Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Dear Christians,


The Silent One

Recommended Posts

Hello dear friends. As I've noticed throughout the Christian belief structure, there seems to be a lot of turning to the Bible to prove God. I'd like to explain my thoughts on this, and offer a small challenge.

 

I believe that to accept the Bible as true - and therefore for the proof within it to be accurate, and the 'fulfilled' prophecies within it to be considered anything more than chance and coincidence, we first have to establish its authenticity.

 

This requires 2 things: Proving God exists - and proving that God is the author/inspiration of the Bible. However, 2 authenticate a document - you need an outside source - rather than the document itself.

 

I challenge you therefore, to provide me with non-biblical evidences, recordings and proof that 1) God exists (if this is proving to dificult for you, you may ignore this point, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically accept God's existing a priori.) 2) He is the Christian God, and the Bible is his inspired word.

 

The conditions of this are as such: The Bible is not to be used, or referenced as a source. No scriptures, no prophecies, nothing from the Bible.

 

I eagerly look forward to any information you can provide me with.

 

Thank you, TSO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    10

  • pug

    10

  • Antlerman

    9

  • Mythra

    8

I challenge you therefore, to provide me with non-biblical evidences, recordings and proof that 1) God exists (if this is proving to dificult for you, you may ignore this point, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically accept God's existing a priori.) 2) He is the Christian God, and the Bible is his inspired word.

 

The conditions of this are as such: The Bible is not to be used, or referenced as a source. No scriptures, no prophecies, nothing from the Bible.

 

I eagerly look forward to any information you can provide me with.

 

Thank you, TSO

 

If a Christian accepts your challenge, this person will really be on thin ice. It is of course true, that many Christians (especially radical protestants such as Baptists) do turn to their bibles all the time as a source of authority in all kinds of matters.

 

But it has not always been so. Before the reformation the source of authority was the Church institution. The Church claimed to have it's authority from Jesus who had appointed the apostle Peter as leader of the Church. And Peter had then appointed successors, who had appointed successors etc. In that way, the bishops of the Church were successors of Jesus Christ. (Apostolic succession)

 

The Catholic churches still look at it this way, but during the reformation the protestants had to establish another authority than the existing church tradition. Therefore Martin Luther and John Calvin developed the idea, that scripture had a special place and weight within church tradition, so scripture could be used to correct all the other elements of the church tradition. But in questions where scripture wasn't clear, they still used church tradtion as a guide for interpretation.

 

A good example of this is, that Luther and Calvin did accept childrens baptism, because they did not find anything in the bible against it.

 

But some people (radical protestants) went further and did not want to have anything to do with church tradtion. They blieved, that the could find everything they needed in the bible.

 

But quite frankly, such christians do not really understand what they are doing. It should be clear for everybody, that a document (the bible, the American constituttion or whatever) can have no value apart from the context where it is designed to be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WORK WHEN WRITTEN EARLIEST COPY TIME SPAN # COPIES

Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643

New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years 24,000+

 

 

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html

 

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible2.html

 

 

The Old Testament, unfortunately, does not share the wealth of manuscript evidence that the New Testament possesses. However, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries, along with ancient Hebrew sources that quote from the Old Testament, we are assured that it is in the same form as it was in Jesus' day.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves included almost all of the Old Testament canon and they date from 250B.C. to 100A.D. Also, the copies of the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the Old Testament written about 250B.C., show the text we have today has been nearly perfectly preserved.

 

 

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

 

 

Next, we must look at the facts of history and see whether the Bible reports these accurately. If this truly is a book written by God, then the facts must be presented unerringly. We have many written sources outside the Bible that corroborate its documentation. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century.

 

He not only preserves many traditions about events that are mentioned in the Old Testament, but also corroborates the existence of John the Baptist(Ant. XVIII.5.2), where it also mentions that Herod had him imprisoned and put to death. He also mentions James as the brother of Jesus along with his death by the high priest Annas(Ant. XX 9:1). Lastly, he mentions Jesus himself, who he characterizes as "a wise man". He further reports that people viewed Him as the Christ and that Jesus appeared to His disciples three days after Pilate put Him to death(Ant. XVIII.33).

