If genesis is metaphorical then did jesus die for a metaphor? Oh and history disagrees with many of the stories in the bible,so why see it as true at all?
@gregutz - So because they believed the earth to be flat the historical accounts of the person of Jesus must also be false? I guess under the same logic we can also rule out the existents of Julius caesar and well anything that went on then. Those people who lived back then are obviously too stupid to be trusted.
We don't fully understand the world and universe still. Does that mean everything we say and think now also can't be trusted?
I don't know the claims of his opponent, but if they are anything like those of Ehrman (to whom it sort of sounds like a respons) I think Craig is just being eristic here. The point of finding inconsistencies in the NT is to suggest that it can not be perfect truth from cover to cover, but Craig doesn't defend the view that it is. All he says in the end is that the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt and that the idea of the resurrection is compatible with the NT. Newsflash, eh? ^_^
Some Inconsistencies between the four gospels: Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Mark 9:40, Luke 9:50. Matthew 26:69-73, Mark 14:66-71, Luke 22:54-60, John 18:15-17, 25-27. Luke 23:45-46, Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38. Matthew 1:6-16, Luke 3:21-31. Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:2-16. Matthew 1:6-7, Luke 3:31. Matthew 8:5-8, Luke 7:1-7. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17, John 19:2. Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13. Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:33-37, John 20:19. This is just several.
@beradification But why don't you continue to read on and see what else he says? You only seem to put what you wanted to hear up. Also can you give a precise link to where you found this claim from?
@Lowraith Ever used a dictionary? Ever heard of the Holocaust? Genocide is the systematic extermination of a large GROUP of people, not the killing of just one person.
God damn, you can't possibly be this dense. Read my original comment again.
"!=" means "is not equal to". Don't know standard programming language syntax? Here it is in scripter: "Capital punishment ~= Genocide..." Want it in mathematical equality? Done: "Capital punishment < Genocide..."
In plain f*cking English: Point I was making to zozefup (who DID try to make the comparison) TWO WEEKS AGO: "Capital punishment is NOT THE SAME as Genocide."
@Lowraith God damn, what a pompous egotistical ass you are. You do realize that this is not a community of computer programmers right? How the fuck was I supposed to know you were using programming syntax? Especially when your preceding sentences had very poor grammar? Screw your cookie. I don't want it.
I am far from the first person on here to use "!=" or "==". Hopefully you have learned not to attack someone's comment if you don't fully understand all of it.
By the way, you REALLY are bad at reading comments. The preceding sentences are in quotes. In other words, I DIDN'T WRITE THEM...
@Lowraith Well I guess that makes it okay huh? Just because you're not the first person to use it? Get a clue. It isn't like "!=" has any resemblance to anything in English semantics, or any other natural language for that matter. There was no way I could have known what you meant. Unless you are PMing a computer programmer don't expect people reading your comments to know programming syntax. For the record, I thought the exclamation mark was exactly that, punctuation (albeit misplaced).
Scroll back up and read your first comment to me. You were less than kind, and it was entirely unjustified based solely on your misinterpretation of my statement. I get that not everyone knows it, but it's shown up enough times that MANY people do, non-programmers included. The bottom line is your attack against me was unwarranted (as we ultimately made the same point), and I got angry because you acted on a false assumption.
@Lowraith I admit I was less than kind, but I don't think it was entirely unjustified because it clearly looks, to a non-computer programmer such as myself, like you were incorrectly correcting someone's use of a word when a dictionary could have easily clarified it. I was not in a good mood when I saw your comment so I naturally replied in a less than respectful tone. I have never seen "!=" before, I have only seen "=/=". I'm also sorry, I got too heated.
@TheDarvus Start with picking up a book and reading. You may not have the stamina for all 300 pages, but read a couple. It will do you some good and you'll quickly see the error of your thinking.
Humbler25 attended counselling at Exodus International from August, 2010, until February, 2011, when he was caught in the washroom there with another male client. Humbler25 said he was only giving the guy a back rub, but the security cameras there recorded something different. To see this security video of Humbler25 & his gay lover, check my channel. Or you can ask me, & I'll send it to you.
@TheDarvus What is stopping your from going out and getting a book? I shouldn't have to type out 300 pages of evidence for you. Go and get one of Stroebel's books instead of just trolling his videos. It will do you some good. But CAUTION, it will force you to reexamine a lot of things. Perhaps that is why you don't do it.
@TheDarvus I have... that is how I know that you can learn a lot from them. There are other books out there too of course and other historical sources for you to examine, but Strobel is a good start for you.
@TheDarvus I can give you over three hundred pages worth... go read a book, your unwillingness to do that is a major fail on your part. Knowledge is out there... go get it!
@TheDarvus sure... you have hundreds of pages at your finger tips if you'd bother to read a book. You just don't want to read up on it because the evidence may force you to reexamine your lifestyle.
What's scary about Humbler25, is that as far as we know, he's not schizophrenic, but he STILL says on the video “Awesome God” comment section that he's not sure what he would do if he heard the voice of God telling him to kill... kill an infant no less! It's plain to see why many notorious murderers have been Christian!
@JESUSsmokesCRACK You can't logically say that people who murdered were also people who followed Jesus. the Bible is clear: DO NOT MURDER. Anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet is a murderer at the same time isn't truly a Christian.
@MakingSandwich1 So you say. But then again, you would. Your irrational faith is the justification for which Christians can murder without penalty. It allows murderers to continue their insidious code. Under your backwards rules all that is required of the murderer is to "repent" and all is well again. Allegedly, Jesus came to bring a sword to create division between people. His followers have done so. Fortunately, none of his miraculous claims have any evidence to support them. So meek, so mild
@antitheisthumanist "Fortunately, none of his miraculous claims have any evidence to support them." Actually, his miracles can be proven by his resurrection. When you consider the empty tomb, the disciples' sudden transformation from depressed cowards into fearless preachers and their willingness to suffer torture and death are all historical lines of proof that, not only affirm the resurrection of Jesus, but also affirm the miracles performed by Jesus. So meek, so mild.
@MakingSandwich1 Evidence Jesus even existed has yet to be discovered. The only pseudo-evidence available (alleged eye-witnesses) is the four gospels, all of which were written at least ~70 years after his alleged demise. Completely unverifiable claims are not sufficient evidence to prove the physical laws were suspended for what is at best an immoral, narcissistic carpenter suffering from delusions of grandeur with some knowledge of prior religious writings and a small appreciation for history.
@antitheisthumanist "Evidence Jesus even existed has yet to be discovered." I find it amusing that you believe this. The writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Gnostic writings and the Babylonian Talmud all mention Jesus or early Christians. You also have to take into account that thousands of Christians were willing to become martyrs in the first century for Jesus.
@MakingSandwich1 I expected this responce. At least have the nerve to be original. Many of these writings you mention are confirmed forgeries. Does Eusebius ring a bell? No eye-witness authors present. There are no confirmed contemporary historian writings regarding Jesus. St. Paul admits never having met or seen Jesus (daydreams and visions aside) and he is attributed with writing most of the New Testament. Martyrdom as evidence? Next youll be claiming the destruction of the temple as evidence
@antitheisthumanist "Many of these writings you mention are confirmed forgeries." I never once said that any of these writings were written specifically to prove the existence of Jesus. "No eye-witness authors present." Another fallacious statement. There are over 5,700 Greek manuscripts in existence that have been used to confirm the New Testament to be historically reliable. "Martyrdom as evidence?" Martyrdom is evidence as it proves the sincerity of a belief.
@antitheisthumanist Your whole argument fails for the simple fact that no honest or credible historian denies the existence of Jesus. Neither do they deny his crucifixion, the disappearance of his body, his post-mortem appearances and the very first Christians willingness to die for their beliefs. You're simply an immature, angry, close-minded and hateful bigot. Any educated Christian easily destroys the atheist in a face to face argument. I'll allow someone else to humble you.
@MakingSandwich1 Even if I grant Jesus' existence, it proves nothing whatsoever of his miraculous claims. A good illusionist could easily (with actors, sleight of hand, cold reading, and other devious methods) perform many of the "miracles" allegedly performed. A simple card trick would astonish the world 2,000 years ago. It still seems to work today: Religion is even less intriguing yet it's captivating billions of brains using less adept illusionists and their willing voyeurs.
@antitheisthumanist "Even if I grant Jesus' existence, it proves nothing whatsoever of his miraculous claims." That all comes down to the truth of his resurrection. I've pointed out his empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the fact that early Christians were convinced they had seen Jesus back from the dead. The supernatural explanation for all of this is that Jesus was resurrected. There are many natural theories but, rather than attack strawmen, I'll allow you to present your own theory.
@MakingSandwich1 Sincerity and volume of proponents are not evidence for a believers' claims. Terrorists incinerate themselves and others for similar irrational beliefs. Is that evidence for their claims? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for your claims. Thus, there is no reason to accept the authenticity of the resurrection myth.
@antitheisthumanist "Sincerity and volume of proponents are not evidence for a believers' claims." You're missing the whole point. The first generation of Christians either saw Jesus back from the dead or they didn't. There is no historical document that records one of the first Christians renouncing their faith despite vicious persecution. Their refusal to renounce their faith assures us that these people were convinced they had seen Jesus back from the dead. So your whole comment is worthless.
@MakingSandwich1 Worthless to those deluded by irrational beliefs in books which are not based on evidence. You have made claims that you have no evidence for. There is no evidence that these Christians saw Jesus. There is no evidence for accuracy in reporting regarding the Jesus myths. To them, it's not necessary to see him to believe in Jesus.They, like you, believe because of blind faith alone. There are hundreds of "messiah" myths and all of them share similarities.
