anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Ssel]

This then makes it necessary for you to first understand that person, because, if you do not, you will never pursuade anyone but yourself.

Profoundly and unfortunately correct.. for everyone.

[Kevin H]

KH> All views make a truth claim. All truth claims bear the burden of proof.

 

We are not the ones making fantastical claims. You are. If someone said that they worshipped an invisible pink unicorn and demanded that you also should worship the IPU, wouldn't you demand proof from them? Or would you leave Christianity for IPU worship?

 

 

 

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. And what is "fantastical" is based on what your view of "fantastical" is and isn't. How do you determine what is fantastical?

 

Kevin H

[Vigile]

 

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. And what is "fantastical" is based on what your view of "fantastical" is and isn't. How do you determine what is fantastical?

 

Kevin H

 

You're really makin' sense Kev

 

You believe in an invisible sky man who offers to save you from himself but how can I know that I even I even exist? Yes, you're right. We are both crazy.

 

Now are you going to take Pritishd up on his offer to debate you after you made such a stink about debating us or are you not?

 

Time to put up or shut up.

[Kevin H]

name='Jose' date='Dec 7 2005, 03:10 PM' post='115674']

 

Kevin,

 

My only claim is as follows...

That which my senses tell me is real, is real.

 

 

KH> You claim: "That which my senses tell me is real, is real". Okay, now verify that claim with your senses.

 

 

What could make me change my mind...

If ever biblegod were to speak to me directly and I had no doubts about his identity in person, I would then believe in his existence. I would still choose not to worship him, because he is unworthy of my worship, but I would acknowledge his reality.

 

 

KH> Be more specific please. What exactly should God do when he appears to you? How should he appear, what should he say, etc.? Carl Sagan proposed God put a "glowing cross" in the night sky for all to see. What do you propose?

 

By the way, you have proven the point of one of my earlier posts. God is not merely interested in us knowing he exists. You're saying even if you know he exists, you would not worship him.

 

 

Your claim is as follows...

That which you cannot observe with any of your senses is real.

 

KH> No. I said there are many things that are real which cannot be detected by the senses. Like the claim (proposition) you made above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what could make you change your mind?

 

 

KH>

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

 

Kevin H

[Vigile]

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

You do realize that not one item on your list is falsifiable don't you?

[Kevin H]

KH>And by the way, all worldviews have elements of faith.

 

 

Not true. Observation of repeated events does not require faith, just alertness.

 

KH> But notice, even that axiom takes an amount of faith. Faith is the trust or assent that a given proposition is true. Some things require more faith than others. There is reasonable faith and there is blind faith (fideism).

 

 

 

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. You are scrutinizing my view, I am scrutinizing yours. Truth dares to be questioned.

 

 

 

 

Curious. What are my views Kev?

 

 

KH> I'm not sure what all your views are. But if you hold some, and you express them or even think them, you are making claims.

 

 

Kevin H

[Vigile]

 

KH> I'm not sure what all your views are. But if you hold some, and you express them or even think them, you are making claims.

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

I breath, therefore I claim. That's hilarious.

 

For now though you are the one EXPRESSING your claims so it would be nice if you backed them up or tucked them away. Either one will be sufficient. Thanks

[Asimov]

KH> You and I and everyone else operates from the perspective of a worldview. If asked why we presuppose our worldview we can hopefully give evidence and reasons. And by the way, all worldviews have elements of faith.

 

There are different kinds of faith, Kevin....I hope you are not trying to bait and switch.

[crazy-tiger]

So, what could make you change your mind?

 

 

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

 

Kevin H

Shall I show the problems with those?

 

1) There is no record of any physical details of Jesus, so even if we found his body, it cannot be proven beyond doubt that it is the body of Jesus. Oh, and you would always doubt it no matter how compelling the argument since you believe he ressurected so there would be no body to find...

 

By the way, no body does not prove the resurrection... There is no body of my mother, yet no-one would claim she resurrected.

