That was some really encouraging stuff Pastor J! It's actually really not hard to show evidence, but sadly people just want to dismiss truth and tangible hard evidence in order to bargain for a an outrageous theory that will affirm something that gives them reason to not believe. Keep it up!
i want an anser to this pleezzzzzzzzzzz ok so if god rilly interacts with us ppl say thees days that he just talks to us or imiges just apper ok now in the anchint past they tell about gods coming down from the hevins on gold shields, flying carpets, in chareeits, so manny things y the diferents because ppl back then only saw other ppl flying my proof is that if you study world war 2 verry carfully you find wen we started
helping we made bases on islands close to the site of the war then wen we left thos ppl made riligens about uss we where gods to them because they didnot under stand technology and cus we had lighter skin so do the math your trying to say 2+2=8 cus your adding extra but 2+2=4 y cant you see the truth????
part 2 this is an extention from the one belo ok "because ppl whernt living the way god wannted the reel reason is that the mile thik glasers on northamerica meltid ppl saw ant told ppl to flee and try to sorvive ppl changed the storry hundreds of times like the teliphone game
jesus did live the thing about it is after his death ppl added riligus bilefes to it did you know theres new evidence coming out such as theres a show on history chanel its called "anciont aliens " i dont believe that aliens where here but the true facts from history are now coming to light there are piyimid tipe cittys under the mediteranien ocen theres a stone by ballbec that ppl today canot move ???? weerd hey theres so much more the big flode of nowa did hapen the bible ses it hapend becaus
@JustForBrieLarson check out Gary Habermas. He is considered the world's expert on the resurrection and evidence for Jesus. Check out his website garyhabermas com, also look into his books.
@flexbrat God doesnt need us, bur he tell us to 1 Peter 3:15 to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." Jesus is the perfect gentleman, He will never force Himself on you, you have the freedom to choose. Seek Him and He Will make Himself clear to you. One more thing, check out the website i am doing with a friend, intelligentfaith315, and if you want you can send me an email with all of your questions.
when religions give up all their worldly wealth an spread their good news in the streets and world hunger has been a thing of the past then maybe I will consider religion as a good force in this world untill then cant buy wat they are dishing out .i dont see any reason why ppl cant be happy an fullfilled in life without believing in fantasy scriptures ! i,m more than happy without them ! relieved from the burden of hell fantasy !
yes I watch the history channel on many subjects as to make up my mind what seems more likely than not ! that which doesnt make a point to my reason is taken into account ! the cruel lack of a gods intervention in everyday cruelty of the human sufferings here now an in the past leads me to believe in the absence of a god ! proof required for this sick idea of faith no offense intended .
I believe when everyone respects everyone as they would like to be treated this world will be alot better off with or without religions ! the debate of a god true or not is a huge distraction for ppl here now an in the past to live life to the fullest ! when this god shows some real power and gives everyone the grace of knowledge that god exists well , I cant believe its true ! it would be in a gods power to do this ? !
dawkins an hitchens never said they dont believe a person by the name of jesus existed , they however dont believe this jesus was then or now a christ=annointed one ! a good intentioned preacher nothing more nothing less ! just like many preachers good or bad thoughout the past 2,000 yrs , the speedy exit of jesus after the so called resurection is silly does not add up ! faith is not an answer !
@flexbrat watch out, here comes another one!!!! Hitchens actually did say that there in no reason to believe that Jesus existed. With all the evidence out there, its not that he doesnt believe in Jesus, its that he does not WANT to believe for some reason. Most new testament critics (some atheists) admit that Jesus lived, died on the cross and that some of His disciples saw Him after he rose from the dead.
@Nelispr well hitchens isnt my reason for not believing in a god or jesus , if there was a god in my belief than this god would know why I dont believe an would understand this as he would be all knowing ! so to your respect in ur beliefs than i,m here for a reason maybe to validate ur beliefs and i,m here to fullfill that an thats it ? if so well fine with me , have no problem there i,m still happy without a god !
@flexbrat i never said that, just replied to your statement about Hitchens claims, and how ignorant he is. you are right, God does know why you don't believe, he wants you to know Him better and come into a relationship with Him. You my be happy without Him, but you aren't fulfilled. You are here for a reason yes, seek Jesus with an open heart and He WILL reveal Himself to you.