@antitheisthumanist This isn't even a remotely intelligent response. I've already explained that the very first Christians either saw the risen Jesus, or they didn't. You made no intelligent response to this fact. Saying that these people were "deluded" doesn't work as you can't claim any of these people had any type of medical condition. So my argument as you've done nothing to refute it.
@MakingSandwich1 What responce would you expect when there is no evidence to support their claims? The default position is to suspend belief until confirmed and tested evidence exists. Delusion is assumed where people make wild assertions without evidence. If I were to place a comic book in a sealed container and two thousand years later, it was discovered by primitive people, they would probably believe the comic to be true. The wrong position to hold. Evidence is required first then argument.
@antitheisthumanist You ignored the facts I've already mentioned. Jesus' crucifixion, the disappearance of his body, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples and to others and these peoples' willingness to suffer and die for their belief all need an explanation. Concluding they were deluded doesn't work. You can't psychoanalyze people that are dead and that you've never even talked to. All of this evidence is all explained by Jesus' resurrection.
@antitheisthumanist You're right. Jesus' empty tomb provides no evidence whatsoever for a bodily resurrection. And the fact that hundreds to thousands of people all of a sudden began to claim they had seen Jesus back from the dead, that's obviously not evidence either. Their willingness to inhumanely die for their beliefs isn't evidence at all, either. By the way, I'm joking. If anyone is deluded, it's clearly you.
@MakingSandwich1 Absurdity. There are many empty tombs. It doesn't prove their occupants were resurrected. Thousands of people making claims and sacrificing themselves is not evidence their claims are accurate. Many suicidal terrorists believe they are doing the will of god also. Does that mean their 'martyrdom' is evidence for their faith's authenticity? It just proves they are delusional.
@antitheisthumanist Why don't you actually explain how his body went missing? A good theory has to explain all of the facts. You haven't done that yet. "Does that mean their 'martyrdom' is evidence for their faith's authenticity? It just proves they are delusional." Again, you're ignoring what I've already said. You cannot claim these people had any type of psychological disorder. This is one of the reasons psychoanalysis is a failed genre. It's not reliable.
@MakingSandwich1 The burden of proof lies with the claimant (that's you). Present your evidence and justify your beliefs or concede your lack of evidence. You have made claims that defy the physical laws and have no evidence to support them.
@antitheisthumanist Again and again and again I've stated that Jesus' body went missing, hundreds of people claimed to have seen Jesus back from the dead and there is no historical document that records any of the first Christians renouncing their faith in Jesus despite vicious persecution. This is all easily explained by the resurrection of Jesus. You've provided no plausible theory that deals with all of these facts. Thus, I can conclude that your lack of a response means you don't have one.
@MakingSandwich1 To have one would be dishonest without evidence. Your claims that these events occurred without evidence are an indication that you are dishonest and only seek to justify your irrational faith. I recommend that you present evidence so others can test your claims. Otherwise, you have all but admitted your concession that there is no evidence and you have a blind faith position. You must first prove Jesus' existence, then prove each miraculous claim including the resurrection.
@antitheisthumanist That whole comment settles it. Time and time again I've presented evidence that Jesus existed as well as facts about him that no honest historian denies. I've been waiting for you to explain away these facts and you haven't even come close to doing that yet. It's pointless to try to reason with the unreasonable. Without a doubt, you certainly are an unreasonable person. Maybe one day you'll come to your senses. I'm done.
@MakingSandwich1 You have not presented evidence. You have presented fiction as fact and so are these "historians." Many historians may believe in these myths, but they are not citing evidence. They have a faith position too and are thus dishonest. How many non-believers in the field of History accept the accuracy of the Bible? Personal attacks on my "senses" when you have presented non-sense is laughable. Your arguments from self-proclaimed authority reveal your intention to deceive others.
@antitheisthumanist@MakingSandwich doesn't need to provide any more evidence than a single book like Luke to prove that the tomb was found empty, the miracles did indeed happen and that friend and foe saw Jesus after his death, since the book of Luke was written 30-60 years after Jesus' death. That alone proves that Luke is credible.
Along with the other evidence that Luke is credible, like the mentioning of 50+ cities without any errors whatsoever, it's hard to believe you think it's BS.
@MrRichard991 interestingly stated "foe saw Jesus after his death," If true, then - Did the foe concerned do something to ensure Jesus' death like breaking his legs in order to stop him from walking around in public?
@FactualVSFictional Interestingly stated? It's right there in the Bible! I'd say read it before you make up your mind. And yes, the Jews did kill Jesus in order to stop him from walking around in public. There's even extra-biblical evidence for that as well.
@gregrutz the Bible was preached by the men you described, but not written by them.
@MrRichard991 Do you mean AFTER the Crucifixion, the Romans again with "the Jews did kill Jesus in order to stop him from walking around in public" during the Resurrection? The Bible never says that the Jews and/or the Romans killed Jesus AGAIN after the Crucifixion. Where in the Bible IF you can show that the Jews and/or the Romans killed Jesus during his Resurrection?
@MrRichard991 needs to support for your stating that "Jesus was resurrected ... as an angel - not a human," coz Luke 24:39 "for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have," proving that Jesus was resurrected as a human - not an angel. So, the question is - Why did the Jews and/or the Romans who were among over 500 eye-witnesses did nothing to the resurrected Jesus?
@saidinmas Ah, you got me there, with the flesh and bones - although I'm only on 1 Samuel. Are you saying that if no one did anything to Jesus, the Bible's wrong? That's quite the fallacy, and there's no reason to explain anything. However, I'll go out on a limb and say that they were a little stunned to see a dead man walking again.
@MakingSandwich1 - What? Did you know that of all of the records during jesus' time period and in that part of the world, and there are many, not ONE mentions jesus. The gospels were written 30-70 years after he (allegedly) died. The authors names weren't even Matthew, Mark, etc. Wiki the historicity of jesus and you can learn things your church may shy away from telling you. Also, it lists many credible historians who deny the existence of jesus. Ask your pastor about gospel authors names.
@djangothecat "Wiki the historicity of jesus" Well, you just destroyed any chance of me giving your response any type of credibility. When someone bases their arguments off of what Wikipedia says and admits it , that's pretty much a dead giveaway that they're not someone worth taking seriously. Any fool can easily edit and add anything they want on Wikipedia.
@MakingSandwich1 - Why do you have to be a smart ass? I was just trying to show you a quick way to find some facts. Did you not notice that I also said to ask your pastor? FYI I was a christian from childhood until I turned 41. Also, in the 80's I read 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict' because I was on the search for truth so your little wiki insult doesn't bother me, I'm well read. I mean did you think the authors names were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Ask your pastor.
@djangothecat The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, the early church fathers unanimously agreed that the Apostle Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, the early church also agreed that the Apostle Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John describes its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and there are historical and internal reasons to believe that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
@djangothecat - Oh and by the way, after spending 20 years on a serious spiritual search the evidence brought me to Atheism. I wasn't happy about it, I wanted to live forever and go to heaven. I was bummed that my eternity got cut very short. But truth is more important to me than a lie that makes me feel good. I don't expect to change people in these debates but by putting my beliefs under rational scrutiny I was forced to admit that there was no reason or evidence for the supernatural : )
@djangothecat The simple fact that atheism does nothing to rationally explain where the first life came from means it's an irrational and illogical faith system. I can either believe that non-life created life (atheism) or I can believe that life created life (theism). The law of causality, which is a logical, natural and scientific law, prohibits life originating from non-life. Therefore, I can logically, naturally and scientifically conclude that only life can create life.
@MakingSandwich1 - Abiogenesis is a scientific theory that states that life can come from inorganic matter. Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? Anyway, just because I don't know the origin of life or the universe doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly believe in an invisible man in the sky. And if you believe in him, where did he come from. Oh, he's exempt from the law of cause and effect. Convenient. And you have to die to know if he's real. What a perfect scam religion is.
@djangothecat "Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?" Is this the best you've got? There are four objections one could make against this flawed experiment. "Oh, he's exempt from the law of cause and effect." The law of causality is a NATURAL law as I've already explained. A supernatural creator is not bound to the natural laws that it created. "And you have to die to know if he's real." You have to die to find out whether or not the afterlife is real. Hence the term "afterlife".
@MakingSandwich1 - Oh and Atheism is NOT a faith system. It's the absence of faith. Some Atheists might have different ways they describe themselves but the defining factor is "no belief in any supernatural beings." How do you prove to yourself that your god is the right one. There is more than one god in this world and the others have as much proof as you. When I was a 12 year old christian I used to think about that. Just wondering.
@djangothecat Of course atheism is a faith system. Atheism can't be proven as Mortimer Adler explains “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” Atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, but theists, however, can prove that God exists. So, it takes faith to believe in something that can't be proven.
@MakingSandwich1 - O.K. you say theists can PROVE god exists. Well, that is what this entire debate is about. Prove god exists. Let's forget about all these other distractions for now. I'll gladly debate these things but with this limited space I am only interested in one at a time. We've already gone in 10 different directions. So, first things first, please present some sound and convincing EVIDENCE for god.
@djangothecat There are four ways someone can answer the question "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" They are: 1. Reality is an illusion (it doesn't exist) 2. Reality is/was self-created 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal) 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent. I believe #4 is the most plausible answer to the question. Which one do you believe is most plausible?
@MakingSandwich1 - I think that number 3 makes the most sense. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form but all the substance is still here so the thought that all of this material has always existed in some form is plausible. You can look around and see the earth, planets, stars and galaxies and people think that this couldn't have always existed yet they cannot see god and they believe he ALWAYS existed. It's strange logic to believe the unseen more than the seen.