 

Remember, Josephus is a Jew, and would be adverse to Christianity and its message.

 

 

 

:woohoo: KNOCK yourself out with this link ~~

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

He not only preserves many traditions about events that are mentioned in the Old Testament, but also corroborates the existence of John the Baptist(Ant. XVIII.5.2), where it also mentions that Herod had him imprisoned and put to death. He also mentions James as the brother of Jesus along with his death by the high priest Annas(Ant. XX 9:1). Lastly, he mentions Jesus himself, who he characterizes as "a wise man". He further reports that people viewed Him as the Christ and that Jesus appeared to His disciples three days after Pilate put Him to death(Ant. XVIII.33).

 

Remember, Josephus is a Jew, and would be adverse to Christianity and its message.

:woohoo: KNOCK yourself out with this link ~~

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

 

The Forgeries of Flavius Josephus? There's little ex-biblical evidence or mention of Jesus. You're just learning what they'd like you to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

 

3. You decide what is logical and what is not. This principle allows for the much speculation. If it does not seem logical to you that men can walk on the water then Jesus did not walk on the water.

 

That statement was probably the most truthful, non-biased piece of information on the page. This statement can be applied to the bible in its entirety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, Josephus is a Jew, and would be adverse to Christianity and its message.

:woohoo: KNOCK yourself out with this link ~~

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

 

That's because the entries in Antiquities about Jesus have been disregarded as forgeries. Eusebius (known later for forging documents in Christian favor) found these passages and brought them to the Church so he would then receive another pat on the back and a blow job. The terminology that Josephus supposedly used in these passages did not correlate with the rest of his writings. He was referring to Jesus in ways that only a Christian would, not a Jew. Here is a modern example to show what I mean....Can you spot where the fundy forged the Catholic mass reading??

 

O, Mary, the Mother of God, you have great ruling over the heavens and earth. Haaalleluuuujah!! Glory to Gawd!! You have come here-ah! To be saved-ah! wait a minute, now!.. I said to be saaaaaved-ah! O, Mary, hear our prayer, May the eucharist become the actual body of Christ in us.

 

This is why passage 18 and 20 in Antiquities have been discarded as forgeries, they are too out of place, in terms of terminology and cadence, to have actually been written by Josephus himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He not only preserves many traditions about events that are mentioned in the Old Testament, but also corroborates the existence of John the Baptist

 

Here you are taking something that is, basically accepted as truth (Josephus mentions John the Baptist), and then forming a conclusion that is based on a faulty assumption (that this proves something in the gospels)

 

The writers of the gospels inserted historical events taken from Josephus' writings to make the gospel story look more authentic. John the Baptist became a good anchor point to begin the story of Jesus' ministry. Much like modern day novelists wrap their story around actual historical events.

 

Once in awhile, they get it wrong, though. Like the conflicting historical references to the timelines of Jesus' birth. This is a big problem that is unresolvable for the christian apologist.

 

Josephus' passage about the John the Baptist actually helps to support the position that Jesus is not a historical character. No one is buying the christian false rationalization that Jesus was just an obscure travelling preacher. Unless all of the fantastic tales of miracles are a fabrication and later embellishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TSO,

 

If you consider to have a ordered and polite debate, I would suggest that we move this thread to the Colosseum instead. The Lion's Den allows for much "crap" to be posted, and you hinted in your topic title that you'd like it to be serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another problem with John the Baptist and Jesus. The gospels have them being born 6 months apart. But, in looking at Josephus' account, there are items that place John 10 years earlier than the supposed time of Jesus. I need to find the reference for the exact details of this. Maybe someone here can dig it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the decision to move this topic to the Colosseum (w/o TSO's consent), because the title alludes to the wish of a serious debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WORK              WHEN WRITTEN  EARLIEST COPY  TIME SPAN  # COPIES

Homer (Iliad)    900 B.C.            400 B.C.              500 years        643

New Testament 40-100 A.D.        125 A.D.              25 years    24,000+

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html

 

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible2.html

The Old Testament, unfortunately, does not share the wealth of manuscript evidence that the New Testament possesses. However, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries, along with ancient Hebrew sources that quote from the Old Testament, we are assured that it is in the same form as it was in Jesus' day.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves included almost all of the Old Testament canon and they date from 250B.C. to 100A.D. Also, the copies of the Septuagint, which was a Greek version of the Old Testament written about 250B.C., show the text we have today has been nearly perfectly preserved.

