I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meSonKevwe arent questioning God, but rather the idea that Jesus was an actual person on Earth such as is mentioned in the NEw Testament.
What are the chances of Jesus...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="Cesb02"]the burden of proof lies on the person who claims that Jesus is a historical figure.Cesb02
and the same can be said for the ones against him..
nope it cant because you have a burden to prove that this man existed because you live by his name.... why should I have to prove that he didnt exist, thats like telling me to prove that unicorns arent real?Because you are making a statement that you believe to be true.
theoretically is should be EASIER to prove that something exists than that something doesnt exist.Because you are making a statement that you believe to be true.
SonKev
[QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meCesb02we arent questioning God, but rather the idea that Jesus was an actual person on Earth such as is mentioned in the NEw Testament.
People already know Jesus historically existed, they just arent sure if He really is who He claimed to be, the Son of GOd.
[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="Cesb02"]the burden of proof lies on the person who claims that Jesus is a historical figure.Cesb02
and the same can be said for the ones against him..
nope it cant because you have a burden to prove that this man existed because you live by his name.... why should I have to prove that he didnt exist, thats like telling me to prove that unicorns arent real?nope because you seem to think that there is some over whelming proof that he didnt exists..well hell do i exist..you never seen me..are these my words..have any philosopher in this world written about me???wtf should everyone have a philosopher write about them..wow sooo many people never existed because a great philosopher never wrote about them..wow
we arent questioning God, but rather the idea that Jesus was an actual person on Earth such as is mentioned in the NEw Testament.[QUOTE="Cesb02"][QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meSonKev
People already know Jesus historically existed, they just arent sure if He really is who He claimed to be, the Son of GOd.
ur wrong people dont know that Jesus was an actual historical person at all.[QUOTE="SonKev"]we arent questioning God, but rather the idea that Jesus was an actual person on Earth such as is mentioned in the NEw Testament.[QUOTE="Cesb02"][QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meCesb02
People already know Jesus historically existed, they just arent sure if He really is who He claimed to be, the Son of GOd.
ur wrong people dont know that Jesus was an actual historical person at all.I think you need to re-read this WHOLE thread from the start man...
[QUOTE="SonKev"]theoretically is should be EASIER to prove that something exists than that something doesnt exist.Because you are making a statement that you believe to be true.
Cesb02
Theoretically you still need to prove Jesus doesn't exist, and you can't. So why do you claim Jesus doesn't exist?
[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Watch these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up-8l5dIeso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UJxPECNdU
lovemenow
who cares..you think that hes right..no..lack of evidence doesn't mean there is non to be found..i myself personally dont base my belief in my God on evidence found but instead i base it on faith..think for a sec..any scientist would laugh in the face of someone who says evolution isnt real due to lack of evidence..so any historian which he is not would laugh in his face..just stop trying to push this silly notion that jesus doesnt exist..its like you see that most believers dont care that you dont believe in what he does..so you get mad and try to say he never existed at all..
Well there's your problem. Using faith as a way to escape from reality. The guy disected the bible and did the research for you showing how unlikely it was that Jesus existed either as described or even at all. Because more people believe that he exists doesn't mean it's true. More doesn't necessarily mean better, truth, or fact.I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meSonKevum. plate tectonics, evolution and natural selection FTW? :roll:
[QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meC_Town_Soulum. plate tectonics, evolution and natural selection FTW? :roll:
Theories ftw? How did LIFE come from NONLIFE? You say abiogenesis, I say; how did nucleic acids come from NONLIFE? You say, "I don't know." Because Evolutionists dont know and their theories are garbage.
Man will always give an exscuse to not believe in God.
um. plate tectonics, evolution and natural selection FTW? :roll:[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meSonKev
Theories ftw? How did LIFE come from NONLIFE? You say abiogenesis, I say; how did nucleic acids come from NONLIFE? You say, "I don't know." Because Evolutionists dont know and their theories are garbage.
Your delusional.
[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Watch these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up-8l5dIeso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UJxPECNdU
C_Town_Soul
who cares..you think that hes right..no..lack of evidence doesn't mean there is non to be found..i myself personally dont base my belief in my God on evidence found but instead i base it on faith..think for a sec..any scientist would laugh in the face of someone who says evolution isnt real due to lack of evidence..so any historian which he is not would laugh in his face..just stop trying to push this silly notion that jesus doesnt exist..its like you see that most believers dont care that you dont believe in what he does..so you get mad and try to say he never existed at all..
Well there's your problem. Using faith as a way to escape from reality. The guy disected the bible and did the research for you showing how unlikely it was that Jesus existed either as described or even at all. Because more people believe that he exists doesn't mean it's true. More doesn't necessarily mean better, truth, or fact.do you know him.??.he seems biased..why???maybe because he doesnt attack all religion only one..why because hes biased..you cant take his word just because he spits out things you want to hear..if thats the case then 9/11 was causeed by the US gov..