@djangothecat Well, unfortunately for you, option 3 has been disproven by philosophy and science. For example, the universe is expanding. The expansion of our universe allows us to trace the universe back to its beginning. Whatever has a beginning is not eternal. It should be noted that the universe isn't expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding. So option 3 has been eliminated while option 4 still stands.
@MakingSandwich1 - Well I don't agree with that conclusion. One theory of an eternal universe which goes with an expanding universe hypothesis is a perpetually expanding and contracting back to a near singularity which then explodes and expands again for 50 billion (or whatever time period) until it expands to it's limit and gravity pulls it back together and so on and so on. So fortunately for me, this theory has yet to be refuted and even if it was, that does NOT prove the supernatural.
@djangothecat The point I'm making is that the universe is not eternal. As astronomer Robert Jastrow explains “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now...a scientifically proven fact."
@MakingSandwich1 - By the way. I thought you were going to present evidence FOR god. The "why do we have something rather than nothing" argument is not evidence FOR god. How come when I try to ask a theist for evidence for god they just try to ask where the universe came from and think that because I don't know then their invisible man of choice created it. I'll look into my 'Atheism: The Case Against god" book to find a simple stock answer to that argument.
@djangothecat I am proving that God exists by using the process of elimination. After options 1,2 and 3 have been eliminated we can conclude that option 4 is the correct answer once all of the other positions have been eliminated.
@MakingSandwich1 - First of all there are other scientific theories and it has definitely NOT been settled. The universe is over 14 billion years old and we've only had real science for a couple hundred years. Look how far our technology has advanced in the past 50 years so I'm sure we'll find out a lot more maybe in our lifetimes but soon in the big scheme. And still, how does that prove a god? What you're saying is, "if the universe didn't happen in one of these 3 ways then magic man did it."
@djangothecat The consensus among scientists is that the universe had a beginning. So scientists admit that the 3rd option is false. Option 1 is also false as you must exist in order to deny your own existence and option 2 is false because it means that before you existed, you existed which doesn't make sense. So, now that options 1, 2 and 3 have been proven to be false, we can determine that option 4 is the correct explanation. Thus, God exists.
@djangothecat "Well, I'm not convinced even a little bit." You're ignoring scientific facts with this response. I've already explained that the agreement among scientists is that universe had a beginning. You didn't really dispute this. You said that you thought option 3 was the best explanation. I showed that option 3 is false. So continuing to believe in option 3 tells me that you're refusing to face the facts.
@MakingSandwich1 - Even IF I accept that this proved a magic being. How does that prove the christian god of the bible and jesus. This magic being could be allah, zeus or a gremlin. So even by your own proof, that does
NOT prove any specific deity. It could be any god. But once again, the universe having a beginning does NOT prove a supernatural being. It doesn't prove ANY being.
@djangothecat "the universe having a beginning does NOT prove a supernatural being." It does. Either the universe is the un-caused cause of everything, or God is the un-caused caused of everything. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause for its existence. Since space, time, matter and energy (the universe) all began to exist, only a being that exists outside of space, time, matter and energy could create them. That being is God.
@MakingSandwich1 - You shouldn't even try to prove god anyway. The bible says that you need faith not proof.
If there was a god and he wanted to be proven, he would find a way. If your argument proved god then I would believe in god. I care about truth. I'm not an Atheist just to make people mad. I'm an Atheist because that's where the evidence has taken me. It took me years so I don't expect to convince anyone in an evening. Well, I'm going out now so have a good night.
@djangothecat " I'm an Atheist because that's where the evidence has taken me." I've already shown that atheism can't be true. The universe must be eternal for atheism to be true. Science has proven the universe isn't eternal, but had a beginning. So if the universe isn't eternal, then there must be an eternal creator that created the universe. If at one point in time nothing existed, we would still have nothing to this day. So something always had to exist and it's not the universe.
@MakingSandwich 1 - You sound like you're trying to convince yourself that you believe in god because these arguments are laughable. How do you explain that in 1914 27.7% scientists believed in a personal god and in 1998 that number dropped to 7%? If your scientific evidence was correct then scientists who believe would be on the rise. Please direct me to a scientific website that backs your claim that the universe was created by god. I want to hear a scientist argue this. Not you.
First, if two witness statements don't agree, it must necessarily follow that one of the statements is incorrect -- but it may equally be true neither statement is correct. Lacking any ability to confirm or falsify them *independent of the testimony itself* there's always going substantial uncertain about any claim.
2nd, if one document is derived, even partially from another, it can't stand as an independent claim, and there's reason to believe this is true of some of the gospels.
@HonestMan395 sry misspelled that one. I have not find any citation in any coments of yours, yet you ask them of others - hipocritic at best - have a nice day:-))
Or are you going to run and hide like all the other christians on u-tube.
As for My comments regarding drcraig videos. All I was asking for was that if they show a debate, then in fairness, don't you think that they should show both sides of it?
After all, That is what a debate is supposed to be about, isn't it? Or maybe they are afraid of being challenged. Most u-tube christians are.
@HonestMan395 I do not hide and seek - and do not call names and generalize people as you do and both sides are represented in Craigs dabetes when it is debate not the defense of an argument. So be atleast little bit honest in your coments.
@HonestMan395 so again you begin with an insult. I guess you can not communicate othervice. I called your coment dishonest and hypocritical and that is how you act in coments. I asked for a quote when making claims at first about gospels them selves and historical source - you did not provide one. If you want Craig debating with Bart Erman on the subject - philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm
@girtkaz This debate is with Bishop John Shelby Spong and I cannot find it anywhere.
If you can find it, then I will happily apologise to you.
If you can't, I will expect an apology from you for calling me dishonest.
I have to go to the airport now to pick up a friend, so you'll have plenty time to find it and if you can tell me which comments you want evidence for, I will be happy to provide it.
@HonestMan395 mefeedia_com_watch_29642627 It took me 2min to check - hope you will be able to put dots and slashies right. Now it is your turn - But I doubt you are able to.
@HonestMan395 write "Craig debate with Bishop John Shelby Spong" in the google and you will have no problem in finding whole debate - It took me 2 min to fiend one - if you want direct link send me your email and I will give you the link. Your turn:-)) Oh The Honest One
@girtkaz Thankyou. I've found it on channels_coom. I was only looking on U-tube. I'm quite new to this, but that is no excuse and At my age, I should have known.
I apologise for doubting you, but I genuinely thought they were censoring it from the web.
you must admit, it has been known.
If you still want me to give you my evidence, the offer is still open, but I really need you to let me know which comment it is about and I'll be happy to supply it.
@HonestMan395 I can find all the information I need, thx:-) Wanted to know what are the reasons of your attitude towards Cristianity - but i guess I got the answers.
@girtkaz Well, if you want to make that assumption, it's up to you, but I would have thought that after our mis-communication, you would have been slower to jump to conclusions.
WHICH PARTICULAR COMMENTS DO YOU WANT THE EVIDENCE FOR?
Sorry for shouting, but this is the 3rd time I've asked. How can you expect me to give you the evidence if I don't know which comment you want the evidence for.
As for Quote:
" If you want Craig debating with Bart Erman on the subject - philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm"
I know that one.
That's not the debate that is going on here. Cont'd.
@TanikAyanna ,,Holy Prophets do not lose their personality. They are individuals with different identities and ways to express their inspired revelations. If YHWH gives me a dream and someone else the same dream, My ways to explain it would not be word for word exactly as someone else would explain it in words. The Bible is NOT a legal book but it is a Spiritual revelation of YHWH'S complex and vast depth of wisdom. When a person looks for the letter of the law, they miss the beauty of liberty
There are really no inconsistencies in the 4 accounts of the Crucifixion of Christ. If they were word for word then one would have reason to suspect collusion and that would cast great doubt on the records. The problem is in human reasoning, misinterpretation, adding ideas, presupposition and judging by appearances.
@RayTech70 Actually, the reference to Jesus in Josephus' writings has long been thought to be an insertion by an early christian copyist, to try and give a level of authenticity to the story.
As for the miracles of jesus, they were a straight copy from other gods like Mithra(s), horus and many more.
The parables were lifted almost word for word from the teachings of the Essenes and even the bible itself proves that the Nativity is most unlikely to have happened as it told. cont'd.
@RayTech70 Unfortunately, U-tube doesn't seem to like URL's other than it's own, but if you google Josephus or Tacitus or pliny the younger, it will lead you on to other things.
Good hunting.
I too was a christian once, but I don't believe that Religion in any form is the answer to the world's problems. It never was in the past, it isn't now, so I see no reason to expect that it will be any more uniting in the future.
Laws protecting the individual have always come from secular governments.
@RayTech70 A useful tip on U-tube and the internet as a whole.
Don't just accept the first site you come to as being accurate.
I may be cynical, but i've learned not to accept anything I'm told, unless it is confirmed by at least 2 other independant sources, more is even better, if you can find them.
@RayTech70 And there is no mention at all of Jesus in any Roman official record of that time.
In fact, as well as there being no independant contemporary writers of the time who even mention jesus in passing, all references to jesus, including those in the bible itself which include the gospels, come from writers got their information 2nd & 3rd hand and who never actually met him. Some weren't even born when Jesus was supposedly alive. Cont'd.
@RayTech70 Quote: "Rome was famous for burning evidence if it made a ruler look bad."
I agree, but history has shown us that something always slips through. The lack of corroborating evidence from ANY contemporary source is unusual, to say the least, and the burning of the records is exactly the same reason given by apologists to explain the lack of evidence for the Exodus in the old testament.
@GodsSeer I did say OFFICIAL Roman sources. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet there is no mention of Jesus in any OFFICIAL Roman records.
Also, there were over 40 philosophers and writers that we know of around the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived.
