anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Kevin H]

Kevin if the bible is the only proof you got I feel sorry for you.

Your only proof is a book no outside sources at all.

You don’t know when Jesus was born, what he looked like, no one except the people in the bible speaks of him, he does stuff other mythological gods do walk on water, resurrect, born of a virgin, flies in the air, Moses parts the red sea, a snake can talk all this stuff is impossible and goes against natural laws. Contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and that is why we find using the bible as proof is useless.

 

I said prove it without the bible.

 

 

That is not what you said in your very first post. However, the Bible is a major proof of Christianity. Why should one ignore the New Testament documents when considering the truth of Christianity?

 

Do you really think there are no sources outside the New Testament for Jesus. Are you sure?

 

Do you know what Alexander the Great looked like? Philo? Tacitus? Homer?

 

Finally, "talking snake" is rather simplistic and not what the Bible says, there is no evidence Jesus was "borrowed" from pagan mythological gods (another topic), and if Naturalism is true, then God does not exist and divine miracles do not happen. Please prove to me Naturalism/Materialism is true.

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

[crazy-tiger]

sorry guys I had to go last night.

1) the idea that god doesn't know who you areis different than getting to know you.

2) trying to rationalize which style of ethics I used does not really answer the question.

all cultures separated and modern essentially hold the same moral ethics except where we rationalize them away I.E. the theif not wanting to be stolen from/murderer not wanting to be killed.....those only prove the point of people trying to find exceptions to the rule.

Why is it wrong to kill? Is it because God says so, (even though he changes his mind about that often enough) or is it because people don't want to be killed and can understand that others feel the same way?

Ditto being stolen from, ditto being beaten shitless, ditto having your house burnt down, in fact ditto just about every single "rule" that's in the bible... (except the ones that basically say "I'm God, glory me")

 

 

Oh, and the moral ethics that most modern countries hold include not killing someone just because they believe something diffeent to you...

Can you say that about the morals of your God?

[Guest Gibbbygoat]

if god made us why wouldn’t god already know us?

Didn’t god make us how it wanted us to be?

I just do not see why god needs religions to do the talking for it.

Why would god need it is god mute and cant speak?

 

 

he would want a mutual knowledge not just him with knowledge.

 

God did make us as he wanted but by free will we choose to change that.

 

take religion out of it. Just get to know him. Religion by your apparent definition would be useless. The Christian/Jewish God did not try to establish a religion but a mutually beneficial relationship/friendship.

 

No. One while people may disagree b/c of their own desires to disrepute the bible the bible is proven to be the most historically correct collection of books of that age. Discrepancies in the bible are only a want to discredit it. Also I and most Christians believe that communication with God is not only possible but essential. This is what we call prayer.

 

 

Now I am not trying to prove that my god is right, right now. We are still on the topic of seeing if we can prove that there may be a god. I answered these questions in good faith. but we can't get ahead of ourselves b/c that is why "religion" can be confusing and down right irritating.(even to me. LOL)

 

dear crazy tiger,

 

I did not say that murder is wrong but would you enjoy it if someone tried to kill you ? no, probably not.

That proves that you hold a common sense of morality with me and most others. We are not talking about my God (not that I am afraid to) b/c that would distract from the current conversation about morality and common design not allowed by evolution.

[crazy-tiger]

However, the Bible is a major proof of Christianity. Why should one ignore the New Testament documents when considering the truth of Christianity?

Erm... because some of them are fake, the others are heresay, they're plagued by translation errors and contradictions...

 

They are unreliable sources.

Do you really think there are no sources outside the New Testament for Jesus. Are you sure?

None that mention Jesus Christ, Son of God...

 

No, not even the Josephus one... that's a forgery stuck in there centuries after he wrote it.

Do you know what Alexander the Great looked like? Philo? Tacitus? Homer?

Pretty much... they were all described by their contemperaries.

