Are you offended by Christianity?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

Dracargen

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

It could have been many other interpetation.. You do not for sure that was written in that way during the time.. And there have been many times in history where people claimed many prophets had divine powers.. Sorry you fail under that.. Because there were many prophets during that time even some that their followers claimed could o the exact same thign.. Penn and Teller goes into this.. And dieing for their beliefs is nothing new, I gave you the example of the Crusades.. Which was even more ambigious and people went to their deaths.. We have numerous other cultures in history who thought their kings were divine and would die for them.. Sorry there is still tremendous room for reasonable doubt. Hence why there is faith invovled in this. you guys seem not to understand what faith is apparently..

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

xXBuffJeffXx

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

Is it implausible that they believed in a spiritual resurrection?

Could you explain how the resurrection is symbolic, then?

Symbolism requires that what is being told represents something else. What would the resurrection represent?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

Dracargen

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]That doesn't matter though, to the majority of scholars out there, there is reason for doubt... It is more logical through the trillions of pieces of evidence that Jesus was just aman and abided by the laws of phyiscs just like every one else.. Thats why Faith is needed to believe that he was infact a divine being.. Jesus's **** are ambigious at best because they are so old, and few for such a amazing event.. Thats the point, when some one claims that there is a giant diamond the size of a buick in yoru back yard.. Quite a few peopel claim there is, you still need to see it.. Because it is more likely they are bsing it, because nothing that large for a diamond has ever been recorded.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]and asubzero, I dont have to disprove the laws of nature, you have to prove that a supernatural being is bound by these laws. sSubZerOo

You have to prove that Jesus was Divine to begin with, because I have trillions of pieces of evidence that there has never been a divine being.. You have a handful of loose accounts, 2000 years ago in a highly uneducated culture.... Most rational people will see that there is a reaosnable doubt that Jesus may have not been divine to begin with.

BTW your whole thing is a fallacy..

You claim that jesus was divine because of these so called miracles.. Then you claim that these so called miracles are true because Jesus was divine..

and if you have trillions of pieces of evidence that there was never ever a divine being, I'd like to see just one.

how many historians do you think believe it becauseof their faith, rather than because of the historical evidence, then?
Mr_sprinkles

but your argument is nothing more than appeal to authority.

I suppose we should start believing in aliens? After all we have tens of thousands of supposed eye witness accounts, far more then the Bible... And we can actually cross examine these people too, and know who they are.

once again, if you treat the resurrection like any other historical event, then you can easily prove its historicity.

Could you explain how the resurrection is symbolic, then?Symbolism requires that what is being told represents something real. What would the resurrection represent?Dracargen

Christians aren't the only ones with resurrection stories. The Egyptians came up with it first...

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]do you dispute my claim? Intranetusa

You forgot to mention the Gnostic gospels, gospel of Judas, and the other gospels "banned" by the first church at the council of nicea.

how can you possibly expect me to take them seriously?

even Craig evans, who was part of the team that discovered and translated the Gospel of Judas, said that this Gospel is wholly unreliable.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Could you explain how the resurrection is symbolic, then?Symbolism requires that what is being told represents something real. What would the resurrection represent?Intranetusa

Christians aren't the only ones with resurrection stories. The Egyptians came up with it first...

once again, if you treat the resurrection like any other historical event, then you can easily prove its historicity. fanofazrienoch

Same with Noah's ark right? You have to apply your logic to EVERY religion. That means Zeus and thunderbolts exist too.

those are 2nd century creations of the gnostic christian sect.how can you possibly expect me to take them seriously?even Craig evans, who was part of the team that discovered and translated the Gospel of Judas, said that this Gospel is wholly unreliable. fanofazrienoch

That's just hypocrisy. The bible is composed of the gospels the CHURCH at Nicea deemed "fit." The Christian New TEstament was created at the Council of NIcea - it was they who pieced together the elements for the scripture...everything else was heresy

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

xXBuffJeffXx

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

Is it implausible that they believed in a spiritual resurrection?

they all saw aliens. they didn't all see it at once, but they saw it independently, and their accounts very. people like these already knew about UFO reports, and they may have been expecting them. the disciples were not expecting it, and they saw Jesus at one time.

