Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: mightymouse72 on January 17, 2008, 05:58:36 AM
-
There is a lot of time spent on this board asking us christians to prove there is God who created us and everything.
There is some good debate occasionally but most of the time it usually reverts back to the same arguement: "there is no evidence of God, creation or the Bible being true".
True, it takes extraordinary faith to totally turn your life over to God and accept His Word as being infallible.
But, I'll get to my point. Since we are asked constantly to provide evidence there is God, I will turn that question around and ask: Can anyone provide evidence there isn't a God?? Is there any hard evidence that can prove that God doesn't exist?? I kind of already know how this question will be answered but I'm curious none the less.
Also, below I posed these questions to CD82 in a PM a few days ago. We never tackled those concerns of mine so I thought I would start a thread about them. Anyone care to discuss??
I'm probably opening a smorgasbord of hate-filled posts, but what else is new.
okay, i have some questions. how come none of these scientists can explain how the body and mind become so complex?? when i took my PT course, just the small amount of training i received on the human body would be enough to make me a believer in God. it is simply remarkable how the body functions, processes, repairs and adapts. that did not just happen from a pile of goo. those things cannot be explained. science and medicine might be able to understand the body but if they can explain how it happened by evolution and without God, then i'd love to hear it. and, if they can, why isn't science making humans??
why can't science explain human emotion??
even the most hateful atheist has Godly attributes and i can prove it.
do you feel compassion for people in hurt or distress??
do you have love for your wife/GF, mother and father, siblings, or friends?? enough to die for them??
do you give to some type of charity or organization that helps something or someone??
do you wish freedom, safety and happiness for everyone in the world??
do you respect your elders, teach a young child how to do something??
do you watch nature, play with your cat or dog??
i could probably go on but you understand. my guess would be that you answered yes to most if not all of those. aside from the most evil people in the world, i would say most of the people in the world have all those things.
those are the gifts that God has given to mankind. those did NOT come from animals. there is no way.
-
A god is a being created by humans and given supernatural powers or attributes such as immortality, omniscience, telekinesis, and invisibility. These creations serve many purposes, such as imaginary protection from enemies or explanations for the origin of such things as good and evil, fire and wind, or life and death.
Gods are often the central figures around which religions are built. It is often claimed that religion began in fear and superstition. The same might be said for gods.
Some religions maintain that there is just one God and that all the gods of all religions except theirs were created by human beings. Yet, everyone who believes in a god of some sort believes their god is real.
Since gods are supernatural, they exist outside the bounds and laws of space and time. They can possess any of an infinite array of magical powers. Hence, there is no way to prove or disprove their reality. One might say: If gods exist, anything goes!
-
There is a lot of time spent on this board asking us christians to prove there is God who created us and everything.
There is some good debate occasionally but most of the time it usually reverts back to the same arguement: "there is no evidence of God, creation or the Bible being true".
True, it takes extraordinary faith to totally turn your life over to God and accept His Word as being infallible.
Faith is belief without evidence. Thus, it demands the suspension of reason. Faith simply means that you refrain from applying to one particular god and religion, the same skepticism that you apply to all other gods and religions.
I'd rather think hard and evaluate evidence.
But, I'll get to my point. Since we are asked constantly to provide evidence there is God, I will turn that question around and ask: Can anyone provide evidence there isn't a God?? Is there any hard evidence that can prove that God doesn't exist?? I kind of already know how this question will be answered but I'm curious none the less.
The burden of proof is always on those who claim something exists. I am making no such claims. You are.
Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Zeus? Adonis? Jupiter? Minerva? Santa?
Can you prove Mohammad didn't fly on his horse Al Boraq from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then from there on to Heaven?
If you can't disprove these, who do you disbelieve them?
Also, below I posed these questions to CD82 in a PM a few days ago. We never tackled those concerns of mine so I thought I would start a thread about them. Anyone care to discuss??
I'm probably opening a smorgasbord of hate-filled posts, but what else is new.
You won't get any hate from me!
okay, i have some questions. how come none of these scientists can explain how the body and mind become so complex??
They can. If only you'd taken the trouble to learn just a little about modern biology, psychology, and neuro-science, among other fields. Evolution is a very powerful theory that provides explanations to many questions along these lines. What it cannot explain entirely, it certainly goes a long way.
when i took my PT course, just the small amount of training i received on the human body would be enough to make me a believer in God.
That is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that, if you were impressed with the workings of the human body, therefore the Christian god exists. For one thing, how do you know it wasn't the Muslim god, or the Mormon god? Or any of the other gods that at one time or another, men thought were the creators?
it is simply remarkable how the body functions, processes, repairs and adapts. that did not just happen from a pile of goo.
Of course it didn't. But you'd know that already if you'd take the time to learn some science. Evolution is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "happening from a pile of goo."
those things cannot be explained. science and medicine might be able to understand the body but if they can explain how it happened by evolution
Yes they can, and they have. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science is going to "unlearn" what it has accomplished!
if they can, why isn't science making humans??
You mean, like, in vitro fertilization? or something like that? I don't get this point.
why can't science explain human emotion??
Science can tell us how the brain works. Neuro-science and brain imaging study particular parts of the brain as they are stimulated by particular emotions. Evolutionary psychology explains a good deal about the emotions we feel.
That is not to reduce our emotional and artistic experience to points on a graph, but understanding them only makes them more special, not less so.
even the most hateful atheist has Godly attributes and i can prove it.
Dude, you are almost as much of an atheist as I am. An atheist is, by definition, someone who doesn't think gods exist. Over the millenia, men have believed in many thousands of gods. Let's say for a moment there's just a thousand of them. (There were undoubtedly a lot more.) You believe in only one, I believe in none.
So that means you believe in 0.001% of the gods, and I believe in 0.000%. Slight difference.
As Richard Dawkins said, "We are ALL atheists with respect to most of the gods that mankind has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
do you feel compassion for people in hurt or distress??
Yes.
do you have love for your wife/GF, mother and father, siblings, or friends?? enough to die for them??
Yes.
do you give to some type of charity or organization that helps something or someone??
Yes.
do you wish freedom, safety and happiness for everyone in the world??
Yes.
do you respect your elders, teach a young child how to do something??
Yes.
do you watch nature, play with your cat or dog??
Yes, but I don't have any pets.
i could probably go on but you understand.
No, not quite.
my guess would be that you answered yes to most if not all of those. aside from the most evil people in the world, i would say most of the people in the world have all those things.
Yes. Most people in the world across cultures display these altruistic features. And evolution explains perfectly well how they came about in our ancestors.
those are the gifts that God has given to mankind.
Which god? The Christian god? Then why do Muslims answer yes to these questions too? Again, throwing your god in there is a complete non sequitur.
those did NOT come from animals. there is no way. [/i]
I hate to break it to you, but we ARE animals. We are mammals!
-
i was going to take your post apart like columbus dude did but he did a good job at it.
your arguments stem from a lack of knowledge and the need for more. because you dont understand something doesnt mean it hasnt been explained. i know quite a bit about neuro-science and there are neural correlates to certain emotional states via imaging studies, and disease studies, or organ removal. thus we know for example that the amygdala is involved in the fear response, more specifically the fear recongnition via occular observation. the brain grows new dendrites via BDNF among other nerve trophic factors, all without the help of god. you should read some science.
-
good post columbusdude82 ;)
-
Thanks, usmokepole and beatmaster :)
-
Faith is belief without evidence. Thus, it demands the suspension of reason. Faith simply means that you refrain from applying to one particular god and religion, the same skepticism that you apply to all other gods and religions.
Incorrect!!! Faith is not belief without evidence. Christians have faith in God, based on what He has done in the past, according to Scripture. What faith entails is that the believer will trust in God, whether there is "evidence" or not.
The burden of proof is always on those who claim something exists. I am making no such claims. You are.
Can you prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Zeus? Adonis? Jupiter? Minerva? Santa?
Can you prove Mohammad didn't fly on his horse Al Boraq from Mecca to Jerusalem, and then from there on to Heaven?
If you can't disprove these, who do you disbelieve them?
The "burden of proof" depends on the audience. Non-believers always put the burden of proof on believers; believers do the same to non-believers. You believe that life has no God at its source, and that a series of random, unmanipulated events begat life on this planet. Can you produce some evidence of such happening?
They can. If only you'd taken the trouble to learn just a little about modern biology, psychology, and neuro-science, among other fields. Evolution is a very powerful theory that provides explanations to many questions along these lines. What it cannot explain entirely, it certainly goes a long way.
What it doesn't explain is origin. Nor does it explain how the "lower" creatures become "higher" ones, with no deliberate manipulation. What we've learned from biology (some time ago) is that life comes from life.
That is a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that, if you were impressed with the workings of the human body, therefore the Christian god exists. For one thing, how do you know it wasn't the Muslim god, or the Mormon god? Or any of the other gods that at one time or another, men thought were the creators?
Nor does it follow that if, men believed in multiple gods, that all of them were incorrect and that man was not created at all.
Of course it didn't. But you'd know that already if you'd take the time to learn some science. Evolution is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "happening from a pile of goo."
I beg to differ. At its core, evolution requires the origin of life WITHOUT supernatural guidance. And that such started by one random accident after another, resulting in lifeforms with increased complexity. There's a reason that evolution appeals to atheists: It fits their philosophical bend towards a godless existence.
Yes they can, and they have. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science is going to "unlearn" what it has accomplished!
The only thing that "science" has accomplished is taking God's materials and using His natural and physical laws and resources to address questions to which He already knows the answers. A scientific discovery is simply finding something that was already there.
You mean, like, in vitro fertilization? or something like that? I don't get this point.
I do. Science isn't making any human beings. The materals that make humans are ALREADY in existence, originally created by God. Man has learned (at certain levels) how to manipulate those materials. Sperm and egg come ready-made and God's laws of nature take over from there.
Science can tell us how the brain works. Neuro-science and brain imaging study particular parts of the brain as they are stimulated by particular emotions. Evolutionary psychology explains a good deal about the emotions we feel.
That is not to reduce our emotional and artistic experience to points on a graph, but understanding them only makes them more special, not less so.
Understanding them can also lead to the acknowledgement that such abilities were given to man by his Creator, thus making them special.
Dude, you are almost as much of an atheist as I am. An atheist is, by definition, someone who doesn't think gods exist. Over the millenia, men have believed in many thousands of gods. Let's say for a moment there's just a thousand of them. (There were undoubtedly a lot more.) You believe in only one, I believe in none.
So that means you believe in 0.001% of the gods, and I believe in 0.000%. Slight difference.
As Richard Dawkins said, "We are ALL atheists with respect to most of the gods that mankind has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
If you want to go that route, I can say that you are just as much a believer in "gods" as I or MightyMouse, or Richard Dawkins, for that matter. A god, by definition, can be a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship.
Atheism/humanism, in short form, is simply man worshipping himself. Doing such makes an atheist no different than a Christian, in that respect. Either you believe that there is a being higher than man or you don't. If you don't, than you are assigning man as the arbitrator or right and wrong, good and evil, etc. (i.e. the highest being in the universe). That, for all practical purposes, is a god, which means you believe in "0.001% of the gods" as well.