Finally, "talking snake" is rather simplistic and not what the Bible says, Hah! there is no evidence Jesus was "borrowed" from pagan mythological gods (another topic), Oh boy... you've not really done much research on this, have you? and if Naturalism is true, then God does not exist and divine miracles do not happen. Please prove to me Naturalism/Materialism is true.

Is there a natural world? That's all the proof that's needed...

 

Now, about you proving that God exists and that divine miracles happen... See, it's not our job to prove miracles don't happen. Those that claim they do are the one's with the burden of proof.

 

So... provide us with proof that a miracle happened that is unexplainable by any natural cause. Once you've done that, then you have to prove that your God is the one who performed the miracle... (it's not a given... there's more than one miracle working God out there.)

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

Don't thank us yet...

[crazy-tiger]

he would want a mutual knowledge not just him with knowledge.

 

God did make us as he wanted but by free will we choose to change that.

Is God all-knowing? (the Bible says he is...)

Yes? Then there is no free will as the future is already set. (otherwise, God wouldn't know everything because we could change the future at any time)

No? The the Bible is in error.

take religion out of it. Just get to know him. Religion by your apparent definition would be useless. The Christian/Jewish God did not try to establish a religion but a mutually beneficial relationship/friendship.

And the bloodline of priests that God set up? Really a good way to avoid setting up a religion, isn't it?

No. One while people may disagree b/c of their own desires to disrepute the bible the bible is proven to be the most historically correct collection of books of that age.

Worldwide flood that never happened, Tower of Babel that's recorded NOWHERE outside the Bible, nameless Pharoah drowned in the Red Sea, fleeing of the slaves, 10 plagues of Egypt... all of which failed to get recorded by the Egyptions, (and they recorded everything) 10 year gap between named rulers when Christ was born even though they were both ruling when he was born, a census that never happened, having to travel to the wifes hometown to register for the census, (it was the husband who was to register, and it wasn't the hometown... it was where he lived at the time) the wondering in the desert by the Isrealites, despite there being no evidence of it AND the fact that they were Caananites...

 

That's not very accurate... in fact, it's one of the most incorrect sources of that age that we have.

Discrepancies in the bible are only a want to discredit it.

Guys! We have an Inerrantist among us...

Also I and most Christians believe that communication with God is not only possible but essential. This is what we call prayer.

 

 

Now I am not trying to prove that my god is right, right now. We are still on the topic of seeing if we can prove that there may be a god. I answered these questions in good faith. but we can't get ahead of ourselves b/c that is why "religion" can be confusing and down right irritating.(even to me. LOL)

You are trying to prove your God is right... why else are you trying to prove that the Holy Book of his religion is right and without error?

dear crazy tiger,

 

I did not say that murder is wrong but would you enjoy it if someone tried to kill you ? no, probably not.

That proves that you hold a common sense of morality with me and most others.

You didn't read what I said, did you?

 

To make it clear to you, because we can understand that others wouldn't want to be killed, we have the development of morals that hardwire us with the belief that killing is wrong.

We are not talking about my God (not that I am afraid to) b/c that would distract from the current conversation about morality and common design not allowed by evolution.

The current discussion is about if your God wrote the Bible and if Christianity is true.

 

Meanwhile, those who saw nothing wrong with killing would have been weeded out by the process of evolution... (those who like killing would find it hard to procreate... ergo, the trait dies out)

[Cerise]

sorry guys I had to go last night.

1) the idea that god doesn't know who you areis different than getting to know you.

2) trying to rationalize which style of ethics I used does not really answer the question.

all cultures separated and modern essentially hold the same moral ethics except where we rationalize them away I.E. the theif not wanting to be stolen from/murderer not wanting to be killed.....those only prove the point of people trying to find exceptions to the rule.

 

....So?

 

If you think that prooves anything about the existence of a Deity, you are more deluded then I thought.

 

"The Rule" as you call it, only means that society has evolved using certain boundary lines that are accepted world wide. Not that some higher being came and planted them in everybody.

 

Your "question" is moot.

[Taphophilia]

if god made us why wouldn’t god already know us?

Didn’t god make us how it wanted us to be?