once again, if you treat the resurrection like any other historical event, then you can easily prove its historicity.

fanofazrienoch

If in court, somebody said they were assaulted by a man who could fly, should we give his testament equal worth to the person who said they were assaulted by a man who just ran up behind them?

evidence? fanofazrienoch

Egyptian mythology. Resurrection stories are quite common actually.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]That doesn't matter though, to the majority of scholars out there, there is reason for doubt... It is more logical through the trillions of pieces of evidence that Jesus was just aman and abided by the laws of phyiscs just like every one else.. Thats why Faith is needed to believe that he was infact a divine being.. Jesus's **** are ambigious at best because they are so old, and few for such a amazing event.. Thats the point, when some one claims that there is a giant diamond the size of a buick in yoru back yard.. Quite a few peopel claim there is, you still need to see it.. Because it is more likely they are bsing it, because nothing that large for a diamond has ever been recorded.. fanofazrienoch

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]and asubzero, I dont have to disprove the laws of nature, you have to prove that a supernatural being is bound by these laws. sSubZerOo

You have to prove that Jesus was Divine to begin with, because I have trillions of pieces of evidence that there has never been a divine being.. You have a handful of loose accounts, 2000 years ago in a highly uneducated culture.... Most rational people will see that there is a reaosnable doubt that Jesus may have not been divine to begin with.

BTW your whole thing is a fallacy..

You claim that jesus was divine because of these so called miracles.. Then you claim that these so called miracles are true because Jesus was divine..

and if you have trillions of pieces of evidence that there was never ever a divine being, I'd like to see just one.

how many historians do you think believe it becauseof their faith, rather than because of the historical evidence, then?
Mr_sprinkles

but your argument is nothing more than appeal to authority.

I suppose we should start believing in aliens? After all we have tens of thousands of supposed eye witness accounts, far more then the Bible... And we can actually cross examine these people too, and know who they are.

once again, if you treat the resurrection like any other historical event, then you can easily prove its historicity.

No no no.. Yet again there are accounts where multiple people saw it.. And how do you know what they were expecting or not expecting? You can't so stop trying to make that asceration...

And no you can't because historical events follow the laws of phyiscs.. I didn't realize that the emperor of China, was seen as divine by the historical community like the people saw him.. Or the numerous monarchs.. You fail yet again, because if you look through all accepted historical accounts, none of them blantently violate the laws of phyiscs like walking on water.. Physics is the most reliable source of evidence we have.. It can be redid over and over again.. That no matter who you are when you jump off a cliff you will fall.. And we have no evidnece or recordings of what a divine being is.. We have many eye witness acounts trhough NUMEROUS RELIGIONS OF A DIVINE being, but we have no real evidence that we can take seriously..

When something goes against the laws of physics you need more then just eye witness accounts.. You need recordings both written as well as photographed, you need it to be repeated etc etc.. I suppose a Magician does real magic then? After all people CLAIMED they did all at the same time..

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

sSubZerOo

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

It could have been many other interpetation..

The fact that there is more than one interpretation does not invalidate every interpretation, so that is completely irrelevant.

You do not for sure that was written in that way during the time.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

. And there have been many times in history where people claimed many prophets had divine powers..

Examples?

Sorry you fail under that.. Because there were many prophets during that time even some that their followers claimed could o the exact same thign.. Penn and Teller goes into this..

Oh my, two bad comedians go into how religion is false. What is it with citing comedians (seriously, they didn't choose that career because they graduated college with honors) as real sources?

And dieing for their beliefs is nothing new, I gave you the example of the Crusades..

Yes, and you still are not getting it. The Crusaders did not SEE Christ, and they never claimed to do so. The Apostles, however, did, and that alone makes them completely different.

Which was even more ambigious and people went to their deaths.. We have numerous other cultures in history who thought their kings were divine and would die for them.. Sorry there is still tremendous room for reasonable doubt. Hence why there is faith invovled in this. you guys seem not to understand what faith is apparently..

Faith is loyalty based on prior performance. And perhaps if the word "faith" was not used by certain people as an insult all the time, maybe more people would feel inclined to indulge in it.;)

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]evidence? Intranetusa

Egyptian mythology. Resurrection stories are quite common actually.