-
A god is a being created by humans and given supernatural powers or attributes such as immortality, omniscience, telekinesis, and invisibility. These creations serve many purposes, such as imaginary protection from enemies or explanations for the origin of such things as good and evil, fire and wind, or life and death.
Gods are often the central figures around which religions are built. It is often claimed that religion began in fear and superstition. The same might be said for gods.
Some religions maintain that there is just one God and that all the gods of all religions except theirs were created by human beings. Yet, everyone who believes in a god of some sort believes their god is real.
Since gods are supernatural, they exist outside the bounds and laws of space and time. They can possess any of an infinite array of magical powers. Hence, there is no way to prove or disprove their reality. One might say: If gods exist, anything goes!
By the definition I listed earlier (from Webster's Dictionary), gods aren't exclusively supernatural. As for the claim of proving and disproving reality, the only way to do that would be indirect observation. That is, observing the works of a supernatural being, manifested in the natural world.
Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As mortal men, we can only observe with our senses (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling. The tools of scientific research usually amplify those senses for greater and more detailed observation.
-
Great posts, MCWAY!
-
Great posts, MCWAY!
ditto :)
-
oh brother here we go again.
-
MCWAY's debate strategy is what I call the "Dinesh D'Souza": throw so much dust in the air that people are left asking "what's the question again?"
Here goes.
Incorrect!!! Faith is not belief without evidence. Christians have faith in God, based on what He has done in the past, according to Scripture. What faith entails is that the believer will trust in God, whether there is "evidence" or not.
So you trust in God "whether or not there is evidence" yet you deny that faith is belief without evidence. Oh dear...
You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)
Muslims trust in Allah too, based on what he has done in the past.
Trusting imaginary friends is no basis on which to establish truth claims.
The "burden of proof" depends on the audience. Non-believers always put the burden of proof on believers; believers do the same to non-believers.
False. The burden of proving that something exists lies on those who claim that it exists. If you were to claim that there is a blue 2-ton tomato growing in your garden, the burden of proof is on you. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
You believe that life has no God at its source,
Well, of course! Given that I don't believe in any gods whatsoever...
and that a series of random, unmanipulated events begat life on this planet. Can you produce some evidence of such happening?
Here we go again with the "evidence for evolution" thing from the other thread. The scientific journal is filled with evidence. I provided links to a couple journal articles in that thread, by way of illustration. Have you looked them up?
What it doesn't explain is origin.
Well DUUUUHHHHH, evolution is about "evolution of life" not "origin of life." But scientists are also doing work in the latter area.
Nor does it explain how the "lower" creatures become "higher" ones, with no deliberate manipulation.
Yes it does. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science will "unlearn" what it has accomplished!
Nor does it follow that if, men believed in multiple gods, that all of them were incorrect and that man was not created at all.
Correct. But I see no more evidence for one than any of the others. It follows that they are all equally likely. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument there are a thousand gods, each has a 0.001% of existence.
I beg to differ. At its core, evolution requires the origin of life WITHOUT supernatural guidance. And that such started by one random accident after another, resulting in lifeforms with increased complexity. There's a reason that evolution appeals to atheists: It fits their philosophical bend towards a godless existence.
No. It appeals to anyone who cares to learn the truth. I have friends who are biology grad students doing research in evolution. They are also devout Christians. They tell me evolution strengthens their faiths.
Faith in God and knowledge of evolution have been reconciled by many who wanted both. Atheists don't need evolution to not believe in gods. They have many other reasons.
The only thing that "science" has accomplished is taking God's materials and using His natural and physical laws and resources to address questions to which He already knows the answers.
Again, a non sequitur. A muslim could say the same thing and put "Allah" where you say "God" and it would be just as much of a non sequitur.
A scientific discovery is simply finding something that was already there.
You don't say??? Good job, Captain Obvious. You looked up "discover" in the dictionary? Dis/Cover = Remove Cover!
I do. Science isn't making any human beings. The materals that make humans are ALREADY in existence, originally created by God. Man has learned (at certain levels) how to manipulate those materials. Sperm and egg come ready-made and God's laws of nature take over from there.
Again, how do you know it was God and not Allah or Zeus? Another non sequitur. You are claiming that your particular god did something. A follower of another religion can claim the same, and neither of you has any evidence. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Understanding them can also lead to the acknowledgement that such abilities were given to man by his Creator, thus making them special.
Again, a non sequitur, no more than understanding diabetes means that the it was given by a creator.
If you want to go that route, I can say that you are just as much a believer in "gods" as I or MightyMouse, or Richard Dawkins, for that matter.
Well, OK, I am fine with being a 0.000% believer :) Are you fine with being a 0.001% believer? ;)
A god, by definition, can be a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship.
I thought "by definition" gods are supernatural. Isn't that what the religious folks imply when you say your gods exist "outside space and time" and aren't subject to our requirements of evidence? Is your god supernatural? ???
Atheism/humanism, in short form, is simply man worshipping himself.
Oh brother ::) If atheism is a form of worship, then health is a form of disease. Being an atheist is merely not believing in any gods, and by implication, not worshipping any. Since your mind is trained into subservience to imaginary friends, you are unable to see how anyone can not worship something.
Doing such makes an atheist no different than a Christian, in that respect.
False
Either you believe that there is a being higher than man or you don't.
No shit!
If you don't, than you are assigning man as the arbitrator or right and wrong, good and evil, etc. (i.e. the highest being in the universe).
Highest being in the universe? How do you know that? Have you led an exhaustive intergallactic mission and found absolutely no signs of any other beings?
That, for all practical purposes, is a god, which means you believe in "0.001% of the gods" as well.
Again, you BS! I'm an atheist, MCWAY. I do not believe any gods exist. You can BS all you like but you can't sway me from 0.000% to 0.001% :)
In the future, please take some time to learn about something (e.g., science, atheism, ...) before you start rambling on and on about it.
Thank you :)
-
Great posts, MCWAY!
Only if you like sand in your eyes ;)
-
MCWAY's debate strategy is what I call the "Dinesh D'Souza": throw so much dust in the air that people are left asking "what's the question again?"
Here goes.
So you trust in God "whether or not there is evidence" yet you deny that faith is belief without evidence. Oh dear...
"Oh Dear..." is right, when it comes to your conclusion of what faith is. There's a reason why, for example, Abraham is used as a reference of faith for Christian. He was promised that, through his wife Sarah, he would have a son and through that son, Abe's seed would become a great nation. If my memory serves me correctly, it was about 25 years between the time God made that promise and the time Isaac was actually born.
Then, of course, there's the old Mt. Moriah inicident. Abe is tested by being told to sacrifice Isaac, the very son God promised him. As he'd heading up the mountain, Abe tells his servants to wait and that he and Isaac would return to them. Abe counted on God to fulfill His promise, even though he had no idea how God would do it. His faith was based on the evidence that God gave him Isaac, in the first place (even though he and an already-barren Sarah were both long past child-bearing age).
You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)
You want this one, Loco, or should I take it? ;D
I'll start with one of several examples of how Scriptures has contained historical accounts that Biblical skeptics believed to be false (due to their lack of belief and that that the Bible was the lone source of such accounts)....that is, until archaeological evidence confirmed the Biblical accounts to be accurate. Some of those skeptics became believers, as a result.
Ever heard of Belshazzar? He was a co-regent king with his biological father, Nabonidus, in Babylon. Skeptics claimed that Belshazzar never existed (and that whoever mentioned him in the book of Daniel, made the character up), until cuneiform evidence of his existence was found in the mid 19th century. Next, the skeptics said that he wasn't "king". However, that same archaeological evidence shows his father assiging the kingdom to Belshazzar, while he left to pursue other things.
That just happens to correspond with Daniel 5, in which Daniel is offered the position of third highest ruler in the kingdom, if he can solve a certain handwriting-on-the-wall mystery. For 100 points, why is it that Daniel can only be third-highest ruler, instead of second-highest?
Muslims trust in Allah too, based on what he has done in the past.
Trusting imaginary friends is no basis on which to establish truth claims.
What was that you were saying about "burden of proof"?
False. The burden of proving that something exists lies on those who claim that it exists. If you were to claim that there is a blue 2-ton tomato growing in your garden, the burden of proof is on you. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Well, of course! Given that I don't believe in any gods whatsoever...
Then, the burden of proof would be yours (depending on the audience) that no gods exist and that life occured without them.
Here we go again with the "evidence for evolution" thing from the other thread. The scientific journal is filled with evidence. I provided links to a couple journal articles in that thread, by way of illustration. Have you looked them up?
Well DUUUUHHHHH, evolution is about "evolution of life" not "origin of life." But scientists are also doing work in the latter area.
In other words, you are exercising your faith that life just somehow got here (with no God and no guidance). Furthermore, why do scientists need to do work in that area, as you put it? As evolutionists past have stated, as some point, the question becomes "How did life began?" And, as I've posted before, the reason many evolutionists (past and present) believed and still believe in evolution (primarily, one of its specific tenets of spontaneous generation) is because, without it, they must concede to a supernatural source of origin, which they DO NOT want to do.
Yes it does. Just because you choose to keep yourself misinformed doesn't mean science will "unlearn" what it has accomplished!
What's the accomplishment? Where is the demonstration that, left unmolested and unaltered, a lizard, for example, will "evolve" into a bird, if put in the alleged environment that caused such to happen?
No. It appeals to anyone who cares to learn the truth. I have friends who are biology grad students doing research in evolution. They are also devout Christians. They tell me evolution strengthens their faiths.
I have friends who are biology students and have degrees in other scientific fields. They believe in Creation. What's your point?
Faith in God and knowledge of evolution have been reconciled by many who wanted both. Atheists don't need evolution to not believe in gods. They have many other reasons.
Remember I speficially stated that evolution appeals to atheists, because it's a godless explanation for life on this planet.
You don't say??? Good job, Captain Obvious. You looked up "discover" in the dictionary? Dis/Cover = Remove Cover!
Now, it's your turn, genius. How did those lovely items get there in the first place?
Again, how do you know it was God and not Allah or Zeus? Another non sequitur. You are claiming that your particular god did something. A follower of another religion can claim the same, and neither of you has any evidence. Again, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
As well, a follower of naturalism (i.e. YOU) could claim that such mysteriously appear with no guidance (though scientists are still trying to "figure it out", of course). So, it appears that you're in the same boat.
Well, OK, I am fine with being a 0.000% believer :) Are you fine with being a 0.001% believer? ;)
But, you aren't a 0.0000% believer. Your deity just happens to be......man.
I thought "by definition" gods are supernatural. Isn't that what the religious folks imply when you say your gods exist "outside space and time" and aren't subject to our requirements of evidence? Is your god supernatural? ???
I listed some of the definitions, earlier, in case you forgot. That list was not exhaustive.
Oh brother ::) If atheism is a form of worship, then health is a form of disease. Being an atheist is merely not believing in any gods, and by implication, not worshipping any. Since your mind is trained into subservience to imaginary friends, you are unable to see how anyone can not worship something.