I just do not see why god needs religions to do the talking for it.

Why would god need it is god mute and cant speak?

 

 

he would want a mutual knowledge not just him with knowledge.

 

God did make us as he wanted but by free will we choose to change that.

 

take religion out of it. Just get to know him. Religion by your apparent definition would be useless. The Christian/Jewish God did not try to establish a religion but a mutually beneficial relationship/friendship.

 

No. One while people may disagree b/c of their own desires to disrepute the bible the bible is proven to be the most historically correct collection of books of that age. Discrepancies in the bible are only a want to discredit it. Also I and most Christians believe that communication with God is not only possible but essential. This is what we call prayer.

 

 

Now I am not trying to prove that my god is right, right now. We are still on the topic of seeing if we can prove that there may be a god. I answered these questions in good faith. but we can't get ahead of ourselves b/c that is why "religion" can be confusing and down right irritating.(even to me. LOL)

 

 

Obviously, you embrace Arminianism. Do you consider Calvinist doctrine wrong? If you feel that Calvinist doctrine is wrong then you dispute your own Bible since it supports it. You can't pick and choose out of the Bible what you believe and what you decide you don't believe if you are truly a Christian.

[Asimov]

I did not say that murder is wrong but would you enjoy it if someone tried to kill you ? no, probably not.

That proves that you hold a common sense of morality with me and most others. We are not talking about my God (not that I am afraid to) b/c that would distract from the current conversation about morality and common design not allowed by evolution.

 

What are you talking about? How is that not allowed by evolution?

 

Do you require 100% proof? What sort of evidence do you require?

 

K

 

From you? Proper argumentation that would provide a reasonable idea that God exists.

[Mythra]

Do you really think there are no sources outside the New Testament for Jesus. Are you sure?

Kevin H

 

Please tell me you're not referring to Tacitus, Ignatius, Josephus, Papias, Justin, Origen, Irenaeus, Tatian, Polycarp. These fine fellows do a wonderful job of proving that there were people running around in the second century CE who called themselves christians. (at least the passages that have not been thoroughly exposed as christian interpolations). No one denies that there were people claiming to be christian in the second century. These do nothing to prove a first century man named Jesus. A good portion of the second century christians were gnostics, who denied that Jesus had been a man, also.

 

Why don't you go ahead and give us the quotes and "Jesus" references from "Jesus" contemporaries, or first century writers? (here is a pretty good short list).. Seneca, Epictetus, Arrian, Martial, Juvenal, Pliny the Elder, Justus, Philo.

 

Better chain up if you're gonna go talking shit, jesus-man.

[Asimov]

How does Jesus' existence prove God?

[MQTA]

"Here's a factoid you maybe didn't pick up in Sunday school:

 

There is no contemporary record that Jesus existed. None. There is no Christian record. There is no non-Christian record. I am not making this up. It's part of mainstream modern scholarship."

 

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...cholarship.html

 

[Amethyst]

Secondly, to compare Harry Potter to the New Testament is a Category Error. The former is fantasy literature written for that purpose, the latter are historical documents written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events.

 

The Bible is also fantasy literature. The only difference is that HP does not claim to be real in any way. If HP were written 2000 years ago, we might be worshipping him instead of Jesus. Think about it. There are similarities in the stories. The Hero's Journey is a formula that most successful stories use. Have you even read HP, or are you one of those who think anything outside the Bible and non-church approved is TeH Ev1L!!!!!1!1!?

 

Like Willy, I require proof outside written texts. Written texts can easily be faked. We don't know if the authors lied deliberately, whether they were brainwashed, or whatever. As both a bookworm and aspiring writer, I know how easy it is to concoct other worlds that seem as real as this one, even if they are fantastic. I would NEVER claim that fiction was real, however. But 2000 years ago, people did.

[Kevin H]

Ok. You said "some" evidence so I assume you don't require 100% proof. The question is, do we require 100% proof something is true? No. But we can look at proofs - evidence - we can examine where the evidence points.