I smell a Zeitgeist claim.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]once again, if you treat the resurrection like any other historical event, then you can easily prove its historicity. Intranetusa

Same with Noah's ark right? You have to apply your logic to EVERY religion. That means Zeus and thunderbolts exist too.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]those are 2nd century creations of the gnostic christian sect.how can you possibly expect me to take them seriously?even Craig evans, who was part of the team that discovered and translated the Gospel of Judas, said that this Gospel is wholly unreliable. Intranetusa

That's just hypocrisy. The bible is composed of the gospels the CHURCH at Nicea deemed "fit." The Christian New TEstament was created at the Council of NIcea - it was they who pieced together the elements for the scripture...everything else was heresy

and the bible was put together at the council of nicea, it wasn't written at the counsil of nicea.

[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

Dracargen

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

Is it implausible that they believed in a spiritual resurrection?

Could you explain how the resurrection is symbolic, then?

Symbolism requires that what is being told represents something else. What would the resurrection represent?

I was implying that those who witnessed Jesus were actually perceiving him in ways other than in his physical form. For example, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, or Stephen's vision in his dream. These things were synonymous with the times. I'm simply saying that if they did die for their beliefs it isn't implausible that it was a belief in a spiritual resurrection.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]That doesn't matter though, to the majority of scholars out there, there is reason for doubt... It is more logical through the trillions of pieces of evidence that Jesus was just aman and abided by the laws of phyiscs just like every one else.. Thats why Faith is needed to believe that he was infact a divine being.. Jesus's **** are ambigious at best because they are so old, and few for such a amazing event.. Thats the point, when some one claims that there is a giant diamond the size of a buick in yoru back yard.. Quite a few peopel claim there is, you still need to see it.. Because it is more likely they are bsing it, because nothing that large for a diamond has ever been recorded.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]and asubzero, I dont have to disprove the laws of nature, you have to prove that a supernatural being is bound by these laws. sSubZerOo

You have to prove that Jesus was Divine to begin with, because I have trillions of pieces of evidence that there has never been a divine being.. You have a handful of loose accounts, 2000 years ago in a highly uneducated culture.... Most rational people will see that there is a reaosnable doubt that Jesus may have not been divine to begin with.

BTW your whole thing is a fallacy..

You claim that jesus was divine because of these so called miracles.. Then you claim that these so called miracles are true because Jesus was divine..

and if you have trillions of pieces of evidence that there was never ever a divine being, I'd like to see just one.

how many historians do you think believe it becauseof their faith, rather than because of the historical evidence, then?
Mr_sprinkles

but your argument is nothing more than appeal to authority.

I suppose we should start believing in aliens? After all we have tens of thousands of supposed eye witness accounts, far more then the Bible... And we can actually cross examine these people too, and know who they are.

once again, if you treat the resurrection like any other historical event, then you can easily prove its historicity.

No no no.. Yet again there are accounts where multiple people saw it.. And how do you know what they were expecting or not expecting? You can't so stop trying to make that asceration...

And no you can't because historical events follow the laws of phyiscs.. I didn't realize that the emperor of China, was seen as divine by the historical community like the people saw him.. Or the numerous monarchs.. You fail yet again, because if you look through all accepted historical accounts, none of them blantently violate the laws of phyiscs like walking on water.. Physics is the most reliable source of evidence we have.. It can be redid over and over again.. That no matter who you are when you jump off a cliff you will fall.. And we have no evidnece or recordings of what a divine being is.. We have many eye witness acounts trhough NUMEROUS RELIGIONS OF A DIVINE being, but we have no real evidence that we can take seriously..

When something goes against the laws of physics you need more then just eye witness accounts.. You need recordings both written as well as photographed, you need it to be repeated etc etc.. I suppose a Magician does real magic then? After all people CLAIMED they did all at the same time..

and there was no concept of a historical individual rising from the dead in judaism. the disciples were not expecting it.

and what about Paul's account of Jesus? what about James? they were both skeptics.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

xXBuffJeffXx

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

Is it implausible that they believed in a spiritual resurrection?

Could you explain how the resurrection is symbolic, then?

Symbolism requires that what is being told represents something else. What would the resurrection represent?