Your mind is trained into believe that worshipping something/someone is limited to bowing before an altar an invoking a formal or ritualistic prayer. It is not.
False
No shit!
Highest being in the universe? How do you know that? Have you led an exhaustive intergallactic mission and found absolutely no signs of any other beings?
I never claimed that man was the highest being in the universe. What I said was, if you do not believe that there is a being higher than man, then (by default) you are assigning man as the highest being in the universe, effectively placing man (with his limited abilities) in the position of deity.
Again, you BS! I'm an atheist, MCWAY. I do not believe any gods exist. You can BS all you like but you can't sway me from 0.000% to 0.001% :)
You do not believe in the supernatural. The god you worship, however, is not a supernatural one. People have worshipped gods made of wood, stone, and metal, none of which are supernatural.
In the future, please take some time to learn about something (e.g., science, atheism, ...) before you start rambling on and on about it.
Thank you :)
Perhaps, you should take your own advice, especially when it comes to faith!!!!
You're welcome!!!!
-
MCWAY, you are a dishonest debater. You repeat the same points over and over after you have been debunked, and have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself.
I thought about replying to this last post, but I would just end up copying/pasting my previous post, since it obviously didn't filter through for you.
I am sorry you have been deprived of a good scientific education, or choose to keep yourself misinformed.
You're most welcome :)
CD82
-
MCWAY, you are a dishonest debater. You repeat the same points over and over after you have been debunked, and have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself.
And this debunking occured where?
And exactly about what was I dishonest? Some specifics would be nice!!!
I thought about replying to this last post, but I would just end up copying/pasting my previous post, since it obviously didn't filter through for you.
I am sorry you have been deprived of a good scientific education, or choose to keep yourself misinformed.
You're most welcome :)
CD82
Making condescending remarks and a pitiful attempts at a brush-off does not a good debator make, in your case. If you think I've been dishonest, show some specific examples of my alleged lies and back them up.
But, resorting to this is just plain feeble.
-
Re-read my first debunking and be debunked again :)
I love how you continue with the "atheism is a religion" mantra and "you worship man" BS after I debunked it.
You have no interest in debating, only in hearing yourself repeat the same stuff over and over.
I certainly don't mean to "brush you off," but you are not interested in hearing anything except your unreasoned rants against atheism and science.
-
Let's pick your most idiotic claim: that atheists worship a god also.
I made a new thread for that.
Everyone feel free to take it up there.
As for this thread, I'm waiting for Mightymouse to return. It is his thread after all :)
-
Re-read my first debunking and be debunked again :)
That would require actually being debunked a first time ;D .
I love how you continue with the "atheism is a religion" mantra and "you worship man" BS after I debunked it.
You have no interest in debating, only in hearing yourself repeat the same stuff over and over.
I certainly don't mean to "brush you off," but you are not interested in hearing anything except your unreasoned rants against atheism and science.
I've heard what you have to say and am addressing it, giving my point of views. That's called a discussion, in case you missed it. Furthermore, my disagreeing with you in certain area doesn't make my arguments "unreasoned rants", against science and atheism.
You stated that you don't believe in any gods, which is propped by your assumption that gods are strictly supernatural. If by definition, a god is/can be " can be a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship., then it follows that you can worship a god WITHOUT that god being a supernatural entity. People do that still today, on a regular basis.
I'll be at your other thread, in a bit.
-
MCWAY, you are a dishonest debater. You repeat the same points over and over after you have been debunked, and have no interest in listening to anyone but yourself.
I thought about replying to this last post, but I would just end up copying/pasting my previous post, since it obviously didn't filter through for you.
I am sorry you have been deprived of a good scientific education, or choose to keep yourself misinformed.
I agree.
MCWAY your posts are filled with strawman arguments, and false dilemmas. Somewhere there is an intelligent being though, though that intelligence is being shamefully wasted.
I'll defend one point in the above discussion, namely that atheism is a religion. What I find most despicable about your posts is the equating of the supernatural murderous primitive judeo-christian god with the god of Einstein and Spinoza.
The christian god is a fictitious supernatural fairy tale, (and not a very good one at that). The athiest 'god' is the sum of the laws of nature (both known and unknown). Atheism posits neither a personal nor a supernatural being. There is no 'god' of athiesm, unless by god you mean reality.
Long ago people believed in a thing called animism. Animism stated that the coming of the tides, the blossoming of every flower, the turning of the seasons was influenced directly by the hand of god. A particular barbaric consequence is the practice of human sacrifice to hasten the coming of rain. As we learned more and more about the nature of reality and the science underlying these processes, we came to realize that there were very specific natural forces that controlled these processes. The moon causes the tide, the tilt of the earth influences the seasons, etc.
At this point in history, science is completely devoid of the need of a god. When we cannot explain a natural process we do not throw our hands up and attribute the process to god. Instead we pursue a nobler path, namely one of wonder and discovery. This is a fundamentally different manner of thinking about the world, and is coincidentally the manner of thinking that led to the technology that allows us to communicate in this manner.
Equating science with religion insults both parties.
-
I agree.
MCWAY your posts are filled with strawman arguments, and false dilemmas. Somewhere there is an intelligent being though, though that intelligence is being shamefully wasted.
I'll defend one point in the above discussion, namely that atheism is a religion. What I find most despicable about your posts is the equating of the supernatural murderous primitive judeo-christian god with the god of Einstein and Spinoza.
The christian god is a fictitious supernatural fairy tale, (and not a very good one at that). The athiest 'god' is the sum of the laws of nature (both known and unknown). Atheism posits neither a personal nor a supernatural being. There is no 'god' of athiesm, unless by god you mean reality.
But, it does assign man as the highest being in the universe, which fits some of the defintions of a "god" I listed earlier (a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship). Like Columbusdude, you are assuming that the term is limited to something supernatural.
Long ago people believed in a thing called animism. Animism stated that the coming of the tides, the blossoming of every flower, the turning of the seasons was influenced directly by the hand of god. A particular barbaric consequence is the practice of human sacrifice to hasten the coming of rain. As we learned more and more about the nature of reality and the science underlying these processes, we came to realize that there were very specific natural forces that controlled these processes. The moon causes the tide, the tilt of the earth influences the seasons, etc.
At this point in history, science is completely devoid of the need of a god. When we cannot explain a natural process we do not throw our hands up and attribute the process to god. Instead we pursue a nobler path, namely one of wonder and discovery. This is a fundamentally different manner of thinking about the world, and is coincidentally the manner of thinking that led to the technology that allows us to communicate in this manner.
Equating science with religion insults both parties.
Contrary to your claim, at no point does any believer "throw up our hands and attribute the process to God", when lacking a natural explanation. That is a strawman on YOUR part, MMC78. On the contrary, when the process is learned, the complexity inherent therein points the believer to the power and majesty of God.
Wonder and discovery does NOT mandate nor neccesitate the absence of God. This is another strawman, if you will, that atheists and evolutionists love to use: That a belief in Creation will somehow stifle the desire for exploration and scientific advancement.
-
But, it does assign man as the highest being in the universe, which fits some of the defintions of a "god" I listed earlier (a powerful ruler, a person or thing of supreme value, one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality, or something requiring human worship). Like Columbusdude, you are assuming that the term is limited to something supernatural.
You are stretching definitions to prove a tenuous point. If you equate the scientific process with idol worship then let's discontinue this thread of discussion.
Contrary to your claim, at no point does any believer "throw up our hands and attribute the process to God", when lacking a natural explanation. That is a strawman on YOUR part, MMC78. On the contrary, when the process is learned, the complexity inherent therein points the believer to the power and majesty of God.
Admiring the wonder and majesty of God after failing to achieve a natural explanation of something is akin to throwing up your hands in the air. Unless you continue the effort to understand things in terms of a natural process then you are giving up on the intellectual pursuit.
Wonder and discovery does NOT mandate nor neccesitate the absence of God. This is another strawman, if you will, that atheists and evolutionists love to use: That a belief in Creation will somehow stifle the desire for exploration and scientific advancement.
I can't agree with that statement considering how at odds science and religion has been with each other since the enlightenment.
[/quote]
-
mcway for starters you dont know what a strawman is, science has nothing to do with god. god is supernatural, hence outside of science by your definition.
your god is one of the gaps, you say he is responsible for the creation of man because we do not have that information yet. there have been gods for all the gaps, like zeus, gods of fire, water, earth all gone with natural explanations in hand.
your soul is not to be found within a human being, all his emotions have neural correlates.
where is your god? there is no evidence for him, and our naturalistic explanations serve us well. nothing in our pursuit of knowledge has overturned a god, what it has done is lessened the number of gods. that trend will continue if im a betting man.
-
sorry guys, i realize i started this thread and i haven't responded. busy life.
thanks mcway for fighting for the truth.
i wish i had the time to make thought out replies. but anyway, you anti-god people made your responses like i thought. shallow.
i still did not read any hard evidence against the existence of God from anyone. just the arguement of faith. so, why should i believe you?? ya'll aren't very convincing.
i've lived without God in my life and, now, with God in my life. and i'm telling you, i'm much more happy, content and fulfilled. and, by the statemet; "with God in my life" i mean praying, reading His Word, having faith in tough times and trusting Him. some people think that all they have to do is believe in God and He will bless you. wrong.
anyway, since i've pretty much lived on both sides of the fence, why should be swayed to NOT believe in God?? there is no life on that side of the fence. people, and much worse kids, are being taught they descend from animals, monkies, goo are whatever you guys believe and society tries to figure out why they act like animals. they wonder what life is about and a lot of people believe life is pointless. what else would can they believe when "scientists" tell them their cousins are apes.
-
sorry guys, i realize i started this thread and i haven't responded. busy life.
thanks mcway for fighting for the truth.
i wish i had the time to make thought out replies. but anyway, you anti-ALLAH people made your responses like i thought. shallow.
i still did not read any hard evidence against the existence of ALLAH from anyone. just the arguement of faith. so, why should i believe you?? ya'll aren't very convincing.
i've lived without ALLAH in my life and, now, with ALLAH in my life. and i'm telling you, i'm much more happy, content and fulfilled. and, by the statemet; "with ALLAH in my life" i mean praying, reading His Word, having faith in tough times and trusting Him. some people think that all they have to do is believe in ALLAH and He will bless you. wrong.
anyway, since i've pretty much lived on both sides of the fence, why should be swayed to NOT believe in ALLAH?? there is no life on that side of the fence. people, and much worse kids, are being taught they descend from animals, monkies, goo are whatever you guys believe and society tries to figure out why they act like animals. they wonder what life is about and a lot of people believe life is pointless. what else would can they believe when "scientists" tell them their cousins are apes.
Mightymouse, all the points you raise, I have already answered in this thread, other threads, and in our private PM conversations. However, you seem to be immune to reason, or willfully ignore my points.
Perhaps a change of perspective will help you. The only change I made to your post is to replace the name of the god you believe in, with that of another that you do not believe in. So imagine a Muslim had written your post.