Just supposing that there was someone who was making as big a splash as Jesus is supposed to have made; speaking to massive crowds, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, etc. Cont’d.
@HonestMan395 , KNOW YHWH, He speaks to me, I have seen and worked over 60 miracles THAT DEFY THE NATURAL. Lu 8:10 And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'
@GodsSeer So after all that time I spent answering your question, all you can come up with is superstitious platitudes.
Well if i t makes you feel better, good luck, but if your only answer to a challenge is to cut and run, it doesn't say much for your knowledge of your religion.
By the way, ALL of Jesus' Parables were taken verbatim from the releigious sect, the Essenes, who predated him by many years.
As for miracles, they are nothing more than co-incidences. Cont'd.
@HonestMan395 ,I do not believe that historical records are 100% true as humans are prone to bias and lying. It is not a co-incidence when a blind woman who never saw before, can be healed by prayer. Since you are comfortable in your state of sin, stay there and stop trying to convince others to THINK you are really happy. You have to face death someday. Who is in more trouble if you or I am wrong?
@GodsSeer Quote: "I do not believe that historical records are 100% true as humans are prone to bias and lying."
I totally agree, especially the writers of the bible, which is not only inaccurate, it is full of deliberate inventions, like the Exodusand the nativity and the cruci'fiction'
As for the woman who couldn't see. If that is true, show your evidence? After all, something like that would certainly have made the news.
Give your references or withdraw. And Oh! I am REALLY happy.
@HonestMan395 Its individual choice to believe YHWH or not. I choose to believe His Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit. You are happy now? Good for you. I am happy now. Good for me. I KNOW what some go through after they reject, the liberty of casting off restraint,the FEELING of elation of being free from any authority over you. I have seen people go through that and its always the same, until they are dying, and fear overtakes them and they cannot find peace even if they seek with tears.
@GodsSeer You carry on believing in your little fantasy world if it stops you fearing for the future.
As I said before. The bible is not the inspired word of any god.
It is the frightened scribblings of ignorant bronze age peasants that has been constantly added to, modified and just plain invented, to pacify the fears of frightened gullkible people throughout the ages.
it started with a myth (Adam & Eve), it continued with another myth (The exodus) and has gone on in that vein ever since.
@GodsSeer Don’t you think that it just might have created some interest with someone, in what was, in reality, a highly controlled and regulated police state.
Yet there is NOT ONE contemporary writer who was alive DURING Jesus' supposed life, who even mentions him in passing.
Tacitus was writing over 100 years after the supposed event and he was not writing about Jesus, but about the persecution by Nero of a sect called Christians. The name Jesus is NEVER mentioned. Cont’d.
@GodsSeer Also, He was not quoting from official Roman records, because therer aren’t any, but rather gossip and stories that were around at the time.
He refers in passing to founder of the sect as Christus (Christ), but that is a Greek term meaning anointed one, which was used to describe many historical religious leaders.
These include the Egyptian god Horus, whose life, strangely enough, mirrors Jesus' almost exactly and which would have been well known at the time. Cont’d.
@GodsSeer Christian apologetics state that a lot of his writings are missing, including a work, which covers the years 29-32AD, at least 24 yrs before he was born, in which the trial of Jesus would have been written about, had he recorded it.
Some historians consider Tacitus’ Annals Book XV, Sec. 44 is actually a later interpolation. None of his writings are quoted by the early Christian fathers. In fact he is not quoted by ANY Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century CE. Cont’d.
@GodsSeer At this time only one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy of which it bears the unmistakeable stamp. This was common and would not have been considered dishonest at that time. There are many other reasons why Tacitus is not reliable. If you want more, I will be glad to send you a full list. Cont’d.
@GodsSeer As for Lucian of Samosata. Very little of his life can be verified with any degree of accuracy, but he was known as a fiction writer and satirist. In his works, he refers to himself as a "Syrian", "Assyrian" and “Barbarian", perhaps indicating "he was from the Semitic and not the imported Greek population" of Samosata.
Whatever he was , he was not a straightforward historian. He was an admirer of Epicurus who was well known in his lifetime to be an atheist. Cont’d.
@GodsSeer Lucian’s mention of Christianity appears in a FICTIONAL satire called “The Passing of Peregrinus.”
This is one of the earliest surviving pagan perceptions of christianity. But it was not meant to be a historical account of Christianity. It was intended to mock and insult Christians. In it, the lead character, “Peregrinas Proteus”, takes advantage of the generosity and gullibility of Christians. Sorry, but It looks like nothing much has changed through the centuries.
@HonestMan395 I KNOW HIM. I KNOW Him personally. I have NO doubt., He reveals Himself to me in more ways than miracles. He speaks to me. Mt 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
@RayTech70 ,,We are in an exclusive club, so to speak; Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
@GodsSeer Quote: "There are really no inconsistencies in the 4 accounts of the Crucifixion of Christ."
Other than the fact that there is no record of it from any official roman scource, and the accounts in the gospels were written years after by people who never knew him and weren't even there.
LMFAO! This 'tard thinks that inconsistencies can be "harmonized" but uncovering inconsistencies is of little use (being akin to a brain surgeon using a machete?). To use the brain surgery analogy, it seems that the former is akin to a frontal lobotomy! Hahaha! Is this the best theistic tards can do?
Remember folks! Philosophy begins when theology and apologetics ends.
So, inconsistencies coupled with consistencies allows us to turn a blind-eye to the inconsistencies and blindly follow the consistencies. Awesome! Makes about as much sense as the trinity.
@RayTech70 "You hold a classic liberal / progressive / atheist view..."
Nope, none of the above. Just doing what Jesus did. I have submitted to and am worshipping the Creator of Jesus. The One True God of whom there is no other worthy of worship besides Him and He has no equal or co-equal.
@RayTech70 "You hold a classic liberal / progressive / atheist view..."
Nope, none of the above. I'm ding what Jesus did. I have submitted to the will of and am worshipping the Creator of Jesus. The One True God of whom there is no other worthy of worship and He has no equal or co-equal. He feels no fatigue and no slumber nor sleep overtakes Him.
@tadpoleposition Here is an example: If we each saw a 2 men standing on the road and 1 was holding a sign that read " I will work for food" Now in retelling the story, I mention that I saw a man holding a sign saying "I will work for food" There may appear to be an inconsistency that I didn't mention the other man, but that is simply in the details I chose not to expound upon. The story in itself is not inconsistent to what actually happened.
If genesis is metaphorical then did jesus die for a metaphor? Oh and history disagrees with many of the stories in the bible,so why see it as true at all?
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 week ago
@gregutz - So because they believed the earth to be flat the historical accounts of the person of Jesus must also be false? I guess under the same logic we can also rule out the existents of Julius caesar and well anything that went on then. Those people who lived back then are obviously too stupid to be trusted.
We don't fully understand the world and universe still. Does that mean everything we say and think now also can't be trusted?
nomesbirdy 1 month ago
The bible was written by men who thought the world was flat and the center of the solar system.
gregrutz 4 months ago
I don't know the claims of his opponent, but if they are anything like those of Ehrman (to whom it sort of sounds like a respons) I think Craig is just being eristic here. The point of finding inconsistencies in the NT is to suggest that it can not be perfect truth from cover to cover, but Craig doesn't defend the view that it is. All he says in the end is that the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt and that the idea of the resurrection is compatible with the NT. Newsflash, eh? ^_^
Blodhosta 5 months ago
Some Inconsistencies between the four gospels: Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23, Mark 9:40, Luke 9:50. Matthew 26:69-73, Mark 14:66-71, Luke 22:54-60, John 18:15-17, 25-27. Luke 23:45-46, Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38. Matthew 1:6-16, Luke 3:21-31. Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:2-16. Matthew 1:6-7, Luke 3:31. Matthew 8:5-8, Luke 7:1-7. Matthew 27:28, Mark 15:17, John 19:2. Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13. Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:33-37, John 20:19. This is just several.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
Thats what we are suppose to believe anyways.
wachnathan 6 months ago
So Craig is comfortable treating the gospels like an other ancient literary source? He's will to accept that there might be errors in it?
Naiant 6 months ago
Craig just admitted on his website that genocides from god are morally justified. Shame on this fraud and barbarian.
beradification 9 months ago
@beradification But why don't you continue to read on and see what else he says? You only seem to put what you wanted to hear up. Also can you give a precise link to where you found this claim from?
samuellis 9 months ago
@beradification was killing osama bin laden morally justified?
zozefup 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zozefup
"Craig just admitted on his website that __genocides__ from god are morally justified. " - beradification
"was killing osama bin laden morally justified?" - you
Capital punishment != Genocide...
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Lowraith Ever used a dictionary? Ever heard of the Holocaust? Genocide is the systematic extermination of a large GROUP of people, not the killing of just one person.
AgainstZombies 8 months ago
@AgainstZombies
Congratulations, genius. That would be exactly the point I was trying to make. You get a cookie.
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Lowraith Capital punishment is the killing of one person. I'll take your cookie.
AgainstZombies 8 months ago
@AgainstZombies
God damn, you can't possibly be this dense. Read my original comment again.
"!=" means "is not equal to". Don't know standard programming language syntax? Here it is in scripter: "Capital punishment ~= Genocide..." Want it in mathematical equality? Done: "Capital punishment < Genocide..."
In plain f*cking English: Point I was making to zozefup (who DID try to make the comparison) TWO WEEKS AGO: "Capital punishment is NOT THE SAME as Genocide."
Christ, cookie revoked.
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Lowraith God damn, what a pompous egotistical ass you are. You do realize that this is not a community of computer programmers right? How the fuck was I supposed to know you were using programming syntax? Especially when your preceding sentences had very poor grammar? Screw your cookie. I don't want it.
