in any sense that god can be moral. He has made up the rules for us alone.
Again, God is not singular. God is plural. Allah cannot have any loving relationships without Creation, but God is a Trinity and therefore He can have loving relationships and did have loving relationships before He created anything at all.
God is a Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These persons loved each other long before Creation. Jesus said that the Father loved Him before everything was created.
Well loving himself is great I'm sure and I can see why he made the first three commandments all about worshipping and loving him but meaningful morality is about actions and he could act in teh absence of a universe to act in.
Christians do seem to be a little confused about morality. They claim their god is good as part of his nature and yet the rules he gives to us (the commandments) he doesn't live by himself. There are many examples of god mudering, condoning murder and ordering murder in the bible. He gives, he takes away - sound like stealing? He doesn't have much need for worshipping himself, adultery and so on.
He makes the rules yet doesn't abide by them - so how is he good?
Morality doesn't come from God at all. I just deconverted after 18 years of being christian. We all develop a sense of morality from the society around us, not the bible.
@iKlay When you were a christian, do you remeber that still, small, voice that would let you know when you were doing something wrong? That is the Holy Spirit. God does help us to figure out what is moral and immoral. With the anything goes attitude of the world today, we need that voice like never before so we as christians understand where to draw the line. Have you ever reconsidered your decision to leave Jesus? He will take you back if you ask.
"...some of you are looking for intelligent life on other planets, I'm still looking for intelligent life on this planet." Ha! Ha! Ha! Brother, that was quite humorous! Continue to preach the good tidings of Zion. God bless you and your family.
That was one of the more famous stories of Jesus.
Where as an injured man lied on the side of a road. a priest and a Levite just passed by. and didn't offer to help the man. But the Samartin Stopped to help. Mind you at this time Samaratins were a hated bunch of people accused of having no morals. etc. But the Samartin helped the man. So i think the point Jesus was trying to get across was that a holy man can be apathetic. and a "bad" man can be kind as well.
[continued] Morality comes from basic sense and empathy. Logic, they are properties of mankind, devised from common sense and experiences of nature; metaphysical. Next, Observation. It's okay not to know then to claim to know all and not knowing does not make a group of people unintelligent. You have faith, they have evidence to back up their claim. Different views & perspectives. Keep an open mind. I understand where you're coming from, I was a former Christian.Converted for personal reasons.
We can't. We're limited to our senses that's why we corroborate what we think we're experiencing, to show us if we've mistaken. Ex. If A can't be detected, then sure A could exist, then we have no way to know, if A is undetectable. I'll leave it at that. ;D
Atheism are people who are unconvinced there is a God. There's no evidence to believe, so why bother? Do you believe in Qu'ran scriptures? Why not? Oh, because the bible holds the only truth? How do you know? How about the Hinduism, Buddhism? To non-believers religion holds no evidence for its claim. You have to understand the atheist point of view and not assume one group of people are unintelligent if you haven't look at their argument. It's important to look at all point of views. Continued..
Okay. guys seriously. can't we all just get along? No one is going to listen to the other side. isolating atheists and christains isn't what we want, now is it?
You really believe that Jesus was a fictional character? That is pure and simple ignorance. Can you find even one professional historian who agrees with you?
There is more historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus Christ existed than there is to support the fact that Julias Ceasar existed. We have the written testimonies of those who knew him. We also have the jewish historian Josephus.
I have studied this subject in great detail. From what I can tell from my literary research/studies; no, jesus did not exist. None of jesus contemporaries wrote about him inside or outside of the bible. And as prominent a figure as he was supposed to be, it stands to reason that he would have been written about by at least his critics(that is if he existed). Yet, there is nothing from Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, or any of Romes other officials at the time.
His own disciples wrote about him. They were his contemporaries. You canno arbitrarily discredit their writings just because they believed in him. You cannot use a different standard for historic verification than you would for any other historic figure.
Every biblical scholar, and anyone who has done just a little research on the subject knows that none of the gospels were written by the names that are attributed to them. The book were written well after the fictional jesus character was supposed to have died, and are second to third hand accounts by men who never met this fictional character.
I entreat you to verify this for yourself[using whatever source you trust]. If you check your own bible[depending on the version] you can verify it by either the footnotes, or in the opening description of each gospel. ;O)
The closest man to actually being a contemporary of the jesus character was the man you mentioned; Titus Flavius Josephus(A Jew, born 1-4 years after the jesus characters death). But the problem with his writings in The Antiquities of the Jews (57 years later) is that it seems to have a christian influence. The first discoveries of Josephus writings are late enough to have been re-written by christians. As a result his only mention of jesus is universally regarded as a forgery.