[QUOTE="SonKev"]um. plate tectonics, evolution and natural selection FTW? :roll:[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws mexxDustmanxx
Theories ftw? How did LIFE come from NONLIFE? You say abiogenesis, I say; how did nucleic acids come from NONLIFE? You say, "I don't know." Because Evolutionists dont know and their theories are garbage.
Your delusional.
I just saved you 3 hours of arguements,
Thank me
Im going to sleep almost 1am
night
[QUOTE="FamiBox"][QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Watch these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up-8l5dIeso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UJxPECNdU
lovemenow
who cares..you think that hes right..no..lack of evidence doesn't mean there is non to be found..i myself personally dont base my belief in my God on evidence found but instead i base it on faith..think for a sec..any scientist would laugh in the face of someone who says evolution isnt real due to lack of evidence..so any historian which he is not would laugh in his face..just stop trying to push this silly notion that jesus doesnt exist..its like you see that most believers dont care that you dont believe in what he does..so you get mad and try to say he never existed at all..
wtf.
wow.
well wtf..anyone i debate this topic with can only give me speculation..you act as if its weired or im some kind of fanatic..but this is nothing new..a bunch of people who are not valid historians just one day decide that since they dont want this person to exist that he doesnt..i would say wow to that..but no it only deserves the title stupid..cause it lacks intelligence..i dont know and you dont know..but as it stands more proof points to his existence rather than against..
What do you mean speculation? That's just good 'ol research and logic. And what do you mean valid historians? The guy in the video? Do you know him well enough to make such a claim? Or are you talking about the Jewish historian Philo who lived at the time in the same place as Jesus but didn't write about him?Plus you said you don't know, but there's more proof for the existence of Jesus which then you turn to the Bible as your only source of evidence as if it can really be presented as evidence in the first place when the gospels can be argued to be written well after the life of Jesus.
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"]um. plate tectonics, evolution and natural selection FTW? :roll:[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="SonKev"]I look out in my frontyard everyday at the beautiful mountainsides and hills and insects crawling around with all the elements fiting together perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle and I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this wasnt designed by some Being... Its all just so amazing, it aws meSonKev
Theories ftw? How did LIFE come from NONLIFE? You say abiogenesis, I say; how did nucleic acids come from NONLIFE? You say, "I don't know." Because Evolutionists dont know and their theories are garbage.
Your delusional.
I just saved you 3 hours of arguements,
Thank me
I dont have to say anything else.All evidence that we can throw at you will be ignored.C_Town shouldn't even be wasting his time.
Pontius Pilot allowed jesus to live according to the New Testament...... but historically Pontius Pilot HATED jews, he HATED them, he was ruthless, it makes no historical sense with what we know of Pontius that he would have allowed Jesus to live. ........Jesus has a very similar life story to other half Gods made before him..... his birth was known prior, he was to be the messiah, resurrects after 3 days........ isnt it weird that we dont know the exact name of the 12 apostles?........ Cesb02
????..jesus was crucified i know the 12 apostles are stated in the Gospels ..and pontuis gave the people a choice due to the fact that it was passover and it was customary for the Romans to let a prisoner go in place of another on that day..
[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Watch these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up-8l5dIeso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UJxPECNdU
lovemenow
who cares..you think that hes right..no..lack of evidence doesn't mean there is non to be found..i myself personally dont base my belief in my God on evidence found but instead i base it on faith..think for a sec..any scientist would laugh in the face of someone who says evolution isnt real due to lack of evidence..so any historian which he is not would laugh in his face..just stop trying to push this silly notion that jesus doesnt exist..its like you see that most believers dont care that you dont believe in what he does..so you get mad and try to say he never existed at all..
Well there's your problem. Using faith as a way to escape from reality. The guy disected the bible and did the research for you showing how unlikely it was that Jesus existed either as described or even at all. Because more people believe that he exists doesn't mean it's true. More doesn't necessarily mean better, truth, or fact.do you know him.??.he seems biased..why???maybe because he doesnt attack all religion only one..why because hes biased..you cant take his word just because he spits out things you want to hear..if thats the case then 9/11 was causeed by the US gov..
What does 9/11 have to do with what I want to hear? What makes him biased? Because he's a free thinker? Because he's not afraid to question things? Obviously you're the one that's biased because you're rejecting anything that goes against your beliefs no matter how logical and reasonable they are.[QUOTE="Cesb02"]Pontius Pilot allowed jesus to live according to the New Testament...... but historically Pontius Pilot HATED jews, he HATED them, he was ruthless, it makes no historical sense with what we know of Pontius that he would have allowed Jesus to live. ........Jesus has a very similar life story to other half Gods made before him..... his birth was known prior, he was to be the messiah, resurrects after 3 days........ isnt it weird that we dont know the exact name of the 12 apostles?........ lovemenow
????..jesus was crucified i know the 12 apostles are stated in the Gospels ..and pontuis gave the people a choice due to the fact that it was passover and it was customary for the Romans to let a prisoner go in place of another on that day..