I was implying that those who witnessed Jesus were actually perceiving him in ways other than in his physical form. For example, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, or Stephen's vision in his dream. These things were synonymous with the times. I'm simply saying that if they did die for their beliefs it isn't implausible that it was a belief in a spiritual resurrection.

fanofazrienoch

and the bible was put together at the council of nicea, it wasn't written at the counsil of nicea.

The biblical account differs depending on what version you read. The gospels were written by man, just like the Old Testament was.

Noah's ark has as much evidence as Jesus's divinity. And like it or not "followers of Jesus claiming Jesus was divine" doesn't count as a source.

I was implying that those who witnessed Jesus were actually perceiving him in ways other than in his physical form. For example, Paul's vision on the road to Damascus, or Stephen's vision in his dream. These things were synonymous with the times. I'm simply saying that if they did die for their beliefs it isn't implausible that it was a belief in a spiritual resurrection.

xXBuffJeffXx

Would a spiritual resurrection invalidate or otherwise alter Christianity? Would a spiritual resurrection be different from a physical one?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]Intranetusa

and the bible was put together at the council of nicea, it wasn't written at the counsil of nicea.

The biblical account differs depending on what version you read. The gospels were written by man, just like the Old Testament was.

Noah's ark has as much evidence as Jesus's divinity. And like it or not "followers of Jesus claiming Jesus was divine" doesn't count as a source.

and another thing, your objection is nothing more than appeal to motives which is an ad hominem circumstantial argument

in other words, its a fallacy.

you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physicsfanofazrienoch

If that's the case, God is a giant squid creature who spawned Jesus as his first tentacled son, created Mohammad to spread Islam, and freed the Jews from Egyptian captivity with mind control.

You do not have the evidence to disprove me, so what I said must be true.

you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physics

and there was no concept of a historical individual rising from the dead in judaism. the disciples were not expecting it.

and what about Paul's account of Jesus? what about James? they were both skeptics.

fanofazrienoch

And I've got far better evidence than a few old books.

what do you say? You're gonna treat it like any other historical document, right?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physicsIntranetusa

If that's the case, God is a giant squid creature who spawned Jesus as his first tentacled son, created Mohammad to spread Islam, and freed the Jews from Egyptian captivity with mind control.

You do not have the evidence to disprove me, so what I said must be true.

do your homework okay kiddo?

AAHAHAHA! if they saw the evidence that he was divine, then they would become his followers:P

and another thing, your objection is nothing more than appeal to motives which is an ad hominem circumstantial argument

in other words, its a fallacy. fanofazrienoch

wow big words...accusing me. Unfortunately you're appealing to authority since you automatically assume these people to be honest, and suffering from a flock like mentality since you both share the same beliefs thus you assume everything they say to be true.

As for fallacy, at least I'm not using circular logic.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physics

and there was no concept of a historical individual rising from the dead in judaism. the disciples were not expecting it.

and what about Paul's account of Jesus? what about James? they were both skeptics.

Mr_sprinkles

And I've got far better evidence than a few old books.

what do you say? You're gonna treat it like any other historical document, right?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

Dracargen

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

It could have been many other interpetation..

The fact that there is more than one interpretation does not invalidate every interpretation, so that is completely irrelevant.

lol, that makes no sense.. So are we suppose to say the Magician who pulls the rabit out of his hat, one side sees it as a clever illusion, the other side sees it as magic.. Are you trying tot ell me that doesn't invalidate it? Hmm..

You do not for sure that was written in that way during the time

I have no idea what you mean by this.

You have these supposed authors, but the Bible could have been easilly changed as time went on to a dcompletely different interpration. 2000 years is a long time, and we certainly have many breaks in the lines.. We have trouble even pieceing many of Nietzche accounts a philospher relatevly recent compared to the bible.

And there have been many times in history where people claimed many prophets had divine powers..

The reason why I gave Penn and Teller out is they went into one.. Why don't you look it up because they bring a well reknowned University Professor to speak about it.

Examples?

Sorry you fail under that.. Because there were many prophets during that time even some that their followers claimed could o the exact same thign.. Penn and Teller goes into this..

Oh my, two bad comedians go into how religion is false. What is it with citing comedians (seriously, they didn't choose that career because they graduated college with honors) as real sources?