HAHAHA. You are just making things up. That is the problem or difficulty with debating atheists on the internet, they take so much liberty to make things up. The mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus is not "universally regarded as a forgery". That is simply not true! haha it makes me laugh it is so dishonest. The only mention of Jesus, which is in question, is the part that says, "if you can call him a man" which was probably added later on, not actually written by Josephus.
Finally, none of the writings from any of these men were from a first hand account, and most referring to christians, and not jesus himself. Whereas both Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great who predate the jesus character actually can be, and has been independently verified thru their contemporaries(critics, enemies, satirists) writings, and matching artistic depictions.
P.S.
Please, I entreat you, and anyone else reading this to variety all that I have said. :O)
The enemies of Jesus, the Pharisees and the Jews, verify that Jesus Christ existed. They simply call him a liar and a demon. Nevertheless, they verify his existence.
Heh, I was going to finish there, but I like to be thorough. No one outside of the bible even mentions that dead people were getting out of their graves, and walking into the city. That is; I think worth mention by critics, Romans or otherwise. Yet there was not one. Any, and all writings were 50+ years after the jesus character's death. And all of the writing were done by men who both did not know this fictional character when he was supposed to have lived. :O)
Oh, and Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD) a Jewish philosopher; lived during the supposed time of the fictional jesus character. He even visited Jerusalem during his life time and it stands to reason that Philo would have at least heard about the jesus character(if he actually existed) yet he makes no mention of him, or his twelve apostles. Think about it. ;O)
The lack of mention is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than a denial. You denied that Jesus Christ even existed. There is no historical evidence to support that.
That is my point; given the research that I have done; there is no empirical evidence to say that the jesus character ever existed. And absolutely no evidence from the fictional jesus characters contemporaries(as none wrote about him). So until empirical evidence is provided for historicity of the jesus character I take the default position of not believing. Just like leprechauns, ferries, unicorns, and Spiderman. ;O)
So you are saying that not only was Jesus a fictional character, but his disciples who wrote Gospels and Epistles were also fictional? haha. You don't believe that the Apostle Peter existed? You don't believe the historical record that Peter was crucified upside down for his faith in Jesus? What about the archeologist Margherita Guarducci who rediscovered Peters tomb? What about Clement of Rome who was ordained by Peter? Was Clement of Rome a fictional character as well???
The writings of Clement verify the existence of Peter, and the writings of Peter verify the existence of Jesus Christ. It is nothing less then arbitrary stupidity to say that Jesus Christ was not an actual person. You can call Jesus a liar, you can call him a lunatic, but you are being intellectual dishonest and historically inaccurate to say that Jesus Christ did not exist!
So... if I've met Stan Lee, then Spider-man is real? Despite the fact NY Times and CNN both fails to mention how he saved the city from dr. octopus? After all, Stan Lee IS real.
Haha. You atheists are so irrational and nonsensical that it is humorous. Stan Lee has never claimed that Spider Man was real, neither has he given his life in martyrdom to support such a claim. The Apostle Peter however both affirmed that Jesus was a real person, whom he saw risen from the dead, but he also was crucified upside down for his testimony when all he had to do was deny Jesus.
In the court of law, any testimony which a witness gives that is in their own favor has a tendency to discredit their testimony in the mind of a jury. But any testimony that a witness gives that is contrary to their favor actually has the opposite tendency. You could not ask for more credible witnesses, more reliable testimonies, than the ones offered by the Apostles that were martyred.
Actually no If you would read what I have stated you will see that I am only talking about the jesus character as being fictional. And showing you that the four gospels in which many people assume was written by four of the apostles were in fact written well after the jesus character supposed death and by anonymous men who never knew/met this fictional character.
Again, if you care about what is true, then verify this with whatever sources you trust. You can look in a bible or even do a simple Internet search: [who wrote the four gospels] ;O)
The internet searches that I've done have provided me with more than enough evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Actually, I would like for you to list scholars or sources, from which you have gathered your information and have done your "research". Atheists that debate against the Resurrection don't even use the "fictional character" Argument from repetition.
It's simple to make very hideous claims like the ones that you made in an erudite fashion, backing them up is another thing.
It worries me when people read works written by someone like Doherty. What level of degree did he obtain? And from where? One can only wonder. Did he interview the scholars that Strobel did? I highly doubt it (I wish he did). To use terms such as "cross-examination", is also troublesome when you actually know what cross-examination is. Secondly, have you read Feldman's entire book?
Author of the book: Entries on Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus, Second Sophistic, Soranus of Ephesus. In Encyclopedia of the Ancient World (edited by Thomas J. Sienkewicz).