Re-read and see how many fallacies, non sequiturs, and faulty arguments you can identify. I counted several.
-
You want this one, Loco, or should I take it? ;D
I'll start with one of several examples of how Scriptures has contained historical accounts that Biblical skeptics believed to be false (due to their lack of belief and that that the Bible was the lone source of such accounts)....that is, until archaeological evidence confirmed the Biblical accounts to be accurate. Some of those skeptics became believers, as a result.
Ever heard of Belshazzar? He was a co-regent king with his biological father, Nabonidus, in Babylon. Skeptics claimed that Belshazzar never existed (and that whoever mentioned him in the book of Daniel, made the character up), until cuneiform evidence of his existence was found in the mid 19th century. Next, the skeptics said that he wasn't "king". However, that same archaeological evidence shows his father assiging the kingdom to Belshazzar, while he left to pursue other things.
That just happens to correspond with Daniel 5, in which Daniel is offered the position of third highest ruler in the kingdom, if he can solve a certain handwriting-on-the-wall mystery. For 100 points, why is it that Daniel can only be third-highest ruler, instead of second-highest?
You are doing fine, MCWAY! But yeah, I can take this one.
You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)
Just because no archaeological evidence has yet been found to support something that the Bible mentions automatically means that it isn't true?
The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
The Old Testament mentions the ancient Hittite civilization more than 50 times, either by their Hebrew name "Chitti" or by their designation as the sons and daughters Heth. However, prior to their rediscovery in the 19th century, there appeared to be no evidence for their existence outside of the Bible. Skeptics cited the missing evidence as evidence that the Bible actually fabricated their existence. This called the reliability of the biblical account into question. Basically the skeptics said, "We can't find any evidence for the Hittite civilization outside of the Bible. This demonstrates that the Bible cannot be trusted as an historical source."
Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries archaeologists hit the jackpot, not only identifying extrabiblical references to the Hittite civilization, but by actually finding and excavating the ancient Hittite capital city of Hattusa (modern day Boðazköy in northern Turkey). The rediscovery of this ancient civilization vindicated the Biblical record.
Evidence for the Hittites was bolstered in Egypt with the discovery of a treaty between Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite Empire. Originally written on silver tablets in Heliopolis and Hattusus, a huge copy was found on a wall of the great Karnak Temple. After years of fighting between the Hittites and the Egyptians, Ramses II and the Hittite king settled on a treaty whereby the territory of Syria and Canaan would be divided between them.
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm
The House of David Inscription (also known as the "Tel Dan Inscription") was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.
The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David's reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a "king of Israel" (probably Joram) and a king of the "House of David" (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
Ancient Roman Crucifixion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archaeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion
Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus which was discovered in Jerusalem. It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.
The remains were found accidentally in an ossuary with the crucified man's name on it, 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol'. The ossuary contained a heel with a nail driven through its side, indicating that the heels may have been driven through the sides of the tree (one on the left side, one on the right side, and not with both feet together in front). The nail had olive wood on it indicating that he was crucified on a cross made of olivewood or on an olive tree. Since olive trees are not very tall, this would suggest that the condemned were crucified at eye level. Additionally, the piece of olive wood was located between the heel and the head of the nail, presumably to keep the condemned from freeing his foot by sliding it over the nail. His legs were found broken. It is thought that since in Roman times iron was expensive, the nails were removed from the dead body to cut the costs, which would help to explain why only one has been found, as the back of the nail was bent in such a way that it couldn't be removed.
-
loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.
I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!
Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?
You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games :) You know perfectly well what I mean.
-
loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.
I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!
Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?
You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games :) You know perfectly well what I mean.
Columbus dude, arguing with these people is like punching concrete; you're only going to break your hand and you will have gained nothing for it.
-
loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.
I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!
Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?
You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games :) You know perfectly well what I mean.
No, I really thought you meant what you said, and I'm sure that so did MCWAY.
You believe the claims of one particular group of scriptures, but have no evidence for them whatsoever. (If such evidence existed, it would be "knowledge," not "faith", and it would be taught in history classes.)
-
Yes! If evidence for Jesus' resurrection existed, it would be taught in history classes!
Same for the virgin birth :)
That's a pretty important historical event, if it happened, of course.
Now where's the evidence? :)
Arguing that everything in the Bible is historically true because it references some things we know are historically true, is like arguing that the novel "Gone with the Wind" is historically true because it references the Civil War!
-
Yes! If evidence for Jesus' resurrection existed, it would be taught in history classes!
Same for the virgin birth :)
That's a pretty important historical event, if it happened, of course.
Now where's the evidence? :)
Arguing that everything in the Bible is historically true because it references some things we know are historically true, is like arguing that the novel "Gone with the Wind" is historically true because it references the Civil War!
And the novel "Gone with the Wind" claims to be fact or fiction?
-
loco, like I said, I wasn't questioning the historicity of King David or the Hittites or Egyptians, but the historicity of magic stories, like Resurrections, Virgin Births, and miracles.
I don't need the Bible to know about Pharaoh. The ancient Egyptians left plenty of evidence!
Where is the evidence for the Virgin Birth?
You have none. Therefore you and MCWAY play these word games :) You know perfectly well what I mean.
No word games are needed, Columbus. For starters, I already mentioned that, at present, we don't yet have historicity for "all the miracles", as you put it.
What you missed, however, and what I've pointed out is that we do have evidence for some of them. One of which, I mentioned before, is found in the book of Daniel. Daniel foretold that the Medes and Persians would overthrow Babylon (and that, while the empire was a joint one, the Persians would be slightly stronger). Guess what!!! It happened. He later stated that Greece would over throw the Medes and Persians. Check you history books to see if he got that right. He also mentioned something about the "king of Grecia" having his empire split into the four winds. I wonder what ever became of that prophecy. The one that would follow the now divided Greek empire would be the most ruthless of the four. Check which empire follow Greece and see if their reputation for brutality is accurate or not.
And as Loco has so kindly reiterated, skeptics have claimed that the Bible's historical documentation has been false for centuries, only to have their claims refuted when archaelogical evidence supports what Scripture has to say. Every claim that Loco brought up was one that skeptics like you claimed was false or fabricated.
That hold especially true for books of the Bible with prophetic passage, related to world history. First, skeptics (before the evidence is unearth) claim the Bible’s account is false. But, once archaeological evidence shows that the Bible is right (and they can’t deny it), the skeptics revert to claiming that it was written after the fact, instead of beforehand.
Plus, your initial claim was not limited to "the miracles". So, when I or Loco give examples of what you claim doesn’t exist (historical and archaeological evidence that supports the Bible’s being true), you now switch to “I was talking about the miracles”.
To top it all off, your claim makes no sense. History classes have indeed taught about the birth of Jesus Christ. There have been historical debates about the validity of His birth from a virgin. But, to have such a debate, it would have to BE TAUGHT, in the first place.
-
Yes! If evidence for Jesus' resurrection existed, it would be taught in history classes!
Same for the virgin birth :)
That's a pretty important historical event, if it happened, of course.
Now where's the evidence? :)
Columbusdude, when subjects are taught in History Class, do you tend to believe them as true fact?
-
MCWAY, you type a lot but don't say much.
I see a lot of words, but still no evidence for any resurrections or virgin births or miracles or stories of people flying...
Come back when you have some evidence :)
-
MCWAY, you type a lot but don't say much.
I see a lot of words, but still no evidence for any resurrections or virgin births or miracles or stories of people flying...
Come back when you have some evidence :)
You asked for evidence of "all the miracles". I stated before that I don't have that. What I presented was evidence supporting the miracles, of which I know.
When I did that, you (once again) pulled the old switcheroo, harping on what I didn't have.
But, that's to be expected. Skeptics have a habit of doing that. Once such evidence is found and the skeptical claims are shown to be false, it's off to another item.
And on that note, there's still the little matter of a simple question that you've yet to answer. Again, contrary to your previous claim, I do not desire a "fancy" answer. A simple "YES" or "NO" will do. If you wish to elaborate on why you picked "YES" or "NO" (based on info you do have, not on what you don't have), that's fine with me.
-
Columbusdude, when subjects are taught in History Class, do you tend to believe them as true fact?
when the history is of possible things, and can be verified by actual historians. for example we know it is impossible to be born of a virgin or walk on water, hence the story is a fairy tale. it takes a man and a women, sperm egg blah blah.. if it sounds fantastical like zeus throws lightning bolts from his cloud in the sky its probably fiction.
-
You asked for evidence of "all the miracles". I stated before that I don't have that. What I presented was evidence supporting the miracles, of which I know.
When I did that, you (once again) pulled the old switcheroo, harping on what I didn't have.
But, that's to be expected. Skeptics have a habit of doing that. Once such evidence is found and the skeptical claims are shown to be false, it's off to another item.
And on that note, there's still the little matter of a simple question that you've yet to answer. Again, contrary to your previous claim, I do not desire a "fancy" answer. A simple "YES" or "NO" will do. If you wish to elaborate on why you picked "YES" or "NO" (based on info you do have, not on what you don't have), that's fine with me.
Mr. Biblical Maximist. You are a sophist and the only thing you know is ad hominems. Ask an archaeologist at Oxford, Berkley, Stanford, Yale or Harvard and they will tell you all about the Exodus that did not happen. Ask one at Liberty and they will tell you more than you need to know.
-
Courtesy of a friend of mine, a very well informed man on archaeological matters concerning the bible:
What do we know about Merneptah? We know he was already old when he came to the throne, perhaps 60. He reigned for 10 years and spent most of that time fighting the Libyans and their Sea People allies. Since Merneptah died c 1203 BC what this tells us is that the Sea Peoples were active in the region 50 years before Ramesses III finally defeated them and settled them, or allowed them to settle, on the southern coast of Canaan. Egyptian influence was maintained in Canaan from their base at Beth Shean until the middle of the 12th century...right around the time that the Philistines settled in Canaan. This can hardly be a coincidence.
As noted in Wikipedia:
Quote
Merneptah had to carry out several military campaigns during his reign, mainly fighting against the Libyans, who—with the assistance of the Sea Peoples—were threatening Egypt from the West. In the fifth year of his reign, Merneptah led a victorious six-hour battle in his fifth regnal year against a combined Libyan and Sea People force at the city of Perire, probably located on the western edge of the Delta. His account of this campaign against the Sea Peoples and Libu is described in prose on a wall beside the sixth pylon at Karnak and in poetic form in the Merneptah Stele, widely known as the Israel Stele, which makes reference to the supposed utter destruction of Israel during campaign in his 6th year in Canaan: "Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more." This is the first recognised ancient Egyptian record of the existence of Israel--"not as a country or city, but as a tribe" or people.
We'll get to the stele next. Unfortunately, the whole thing has to be read to get the point and I rather doubt if most christian fuckwads bother because all those assholes care about is the "Israel" reference.
Here is a translation of the stele:
http://bibledudes.com/biblical-studies/finds/merneptah-translation.php
Look it over. 138 lines of this translation deal with Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans and their allies.
Here are the final 10 lines which, as I've said, is all that Fundie morons ever look at.