@Nelispr 12 yrs of catholic school an a hard catholic family in their beliefs lead me to dismiss religion as evil an not true in any shape or form . however if u find comfort in ur faith good for you, may ur god bless you ! it works for you an thats good for u !
@flexbrat i hear you man, religion is one of the most dangerous things, because its man made, relationship with Jesus is heaven made. A lot of people use religion for personal gain. You will never be complete and fulfilled with religion, to follow man made rules, ceremonies etc... Jesus sets you free from all of that
@flexbrat you must be talking about the Egyptian god Horus and guess you got your info from the Zeitgeist series. Not sure if you know, but it has been debunked a while ago. I would like to hear what "stories" it is that you are talking about and you so bravely state as being "no MISTAKE". Enlighten us please. And becoming an atheist, all the research actually just makes my faith in Jesus stronger. I really don’t have enough faith to become an atheist.
@Nelispr all religions are based on alien interventions an the ppl at the times believed they were gods , all throughout the world every region everywhere in the world ! the old texts in reference to the bible Heaven translated =the sky angels =messangers from the sky , all histories around the world have historical stories of SKY GODS ! all left in STONE !
@flexbrat ok, i stand corrected, you get your info from the tv show on History Channel named Ancient Aliens. That's a pretty bold statement you are making. Sorry to drop this bomb on you, but the heaven mentioned in the "old texts in reference to the bible heaven" does not translate to sky angels. There is 3 heavens mentioned in the bible, 1-where the birds and airplanes fly, 2-where the stars and moon is, 3-where God lives. Just because it's in "stone" doesnt make it true.
@Nelispr yes I agree with you just because its in stone or in a book/bible does not make its true ! you said it better than I could have ever done ! thanx again !
@flexbrat here comes another bomb for you, the bible is the most accurate document in history. There is over 22,000 historical transcripts making it 99.99% accurate, more than any historical document. I'm sure you believe in Plato,Alexander the Great,Homer(not Simpson),Socrates,Aristotle. Why? Because of the documents right. Why won't you believe that Jesus walked the earth even when there is so much information out there. If you dont believe that you are willfully ignorant (dumb on purpose)
@Nelispr i,m sure there was a person?/jesus in history however the son of a god ? nope ! I never said I didnt think there was a historical jesus , i,m sure there had to have been a huge following or this religion wouldnt be here ! that doesnt make it true as he rose from the dead / it just doesnt add up . I would say jesus had good intentions , however the resurrection an hurried ascention into the heaven/sky just isnt believable to me an many others !
@flexbrat what doesnt add up? That he rose from the dead? Why were His disciples willing to die for Him? tortured. Will you die for something you know to be a lie? No you wont. So why did they? Islam is different because they believe it to be true, but these people said they saw Jesus. Why would you choose woman to be the 1st to saw an empty tomb? If you want to fabricate a lie choose someone more credible because in those days woman didnt have credibility.
@Nelispr there have been many many cults that have believed an died for people who said they were messangers of god or god or jesus returned , I dont think they anyone would die for something they didnt believe in , however does that make their beliefs real ? No ! reference jim jones wako texas the san diego cult , so many out there ! if a person believes something watever it may be ok they believe it , but true it may not be ...
@flexbrat like i said before, those people believe it to be true, but the disciples KNEW it to be true. They claimed they saw the Resurrection Jesus, so if they lied why would they die for it? No one would. Why would they allowed themselves to be tortured? Not one or 2, but all of Jesus' apostles was executed. Logically it would tell you they saw Jesus in His glorified body. Hundreds of people saw Jesus and they were murdered, again, why would you die for something you know to be a lie.
@Nelispr I have no idea I wasnt there ? all I know is that part of the world then and now are really very iffy ? I cant put any trust in that area or time period as factual !
@flexbrat it has been recorded in historical document that Christians was killed during that period. If you doubt that, you should doubt all of history then.
@Nelispr christians were killed during that period i have no doubt about that , christians were killed all throughout history an by the churches too for reading the bible in english as well ! I said I dont trust the history of ppl of that period to make a huge claim like that of jesus rising from the dead without further proof !