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

 

Homer is a great deal older. I'd like to see numbers comparing Old Testament and it, rather than new testament, as it would be much more comparable. Also - what is the newest copy of the New Testament from those 24,000+? What's the time span that was allowed in the counting? Number of works is not a very weighty argument, either, I'm sad to say. All it proves is that a lot of copies were made and preserved, as it's a religious text, I don't find that surprising at all.

 

Next, we must look at the facts of history and see whether the Bible reports these accurately. If this truly is a book written by God, then the facts must be presented unerringly. We have many written sources outside the Bible that corroborate its documentation. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived in the first century.

 

He not only preserves many traditions about events that are mentioned in the Old Testament, but also corroborates the existence of John the Baptist(Ant. XVIII.5.2), where it also mentions that Herod had him imprisoned and put to death. He also mentions James as the brother of Jesus along with his death by the high priest Annas(Ant. XX 9:1). Lastly, he mentions Jesus himself, who he characterizes as "a wise man". He further reports that people viewed Him as the Christ and that Jesus appeared to His disciples three days after Pilate put Him to death(Ant. XVIII.33).

 

Remember, Josephus is a Jew, and would be adverse to Christianity and its message.

:woohoo: KNOCK yourself out with this link ~~

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

 

Pug, you're drawing the conclussion that if some things, such as historical facts are true in the Bible that the rest is shown to be true as well. That would be incorrect. I have two words to answer this, Historical Fiction.

 

I won't bother addressing Josephus in depth since it's already been touched on/addressed by others - However, I would point out much, like others have, that Josephus's writings of Jesus are debated as to authenticity. While I would accept this as a minor or partial evidence, it holds little weight other than that. Once again, his work does not address proof of God's existence, or that the Bible is God's written work - it only addresses historic events which the Bible reports on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm fine with the move. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WORK              WHEN WRITTEN  EARLIEST COPY  TIME SPAN  # COPIES

Homer (Iliad)    900 B.C.            400 B.C.              500 years        643

New Testament 40-100 A.D.        125 A.D.              25 years    24,000+

Pug,

 

I haven't picked on you for awhile. Ok, let's see.... Homer is a book mythology which the earliest MSS is 500 years after it was written? The Bible has a tiny little fragment of only 6 verses from the Gospel of John dated possibly around only 25 years after the original?

 

Conclusion: Between Homer and The Bible, the Bible is the better attested to book of Mythology.

 

Happy? :woohoo:

 

P.S. Your data about 24,000 copies is wrong and misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. I hadn't noticed the move out of the Lions Den prior to my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did want to add one more thing to my response to Pug. If you accept that your evidences validate the text of the Bible as representative of what was originally written, then the only thing you are doing is proving that it is not the word of God. Considering the Bible makes many obvious errors, both externally and internally, and that the text is reliable in its transmission because of the overwhelming number of copies you cite, then you are left with the conclusion that its originals are flawed - not divine. Hence, your evidence proves the Bible is legitimately wrong in its original form.

 

It is the most attested to book of errors in the world. Thanks for the argument against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello dear friends. As I've noticed throughout the Christian belief structure, there seems to be a lot of turning to the Bible to prove God. I'd like to explain my thoughts on this, and offer a small challenge.

Thank you, TSO

 

*drags back from over a week with little Net access*

 

Great idea for a topic. I'd also like to see them try this because, well, for a lot of people, it's the bible that is the problem. A god may or may not exist, but when the "holy book" in question makes said god look like a sexually repressed, bigoted genocidal maniac, and just generally gives every indication of being a collection of myths that have nothing to do with the truth...it's a poor tool to use for "proving" God's existence.

