I am an atheist thread 3

[lkddav]

continued ( Josephus )

The early Christian fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were acquainted with Josephus’ works they would have quoted this passage had it existed. Chrysostom often referred to Josephus and it’s highly unlikely he would have omitted the paragraph had it been extant. Photius did not quote the text though he had three articles concerning Josephus and even expressly stated that Josephus, being a Jew, had not taken the least notice of Christ.

Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, nor Origen against Celsus ever mentioned this passage. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian ever quoted Josephus as a witness in their controversies with Jews and pagans and Origen expressly stated that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not recognize Jesus as the messiah (Contra Celsum, I, 47). In Origen’s own words, Contra Celsus, BOOK I., Chap XLVII :

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people…]

The passage also interrupts the narrative. Immediately before it Josephus tells of a rising of the Jews due to bitter feeling at the conduct of Pilate, and its bloody suppression by the ruling power. The words immediately following the passage are: “Also about this time another misfortune befell the Jews” and we are told of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius on account of the conduct of some of their compatriots. What is the connection between the reference to Jesus and these two narratives? That there must be some connection if Josephus wrote the passage about Jesus goes without saying in view of the character of the writer. Josephus was always careful to have a logical connection between his statements and from a rational standpoint there is no occasion whatever to put the passage about Jesus in the connection in which we find it.

It’s so obvious, even the Catholic Encyclopedia states it as a forgery!

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

1. The Testimony of History

Lucian, the Greek, an outstanding Greek historian, wrote on the crucifixion of Christ and of the Christians who were willing to die for their faith in the Christ.

.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus
Lucian, (175 CE), refers to “the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” Regardless of the fact that this is NOT AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT BUT WRITTEN 120 YEARS AFTER THE SUPPOSED DEATH OF JESUS, nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man’s name, or the cult he brought into the world. This is a SPECIAL PLEADING argument by Christians, we are too ASSUME he is talking about Jesus. Except that THOUSANDS of people were crucified in Palestine, and many of these men were known to start new religions, especially around the time of Lucian. Palestine covers an area roughly hundreds of miles from north to south and east to west, it spreads from north of Damascus to the far south, past Masada and the Dead Sea. The ONLY thing this proves is that a man was killed because he started a cult.

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

1. The Testimony of History

Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor sent to Tiberius Caesar a full report of the crucifixion of Christ. This report was one of the documents with which Tertullian, a Christian scholar, supported his famous defense of the Christians.

.

Never heard of this report.

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

1. The Testimony of the Talmud

The Talmud is a holy book for the Jews. A copy published in Amsterdam in 1943 states the following information: “Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover.’ This information is found on page 42.

.

The first comment worthy of note is found in Sanhedrin 43a of the Talmud, which states,

Quote:
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (The Munich manuscript adds the Nasarean) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover… Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

(1) It says Yeshu, not Jesus.

(2) Even if Yeshu and Jesus were identical words, it was not an unusual name. On the contrary, it appears rather frequently in ancient Jewish literature. Josephus records the following out of 28 high priests in the 107 years from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus, son of Phabet; Jesus, son of Damneus; Jesus, son of Gamaliel; Jesus, son of Sapphias; Jesus son of Thebuthus.

(3) Jesus was crucified, not hanged.

(4) Jesus was not stoned, at least not according to the biblical record.

(5) The New Testament says nothing about a herald going forth for forty days before the execution occurred.

(6) Jesus had no connection with the government. At least nothing within the Gospels would lead one to believe that he lived among royalty or the influential class.

(7) Nowhere in the New Testament was Jesus charged with sorcery or leading Israel astray. The New Testament record tells of three accusations against Jesus:
(a) blasphemy, (b) claiming to be the Son of God, and (c) assuming the role of King of the Jews. But he was never charged with practicing sorcery nor of leading Israel astray. Any attempt to apply this part of the Talmud to Jesus is doomed to failure

les

 

[Paul_Munger]