@Nelispr would this god/jesus be better off just as 1 would say come out of the closet and show everyone ! thats not that much to ask really ! I dont know why a god needs so many ppl to validate a god if its so true ?
@flexbrat God doesnt need us, bur he tell us to 1 Peter 3:15 to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." Jesus is the perfect gentleman, He will never force Himself on you, you have the freedom to choose. Seek Him and He Will make Himself clear to you. One more thing, check out the website i am doing with a friend, intelligentfaith315.c o m, and if you want you can send me an email with all of your questions.
@Nelispr I dont believe a person would die knowing it was a lie , however if they are firm in their beliefs being watever they are well yes they would die for their beliefs watever they blieve to be true. wrong or correct .
@flexbrat exactly, and the disciples knew what they saw, so if they fabricated a lie, why would they die for it? Like you said, some people die for their believes, it exactly that, they believe in it, they don't know it.
@Nelispr you cant debunk egyptian history texts written in stone , the horus story is there for all to see ! the jesus story is not original in anyway !
@flexbrat WOW!!!! its in stone so it must be true!! Horus and Jesus is nothing alike- Horus' mother didnt have a virgin birth, she had sex with her dead husband using a gold, well you know what, Horus was born in a swamp, there was star in the east, no wise men, Horus was never baptized, he never taught in the temple, horus had 4 disciples not 12, Horus didnt walk on water, he was never referred to as Iusa or holy child (that word doesnt even exist), and the list goes on and on........
Non contemporary 'historical' references are meaningless. Everything you site is non-contemporary. If a historian cites that in earlier times there were Jews that believed in Jesus, that is no different than saying their were Jews that believed in Simon (a real messiah FYI). No one denies that early Christians existed just as we cannot deny Scientologists exist.
To make a serious case you need a contemporary historian writing about contemporary affairs. They do not exist.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have ever asserted that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a human being. Hence, your characterization of them is actually an "uninformed criticism." You have chosen the names of two famous non-believers and then foisted on them your own conception of what non-believers argue. Not all non-believers or atheists deny the historical existence of Jesus. It's simply not a major point in the arguments of non-believers against Christianity.
@mdhattem If you listen to the "Debate God" podcast episodes featuring Chistopher Hitchens and R. Dawkins, they do indeed deny/stongly doubt the historical existence of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. I am not erecting a "straw man" argument here. Also, I never said that all non-believers disbelieve Jesus' historical existence, but some (uninformed) do. For some, this is a necessary historical fact to cover.
@MAVsince1991 Why? Do you have any intelligent reasons for saying an "ad hominem" like that? These are issues that sincere people are engaging in genuine discussions about. If you aren't serious about thinking through the issues, I think it is you that is failing as a human being, friend.
'The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates.
Oh dear. You realize that none of your sources were even alive when Jesus allegedly lived right? The claim of people who question or deny Jesus existence is that there are no *contemporary* sources that talk about Jesus. Consequently your sources are relating hearsay from Christians.
Everyone already agrees that Christians exist and that they believe Jesus existed, and that's all your sources show. They certainly don't back up the magic Jesus of the bible.
I don't think most atheist care. Even Hitchens says he doesn't particularly care. For me at any rate its the provincialism and the utter lack of awe that religious stories hold, that turn me off. We have much better stories these days with the additional benefit of them being true and testable. And when I contemplate the universe the whole bible story becomes so petty, simple minded and arrogant in its assumption of cosmic importance, that I can't bare in its mediocracy.
That was some really encouraging stuff Pastor J! It's actually really not hard to show evidence, but sadly people just want to dismiss truth and tangible hard evidence in order to bargain for a an outrageous theory that will affirm something that gives them reason to not believe. Keep it up!