 

2) The only way to do that would be to do #1... or show that Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

3) Proving the non-existence of something requires total knowledge... or a impossibility of existence. Strangely enough...

 

4) has been done... Since the God of Christian Theism perfect Justice AND perfect Mercy, the God of Christian Theism cannot exist as Justice and Mercy are contradictory concepts... thus, anything embodying them is inherently contradictory and does not exist.

 

5) It's a damn silly requirement since reality doesn't prove the existence of God, so disproving reality wouldn't disprove God...

What it does do is show that you have the cart before the horse.

 

6) to prevent me from wasting my time, why not present these classic arguments?

 

7) He was not of the blood-line of David through Solomon... the Messiah can only be of the blood-line of David through Solomon. Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

8) Since the Christian God has been proven an impossible existence, and since Jesus has been proven to not be the Messiah... #2 has been done, #3 has been done, #4 has been done, #5 assumes the existence of God (#4 and #3) which has been proven false, #7 has been done, #1 relies on #2 and #7 being true so it not applicable, and #6 depends on the arguments.

All in all, only #6 is left before we manage to do #8... at whch point, you'll have a real problem on your hands.

 

 

The question is, will you accept the evidence or will you continue in your belief, knowing that it's false?

[Asimov]

By the way, you have proven the point of one of my earlier posts. God is not merely interested in us knowing he exists. You're saying even if you know he exists, you would not worship him.

 

Duh!

 

Knowing is the first step, Kevin.

[crazy-tiger]

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

You do realize that not one item on your list is falsifiable don't you?

On the contrary... #s 4 and 7 are easily done. Since the rest are based on those two being true, the whole house of cards tumbles down.

[Jose]

KH> You claim: "That which my senses tell me is real, is real". Okay, now verify that claim with your senses.

 

Done and done. I can experience the world through vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. I can interpret that information via the processes of my brain. Huzzah for me.

 

The light emanating from my computer is real. My phone's ringing sound is real. The Diet Dr. Pepper I'm drinking tastes more like regular Dr. Pepper. My office really smells like socks. The keyboard I'm typing on really hurts my thumb where I got a splinter under my nail two days ago.

 

The fact that you even bothered to respond to this portion of my post is completely ludicrous and an obvious attempt to change the subject AGAIN.

 

KH> Be more specific please. What exactly should God do when he appears to you? How should he appear, what should he say, etc.? Carl Sagan proposed God put a "glowing cross" in the night sky for all to see. What do you propose?

 

By the way, you have proven the point of one of my earlier posts. God is not merely interested in us knowing he exists. You're saying even if you know he exists, you would not worship him.

 

He should do godlike things. If he's the biblegod, I want a burning bush that talks. If he's Kali, I want a black chick with six arms to kill stuff. If he's Thor, I want thunder, lightning and a giant Norse guy with a hammer that shakes the earth.

 

As far as your earlier post, I could give two shits what god wants or is interested in. Until he proves his existence to me, he doesn't want anything because he is not real.

 

KH> No. I said there are many things that are real which cannot be detected by the senses. Like the claim (proposition) you made above.

 

I can tell electricity is flowing into my computer because it's working. I don't have to see it to know it's there. I know I'm breathing air even though I can't see it because I'm not suffocating.

 

God has absolutely no discernable or noticeable effect on the way the world around me functions.

 

KH>

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

1. If he never existed, there is no body to find. Unfalsifiable.

2. Cannot prove a negative.

3. Cannot prove a negative.

4. Done and done. See any number of other posts on this site for details or read the first thing to pop up on a google search of "bible contradictions."

5. Cannot prove a negative, and what exactly does that have to do with God? If nothing exists, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. I can prove your existence although I've never met you by using your posts as the starting point in a chain of evidence. It would take some work, but your ISP has your real address and name. It's easy to prove the existence of real things. Not so with God.

