scientists try to explain buring bush, parted sea

[Jango]

Quote[/b] ]
Wow, I'm willing to bet that many of your Christian peers here would disagree with you. You take your religion soley on faith, huh? Interesting.

That is what the Bible tells us to do. If any religions could be proven, there would be no one not in that religion.

Quote[/b] ]Why is Christianity correct, and why should anyone believe in it over anything else?

What religion has a God that loves everyone, regardless of their actions? What religion has a God who cares, and is with us all the time? That's right, Christianity.

 

[timor]

Thank you, Jango, for giving incredibly vague, unsatisfying answers that actually in no way address my questions. I mean, first you're begging the question and assuming the Bible is the word of "god". Then, you begin to describe some god that I've certainly never read about in the Bible. Finally, describing this god does not explain why this god exists, or why Christianity is correct, as opposed to the other world religions.

 

[Jango]

I'm sorry, but being a thirteen year old I'm not going to be able to give indepth answers. I can tell you one thing, though. He exists because He exists, that is all.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Jango @ Feb. 27 2004,6:29)]I'm sorry, but being a thirteen year old I'm not going to be able to give indepth answers. I can tell you one thing, though. He exists because He exists, that is all.

Profound, and totally illogical.

The invisible pink flying unicorn exists, because she exists. I know she is invisible, because I cannot see her. I have faith that she is pink.

It's all the same =\

 

[Eon]

I think we need to give Jango some space here. The only question I would ask you, Jango, is why you believe what you believe, and how you came to know the things you know about your beliefs?

Was it a parent? A local preacher? I don't believe you studied your way to your faith - because you aren't prepared with the arguments to defend your conclusions. It must have been an influential figure in your life that taught you the things you now accept as truth.

 

[timor]

Sorry, Eon. I guess you're right, seeing as how he's thirteen (no sarcasm). I'm not used to this whole "space-giving" dealie, because I usually get none from and give none to the people I debate

So yes, Jango, please answer Eon's questions if you get a chance.

 

[Jango]

Yeah, from parents and a teacher. I was brought up believing in God, but I haven't been a born again Christian for more then a year..

 

[timor]

And what did they say that convinced you so? Did you ever consider the possibility that they were wrong? And, a rehashing of my original question, did you ever look at other religions? Why are your parents and teacher, and consequently Christianity, correct?

 

[Jango]

It's not really one thing they said. No, I didn't look at other religions. The only reason I can give you for them being Christians is that's just the one they chose.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]So tell me, how did you choose to put your faith in Christianity, rather than Islam, or Hinduism, et al? Why is Christianity correct, and why should anyone believe in it over anything else? Mind you, you must make no rational argument in your defense, as to do so would clash with your profession of "faith alone".

Christianity has the oldest book known to man. Further development of Archeology continues to corroborate christianity. The existence of Jesus Christ is fact. It only takes faith to believe he was indeed God. All other religions say the way to heaven is through doing good deeds, and I have yet to find a perfect person good enough to go to heaven.

Quote[/b] ]And what did they say that convinced you so? Did you ever consider the possibility that they were wrong? And, a rehashing of my original question, did you ever look at other religions? Why are your parents and teacher, and consequently Christianity, correct?

Your so quick to be condescending of this kids faith and point the finger. Did you ever consider the possibility that your wrong? Your throwing down peoples beliefs, but I haven't heard yours yet. Why don't you give us your explanation to the existence of a enormous ball of rock that contains living animals that interact together that looks pretty darn sophisticated to me.

 

[timor]

First of all, Master Plan, it is only the "oldest book known to man" if you take, by faith, that it was. I'd love for you to prove this.

Second, old age and archaeological accuracy, assuming it is accurate, does not make the Bible the word of god. Prove that it does.

Prove the Bible is archaeologically accurate.

Prove the existence of Jesus. The existence of Jesus is very far from a fact -- indeed, it's very hard to believe.