Paulbarbato 3 weeks ago
By 1:15, I've already been lied to. Sheesh. Fail.
glasshammer52 1 month ago
These videos are well done you do a good job of getting your point across without sharing pointless information. Keep up the good work!
rfranks1978 1 month ago
i want an anser to this pleezzzzzzzzzzz ok so if god rilly interacts with us ppl say thees days that he just talks to us or imiges just apper ok now in the anchint past they tell about gods coming down from the hevins on gold shields, flying carpets, in chareeits, so manny things y the diferents because ppl back then only saw other ppl flying my proof is that if you study world war 2 verry carfully you find wen we started
historywithoutagess 1 month ago
helping we made bases on islands close to the site of the war then wen we left thos ppl made riligens about uss we where gods to them because they didnot under stand technology and cus we had lighter skin so do the math your trying to say 2+2=8 cus your adding extra but 2+2=4 y cant you see the truth????
historywithoutagess 1 month ago
part 2 this is an extention from the one belo ok "because ppl whernt living the way god wannted the reel reason is that the mile thik glasers on northamerica meltid ppl saw ant told ppl to flee and try to sorvive ppl changed the storry hundreds of times like the teliphone game
historywithoutagess 1 month ago
jesus did live the thing about it is after his death ppl added riligus bilefes to it did you know theres new evidence coming out such as theres a show on history chanel its called "anciont aliens " i dont believe that aliens where here but the true facts from history are now coming to light there are piyimid tipe cittys under the mediteranien ocen theres a stone by ballbec that ppl today canot move ???? weerd hey theres so much more the big flode of nowa did hapen the bible ses it hapend becaus
historywithoutagess 1 month ago
I will
JustForBrieLarson 1 month ago
I believe Jesus existed,died and resurrected like the Bible states.
JustForBrieLarson 2 months ago
This is great,yet I need to purchase books on them.I believe you,yet I need to check what you are talking about.
JustForBrieLarson 2 months ago
@JustForBrieLarson check out Gary Habermas. He is considered the world's expert on the resurrection and evidence for Jesus. Check out his website garyhabermas com, also look into his books.
Nelispr 1 month ago
@IntelligentFaith315 You make an absolutely valid point. The apostles did know what they saw & if the Bible was fake. Why die 4 preaching the word?
MessengerOfTruth27 2 months ago
@flexbrat God doesnt need us, bur he tell us to 1 Peter 3:15 to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." Jesus is the perfect gentleman, He will never force Himself on you, you have the freedom to choose. Seek Him and He Will make Himself clear to you. One more thing, check out the website i am doing with a friend, intelligentfaith315, and if you want you can send me an email with all of your questions.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@flexbrat are you an atheist, agnostic theist?
Nelispr 3 months ago
when religions give up all their worldly wealth an spread their good news in the streets and world hunger has been a thing of the past then maybe I will consider religion as a good force in this world untill then cant buy wat they are dishing out .i dont see any reason why ppl cant be happy an fullfilled in life without believing in fantasy scriptures ! i,m more than happy without them ! relieved from the burden of hell fantasy !
flexbrat 3 months ago
yes I watch the history channel on many subjects as to make up my mind what seems more likely than not ! that which doesnt make a point to my reason is taken into account ! the cruel lack of a gods intervention in everyday cruelty of the human sufferings here now an in the past leads me to believe in the absence of a god ! proof required for this sick idea of faith no offense intended .
flexbrat 3 months ago
I believe when everyone respects everyone as they would like to be treated this world will be alot better off with or without religions ! the debate of a god true or not is a huge distraction for ppl here now an in the past to live life to the fullest ! when this god shows some real power and gives everyone the grace of knowledge that god exists well , I cant believe its true ! it would be in a gods power to do this ? !