Which is great because they cite their information specially with the Messiah's.. And they arn't comedians.. They were magicains and became political speakers.. Everything they have always cited.. I use it because its a popular example that most have probably seen.

And dieing for their beliefs is nothing new, I gave you the example of the Crusades..

Yes, and you still are not getting it. The Crusaders did not SEE Christ, and they never claimed to do so. The Apostles, however, did, and that alone makes them completely different.

Which strenghtnes my point because these people are so blind they will die for their beliefs if some "spokesperson" TELLS THEM TO.

Which was even more ambigious and people went to their deaths.. We have numerous other cultures in history who thought their kings were divine and would die for them.. Sorry there is still tremendous room for reasonable doubt. Hence why there is faith invovled in this. you guys seem not to understand what faith is apparently..

Faith is loyalty based on prior performance. And perhaps if the word "faith" was not used by certain people as an insult all the time, maybe more people would feel inclined to indulge in it.;)

Faith: belief that is not based on proof

Sorry you fail... Good try though.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physics

and there was no concept of a historical individual rising from the dead in judaism. the disciples were not expecting it.

and what about Paul's account of Jesus? what about James? they were both skeptics.

fanofazrienoch

And I've got far better evidence than a few old books.

what do you say? You're gonna treat it like any other historical document, right?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]AAHAHAHA! if they saw the evidence that he was divine, then they would become his followers:P

and another thing, your objection is nothing more than appeal to motives which is an ad hominem circumstantial argument

in other words, its a fallacy. Intranetusa

wow big words...accusing me. Unfortunately you're appealing to authority since you automatically assume these people to be honest, and suffering from a flock like mentality since you both share the same beliefs thus you assume everything they say to be true.

As for fallacy, at least I'm not using circular logic.

2: historians assume that the writers were honest until proven otherwise because people are generally not compulsive liars when writing history

3: how am I using circular logic?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physics

and there was no concept of a historical individual rising from the dead in judaism. the disciples were not expecting it.

and what about Paul's account of Jesus? what about James? they were both skeptics.

Mr_sprinkles

And I've got far better evidence than a few old books.

what do you say? You're gonna treat it like any other historical document, right?

asubzero was saying that the resurrection cannot happen because the evidence suggests that he could not do this. I said that he has to prove that a supernatural entity is bound by physics. You put up a strawman intranetusa, you assumed that I pulled out the old "oh, well you cant disprove God".

do your homework okay kiddofanofazrienoch

I see you're resorting to insults when you lack a logical argument or basis for your beliefs.

Supernatural entity indeed - my beliefs that God is a squid is just as valid as you believing God is a humanoid who sent his first creation, also a humanoid, in human form to help mankind from its sins dating back to the Old Testament's Adam and Eve.

Go ahead with your mud slinging - you're not getting any smarter.

[QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physicsfanofazrienoch

If that's the case, God is a giant squid creature who spawned Jesus as his first tentacled son, created Mohammad to spread Islam, and freed the Jews from Egyptian captivity with mind control.

You do not have the evidence to disprove me, so what I said must be true.

do your homework okay kiddo?

LOL which is my point YOU NEED TO PROVE HE WAS A DIVINE being to BEGIN WITH.. You do not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable account.. If this were in court you would be laughed out and lose the case.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]asubzero was saying that the resurrection cannot happen because the evidence suggests that he could not do this. I said that he has to prove that a supernatural entity is bound by physics. You put up a strawman intranetusa, you assumed that I pulled out the old "oh, well you cant disprove God".

do your homework okay kiddoIntranetusa

I see you're resorting to insults when you lack a logical argument or basis for your beliefs.

Supernatural entity indeed - my beliefs that God is a squid is just as valid as you believing God is a humanoid who sent his first creation, also a humanoid, in human form to help mankind from its sins dating back to the Old Testament's Adam and Eve.

Go ahead with your mud slinging - you're not getting any smarter.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physics

and there was no concept of a historical individual rising from the dead in judaism. the disciples were not expecting it.

and what about Paul's account of Jesus? what about James? they were both skeptics.

fanofazrienoch

And I've got far better evidence than a few old books.

what do you say? You're gonna treat it like any other historical document, right?