To believe he's god, you have to first prove that there is a god. Go for it.

Master, the burden of proof is not on me. However, if you'd like to read my story, you can read it here: http://www.infidelguy.com/modules....red.#16

I am an atheist. I see no proof for any "god", nor have I yet heard a sufficient definition of any such a being. As I've said before, the burden of proof is not on me. I do not make the fantastic claims of gods, miracles, and the like. My explanation for "the existence of an enormous ball of rock that contains living animals that interact together that looks pretty darn sophisticated to you?" Dude, cut the sarcasm for one thing. For another, I don't claim to have all the answers -- its religion that does. Just because I don't know the answers to everything doesn't mean that Christianity is correct -- there is no dichotomy. Personally, I tend to believe that the universe has always existed in some form or another. The Law of the Conservation of Energy and the famous equation E=mc^2 both lend themselves well to this view. I find the idea of a big bang being very credible. I think life probably arose from a swirling pool of amino acids, etc. Once life formed, I'm pretty sure it evolved to what we have now. But before you even think of trying to attack what I've just said, please defend yourself, first. Even if you were to somehow disprove everything I've just stated I believe, you'd still have the trouble of proving all of your fantastic claims.

By the way, feel free to substitute "Give evidence for" in place of "Prove" in this post.

 

[timor]

Here's a post a freind of mine at the forums at www.infidelguy.com made. Thanks to Christ (todangst) for this great summation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
There is actually very little proof that someone named Jesus really existed. The sole evidence we have are the biblical accounts of him that were written anywhere from 50 to 100 years after he supposedly lived. And even in this case, the purported evidence is often nothing more than dreams or visions. (See Paul).

This is not a trivial point, and I don't make it lightly. Christian historians have been bothered by the lack of historical evidence for jesus for centuries. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived"

Caius Suetonius
Josephus
Philo-Judæus (see my entry on him)
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus (see my entry on him)
Hermogones
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Justus of Tiberias

And, according to Remsburg, "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

None of the gospels are contemporary accounts, they all were written by the end of the first century, and into the second.

They are all also anonymous.

So we have no first hand accounts.

And all that we do have (outside of paul's writings) is anonymous.

The book of "Mark", the first gospel, makes no mention of Jesus after his supposed death.

No one alive when Jesus supposedly lived ever mentions seeing Jesus or hearing Jesus -- or even hearing about Jesus!

They don't mention the star that heralded his birth.

They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.

They don't mention crowds gathered to hear him preach.

They don't mention his trial.

They don't mention his crucifixion.

They don't mention his resurrection.

They never mention anything he said, or anywhere he went, or anything he thought, or anything he did.

No one alive when Jesus lived ever mentions him at all.

The philosopher Philo, who lived until about 50 CE and wrote of unusual sects like the Essenes, has nothing to say about Jesus.

Pliny the Elder (died 79 CE) collected data on all manner of natural and astronomical phenomena, even those which were legendary and which he himself did not necessarily regard as factual, but he records no prodigies associated with the beliefs of Christians, such as an earthquake or darkening of the skies at a crucifixion, or any star of Bethlehem.

Epictetus, the great Stoic philosopher who preached universal brotherhood to the poor and humble masses, records not a word about jesus.

Nor does Seneca, the empire's leading ethicist during the reign of Nero, make reference to such a figure.

No one alive when Jesus lived ever mentions him at all.

There is NO information for later historians to draw upon. Nothing. Not a word.

All that has evolved, that could have evolved, comes from legend.

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
     "They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.
     Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:
     "Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."

Quote[/b] ]The first of these, usually rated as the greatest of Roman historians, was Cornelius Tacitus, who was born about A.D. 52-54. At about the age of sixty, while writing of the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), he told how the Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64. It had been rumored that Nero had himself started the fire so that he could attain to glory by rebuilding the great capital city in more glorious fashion. When Tacitus wrote about this, he mentioned Jesus by the name of Christus:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus. 7

To Tacitus, a pagan who knew little or nothing of Jewish messianism, "Christus" was more than likely only a proper name; but to him, Christus was as real as the Roman procurator who executed him.