Quote
The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat, Given life like Re every day
Tjehenu is the Egyptian word for Libya. Khatti are the Hittites. Canaan we know.
Ashkelon is a Canaanite town as was Gezer. Yanoam was a Canaanite town in Galilee.
So the question rises as to why Merneptah, having already told us that Canaan is "captive with all woe" goes on to specifically deal with those three towns?
THEN we get the "Israel is wasted, bare of seed" line that causes Fundies to cum in their pants.
Khor (a region of Southern Syria) is a "widow" for Egypt?
Now, Merneptah has just spent 138 lines telling us how he overcame the Tjehenu (Libyans.) He did not campaign against the Hittites...in fact the Hittites were about to go down to the Sea Peoples themselves so the notion that they were "at peace" seems stunningly incorrect. Perhaps he means only that they were "at peace" with Egypt? This makes sense as the Egyptians were also fighting the Sea People and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not a new concept.
Also, and this is very important, note that Merneptah never says that he campaigned in Canaan. He was not shy about telling us about his exploits in battle against the Libyans? Why would he suddenly be reticent about bragging of his conquest of Canaan? In fact, he didn't have to conquer Canaan. Canaan had been under Egyptian hegemony since Ahmose the first in 1500ish BC. If he had suppressed rebellions why would he not say that he had put down rebellions?
I submit that in modern parlance, if you will, that the last 10 lines of the stele read like an "after-action" report. His country has just won a major war with Libya and Merneptah is recounting the victories and the losses.
Libya is defeated. (Yay...I won.) We are at peace with the Hittites. We still hold Canaan but Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam have been sacked and burned. Israel (a people not a place) is laid waste (but again, there is not a single word that says "I (Merneptah) did it." Khor is a 'widow' for Egypt? That last line throws me but it could be a loose translation or simply to imply that Egypt could no longer assert control of that part of Syria. I don't know. And then, the kicker..."all who roamed have been subdued." Well, who roamed? Answer: The Sea People who played such an important part in his war against the Libyans. So it does not seem impossible that while the Egyptians and Libyans battled it out in the Western desert that their Sea People allies were the ones who launched the attacks on Canaan, burning Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam in the process. Local Egyptian and whatever Canaanite forces they could have raised would have been hard pressed to stop them. Further, it also seems reasonable that once their senior Libyan partners had been defeated the Sea People, who were basically pirates, would have broken off the attack before the full weight of the Egyptians could have been brought against them. THAT seems like sound military strategy.
So, let's finally deal with "Israel."
First off, consider this comment from Hazelrigg, in the center of the page from Acharya's Christ Conspiracy.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KnIYRi3upbEC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=issa+ra+el&source=web&ots=b7MtmZoHUc&sig=YdV9fWJXttsYGvQpodvbCUeqZ6w
Issa + Ra + El = Israel
Issa = Isis, wife of Osiris
Ra = Egyptian Chief God
El = Canaanite chief god.
As noted, Egypt had control of Canaan for centuries and they continued to control it for another 50 years. Is it so outrageous to think that some sort of syncretism hadn't occured in which the Egyptian gods of Isis and Ra were worshipped along with the local honcho, El? Four centuries is a hell of a long time for cultural cross-pollination to take place. So the reference to the people (remember there is no reference to a nation) of "Israel" could simply be a way of referring to the population of the whole area as the land of Is(sa) Ra and El, that would include Khor and Canaan. In much the same sort of shorthand way that we refer to the United States of America as simply "America."
The point of this whole dissertation is that Fundie shitwads jump to an awful lot of conclusions based on one word...or maybe it was 3 words run together. Archaeologist, Bill Dever, regards early iron age denizens of the region as proto-israelites and that is a century after Merneptah. Israel Finkelstein will not even go that far. Who is to say that when the Northern kingdom coalesced, in the 10th century, that they did not simply adopt the usage of the Egyptian period which must have seemed like a Golden Age to them by then. There is not a single other reference to Israel until the Mesha stele, which dates to around 850 BC by which time the name was clearly in use. It's a long time from 1210 to 850. Where the hell were they for that whole time period?
In any case...Merneptah does not claim to have conquered Israel. Moreover, he was apparently so distressed with the "victory" attained by other Egyptian units that he gives it scant coverage. Kind of like Bush glossing over the 4,000 GIs killed in his unsuccessful hunt for Bin Laden.
-
Columbusdude, when subjects are taught in History Class, do you tend to believe them as true fact?
Some things taught in history classes are not necessarily true fact. There are many events for which we only know part of the story, the sacking of the library of Alexandria, the life of this Yeshua guy you're all obsessed with, etc.
Most of history is verified by first hand accounts and reliable documentation, however some of history is speculative without first hand accounts, written ex post facto, etc. The life of your messiah fits into the latter category.
No first hand accounts, no written accounts at all until decades after his supposed death. Many forgeries with Josephus's being the most prominent.
-
Some things taught in history classes are not necessarily true fact. There are many events for which we only know part of the story, the sacking of the library of Alexandria, the life of this Yeshua guy you're all obsessed with, etc.
Most of history is verified by first hand accounts and reliable documentation, however some of history is speculative without first hand accounts, written ex post facto, etc. The life of your messiah fits into the latter category.
No first hand accounts, no written accounts at all until decades after his supposed death. Many forgeries with Josephus's being the most prominent.
Don't mention Josephus; MCWAY hates to acknowledge that it is a forgery. In fact he flat out denies it.
-
Many forgeries with Josephus's being the most prominent.
Josephus, a forgery? That is false.
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date. - Antiquities xviii. 33
Josephus on Jesus - Testimonium Flavianum - Arabic Version
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.
Don't mention Josephus; MCWAY hates to acknowledge that it is a forgery. In fact he flat out denies it.
Back to outdated conspiracy theories about Josephus forgeries, are we?
Josephus on Jesus - Current state of the debate
Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.
Alice Whealey writes:
Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.
Alice Whealey: Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 36). Peter Lang Publishing (February 2003) ISBN-10: 0820452416
Concerning Albinus Under Whose Procuratorship James Was Slain; As
Also What Edifices Were Built By Agrippa.
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus
into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the
high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on
the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the
report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man;
for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high
priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long
time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high
priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you
already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper,
and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23)
who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of
the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus
was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper
opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was
called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some
of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but
as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and
such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they
disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa],
desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for
that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some
of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey
from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for
Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24)
Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in
anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to
punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the
high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and
made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus - Book 20, Chapter 9
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=648
The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic by the majority of scholars.
Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.
-
No first hand accounts,
MMC78, have you ever read the book of John?
-
MMC78, have you ever read the book of John?
John is not a first hand account; get with the times.
Date
Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars. Justin Martyr quoted from the gospel of John, which would also support that the Gospel was in existence by at least the middle of the second century,[17] and the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated between 125 and 160 CE.[18]
The traditional view is supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other gospels (Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This would place the writing of John's gospel sufficiently after the writing of the synoptics.
Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eye-witness (John 13:23ff, 18:10, 18:15, 19:26–27, 19:34, 20:8, 20:24–29), sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70. Barrett suggests an earliest date of 90, based on familiarity with Mark’s gospel, and the late date of a synagogue expulsion of Christians (which is a theme in John).[19] Morris suggests 70, given Qumran parallels and John’s turns of phrase, such as "his disciples" vs. "the disciples".[20] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[21]
There are critical scholars who are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50–70?) and culminating in a final text around 95–100. This date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple", supposedly the leader of the Johannine community that would have produced the text. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around 90–100 is reasonable.
Wanting to believe that the author of John was an eyewitness is just that, wanting to believe; there is no evidence for it.
-
Don't mention Josephus; MCWAY hates to acknowledge that it is a forgery. In fact he flat out denies it.
Once again, you display your rather short memory, as well as your gift for posting the inaccurate, Trapezkerl.
I made my stance on Josephus quite clear. To recap: The issue was with regards to the portions of the Testimonium that mentioned Jesus Christ. It’s in two languages: Greek and Arabic. When Loco first posed the Greek version, he made it clear that the interpolations (the parts added by Christian editors) from the first passage that mentions Jesus were in brackets. I later brought up the fact that, the Arabic version DID NOT contain those interpolations; but it still mentioned Jesus Christ, by name. That’s one of the reasons we can say that the portions in the Greek that mention Christ’s divinity were added to the original.
The interpolations emphasized Christ’s deity. Unfortunately for your argument at that time, the issue being discussed then wasn’t Jesus’ divinity but His simple existence and references to such, outside the New Testament. Again, we saw the famous skeptic shuffle, as demonstrated by you. First, you claimed that there were NO references to Jesus outside the Bible. Loco and I easily refuted that one. Then you claim that Josephus was the lone source of extra-Biblical references to Jesus. Of course, with both of us having mentioned multiple sources, to counter your first claim, your second claim rendered itself even more dubious.
Then came your plea that every source mentioned was a forgery, with a slew of ridiculous and readily refutable conspiracy theories about how such came to be.
Back to Josephus, you claimed that the addition of Jesus Christ’s name was a forgery. Loco and I asked to support that statement by producing a copy of the Testimonium that DID NOT mention Jesus Christ at all, which (of course) you didn’t. Every known copy of the Testimonium (in multiple languages) has the name of Jesus Christ mentioned in them.
So, your claim (and that of MMC78) of forgery is somewhat weak.
-
Some things taught in history classes are not necessarily true fact. There are many events for which we only know part of the story, the sacking of the library of Alexandria, the life of this Yeshua guy you're all obsessed with, etc.
Most of history is verified by first hand accounts and reliable documentation, however some of history is speculative without first hand accounts, written ex post facto, etc. The life of your messiah fits into the latter category.
So does the life of one Alexander the Great. Most of the works, known to man, that document his life and times, date at least 200 years after his death. The most significant work, documenting his life and activities (Anabasis of Alexander, written by Arrian) was penned nearly 400 years after Alex’s death. Like many historians, Arrian had access to historical documents that have long since been lost or destroyed.
Compare that to the documents that mention the existence of Jesus Christ. The gap is much closer (even if you use the later dates of the Gospels’ composition, given by liberal Bible scholars). Between the New Testament (using the dates of traditional Bible scholars), the works of Josephus, and other items, we have historical verification of Jesus’ within 100 years of his lifetime.
Basically, the historical verification of someone’s existence is not exclusively or predominantly dependent on first-hand accounts. Otherwise, our history books would be in scant supply.
No first hand accounts, no written accounts at all until decades after his supposed death. Many forgeries with Josephus's being the most prominent.
I refer you to my post to Trapezkerl. While the Greek version of the Testimonium has such interpolations (easily identified and usually put in brackets, when this work of Josephus is being referenced), the Arabic version has no such interpolations. And every known copy of the Testimonium makes reference to Jesus Christ.
Plus, there are two passages that mention Christ. The second (and much-shorter one) simply mentions Christ to identify James.
One has to pose the question to the skeptics who claim that the references to Christ are forgeries why exactly (in the Greek version, at least) the interpolators went through such effort to mention Jesus’ divinity in one passage but not the other.