 

I would offer several premises that Christianity is true. We can look at each. I think they are proofs, and they outweigh competing claims.

 

1). It makes sense that God exists based on evidence including (a) the beginning of the universe, ( fine-tuning in the Big Bang for life, ©. widespread belief in a supreme being coupled with a sense of objective morality on all cultures at all times, (d) The contingency of the universe leading us to something non-contingent, (e) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

a: no evidence for any god there, let alone biblegod.

 

KH> I am offering the lines of evidence. The beginning of the universe is one evidence for God and especially the God of the Bible. I am offering a cumulative case.

 

b: still no evidence... life adapts to the environment, so there is no need for the fine-tuning.

 

KH> I am referring to the cosmological constants found in the Big Bang itself. The biological systems which adapt result from it.

 

c: there is no sense of objective morality... even the morality of Christianity has changed as conditions change. It's all subjective.

 

KH> How morality is applied may change (and even be corrupted). You have commited the Is/Ought Fallacy. That fallacy is conflating what IS with what OUGHT to be. You cannot deny objective moral values without positing what OUGHT to be.

 

d: goodness knows what you're on about here as you've not made it clear what meaning you give to "contingency" and "non-contingent" I'm guessing that you mean it to be the non-predictability of the universe leading to something that's not subject to chance... if so, reality shows it to be wrong.

 

KH> Look up Argument from Contingency. Then we can discuss.

 

e: there's no evidence that someone called Jesus Christ lived, let alone died or was ressurected.

 

 

KH> Really? You're saying there is no evidence for Jesus from the ancient world? Do you know the lines of evidence for Jesus' resurrection? (there are four lines of evidence that the majority of NT scholars -Christian, non-Christian, liberal, conservative, etc. accept).

 

That set of "proofs" is wishful thinking modulated by faith.

 

KH> And your definition of "faith" is...?

 

2). The evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be includes (a) accurate recording and preservation of him in the New Testament documents, ( his unprecedented impact on human history, © his fulfillment of many prophecies written of him centuries before, (d) his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

Oh boy...

 

a: NT documents were not written until 40-120 years after he died,

 

KH> Even if that were true it would still be early. Most ancient works are 500 to 1000 years after the events they report. But it gets better! The New Testament was written 20 to 60 years after the events and complied into sources even earlier. The trend in NT scholarship is dating the NT earlier and earlier, mostly based on the recent work on Acts by Colin Hemer.

 

NT itself didn't become finalized until around 400 years after he died, the churh admitted that there were fakes in amongst the NT documents and they COULDN'T TELL THEM APART!

 

KH> Actually, that is what canonization did, ie. discover what was authentic and what was not. There were basically five criteria used to discover (not determine) the Canon.

 

b: Mohammed is having the same unprecidented impact on human history... that makes it evidence that HE is who he said he was. (and that his words are the words of God... making Jesus just a prophet)

 

KH> Hitler also made an impact. But I am offering Christ's impact as a line of evidence, remember? BTW, Christ's impact is incomparable.

 

c: He managed to fulfill very few of the Messanic Prophecies. Those that he did fulfill, were re-written to make sure he fulfilled them.

 

KH> What is your evidence they were re-written to facilitate fulfillment?

 

d: Since the accounts were written so long after his death, there's nothing to coroborate such accounts. In other words... they're rumours.

 

KH> See above. And please tell me how historians determine rumour from fact in the ancient world.

 

 

Not exactly very good evidence, is it?

 

 

KH> Yes it is! And you have erected some of the best straw men I have ever encountered!

 

 

To bed... I can refute those in my sleep.

KH> I suggest you wake up.

 

 

Kevin H

 

 

1). It makes sense that God exists based on evidence including (a) the beginning of the universe, ( fine-tuning in the Big Bang for life, ©. widespread belief in a supreme being coupled with a sense of objective morality on all cultures at all times, (d) The contingency of the universe leading us to something non-contingent, (e) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Um, plenty of creation stories and everything you mentioned above in NUMEROUS religions around thousands of years before JUDAISM and even moreso CHRISTIANITY. According to this all religions are truth then. Same MYTHS...different names and deities.