Quote[/b] ]C. Plinius Secundus, called Pliny the Younger to distinguish him from his uncle, the elder Pliny, was governor of Bithynia about A.D.112. He often wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking his Imperial advice on how best to deal with the problem of the
Christians in his province. According to him, they were causing trouble. In one of his
letters, he spoke of Christ as he reported of some information which he extracted from some Christian girls by torture, "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound
themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed . . . after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary kind."8

7. The Annals and the Histories, 15:44. From Britannica Great Books, Vol. 15, p. 168.
8. Epistles, 10:96.

Pliny seemed to be perplexed by the innocence of the whole matter, and perhaps to keep from countermanding any governmental policies about Christians, he thought it best to write to the Emperor before taking any action.

Quote[/b] ]There is also a testimony to the historical Jesus from Suetonius, annalist and court official of the Imperial House during the reign of Hadrian. About A.D.120, he wrote the Life of Claudius. From this work comes his most famous statement: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."9 The reason for the fame of this quotation is due to the fact that Luke, some sixty years earlier, had recorded this same incident as the reason for the apostle Paul yoking up with a Christian Jewish couple named Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-2). Again, the mention of Christ in the historical context is observed in extra- biblical literature.

Quote[/b] ]1. The Talmud

There are two separate books of writings dealing with Jewish law called the Talmud. The first of these is the Mishnah, which is the Jewish code of religious jurisprudence. It began to be compiled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and was completed about A.D. 200. This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called Gemaras. Together, the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to "Yeshu'a of Nazareth" in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality.

Quote[/b] ]2. Josephus

The most important references to the historical Jesus from a Jewish source is from a former Jewish general turned historian by the name of Flavius Josephus. In his writings he tells us who he was, what he did, and his own evaluation of a historian. He wrote of many of the outstanding persons we read of in the New Testament: Pilate; Quirinius of Syria (during whose governorship Rome enrolled the Empire for taxation purposes); the Caesars; the Herods; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; Annas and
Caiaphas, who had Jesus crucified; Felix and Festus, under whose governorships the apostle Paul was arrested and before whom he spoke of Jesus; Jesus' brother, James; and John the Baptist.

Most significant is his reference to Jesus himself in the following words:

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with
pleasure. He won over many Jews and also many Greeks.
This man was the Messiah. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the instigation of our own leaders, those who had loved him from the first did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the prophets had predicted and said many other wonderful things about him. And even now the race of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out. 11

11. Antiquities, 18, 3.3.

All attempts to discredit this reference to Jesus as having been dressed up by a Christian copiest have failed. The reference is included in all of the manuscripts of Josephus, including the copy from which the fourth-century historian, Eusebius, read and quoted.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, Master Plan, it is only the "oldest book known to man" if you take, by faith, that it was. I'd love for you to prove this.

ever hear of the dead sea scrolls?

Quote[/b] ]The oldest known object with a fragment of Torah is a good luck charm, inscribed with Num 6:24-6:27, and dated to approximately 600 BCE (Dever, p. 180). Though whole copies of the Bible were not found at Qumran, the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained versions of many books of the Hebrew Bible. The Scrolls have been dated from the third century BCE to 68 CE.

Quote[/b] ]Second, old age and archaeological accuracy, assuming it is accurate, does not make the Bible the word of god. Prove that it does.

hmm, pretty sure I said corroborate, and not "prove"

Quote[/b] ]Prove the Bible is archaeologically accurate.Prove the existence of Jesus. The existence of Jesus is very far from a fact -- indeed, it's very hard to believe.

actually I was just reading an interesting article that discovery posted on thier web site, check it out for yourself: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html

Quote[/b] ]For another, I don't claim to have all the answers -- its religion that does.