 

Nor are romantic abstracts like "the beauty of nature" proof of God either.

 

I'm interested to see if anyone rises to this challenge in a way that is food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:woohoo: KNOCK yourself out with this link ~~

:woohoo: AND you can knock yourself out with this link~~

 

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WORK WHEN WRITTEN EARLIEST COPY TIME SPAN # COPIES

Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 years 643

New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 years 24,000+

 

Eh, no one says that Homer's writings are historical. In fact, we know they're not. Yes, there was a Troy, but it is doubtful that it was much like Homer's Troy.

 

 

"Homer" (assuming he actually existed) was writing about events that took place long before his time. He was basing his writings on the culture of the day and the oral tradition that had been passed down.

 

After the work was composed, it was passed down orally through storytellers, until the Greeks developed their alphabet and wrote it down. Tradition alone ascribes the Illiad to Homer. We really don't know if there was such a man at all.

 

Given the claims about the Illiad, and the claims about the Bible, it really is ludicrous to try to compare the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

 

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

 

 

Historical Proofs of the Bible:

 

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_histor...roof_bible.html

 

 

This is interesting:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none.htm

 

 

On another [lighter] note:

 

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html

 

 

Enough homework mining for tonight. Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

 

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

 

Historical Proofs of the Bible:

 

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_histor...roof_bible.html

This is interesting:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none.htm

On another [lighter] note:

 

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html

Enough homework mining for tonight. Good night.

Pug, have you thoroughly studied and analyzed these claims? Have you compared historical writings about earlier interpretations of the revelations? Have you studied the history of Christianity, in depth? Have you honestly sat down and made a rational thought about the claims by Josephus, and by other writers? Take a good look at those things, because we have debated and argued these things many times over on this site now.

 

I truly think that you want to be an honest and well regarded person, and you become one by doing your homework. I'm just preparing you for the flood of counter arguments that will come. :wave:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, Pug, take a serious look at this passage:

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."

First of all Jesus was an extremely common name in those days. Josephus and the other writings that are mention, have Jesus this one starting a riot and killed by this method at this year, and Jesus that one doing this thing and killed that way this other year, and so on. So first we have to make sure it is the same Jesus. There were several "Jesus"-s that raised a riot in Jerusalem, according to Josephus.

 

Let's look at the date, it's dated between 70 and 200 CE. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70, and mostly all records were destroyed with it. Does this document claim that Jesus was killed sometime between 70 and 200 CE? You're saying that Jesus was 70 years old, or older, when he died?

 

From what I understand of other peoples arguments of this passage, the quote tells that Jesus was hanged (rope, not cross). And that he was incarcerated for 40 days before the execution. Which doesn't add up with the Biblical record, since he was killed pretty much the next day after capturing.

 

The conclusion is that it is not the same Jesus.

 

Shall we go on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Do You Know The Bible Is True?

 

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

Historical Proofs of the Bible:

 

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_histor...roof_bible.html

This is interesting:

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none.htm

On another [lighter] note:

 

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13...1811332,00.html

Enough homework mining for tonight. Good night.

You base your beliefs on the reliability of the Bible because of these links? Sloppy Pug. Very sloppy. I look forward to you defending what they say in your dialog with HanSolo. Otherwise, I assume you really haven't studied what they said and just forwarded the first thing you found because it was someone who agreed with what you want to believe - just like how you see things as direct answers to your prayers. Be careful in what evidence you choose to present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello dear friends. As I've noticed throughout the Christian belief structure, there seems to be a lot of turning to the Bible to prove God. I'd like to explain my thoughts on this, and offer a small challenge.

 

I believe that to accept the Bible as true - and therefore for the proof within it to be accurate, and the 'fulfilled' prophecies within it to be considered anything more than chance and coincidence, we first have to establish its authenticity.

 

This requires 2 things: Proving God exists - and proving that God is the author/inspiration of the Bible. However, 2 authenticate a document - you need an outside source - rather than the document itself.