AgainstZombies 8 months ago
@AgainstZombies
I am far from the first person on here to use "!=" or "==". Hopefully you have learned not to attack someone's comment if you don't fully understand all of it.
By the way, you REALLY are bad at reading comments. The preceding sentences are in quotes. In other words, I DIDN'T WRITE THEM...
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Lowraith Well I guess that makes it okay huh? Just because you're not the first person to use it? Get a clue. It isn't like "!=" has any resemblance to anything in English semantics, or any other natural language for that matter. There was no way I could have known what you meant. Unless you are PMing a computer programmer don't expect people reading your comments to know programming syntax. For the record, I thought the exclamation mark was exactly that, punctuation (albeit misplaced).
AgainstZombies 8 months ago
@AgainstZombies
Scroll back up and read your first comment to me. You were less than kind, and it was entirely unjustified based solely on your misinterpretation of my statement. I get that not everyone knows it, but it's shown up enough times that MANY people do, non-programmers included. The bottom line is your attack against me was unwarranted (as we ultimately made the same point), and I got angry because you acted on a false assumption.
Hey, I'm sorry if I got too malign.
Lowraith 8 months ago
@Lowraith I admit I was less than kind, but I don't think it was entirely unjustified because it clearly looks, to a non-computer programmer such as myself, like you were incorrectly correcting someone's use of a word when a dictionary could have easily clarified it. I was not in a good mood when I saw your comment so I naturally replied in a less than respectful tone. I have never seen "!=" before, I have only seen "=/=". I'm also sorry, I got too heated.
AgainstZombies 8 months ago
@TheDarvus Start with picking up a book and reading. You may not have the stamina for all 300 pages, but read a couple. It will do you some good and you'll quickly see the error of your thinking.
Humbler25 10 months ago
Humbler25 attended counselling at Exodus International from August, 2010, until February, 2011, when he was caught in the washroom there with another male client. Humbler25 said he was only giving the guy a back rub, but the security cameras there recorded something different. To see this security video of Humbler25 & his gay lover, check my channel. Or you can ask me, & I'll send it to you.
JustinBieberKicksAss 9 months ago
@TheDarvus What is stopping your from going out and getting a book? I shouldn't have to type out 300 pages of evidence for you. Go and get one of Stroebel's books instead of just trolling his videos. It will do you some good. But CAUTION, it will force you to reexamine a lot of things. Perhaps that is why you don't do it.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus Why are you incapable of picking up a book and reading it for yourself? Did you never learn to read?
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus Try reading one of Stroebel's books, plenty of evidence is documented there for you.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus lots of evidence if your willing to pick up a book and read about it, but your not - how sad!
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus I'm waiting for you to pick up a book and read it for yourself... what are you afraid of?
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus I have... that is how I know that you can learn a lot from them. There are other books out there too of course and other historical sources for you to examine, but Strobel is a good start for you.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus that is easy, pick up one of Strobel's books. Lots and lots of evidence right there for you to discover. You can do it!
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus I can give you over three hundred pages worth... go read a book, your unwillingness to do that is a major fail on your part. Knowledge is out there... go get it!
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus sure... you have hundreds of pages at your finger tips if you'd bother to read a book. You just don't want to read up on it because the evidence may force you to reexamine your lifestyle.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@TheDarvus try reading one of Strobel's books instead of just trolling his videos. Lots in there for you.
Humbler25 10 months ago
@Humbler25
lee strobels book is terrible
as far as apologetics go, there is only alvin and william.
skepticnyc 10 months ago
@TheDarvus actually there is a ton of evidence... you are just unwilling to examine it.
Humbler25 10 months ago
What's scary about Humbler25, is that as far as we know, he's not schizophrenic, but he STILL says on the video “Awesome God” comment section that he's not sure what he would do if he heard the voice of God telling him to kill... kill an infant no less! It's plain to see why many notorious murderers have been Christian!
JESUSsmokesCRACK 7 months ago
@JESUSsmokesCRACK You can't logically say that people who murdered were also people who followed Jesus. the Bible is clear: DO NOT MURDER. Anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet is a murderer at the same time isn't truly a Christian.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 So you say. But then again, you would. Your irrational faith is the justification for which Christians can murder without penalty. It allows murderers to continue their insidious code. Under your backwards rules all that is required of the murderer is to "repent" and all is well again. Allegedly, Jesus came to bring a sword to create division between people. His followers have done so. Fortunately, none of his miraculous claims have any evidence to support them. So meek, so mild
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist "Fortunately, none of his miraculous claims have any evidence to support them." Actually, his miracles can be proven by his resurrection. When you consider the empty tomb, the disciples' sudden transformation from depressed cowards into fearless preachers and their willingness to suffer torture and death are all historical lines of proof that, not only affirm the resurrection of Jesus, but also affirm the miracles performed by Jesus. So meek, so mild.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Evidence Jesus even existed has yet to be discovered. The only pseudo-evidence available (alleged eye-witnesses) is the four gospels, all of which were written at least ~70 years after his alleged demise. Completely unverifiable claims are not sufficient evidence to prove the physical laws were suspended for what is at best an immoral, narcissistic carpenter suffering from delusions of grandeur with some knowledge of prior religious writings and a small appreciation for history.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago 2
@antitheisthumanist "Evidence Jesus even existed has yet to be discovered." I find it amusing that you believe this. The writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Gnostic writings and the Babylonian Talmud all mention Jesus or early Christians. You also have to take into account that thousands of Christians were willing to become martyrs in the first century for Jesus.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 I expected this responce. At least have the nerve to be original. Many of these writings you mention are confirmed forgeries. Does Eusebius ring a bell? No eye-witness authors present. There are no confirmed contemporary historian writings regarding Jesus. St. Paul admits never having met or seen Jesus (daydreams and visions aside) and he is attributed with writing most of the New Testament. Martyrdom as evidence? Next youll be claiming the destruction of the temple as evidence
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago 2
@antitheisthumanist "Many of these writings you mention are confirmed forgeries." I never once said that any of these writings were written specifically to prove the existence of Jesus. "No eye-witness authors present." Another fallacious statement. There are over 5,700 Greek manuscripts in existence that have been used to confirm the New Testament to be historically reliable. "Martyrdom as evidence?" Martyrdom is evidence as it proves the sincerity of a belief.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist Your whole argument fails for the simple fact that no honest or credible historian denies the existence of Jesus. Neither do they deny his crucifixion, the disappearance of his body, his post-mortem appearances and the very first Christians willingness to die for their beliefs. You're simply an immature, angry, close-minded and hateful bigot. Any educated Christian easily destroys the atheist in a face to face argument. I'll allow someone else to humble you.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Even if I grant Jesus' existence, it proves nothing whatsoever of his miraculous claims. A good illusionist could easily (with actors, sleight of hand, cold reading, and other devious methods) perform many of the "miracles" allegedly performed. A simple card trick would astonish the world 2,000 years ago. It still seems to work today: Religion is even less intriguing yet it's captivating billions of brains using less adept illusionists and their willing voyeurs.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago 2
@antitheisthumanist "Even if I grant Jesus' existence, it proves nothing whatsoever of his miraculous claims." That all comes down to the truth of his resurrection. I've pointed out his empty tomb, post-mortem appearances and the fact that early Christians were convinced they had seen Jesus back from the dead. The supernatural explanation for all of this is that Jesus was resurrected. There are many natural theories but, rather than attack strawmen, I'll allow you to present your own theory.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Sincerity and volume of proponents are not evidence for a believers' claims. Terrorists incinerate themselves and others for similar irrational beliefs. Is that evidence for their claims? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for your claims. Thus, there is no reason to accept the authenticity of the resurrection myth.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago 2
@antitheisthumanist "Sincerity and volume of proponents are not evidence for a believers' claims." You're missing the whole point. The first generation of Christians either saw Jesus back from the dead or they didn't. There is no historical document that records one of the first Christians renouncing their faith despite vicious persecution. Their refusal to renounce their faith assures us that these people were convinced they had seen Jesus back from the dead. So your whole comment is worthless.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakingSandwich1 Worthless to those deluded by irrational beliefs in books which are not based on evidence. You have made claims that you have no evidence for. There is no evidence that these Christians saw Jesus. There is no evidence for accuracy in reporting regarding the Jesus myths. To them, it's not necessary to see him to believe in Jesus.They, like you, believe because of blind faith alone. There are hundreds of "messiah" myths and all of them share similarities.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago 2
@antitheisthumanist This isn't even a remotely intelligent response. I've already explained that the very first Christians either saw the risen Jesus, or they didn't. You made no intelligent response to this fact. Saying that these people were "deluded" doesn't work as you can't claim any of these people had any type of medical condition. So my argument as you've done nothing to refute it.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 What responce would you expect when there is no evidence to support their claims? The default position is to suspend belief until confirmed and tested evidence exists. Delusion is assumed where people make wild assertions without evidence. If I were to place a comic book in a sealed container and two thousand years later, it was discovered by primitive people, they would probably believe the comic to be true. The wrong position to hold. Evidence is required first then argument.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist You ignored the facts I've already mentioned. Jesus' crucifixion, the disappearance of his body, the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to his disciples and to others and these peoples' willingness to suffer and die for their belief all need an explanation. Concluding they were deluded doesn't work. You can't psychoanalyze people that are dead and that you've never even talked to. All of this evidence is all explained by Jesus' resurrection.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Nothing you have presented constitutes evidence.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist You're right. Jesus' empty tomb provides no evidence whatsoever for a bodily resurrection. And the fact that hundreds to thousands of people all of a sudden began to claim they had seen Jesus back from the dead, that's obviously not evidence either. Their willingness to inhumanely die for their beliefs isn't evidence at all, either. By the way, I'm joking. If anyone is deluded, it's clearly you.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Absurdity. There are many empty tombs. It doesn't prove their occupants were resurrected. Thousands of people making claims and sacrificing themselves is not evidence their claims are accurate. Many suicidal terrorists believe they are doing the will of god also. Does that mean their 'martyrdom' is evidence for their faith's authenticity? It just proves they are delusional.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist Why don't you actually explain how his body went missing? A good theory has to explain all of the facts. You haven't done that yet. "Does that mean their 'martyrdom' is evidence for their faith's authenticity? It just proves they are delusional." Again, you're ignoring what I've already said. You cannot claim these people had any type of psychological disorder. This is one of the reasons psychoanalysis is a failed genre. It's not reliable.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MakingSandwich1 The burden of proof lies with the claimant (that's you). Present your evidence and justify your beliefs or concede your lack of evidence. You have made claims that defy the physical laws and have no evidence to support them.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist Again and again and again I've stated that Jesus' body went missing, hundreds of people claimed to have seen Jesus back from the dead and there is no historical document that records any of the first Christians renouncing their faith in Jesus despite vicious persecution. This is all easily explained by the resurrection of Jesus. You've provided no plausible theory that deals with all of these facts. Thus, I can conclude that your lack of a response means you don't have one.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 To have one would be dishonest without evidence. Your claims that these events occurred without evidence are an indication that you are dishonest and only seek to justify your irrational faith. I recommend that you present evidence so others can test your claims. Otherwise, you have all but admitted your concession that there is no evidence and you have a blind faith position. You must first prove Jesus' existence, then prove each miraculous claim including the resurrection.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
Comment removed
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist That whole comment settles it. Time and time again I've presented evidence that Jesus existed as well as facts about him that no honest historian denies. I've been waiting for you to explain away these facts and you haven't even come close to doing that yet. It's pointless to try to reason with the unreasonable. Without a doubt, you certainly are an unreasonable person. Maybe one day you'll come to your senses. I'm done.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 You have not presented evidence. You have presented fiction as fact and so are these "historians." Many historians may believe in these myths, but they are not citing evidence. They have a faith position too and are thus dishonest. How many non-believers in the field of History accept the accuracy of the Bible? Personal attacks on my "senses" when you have presented non-sense is laughable. Your arguments from self-proclaimed authority reveal your intention to deceive others.