6. Post them please. I'm sure it's just more dodging, but I'm interested in seeing them.

7. If he never existed, he never claimed, said, or did anything.

8. Your subjective experience is predicated on faith, ergo, there is no objective referent that someone without faith can duplicate.

 

Dodge, dodge, dodge... try intellectual honesty next time.

[Kevin H]

[

So when you look at statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", "that don't happen", "the dead stay dead", "God of the Gaps", etc. it reveals one is operating from a Naturalistic worldview. So, I'll ask, is your Naturalism warranted? Defend your Naturalism if you are one.

 

 

This is actually a very subtle straw man. Being someone who observes that there have not been any reliable resurrection accounts in recorded history, and only a few unreliable ones in the realm of religion, does not make someone a presuppositional naturalist, it makes them an observer.

 

 

KH> It informs them on how to view the data. It informs the observations. The best explanation of the data is God raised Jesus from the dead. If one is a Naturalist or Materialist one cannot allow that as a live option. Defend your Naturalism please.

 

 

Kevin H

 

no one need defend naturalism because it is obvious that the physical world exists.

 

 

KH> What has that got to do with Metaphysical Naturalism?

 

By the way the statement that Jesus being raised from the dead is the "best explanation" is clearly an assumption. In my opnion there are far better explanations.

 

 

KH> The most popular counter-explantions are:

 

1). Hallucination theory

 

2). Swoon Theory

 

3). Stolen Body Theory

 

4). Mythological Development Theory.

 

5). Jesus Had a Twin Brother Theory.

 

 

 

 

But for the sake of argument. If the resurection is the best explanation for Jesus then why is it a poor explanation for Mirthas or any of the other mythological figures that died and were raised again?

 

 

KH>

 

1). We have every reason to believe Jesus is historical and Mthras is mythical.

 

2). Early Mithraism was shrouded in secrecy and we don't know what they believed and have no early literature on them.

 

3). Mithraism was adopted and adapted by the Romans and flourished in the 3rd century AD. It was a military cult.

 

4). Dr. Ronald Nash, an expert on Hellenism and mystery cults, said Mithraism as we know it borrowed Christian elements, not the other way around.

 

5). We don't find in the historical Christ the mythological elements of Mithraism, e.g. Mithras was born from a rock while carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

 

 

Kevin H

[Vigile]

 

You do realize that not one item on your list is falsifiable don't you?

On the contrary... #s 4 and 7 are easily done. Since the rest are based on those two being true, the whole house of cards tumbles down.

 

 

Good point on #7. My reasoning with #4 was that there is practally no way to do so to Kevin's satisfaction, therefore he could always pussy out and say it's unprovable. Even so, I agree with you on #4 as well.

[Kevin H]

KH> If you hold a view, you are making claims. And what is "fantastical" is based on what your view of "fantastical" is and isn't. How do you determine what is fantastical?

 

Kevin H

 

 

You're really makin' sense Kev

 

You believe in an invisible sky man who offers to save you from himself but how can I know that I even I even exist? Yes, you're right. We are both crazy.

 

KH> I don't believe in an invisible sky man, sky fairy, sky daddy, or sky buddy.

 

Now are you going to take Pritishd up on his offer to debate you after you made such a stink about debating us or are you not?

 

Time to put up or shut up.

 

 

KH> I think it would be a good exchange and will consider it. But I spelled out what I would like to debate for anyone interested.

 

1). Is Christianity Credible?

 

2). Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

 

3). Does God Exist?

 

 

Kevin H

[Vigile]

 

1). Hallucination theory

 

2). Swoon Theory

 

3). Stolen Body Theory

 

4). Mythological Development Theory.

 

5). Jesus Had a Twin Brother Theory.

 

 

You left out...

 

6) It's all a lie Theory

 

7) It never happened Theory

[NotBlinded]

 

KH> The most popular counter-explantions are:

 

1). Hallucination theory

 

2). Swoon Theory

 

3). Stolen Body Theory

 

4). Mythological Development Theory.