IT was Passover the HOLIEST day for JEWS....ur telling me on passover Pontius was gonna do work?..... many doubt it and no if u read the new testament each book outside the Gospel has different people on as apostles.....none are congruent.I'm sorry. I guess it's just my nature as a skeptic to argue my point in what I think is right until someone can prove me wrong. And he hasn't even come close to convincing me otherwise. Until then I will continue.I dont have to say anything else.All evidence that we can throw at you will be ignored.C_Town shouldn't even be wasting his time.
xxDustmanxx
[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="FamiBox"][QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Watch these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up-8l5dIeso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2UJxPECNdU
C_Town_Soul
who cares..you think that hes right..no..lack of evidence doesn't mean there is non to be found..i myself personally dont base my belief in my God on evidence found but instead i base it on faith..think for a sec..any scientist would laugh in the face of someone who says evolution isnt real due to lack of evidence..so any historian which he is not would laugh in his face..just stop trying to push this silly notion that jesus doesnt exist..its like you see that most believers dont care that you dont believe in what he does..so you get mad and try to say he never existed at all..
wtf.
wow.
well wtf..anyone i debate this topic with can only give me speculation..you act as if its weired or im some kind of fanatic..but this is nothing new..a bunch of people who are not valid historians just one day decide that since they dont want this person to exist that he doesnt..i would say wow to that..but no it only deserves the title stupid..cause it lacks intelligence..i dont know and you dont know..but as it stands more proof points to his existence rather than against..
What do you mean speculation? That's just good 'ol research and logic. And what do you mean valid historians? The guy in the video? Do you know him well enough to make such a claim? Or are you talking about the Jewish historian Philo who lived at the time in the same place as Jesus but didn't write about him?Plus you said you don't know, but there's more proof for the existence of Jesus which then you turn to the Bible as your only source of evidence as if it can really be presented as evidence in the first place when the gospels can be argued to be written well after the life of Jesus.
do you know him well enough???historian..but i though philo was a philosopher???..good old research and logic wow that must mean he has the answer..nope..i can type in proof of jesus existence in a youtube search bar and post the link here too and go from there but i wont..what do YOU Know on this subject ..what Historian do YOU KNOW says that he doesnt exist..please tell me im dying to know.. and wikipedia???come on...:|
[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"]I'm sorry. I guess it's just my nature as a skeptic to argue my point in what I think is right until someone can prove me wrong. And he hasn't even come close to convincing me otherwise. Until then I will continue.I dont have to say anything else.All evidence that we can throw at you will be ignored.C_Town shouldn't even be wasting his time.
C_Town_Soul
I would gladly join you, but whats the point?maybe ill give it a go.
[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="Cesb02"]Pontius Pilot allowed jesus to live according to the New Testament...... but historically Pontius Pilot HATED jews, he HATED them, he was ruthless, it makes no historical sense with what we know of Pontius that he would have allowed Jesus to live. ........Jesus has a very similar life story to other half Gods made before him..... his birth was known prior, he was to be the messiah, resurrects after 3 days........ isnt it weird that we dont know the exact name of the 12 apostles?........ Cesb02
????..jesus was crucified i know the 12 apostles are stated in the Gospels ..and pontuis gave the people a choice due to the fact that it was passover and it was customary for the Romans to let a prisoner go in place of another on that day..
IT was Passover the HOLIEST day for JEWS....ur telling me on passover Pontius was gonna do work?..... many doubt it and no if u read the new testament each book outside the Gospel has different people on as apostles.....none are congruent.wait...are you telling me Pontius..the ROMAN GENERAL or whatever he was was a JEW???..before i go on tell me what your saying..
Philo also has works in history as well. When you say 'he' who are you talking about? It seems like you're changing the subject with respect to the rest of your sentence that I'm not keeping to whom you're talking about. And feel free to post a video of proof of jesus, and I'll gladly flatten it. Make sure it's not too long.do you know him well enough???historian..but i though philo was a philosopher???..good old research and logic wow that must mean he has the answer..nope..i can type in proof of jesus existence in a youtube search bar and post the link here too and go from there but i wont..what do YOU Know on this subject ..what Historian do YOU KNOW says that he doesnt exist..please tell me im dying to know.. and wikipedia???come on...:|
lovemenow
im saying Pontius wouldnt make people work on Passover. ..... i think its funny that if u go to wiki it says "Pilate's term serves as a reliable historical benchmark for Jesus' death (citation needed).....lolCesb02
from that i must laugh and move on..as if a Roman would care for a Jewish persons holiday..you said it yourself in a previous post he was harsh on the Jewish community so why would he observe the day..and as for the apostles thing..why go outside the Gospels that tell me their names???why??please tell me??:|
[QUOTE="lovemenow"]Philo also has works in history as well. When you say 'he' who are you talking about? It seems like you're changing the subject with respect to the rest of your sentence that I'm not keeping to whom you're talking about. And feel free to post a video of proof of jesus, and I'll gladly flatten it. Make sure it's not too long.do you know him well enough???historian..but i though philo was a philosopher???..good old research and logic wow that must mean he has the answer..nope..i can type in proof of jesus existence in a youtube search bar and post the link here too and go from there but i wont..what do YOU Know on this subject ..what Historian do YOU KNOW says that he doesnt exist..please tell me im dying to know.. and wikipedia???come on...:|
C_Town_Soul
by he im talking about the guy in the video you showed me..and i'll find a video ..but my whole point of the video thing was..i dont want to hear someone elses argument..i want to hear your argument..