flexbrat 3 months ago
dawkins an hitchens never said they dont believe a person by the name of jesus existed , they however dont believe this jesus was then or now a christ=annointed one ! a good intentioned preacher nothing more nothing less ! just like many preachers good or bad thoughout the past 2,000 yrs , the speedy exit of jesus after the so called resurection is silly does not add up ! faith is not an answer !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat watch out, here comes another one!!!! Hitchens actually did say that there in no reason to believe that Jesus existed. With all the evidence out there, its not that he doesnt believe in Jesus, its that he does not WANT to believe for some reason. Most new testament critics (some atheists) admit that Jesus lived, died on the cross and that some of His disciples saw Him after he rose from the dead.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr well hitchens isnt my reason for not believing in a god or jesus , if there was a god in my belief than this god would know why I dont believe an would understand this as he would be all knowing ! so to your respect in ur beliefs than i,m here for a reason maybe to validate ur beliefs and i,m here to fullfill that an thats it ? if so well fine with me , have no problem there i,m still happy without a god !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat i never said that, just replied to your statement about Hitchens claims, and how ignorant he is. you are right, God does know why you don't believe, he wants you to know Him better and come into a relationship with Him. You my be happy without Him, but you aren't fulfilled. You are here for a reason yes, seek Jesus with an open heart and He WILL reveal Himself to you.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr 12 yrs of catholic school an a hard catholic family in their beliefs lead me to dismiss religion as evil an not true in any shape or form . however if u find comfort in ur faith good for you, may ur god bless you ! it works for you an thats good for u !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat i hear you man, religion is one of the most dangerous things, because its man made, relationship with Jesus is heaven made. A lot of people use religion for personal gain. You will never be complete and fulfilled with religion, to follow man made rules, ceremonies etc... Jesus sets you free from all of that
Nelispr 3 months ago
dont research to much as you will become an atheists very soon ! as its all retold stories from egypt from 6,000 yrs ago and thats no MISTAKE !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat you must be talking about the Egyptian god Horus and guess you got your info from the Zeitgeist series. Not sure if you know, but it has been debunked a while ago. I would like to hear what "stories" it is that you are talking about and you so bravely state as being "no MISTAKE". Enlighten us please. And becoming an atheist, all the research actually just makes my faith in Jesus stronger. I really don’t have enough faith to become an atheist.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr all religions are based on alien interventions an the ppl at the times believed they were gods , all throughout the world every region everywhere in the world ! the old texts in reference to the bible Heaven translated =the sky angels =messangers from the sky , all histories around the world have historical stories of SKY GODS ! all left in STONE !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat ok, i stand corrected, you get your info from the tv show on History Channel named Ancient Aliens. That's a pretty bold statement you are making. Sorry to drop this bomb on you, but the heaven mentioned in the "old texts in reference to the bible heaven" does not translate to sky angels. There is 3 heavens mentioned in the bible, 1-where the birds and airplanes fly, 2-where the stars and moon is, 3-where God lives. Just because it's in "stone" doesnt make it true.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr yes I agree with you just because its in stone or in a book/bible does not make its true ! you said it better than I could have ever done ! thanx again !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat here comes another bomb for you, the bible is the most accurate document in history. There is over 22,000 historical transcripts making it 99.99% accurate, more than any historical document. I'm sure you believe in Plato,Alexander the Great,Homer(not Simpson),Socrates,Aristotle. Why? Because of the documents right. Why won't you believe that Jesus walked the earth even when there is so much information out there. If you dont believe that you are willfully ignorant (dumb on purpose)
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr i,m sure there was a person?/jesus in history however the son of a god ? nope ! I never said I didnt think there was a historical jesus , i,m sure there had to have been a huge following or this religion wouldnt be here ! that doesnt make it true as he rose from the dead / it just doesnt add up . I would say jesus had good intentions , however the resurrection an hurried ascention into the heaven/sky just isnt believable to me an many others !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat what doesnt add up? That he rose from the dead? Why were His disciples willing to die for Him? tortured. Will you die for something you know to be a lie? No you wont. So why did they? Islam is different because they believe it to be true, but these people said they saw Jesus. Why would you choose woman to be the 1st to saw an empty tomb? If you want to fabricate a lie choose someone more credible because in those days woman didnt have credibility.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr there have been many many cults that have believed an died for people who said they were messangers of god or god or jesus returned , I dont think they anyone would die for something they didnt believe in , however does that make their beliefs real ? No ! reference jim jones wako texas the san diego cult , so many out there ! if a person believes something watever it may be ok they believe it , but true it may not be ...
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat like i said before, those people believe it to be true, but the disciples KNEW it to be true. They claimed they saw the Resurrection Jesus, so if they lied why would they die for it? No one would. Why would they allowed themselves to be tortured? Not one or 2, but all of Jesus' apostles was executed. Logically it would tell you they saw Jesus in His glorified body. Hundreds of people saw Jesus and they were murdered, again, why would you die for something you know to be a lie.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr I have no idea I wasnt there ? all I know is that part of the world then and now are really very iffy ? I cant put any trust in that area or time period as factual !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat it has been recorded in historical document that Christians was killed during that period. If you doubt that, you should doubt all of history then.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr christians were killed during that period i have no doubt about that , christians were killed all throughout history an by the churches too for reading the bible in english as well ! I said I dont trust the history of ppl of that period to make a huge claim like that of jesus rising from the dead without further proof !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat the proof is in the people and their actions that was recorded by non-Christian sources. Why do you trust any historican document then?