And: The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb, The Plausibility of Theft, The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law. In The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave (edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder)
I don't have the time to respond to all the sources you listed at the moment but what's telling is the fact that all of the sources seem biased. Have you taken the time to read works by leading evangelical scholars? I highly doubt that too. In any case, you list the Bible among your sources which isn't convincing whatsoever. I don't see what the point was.
[In any case, you list the bible among your sources which isn't convincing whatsoever. I don't see what the point was.] Interesting The bible states where the fictional jesus character was at times, what he supposedly did, and who was around. Yet you do not see the point in how checking what the bible says about the events around the jesus characters supposed life compared to what happened in verifiable history. Well ok.. :O/
I don't see what the point of listing the different version of the Bible is? Secondly, it's most likely that you'll pick and choose what you want from it.
Prt7: In addiction I have researched(histories, writings, actions): Publius Cornelius Tacitus Gaius Plinius Caecilius Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus Lucian of Samosata Titus Flavius Josephus Publius Sulpicius Quirinius(and the Census) The Roman Empire, and its leaders in and around (c 4 BCE to c 30 CE) Simon bar Kokhba (Once thought to be the actual Jewish messiah) The history of the four gospels(Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) including when these books were canonized. Katalyzt
You list Simon Bar Kokhba as once being thought to be the actual Jewish Messiah, OK?
The history of the four Gospel from what source? Even so, I fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand, did Christ exist? Such arguments are used when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Christianity. I've heard that mantra many times now but it doesn't make it real. I thank you for being polite in the comments.
Yes. As you may know, the Jews are still waiting for the messiah that their ancestors prophesied about. ;O) And roughly 102 years after the supposed death of the fictional jesus character; Simon Bar Kokhba successfully lead a revolt against the Roman empire who had seized Israel. He held the whole of the Roman Empire at bay for three years. And the Jews of that time considered Simon Bar Kokhba the messiah that was prophesied about; until his defeat.
I fail to see what this has to do with the issue at hand, please state the purpose of bringing this up. Also, the use of rhetoric doesn't help your case, saying Christ was a fictional character and repeating this over and over again. You sound like Kelly from the rational response squad, this isn't a compliment.
No, not amazing at all, as they(the Jews) were the ones to write down the prophecies. It stands to reason that they out of anyone else would know who is to be the real messiah. I brought it up, because the Jews around the time did not right about a suspected messiah until well after the supposed death of the jesus character. That is how it relates to the subject at hand.
And until there is empirical evidence as to the historicity of the fictional jesus character actually existing; I will probably continue to repeat it.
You write: the Jews around the time did not right about a suspected messiah.
No, I seriously doubt you have studied Scripture.
I also seriously doubt you're looking for evidence since you haven't mentioned any scholars from the evangelical side. Have you read any of the works from N.T. Wright? His three volume work that is still in progress that attests to the origin of the Christian faith? Have you read anything like Gregory Boyd's recent work on the topic? I doubt this too.
You do realize that the history of the four gospels which are supposed to be a detailed account of the fictional jesus characters life and teachings is a key part in this whole discussion, right? And you fail to see what that has to do with the topic of if he existed or not?
[Such arguments are used when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of christianity.] My research tells otherwise. ;O)
Your sources are incredibly biased, like Carrier & Doherty. You don't believe that the Gospels have any credibility, so I really don't know what to believe.
[I've heard that mantra many times now but it doesn't make it real.]
You hearing it many times does not make it false either. ;O) I have given you, and anyone else who cares about truth the reasons why I do not think that jesus character existed. Even per your request, I have provided almost 3 years of verifiable facts, references, cited sources, and a list scholars(biblical and historians); I cannot help if you are not intellectually honest with the information.
You, are the one who is not intellectually honest. You have provided sources that would fit the skeptic position but have not listed any evangelical scholars and see what their take on the issue is. You didn't answer me if you read Feldman's entire work.
I thank you for being polite as well; as I often see many(not all) theists become irate when they hear that I not only do not believe in their [by definition] fictional "god", but that due to my research I have good reason to think that a major character in the christian story did not even exist.
Feldman says on the writings of Josephus, which according to you are regarded universally as forgery, he writes; My guess is that the ratio of those [scholars] who in some manner accept the Testimonium [to those who reject all of it as an interpolation] would be at least 3 to 1. I would not be surprised if it would be as much as 5 to 1. -Feldman
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Atheists tend to know more about holy scripture and religion than most religious people do...
And that preacher dude is seriously just a douche. He's being an asshole, just shouting obnoxiously.
GiraffeColin 7 months ago
Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Atheists tend to know more about holy scripture and religion than most religious people do...
And that preacher dude is seriously just a douche, he's just being an asshole.