[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="lovemenow"]Philo also has works in history as well. When you say 'he' who are you talking about? It seems like you're changing the subject with respect to the rest of your sentence that I'm not keeping to whom you're talking about. And feel free to post a video of proof of jesus, and I'll gladly flatten it. Make sure it's not too long.do you know him well enough???historian..but i though philo was a philosopher???..good old research and logic wow that must mean he has the answer..nope..i can type in proof of jesus existence in a youtube search bar and post the link here too and go from there but i wont..what do YOU Know on this subject ..what Historian do YOU KNOW says that he doesnt exist..please tell me im dying to know.. and wikipedia???come on...:|
lovemenow
by he im talking about the guy in the video you showed me..and i'll find a video ..but my whole point of the video thing was..i dont want to hear someone elses argument..i want to hear your argument..
What does it matter if it's my own words or someone else's words when he's referencing the bible, the book you believe in. If I may say, it sounds as if you're avoiding the argument altogether.[QUOTE="lovemenow"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="lovemenow"]Philo also has works in history as well. When you say 'he' who are you talking about? It seems like you're changing the subject with respect to the rest of your sentence that I'm not keeping to whom you're talking about. And feel free to post a video of proof of jesus, and I'll gladly flatten it. Make sure it's not too long.do you know him well enough???historian..but i though philo was a philosopher???..good old research and logic wow that must mean he has the answer..nope..i can type in proof of jesus existence in a youtube search bar and post the link here too and go from there but i wont..what do YOU Know on this subject ..what Historian do YOU KNOW says that he doesnt exist..please tell me im dying to know.. and wikipedia???come on...:|
C_Town_Soul
by he im talking about the guy in the video you showed me..and i'll find a video ..but my whole point of the video thing was..i dont want to hear someone elses argument..i want to hear your argument..
What does it matter if it's my own words or someone else's words when he's referencing the bible, the book you believe in. If I may say, it sounds as if you're avoiding the argument altogether.actually..no im not..but i am getting sleepy..i found a video with in 5 sec of typing it in..here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNFBZvZIP0w
before you watch it..just know this
1.this proves that posting a video that you feel furthers your view actually looks stupid from the other side especially when you know its biased..
2.i never seen this video and i dont care for it.
.3.i have yet to hear YOUR argument on the matter..and no im not avoiding an argument i just want to hear YOUR argument in your own words.. so i can debate with you..not some guy in a video
This thread is a prime example of why these quotes makes so much sense to me.
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences.
I dont mean to sound rude here, but the fact that all you guys do in these kind of threads is argue the same thing over and over again and never get anywhere shows me how people really dont understand what a higher power is. I think if any of this jesus being the messiah stuff was real and if one religion was really right we would have a lot fewer arguements.
Guys the point is it can't be proven that Jesus wsa divine. Thats where the whole FAITH thing comes in.. If we were to trust that eye witnesses were reliable 2000 years ago at that, then why are we so skeptical of numerous things like UFOs when many claim to have seen them, or to even be abducted... You guys can't use the texts as a proper source of content to prove that Jesus had magical powers.. Why? Because such physics defieing claims needs to be proven with physical evidence.. There is none.. You have a bunch of people claiming they saw miracles thousands of years ago.. Having people cry out this as the only proof of evidence is bad enough, but your using a source that predates 2000 years ago.. So basically you have no idea about these eye witnesses who they are if they were educated or not.. Notice that the claim of miracles or curses seems to be rampent in times like the Dark ages when no one was educated..
Out side the bibles or gospels etc etc can there be any real proof whether by multiple historic accounts from numerous cultures, physical evidence of any kind? No there is not.. Infact books such as the bible makes one wonder what is true or not.. Dont tell me you guys think Noah's Ark is completely true? If you do there is no reason to debate anything, because your too loony to be reasoned with.