 

5). Jesus Had a Twin Brother Theory.

I happen to think the best explanation is one of allegory.

[crazy-tiger]

1). Is Christianity Credible?

 

2). Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

 

3). Does God Exist?

 

 

Kevin H

1) Considering just how much its Holy Scriptures lack credibility, the answer is no.

 

2) Prove he existed and prove that he was the Messiah... then you can debate that. (psst... he wasn't the Messiah. Wrong blood-line...)

 

3) The Christian God? The answer is a resounding no.

[Kevin H]

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

You do realize that not one item on your list is falsifiable don't you?

 

 

 

KH> The Principle of Falsification has its limits (is the Principle itself falsifiable) but can be a good tool. However, I would maintain that the above are difficult to falsify but not impossible.

 

Kevin H

 

By the way, you have proven the point of one of my earlier posts. God is not merely interested in us knowing he exists. You're saying even if you know he exists, you would not worship him.

 

Duh!

 

Knowing is the first step, Kevin.

 

 

 

KH> Which is why I inserted the word "merely".

[Kryten]

Kevin, an intelligent person could infer that you base your worldview/philosophy/beliefs on one source-- the Bible. So, according to your source you could just END THIS ARGUMENT ONCE AND FOR ALL, by simply DOING A MIRACLE! Why do you keep changing the subject, throwing out CRAP and Christian dogma, and making illogical assertions?? Just do a freaking miracle like Jesus said you would and get it over with!

 

Or all you all talk and no faith??

 

You scoff at the idea that Jesus wasn't real, yet you provide ZERO evidence to the contrary-- then you try to get US to show you his body in order to refute your claims!

 

You are stuck in stupid fundie, and no facts or logic are able to penetrate your shield of faith.

[Kevin H]

KH>

 

1). Find, beyond doubt, the body of Christ.

 

2). Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

3). Prove God does not exist.

 

4). Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

5). Prove that nothing exists, not us, not God, not anything.

 

6). Don't just rebut, but refute the classic arguments for God's existence.

 

7). Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

By doing the above, you would...

 

8). Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

 

Kevin H

Shall I show the problems with those?

 

1) There is no record of any physical details of Jesus, so even if we found his body, it cannot be proven beyond doubt that it is the body of Jesus. Oh, and you would always doubt it no matter how compelling the argument since you believe he ressurected so there would be no body to find...

 

 

KH> Of course we have records of physical details of Jesus - especially his execution. Secondly, it may be difficult to prove beyond doubt that it was the body of Christ but I was asked and I said prove it. Proving such would indeed destroy Christianity.

 

By the way, no body does not prove the resurrection... There is no body of my mother, yet no-one would claim she resurrected.

 

KH> First, false analogy. Second, you're right, "no body" by itself conclusively proves the Resurrection. But coupled with even more data the case emerges.

 

2) The only way to do that would be to do #1... or show that Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

3) Proving the non-existence of something requires total knowledge... or a impossibility of existence.

 

KH> It does not require total knowledge to prove a negative. It would take total knowledge to disprove some negatives but not others. "There are no zebras in my bathtub". I just looked. Nope, not there. If the zebras were invisible, that would be more difficult.

 

 

Strangely enough...

 

4) has been done... Since the God of Christian Theism perfect Justice AND perfect Mercy, the God of Christian Theism cannot exist as Justice and Mercy are contradictory concepts... thus, anything embodying them is inherently contradictory and does not exist.

 

 

KH> "All merciful"and "all just" would merely mean God's perfect ability to know when and how to administer mercy and when and how to administer justice.

 

5) It's a damn silly requirement since reality doesn't prove the existence of God, so disproving reality wouldn't disprove God...

What it does do is show that you have the cart before the horse.

 

KH> If God is supposed to be real, but reality doesn't exist, then God wouldn't exist. What is silly is the whole notion of disproving reality. But many Hindus try to do just that. One would have to exist to show there is no existence - which is contradictory.