GiraffeColin 7 months ago
Comment removed
GiraffeColin 7 months ago
The level at which these children respond to truth on this campus is far reason enough to start defunding public education!
usa2112 11 months ago
Tonight I will be refuting this video on OpenAirAtheist. Have a godless night not that you can help not having one lol.
OpenAirAtheist 1 year ago
So you know Reformedevangelist to! He taught me a great deal about open air preaching when I was a Christian . It's too bad according to his theology your headed for hell!
OpenAirAtheist 1 year ago
I'm an atheist I could care less about your theological positions or biblical interpretations. You see you only validate the atheistic argument from confusion so keep up the good work lol
OpenAirAtheist 1 year ago
Nice try but of many of the context of the verses you quote in to back up your synergistic it becomes clear that your misapplying the text. It also demonstrates the fact that u don't read Hebrew or koine Greek and are relying on a translation. By citing these verses you also show that you know nothing about the talmudic back ground information of the tanach Aka OT.
OpenAirAtheist 1 year ago
If u ever debated me u would lose and look like a fool! I am an atheist well acquainted with koine Greek ,church history, Christian orthodox theology. U teach a synergistic gospel and according to Galatians 1:6-9 your condemned for preaching a works gospel. Check out the two words translated "another" in verses 6 and 7.
jstillwell1980 1 year ago
@jstillwell1980 Neither Galatians nor any other book in the Bible classifies repentance and faith as "works". Therefore, to say that salvation requires man's cooperation in repentance and faith is not what the Bible condemns as works based salvation. Works based salvation is earning salvation through merit, which is opposed to grace, NOT repenting of your sins and believing the gospel, which merits nothing at all.
OpenAirOutreach 1 year ago
@jstillwell1980 See the following for verses that refute monergism and affirm synergism: (Deut. 10:16; Eze. 24:13; Eze. 18:31; Jer. 4:14; Jas. 4:8; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
OpenAirOutreach 1 year ago
wow Gods obviously using you in a grand way keep going :) God law is so the basis of morality, sex outside of marriage equals unwanted children, the only way to justify sex outside marriage is a condom, how cheap!!. Drunkeness nums you, you exist on the highlife on the buzz of alcohol and then it destroys you, what a waste of time... God bless you :)
m1garand00 1 year ago
So loud! it's annoying.
Gunriffun9mm 2 years ago
that christian dude is so loud
ps morality comes from humanism if morality came from god we would still have slavery
neoarcadezr 2 years ago
I feel sorry for this poor Christian who has been brainwashed by his surroundings and on this video is fighting for non-logic and anti-reason. If only he would understand the world as I do now. His mind is inprisoned and there is no autority for him who will tell him God (like Santa) doesn't actually exist. His future grandchildren would realy feel ashamed seeing him on video like this, but they will also be atheists. It is the only logical evolution if we want progress in the future.
FriendlyHeathen666 2 years ago
lol... I think its great that these nut cases publicly embarrass both them and their cause in front of college students. This type of proselytizing which uses reason devoid fear mongering which fundamentalists engage in do more to drive people away from religion than most atheists ever could.
These fallacious arguments are easily refuted, and its nice to see virtually no one in the crowd taking this crack pot seriously.
Griefscar 2 years ago
I'm gonna play the Devils advocate here,
I don't know how it could work from a regular christian perspective. But how about a more "deist" one? like he just created us, told us these rules, and is seeing how well we do.
dungeondude 2 years ago
How was god moral before he made us? who was he being moral to?
We are apparently subject to the morals imposed on us by god but he is not subject to his own morals. His commandments are about loving and worshipping him. Clearly he doesn't love and worship himself. He is free to kill and punish by torture whilst we are commanded not to. Just how is he moral?
herbiepop 2 years ago
...ask yourself why?
Malachi811 2 years ago
I have. He can have no meaningful morality without his creations. Morality in the absence of others to be moral to is meaningless. God alone in his eternity can have no morality. The first part of the morality he imposes on us is to love him. Clearly we are not enjoined to be moral in any sense that god can be moral. He has made up the rules for us alone.
herbiepop 2 years ago
Again, God is not singular. God is plural. Allah cannot have any loving relationships without Creation, but God is a Trinity and therefore He can have loving relationships and did have loving relationships before He created anything at all.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
God is a Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These persons loved each other long before Creation. Jesus said that the Father loved Him before everything was created.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
Well loving himself is great I'm sure and I can see why he made the first three commandments all about worshipping and loving him but meaningful morality is about actions and he could act in teh absence of a universe to act in.
herbiepop 2 years ago
Listen guys.
Morality comes from humanity.
I'm an Atheist, and i have morals. But i don't
get them from god. I get them from myself
and those around me.