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]*sigh* okay. you do realize that no historian these days actually demands eye-witness testimony for ancient historical studies right? that's how they did business in the middle ages. second, to my knowledge, the Gospel of John doesn't mention the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. This puts the date somewhere before 70 A.D.Notconspiracy, we shouldn't have to disprove something that you, yourself, cannot prove to begin with. Why is it that the majority of the documented miracles occurred during periods in human history when people perceived things that they could not explain through empirical and scientific data? You realize that you have provided a pretty tenous attestation for the proof that he was resurrected. There are whole multitudes of variables and plausible explanations for what happend. You have provided one document, a canonized document, as proof of the validity of your belief. Your only proof is a first hand account which is easily falsifiable. It is very debatable as to whether or not it even is an eye-witness account. Out of the four writers of the Gospels, only one could potentially have been an eye witness, John. The problem is that The Gospel of John was written approximately 100 years after the fact. That essentially eliminates him as a viable eyewitness. Jesus didn't become that important until about a century after his death, when his supporters began garnering more support. We don't know what happened in that time. Fable becomes myth. Myth becomes fact. I refuse to believe that something that has never be witnessed before or after occurred during that time.
notconspiracy
second, you still haven't actually explained the evidence that I put forth.
third, I didn't submit ONE document, I submitted SIX documents that people decided were scripture. we have the 4 gospels, the acts of the apostles, and paul's first letter to the church of corinth
They were all written after the fact and the authors remain unkown. The validity of those documents is pretty dubious. I don't consider anything in the New Testament legitimate history. Until you can prove to me otherwise. I, we, have nothing to disprove to you. You cannot, and will never, prove your point. You can cite the Bible all you want but it will not make Jesus' ressurection verifyable proof. The fact of the matter is that we don't know. Is it possible? Of course. Can you prove the unprovable? no. Can I disprove it? no.
so because we dont know who exactly were the authors of the Gospels were, they dont count at all as evidence? oooookay then. BTW, the Gospel of Luke and the author of the Acts of the apostles was a companion of St. Paul of Tarsus.second, you say you dont consider anything in the NT as legitimate history. Problem: no explanation of why being canonized makes a document unreliable.
Third, You do have to disprove the source. that is how history works, when there is a source for an event or figure, it is up to the skeptic to disprove the source.
Fourth, The only explanation you offered for the evidence other than "its from the bible, it doesn't count" again, you, YOU you have to explain why being canonized makes a document unreliable.
Keep going because you will never be able to prove that some guy rose from the dead thousands of years ago. You have evidence from a single book and nothing else. I don't care enough to disprove your beliefs, honestly. I'm sure somebody else can sit here until 3 AM arguing with you. Believe what you want and I'll do the same.
through this post, you have demonstrated a profound ignorance of how we got the New Testament, or what the New Testament ACTUALLY IS. Okay, let me enlighten you.After the life of jesus, the disciples spread christianity throughout the mediterrenean. One very prominent missionary, the apostle Paul, helped to spread this. His journeys are documented in the book of acts. During his lifetime, Paul wrote many letters to christian churches. these letters are the Epistles. Acts was written by St. Luke the evangelist. Acts of the apostles was intended to be a history of the early christian church. Both Acts and Luke are dedicated to Theophilus. This suggests strongly that the authors of the Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles have the same author. Later some apostles wrote the Gospels, which are and were intended to be BIOGRAPHIES of this man known as Yeshua, or Jesus in Greek.
Later, the christian church, at the council of nicea I believe, CANONIZED these books, or admitted them into the bible. The New Testament isn't ONE book, its a collection of biographies and letters.
You realize that what happened at the Council of Nicea actually helps make the legitimacy of the New Testament even more dubious, right? When Constantine mandated that there should be a single and mandatory religion he was doing it to unify his empire, even though he was not a Christian. At this time, the Christian beliefs were not codified or specifically ennummerated anywhere. He had a council of Christian leaders convened to codify this religion in Nicea. Many believe that "their consensus was suffused with mythic imagery from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, and other cultures of the empire." There were an unknown number of Gospels, on the teachings of Jesus, previous to the Council. It could have been several dozen. They were all destroyed except for the four we have today. It isn't a stretch by any means to believe that these four were manipulated and harmonized to fit with Constantine's vision and the Christian leaders. What happened to those missing pieces? It seems like they were arbitrarily destroyed due to politics.
This particular canonized document is unreliable for all of the reasons I have given throughout this thread. It has left out important information, the potential exists for massive manipulation, we have nothing but hearsay, and the Council of Nicea adds to my skepticism. Something that defies the laws of our physical world happening thousands of years ago is highly improbable. We have never witnessed it since. People described things as miracles that they could not scientifically and empirically prove or understand. We are also unsure of the exact authors of the Gospels. If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.