antitheisthumanist 6 months ago
@antitheisthumanist @MakingSandwich doesn't need to provide any more evidence than a single book like Luke to prove that the tomb was found empty, the miracles did indeed happen and that friend and foe saw Jesus after his death, since the book of Luke was written 30-60 years after Jesus' death. That alone proves that Luke is credible.
Along with the other evidence that Luke is credible, like the mentioning of 50+ cities without any errors whatsoever, it's hard to believe you think it's BS.
MrRichard991 4 months ago
@MrRichard991 interestingly stated "foe saw Jesus after his death," If true, then - Did the foe concerned do something to ensure Jesus' death like breaking his legs in order to stop him from walking around in public?
FactualVSFictional 4 months ago
@FactualVSFictional Interestingly stated? It's right there in the Bible! I'd say read it before you make up your mind. And yes, the Jews did kill Jesus in order to stop him from walking around in public. There's even extra-biblical evidence for that as well.
@gregrutz the Bible was preached by the men you described, but not written by them.
MrRichard991 4 months ago
@MrRichard991 Do you mean AFTER the Crucifixion, the Romans again with "the Jews did kill Jesus in order to stop him from walking around in public" during the Resurrection? The Bible never says that the Jews and/or the Romans killed Jesus AGAIN after the Crucifixion. Where in the Bible IF you can show that the Jews and/or the Romans killed Jesus during his Resurrection?
FactualVSFictional 4 months ago
@FactualVSFictional I never said Jesus died twice. Jesus was resurrected and came back to visit people as an angel - not a human.
MrRichard991 4 months ago
@MrRichard991 needs to support for your stating that "Jesus was resurrected ... as an angel - not a human," coz Luke 24:39 "for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have," proving that Jesus was resurrected as a human - not an angel. So, the question is - Why did the Jews and/or the Romans who were among over 500 eye-witnesses did nothing to the resurrected Jesus?
saidinmas 4 months ago
@saidinmas Ah, you got me there, with the flesh and bones - although I'm only on 1 Samuel. Are you saying that if no one did anything to Jesus, the Bible's wrong? That's quite the fallacy, and there's no reason to explain anything. However, I'll go out on a limb and say that they were a little stunned to see a dead man walking again.
MrRichard991 4 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - What? Did you know that of all of the records during jesus' time period and in that part of the world, and there are many, not ONE mentions jesus. The gospels were written 30-70 years after he (allegedly) died. The authors names weren't even Matthew, Mark, etc. Wiki the historicity of jesus and you can learn things your church may shy away from telling you. Also, it lists many credible historians who deny the existence of jesus. Ask your pastor about gospel authors names.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat "Wiki the historicity of jesus" Well, you just destroyed any chance of me giving your response any type of credibility. When someone bases their arguments off of what Wikipedia says and admits it , that's pretty much a dead giveaway that they're not someone worth taking seriously. Any fool can easily edit and add anything they want on Wikipedia.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - Why do you have to be a smart ass? I was just trying to show you a quick way to find some facts. Did you not notice that I also said to ask your pastor? FYI I was a christian from childhood until I turned 41. Also, in the 80's I read 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict' because I was on the search for truth so your little wiki insult doesn't bother me, I'm well read. I mean did you think the authors names were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Ask your pastor.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat The Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, the early church fathers unanimously agreed that the Apostle Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, the early church also agreed that the Apostle Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John describes its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and there are historical and internal reasons to believe that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@djangothecat - Oh and by the way, after spending 20 years on a serious spiritual search the evidence brought me to Atheism. I wasn't happy about it, I wanted to live forever and go to heaven. I was bummed that my eternity got cut very short. But truth is more important to me than a lie that makes me feel good. I don't expect to change people in these debates but by putting my beliefs under rational scrutiny I was forced to admit that there was no reason or evidence for the supernatural : )
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat The simple fact that atheism does nothing to rationally explain where the first life came from means it's an irrational and illogical faith system. I can either believe that non-life created life (atheism) or I can believe that life created life (theism). The law of causality, which is a logical, natural and scientific law, prohibits life originating from non-life. Therefore, I can logically, naturally and scientifically conclude that only life can create life.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - Abiogenesis is a scientific theory that states that life can come from inorganic matter. Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? Anyway, just because I don't know the origin of life or the universe doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly believe in an invisible man in the sky. And if you believe in him, where did he come from. Oh, he's exempt from the law of cause and effect. Convenient. And you have to die to know if he's real. What a perfect scam religion is.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat "Have you ever heard of the Miller-Urey experiment?" Is this the best you've got? There are four objections one could make against this flawed experiment. "Oh, he's exempt from the law of cause and effect." The law of causality is a NATURAL law as I've already explained. A supernatural creator is not bound to the natural laws that it created. "And you have to die to know if he's real." You have to die to find out whether or not the afterlife is real. Hence the term "afterlife".
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - Oh and Atheism is NOT a faith system. It's the absence of faith. Some Atheists might have different ways they describe themselves but the defining factor is "no belief in any supernatural beings." How do you prove to yourself that your god is the right one. There is more than one god in this world and the others have as much proof as you. When I was a 12 year old christian I used to think about that. Just wondering.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat Of course atheism is a faith system. Atheism can't be proven as Mortimer Adler explains “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” Atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, but theists, however, can prove that God exists. So, it takes faith to believe in something that can't be proven.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - O.K. you say theists can PROVE god exists. Well, that is what this entire debate is about. Prove god exists. Let's forget about all these other distractions for now. I'll gladly debate these things but with this limited space I am only interested in one at a time. We've already gone in 10 different directions. So, first things first, please present some sound and convincing EVIDENCE for god.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat There are four ways someone can answer the question "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" They are: 1. Reality is an illusion (it doesn't exist) 2. Reality is/was self-created 3. Reality is self-existent (eternal) 4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent. I believe #4 is the most plausible answer to the question. Which one do you believe is most plausible?
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - I think that number 3 makes the most sense. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form but all the substance is still here so the thought that all of this material has always existed in some form is plausible. You can look around and see the earth, planets, stars and galaxies and people think that this couldn't have always existed yet they cannot see god and they believe he ALWAYS existed. It's strange logic to believe the unseen more than the seen.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat Well, unfortunately for you, option 3 has been disproven by philosophy and science. For example, the universe is expanding. The expansion of our universe allows us to trace the universe back to its beginning. Whatever has a beginning is not eternal. It should be noted that the universe isn't expanding into empty space, but space itself is expanding. So option 3 has been eliminated while option 4 still stands.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - Well I don't agree with that conclusion. One theory of an eternal universe which goes with an expanding universe hypothesis is a perpetually expanding and contracting back to a near singularity which then explodes and expands again for 50 billion (or whatever time period) until it expands to it's limit and gravity pulls it back together and so on and so on. So fortunately for me, this theory has yet to be refuted and even if it was, that does NOT prove the supernatural.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat The point I'm making is that the universe is not eternal. As astronomer Robert Jastrow explains “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now...a scientifically proven fact."