The thing about that is, Christianity says we can't know everything, and we need faith to fully accept it. That does not mean it is 100% based on faith...

Quote[/b] ]I find the idea of a big bang being very credible.

thats interesting. I think it takes more faith to believe in that than a Creator. What makes it "credible"?

Quote[/b] ]There is actually very little proof that someone named Jesus really existed. The sole evidence we have are the biblical accounts of him that were written anywhere from 50 to 100 years after he supposedly lived. And even in this case, the purported evidence is often nothing more than dreams or visions. (See Paul).

Its true that the biographies of Jesuse were not written from 50-100 years after his death, but you have to keep in mind the time period. They didn't have the internet, or printing presses. Historical history was handed down by mouth. Consider the first biography of Alaxander the Great. It was not written until 400 years after his death in 323 BC, and historians count them as trustworthy. His history was carried by mouth for 400 years. 50-100 years is still in the lifetime of the original eye witnesses.

Quote[/b] ]And, according to Remsburg, "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

Thats not true. I haven't heard of the marjority of those historians but the second one ,Josephus, Did write about Jesus...

Quote[/b] ]They are all also anonymous.

So we have no first hand accounts.

if by anonymous you mean they didn't say "I Mark am writing this book" your rite... but by logic we can deduce the authors.
and everyone who was titled as a desciple had a first hand accounts with Jesus, I don't know what that claim is based on.

Looks like you had a lot of steam to blow off. I'm sorry in my last post I came off a bit angry.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Thaddius @ Feb. 29 2004,12:12)]

Quote[/b] ]What evidence do we have the he existed? The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44.
Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ. Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says:
"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve."

Quote[/b] ]The first of these, usually rated as the greatest of Roman historians, was Cornelius Tacitus, who was born about A.D. 52-54. At about the age of sixty, while writing of the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), he told how the Christians were made scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64. It had been rumored that Nero had himself started the fire so that he could attain to glory by rebuilding the great capital city in more glorious fashion. When Tacitus wrote about this, he mentioned Jesus by the name of Christus:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus. 7

To Tacitus, a pagan who knew little or nothing of Jewish messianism, "Christus" was more than likely only a proper name; but to him, Christus was as real as the Roman procurator who executed him.

Quote[/b] ]C. Plinius Secundus, called Pliny the Younger to distinguish him from his uncle, the elder Pliny, was governor of Bithynia about A.D.112. He often wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking his Imperial advice on how best to deal with the problem of the
Christians in his province. According to him, they were causing trouble. In one of his
letters, he spoke of Christ as he reported of some information which he extracted from some Christian girls by torture, "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound
themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed . . . after which it was their custom to separate, and then meet again to partake of food, but food of an ordinary kind."8

7. The Annals and the Histories, 15:44. From Britannica Great Books, Vol. 15, p. 168.
8. Epistles, 10:96.

Pliny seemed to be perplexed by the innocence of the whole matter, and perhaps to keep from countermanding any governmental policies about Christians, he thought it best to write to the Emperor before taking any action.

Quote[/b] ]There is also a testimony to the historical Jesus from Suetonius, annalist and court official of the Imperial House during the reign of Hadrian. About A.D.120, he wrote the Life of Claudius. From this work comes his most famous statement: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."9 The reason for the fame of this quotation is due to the fact that Luke, some sixty years earlier, had recorded this same incident as the reason for the apostle Paul yoking up with a Christian Jewish couple named Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-2). Again, the mention of Christ in the historical context is observed in extra- biblical literature.

Quote[/b] ]1. The Talmud

There are two separate books of writings dealing with Jewish law called the Talmud. The first of these is the Mishnah, which is the Jewish code of religious jurisprudence. It began to be compiled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and was completed about A.D. 200. This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called Gemaras. Together, the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to "Yeshu'a of Nazareth" in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality.