You christians claim that you get morals from the bible. So would you be a murderous rapist
without it? I don't think so.
dungeondude 2 years ago
Christians do seem to be a little confused about morality. They claim their god is good as part of his nature and yet the rules he gives to us (the commandments) he doesn't live by himself. There are many examples of god mudering, condoning murder and ordering murder in the bible. He gives, he takes away - sound like stealing? He doesn't have much need for worshipping himself, adultery and so on.
He makes the rules yet doesn't abide by them - so how is he good?
herbiepop 2 years ago
Morality doesn't come from God at all. I just deconverted after 18 years of being christian. We all develop a sense of morality from the society around us, not the bible.
iKlay 2 years ago
I think that the society around us is morally wrong, therefore I could not have gotten my sense of morality from the society around me...
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
@OpenAirOutreach Will you not acknowledge that modern society is far more moral biblical law?
trueleroix 1 year ago
@iKlay When you were a christian, do you remeber that still, small, voice that would let you know when you were doing something wrong? That is the Holy Spirit. God does help us to figure out what is moral and immoral. With the anything goes attitude of the world today, we need that voice like never before so we as christians understand where to draw the line. Have you ever reconsidered your decision to leave Jesus? He will take you back if you ask.
pbeasle 1 year ago
Hey man I love your boldness.
But there's something I have to say!
God is the eternal God.
He exists outside of time.
If the heavens can't hold Him,
then certainly time cannot hold Him.
He knows the future and our actions we will take, which is how He was willing to give prophets their prophecies.
God knows everything.
nigelium 2 years ago
"...some of you are looking for intelligent life on other planets, I'm still looking for intelligent life on this planet." Ha! Ha! Ha! Brother, that was quite humorous! Continue to preach the good tidings of Zion. God bless you and your family.
Reformation1517 2 years ago
The good Samaritan.
That was one of the more famous stories of Jesus.
Where as an injured man lied on the side of a road. a priest and a Levite just passed by. and didn't offer to help the man. But the Samartin Stopped to help. Mind you at this time Samaratins were a hated bunch of people accused of having no morals. etc. But the Samartin helped the man. So i think the point Jesus was trying to get across was that a holy man can be apathetic. and a "bad" man can be kind as well.
dungeondude 2 years ago
Is the shouty guy an atheist just out to make Christians look bad?
DouglasF23 2 years ago
Congratulations you have made no sense: you are given the Non-sequitur fallacy!
DouglasF23 2 years ago
Congradulations you just redifined "faith" to mean just about anything...you are given the "equivocation" fallacy!
DouglasF23 2 years ago
I understand you can't have right without wrong, good without bad or vice versa.
How do you determine the standards of right and wrong, since we, as humans have flaws?
acr3dit4r 2 years ago
Hmm. I see, but that's where empirical truth and keen observation comes into play in order for it to be true. I see your point.
My main question for you. Where does your morality come from?
acr3dit4r 2 years ago
"If you can't rely upon your own senses, then you can't rely upon anyone else's senses. Unless of course you have faith."
Unless I have faith, then I can rely on my senses.
"You live your life in faith, but you lie to yourself..."
According to you, my senses can be relied on because I live the life in faith. See the fallacy here?
acr3dit4r 2 years ago
[continued] Morality comes from basic sense and empathy. Logic, they are properties of mankind, devised from common sense and experiences of nature; metaphysical. Next, Observation. It's okay not to know then to claim to know all and not knowing does not make a group of people unintelligent. You have faith, they have evidence to back up their claim. Different views & perspectives. Keep an open mind. I understand where you're coming from, I was a former Christian.Converted for personal reasons.
acr3dit4r 2 years ago
How can you tust your 5 senses?
We can't. We're limited to our senses that's why we corroborate what we think we're experiencing, to show us if we've mistaken. Ex. If A can't be detected, then sure A could exist, then we have no way to know, if A is undetectable. I'll leave it at that. ;D
acr3dit4r 2 years ago
Atheism are people who are unconvinced there is a God. There's no evidence to believe, so why bother? Do you believe in Qu'ran scriptures? Why not? Oh, because the bible holds the only truth? How do you know? How about the Hinduism, Buddhism? To non-believers religion holds no evidence for its claim. You have to understand the atheist point of view and not assume one group of people are unintelligent if you haven't look at their argument. It's important to look at all point of views. Continued..
acr3dit4r 2 years ago
Okay. guys seriously. can't we all just get along? No one is going to listen to the other side. isolating atheists and christains isn't what we want, now is it?
dungeondude 2 years ago
i'm a christian and they are both anoying.
diuryl 2 years ago
The Judgment of Jesus is gonna come so stop getting WAAASTED!!!!!!!
stealthspoon1 2 years ago
Still looking for intelligent life on this planet - LoL!!! Good one!