1: historians assume that historical documents are reliable until proven otherwise.

2: historians assume that the writers were honest until proven otherwise because people are generally not compulsive liars when writing history

3: how am I using circular logic?

fanofazrienoch

1. Historians believe Jesus was a historical figure. They do not accept that he was the so of Go/part of God's Trinity unless they're following their personal Christian beliefs.

2. Ancient texts state that Apollo shot thousands of arrows and massacred the Greek army at Troy. What you fail to comprehend is the supernatural interpretation by ancient writers for natural events.

Earthquake ---> God(s), Floods ---> God(s)

This was their logic and this is the logic you're using

3. "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true. The biblical writers are telling the truth because they're no liars, and what the events they recorded is true because they recorded the events." ---> That is your logic

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Intranetusa"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] you have not proven that a supernatural entity is bound by the laws of physicssSubZerOo

If that's the case, God is a giant squid creature who spawned Jesus as his first tentacled son, created Mohammad to spread Islam, and freed the Jews from Egyptian captivity with mind control.

You do not have the evidence to disprove me, so what I said must be true.

do your homework okay kiddo?

LOL which is my point YOU NEED TO PROVE HE WAS A DIVINE being to BEGIN WITH.. You do not have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable account.. If this were in court you would be laughed out and lose the case.

and we still can establish the crucifixion, the post resurrection appearences to friends (the twelve) and to enemies (James and Paul) from Paul's letters. we can also establish that Paul came to christ from his letters. all we need the Gospels to establish is the empty tomb of Jesus.

so tell me, how do you explain these?

once again you put up a strawman of my argument. fanofazrienoch

That would be the case if you had an arguement. But this really isn't an arguement...at this point you're just preaching your beliefs from your scripture.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]1: historians assume that historical documents are reliable until proven otherwise.

2: historians assume that the writers were honest until proven otherwise because people are generally not compulsive liars when writing history

3: how am I using circular logic?

Intranetusa

1. Historians believe Jesus was a historical figure. They do not accept that he was the so of Go/part of God's Trinity unless they're following their personal Christian beliefs.

2. Ancient texts state that Apollo shot thousands of arrows and massacred the Greek army at Troy. What you fail to comprehend is the supernatural interpretation by ancient writers for natural events.

Earthquake ---> God(s), Floods ---> God(s)

This was their logic and this is the logic you're using

3. "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true. The biblical writers are telling the truth because they're no liars, and what the events they recorded is true because they recorded the events." ---> That is your logic

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

sSubZerOo

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

It could have been many other interpetation..

The fact that there is more than one interpretation does not invalidate every interpretation, so that is completely irrelevant.

lol, that makes no sense.. So are we suppose to say the Magician who pulls the rabit out of his hat, one side sees it as a clever illusion, the other side sees it as magic.. Are you trying tot ell me that doesn't invalidate it? Hmm..

Wow, how can you honestly say that?

One side sees it as magic, and the other sees it as a clever illusion. So no, neither interpretation is invalidated simply because another one exists. Such logic is pathetic and laughable. There are at least two interpretations of evolution--are they both invalid because another interpretation exists?

You do not for sure that was written in that way during the time

I have no idea what you mean by this.

You have these supposed authors, but the Bible could have been easilly changed as time went on to a dcompletely different interpration. 2000 years is a long time, and we certainly have many breaks in the lines.. We have trouble even pieceing many of Nietzche accounts a philospher relatevly recent compared to the bible.

We have nearly six thousand original manuscripts that match the New Testament we have now. It was not changed. We have very few original manuscripts of Fred's stuff.

And there have been many times in history where people claimed many prophets had divine powers..

The reason why I gave Penn and Teller out is they went into one.. Why don't you look it up because they bring a well reknowned University Professor to speak about it.

I can bring five well-renowned university professors into it right now that support my side. Someone else here already brought in three. What is the point?

Examples?

Sorry you fail under that.. Because there were many prophets during that time even some that their followers claimed could o the exact same thign.. Penn and Teller goes into this..

Oh my, two bad comedians go into how religion is false. What is it with citing comedians (seriously, they didn't choose that career because they graduated college with honors) as real sources?