Quote[/b] ]2. Josephus

The most important references to the historical Jesus from a Jewish source is from a former Jewish general turned historian by the name of Flavius Josephus. In his writings he tells us who he was, what he did, and his own evaluation of a historian. He wrote of many of the outstanding persons we read of in the New Testament: Pilate; Quirinius of Syria (during whose governorship Rome enrolled the Empire for taxation purposes); the Caesars; the Herods; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; Annas and
Caiaphas, who had Jesus crucified; Felix and Festus, under whose governorships the apostle Paul was arrested and before whom he spoke of Jesus; Jesus' brother, James; and John the Baptist.

Most significant is his reference to Jesus himself in the following words:

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with
pleasure. He won over many Jews and also many Greeks.
This man was the Messiah. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross at the instigation of our own leaders, those who had loved him from the first did not cease. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again, as the prophets had predicted and said many other wonderful things about him. And even now the race of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out. 11

11. Antiquities, 18, 3.3.

All attempts to discredit this reference to Jesus as having been dressed up by a Christian copiest have failed. The reference is included in all of the manuscripts of Josephus, including the copy from which the fourth-century historian, Eusebius, read and quoted.

Thaddius, none of those are contemporary accounts, and most refer only to Christians, the followers of the supposed Christ. Notice in my post how many contemporary, big-shot historians never mentioned Jesus, nor did they mention things such as the star that heralded his birth nor Herod's slaughter of the children. Silence speaks volumes. As for Josephus, considering the fact that he was Jewish and would not be calling Jesus "the Christ", many scholars agree that that clause was added later by Christians.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]First of all, Master Plan, it is only the "oldest book known to man" if you take, by faith, that it was. I'd love for you to prove this.

ever hear of the dead sea scrolls?

Quote[/b] ]The oldest known object with a fragment of Torah is a good luck charm, inscribed with Num 6:24-6:27, and dated to approximately 600 BCE (Dever, p. 180). Though whole copies of the Bible were not found at Qumran, the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained versions of many books of the Hebrew Bible. The Scrolls have been dated from the third century BCE to 68 CE.

Umm, buddy, there are texts much older than this...try the Hindu Vedas.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Prove the Bible is archaeologically accurate.Prove the existence of Jesus. The existence of Jesus is very far from a fact -- indeed, it's very hard to believe.

actually I was just reading an interesting article that discovery posted on thier web site, check it out for yourself: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html

Archaeology Magazine had a great, lengthy article on this last year when it was a hot topic explaining how it was uncovered to be a forgery. If you don't believe me, feel free to do some research. Hell, they found his equipment in his apartment. Without sarcasm, I really cannot believe some people are still circulating this story.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]For another, I don't claim to have all the answers -- its religion that does.

The thing about that is, Christianity says we can't know everything, and we need faith to fully accept it. That does not mean it is 100% based on faith...

I've already addressed the whole issue of faith being combined with reason...it doesn't work. Faith is, by its very nature, illogical. Besides, that was not my point. You are the one attempting to definitively explain the workings of the universe, not me.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I find the idea of a big bang being very credible.

thats interesting. I think it takes more faith to believe in that than a Creator. What makes it "credible"?

Well, for one thing, the big bang theory is an actual scientific theory. The big bang theory is falsifiable. The big bang theory can be used to make predictions. The big bang's effects, should it have occured, may be observed. Take, for example, our expanding universe. There's obviously a lot more to it than that, but you get the idea. Creationism offers none of this. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. It is not falsifiable and can make no predictions about the world. Many Christians even (perhaps accidently) concede this point (even "Dr." Dino!), explaining that the world right after creation was very different from the way the world is now. You simply cannot produce any evidence to actually support a six day creation, and if you can, it has not yet been done.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]There is actually very little proof that someone named Jesus really existed. The sole evidence we have are the biblical accounts of him that were written anywhere from 50 to 100 years after he supposedly lived. And even in this case, the purported evidence is often nothing more than dreams or visions. (See Paul).