FireThunderTV 2 years ago
uh, you aren't refuting, you are irritating.
unbeliever1000 2 years ago
Man, what a jackass.
Cottonballs0000 2 years ago
Aaaaahhh... I see, another theist who needs the fictional jesus character to exist.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
You really believe that Jesus was a fictional character? That is pure and simple ignorance. Can you find even one professional historian who agrees with you?
bibletheology 2 years ago
"believe" no, but think, yes. That is; until there is evidence to support his existence from the fictional jesus characters contemporaries.
Just one historian? Ok ;O)
Earl J. Doherty(degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages)
Author of the book: The Jesus Puzzle.
Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
There is more historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus Christ existed than there is to support the fact that Julias Ceasar existed. We have the written testimonies of those who knew him. We also have the jewish historian Josephus.
bibletheology 2 years ago
Do you ever question whether or not Buddha or Mohammed were real people?
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
Prt1:
I have studied this subject in great detail. From what I can tell from my literary research/studies; no, jesus did not exist. None of jesus contemporaries wrote about him inside or outside of the bible. And as prominent a figure as he was supposed to be, it stands to reason that he would have been written about by at least his critics(that is if he existed). Yet, there is nothing from Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, or any of Romes other officials at the time.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
His own disciples wrote about him. They were his contemporaries. You canno arbitrarily discredit their writings just because they believed in him. You cannot use a different standard for historic verification than you would for any other historic figure.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
Every biblical scholar, and anyone who has done just a little research on the subject knows that none of the gospels were written by the names that are attributed to them. The book were written well after the fictional jesus character was supposed to have died, and are second to third hand accounts by men who never met this fictional character.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
(Continued)
I entreat you to verify this for yourself[using whatever source you trust]. If you check your own bible[depending on the version] you can verify it by either the footnotes, or in the opening description of each gospel. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt2:
Some christians will generally quote, or make reference to:
Publius Cornelius Tacitus (born 20 years after the jesus characters death)
Gaius Plinius Caecilius(born 26 years after the jesus characters death)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus(born 33 years after the jesus characters death)
Lucian of Samosata(born 89 year after the jesus characters death)
None of these men were the jesus characters contemporaries
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt3:
The closest man to actually being a contemporary of the jesus character was the man you mentioned; Titus Flavius Josephus(A Jew, born 1-4 years after the jesus characters death). But the problem with his writings in The Antiquities of the Jews (57 years later) is that it seems to have a christian influence. The first discoveries of Josephus writings are late enough to have been re-written by christians. As a result his only mention of jesus is universally regarded as a forgery.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
HAHAHA. You are just making things up. That is the problem or difficulty with debating atheists on the internet, they take so much liberty to make things up. The mention of Jesus Christ in Josephus is not "universally regarded as a forgery". That is simply not true! haha it makes me laugh it is so dishonest. The only mention of Jesus, which is in question, is the part that says, "if you can call him a man" which was probably added later on, not actually written by Josephus.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
Do not take my word for it; you have but to look it up yourself. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt4:
Finally, none of the writings from any of these men were from a first hand account, and most referring to christians, and not jesus himself. Whereas both Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great who predate the jesus character actually can be, and has been independently verified thru their contemporaries(critics, enemies, satirists) writings, and matching artistic depictions.
P.S.
Please, I entreat you, and anyone else reading this to variety all that I have said. :O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
The enemies of Jesus, the Pharisees and the Jews, verify that Jesus Christ existed. They simply call him a liar and a demon. Nevertheless, they verify his existence.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
Prt5:
Heh, I was going to finish there, but I like to be thorough. No one outside of the bible even mentions that dead people were getting out of their graves, and walking into the city. That is; I think worth mention by critics, Romans or otherwise. Yet there was not one. Any, and all writings were 50+ years after the jesus character's death. And all of the writing were done by men who both did not know this fictional character when he was supposed to have lived. :O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt6:
Oh, and Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD) a Jewish philosopher; lived during the supposed time of the fictional jesus character. He even visited Jerusalem during his life time and it stands to reason that Philo would have at least heard about the jesus character(if he actually existed) yet he makes no mention of him, or his twelve apostles. Think about it. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
The lack of mention is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than a denial. You denied that Jesus Christ even existed. There is no historical evidence to support that.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
That is my point; given the research that I have done; there is no empirical evidence to say that the jesus character ever existed. And absolutely no evidence from the fictional jesus characters contemporaries(as none wrote about him). So until empirical evidence is provided for historicity of the jesus character I take the default position of not believing. Just like leprechauns, ferries, unicorns, and Spiderman. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
So you are saying that not only was Jesus a fictional character, but his disciples who wrote Gospels and Epistles were also fictional? haha. You don't believe that the Apostle Peter existed? You don't believe the historical record that Peter was crucified upside down for his faith in Jesus? What about the archeologist Margherita Guarducci who rediscovered Peters tomb? What about Clement of Rome who was ordained by Peter? Was Clement of Rome a fictional character as well???