[QUOTE="da_nolo"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"]Who was writing on paper in Jesus' time? the poor? this sick? no it was the rich and high of power...which Jesus was not of. Besides that point, it brings out Faith, if you believe or not. He merely spoke, and people would follow, he talks today, and there are those whom follow. There are to be proclaimed documents of Jesus' Cruxifiction along with other occurances to which indicate Truth to Bible wordings.If Jesus was supposedly doing the stuff he did. Someone would have written about him. Especially the great Jewish historian Philo, whom was alive at the right time in the right place, whom wrote about Pontius Pilate (whom is mentioned in all four canonical gospels) among other things, why didn't he write about Jesus? C town soul, does Philo write about EVERY SINGLE jewish cult leader? There were many Jewish cult leaders in Palestine during that time, many of them had followers themselves. Jesus attracted crowds of at most 5000 people, which isn't actually very many.Can anyone tell me where in the Bibles is The Book of Jesus is located?.....oh wait...there isn't one. Am I the only one that thinks this is odd. I mean someone who is the son of god or god in the flesh would have been literate. With all the miracles and everything supernatural he did, don't you think he would stopped for a moment and wrote down even some of the things he accomplished, so that no one in the future would even question if he really existed as described?
Also, how come no contemperaries wrote of Jesus? This leads me to believe that even if Jesus existed, he was an unimportant figure of that time and was later made into a legend. Just like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood, Beowulf, etc. Just a legend and that's it.
C_Town_Soul
[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]*sigh* okay. you do realize that no historian these days actually demands eye-witness testimony for ancient historical studies right? that's how they did business in the middle ages. second, to my knowledge, the Gospel of John doesn't mention the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. This puts the date somewhere before 70 A.D.Notconspiracy, we shouldn't have to disprove something that you, yourself, cannot prove to begin with. Why is it that the majority of the documented miracles occurred during periods in human history when people perceived things that they could not explain through empirical and scientific data? You realize that you have provided a pretty tenous attestation for the proof that he was resurrected. There are whole multitudes of variables and plausible explanations for what happend. You have provided one document, a canonized document, as proof of the validity of your belief. Your only proof is a first hand account which is easily falsifiable. It is very debatable as to whether or not it even is an eye-witness account. Out of the four writers of the Gospels, only one could potentially have been an eye witness, John. The problem is that The Gospel of John was written approximately 100 years after the fact. That essentially eliminates him as a viable eyewitness. Jesus didn't become that important until about a century after his death, when his supporters began garnering more support. We don't know what happened in that time. Fable becomes myth. Myth becomes fact. I refuse to believe that something that has never be witnessed before or after occurred during that time.
xXBuffJeffXx
second, you still haven't actually explained the evidence that I put forth.
third, I didn't submit ONE document, I submitted SIX documents that people decided were scripture. we have the 4 gospels, the acts of the apostles, and paul's first letter to the church of corinth
They were all written after the fact and the authors remain unkown. The validity of those documents is pretty dubious. I don't consider anything in the New Testament legitimate history. Until you can prove to me otherwise. I, we, have nothing to disprove to you. You cannot, and will never, prove your point. You can cite the Bible all you want but it will not make Jesus' ressurection verifyable proof. The fact of the matter is that we don't know. Is it possible? Of course. Can you prove the unprovable? no. Can I disprove it? no.
so because we dont know who exactly were the authors of the Gospels were, they dont count at all as evidence? oooookay then. BTW, the Gospel of Luke and the author of the Acts of the apostles was a companion of St. Paul of Tarsus.second, you say you dont consider anything in the NT as legitimate history. Problem: no explanation of why being canonized makes a document unreliable.
Third, You do have to disprove the source. that is how history works, when there is a source for an event or figure, it is up to the skeptic to disprove the source.
Fourth, The only explanation you offered for the evidence other than "its from the bible, it doesn't count" again, you, YOU you have to explain why being canonized makes a document unreliable.
Keep going because you will never be able to prove that some guy rose from the dead thousands of years ago. You have evidence from a single book and nothing else. I don't care enough to disprove your beliefs, honestly. I'm sure somebody else can sit here until 3 AM arguing with you. Believe what you want and I'll do the same.
through this post, you have demonstrated a profound ignorance of how we got the New Testament, or what the New Testament ACTUALLY IS. Okay, let me enlighten you.After the life of jesus, the disciples spread christianity throughout the mediterrenean. One very prominent missionary, the apostle Paul, helped to spread this. His journeys are documented in the book of acts. During his lifetime, Paul wrote many letters to christian churches. these letters are the Epistles. Acts was written by St. Luke the evangelist. Acts of the apostles was intended to be a history of the early christian church. Both Acts and Luke are dedicated to Theophilus. This suggests strongly that the authors of the Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles have the same author. Later some apostles wrote the Gospels, which are and were intended to be BIOGRAPHIES of this man known as Yeshua, or Jesus in Greek.
Later, the christian church, at the council of nicea I believe, CANONIZED these books, or admitted them into the bible. The New Testament isn't ONE book, its a collection of biographies and letters.