Its true that the biographies of Jesuse were not written from 50-100 years after his death, but you have to keep in mind the time period. They didn't have the internet, or printing presses. Historical history was handed down by mouth. Consider the first biography of Alaxander the Great. It was not written until 400 years after his death in 323 BC, and historians count them as trustworthy. His history was carried by mouth for 400 years. 50-100 years is still in the lifetime of the original eye witnesses.

What original eye witnesses? Those five hundred who apparently saw Jesus during his forty last days on earth never wrote anything down, that's for sure! Furthermore, lack of the internet is a terrible excuse for a lack of contemporary accounts. Contemporary accounts could very well have been written -- unfortunately for you, they were not. Even supposing he did live, 50 years allows one's mind to elaborate quite a bit, neh?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And, according to Remsburg, "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

Thats not true. I haven't heard of the marjority of those historians but the second one ,Josephus, Did write about Jesus...

You've never heard of those historians...? Wow. Anyways, I've already addressed Josephus.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]They are all also anonymous.

So we have no first hand accounts.

if by anonymous you mean they didn't say "I Mark am writing this book" your rite... but by logic we can deduce the authors.
and everyone who was titled as a desciple had a first hand accounts with Jesus, I don't know what that claim is based on.

Interesting. Please explain to me, the unenlightened, how the whole "deducing" process went down.

 

[Thaddius]

Quote[/b] ]As for Josephus, considering the fact that he was Jewish and would not be calling Jesus "the Christ", many scholars agree that that clause was added later by Christians.

You mean many athiests agree...

Nothing will ever be enough proof for you Timor. We could exhaust ourselves with every amount of evidence that has been brought forth up to today and you would find some loophole or reason not to believe it because you have no faith. You have chosen not to believe. God could come down from heaven Himself and you would still deny He existed.

I knew better than to respond to one of your posts, its a complete waste of time and energy on my part. shame on me.

Cory

 

[timor]

Btw, no steam blowing, this is just how I debate online. Don't worry, I'm not getting mad or anything...you'll know if you piss me off, because the filter will start going crazy

 

[Grand Master]

Quote[/b] ] God could come down from heaven Himself and you would still deny He existed.

Do you mean to say that god himself would be unable to convince an atheist of his existence? That is a ridiculous statement if you believe in an omnipotent god.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Thaddius @ Feb. 29 2004,1:06)]

Quote[/b] ]As for Josephus, considering the fact that he was Jewish and would not be calling Jesus "the Christ", many scholars agree that that clause was added later by Christians.

You mean many athiests agree...

Nothing will ever be enough proof for you Timor. We could exhaust ourselves with every amount of evidence that has been brought forth up to today and you would find some loophole or reason not to believe it because you have no faith. You have chosen not to believe. God could come down from heaven Himself and you would still deny He existed.

I knew better than to respond to one of your posts, its a complete waste of time and energy on my part. shame on me.

Cory

What the hell? I refute a single one of your posts on my second day back, and already you're not gonna talk to me anymore? Dude, that's pathetic. A Muslim could say the exact same thing to you, you do realize that, don't you? You know that I was once a Christian. I didn't go out trying to disprove my own religion. The more I studied it in hopes of greater knowledge, the more I saw through it. But whatever, keep living in your fantasy land where your god exists and you don't have to explain yourself to anybody.

This is the reason I left in the first place -- rather than debating, finding the flaws in my arguments, and actually supporting the ridiculous assertions you make, you simply say "You have no faith, you're a waste of time." I guess I'll tell Jesus that Thaddius didn't want to waste his time on me when he asks me why I didn't believe. Sucks to be you on judgement day, Thaddius. After all, Hell is eternal seperation from god -- I won't mind that a bit. I sure hope you join me...

Oh, and even if Jesus did exist, that's a very small hurdle to jump....it only creates many, many more problems, because it makes the New Testament worth looking at. But since you won't be wasting your time on me, I won't be wasting my time on you. I guess I shouldn't have returned, eh? 'Tis ashame.