Which is great because they cite their information specially with the Messiah's.. And they arn't comedians.. They were magicains and became political speakers.. Everything they have always cited.. I use it because its a popular example that most have probably seen.

Gold.

And dieing for their beliefs is nothing new, I gave you the example of the Crusades..

Yes, and you still are not getting it. The Crusaders did not SEE Christ, and they never claimed to do so. The Apostles, however, did, and that alone makes them completely different.

Which strenghtnes my point because these people are so blind they will die for their beliefs if some "spokesperson" TELLS THEM TO.

Christ is not a spokesperson.:| In fact, I never even mentioned a spokesperson. . . .you are ignoring me.

Which was even more ambigious and people went to their deaths.. We have numerous other cultures in history who thought their kings were divine and would die for them.. Sorry there is still tremendous room for reasonable doubt. Hence why there is faith invovled in this. you guys seem not to understand what faith is apparently..

Faith is loyalty based on prior performance. And perhaps if the word "faith" was not used by certain people as an insult all the time, maybe more people would feel inclined to indulge in it.;)

Faith: belief that is not based on proof

Sorry you fail... Good try though.

Faith: Loyalty based on prior performance.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

once again you put up a strawman of my argument. Intranetusa

That would be the case if you had an arguement. But this really isn't an arguement...at this point you're just preaching your beliefs from your scripture.

do you dispute the reliability of these texts?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Which is exactly my point, people have died through out history under the belief of something, not if it was actually true.

Dracargen

The point is this: The Apostles saw Christ (or at least claimed to) and they died for claiming it. Nobody else can make the claim that they saw Christ rise from the dead.

Either the Apostles were lying (and they took it to their deaths), insane (and they were the most coherent and sane madmen who ever lived), or telling the truth (and Christ did rise from the dead). Which is it?

It could have been many other interpetation..

The fact that there is more than one interpretation does not invalidate every interpretation, so that is completely irrelevant.

lol, that makes no sense.. So are we suppose to say the Magician who pulls the rabit out of his hat, one side sees it as a clever illusion, the other side sees it as magic.. Are you trying tot ell me that doesn't invalidate it? Hmm..

Wow, how can you honestly say that?

One side sees it as magic, and the other sees it as a clever illusion. So no, neither interpretation is invalidated simply because another one exists. Such logic is pathetic and laughable. There are at least two interpretations of evolution--are they both invalid because another interpretation exists?

You do not for sure that was written in that way during the time

I have no idea what you mean by this.

You have these supposed authors, but the Bible could have been easilly changed as time went on to a dcompletely different interpration. 2000 years is a long time, and we certainly have many breaks in the lines.. We have trouble even pieceing many of Nietzche accounts a philospher relatevly recent compared to the bible.

We have nearly six thousand original manuscripts that match the New Testament we have now. It was not changed. We have very few original manuscripts of Fred's stuff.

And there have been many times in history where people claimed many prophets had divine powers..

The reason why I gave Penn and Teller out is they went into one.. Why don't you look it up because they bring a well reknowned University Professor to speak about it.

I can bring five well-renowned university professors into it right now that support my side. Someone else here already brought in three. What is the point?

Examples?

Sorry you fail under that.. Because there were many prophets during that time even some that their followers claimed could o the exact same thign.. Penn and Teller goes into this..

Oh my, two bad comedians go into how religion is false. What is it with citing comedians (seriously, they didn't choose that career because they graduated college with honors) as real sources?

Which is great because they cite their information specially with the Messiah's.. And they arn't comedians.. They were magicains and became political speakers.. Everything they have always cited.. I use it because its a popular example that most have probably seen.

Gold.

And dieing for their beliefs is nothing new, I gave you the example of the Crusades..

Yes, and you still are not getting it. The Crusaders did not SEE Christ, and they never claimed to do so. The Apostles, however, did, and that alone makes them completely different.

Which strenghtnes my point because these people are so blind they will die for their beliefs if some "spokesperson" TELLS THEM TO.

Christ is not a spokesperson.:| In fact, I never even mentioned a spokesperson. . . .you are ignoring me.

Which was even more ambigious and people went to their deaths.. We have numerous other cultures in history who thought their kings were divine and would die for them.. Sorry there is still tremendous room for reasonable doubt. Hence why there is faith invovled in this. you guys seem not to understand what faith is apparently..