 

 

6) to prevent me from wasting my time, why not present these classic arguments?

 

KH> We'll start with one. There are many forms of the Cosmological Argument. Let's start with the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

 

7) He was not of the blood-line of David through Solomon... the Messiah can only be of the blood-line of David through Solomon. Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

KH> Yes he was - legally through the house of Joseph, and physically (and of necessity due to the virgin birth) through Mary.

 

8) Since the Christian God has been proven an impossible existence, and since Jesus has been proven to not be the Messiah... #2 has been done, #3 has been done, #4 has been done, #5 assumes the existence of God (#4 and #3) which has been proven false, #7 has been done, #1 relies on #2 and #7 being true so it not applicable, and #6 depends on the arguments.

All in all, only #6 is left before we manage to do #8... at whch point, you'll have a real problem on your hands.

 

 

The question is, will you accept the evidence or will you continue in your belief, knowing that it's false?

 

 

KH> You have failed in your attempt.

 

Kevin H

 

Kevin, an intelligent person could infer that you base your worldview/philosophy/beliefs on one source-- the Bible. So, according to your source you could just END THIS ARGUMENT ONCE AND FOR ALL, by simply DOING A MIRACLE! Why do you keep changing the subject, throwing out CRAP and Christian dogma, and making illogical assertions?? Just do a freaking miracle like Jesus said you would and get it over with!

 

KH> First, the Bible is one (albeit major one) consideration that informs my worldview. And where am I required to do a miracle?

 

 

Or all you all talk and no faith??

 

 

KH> I may be. I may lack faith. That does not mean Christianity is false. I just means I am flawed.

 

You scoff at the idea that Jesus wasn't real, yet you provide ZERO evidence to the contrary-- then you try to get US to show you his body in order to refute your claims!

 

 

KH> I offered the New Testament documents and non-New Testament Greco-Roman writers.

 

You are stuck in stupid fundie, and no facts or logic are able to penetrate your shield of faith.

 

 

KH> Actually, I think you are the one who is stuck (with all due respect).

[Amethyst]

If you hold a view, you are making claims.

 

Bullshit.

 

And what is "fantastical" is based on what your view of "fantastical" is and isn't. How do you determine what is fantastical?

 

You determine what is fantastical by requiring PROOF. I demand proof before I believe something like talking snakes, a god who burns people in a mythical place called hell for all of eternity simply for being human and having a brain, a fantastical afterlife, angels, demons, the whole nine yards. Where is the proof?

 

Answer: There is no proof outside of church propaganda that ANY of that crap is real. It is all a fairy tale.

 

KH> I don't believe in an invisible sky man, sky fairy, sky daddy, or sky buddy.

 

Have you deconverted then? If not, you still do believe in it. You're just unwilling to call it what it is, a fantasy.

[mwc]

By the way the statement that Jesus being raised from the dead is the "best explanation" is clearly an assumption. In my opnion there are far better explanations.

KH> The most popular counter-explantions are:

1). Hallucination theory

2). Swoon Theory

3). Stolen Body Theory

4). Mythological Development Theory.

5). Jesus Had a Twin Brother Theory.

Ok, Kevin, I will prove that jesus did not rise from the dead. I will do this only after you prove beyond a shadow of doubt, to me, that jesus actually existed, walked the earth and was "god." To help you out I doubt the entirety of all xian related literature including the bible.

 

So I fully accept your challenge and I await your iron clad proofs.

 

But for the sake of argument. If the resurection is the best explanation for Jesus then why is it a poor explanation for Mirthas or any of the other mythological figures that died and were raised again?

KH>

1). We have every reason to believe Jesus is historical and Mthras is mythical.

2). Early Mithraism was shrouded in secrecy and we don't know what they believed and have no early literature on them.

3). Mithraism was adopted and adapted by the Romans and flourished in the 3rd century AD. It was a military cult.