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
The writings of Clement verify the existence of Peter, and the writings of Peter verify the existence of Jesus Christ. It is nothing less then arbitrary stupidity to say that Jesus Christ was not an actual person. You can call Jesus a liar, you can call him a lunatic, but you are being intellectual dishonest and historically inaccurate to say that Jesus Christ did not exist!
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
So... if I've met Stan Lee, then Spider-man is real? Despite the fact NY Times and CNN both fails to mention how he saved the city from dr. octopus? After all, Stan Lee IS real.
Just trying to gauge your evidence requirements.
TETSUno1 2 years ago
Haha. You atheists are so irrational and nonsensical that it is humorous. Stan Lee has never claimed that Spider Man was real, neither has he given his life in martyrdom to support such a claim. The Apostle Peter however both affirmed that Jesus was a real person, whom he saw risen from the dead, but he also was crucified upside down for his testimony when all he had to do was deny Jesus.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
In the court of law, any testimony which a witness gives that is in their own favor has a tendency to discredit their testimony in the mind of a jury. But any testimony that a witness gives that is contrary to their favor actually has the opposite tendency. You could not ask for more credible witnesses, more reliable testimonies, than the ones offered by the Apostles that were martyred.
OpenAirOutreach 2 years ago
He said so to me... so now he just need to be killed, right?
TETSUno1 2 years ago
Actually no If you would read what I have stated you will see that I am only talking about the jesus character as being fictional. And showing you that the four gospels in which many people assume was written by four of the apostles were in fact written well after the jesus character supposed death and by anonymous men who never knew/met this fictional character.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
(Continued)
Again, if you care about what is true, then verify this with whatever sources you trust. You can look in a bible or even do a simple Internet search: [who wrote the four gospels] ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt,
The internet searches that I've done have provided me with more than enough evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Actually, I would like for you to list scholars or sources, from which you have gathered your information and have done your "research". Atheists that debate against the Resurrection don't even use the "fictional character" Argument from repetition.
It's simple to make very hideous claims like the ones that you made in an erudite fashion, backing them up is another thing.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Hello S7VIIN,
Only because you asked(although my research is ongoing):
Earl J. Doherty(degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages)
Author of the book: The Jesus Puzzle.
Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"
Dr. Louis H. Feldmans book Feldman (1989), p. 430
w wwDOTyuDOTedu/faculty/feldman/cvDOThtm
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Kataklytz, {A}
It worries me when people read works written by someone like Doherty. What level of degree did he obtain? And from where? One can only wonder. Did he interview the scholars that Strobel did? I highly doubt it (I wish he did). To use terms such as "cross-examination", is also troublesome when you actually know what cross-examination is. Secondly, have you read Feldman's entire book?
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Prt2:
Richard Cevantis Carrier(Ph.D in Ancient History)
Author of the book: Entries on Epicurus, Lucretius, Philodemus, Second Sophistic, Soranus of Ephesus. In Encyclopedia of the Ancient World (edited by Thomas J. Sienkewicz).
And: The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb, The Plausibility of Theft, The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law. In The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond The Grave (edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, {B}
It's interesting that Carrier even debates on the Resurrection if he doesn't even believe Christ existed.
I recommend you check out his latest debate with William Lane Craig on the subject, since the Empty Tomb is one of Craig's specialties.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Prt3:
C. Guignebert
Jesus by C. Guignebert, University Books, New York, 1956, p. 17
Robert McNair Price (Two Doctorates: Theology, and in the New Testament (From Drew University(1981, 1993 respectfully).
Kenneth A. Olson(Department of History at the University of Maryland)
Eusebian fabrications: the Testimonium Flavianum
groupsDOTyahooDOTcom/group/crosstalk2/message/4869
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt4:
Dr. Alice Whealey
author of the book, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times
Holy Bible(KJV)
Red Letter Edition
Thomas Nelson Inc. 1975
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, {C}
I don't have the time to respond to all the sources you listed at the moment but what's telling is the fact that all of the sources seem biased. Have you taken the time to read works by leading evangelical scholars? I highly doubt that too. In any case, you list the Bible among your sources which isn't convincing whatsoever. I don't see what the point was.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
[I don't have the time to respond to all the sources you listed at the moment but what's telling is the fact that all of the sources seem biased.]