Faith is loyalty based on prior performance. And perhaps if the word "faith" was not used by certain people as an insult all the time, maybe more people would feel inclined to indulge in it.;)

Faith: belief that is not based on proof

Sorry you fail... Good try though.

Faith: Loyalty based on prior performance.

This is false the belief in a being that we have no proof to solidfy its existence fits into my definition of faith.. Not yours.. If yours was true, then I suppose god would be disbelieved sense the being seems to be doing an awful job, with over 50% of the people in the world starving.

And I am pointing out on that people will die for their beliefs if somethign as small as a SPOKES PERSON NOT THE ACTUAL MESSIAN TELLS THEM so.. And youa sked for examples I gave you some.. Through out many religions in the world they believed to have a messiah with many powers.. I guess they all most be right?

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

fanofazrienoch

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

correction, my argument comes from the Gospels and paul's letters, both of which are historically reliable. do you dispute the reliability of these texts? fanofazrienoch

Ancient Greek texts state the god Apollo shot Greeks with arrows during the siege of Troy. Do you dispute the reliability of ancient Greek historians?

This is false the belief in a being that we have no proof to solidfy its existence fits into my definition of faith.. Not yours.. If yours was true, then I suppose god would be disbelieved sense the being seems to be doing an awful job, with over 50% of the people in the world starving.

sSubZerOo

Yes, fifty percent of people starving. . . .and this is God's fault, how? Would you like Him to make turkeys rain from the sky?

Loyalty based on prior performance = faith. Sorry you have one less insult to throw at people.

I'm not offended by Christianity. The thing that annoys me is how there are a few ignorant people who believe every word of the Bible as fact (such as Noah's Ark), and really condemn non-believers. Many times these people will be so outspoken that the people around them who disagree will either be pressured to agree or will keep quiet when the courageous few who do oppose get flamed.

I am also a supporter of common sense and logic, but imo the Bible doesn't have one ounce of common sense or logic in it.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

1: historians are actually splite ~50/50 as to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead

2: are you willing to defend the historical reliability of these ancient texts?

3: The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by eye-witnesses. Paul used Peter and James, both eye-witnesses, as his source. and the burden of proof is on you that the Gospel and biblical authors lied.

the main problem is that I have evidence that they were not lying.

Intranetusa

1. Don't pull numbers out of nowhere. Wherever you're getting your random poll numbers from, if it's 50-50, then 50% are professing a persona Christian belief.

2. Are you willing to defend the historical reliability of ancient writers? You're the one who said everything ancient writers wrote must be true. Don't back away from your arguement now...

3. I saw a cloud the other day and thought it was a UFO alien aircraft. If I wrote I saw an alien aircraft, I wouldn't be lying now would I?

There are eye wittness accounts that Buddha ascended to Nirvana through enlightenment while sitting under a tree. There are thousands of histroical accounts that mention this.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove that Buddhists are lying.

2: strawman. I said that theGospels are historically reliable. prove that they are unreliable

3: you woulden't be lying, but there are much more plausible explanations for this, such as a cloud

4: who are these eye-witnesses that saw Buddha ascend into heaven?

5: do you believe that Jesus existed and was crucified?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] correction, my argument comes from the Gospels and paul's letters, both of which are historically reliable. do you dispute the reliability of these texts? Intranetusa

Ancient Greek texts state the god Apollo shot Greeks with arrows during the siege of Troy. Do you dispute the reliability of ancient Greek historians?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This is false the belief in a being that we have no proof to solidfy its existence fits into my definition of faith.. Not yours.. If yours was true, then I suppose god would be disbelieved sense the being seems to be doing an awful job, with over 50% of the people in the world starving.

Dracargen

Yes, fifty percent of people starving. . . .and this is God's fault, how? Would you like Him to make turkeys rain from the sky?

Loyalty based on prior performance = faith. Sorry you have one less insult to throw at people.

You make me laugh, what prior performance has god done? I am sorry I am done argueing here your line of thought is completely backward.. And this is why the historical instiutions don't see such things, as "clear and easy fact"..

I suppose numerous eye winitess accounts in multiple other religions are all correct too right? Because they all fit under your DEEP scrutiny..