The Athiest has raised many questions. As is usually the case, the answer may be found in the premise to these questions. The Athiest asks how do we know that the world is not an hallucination? The answer depends on what is meant by knowledge. Does the Athiest think that he is an hallucination? Does he think he might be? But he has to exist to ask the question whether the world is an hallucination. St. Augustine asked and answered this question 1700 years ago. One has to exist to ask whether one exists. If one does not exist, he could not ask the question. Perhaps the Athiest believes that he is an hallucination as well. But then who is having the hallucination if he is one as well. Something must be to have the hallucination. Perhaps the Athiest believes that he exists but that all else is hallucination. Of course we know the Athiest does not believe all else is hallucination else he would run stop signs with impunity.
Now does the Athiest concede that he is not an halucination? If he is not, it is possible that others are not, and that the world is not. So a lack of proof that the world is not an hallucination does not disprove the world.
We say that the existence of the world is self-evident. To be self evident means it does not admit of other evidence or proof. It means that it is its own evidence, its own proof.
Now proof of the world does not prove God. But neither does it disprove God. Hence Atheism fails from the outset.
How do we know that God is not an hallucination? The answer to this is one of faith and experience and reason. There are reasons to conclude that God exists without Revelation. These reasons come from science and our study of cause and effect, and of motion and of time. Now if the Athiest posits that time and motion and science are hallucinations, we must ask him what he is willing to concede is not an hallucination for then even his belief that the ttime and motion are hallucinations must be an hallucination.
Does the Athiest suggest that the rash of bad priests may also be present in the upper echelons? He may be certain that it is true. Satan is far worse that a bad priest. Satin loves to convince us that reality is illusion because then we do not have to obey reality. And as Dostoevsky observed, it there is no God everything is permissible. Athiesm is not so much a belief as an unwillingness. It is an unwillingness to even consider the evidence suggesting God. And the reason for this unwillingness is in all of us. To acknowledge God is to concede His authority and Athiests do not want to obey anyone but themselves. Atheism is a mask. It is a coveAnd people use it because it is much easier to say about God. “I doubt” than to say “I won’t.”

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

1. The Testimony of the Old Testament Prophecies

There are over forty-seven prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the death of Christ on the cross, all of which were literally fulfilled.

Some of these is Isa 53: 3-12. Other prophecies fulfilled are found in the following passages:

Prophecy

Fulfillment

Sold with 30 pieces of sliver
Zack. 11:12

Matt. 26: 15

Hated without a cause
Psa. 35:19

John 15: 25

His disciples left Him and ran away
Zack. 13:7

Matt. 16: 31-56

His pierced hands and feet
Psa. 22:16

Luke 23: 33

Casting lots for His garments
Psa. 22:18

John 19: 23-24

His serve thirst
Pas. 22: 15

John 19: 26

Given vinegar in His thirst
Psa. 59: 21

Matt. 27: 34

His acquaintances forsook Him
Psa. 31: 11

Matt. 14: 48-50

Piercing of His side
Zech. 12: 10

John 19: 34-37

He bore the sin of many
Isa. 53: 12

Heb. 9: 28

Intercession for His enemies
Isa. 53: 12

Mark 15: 28

Not one of His bones was broken
Ex. 12: 46-Psa. 34: 20

John 19: 33-36

.

Maybe there is something here i am missing. The OT was written about 600 bc. The writers of the NT knew of the OT prophecies. Wasn’t it easy enough to write the books of the NT and bring those prophecies true?

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

1. The Testimony of Christ Himself

The death of Christ on the cross plays the most important and climactic role in His life. For this reason the writers of the Gospels gave considerable attention to this matter. In fact, more so than any other part of His ministry. Before His crucifixion, the Lord Jesus spoke on many occasions about His death on the cross and His resurrection. For He said, ‘Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death.” (Matt.20: 18). “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day”. (Matt. 16:2).

For more detail please read these verses:

Matt. 17: 22; Mark 8: 31; 9: 31; 10: 32b-34; Luke 9: 22; 18: 31-33; John 3: 14-17; 10: 11; 12: 32-33.

1. The Testimony of the Gospel

One half of the Gospel of John and one third of the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are designated to the crucifixion of Christ.

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist

The message of John the Baptist was “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world”. (John 1: 29)

For up until then there had been many lambs, but now there is just one lamb – “the Lamb”

Up until then there had been many lambs chosen by men, but now there is one lamb sent by God “Behold the Lamb of God”.

Up until then there had been lambs that covered sin, now this lamb “takes away sin”

Up until then we had many lambs for the nation of Israel, now we have one lamb for the whole “world”.

In Genesis chapter four we read about one lamb for one person. In Exodus chapter twelve we read about one lamb for the whole family. In Leviticus we read about one lamb for the whole nation, but now Christ, the Lamb of God, for the sin of the whole world.

This is not evidence. You cannot use the bible to validate the bible.

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimonial evidence part 2

1. The Testimony of the Nicea Creed

In the year 325AD a group of Christian bishops gathered in the city of Nicea from all over Christendom and pinned down the Christian creed, which summarizes the doctrine of the church. The purpose of this creed was to guard against the heretics, which arose in the Christian church, in the creed they mentioned that Jesus was crucified during the time of Pontius Pilate.

.

This is true. Constantine formed this council to deal with the books of the bible. I would have expected them to “mention” jesus.

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimonial evidence part 2

1. The Testimony of Moses

In Deut. 18: 15 Moses spoke about Christ and this prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 3: 22

.

1. The Testimony of the Symbol and Sign of the Cross

The cross-had been the emblem of the Christian church since its inception. They have raised it on the sleepless of their churches and engraved it on their tombs. Their kings wore it on the top front of their crown to remind them of the greatest love of God in the redemption of mankind. Such a symbol is also etched in a great number on the walls of the catacombs in Rome.

1. The Testimony of the Words of Christ on the Cross

No one else but the Lord Jesus would have uttered the seven words from the cross. For who can say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23: 34)

1. The Testimony of Joseph of Arimathea

When Joseph of Arimathea asked Pontius Pilate for the body of Jesus, his request was granted (Mark 15: 42-46), and if the body, which Joseph took from the cross, was not the body of Christ, surely Joseph would have known.

1. The Testimony of Judas Iscariot

The theory, which states that Judas was crucified in the place of Jesus, could not be true for the following reasons:

This will make God a deceiver.

The prophecy of taking the 30 pieces of silver from the chief priest would not have been fulfilled (Zech. 11: 12 and Matt. 26: 15).

The prophecy of taking the money and buying the potter’s field would not have been fulfilled. (Zech 11: 13 and Matt 27: 7).

Judas would have protested by saying I am not Jesus.

1. The Testimony of the Jews

The Jews asked Pilate to seal the tomb not for fear that Christ might come out, but they were afraid that His disciples might come and steal his body and say that He had risen.

1. The Testimony of the Lord’s Supper

“The Lord Jesus the same night He was betrayed took bread and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said. Take eat this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me… Foras oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup. Ye do shew forth the Lord’s death until He comes” (1Cor. 11: 25b-26).

Throughout history, Christians all over the world gather together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a reminder of God’s most wonderful act of love—that Jesus Christ shed His own blood as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of all mankind.

1. The Testimony of the Apostles’ Teaching

The teachings of the apostles were rooted in their firm belief in the death of Christ on the cross and in His resurrection. There will not be enough room to enumerate the apostles’ teaching in the epistles about Christ’s death and resurrection. Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost said to the Jews: ‘Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know; Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” (Acts 2: 22-23).

1. The Testimony of the Believers Baptism

When the believer is baptized he is testifying that he died with Christ, was buried and rose again into the newness of life. (Rom. 6: 3-6)

1. The Testimony of the Animal Sacrifices of the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, on the Day of Atonement. Sacrifices were required as redemption for the soul (Lev 17: 11). Jews and Christians have the doctrine of the atonement. The Jews celebrate the Passover, the Christians celebrate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Christ, the Lamb of God became the ultimate sacrifice who gave meaning to all these sacrifices. If these sacrifices are not only the shadow of the real sacrifice, which Christ offered at the cross – then they are rendered meaningless.

This is not evidence. Once again. You cannot use the bible to validate the authenticity of the bible.

If you read a Harry Potter book and the book said it was true, would you automatically believe it ???

les

 

[lkddav]

Testimonial evidence part 3

1. The Testimony of the Death of the Apostles

It is a well-known fact that all the apostles of Jesus, except for John, died as martyrs because of their faith in the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection.

May God help you in making the right decision.

‘Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you… that Christ died for our sin according to the scriptures.” (Acts 3: 13-15).

“Being justified freely by his grace though the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Rom. 3: 24)

“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commandeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5: 6-8)

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10: 9).

“ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1Cor. 1: 18)

“For I determined not to know anything about you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1Cor. 21: 1-2).

“ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.’ (1Cor. 5: 7)

For more information please read the following verses;

Acts 2: 36; 3: 13-15; 4: 10; Rom. 1: 4; 3:24; 4: 24-25; 5: 8; 6:3-4; 6:10; 10:9; 1Cor. 1:18, 23; 2:2; 5:7; 6:14; 11:26; 15:3-4, 17, 20; 2Cor. 4:10-14; 13:4; Gal. 2:20; 4:4; 6:14; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; 5:2; Col. 1:18, 20; 2:12, 14; 3:1; Phil. 2:6-8; 3:18; 1Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 5:10; 1Thim. 2:6; 2Tim. 2:11, 18; Heb. 2:9, 14-15; 5:8; 9:12, 14; 10:10, 14; 12:2; 13:12; 13: 20; 1Peter 1:3; 1:11, 18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18; 4:1; 5:1; 1John 1:7; 3:16; 4:10; Rev. 1:5-7; 5:9, 11

Now I can get 100 times the amount of testomies to include eyewitness testonies.

This is not evidence. Once again. You cannot use the bible to validate the authenticity of the bible.

Hey 659, Got any real evidence???

les

 

[lkddav]

The Athiest asks how do we know that the world is not an hallucination.

I have never asked that question.

Athiesm is not so much a belief as an unwillingness.

Not true.

It is an unwillingness to even consider the evidence suggesting God.

If I ever see the evidence for god I will believe in god. Until then I won’t.

There is evidence “suggesting”, Big Foot, Aliens from space, Ghosts etc. Do you believe in those enought to worship them ???

les

 

[_A]

Unfortunatly A, I have to agree with you.

This is what I’ve experienced however and come to believe (fwiw)

I don’t doubt that Jesus existed and did what he did, and said what he said, in fact if we were to see, hear and experience what really happened, instead of reading about it in the Bible, we would most likely have a diferent and profound understanding.

If by ‘did what he did’ you mean the resurrection, how do you get that to fit with reality? I don’t have enough interest in the matter to wonder if someone thousands of years ago happened to have some good moral teachings.
It’s the large ridiculously unbelievable claims that get my attention.
Oh, and how people come to believe them.

 

[_A]

smith, why are you copying websites onto this thread? Don’t you think it would be better if we heard what you had to say, rather than what is freely available online?

 

[c659smith]

Again what testimonial evidence I am producing now is that Jesus existed here on earth about 2000 years ago. Many of you are getting excited over what? that He existed?

The amount of evidence I put forth I believe in any court of law would leave without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed. Is there anyone who has a problem with that contention.

Below is eyewitness testimony and not from historians.

the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ’s resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:

“I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do.” (Bettenson, p. 3)

These passages indicate that Christianity was wide spread in the Roman empire within 80 years of Christ’s death. Again, these are eyewitness accounts, not historians looking back years later.

 

[c659smith]

smith, why are you copying websites onto this thread? Don’t you think it would be better if we heard what you had to say, rather than what is freely available online?

The reason being is just as you can see with the immediate comments on what proof and can use this and can use that. Can you imagine if I put it in my own words.

I carefully read and examined that which is from web sites and is factual data so I can answer most and back up these claims.

Again what I am only doing now is using testimonial and eyewitness testimonies that Jesus existed 2000 years ago. After this can is established I can go on to the next step. Physical evidence.

You know this all started because someone said there was no evidence that God exists.

Now there is evidence weither one believes that evidence as a whole is another thing.

But one cannot say there is no evidence and I plan to disprove that.

 

[_A]

The Athiest has raised many questions. As is usually the case, the answer may be found in the premise to these questions. The Athiest asks how do we know that the world is not an hallucination? The answer depends on what is meant by knowledge. Does the Athiest think that he is an hallucination? Does he think he might be? But he has to exist to ask the question whether the world is an hallucination. St. Augustine asked and answered this question 1700 years ago. One has to exist to ask whether one exists. If one does not exist, he could not ask the question. Perhaps the Athiest believes that he is an hallucination as well. But then who is having the hallucination if he is one as well. Something must be to have the hallucination. Perhaps the Athiest believes that he exists but that all else is hallucination. Of course we know the Athiest does not believe all else is hallucination else he would run stop signs with impunity.
Now does the Athiest concede that he is not an halucination? If he is not, it is possible that others are not, and that the world is not. So a lack of proof that the world is not an hallucination does not disprove the world.

What atheist are you referring to here? It would really help if you tried to have a conversation with someone specific.

We say that the existence of the world is self-evident. To be self evident means it does not admit of other evidence or proof. It means that it is its own evidence, its own proof.
Now proof of the world does not prove God. But neither does it disprove God. Hence Atheism fails from the outset.

Here you have failed yourself. Atheism does not try to prove anything. It certainly doesn’t try to disprove any god. ‘it’ is just a word to describe persons who have no belief in a god or gods.

How do we know that God is not an hallucination? The answer to this is one of faith and experience and reason. There are reasons to conclude that God exists without Revelation. These reasons come from science and our study of cause and effect, and of motion and of time.

What are these reasons?