It just seems that way, but if you really look(at all the people I have listed) you will see that; that is not the case. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
(Comtined)
[In any case, you list the bible among your sources which isn't convincing whatsoever. I don't see what the point was.] Interesting The bible states where the fictional jesus character was at times, what he supposedly did, and who was around. Yet you do not see the point in how checking what the bible says about the events around the jesus characters supposed life compared to what happened in verifiable history. Well ok.. :O/
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, Part 2,
I don't see what the point of listing the different version of the Bible is? Secondly, it's most likely that you'll pick and choose what you want from it.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Prt5:
The Holy Bible
Philadelphis:
Published By E. H. Butler & Co. 1859(yes, that is the correct date of this bible)
The Interlinear Bible
(Hebrew-Greek-English)
With Strongs Concordance Numbers(above each word)
Sovereign Grace Publishers
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt6:
JPS
Hebrew-English
Tanakh
Jewish Publication Society
Wikipedia (yeah, I know)
e-Sword Version 7.7.7(Software Linux and Windows)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, {D}
You list Simon Bar Kokhba as once being thought to be the actual Jewish Messiah, OK?
The history of the four Gospel from what source? Even so, I fail to see what this has to do with the topic at hand, did Christ exist? Such arguments are used when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Christianity. I've heard that mantra many times now but it doesn't make it real. I thank you for being polite in the comments.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Yes. As you may know, the Jews are still waiting for the messiah that their ancestors prophesied about. ;O) And roughly 102 years after the supposed death of the fictional jesus character; Simon Bar Kokhba successfully lead a revolt against the Roman empire who had seized Israel. He held the whole of the Roman Empire at bay for three years. And the Jews of that time considered Simon Bar Kokhba the messiah that was prophesied about; until his defeat.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt,
It is amazing isn't it? Since He already came.
I fail to see what this has to do with the issue at hand, please state the purpose of bringing this up. Also, the use of rhetoric doesn't help your case, saying Christ was a fictional character and repeating this over and over again. You sound like Kelly from the rational response squad, this isn't a compliment.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
No, not amazing at all, as they(the Jews) were the ones to write down the prophecies. It stands to reason that they out of anyone else would know who is to be the real messiah. I brought it up, because the Jews around the time did not right about a suspected messiah until well after the supposed death of the jesus character. That is how it relates to the subject at hand.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
(Continued)
And until there is empirical evidence as to the historicity of the fictional jesus character actually existing; I will probably continue to repeat it.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, A1,
You write: the Jews around the time did not right about a suspected messiah.
No, I seriously doubt you have studied Scripture.
I also seriously doubt you're looking for evidence since you haven't mentioned any scholars from the evangelical side. Have you read any of the works from N.T. Wright? His three volume work that is still in progress that attests to the origin of the Christian faith? Have you read anything like Gregory Boyd's recent work on the topic? I doubt this too.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Prt2:
You do realize that the history of the four gospels which are supposed to be a detailed account of the fictional jesus characters life and teachings is a key part in this whole discussion, right? And you fail to see what that has to do with the topic of if he existed or not?
[Such arguments are used when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of christianity.] My research tells otherwise. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, Part 3,
Your sources are incredibly biased, like Carrier & Doherty. You don't believe that the Gospels have any credibility, so I really don't know what to believe.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Prt3:
[I've heard that mantra many times now but it doesn't make it real.]
You hearing it many times does not make it false either. ;O) I have given you, and anyone else who cares about truth the reasons why I do not think that jesus character existed. Even per your request, I have provided almost 3 years of verifiable facts, references, cited sources, and a list scholars(biblical and historians); I cannot help if you are not intellectually honest with the information.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, Part 4,
You, are the one who is not intellectually honest. You have provided sources that would fit the skeptic position but have not listed any evangelical scholars and see what their take on the issue is. You didn't answer me if you read Feldman's entire work.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
No, not Feldman's entire work.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt, A2
I rest my case. It seems like you're cherry picking.
I don't plan on continuing this conversation for much longer.
S7VIIN 2 years ago
If that is what you choose. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalyzt,
As if it doesn't work out for you :,)
S7VIIN 2 years ago
Heh ;O)
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Prt4:
[I thank you for being polite in the comments.]
I thank you for being polite as well; as I often see many(not all) theists become irate when they hear that I not only do not believe in their [by definition] fictional "god", but that due to my research I have good reason to think that a major character in the christian story did not even exist.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Katalytzt, Part 5
Feldman says on the writings of Josephus, which according to you are regarded universally as forgery, he writes; My guess is that the ratio of those [scholars] who in some manner accept the Testimonium [to those who reject all of it as an interpolation] would be at least 3 to 1. I would not be surprised if it would be as much as 5 to 1. -Feldman
S7VIIN 2 years ago