In other words, why wasn’t James identified in the smaller passage as “the Lord’s brother”, as Paul called him in the New Testament, instead of “, “….James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ”?
That would suggest that, regardless of the interpolations, the reference to the simple existence of Jesus Christ were already in Josephus’ Testimonium.
-
John is not a first hand account; get with the times.
Wanting to believe that the author of John was an eyewitness is just that, wanting to believe; there is no evidence for it.
Sorry but a quote from a source that states a bunch of maybes from a bunch of different people isn't going to convince me that John was not an eyewitness.
John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down....
-
So does the life of one Alexander the Great.
I'm glad you brought him up. Alexander the great was worshipped as a diety in ancient Egypt. There are history books and second hand accounts describing his divinity. I expect you will start worshipping him at any moment.
Basically, the historical verification of someone’s existence is not exclusively or predominantly dependent on first-hand accounts. Otherwise, our history books would be in scant supply.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not debating the existence of a historical Jesus. He may have existed, however the historical evidence for supernatural and miraculous events is no more reliable than Alexander's claim to divinity.
I refer you to my post to Trapezkerl.
I don't think we'll ever agree on the authenticity of these passages.
-
Sorry but a quote from a source that states a bunch of maybes from a bunch of different people isn't going to convince me that John was not an eyewitness.
John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down....
Stella, read the introduction to Robinson Crusoe.
-
I'm glad you brought him up. Alexander the great was worshipped as a diety in ancient Egypt. There are history books and second hand accounts describing his divinity. I expect you will start worshipping him at any moment.
He was far from the first king to be worshipped as a deity. What's your point? Sorry to disappoint you, but I'll stick to worshipping the God, who told a certain Hebrew in Babylon, how and when Alexander would come to power, when he would die, and how his empire would be split (if it's all the same to you).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not debating the existence of a historical Jesus. He may have existed, however the historical evidence for supernatural and miraculous events is no more reliable than Alexander's claim to divinity.
I'm aware of that. This stems from a discussion I had with Trapezkerl, who claimed there was no extra-Biblical references to the existence of Jesus Christ. As for Alex's claim to divinity, his early death and subsequent division of his kingdom pretty much puts an end to his divinity claims. Jesus, on the other hand, has historical evidence supporting His divinity, namely:
- His prediction of the Temple being destroyed within one generation, which happened about 40 years after His death, resurrection, and ascension, courtesy of Titus.
- The works of both Tacitus and Josephus: Tacitus states that Christians were followers of Christ, who was put to death by Pilate. The "superstition", as he called was suppressed for a time but re-emerged. Josephus reports that the disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The disciples saw Jesus die; they ran and hid, fearing for their lives. And when the women reported Jesus' resurrection, the disciples didn't believe it at first. Some didn't believe it, even when the other disciples (who saw Jesus face-to-face) told them of what occurred. And, there's the most famous "skeptic" of them all, Thomas, who would not believe, until He saw each of Jesus' wounds and touched them himself.
If you can think of an event, other than the Resurrection, that can explain what turned the fear and dread of the disciples into boldness and zeal to preach the Gospel (even at the cost of their very lives), I'm all ears (especially considering that producing Jesus' dead body would have easily killed Christianity, before it ever got started).
I don't think we'll ever agree on the authenticity of these passages.
Which passages would that be, The Greek or Arabic version of the Testimonium? My point was that, for the claim that the references to Jesus Christ are forgeries to be valid, you have to produce a copy of the Testimonium that contains no references to Jesus Christ, whatsoever.
With only one of the two passages in the Greek version (and neither passage in the Arabic version) giving such a flowery description, regarding Jesus' divinity, the charge that the references to Christ are forgeries are weak. That's why I've stated that Josephus is a good historical reference to Jesus Christ, IF the topic is His mere existence.
-
He was far from the first king to be worshipped as a deity. What's your point? Sorry to disappoint you, but I'll stick to worshipping the God, who told a certain Hebrew in Babylon, how and when Alexander would come to power, when he would die, and how his empire would be split (if it's all the same to you).
I'm aware of that. This stems from a discussion I had with Trapezkerl, who claimed there was no extra-Biblical references to the existence of Jesus Christ. As for Alex's claim to divinity, his early death and subsequent division of his kingdom pretty much puts an end to his divinity claims. Jesus, on the other hand, has historical evidence supporting His divinity, namely:
- His prediction of the Temple being destroyed within one generation, which happened about 40 years after His death, resurrection, and ascension, courtesy of Titus.
- The works of both Tacitus and Josephus: Tacitus states that Christians were followers of Christ, who was put to death by Pilate. The "superstition", as he called was suppressed for a time but re-emerged. Josephus reports that the disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The disciples saw Jesus die; they ran and hid, fearing for their lives. And when the women reported Jesus' resurrection, the disciples didn't believe it at first. Some didn't believe it, even when the other disciples (who saw Jesus face-to-face) told them of what occurred. And, there's the most famous "skeptic" of them all, Thomas, who would not believe, until He saw each of Jesus' wounds and touched them himself.
If you can think of an event, other than the Resurrection, that can explain what turned the fear and dread of the disciples into boldness and zeal to preach the Gospel (even at the cost of their very lives), I'm all ears (especially considering that producing Jesus' dead body would have easily killed Christianity, before it ever got started).
Which passages would that be, The Greek or Arabic version of the Testimonium? My point was that, for the claim that the references to Jesus Christ are forgeries to be valid, you have to produce a copy of the Testimonium that contains no references to Jesus Christ, whatsoever.
With only one of the two passages in the Greek version (and neither passage in the Arabic version) giving such a flowery description, regarding Jesus' divinity, the charge that the references to Christ are forgeries are weak. That's why I've stated that Josephus is a good historical reference to Jesus Christ, IF the topic is His mere existence.
Josephus, who covers the entire history of the region for the first few decades, has nothing more than a few lines to write about the most influential 'man' of all time? Why does he only have a couple of sentences? Why in general is there pitifully little biographical information on Jesus? Where does he go for about 20 years between his appearance in the Gospels and his 'childhood'?
BTW, you never got back to me on Nazareth, which according to the best archaeology didn't exist until the 3rd century CE.
I have no problem doubting Alexander's existence. Nothing hinges on his existence; perhaps it was multiple people generaling about. Who knows? Much less hinges on that. You are right, we lack the evidence for Alexander that we have for example for a Julius Caesar.
-
Josephus, who covers the entire history of the region for the first few decades, has nothing more than a few lines to write about the most influential 'man' of all time? Why does he only have a couple of sentences? Why in general is there pitifully little biographical information on Jesus? Where does he go for about 20 years between his appearance in the Gospels and his 'childhood'?
BTW, you never got back to me on Nazareth, which according to the best archaeology didn't exist until the 3rd century CE.
I have no problem doubting Alexander's existence. Nothing hinges on his existence; perhaps it was multiple people generaling about. Who knows? Much less hinges on that. You are right, we lack the evidence for Alexander that we have for example for a Julius Caesar.
Aren't there personal letters from Alexander as well as numerous personal accounts from other poeple all from that time?
-
Aren't there personal letters from Alexander as well as numerous personal accounts from other poeple all from that time?
These were not preserved directly. Rather they are first hand accounts commented on centuries later.
I think it likely that Alexander existed. The entire region was changed in just a few decades. That legacy could well testify to him.
-
wasnt josephus not even a comtemporary historian at the time or something? wasnt he not one of the twelve actual historians or some shit, i cant remember but his credentials where dubious.
dude walked on water, healed people and one dude writes a couple lines, thats it? thats the legacy of jesus from historians.
-
wasnt josephus not even a comtemporary historian at the time or something? wasnt he not one of the twelve actual historians or some shit, i cant remember but his credentials where dubious.
dude walked on water, healed people and one dude writes a couple lines, thats it? thats the legacy of jesus from historians.
Yes, Josephus lived from ca. 37 to ca. 100 CE and yes he devotes whole chapters to describing various personalities of the region, sometimes more, always going into excruciating detail, yet we are to believe that the son of God himself, who performed never before seen miracles and changed the course of human history, only receives a few lines, not even a paragraph; pretty strange, huh?
-
wasnt josephus not even a comtemporary historian at the time or something? wasnt he not one of the twelve actual historians or some shit, i cant remember but his credentials where dubious.
dude walked on water, healed people and one dude writes a couple lines, thats it? thats the legacy of jesus from historians.
Yes, Josephus lived from ca. 37 to ca. 100 CE and yes he devotes whole chapters to describing various personalities of region, sometimes more, always going into excrutiating detail, yet we are to believe that the son of God himself, who performed never before seen miracles and changed the course of human history, only receives a few lines, not even a paragraph; pretty strange, huh?
Josephus was not only a 1st-century Jewish historian, but he was also a member of the Jewish sect of the Pharisees. He did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God or the Jewish Messiah, and he probably hated Jesus and his followers just as much as the Pharisees described in the New Testament did. So Josephus either did not believe that Jesus performed any of those miracles or simply would have covered them up even if he had seen the miracles himself. Nevertheless, Josephus does mention Jesus' greatest miracle, his resurrection. Josephus does not confirm Jesus' resurrection, but he did mention it.
Therefore, no Trapezkerl, it is not strange that Josephus mentions Jesus in the way that he did. Now, if Josephus had been a devout follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be strange that he did not write more about his miracles.
-
Josephus was not only a 1st-century Jewish historian, but he was also a member of the Jewish sect of the Pharisees. He did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God or the Jewish Messiah, and he probably hated Jesus and his followers just as much as the Pharisees described in the New Testament did. So Josephus either did not believe that Jesus performed any of those miracles or simply would have covered them up even if he had seen the miracles himself. Nevertheless, Josephus does mention Jesus' greatest miracle, his resurrection. Josephus does not confirm Jesus' resurrection, but he did mention it.
Therefore, no Trapezkerl, it is not strange that Josephus mentions Jesus in the way that he did. Now, if Josephus had been a devout follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be strange that he did not write more about his miracles.
Josephus mentions lots of would be messiahs, always going into a lot of detail; a lot more than for your godman.
-
Josephus mentions lots of would be messiahs, always going into a lot of detail; a lot more than for your godman.
Yes. So?
-
Yes. So?
SO: if you allow Josephus' writing to serve as testimony in favor of Jesus, you have to allow it to serve as testimony in favor of all the other self-proclaimed Messiah figures!
To do otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty!
-
SO: if you allow Josephus' writing to serve as testimony in favor of Jesus, you have to allow it to serve as testimony in favor of all the other self-proclaimed Messiah figures!
To do otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty!
Correct. Josephus' writings serve as testimony that Jesus really did exist, as did any self-proclaimed Messiah figures that Josephus mentioned. Josephus' writings do not necessarily serve as testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, but in reply to those who say Josephus never mentioned any of Jesus Christ's miracles, Josephus did mention Jesus' most important miracle, his resurrection.
-
kind of funny, i started this thread with a simple question: show me evidence (atheist favorite word) there ISN'T a God
i've read nothing. in fact, it's been turned back into proving the existence of God. you guys are good at dodging the original question.
loco, mcway, thanks for your diligence in arguing with them.
now that i see satan crapezturd back, i won't post much on the religion board.