You realize that what happened at the Council of Nicea actually helps make the legitimacy of the New Testament even more dubious, right? When Constantine mandated that there should be a single and mandatory religion he was doing it to unify his empire, even though he was not a Christian. At this time, the Christian beliefs were not codified or specifically ennummerated anywhere. He had a council of Christian leaders convened to codify this religion in Nicea. Many believe that "their consensus was suffused with mythic imagery from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, and other cultures of the empire." There were an unknown number of Gospels, on the teachings of Jesus, previous to the Council. It could have been several dozen. They were all destroyed except for the four we have today. It isn't a stretch by any means to believe that these four were manipulated and harmonized to fit with Constantine's vision and the Christian leaders. What happened to those missing pieces? It seems like they were arbitrarily destroyed due to politics.
This particular canonized document is unreliable for all of the reasons I have given throughout this thread. It has left out important information, the potential exists for massive manipulation, we have nothing but hearsay, and the Council of Nicea adds to my skepticism. Something that defies the laws of our physical world happening thousands of years ago is highly improbable. We have never witnessed it since. People described things as miracles that they could not scientifically and empirically prove or understand. We are also unsure of the exact authors of the Gospels. If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.
You have not actually provided any reason to assume that JUST because a document has been canonized, its unreliable. You and asubzero have been giving me this BS "OH, ITS SCRIPTURE, CIRCULAR LOGIC!!!!11"Second, the CANONIZED gospels that we have right now were canonized because they were written much earlier. I am not arguing that the Gospels were divinely inspired, I am arguing that they are just what they are, historical documents documenting the life of this man named Jesus. Fifthly, we have the 1 corinthians 15 creed. This is not INSIDE the canon, but it is QUOTED in the canon by St. Paul of Tarsus.
Third, you keep insisting that someone's divinity contradicts the Laws of Physics. Can I ask you how a supernatural occurence would contradict physics? It seems to me that you are not aware of a founding tenet of Modern science called "methodological naturalism" which states that science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural.
no subzero, I have clearly layed out the evidence that suggests that his divinity was a reality. You just ignored it because my source was a document that JUST HAPPENED to have been canonized.Guys the point is it can't be proven that Jesus wsa divine. Thats where the whole FAITH thing comes in.. If we were to trust that eye witnesses were reliable 2000 years ago at that, then why are we so skeptical of numerous things like UFOs when many claim to have seen them, or to even be abducted... You guys can't use the texts as a proper source of content to prove that Jesus had magical powers.. Why? Because such physics defieing claims needs to be proven with physical evidence.. There is none.. You have a bunch of people claiming they saw miracles thousands of years ago.. Having people cry out this as the only proof of evidence is bad enough, but your using a source that predates 2000 years ago.. So basically you have no idea about these eye witnesses who they are if they were educated or not.. Notice that the claim of miracles or curses seems to be rampent in times like the Dark ages when no one was educated..
Out side the bibles or gospels etc etc can there be any real proof whether by multiple historic accounts from numerous cultures, physical evidence of any kind? No there is not.. Infact books such as the bible makes one wonder what is true or not.. Dont tell me you guys think Noah's Ark is completely true? If you do there is no reason to debate anything, because your too loony to be reasoned with.
sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="xXBuffJeffXx"]*sigh* okay. you do realize that no historian these days actually demands eye-witness testimony for ancient historical studies right? that's how they did business in the middle ages. second, to my knowledge, the Gospel of John doesn't mention the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. This puts the date somewhere before 70 A.D.Notconspiracy, we shouldn't have to disprove something that you, yourself, cannot prove to begin with. Why is it that the majority of the documented miracles occurred during periods in human history when people perceived things that they could not explain through empirical and scientific data? You realize that you have provided a pretty tenous attestation for the proof that he was resurrected. There are whole multitudes of variables and plausible explanations for what happend. You have provided one document, a canonized document, as proof of the validity of your belief. Your only proof is a first hand account which is easily falsifiable. It is very debatable as to whether or not it even is an eye-witness account. Out of the four writers of the Gospels, only one could potentially have been an eye witness, John. The problem is that The Gospel of John was written approximately 100 years after the fact. That essentially eliminates him as a viable eyewitness. Jesus didn't become that important until about a century after his death, when his supporters began garnering more support. We don't know what happened in that time. Fable becomes myth. Myth becomes fact. I refuse to believe that something that has never be witnessed before or after occurred during that time.
notconspiracy
second, you still haven't actually explained the evidence that I put forth.
third, I didn't submit ONE document, I submitted SIX documents that people decided were scripture. we have the 4 gospels, the acts of the apostles, and paul's first letter to the church of corinth
They were all written after the fact and the authors remain unkown. The validity of those documents is pretty dubious. I don't consider anything in the New Testament legitimate history. Until you can prove to me otherwise. I, we, have nothing to disprove to you. You cannot, and will never, prove your point. You can cite the Bible all you want but it will not make Jesus' ressurection verifyable proof. The fact of the matter is that we don't know. Is it possible? Of course. Can you prove the unprovable? no. Can I disprove it? no.
so because we dont know who exactly were the authors of the Gospels were, they dont count at all as evidence? oooookay then. BTW, the Gospel of Luke and the author of the Acts of the apostles was a companion of St. Paul of Tarsus.second, you say you dont consider anything in the NT as legitimate history. Problem: no explanation of why being canonized makes a document unreliable.