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr would this god/jesus be better off just as 1 would say come out of the closet and show everyone ! thats not that much to ask really ! I dont know why a god needs so many ppl to validate a god if its so true ?
flexbrat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flexbrat God doesnt need us, bur he tell us to 1 Peter 3:15 to "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." Jesus is the perfect gentleman, He will never force Himself on you, you have the freedom to choose. Seek Him and He Will make Himself clear to you. One more thing, check out the website i am doing with a friend, intelligentfaith315.c o m, and if you want you can send me an email with all of your questions.
Nelispr 3 months ago
@Nelispr I dont believe a person would die knowing it was a lie , however if they are firm in their beliefs being watever they are well yes they would die for their beliefs watever they blieve to be true. wrong or correct .
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat exactly, and the disciples knew what they saw, so if they fabricated a lie, why would they die for it? Like you said, some people die for their believes, it exactly that, they believe in it, they don't know it.
IntelligentFaith315 3 months ago
@Nelispr you cant debunk egyptian history texts written in stone , the horus story is there for all to see ! the jesus story is not original in anyway !
flexbrat 3 months ago
@flexbrat WOW!!!! its in stone so it must be true!! Horus and Jesus is nothing alike- Horus' mother didnt have a virgin birth, she had sex with her dead husband using a gold, well you know what, Horus was born in a swamp, there was star in the east, no wise men, Horus was never baptized, he never taught in the temple, horus had 4 disciples not 12, Horus didnt walk on water, he was never referred to as Iusa or holy child (that word doesnt even exist), and the list goes on and on........
Nelispr 3 months ago
Non contemporary 'historical' references are meaningless. Everything you site is non-contemporary. If a historian cites that in earlier times there were Jews that believed in Jesus, that is no different than saying their were Jews that believed in Simon (a real messiah FYI). No one denies that early Christians existed just as we cannot deny Scientologists exist.
To make a serious case you need a contemporary historian writing about contemporary affairs. They do not exist.
rcguy69 3 months ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE (In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil)
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital structures, organs, reproductive system were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news on fossils, genetics, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit the Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe work don’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell, the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when no directing code or mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith science supports. Natural laws explain how an airplane or a cell works, but undirected natural laws cannot bring about either. Once there's a complete cell, the code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell originate when there was no directing code.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENTISTS HAVE NEVER CREATED LIFE. And, even if they do it won't be by chance but by intelligent design. By genetically engineering already existing forms of life, scientists have produced new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even in synthetic life, scientists design and build DNA from scratch, through intelligent design, and then insert their man-made DNA into an already living cell. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ODDS of the sequence of molecules in a cell coming together by chance are similar to the odds of magnetic letters randomly bonding together in a sequence to form all the words and sentences in a dictionary. Without the right sequence, a cell's molecules won't work. Amino acids can come by chance but not proteins. Without DNA there can be no proteins and vice versa. Gradually won't do. It's all at once or not at all for a cell's survival. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYTHING. It can only "select" from what is produced that has survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called being "selected." That's all it is. There's no conscious selection by nature. It's a passive process. Natural selection is a figure of speech. The term itself is a tautology. Natural selection only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before. Read my article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not produce or arrange. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), and arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of true transitional forms in the fossil record and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discussion of mixed species (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. The similarities are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION CANNOT HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST prevents macro-evolution. Natural selection wouldn't preserve the evolution of new traits because they wouldn't have any survival value. A partially-evolved hand evolving from a previous trait, partially-evolved tissues, organs, biological structures would make a species unfit for survival. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species. All species of plants and animals in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. They came into existence as complete!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY LOGIC is similar to seeing an earthquake churn-up a few well-formed rocks and concluding from this that earthquakes, if given enough time, can construct a building. Macro-evolutionists take the little things here and there produced by chance and extrapolate it into something extraordinary and then call it science. Notice, all evolutionists begin with a complete species. They don't begin their theory with partially-evolved species, with partially-evolved tissues and organs.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW SPECIES: Although new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.).