-
Is there any hard evidence that can prove that God doesn't exist??
lets see..
1) billions of starving people in the world
2) millions of women that get RAPED...every day!
3) ever seen a 4 yr old die of hunger ya smug son of a bitch??
4) post your home addy so i can come rape your mom.....PS ask your god to stop me ;)
5) i once asked god to suck my cock....i have yet to cum :-\
...o wait..god lets all that happen...cause he works in mysterious ways....
no seriously..post your home addy..i'd love to fuck your mum and then tell you its all gods plan :) ccca caac caa he works in mysterious ways...
-
kind of funny, i started this thread with a simple question: show me evidence (atheist favorite word) there ISN'T a God
i've read nothing. in fact, it's been turned back into proving the existence of God. you guys are good at dodging the original question.
loco, mcway, thanks for your diligence in arguing with them.
now that i see satan crapezturd back, i won't post much on the religion board.
Did you even bother to read my response to your first post? Or do you just choose to ignore it because it asks you to think? ???
-
Josephus, who covers the entire history of the region for the first few decades, has nothing more than a few lines to write about the most influential 'man' of all time? Why does he only have a couple of sentences? Why in general is there pitifully little biographical information on Jesus? Where does he go for about 20 years between his appearance in the Gospels and his 'childhood'?
Hmmm....could it possibly be that nothing significant, regarding His ministry or His purpose for coming, happened until such time? And, last time I checked, Jesus was a carpenter, by trade, not exactly front-page news material. The fact that a carpenter from Nazareth, (as the saying went, "Can anything good come from Nazareth"?) got two lines in a document, written by an official Jewish scribe under the employ of Rome, would indicate that this was no ordinary guy.
Furthermore, Jesus' status as the "most influential man of all time" is a relatively modern, one He certaintly didn't have in 1st century A.D. Remember that He died as a criminal by crucifixion and as another Hebrew saying went, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree".
However, the fact that how we tell time was/is based on His life (B.C. and A.D.) shows the influence that Jesus had/has on Earth, to this day. I know some non-Christians prefer the terms BCE (Before Christian/Common Era) and CE (Christian/Common Era). But, B.C. and A.D. is still the way that many folks dictate time periods on Earth.
BTW, you never got back to me on Nazareth, which according to the best archaeology didn't exist until the 3rd century CE.
And you never got back to me on showing a copy of the Testmonium that has no reference to Jesus Christ.
I have no problem doubting Alexander's existence. Nothing hinges on his existence; perhaps it was multiple people generaling about. Who knows? Much less hinges on that. You are right, we lack the evidence for Alexander that we have for example for a Julius Caesar.
The point wasn't about what hinges or doesn't hinge with Alex's existence. The simple fact is you can accept the existence of Alex the Great, based largely on documents about him, penned two to four centuries after his existence. Same goes for Julius Caesar. Just as it is with Alex the Great, some of the earliest-known manuscripts, containing significant info on Caesar (i.e. The Gallic Wars), dates centuries after his lifetime.
Yet, for some reason, that becomes a problem, when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ, despite having information about Him FAR CLOSER to his lifetime than the info on Alex is to his time period.
-
Did you even bother to read my response to your first post? Or do you just choose to ignore it because it asks you to think? ???
with posts like protein f, do you honestly expect me to keep posting on this?? do you see why i was sending you PM's on the subject. there's too many idiots out here.
i asked for you to show me evidence against God. you choose to give me arguements on faith. enough of the brainless "ask me to think" comments. if you're only point is to try to make the other person feel dumb then you are only showing how weak your arguement is.
i asked you a question and you cannot answer it. admit it.
i don't know if this has been posted. proof of some of the old testament books. i'm sure you'll post a scientific study that says it's not real. anyway....
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls.htm
-
SO: if you allow Josephus' writing to serve as testimony in favor of Jesus, you have to allow it to serve as testimony in favor of all the other self-proclaimed Messiah figures!
To do otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty!
Based on what?
The issue was the existence of Jesus Christ, not His divinty.
Correct. Josephus' writings serve as testimony that Jesus really did exist, as did any self-proclaimed Messiah figures that Josephus mentioned. Josephus' writings do not necessarily serve as testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, but in reply to those who say Josephus never mentioned any of Jesus Christ's miracles, Josephus did mention Jesus' most important miracle, his resurrection.
That's also why, we can say that the Greek version of the Testimonium has interpolations in it. The first passage that mentions Jesus plays up and confirms His divinty. However, the second passage that mentions Him does not, and neither do the passage in the Arabic version. All it states in that one is that the disciples said that Jesus has resurrected. Josephus does NOT have to believe that such is true (or that Jesus is the Messiah) to write that this is what Jesus' disciples believed and reported.
-
Proteinf was, in his colorful way, outlining one major argument against the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent god, and that's the problem of evil (theodicy): why do bad things happen to good people.
That's a pretty strong argument if you ask me.
As for "asking you to think," what's so wrong with that? Or do you also abdicate thinking when you surrender your heart to Jesus? ???
And the link you posted, yeah I always get my archaeological information from websites that talk about Jesus and God ::) That's the scientific method at work right there ::)
-
Proteinf was, in his colorful way, outlining one major argument against the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent god, and that's the problem of evil (theodicy): why do bad things happen to good people.
That's a pretty strong argument if you ask me.
Because, as Paul so eloquently put it, The wages of sin is DEATH!. As mentioned on multiple occasions, that is indeed the worst part about sin and sinful behavior: The transgressors aren't the only ones who suffer for it.
Look deep into your life and I'm sure you'll find times, where someone else has suffered (on some scale), because of something that you've done wrong. I'm sure you can find cases, where you've suffered because someone else did wrong.
Kids suffer, because of their parents' sins; Wives suffer, because of husbands' sins (and vice versa); Employees suffer, because of their bosses' sins; etc.
Or, if you prefer a non-Biblical saying, "No man is an island". On certain and many levels, what you do can bless or curse somebody else.
In fact, one of the foundations of Christianity is based on "bad things happening to good people", namely Jesus Christ dying for the sins of mankind.
-
These were not preserved directly. Rather they are first hand accounts commented on centuries later.
That would make them, at the very least, second-hand accounts, as is the case with two of the Gospels (Luke and Mark), only the comments are done much sooner.
I think it likely that Alexander existed. The entire region was changed in just a few decades. That legacy could well testify to him.
And, that puts you right back at square one, believing that Alexander the Great existed, based on accounts far, FAR removed from his lifetime; but not doing so, when it comes to the existence of Jesus, who has historical documentation of His existence much closer to His lifetime.
-
Because, as Paul so eloquently put it, The wages of sin is DEATH!. As mentioned on multiple occasions, that is indeed the worst part about sin and sinful behavior: The transgressors aren't the only ones who suffer for it.
Look deep into your life and I'm sure you'll find times, where someone else has suffered (on some scale), because of something that you've done wrong. I'm sure you can find cases, where you've suffered because someone else did wrong.
Kids suffer, because of their parents' sins; Wives suffer, because of husbands' sins (and vice versa); Employees suffer, because of their bosses' sins; etc.
Or, if you prefer a non-Biblical saying, "No man is an island". On certain and many levels, what you do can bless or curse somebody else.
In fact, one of the foundations of Christianity is based on "bad things happening to good people", namely Jesus Christ dying for the sins of mankind.
I don't buy that, MCWAY. Some loving God this is, who punishes children for the sins of the parents ::)
-
I don't buy that, MCWAY. Some loving God this is, who punishes children for the sins of the parents ::)
Whether you "buy that" or not ain't really my concern. That's the way it works in this world. I've used this analogy before, but it bears repeating, especially if you're a parent.
If you do something wrong, which causes you to lose your job, and you can't pay your rent, YOU and YOUR FAMILY will be kicked out on the street. The landlord isn't going to care that your kids did nothing wrong. You are corporately responsible for your family (in this instance) and what you do affects them.
BTW, this same loving God, blesses the children for the righteous behavior of the parents. I supposed you don't "buy that", either.
-
Well, those are your opinions. I know better than to try to reason with you, since you are immune to reason.
Suffice it to say that many, many people (myself included) have found the "sin" explanation for the "problem of evil" to be unconvincing and unsatisfactory.
-
Well, those are your opinions. I know better than to try to reason with you, since you are immune to reason.
That would be your opinion, which isn't necessarily accurate (and in this case, is not).
Suffice it to say that many, many people (myself included) have found the "sin" explanation for the "problem of evil" to be unconvincing and unsatisfactory.
When you and those "many, many people" come up with an explanation (and a solution, to boot), let us know.
-
Actually, for an atheist, there is no "problem of evil" to be solved.
Since we do not assume that there is an omnipotent, benevolent god to begin with, we do not need to explain why such a god would allow bad things to happen to good people :)
-
Actually, for an atheist, there is no "problem of evil" to be solved.
Since we do not assume that there is an omnipotent, benevolent god to begin with, we do not need to explain why such a god would allow bad things to happen to good people :)
But, there are evil things and evil behavior that happen in this world. Your disbelief in a diety holds no bearing on that. Nor does you disbelief in God change the fact that, sometimes, when you do wrong, other people suffer for it.
And, there more than enough of those things happening to pose a significant "problem of evil" in this world. Again, if you or any of the "many, many people" of your atheist ilk have some explanations and solutions, please bring them forth.
-
That's where you're wrong. Since I don't believe in a higher power running the show, I don't have to explain why it would let bad things happen to good people, any more than I have to explain why it would let good things happen to good people.
-
That's where you're wrong. Since I don't believe in a higher power running the show, I don't have to explain why it would let bad things happen to good people, any more than I have to explain why it would let good things happen to good people.
I'm not wrong, because I never claimed that you HAD TO explain anything. What I said was, "if you or any of the "many, many people" of your atheist ilk have some explanations and solutions, please bring them forth.. Last time I checked, that was a request.
My point was that saying that God isn't loving, because children suffer for the sins of their parents is incorrect. To go back to my analogy, that would be like saying your ex-landlord isn't a loving guy, simply for throwing your family out of the street because YOU didn't pay the rent.
-
That would make them, at the very least, second-hand accounts, as is the case with two of the Gospels (Luke and Mark), only the comments are done much sooner.
'Second' hand accounts of miracles? Hmm...
And, that puts you right back at square one, believing that Alexander the Great existed, based on accounts far, FAR removed from his lifetime; but not doing so, when it comes to the existence of Jesus, who has historical documentation of His existence much closer to His lifetime.
I don't know where you got this from but I believe in the likelihood of Alexander's existence not because of documentation of his person but because of the total political and imperial transformation of the known world within two decades of the time he is supposed to have lived. Besides we have solid archaeological evidence for his existence, including contemporary coins with his image and architecture created on his orders, none of which can be said for the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.
-
'Second' hand accounts of miracles? Hmm...