 

I challenge you therefore, to provide me with non-biblical evidences, recordings and proof that 1) God exists (if this is proving to dificult for you, you may ignore this point, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically accept God's existing a priori.) 2) He is the Christian God, and the Bible is his inspired word.

 

The conditions of this are as such: The Bible is not to be used, or referenced as a source. No scriptures, no prophecies, nothing from the Bible.

 

I eagerly look forward to any information you can provide me with.

 

Thank you, TSO

 

Here's a little food for your thought.

 

Jewish tradition claims that God made the world -- an oral tradition that goes back to when they left Egypt, and before. It also says there was a flood, and that the human race was reduced to 8 souls. I would try to look at archeology to see if you can trace all human people-groups and language roots to the same region of mesopotamia in that era, about 2500 to 3000 bc.

 

This tradition also says that there was a single male progenitor at the time of the flood -- Noah, and a single female progenitor roughly 2000 years before that -- Eve. I would examine the field of paleo-genetics to see what it says about the human race having a single female progenitor, and a single, more recent, male progenitor. If the Bible has any validity there will be some evidence to support it in that field of study.

 

This tradition also claims the Jewish people received a law. You might want to look for archeological or historical evidence of Jewish migration through Sinai, to a mountain that appears to fit the historical claims. If you can find evidence that the law was written down in antiquity, then I would think you would have to examine those writings to see if they have any evidence of local, human invention or some kind of design or intelligence that they could not have invented at the time.

 

The Great Pyramid appears to be the first, and best, pyramid of its series, (except for the step pyramids at Saqqara) and has some surprising features and proportions that do not require the use of writing. I would investigate it to see if you can explain how it came about that the best one came first, and seems to have scientific insight that was thousands of years ahead of its time.

 

Finally, there is the fact of human death, and that most religions of the world claim there is some sort of eternal life -- whether reincarnation, hell, heaven, etc. I would think about the fact that such claims exist, and ask yourself whether you think those claims are true. My personal belief is that they are not, and this is what the Bible says. (It claims that people return to dust, awaiting a future resurrection, and that only Jesus has been resurrected thus far).

 

In summary I would focus on trying to figure out if the universe had a beginning or not, if there is any evidence that the Jewish people came from Egypt, if there is any evidence that a person named Jesus actually existed, if any eyewitnesses gave credible testimony that he was raised from the dead.

 

Finally, I would think about human civilization, life and death, and ask yourself whether you think the evidence supports totally random origins for the human race, and whether you are at peace with the idea of totally random, meaningless existence going forward, as Sartre posited... or whether there is really no morality and no purpose and no reason why anyone should care when a child dies or a hurricane hinders a cultural tradition like music or art.

 

If any of these endeavors strike your fancy, I can point you in the direction of some non-biblical evidence.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little food for your thought.

 

Jewish tradition claims that God made the world -- an oral tradition that goes back to when they left Egypt, and before. It also says there was a flood, and that the human race was reduced to 8 souls. I would try to look at archeology to see if you can trace all human people-groups  and language roots to the same region of mesopotamia in that era, about 2500 to 3000 bc.

 

<snip>

 

et al...

Jewish tradition is based largely on the Torah. True or false? Tradition is not evidence of anything other than tradition. Very many traditions are based on myths. It was traditional to believe the sun orbited the earth, until modern science proved otherwise. Should we reject the science of this because it was tradition?

 

Related to this, from what I understand, many Jewish scholars today do not accept as historical fact that they came out of Egypt, rather that they were themselves a tribe of Canaanites, one with a rich history of story telling. Art in their early pottery is used in part as evidence of this. Archeology does not confirm the Bible, it contradicts it.

 

Foot note: You said, "ask yourself whether you think the evidence supports totally random origins for the human race” I do not accept intelligent design, and I do not accept that evolution is random. Science does not teach that life is based on "totally random chance." That is an ignorant fabrication by politically motivated Christians whose aim is to distract from something they feel threatens their preconceived ideas. It's a straw man argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.