 

KH> First, similarities do not prove same source. In fact, it's the differences between Christian Theism and the pagan religions that is so glaring.

 

Second, Argumentum ab Annis. The older something is does not necessarily mean it is truer.

 

2). The evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be includes (a) accurate recording and preservation of him in the New Testament documents, ( his unprecedented impact on human history, © his fulfillment of many prophecies written of him centuries before, (d) his prediction and accomplishment of his own resurrection from the dead.

 

Well, Buddha's writings are still reserved too so?

 

KH> Preservation of sources is part of the cumulative case.

 

 

Kevin H

[Cerise]

Kevin...we've gone through all this shit already. With scholars a lot more involved then yourself.

 

Most ancient works are works of mythology mixed with ideology and a bit of historical reference. The New Testament is no exception. If you want to claim that the NT is on the same playing field as Homer's Odyssey then go right ahead. No one will stop you.

 

But that doesn't proove the validity of Christ's ressurection. At all.

[Kevin H]

"Here's a factoid you maybe didn't pick up in Sunday school:

 

There is no contemporary record that Jesus existed. None. There is no Christian record. There is no non-Christian record. I am not making this up. It's part of mainstream modern scholarship."

 

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...cholarship.html

 

 

 

 

KH> The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

First and second century non-New Testament writings by Greek and Roman writers mention either Jesus or New Testament characters and events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

Please answer these questions for me:

 

1). What sort of evidence do we have for Alexander the Great?

 

2). How far removed from Alexander the Great are the first writings about him?

 

3). How many manuscripts survive for Homer's [i[illiad[/i]?

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

[Kevin H]

Secondly, to compare Harry Potter to the New Testament is a Category Error. The former is fantasy literature written for that purpose, the latter are historical documents written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events.

 

The Bible is also fantasy literature.

 

KH> How do you distinguish between fantasy literature and historical literature?

 

 

The only difference is that HP does not claim to be real in any way. If HP were written 2000 years ago, we might be worshipping him instead of Jesus. Think about it. There are similarities in the stories. The Hero's Journey is a formula that most successful stories use. Have you even read HP, or are you one of those who think anything outside the Bible and non-church approved is TeH Ev1L!!!!!1!1!?

 

KH> Similarities do not prove same source. Also, to compare Harry Potter and Jesus is ludicrous, and your point does not hold. We don't worship other heroes from the ancient world. it takes more than literature to garner worship.

 

Like Willy, I require proof outside written texts. Written texts can easily be faked. We don't know if the authors lied deliberately, whether they were brainwashed, or whatever. As both a bookworm and aspiring writer, I know how easy it is to concoct other worlds that seem as real as this one, even if they are fantastic. I would NEVER claim that fiction was real, however. But 2000 years ago, people did.

 

 

KH> Congratulations! You just wiped out all of ancient history!

 

 

Kevin H

[MQTA]

 

 

 

KH> The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

First and second century non-New Testament writings by Greek and Roman writers mention either Jesus or New Testament characters and events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

Ok, list them, or give links for reference.

 

 

Please answer these questions for me:

 

1). What sort of evidence do we have for Alexander the Great?

 

2). How far removed from Alexander the Great are the first writings about him?

 

3). How many manuscripts survive for Homer's [i[illiad[/i]?

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

 

What does Alexander the Great have to do with Jesus, Mithra, or any of the others Godmen?

 

 

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/borrowin...ense_first.html is the page I'm up to on that site, seems just where we're at here.

[Cerise]

"Here's a factoid you maybe didn't pick up in Sunday school:

 

There is no contemporary record that Jesus existed. None. There is no Christian record. There is no non-Christian record. I am not making this up. It's part of mainstream modern scholarship."

 

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_...cholarship.html

 

 

 

 

KH> The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

First and second century non-New Testament writings by Greek and Roman writers mention either Jesus or New Testament characters and events. They are sources for Jesus.

 

Please answer these questions for me:

 

1). What sort of evidence do we have for Alexander the Great?

 

2). How far removed from Alexander the Great are the first writings about him?

 

3). How many manuscripts survive for Homer's [i[illiad[/i]?

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

 

 

1. Name ONE eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ who wrote anything down.

 

2. Name ONE secondary text by Greek and Roman contemporaries that mention Jesus.

 

3. Alexander the Great did not rise from the dead, nor do historians try to make a case that he did so, and/or was the son of a God. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

 

Your questions are pointless. Worse, they are redundant, as we've all heard them many MANY times before. Find some new and interesting apologetics and then get back to us.

 

ps.

 

the number of manuscripts surviving has very little to do with determining the validity of a text. Why do you ask pointless questions?

[Kevin H]

Kevin...we've gone through all this shit already. With scholars a lot more involved then yourself.

 

Most ancient works are works of mythology mixed with ideology and a bit of historical reference. The New Testament is no exception.

 

KH> How do you know that?

 

If you want to claim that the NT is on the same playing field as Homer's Odyssey then go right ahead. No one will stop you.

 

 

Three questions:

 

1). How many manuscripts for Homer's Illiad survive?

 

2). How many manuscripts for the New Testament survive?

 

3). How do we distinguish historicity from fantasy literature in the ancient world?

 

 

But that doesn't proove the validity of Christ's ressurection. At all.

 

 

KH> We haven't discussed the various lines of evidence for the resurrection. But among the lines would be the New Testament documents.

 

 

Kevin H

[white_raven23]

Please answer these questions for me:

 

1). What sort of evidence do we have for Alexander the Great?

 

2). How far removed from Alexander the Great are the first writings about him?

 

3). How many manuscripts survive for Homer's [i[illiad[/i]?

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

 

1). How is this relevant? Alexander the Great is not the figurehead of a religion. Believing the historical account of Alexander or not, has no effect on modern culture or life.

 

2). Hundreds of years in some cases, but again, Alexander is not being pushed or "ressurected" as the path for elternal bliss as opposed to eternal hell. So again.....not relevant.

 

3). The Illiad is a fictional work. To compare it to the events in the bible is almost a confession that the bible is a fictional work as well. Or didn't you ever learn not to compare apples to oranges?

[MQTA]

 

 

 

But that doesn't proove the validity of Christ's ressurection. At all.

 

 

KH> We haven't discussed the various lines of evidence for the resurrection. But among the lines would be the New Testament documents.

 

 

Kevin H

 

The NT was written to be evidence? and the ONLY evidence? written with the Greek OT opened and combed, to write a story to answer the question "If Jesus was the Messiah, what would he have done?" and viola.

 

The NT proves itself unreliable an unhistorical, not to mention all the extrabiblical information that managed to survive.

 

NNUTS

 

Nothing New Under The Sun

 

or is that Son?

[Vigile]

KH> We don't worship other heroes from the ancient world. it takes more than literature to garner worship.

Kevin H

 

Yeah! You're right. It also takes gulibility, ignorance, and the general ability to render one's will like a mere sheep. Preach it Kev

[Taphophilia]

 

KH> Congratulations! You just wiped out all of ancient history!

 

Kevin H

 

You really need to check out some sources outside of "Ecclesiastical History"

 

I dare you to read the site that was referenced, then come back and tell us what you think. I have never ever in my life met a Christian who would read it, but they continue to insist they know about ancient history when they don't.

 

Taph

[Vigile]

KH> Congratulations! You just wiped out all of ancient history!

 

Kevin H

 

The majority of ancient historical documents don't make the same fantastic claims that the bible does. The foundational choice about how I am to live my life and lo spend eternity does not spin on whether or not Alexander was a pedophile or not.

 

Think Kev. That's why god put that bowl of jello between your ears. You might try and use it once in a while.

[Mythra]

Here is contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great. Go ahead and provide something similar about Jesus for us. Or stop comparing real individuals to mythological ones.