Secular Evidence Of The Existence Of Jesus

[chrisstavrous]

Thanks everyone for all the information. Whew! Now there's a butt load of facts and information to ignore!

This guy is so lucky that people will spend so much time on his threads. There's so much info to process, I think I'll have to come back a few times and read it over.

[chrisstavrous]

[OrdinaryClay]

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 

[bdp]

Sight and sin for me, thanks.

[Ravenstar]

and....? what? Is that some sort of veiled allusion that we are going to hell? (Jeff Dee has some good rants on that subject)

 

Crap, just come out and say what's on your mind.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 

 

 

Does this mean that someone who was born blind is automatically exempt from Original Sin?

[Ravenstar]

LOL

[chrisstavrous]

OC is in the house!

[bdp]

OC is in the house!

 

I thought I smelled something.

[slave2six]

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 Weird but when I read this all I can hear are the grownups in the Charlie Brown movies (Mwaa mwa mwa mwaaaaa mwaa).

[pawn]

 

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

Jesus is a judgemental asshole, his sin remains.

[Justin]

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 

 

 

I can't for the life of me understand how you and other Christians on here aren't made atheists from your own posts. Do you not read what you put up before you click "Post"? Do you not run the thought around in your head first before typing it or do you just blurt it out?

 

By your logic up there if someone never heard the "good news" and died they would not go to hell. Your own Bible disproves that. Plus it begs the question as to why in the world, if you believe that, do Christians bother even going out to "win souls".

[RipVanWinkle]

http://jesusneverexi...ephus-etal.html

 

It's clear that someone altered Josephus' work after his death. One of the things that really makes Xtians look bad is the fact that there are numerous things they have lied about throughout history, starting way back in the time of the church fathers. It shows, among other things, the absence of real faith and belief--the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish. If they believed in their god they would not think they should try to deceive.   bill

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 

 

 

Does this mean that someone who was born blind is automatically exempt from Original Sin?

 

Rhetorical question Prof.

(So you're under no obligation to answer it.)

 

Don't you know that Clay is under no obligation to answer anyone's questions?

 

[miekko]

If you see sandiego4me posting the same list of secular evidence on some other forum, you may accuse him there of being a knowing liar. At the very least he is now aware that the dates he gives for the age of the Talmud and Toldoth Yeshu are wrong by several centuries. When I pointed this out to him in a private message, he only responded by saying he's not sure what I am referring to and pasted the whole first post he made in this thread. When I responded and quoted the specific part of the post I was referring to, he's not answered for several days. I think he is going to post this elsewhere, and I am pretty sure he's not gonna be hampered by things like 'factual accuracy'.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 

 

 

Does this mean that someone who was born blind is automatically exempt from Original Sin?

 

Rhetorical question Prof.

(So you're under no obligation to answer it.)

 

Don't you know that Clay is under no obligation to answer anyone's questions?

 

 

 

Clay very seldom, if ever, responds to any of my posts.  That's probably just part of some brain-fuck game he's trying to play with me.  Not that it bothers me, but it would be nice if he gave an answer to the question raised here.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

If you see sandiego4me posting the same list of secular evidence on some other forum, you may accuse him there of being a knowing liar. At the very least he is now aware that the dates he gives for the age of the Talmud and Toldoth Yeshu are wrong by several centuries. When I pointed this out to him in a private message, he only responded by saying he's not sure what I am referring to and pasted the whole first post he made in this thread. When I responded and quoted the specific part of the post I was referring to, he's not answered for several days. I think he is going to post this elsewhere, and I am pretty sure he's not gonna be hampered by things like 'factual accuracy'.

 

That's certainly consistent with past behavior. In his first thread back in June when he went on one of his quote-mining expeditions and provided a made-up quote from Arthur Keith supposedly from 1959 and I pointed out that the alleged source of the quote did not exist and that Keith died in 1955 the only response was the chirping of crickets. Don't expect acknowledgement that he was incorrect, much less a confession of violating the 9th commandment, one he has broken repeatedly.

[Ravenstar]

It amazes me really how incredibly duplicitous these 'christians' are. Really, I'm just gobsmacked by it most of the time. But, for me that's just more evidence that they don't have 'the spirit of christ' in their lives, probably because it doesn't exist. If I saw a marked difference between christians and non-christians I might give the entire thing more credence, but in reality it seems the opposite.

 

It's not just one or two christians either (though there are a few exceptions), it happens over and over and over. And.. they convince themselves that atheists (and agnostics, and well, anyone who isn't in their definition of a 'true christian' ™ ) are the immoral ones. 

 

really?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

Honestly, sandiego, do you really think you are the first one to bring this "evidence" to our attention?

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

(Joh 9:41)

 

 

 

Does this mean that someone who was born blind is automatically exempt from Original Sin?

 

Rhetorical question Prof.

(So you're under no obligation to answer it.)

 

Don't you know that Clay is under no obligation to answer anyone's questions?

 

 

 

Clay very seldom, if ever, responds to any of my posts.  That's probably just part of some brain-fuck game he's trying to play with me.  Not that it bothers me, but it would be nice if he gave an answer to the question raised here.

 

 

Actually, that's not entirely accurate.  Clay does occasionally engage me, but only with unintelligible gibberish like "Vague is convenient."