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"JUNK DNA" ISN'T JUNK: Recent research shows that these segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random mutations, from radiation, are destructive. For every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless
Mogley52 4 months ago
HOW DOES DNA MAKE A BODY? When you divide a cake the parts are smaller than the original cake and the cake never gets bigger. When we were a cell and that cell divided, the new cells were the same size as the original cell and we got bigger. New material had to come from somewhere. That new material came from food. The sequence in our DNA directed our mother's food we received in the womb to become new cells forming all the tissues and organs of our body. Read my article: HOW DID MY DNA MAKE ME?
Mogley52 4 months ago
HUMAN EMBRYO doesn't have true gills or tail. These and other arguments have long been discarded by most evolutionists and not supported by any modern embryologist. Then, what are these structures? Read "Does The Human Embryo Go Through Animal Stages" at the Institute for Creation Research site. Briefly, what look like gills are early formation of facial and throat regions. What looks like a tail is the coccyx which grows faster than the rest of the body. The coccyx supports the pelvic muscles.
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DISORDER IN THE UNIVERSE is no argument against God's existence. The disorder is because of chance and entropy, but the order can only be rationally explained due to design. If I discovered a broken watch on the ground, the disorder is no evidence that there wasn't a designer behind the watch. Please read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BURDEN OF PROOF: Anyone who claims the level of complexity and order in life and the universe happened by chance has the burden of proof. Many atheists think they have no burden of proof because they’re not claiming the existence of something. That is not true. Atheists are claiming something. They are claiming that we are here by chance and atheists expect for everyone to accept that claim on faith because they certainly can’t prove it. Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 4 months ago
Neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have ever asserted that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a human being. Hence, your characterization of them is actually an "uninformed criticism." You have chosen the names of two famous non-believers and then foisted on them your own conception of what non-believers argue. Not all non-believers or atheists deny the historical existence of Jesus. It's simply not a major point in the arguments of non-believers against Christianity.
mdhattem 4 months ago
@mdhattem If you listen to the "Debate God" podcast episodes featuring Chistopher Hitchens and R. Dawkins, they do indeed deny/stongly doubt the historical existence of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. I am not erecting a "straw man" argument here. Also, I never said that all non-believers disbelieve Jesus' historical existence, but some (uninformed) do. For some, this is a necessary historical fact to cover.
IntelligentFaith315 4 months ago
my god you are a failure of a human being...
MAVsince1991 4 months ago
@MAVsince1991 Why? Do you have any intelligent reasons for saying an "ad hominem" like that? These are issues that sincere people are engaging in genuine discussions about. If you aren't serious about thinking through the issues, I think it is you that is failing as a human being, friend.
'The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates.
IntelligentFaith315 4 months ago 2
It 's not your fault that this garbage was pumped into your head when you still had a soft spot. Just denounce it and move on. Grow the fuck up.
noogetful 4 months ago 2
Oh dear. You realize that none of your sources were even alive when Jesus allegedly lived right? The claim of people who question or deny Jesus existence is that there are no *contemporary* sources that talk about Jesus. Consequently your sources are relating hearsay from Christians.
Everyone already agrees that Christians exist and that they believe Jesus existed, and that's all your sources show. They certainly don't back up the magic Jesus of the bible.
Gnomefro 4 months ago
There is enough evidence to sway in the direction that Jesus did exist.
As did Sal the pizza guy that was in my neighborhood as a child.
And, as good as his pizza was. It does not give credibility to him being a God.
Rocketryman 4 months ago
Jesus was an Essenes hippy who pissed off the establishment and was nailed to a tree...so what's your point?
Now prove he was divine redneck.
KillTheStranger 4 months ago
I don't think most atheist care. Even Hitchens says he doesn't particularly care. For me at any rate its the provincialism and the utter lack of awe that religious stories hold, that turn me off. We have much better stories these days with the additional benefit of them being true and testable. And when I contemplate the universe the whole bible story becomes so petty, simple minded and arrogant in its assumption of cosmic importance, that I can't bare in its mediocracy.
omegavalerius 4 months ago 2