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - By the way. I thought you were going to present evidence FOR god. The "why do we have something rather than nothing" argument is not evidence FOR god. How come when I try to ask a theist for evidence for god they just try to ask where the universe came from and think that because I don't know then their invisible man of choice created it. I'll look into my 'Atheism: The Case Against god" book to find a simple stock answer to that argument.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat I am proving that God exists by using the process of elimination. After options 1,2 and 3 have been eliminated we can conclude that option 4 is the correct answer once all of the other positions have been eliminated.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - First of all there are other scientific theories and it has definitely NOT been settled. The universe is over 14 billion years old and we've only had real science for a couple hundred years. Look how far our technology has advanced in the past 50 years so I'm sure we'll find out a lot more maybe in our lifetimes but soon in the big scheme. And still, how does that prove a god? What you're saying is, "if the universe didn't happen in one of these 3 ways then magic man did it."
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat The consensus among scientists is that the universe had a beginning. So scientists admit that the 3rd option is false. Option 1 is also false as you must exist in order to deny your own existence and option 2 is false because it means that before you existed, you existed which doesn't make sense. So, now that options 1, 2 and 3 have been proven to be false, we can determine that option 4 is the correct explanation. Thus, God exists.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - Well, I'm not convinced even a little bit. But if that's good enough for you, then
there's nothing more for me to say. Thanks for the chat.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat "Well, I'm not convinced even a little bit." You're ignoring scientific facts with this response. I've already explained that the agreement among scientists is that universe had a beginning. You didn't really dispute this. You said that you thought option 3 was the best explanation. I showed that option 3 is false. So continuing to believe in option 3 tells me that you're refusing to face the facts.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - Even IF I accept that this proved a magic being. How does that prove the christian god of the bible and jesus. This magic being could be allah, zeus or a gremlin. So even by your own proof, that does
NOT prove any specific deity. It could be any god. But once again, the universe having a beginning does NOT prove a supernatural being. It doesn't prove ANY being.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat "the universe having a beginning does NOT prove a supernatural being." It does. Either the universe is the un-caused cause of everything, or God is the un-caused caused of everything. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause for its existence. Since space, time, matter and energy (the universe) all began to exist, only a being that exists outside of space, time, matter and energy could create them. That being is God.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 - You shouldn't even try to prove god anyway. The bible says that you need faith not proof.
If there was a god and he wanted to be proven, he would find a way. If your argument proved god then I would believe in god. I care about truth. I'm not an Atheist just to make people mad. I'm an Atheist because that's where the evidence has taken me. It took me years so I don't expect to convince anyone in an evening. Well, I'm going out now so have a good night.
djangothecat 6 months ago
@djangothecat " I'm an Atheist because that's where the evidence has taken me." I've already shown that atheism can't be true. The universe must be eternal for atheism to be true. Science has proven the universe isn't eternal, but had a beginning. So if the universe isn't eternal, then there must be an eternal creator that created the universe. If at one point in time nothing existed, we would still have nothing to this day. So something always had to exist and it's not the universe.
MakingSandwich1 6 months ago
@MakingSandwich 1 - You sound like you're trying to convince yourself that you believe in god because these arguments are laughable. How do you explain that in 1914 27.7% scientists believed in a personal god and in 1998 that number dropped to 7%? If your scientific evidence was correct then scientists who believe would be on the rise. Please direct me to a scientific website that backs your claim that the universe was created by god. I want to hear a scientist argue this. Not you.
djangothecat 6 months ago
First, if two witness statements don't agree, it must necessarily follow that one of the statements is incorrect -- but it may equally be true neither statement is correct. Lacking any ability to confirm or falsify them *independent of the testimony itself* there's always going substantial uncertain about any claim.
2nd, if one document is derived, even partially from another, it can't stand as an independent claim, and there's reason to believe this is true of some of the gospels.
prodprod 10 months ago
history is written by winners...The Romans picked a side. There are still christians.
wondergundy 10 months ago
It was empty because Jesus doesn't exist perhaps...
kookoo78 11 months ago
I've been trying to find the other side of the Argument on this "debate".
Wouldn't you know. typical Christian censorship. I can't find it.
Drcraig videos, who I believe originated this, only seem to have released the Craig side.
I've tried to send a message to them but low and behold, more censorship, you have to be a friend before they will even accept a query.
It just demonstrates how "confident" they are in there arguments. NOT!
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 you can not bring any citation, so why should thay care to wast their time on you? You are so confident in your arguments. NOT! :-)))
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz What do you mean by citation?
If you mean my comments about drcraig videos. - Then it's obvious that you have no idea what I am referring to.
If you mean my comments on the myths of the bible. - What evidence do you want?
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 sry misspelled that one. I have not find any citation in any coments of yours, yet you ask them of others - hipocritic at best - have a nice day:-))
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz I say again, what evidence do you want?
Or are you going to run and hide like all the other christians on u-tube.
As for My comments regarding drcraig videos. All I was asking for was that if they show a debate, then in fairness, don't you think that they should show both sides of it?
After all, That is what a debate is supposed to be about, isn't it? Or maybe they are afraid of being challenged. Most u-tube christians are.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 I do not hide and seek - and do not call names and generalize people as you do and both sides are represented in Craigs dabetes when it is debate not the defense of an argument. So be atleast little bit honest in your coments.
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz Twist words however you want, but look carefully at the description.
It clearly states Quote:
"This is a short video of Dr. William Lane Craig in a DEBATE addressing the differences between the four gospels."
If it is not being shown as that, then it is not me who is being dishonest.
You say Craig's debates, show both sides.
Where is this one? I can't find it.
Also, when it comes to names. you called me a hypocrite and dishonest.
I asked you what evidence you wanted. No reply.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 so again you begin with an insult. I guess you can not communicate othervice. I called your coment dishonest and hypocritical and that is how you act in coments. I asked for a quote when making claims at first about gospels them selves and historical source - you did not provide one. If you want Craig debating with Bart Erman on the subject - philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm
girtkaz 11 months ago
Comment removed
girtkaz 11 months ago
Comment removed
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz This debate is with Bishop John Shelby Spong and I cannot find it anywhere.
If you can find it, then I will happily apologise to you.
If you can't, I will expect an apology from you for calling me dishonest.
I have to go to the airport now to pick up a friend, so you'll have plenty time to find it and if you can tell me which comments you want evidence for, I will be happy to provide it.
Unlike christians, I'm not psychic.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 mefeedia_com_watch_29642627 It took me 2min to check - hope you will be able to put dots and slashies right. Now it is your turn - But I doubt you are able to.
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz nice it worked - I thought my inet is slow:-)) lol
girtkaz 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 write "Craig debate with Bishop John Shelby Spong" in the google and you will have no problem in finding whole debate - It took me 2 min to fiend one - if you want direct link send me your email and I will give you the link. Your turn:-)) Oh The Honest One
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz Thankyou. I've found it on channels_coom. I was only looking on U-tube. I'm quite new to this, but that is no excuse and At my age, I should have known.
I apologise for doubting you, but I genuinely thought they were censoring it from the web.
you must admit, it has been known.
If you still want me to give you my evidence, the offer is still open, but I really need you to let me know which comment it is about and I'll be happy to supply it.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 I can find all the information I need, thx:-) Wanted to know what are the reasons of your attitude towards Cristianity - but i guess I got the answers.
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz Well, if you want to make that assumption, it's up to you, but I would have thought that after our mis-communication, you would have been slower to jump to conclusions.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
Comment removed
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz There you go again. Twisting my words.
WHICH PARTICULAR COMMENTS DO YOU WANT THE EVIDENCE FOR?
Sorry for shouting, but this is the 3rd time I've asked. How can you expect me to give you the evidence if I don't know which comment you want the evidence for.
As for Quote:
" If you want Craig debating with Bart Erman on the subject - philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm"
I know that one.
That's not the debate that is going on here. Cont'd.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
Comment removed
girtkaz 11 months ago
if it was truly inspired by the word of god, then all 4 gospels could be written word for word without any suspicion.
TanikAyanna 1 year ago
Comment removed
RayTech70 11 months ago
@TanikAyanna ,,Holy Prophets do not lose their personality. They are individuals with different identities and ways to express their inspired revelations. If YHWH gives me a dream and someone else the same dream, My ways to explain it would not be word for word exactly as someone else would explain it in words. The Bible is NOT a legal book but it is a Spiritual revelation of YHWH'S complex and vast depth of wisdom. When a person looks for the letter of the law, they miss the beauty of liberty
GodsSeer 11 months ago
There are really no inconsistencies in the 4 accounts of the Crucifixion of Christ. If they were word for word then one would have reason to suspect collusion and that would cast great doubt on the records. The problem is in human reasoning, misinterpretation, adding ideas, presupposition and judging by appearances.
GodsSeer 1 year ago
@GodsSeer There's only one thing wrong with the crucifixion. According to all the official roman records of the time, it never happened.
HonestMan395 1 year ago
@HonestMan395 It would be nice if you could quote one official roman source you had looked in :-))
girtkaz 11 months ago
@girtkaz I would be pleased to. Can you tell me which Roman Record you want me not to find it in.
I assume you were joking. :-))
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@girtkaz so no citation on your part, right? almost 1000 years of execution practice by crucifixion and it did not happened. nice:-)) Verrem 2:5.168
girtkaz 11 months ago
Comment removed
RayTech70 11 months ago
Comment removed
RayTech70 11 months ago
@RayTech70 Actually, the reference to Jesus in Josephus' writings has long been thought to be an insertion by an early christian copyist, to try and give a level of authenticity to the story.
As for the miracles of jesus, they were a straight copy from other gods like Mithra(s), horus and many more.
The parables were lifted almost word for word from the teachings of the Essenes and even the bible itself proves that the Nativity is most unlikely to have happened as it told. cont'd.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
Comment removed
RayTech70 11 months ago
@RayTech70 Unfortunately, U-tube doesn't seem to like URL's other than it's own, but if you google Josephus or Tacitus or pliny the younger, it will lead you on to other things.