Third, You do have to disprove the source. that is how history works, when there is a source for an event or figure, it is up to the skeptic to disprove the source.
Fourth, The only explanation you offered for the evidence other than "its from the bible, it doesn't count" again, you, YOU you have to explain why being canonized makes a document unreliable.
Keep going because you will never be able to prove that some guy rose from the dead thousands of years ago. You have evidence from a single book and nothing else. I don't care enough to disprove your beliefs, honestly. I'm sure somebody else can sit here until 3 AM arguing with you. Believe what you want and I'll do the same.
through this post, you have demonstrated a profound ignorance of how we got the New Testament, or what the New Testament ACTUALLY IS. Okay, let me enlighten you.After the life of jesus, the disciples spread christianity throughout the mediterrenean. One very prominent missionary, the apostle Paul, helped to spread this. His journeys are documented in the book of acts. During his lifetime, Paul wrote many letters to christian churches. these letters are the Epistles. Acts was written by St. Luke the evangelist. Acts of the apostles was intended to be a history of the early christian church. Both Acts and Luke are dedicated to Theophilus. This suggests strongly that the authors of the Gospel according to Luke and Acts of the Apostles have the same author. Later some apostles wrote the Gospels, which are and were intended to be BIOGRAPHIES of this man known as Yeshua, or Jesus in Greek.
Later, the christian church, at the council of nicea I believe, CANONIZED these books, or admitted them into the bible. The New Testament isn't ONE book, its a collection of biographies and letters.
You realize that what happened at the Council of Nicea actually helps make the legitimacy of the New Testament even more dubious, right? When Constantine mandated that there should be a single and mandatory religion he was doing it to unify his empire, even though he was not a Christian. At this time, the Christian beliefs were not codified or specifically ennummerated anywhere. He had a council of Christian leaders convened to codify this religion in Nicea. Many believe that "their consensus was suffused with mythic imagery from Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, and other cultures of the empire." There were an unknown number of Gospels, on the teachings of Jesus, previous to the Council. It could have been several dozen. They were all destroyed except for the four we have today. It isn't a stretch by any means to believe that these four were manipulated and harmonized to fit with Constantine's vision and the Christian leaders. What happened to those missing pieces? It seems like they were arbitrarily destroyed due to politics.
This particular canonized document is unreliable for all of the reasons I have given throughout this thread. It has left out important information, the potential exists for massive manipulation, we have nothing but hearsay, and the Council of Nicea adds to my skepticism. Something that defies the laws of our physical world happening thousands of years ago is highly improbable. We have never witnessed it since. People described things as miracles that they could not scientifically and empirically prove or understand. We are also unsure of the exact authors of the Gospels. If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you better have extraordinary evidence.
You have not actually provided any reason to assume that JUST because a document has been canonized, its unreliable. You and asubzero have been giving me this BS "OH, ITS SCRIPTURE, CIRCULAR LOGIC!!!!11"Second, the CANONIZED gospels that we have right now were canonized because they were written much earlier. I am not arguing that the Gospels were divinely inspired, I am arguing that they are just what they are, historical documents documenting the life of this man named Jesus. Fifthly, we have the 1 corinthians 15 creed. This is not INSIDE the canon, but it is QUOTED in the canon by St. Paul of Tarsus.
Third, you keep insisting that someone's divinity contradicts the Laws of Physics. Can I ask you how a supernatural occurence would contradict physics? It seems to me that you are not aware of a founding tenet of Modern science called "methodological naturalism" which states that science cannot prove or disprove the supernatural.
I said, "this particular canonized document." These things were written in a time when people were routinely subjected to news of miracles. It was commonplace and, therefore, much easier for them to accept. Why have these things not happened since we have acquired the means to empirically and logically verify and inspect them? It was an "age of fables and wonder."As Richard Carrier states:
We have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing whistles furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was the din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.
There are dozens of documented miracles from the time that were considered immune from refutation, and factually based. It was a different time. What proof do we have to believe this miracle over the others? Why are there no writings that offer up criticism of Chrisitianity until almost a century after its beginning? Was it because nobody could be bothered to debunk another miracle story?
The Gospel of Mathew 28:17 alludes to the fact that some eyewitnesses were not really convinced by what they saw and that they might not have become Christians. If I'm not mistaken, neither Epistles nor the Gospels even mention somebody dying for their belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]notconspiracyno subzero, I have clearly layed out the evidence that suggests that his divinity was a reality. You just ignored it because my source was a document that JUST HAPPENED to have been canonized.
It's an unreliable document to begin with, irrespective of it being canonized!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment