Convince the Atheist Part 1: Jesus

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
biggrin.gif
I was looking for this!
# Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun. 1. "On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun." 1. Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two." 2. The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been. 3. Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the AnteNicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.http://www.carm.org/evidence/extrabiblical_accounts.htm
THANKS ETERNALARCADIA!
 

Jerusalem Junkie

New Member
Jan 7, 2008
654
0
0
67
I'm amazed at how casually and frequently you and others have leveled insults at me. I have offered reasoned debates. I have never once stated anything akin to "You can't understand cuz ur brainwashed". I haven't called you deluded or spiteful or any of the usual insults that you may have come to expect from atheists. You will pay me the same courtesy or I'll take it up with the moderators. Are we clear?
Somebody find him a moderator. What difference does it make how the earth was formed or how the universe was formed its here ain't it. This is a never ending argument that has been going on since the dawn of time. Christians speculate non believers speculate scientists speculate. Speculation rampant........the important thing is how we spend our time here on Speculation Earth......how many of us are going to be here when she blows...
 

MWM

New Member
Feb 16, 2008
86
0
0
31
I suggest you all visit www.thewaythetruth.comIt has just about all the answers you are looking for, including proof of the existance of God, Creationism, the Bible, and the Young Earth.The best videos on that site are Shawn's: www.youtube.com/user/VenomFangXHe inspired me to believe, and I am sure he can do the same for you
smile.gif
Good luck
 

Grape

New Member
Feb 22, 2008
39
0
0
36
I just want everyone to know that Shawns (VenomFangX) videos are NOT proof. The reason you won't find any critizism in his comment section is because he only let "good comments" show.There are also numerous other YouTube users that have proven him wrong.So please, don't let Shawn be the reason you choose Christianity.Before you decide what to believe in. Crossreference your proof on those sites, with the proof on other sites. I would personally recommend this thread on RationalResponders.com:http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/ye...tion_of_life/86In there are a collection of links in which you can read about evolution, how it works and why things looks as they do.Take care.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
May I add that evolution is based on speculations! There is absolutely NO proof that life evolved from single celled organisms. NO PROOF!Those fossils could have been from apes or humans or whatever. There are a lot of people around the world today.I big African male's skull would look different from a small Asian male's skull (for example).
spt.shaq.jpg
-->
male_eastasian.jpg
Evolution is NOT fact!
 

Grape

New Member
Feb 22, 2008
39
0
0
36
May I add that Creationism is based on speculations and blind faith! There is absolutely NO proof that life was created by some sort of magical... God. NO PROOF!Creationism is NOT fact!It is very easy to say that something is false or wrong when you won't even look at it. When you won't even try to explain it.Evolution is THE BEST explanation we have.But yes, evolution is a theory (NOTE: Theory in the scientific sense).
From Wikipedia.In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.
But the fact that evolution is a theory doesn't give creationism a 50/50 chance.So everyone, please, read books. Educate yourselves. Try to understand the world. And remember, gravitation is a theory too.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
(Grape;38733)
May I add that Creationism is based on speculations and blind faith! There is absolutely NO proof that life was created by some sort of magical... God. NO PROOF!Creationism is NOT fact!It is very easy to say that something is false or wrong when you won't even look at it. When you won't even try to explain it.Evolution is THE BEST explanation we have.But yes, evolution is a theory (NOTE: Theory in the scientific sense).But the fact that evolution is a theory doesn't give creationism a 50/50 chance.So everyone, please, read books. Educate yourselves. Try to understand the world. And remember, gravitation is a theory too.
There is as much if not more evidence to support creationism than evolution.
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
The problem of genetic improbability From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine CreationAshby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57, used by permission. Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical. Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene. The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed! But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68. In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87. When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith! This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix: Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196. Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has made no secret of his skepticism: What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's (Matt, I can't get the 'u' to go small for me there!) "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grassé, 104. In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism of evolutionary change. The answer of the mathematicians was "No." Morris, 64-65; Sunderland, 128-36. Participants at the symposium, all evolutionists, recognized the need for some type of mechanism to reduce the odds against evolution. In the words of Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T.: What I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense. Sunderland, 138. Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states: We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution.... We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28. Thus, several decades have only confirmed the observation of Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959): t is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, "a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe" -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare. Fix, 196.*****************References: * Bird, W.R., The Origin of Species Revisited (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library in 1987). Bird graduated summa cum laude from Vanderbilt University and has a J.D. degree from Yale Law School. He has published articles in numerous law journals and represented the State of Louisiana in the challenge to its "creation statute." Both volumes of this work are extensively documented with references to the pertinent scientific literature. * Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1990). Davis has an M.A. degree from Columbia University and is a life science professor at Hillsborough Community College. Kenyon has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford and is Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University. He is the co-author of Biochemical Predestination published by McGraw-Hill in 1969. The Academic Editor of Of Pandas and People was Charles B. Thaxton who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Iowa State University and is the co-author of The Mystery of Life's Origin published by the Philosophical Library in 1984. * Fix, William R., The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan PUblishing, 1984). Fix has an M.A. degree in behavioral science from Simon Fraser University (Canada) and is the author of several books. * Grassé, Pierre-P., Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977). Grassé is France's most distinguished zoologist. Dobzhansky has described his knowledge of the living world as "encyclopedic." * Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982). Morris has a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the University of Minnesota. Parker has a M.S. and Ed.D. in biology from Ball State University. * Pitman, Michael, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984). Pitman has a B.A. degree in science from Open University (England), a M.A. degree in classics from Oxford, and teaches biology in Cambridge, England. The introduction is by Dr. Bernard Stonehouse, a scientist who has held academic posts at Oxford, Yale, and other prestigious universities. * Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 3d ed. (Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984). Sunderland had a B.S. from Penn. State University and worked as an aerospace engineer with General Electric specializing in automatic flight control systems (died 1987). * Varghese, Roy Abraham, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regenery Gateway, 1984). Those quoted are Robert Jastrow and Chandra Wickramasinghe. ...Wickramisinghe is an internationally recognized authority on interstellar matter and is the head of the department of applied mathematics and astronomy at University College in Cardiff, Wales. * Wysong, Randy L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976). Wysong has a B.S. and D.V.M. from Michigan State University
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
The Second Law of Thermodynamicsand Evolution QUESTION: I haven't had a chance to read what you've written yet, but I'd just like to say that the THEORY of evolution goes against the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics (out of order, chaos will be created) A theory is weaker than a law. God is a God of order. RESPONSE: Response: The second law of thermodynamics has to do with heat transfer explicitly. It is perhaps safer to refer to a more generalized tendency toward entropy which is far more inclusive of other phenomena. The tendency from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death, is something we all see and can both define and measure. I have seen two responses from evolutionists regarding this tendency toward entropy in the universe (aside from "You're kidding!") The first is in regard to chemical changes which go from simple to complex, and the second to biological changes that go from simple to complex. An example of the first is a snowflake -- or any crystallization. Crystallization, however, happens to specific elements at specific times under specific conditions. It is a phenomena that is intrinsic to the atomic structure of the element or compound being considered. It is not a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, but rather the result of a specific design involved in the material and can be counted on to happen every time under the prescribed conditions. What is interesting, however, about this particular thing, is that there is a heat transfer involved in crystallization and the second law of thermodynamics is not violated therein. Heat is diffused. Biological increase in complexity is exemplified by a seed becoming a bush or flower or tree, or a fertilized egg becoming a person. However, the design is already present in these beginnings of life. The DNA is there from the beginning, along with whatever might be "sparking" it, and the rest is simply a matter of following instructions. It is, again, not a random ordering from a non-ordered condition. It is a design being executed. As in the case of crystallization, the execution of the biological design requires specific environmental requirements or it cannot proceed. Perhaps it should also be mentioned that evolution as inferred from the fossil record is not even a theory. Theories are testable and, ideally, falsifiable. Evolution is neither. It is, therefore, simply an idea. For some a belief, perhaps, but it cannot be rightly called either fact or theory when it refers to the "bacteria to bears" progression.********* I submitted the above response to a high school teacher of physics and chemistry and asked for comment. The comment is as follows: "In addition to crystallization and biological growth, the other example that consistently comes up (at least with high schoolers) when discussing entropy is thermonuclear fusion." This whole 2LOT argument bothers me . . . Yes, I know that the physicists insist that the 2LOT is 'only about heat transfer', but in chemical contexts it is acceptable to express it in terms of entropy. And entropy changes imply changes in randomness, which implies an inherent direction that a process will take (without outside intervention). I don't see how one can divorce the implications from the law."********** Regarding thermonuclear fusion, any increase in complexity or order of the new elements is at the expense of a tremendous loss of heat and light which then diffuse, as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It should be noted as well that the reactions are specific and take place in exactly the same way with the same elements under the same conditions. Atomic fusion, being specific, can be considered a matter of the design of the elements involved.Helen FrymanCARM
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
Why are there still simple life forms?QUESTION: If complex life forms evolved from simple life forms, why are there still simple life forms?RESPONSE: A couple of points here:1. Complex life forms have been with us from the beginning, as evidenced by the geologic strata. They did not evolve from anything. They were created complex.2. Even the "simplest" life forms -- the prokaryotic bacteria -- are extraordinarily complex. They are certainly far more complex than any chance could produce, no matter how much time or how many elements were available. Your point is mistaken in one area, however. Even according to evolutionary ideas, there is no reason the "simplest" life forms could not exist on a continuing basis although a portion of them might have mutated into other forms. I'm not sure their argument is entirely logical, however.... They say that mutations and environmental pressures worked together to produce changes from one sort of organism to another. But, you are right -- we still have those bacteria and such around. So we must presume that through the billions of years evolution postulates that these bacteria did NOT have the combination of mutations and environmental pressures to become something else -- while their 'sister' populations did. So for one group of organisms we seem to have an incredibly stable genome and environment for millions and billions of years while an identical population was subject to all kinds of mutations and pressures which ended up producing life as we see it today. So, although evolutionists will say that it is perfectly logical that original, or close to original, life forms should still exist today, I'm afraid the logic of it misses me, too.Helen Fryman
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
On what grounds is "mutations are not beneficial" made?QUESTION: On what is the belief in the statement "mutations are not beneficial" grounded, when there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary?RESPONSE: Personally, I don't agree that there are not beneficial mutations, but I have to qualify that statement somewhat severely. Mutations that can be termed beneficial are beneficial in restricted environments. Antibiotic resistance, which is commonly referred to, does not promote stronger bacteria, only a special kind of bacteria which flourishes in environments where other bacteria are not there to compete. When the early, more "generic" bacteria are in competition with the antibiotic resistant bacteria, the former prove the stronger in a non-restricted environment. Sickle cell anemia is another example that is often brought up. And yet it is only beneficial in the heterozygous state and only when malaria is a threat. Without malaria in the environment, the S allele does not prove advantageous and is lethal in the homozygous state. What is seen is a vast preponderance of negative mutations compared to any mutations which might be considered positive by any standards at all (neutral mutations are not being considered here). So while I disagree technically with the statement "mutations are not beneficial," I understand what is being said -- all mutations are by definition changes in the genome. Even by evolutionary standards the genomes present at the family level, if not lower in the taxonomic order, are extraordinarily stable. Changes, then, from this stability would yield an instability which, although evolution theoretically depends on it -- does not bode well for any population that is known today. In other words, when a breeder or parent is told "this one has a mutation," one does not hear, "Wow! Is it a good one?" The assumption across the board, and rightly so, is that expressed mutations are deforming and/or deleterious at the least and lethal at the most.Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea?QUESTION: Why would the dolphin evolve on land, then return to the sea where it would have to re-evolve every feature that it had spent millions of years working on?RESPONSE: It doesn't make any sense to me, either. There is no reason! The rationale is that their best food source was in the water (when they were land animals) and thus they spent so much time in the water they gradually adapted to it. However, please understand that the same people postulate this animal coming OUT of the water and adapting to land some aeons before... This would have been the case for each of the mammals in the seas. You might be interested in Ashby Camp's analysis of "whale evolution" here: http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.htm. He's got several good analytical articles there on different "stages" in claimed evolution. Our option, of course, is simply to believe God's explanation of creation and to notice that we don't see any evidence of one sort of thing changing into another today. What evolution is doing is taking an idea that is non-testable and non-repeatable and declaring it fact by definition and imagination. Their "transitional fossils" are transitional in the eye of the beholder. What the facts tell us is that these are dead and gone animals. (You might also want to note that there are no "transitional" plant fossils claimed. Ginkos, palms, ferns -- they all stay the same in the fossil record.)
 

Wakka

Super Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,461
4
0
33
Is Carbon Dating Reliable?Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?RESPONSE: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below. 1. C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration. For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby the discoverer of the C14 dating method was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all this what the archeologist guessed in their published books. Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I wont go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood). Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life world wide (the flood of Noah)! I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it don't hesitate to write.2. I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as 'corrected' by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time, and that the older the dates the larger the error. Despite this she continually uses the c14 dates to create 'absolute' chronologies. She says this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the 'right' order. Once they did that they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to 'correct' C14 dates. talk of circular reasoning!!!!3. Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.4. Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the 'real' answer to a much younger age. You can find some further good information here:http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon -- read the full page if you get the chance. And, there is a good overview of radiometric dating as well here:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/docu...ntric%20Dating/Radiometric%20Dating.html
 

His By Grace

New Member
Dec 28, 2007
398
0
0
60
I want to go back to the topic for a moment just long enough to say thanks to Dunamite. You took a long time to type in a lot of historical information that was very interesting reading. I was not familiar with all of this. I also appreciate reading your testimony. It is amazing to me when God calls someone from darkness to light and they actually are able to "see". I think that Duke is searching for what he can't find because he's in the dark like we all once were. We need to pray that he will find his way to the Lord like we did. Sometimes you've got to make the step to see the results-like exercising. Faith in Christ is an exercise. You believe first, act on that as the Holy Spirit prompts, and then you see. Trying to explain why we believe is like trying to tell someone about a really great time you had doing something fun and you make the comment, "You had to be there." That's exactly what it's like. Until you experience Christ for yourself, you cannot imagine how a simple Jewish carpenter could change your life so completely. But He is so much more. He is God! We don't have to prove He existed and exists because there is no shaking our faith. When we are faced with death, we have a confidence that a nonbeliever can't have. They have no rock to hold on to.
 

The Duke of Vandals

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
25
0
0
46
(kriss;38628)
Your scenrio is in error we are told by men that George Washington existed we might even find quotes he made but we have no proof outside of what was written in history. Why is Jesus different.
For the simple reason that Jesus is attributed things that are overtly impossible and for the other simple fact that history is utterly silent on him at the time of his alleged life. To be sure, I'm treating the claims made by the bible like any other claims made by history. Alexander the Great conquered large portions of Europe and Asia and we see his influence there. The early Greeks allegedly discovered many mathematical truths and we see evidence of that in history as other people record them. Claim and evidence. What we don't see is people blithely accepting overtly impossible claims and treating them as historical claims. For example, we have evidence of Pharohs, but we have no evidence to believe they're descended from the gods as the Egyptians alleged... and you'd agree with me that the Pharohs of egypt weren't divine. They were just normal human beings who happened to be in positions of great wealth and power. Why should we treat their claim of godhood any different than any other historical claim? Is there evidence of their gods? That they're descended from them? No. The same is true for Jesus. So, kindly do not accuse me of not treating Jesus in an historical context. To be sure, I am the only one in this thread so far who has.
 

The Duke of Vandals

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
25
0
0
46
(Denver;38647)
With all due respect (and frankly it's not that much right now because the people on this forum are blind like you so desperately want to think), these are some of the worst analogies I have ever heard someone give to refute Christ.You cannot show me George Washington anymore than I can show you Christ in the flesh. In fact, we're in the same boat. You have stories, you have a few (claimed) strands of hair, even a decomposed body, but what does that prove?
See my last post. What we have are a group of people (Christians) who are using a double standard (a type of fallacy) to evaluate the claims made in the bible. If someone stated "George Washington defeated the English with the laser beams from his eyes" you'd laugh. If someone said "Martin Luther King liberated people using his mind control ray" you'd scoff. Yet, the idea of a JEw dying on a cross magically removing some sort of evil curse is perfectly acceptable to you. This is a problem.
And you still seem to be off in that because we know there were people here long before Erickson set foot on this continent. I hold one of their artifacts in my hand even as I write this.
Red herring. The point of bringing up Lief Erickson was to show my willingness to change my view when presented with evidence. Show me the evidence that Erickson wasn't here first and I'll believe it. Also, show me evidence that Jesus actually existed and did the things in the bible and I'll believe it. I will entertain none of these "You're close minded" arguments. I believe in, evidence, truth, and logic.
Faith is faith. If you're looking for historical references there are two contained within Tacitus's Annals of Rome and in the work of Josephus.
No. There aren't. Josephus is part of my argument, not yours. He mentions nearly a half dozen Jesuses (Jesi?) who, when taken as a conglomerate, form the basis for the gospel Jesus myth. Men like Yeshua ben Pandira and others. We also know that his alleged mentioned of the gospel Jesus was doctored by the church... a fact that should elicit far more outrage and skepticism from apologists than it does. I'm going to set down a challenge for you with Tacitus, one that no apologist to date has ever risen to. I'd be delighted for you to be the first: evidence for me Tacitus' source on Jesus. It's quite obvious that Tacitus is doing what you and millions of other human beings have been doing for the last 2000 years: seeing Christians and assuming there was a Christ. He lived far too late to have any direct knowledge of Jesus. He was simply the first in a long line of people to say, "There's these Christians and they had this leader named Jesus..." Pointing to Tacitus as evidence of Jesus is like pointing to the first person to mention the Flat Earthist society... and somehow concluding that the fact Flat Earthists exist somehow evidences a flat earth. Also, Tacitus mentions Hercules. Think we should believe in him as well?
However, I'm sure you were well aware of those two long before you came here, so I'll just confirm that fact for you. As far as other sources, this was an insignificant man as far as Rome was concerned, he was just some criminal the Jews wanted dead for them. Other than that, besides the Christian accounts which are before your eyes, the only other group to record this man would be the ones that put him to death. We all know what the victors (so to speak - in their minds at least) get to do in history. The real funny thing is, there are several accounts of the Sanhedrin that say Jesus was hanged, and quite vehemently. There's a reason for that.
I believe the Sanhedrin is referring the Yeshua ben Pandira who was hanged on the eve of Passover in 88 bce. Furthermore, the "Rome didn't think he was significant" argument is a tremendous cop out because it doesn't agree with what's in your bible. We're talking about a guy who often had problems with his crowds of followers and mobs of people living in a time and place that was one of the most literate and well traveled in the world. Christians want there to be two different Jesuses at the same time: the off-the-radar Jesus that jives with history (the utter silence) and the gospel Jesus who was getting mobbed like he was a rock star and commanding the attention of such local luminaries as Pilate. You don't get to have it both ways.
 

The Duke of Vandals

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
25
0
0
46
On a final note.... Wakka, your ability to copy and paste off-topic information is nothing short of staggeringly dishonest. This thread is about the existence (or lack there of) of the historical Jesus. Not radiocarbon dating. Not the existence of god. Nor any of the things you spent more than two posts bringing in. If your only contribution to the thread is to derail it, kindly find some other way to pass your time. Thanks.
 

Beano

New Member
Feb 7, 2008
60
0
0
60
Christians want there to be two different Jesuses at the same time: the off-the-radar Jesus that jives with history (the utter silence) and the gospel Jesus who was getting mobbed like he was a rock star and commanding the attention of such local luminaries as Pilate. You don't get to have it both ways.
Infact Duke dosn't he command much of your attention. Funny how you spend so much time devoting yourself to a person you say dosn't existIsn't it odd how every body has the name of Jesus on their lips. from those who want to blaspheme his name because they've just hit their thumb with a hammer or the atheist and evolutionist who spend much of their time debating his existance on forums like this one.I think the only thing they have managed to accomplish is to strengthen my faithRom8:38'39038: For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 039: Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT Vol 1 - Josh McDOWELLChapter 5 Jesus a man of HistoryJustin Martyr when witnessing Christ to Emperor Antonius Pilus referred him to Pontius Pilotes Report.That would make Jesus a man of history rightKevin
 

The Duke of Vandals

New Member
Feb 27, 2008
25
0
0
46
(Beano;39149)
Infact Duke dosn't he command much of your attention. Funny how you spend so much time devoting yourself to a person you say dosn't exist
lol I devote considerably more time to Superman and Spider Jerusalem.
Isn't it odd how every body has the name of Jesus on their lips. from those who want to blaspheme his name because they've just hit their thumb with a hammer or the atheist and evolutionist who spend much of their time debating his existance on forums like this one.
Same thing with Superman. Honestly, is there an argument here? Help me understand the point you're trying to make. Are you attempting to refute the two Jesuses argument I presented or is this just an appeal to popular opinion fallacy?
I think the only thing they have managed to accomplish is to strengthen my faith
Then your epistemology could use some work.
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT Vol 1 - Josh McDOWELL
Is this one of those evangelical laugh fests like Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ? Do you have anything specific to state from it or are you just "linkwarzing"... using a link to make an argument for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.