Good hunting.
I too was a christian once, but I don't believe that Religion in any form is the answer to the world's problems. It never was in the past, it isn't now, so I see no reason to expect that it will be any more uniting in the future.
Laws protecting the individual have always come from secular governments.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@RayTech70 A useful tip on U-tube and the internet as a whole.
Don't just accept the first site you come to as being accurate.
I may be cynical, but i've learned not to accept anything I'm told, unless it is confirmed by at least 2 other independant sources, more is even better, if you can find them.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@RayTech70 And there is no mention at all of Jesus in any Roman official record of that time.
In fact, as well as there being no independant contemporary writers of the time who even mention jesus in passing, all references to jesus, including those in the bible itself which include the gospels, come from writers got their information 2nd & 3rd hand and who never actually met him. Some weren't even born when Jesus was supposedly alive. Cont'd.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@RayTech70 Quote: "Rome was famous for burning evidence if it made a ruler look bad."
I agree, but history has shown us that something always slips through. The lack of corroborating evidence from ANY contemporary source is unusual, to say the least, and the burning of the records is exactly the same reason given by apologists to explain the lack of evidence for the Exodus in the old testament.
If a story is good, why not use it again. :)
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 , EVIDENCE FROM ROMAN SOURCES:
Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44: Christus ... was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.
Lucian of Samosata: (Christ was) the man who was crucified in Israel.
hese men were professional historians. They researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ's crucifixion.
GodsSeer 11 months ago
@GodsSeer I did say OFFICIAL Roman sources. The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet there is no mention of Jesus in any OFFICIAL Roman records.
Also, there were over 40 philosophers and writers that we know of around the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived.
Just supposing that there was someone who was making as big a splash as Jesus is supposed to have made; speaking to massive crowds, healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, etc. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 , KNOW YHWH, He speaks to me, I have seen and worked over 60 miracles THAT DEFY THE NATURAL. Lu 8:10 And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that 'Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'
GodsSeer 11 months ago
@GodsSeer So after all that time I spent answering your question, all you can come up with is superstitious platitudes.
Well if i t makes you feel better, good luck, but if your only answer to a challenge is to cut and run, it doesn't say much for your knowledge of your religion.
By the way, ALL of Jesus' Parables were taken verbatim from the releigious sect, the Essenes, who predated him by many years.
As for miracles, they are nothing more than co-incidences. Cont'd.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 ,I do not believe that historical records are 100% true as humans are prone to bias and lying. It is not a co-incidence when a blind woman who never saw before, can be healed by prayer. Since you are comfortable in your state of sin, stay there and stop trying to convince others to THINK you are really happy. You have to face death someday. Who is in more trouble if you or I am wrong?
GodsSeer 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Quote: "I do not believe that historical records are 100% true as humans are prone to bias and lying."
I totally agree, especially the writers of the bible, which is not only inaccurate, it is full of deliberate inventions, like the Exodusand the nativity and the cruci'fiction'
As for the woman who couldn't see. If that is true, show your evidence? After all, something like that would certainly have made the news.
Give your references or withdraw. And Oh! I am REALLY happy.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 Its individual choice to believe YHWH or not. I choose to believe His Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit. You are happy now? Good for you. I am happy now. Good for me. I KNOW what some go through after they reject, the liberty of casting off restraint,the FEELING of elation of being free from any authority over you. I have seen people go through that and its always the same, until they are dying, and fear overtakes them and they cannot find peace even if they seek with tears.
GodsSeer 11 months ago
@GodsSeer You carry on believing in your little fantasy world if it stops you fearing for the future.
As I said before. The bible is not the inspired word of any god.
It is the frightened scribblings of ignorant bronze age peasants that has been constantly added to, modified and just plain invented, to pacify the fears of frightened gullkible people throughout the ages.
it started with a myth (Adam & Eve), it continued with another myth (The exodus) and has gone on in that vein ever since.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Quote: "You have to face death someday."
I know I do, probably sooner than you, but then so will you.
Quote: "Who is in more trouble if you or I am wrong?"
We are both in the same trouble. Oblivion.
If heaven meant spending eternity with people like you, it woiuld be my hell.
If you believe only because you are expecting heaven, it doesn't say much for you as a moral person and ethical person.
morality with god is good. Morality without god is much better.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Oh!, did i mention that I was really happy.
Actually, I'm much happier than I ever was when I was a believer.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Even miracles at lourdes, after 152 yrs and millions of pilgims, only come to a total of 67.
That's not even what could be expected by spontaneous remissions, a well known medical phenomenon.
Some pilgrims have even died earlier than they would have otherwise, due to the stress of the journey. Some miracles.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Don’t you think that it just might have created some interest with someone, in what was, in reality, a highly controlled and regulated police state.
Yet there is NOT ONE contemporary writer who was alive DURING Jesus' supposed life, who even mentions him in passing.
Tacitus was writing over 100 years after the supposed event and he was not writing about Jesus, but about the persecution by Nero of a sect called Christians. The name Jesus is NEVER mentioned. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Also, He was not quoting from official Roman records, because therer aren’t any, but rather gossip and stories that were around at the time.
He refers in passing to founder of the sect as Christus (Christ), but that is a Greek term meaning anointed one, which was used to describe many historical religious leaders.
These include the Egyptian god Horus, whose life, strangely enough, mirrors Jesus' almost exactly and which would have been well known at the time. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Christian apologetics state that a lot of his writings are missing, including a work, which covers the years 29-32AD, at least 24 yrs before he was born, in which the trial of Jesus would have been written about, had he recorded it.
Some historians consider Tacitus’ Annals Book XV, Sec. 44 is actually a later interpolation. None of his writings are quoted by the early Christian fathers. In fact he is not quoted by ANY Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century CE. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer At this time only one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.
As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy of which it bears the unmistakeable stamp. This was common and would not have been considered dishonest at that time. There are many other reasons why Tacitus is not reliable. If you want more, I will be glad to send you a full list. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer As for Lucian of Samosata. Very little of his life can be verified with any degree of accuracy, but he was known as a fiction writer and satirist. In his works, he refers to himself as a "Syrian", "Assyrian" and “Barbarian", perhaps indicating "he was from the Semitic and not the imported Greek population" of Samosata.
Whatever he was , he was not a straightforward historian. He was an admirer of Epicurus who was well known in his lifetime to be an atheist. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer Lucian’s mention of Christianity appears in a FICTIONAL satire called “The Passing of Peregrinus.”
This is one of the earliest surviving pagan perceptions of christianity. But it was not meant to be a historical account of Christianity. It was intended to mock and insult Christians. In it, the lead character, “Peregrinas Proteus”, takes advantage of the generosity and gullibility of Christians. Sorry, but It looks like nothing much has changed through the centuries.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@HonestMan395 I KNOW HIM. I KNOW Him personally. I have NO doubt., He reveals Himself to me in more ways than miracles. He speaks to me. Mt 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
GodsSeer 11 months ago
@GodsSeer That's fine. If you cannot face life without your delusions. you're welcome to them.
Personally, I prefer to see the world of reality, rather than waste all my life waiting for something better to come along afterwards.
but please, don't spout platitudes from that total work of fiction called the bible, expecting intelligent people to believe them.
Even ignoring the supposed "miraculous" events, it isn't even historically accurate.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
@GodsSeer There's an interesting quotation by Phil Slattery.
"To have an invisible friend at the age of eight is charming and not a cause for concern.
To have an invisible friend in adulthood IS, however, a grave cause for concern and could even be considered psychotic.
So how exactly does giving them the name of a deity change that opinion?"
HonestMan395 11 months ago
Comment removed
HonestMan395 11 months ago
Comment removed
RayTech70 11 months ago
@RayTech70 ,,We are in an exclusive club, so to speak; Joh 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
GodsSeer 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodsSeer Quote: "There are really no inconsistencies in the 4 accounts of the Crucifixion of Christ."
Other than the fact that there is no record of it from any official roman scource, and the accounts in the gospels were written years after by people who never knew him and weren't even there.
HonestMan395 11 months ago
LMFAO! This 'tard thinks that inconsistencies can be "harmonized" but uncovering inconsistencies is of little use (being akin to a brain surgeon using a machete?). To use the brain surgery analogy, it seems that the former is akin to a frontal lobotomy! Hahaha! Is this the best theistic tards can do?
Remember folks! Philosophy begins when theology and apologetics ends.
Mthooz 1 year ago 2
So, inconsistencies coupled with consistencies allows us to turn a blind-eye to the inconsistencies and blindly follow the consistencies. Awesome! Makes about as much sense as the trinity.
tadpoleposition 1 year ago 19
@tadpoleposition I don't know this for sure but there's a good chance that you're retarded lol.
jcwatch23 1 year ago
Comment removed
RayTech70 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RayTech70 "You hold a classic liberal / progressive / atheist view..."
Nope, none of the above. Just doing what Jesus did. I have submitted to and am worshipping the Creator of Jesus. The One True God of whom there is no other worthy of worship besides Him and He has no equal or co-equal.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@RayTech70 "You hold a classic liberal / progressive / atheist view..."
Nope, none of the above. I'm ding what Jesus did. I have submitted to the will of and am worshipping the Creator of Jesus. The One True God of whom there is no other worthy of worship and He has no equal or co-equal. He feels no fatigue and no slumber nor sleep overtakes Him.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition Here is an example: If we each saw a 2 men standing on the road and 1 was holding a sign that read " I will work for food" Now in retelling the story, I mention that I saw a man holding a sign saying "I will work for food" There may appear to be an inconsistency that I didn't mention the other man, but that is simply in the details I chose not to expound upon. The story in itself is not inconsistent to what actually happened.
Krydan2167 11 months ago