Now if the Athiest posits that time and motion and science are hallucinations, we must ask him what he is willing to concede is not an hallucination for then even his belief that the ttime and motion are hallucinations must be an hallucination.

If you want to discuss this with a real atheist, instead of the one you have made out of straw, there are a few here willing to discuss.

Does the Athiest suggest that the rash of bad priests may also be present in the upper echelons? He may be certain that it is true. Satan is far worse that a bad priest. Satin loves to convince us that reality is illusion because then we do not have to obey reality. And as Dostoevsky observed, it there is no God everything is permissible.

Do you really mean that? Are you saying that you would feel OK killing, raping and stealing if you discovered that there was no god?

Athiesm is not so much a belief as an unwillingness. It is an unwillingness to even consider the evidence suggesting God. And the reason for this unwillingness is in all of us. To acknowledge God is to concede His authority and Athiests do not want to obey anyone but themselves. Atheism is a mask. It is a coveAnd people use it because it is much easier to say about God. “I doubt” than to say “I won’t.”

If I met Yahweh (or Jehova) or whatever the god of the bible is, I would gladly say that I reject him and all the horrors he stands for. I have no problem accepting the consequences of that decision.

It is no cover for me. There just isn’t anything there worthy of belief.

 

[c659smith]

This is not evidence. Once again. You cannot use the bible to validate the authenticity of the bible.

Hey 659, Got any real evidence???

les

Les, What I am only trying to do know is to use testimonial and eyewitness testimony that Jesus existed 2000 years ago… Once I have established that then I can go on to further evidence.

Les did Jesus exist 2000 years ago?

 

[_A]

The reason being is just as you can see with the immediate comments on what proof and can use this and can use that. Can you imagine if I put it in my own words.

I carefully read and examined that which is from web sites and is factual data so I can answer most and back up these claims.

Again what I am only doing now is using testimonial and eyewitness testimonies that Jesus existed 2000 years ago. After this can is established I can go on to the next step. Physical evidence.

You know this all started because someone said there was no evidence that God exists.

Now there is evidence weither one believes that evidence as a whole is another thing.

But one cannot say there is no evidence and I plan to disprove that.

The kind of evidence you present here might be acceptable evidence that a normal man lived(honestly, I don’t know what modern historians find acceptable in this area). The trouble is when you try to find the kind of evidence that supports the crazy ‘dead men walking’ legends, and ‘water to wine instantly’ legends.
To support such impossible claims, you would have to present some equally impossible evidence.

You still have not answered why it is not acceptable to just pray for the terraforming of the moon. That would be the kind of evidence required to prove the kinds of claims you are making. Even that would have to be investigated quite thouroghly.

Do you understand that normal claims require normal evidence, and amazing claims require amazing evidence?

 

[c659smith]

By the way to go back a few days when I asked about the 1st chapter of Matthew the geneology section) you were right to ask that first question and once you did you could see that Matthew was writting something not to do with geneology.

Looking at the geneology of thousands of years Matthew wrote there were only 5 women named.

The 5 women named had sons as a result of sexual scandal;
to include that of King David’s wife who bore King Soloman.

All having Prophets and Kings out of that scandal.

to include the last Woman mentioned Mary Mother of Christ.

The reason as to this question if you remember is weither a trained and educated person in Theology should be one to define the Bible.

I am not and would not myself have understood that writting till it was pointed out to me by such a person.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

smith, why are you copying websites onto this thread? Don’t you think it would be better if we heard what you had to say, rather than what is freely available online?

Every time I think I’m out, they keep pulling me back in!

I agree that copying websites, especially without referencing them, is bad form. Smith, do better.

lkddav, do better.

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus

Tacitus: “But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man.” (Annals XV, 44)

It would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but still, some do.

Copied completely, even with the followup condemnation, from atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275&start=0&sid=0c2af9efb6641636a3b3a3871591e220

(1) It says Yeshu, not Jesus.

(2) Even if Yeshu and Jesus were identical words, it was not an unusual name. On the contrary, it appears rather frequently in ancient Jewish literature. Josephus records the following out of 28 high priests in the 107 years from Herod to the destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus, son of Phabet; Jesus, son of Damneus; Jesus, son of Gamaliel; Jesus, son of Sapphias; Jesus son of Thebuthus.

(3) Jesus was crucified, not hanged.

(4) Jesus was not stoned, at least not according to the biblical record.

(5) The New Testament says nothing about a herald going forth for forty days before the execution occurred.

Copied straight from skeptically.org/bible/id4.html

At least he’s attempting to engage the evidence. But still, plagiarism is a no-no.