[miekko]

 

If you see sandiego4me posting the same list of secular evidence on some other forum, you may accuse him there of being a knowing liar. At the very least he is now aware that the dates he gives for the age of the Talmud and Toldoth Yeshu are wrong by several centuries. When I pointed this out to him in a private message, he only responded by saying he's not sure what I am referring to and pasted the whole first post he made in this thread. When I responded and quoted the specific part of the post I was referring to, he's not answered for several days. I think he is going to post this elsewhere, and I am pretty sure he's not gonna be hampered by things like 'factual accuracy'.

 

That's certainly consistent with past behavior. In his first thread back in June when he went on one of his quote-mining expeditions and provided a made-up quote from Arthur Keith supposedly from 1959 and I pointed out that the alleged source of the quote did not exist and that Keith died in 1955 the only response was the chirping of crickets. Don't expect acknowledgement that he was incorrect, much less a confession of violating the 9th commandment, one he has broken repeatedly.

 

Let us fucking be up in his face about it at every fucking convenient moment. Let's make him have to acknowledge this systematic sin of his if we're ever to take him seriously. Let us not let him get away with it.

[mymistake]

 

If you see sandiego4me posting the same list of secular evidence on some other forum, you may accuse him there of being a knowing liar. At the very least he is now aware that the dates he gives for the age of the Talmud and Toldoth Yeshu are wrong by several centuries. When I pointed this out to him in a private message, he only responded by saying he's not sure what I am referring to and pasted the whole first post he made in this thread. When I responded and quoted the specific part of the post I was referring to, he's not answered for several days. I think he is going to post this elsewhere, and I am pretty sure he's not gonna be hampered by things like 'factual accuracy'.

 

That's certainly consistent with past behavior. In his first thread back in June when he went on one of his quote-mining expeditions and provided a made-up quote from Arthur Keith supposedly from 1959 and I pointed out that the alleged source of the quote did not exist and that Keith died in 1955 the only response was the chirping of crickets. Don't expect acknowledgement that he was incorrect, much less a confession of violating the 9th commandment, one he has broken repeatedly.

 

 

Wow, thanks for bringing that up.  SandTroll was given good information on evolution in his very first thread.  That means the OP of his locked thread was a complete lie.  I had forgotten about his first thread.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, MM.

 

That locked thread, where SD4M wrote (i.e., made up) this, when responding to the WarriorPoet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an entirely incorrect statement.  Einstein's Cosmological Constant Theory...

 

[Which never existed!

The Cosmological Constant is a measurement of the energy of space itself, not a theory at all!]

 

...was an attempt to avoid the sticky situation that his discovery of the Theory of Relativity Produced:  If there was a beginning point for all matter in the universe, then there was a point when there was no matter.  

 

I'm not making this up.  [Yes. Actually, you are!]

 

The uncomfortable net effect of this was that Einstein realized that something cannot come from nothing.  As such, he spent over 20 years trying to establish the Cosmological Constant, which proved to be impossible.  

 

[Wrong!  He spent many years unsuccessfully trying to formulate the Unified Field Theory.]

 

From the Wikipedia about the Unified Field Theory.

 

Main article: Classical unified field theories

Following his research on general relativity, Einstein entered into a series of attempts to generalize his geometric theory of gravitation to include electromagnetism as another aspect of a single entity. In 1950, he described his "unified field theory" in a Scientific American article entitled "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation".^[109] Although he continued to be lauded for his work, Einstein became increasingly isolated in his research, and his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. In his pursuit of a unification of the fundamental forces, Einstein ignored some mainstream developments in physics, most notably the strong and weak nuclear forces, which were not well understood until many years after his death. Mainstream physics, in turn, largely ignored Einstein's approaches to unification. Einstein's dream of unifying other laws of physics with gravity motivates modern quests for a theory of everything and in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting.

 

He candidly referred to his Cosmological Constants Theory is as the "biggest blunder" of his life. 

 

[Wrong again! 

Fudging his calculations for General Relativity - by introducing the Cosmological Constant - was his greatest blunder!]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

See post #85 for my rebuttal of SD4M's made up nonsense.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59459-the-question-that-evolutionists-cant-answer/page-5

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

 

Well, they would notice a difference in the night sky.  The stars would be different.

 

Agree.

 

But then for both Bob and Jim to see stars, they'd have to be in parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans that were both on the night side of the Earth.

 

My bad for not making this as clear as I should have.  I'd hoped that by writing, "Allowing for time zone differences..." the possibility you've highlighted would have been taken into account.

 

Anyway, thanks for the input, Sdelsolray.  You're keeping me honest and that's no bad thing.

 

BAA

 

Sorry for the derail, but I was thinking about my post.  It was wrong, or at least not complete.  The stars would not be different if each person was at the same latitude on the Earth, regardless of being on the Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean (at the same local time).  Even with that, though, the phase of the moon would appear slightly different (more gibbous or less gibbous by about 2% each 12 hours) for each observer because of the time it takes the Earth to rotate those 12 hours.  Additionally, assuming each observer had a compass, magnetic north would show differently compared to the star Polaris in the Atlantic Ocean than the Pacific Ocean.