4). Dr. Ronald Nash, an expert on Hellenism and mystery cults, said Mithraism as we know it borrowed Christian elements, not the other way around.

5). We don't find in the historical Christ the mythological elements of Mithraism, e.g. Mithras was born from a rock while carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

Well, that didn't take long. By refuting Mythra you have totally proven jesus. Jesus truly has risen!

 

Sorry Kevin but you could disprove every single religion that has ever existed and that still wouldn't prove yours. Too bad you can't see that the same types of evidence you use against others applies equally to your own. Too bad you can't see that your line of reasoning undermines your very argument. If the above reasons are enough to discredit Mythra then equally weak arguments are enough to discredit xianity. It's that simple. You set the bar for level of proof, or lack thereof, required to (dis)prove a religion, or belief system, and anyone who meets your standards in regard to your religion can be declared winner of the debate.

 

mwc

[SkepticOfBible]

Prove beyond doubt the resurrection of Christ is false.

 

Well the fact that the four gospel cotnradict each other after this "fantastic" event proves that the writers of the gospels were following hearsay.

 

Prove God does not exist.

I am not an atheist. But I don't believe that the christian God is the god of the universe

 

Show the concept of God of Christian Theism to be false or contradictory.

 

Well the doctrine of trinity and the worshipping of a human sacrfice can certainly be shown to be false by using the OT only.

 

Prove beyond doubt that Christ was not who he claimed to be.

 

As CT said, the confliction geneaology proves that christ was not the messiah

 

Contrary to christian theology Christ also sinned, and at many times he told his followers to not to obey torah

 

Jesus didn't even fulfill the major prophecies of the messiah such as

 

1)Building the Third Temple in Jerusalem

2)Sitting on the throne of David

3)Implementing the Torah

4)World Peace

5)Reunification of Judah and Israel into One People

6)Universal Knowledge of God

7)Resurrection of the Dead

 

Prove my subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent.

 

You mean I should say that your subjective experiance is false. MMm. I can't, but neither can I say that to a

Muslim. It is for you decide that whether experiance is false one or true one.

Of course we have records of physical details of Jesus - especially his execution.

 

Where are they?

 

Yes he was - legally through the house of Joseph, and physically (and of necessity due to the virgin birth) through Mary.

 

I have succesfully rebutted here

I offered the New Testament documents and non-New Testament Greco-Roman writers.

 

The NT contradict each other on many accounts and are not written by people who lived during the time of jesus

 

Would you accept non canonical Gospels as historical evidence?

 

1). We have every reason to believe Jesus is historical and Mthras is mythical.

 

2). Early Mithraism was shrouded in secrecy and we don't know what they believed and have no early literature on them.

 

3). Mithraism was adopted and adapted by the Romans and flourished in the 3rd century AD. It was a military cult.

 

4). Dr. Ronald Nash, an expert on Hellenism and mystery cults, said Mithraism as we know it borrowed Christian elements, not the other way around.

 

Well what my understanding on Mithraism is that it predates the christianity.

 

The fact that birthday of Mithra which is 25th December was adopted by the RCC as the official birthdate of JC proves that Christianity copied it from Mithraism.

 

Also the RCC also changed the day of worship of Saturday to Sunday because many of the converts were used to worshipping on a Sunday.

 

Even the Halo concept which is shown on Jesus christ head is also taken from Pagan religion.

 

5). We don't find in the historical Christ the mythological elements of Mithraism, e.g. Mithras was born from a rock while carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race

 

But certainly the whole salvation concept is pretty much common with mithraism. There are obviously differences but what are observing here are the commonalities.

 

I am staying waiting for your reply on whether you want to debate since you were whining that no one wants to debate with you.

[Guest Guest_Matthew_*]

prove christianity is true. prove the bible is from god.

 

Can I ask you something? Prove to me that it's not from God and that it's not true.