Second-hand accounts of the existence of historical figures, which would apply to Alexander the Great. That's also the case with two of the Gospels, (especially considering that Luke states at the very beginning of his Gospel that he has interviewed witnesses).
I don't know where you got this from but I believe in the likelihood of Alexander's existence not because of documentation of his person but because of the total political and imperial transformation of the known world within two decades of the time he is supposed to have lived.
We have documentation of the political impact, occurring in the Roman empire, that started with the advancement of Christianity. Remember that Christians were being falsely blamed for some of the social ills in Rome, as documented by Tacitus (another extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, that you said didn’t exist, only later to claim that such was fraudulent).
Plus, that documentation of the political and imperial transformation, to which you make reference, comes primarily from second-hand sources. So, it’s back to square one for you.
Besides we have solid archaeological evidence for his existence, including contemporary coins with his image and architecture created on his orders, none of which can be said for the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.
Of course not, Trapezkerl. Kings tend to have coins and architecture made like that. Jesus was not an earthly king. How many carpenters, from Nazareth or any else, have coins or buildings minted or sculpted in their honor?
With the Testimonium written around 90 A.D., we have one historical reference to Jesus Christ (who was NOT a royal figure on Earth, but a carpenter from a poor town, executed as a criminal) written within 60 years of His reported lifetime. With regards to ancient history, that is an extremely good reference, as such documentation is rare.
-
Second-hand accounts of the existence of historical figures, which would apply to Alexander the Great. That's also the case with two of the Gospels, (especially considering that Luke states at the very beginning of his Gospel that he has interviewed witnesses).
We have documentation of the political impact, occurring in the Roman empire, that started with the advancement of Christianity. Remember that Christians were being falsely blamed for some of the social ills in Rome, as documented by Tacitus (another extra-Biblical reference to Jesus, that you said didn’t exist, only later to claim that such was fraudulent).
Plus, that documentation of the political and imperial transformation, to which you make reference, comes primarily from second-hand sources. So, it’s back to square one for you.
Of course not, Trapezkerl. Kings tend to have coins and architecture made like that. Jesus was not an earthly king. How many carpenters, from Nazareth or any else, have coins or buildings minted or sculpted in their honor?
With the Testimonium written around 90 A.D., we have one historical reference to Jesus Christ (who was NOT a royal figure on Earth, but a carpenter from a poor town, executed as a criminal) written within 60 years of His reported lifetime. With regards to ancient history, that is an extremely good reference, as such documentation is rare.
Yes, Nazareth, a town that didn't even exist before the 3rd century, 2 centuries after the alleged Son of Man lived there... :D
-
Yes, Nazareth, a town that didn't even exist before the 3rd century, 2 centuries after the alleged Son of Man lived there... :D
Correction: The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Of course, I'm sure the skeptic claim used to be that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL. But, as usual, archaeological discoveries put and end to that blurb.
-
where does god exist?
-
where does god exist?
THAT construct exists in the delusional minds of its adherents.
-
Correction: The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Of course, I'm sure the skeptic claim used to be that Nazareth didn't exist AT ALL. But, as usual, archaeological discoveries put and end to that blurb.
Haha...from an archaeologist friend of mine...
quote author=Minimalist link=topic=2158.msg24126#msg24126 date=1201204866]
Let's try this.....it's history not archaeology but it will do for a beginning.
(http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos/yafiya_google.jpg)
This Arab village (Yafia) is adjacent to Nazareth, 3KM southwest on the road to Haifa. Today it is part of greater city of Nazareth (bold added) It is near but not exactly in the same spot as the battlesite of Jotapata, which remains an unexcavated ruin.
The photo is of the modern town of Yafia As noted in text accompanying the photo, modern Yafia is a suburb of modern Nazareth, and Nazareth is duly noted by a directional arrow. The estimated distance between the two is 3 km, or roughly a mile and a half.
Now, we know lots about Jotapata in the last third of the first century bc because it was a fortified town in 67 and defended by Flavius Josephus (before he defected to the Romans) during a siege by the army of Titus Flavius Vespasianus. What does dear old Josephus have to say about the siege. Let's go to the source.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-3.htm (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-3.htm)
The Jewish War, Book 3. Chapter 7, 7
Now Jotapata is almost all of it built on a precipice, having on all the other sides of it every way valleys immensely deep and steep, insomuch that those who would look down would have their sight fail them before it reaches to the bottom. It is only to be come at on the north side, where the utmost part of the city is built on the mountain, as it ends obliquely at a plain. This mountain Josephus had encompassed with a wall when he fortified the city, that its top might not be capable of being seized upon by the enemies. The city is covered all round with other mountains, and can no way be seen till a man comes just upon it. And this was the strong situation of Jotapata.
bold added.
This photo of ancient Jotapata (Yodfat)
(http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos/yodfat1.jpg)
contains this caption.
This photo is from the north, where the Roman General Vespesian set up his HQ during the siege.
AS near as I can tell from the directional clues, ancient Jotapata is off the eastern (right) edge of the Yafia photo which would make it even more "southerly" from Nazareth than modern Yafia. Thus, as Josephus recounts his fortress, which is approachable only the north (and the photo makes it pretty clear that this is the most reasonable axis of attack) is thus "south" from "Nazareth" and only a bit over a mile in distance. Josephus has already told us (in paragraph 4 from the above citation) that:
Vespasian also, the very next day, took his whole army and followed them, and by marching till late in the evening, arrived then at Jotapata; and bringing his army to the northern side of the city, he pitched his camp on a certain small hill which was seven furlongs from the city, and still greatly endeavored to be well seen by the enemy, to put them into a consternation
A furlong was the rough equivalent of a Roman stade ( about 1/8 of a mile) so Josephus is telling us that Vespasian's camp was 7/8 of a mile north of Jotapata, in the precise direction of Nazareth, which likely would have been the nearest water source for the Romans, but never, in the course of his whole discourse mentions any town/village/hamlet by that name. Josephus gives a virtual catalog of Galilean sites during the course of his campaign but Nazareth, which was virtually in the front lines during a month and half siege, is never even noted.
Given Josephus' talent for mind-numbing detail about mundane points and given the fact that he personally was present for the siege it is simply impossible to accept that if Nazareth had been there he would have failed to mention it.
[/quote]
-
LOL pwnage
-
LOL pwnage
Indeed. :D
-
Haha...from an archaeologist friend of mine...
quote author=Minimalist link=topic=2158.msg24126#msg24126 date=1201204866]
Let's try this.....it's history not archaeology but it will do for a beginning.
(http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos/yafiya_google.jpg)
This Arab village (Yafia) is adjacent to Nazareth, 3KM southwest on the road to Haifa. Today it is part of greater city of Nazareth (bold added) It is near but not exactly in the same spot as the battlesite of Jotapata, which remains an unexcavated ruin.
The photo is of the modern town of Yafia As noted in text accompanying the photo, modern Yafia is a suburb of modern Nazareth, and Nazareth is duly noted by a directional arrow. The estimated distance between the two is 3 km, or roughly a mile and a half.
Now, we know lots about Jotapata in the last third of the first century bc because it was a fortified town in 67 and defended by Flavius Josephus (before he defected to the Romans) during a siege by the army of Titus Flavius Vespasianus. What does dear old Josephus have to say about the siege. Let's go to the source.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-3.htm (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/war-3.htm)
The Jewish War, Book 3. Chapter 7, 7
bold added.
This photo of ancient Jotapata (Yodfat)
(http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos/yodfat1.jpg)
contains this caption.
AS near as I can tell from the directional clues, ancient Jotapata is off the eastern (right) edge of the Yafia photo which would make it even more "southerly" from Nazareth than modern Yafia. Thus, as Josephus recounts his fortress, which is approachable only the north (and the photo makes it pretty clear that this is the most reasonable axis of attack) is thus "south" from "Nazareth" and only a bit over a mile in distance. Josephus has already told us (in paragraph 4 from the above citation) that:A furlong was the rough equivalent of a Roman stade ( about 1/8 of a mile) so Josephus is telling us that Vespasian's camp was 7/8 of a mile north of Jotapata, in the precise direction of Nazareth, which likely would have been the nearest water source for the Romans, but never, in the course of his whole discourse mentions any town/village/hamlet by that name. Josephus gives a virtual catalog of Galilean sites during the course of his campaign but Nazareth, which was virtually in the front lines during a month and half siege, is never even noted.
Given Josephus' talent for mind-numbing detail about mundane points and given the fact that he personally was present for the siege it is simply impossible to accept that if Nazareth had been there he would have failed to mention it.
"Impossible to accept" based on what? Why would Josephus be obligated to mention the town of Nazareth, especially given its reputation for being a rotten town, if nothing of significance (as it relates to the subject of his accounts) happened there?
Once again, you're doing the whole skeptic two-step, when your points get taken apart. Again, my statement was, The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Nowhere did I (or anyone else) make the claim that Josephus' Testimonium has a reference to Nazareth.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of such a reference has no bearing on the data, contained in the Testimonium, regarding Jesus Christ.
The irony of it all is how convenienly Josephus' writings have become valid, when it comes to supporting your argument of a allegedly non-existent Nazareth.
-
"Impossible to accept" based on what? Why would Josephus be obligated to mention the town of Nazareth, especially given its reputation for being a rotten town, if nothing of significance (as it relates to the subject of his accounts) happened there?
Once again, you're doing the whole skeptic two-step, when your points get taken apart. Again, my statement was, The earliest extra-Biblical account of the town of Nazareth dates around 200 A.D. That certainly doesn't imply that the town didn't exist. It was a small, relatively insignificant town, hence the reason for the saying, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Nowhere did I (or anyone else) make the claim that Josephus' Testimonium has a reference to Nazareth.
Furthermore, the presence or absence of such a reference has no bearing on the data, contained in the Testimonium, regarding Jesus Christ.
The irony of it all is how convenienly Josephus' writings have become valid, when it comes to supporting your argument of a allegedly non-existent Nazareth.
Archaeologically Savy One's Response to Fundy MCWAY:
Tell the fundie that his own book, Luke 4 says:
[16] And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
[17] And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
[21] And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
[22] And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
[23] And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
[24] And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
[25] But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
[26] But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
[27] And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
[28] And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
[29] And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
So this insignificant little village was called a city and had it's own synagogue? Also probably horseshit but he IS stuck with it. It's his "holy book" isn't it? Once again, Vespasian's camp would have been sitting right in front of "Nazareth" (had it been there) and both Josephus and Vespasian would have had to march right through the fucking place.
I do agree with your pal that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the Testimonium Flavianum which is clearly a late (probably 4th century) forgery. The fact that no Christian writer, including Origen who specifically referred to Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews in his work, makes any reference to the TF prior to Eusebius in the 4th century is crystal clear evidence that it did not exist until then.
So, on that one he's right. The TF is nothing but bullshit.
-
Archaeologically Savy One's Response to Fundy MCWAY:
So this insignificant little village was called a city and had it's own synagogue? Also probably horseshit but he IS stuck with it. It's his "holy book" isn't it? Once again, Vespasian's camp would have been sitting right in front of "Nazareth" (had it been there) and both Josephus and Vespasian would have had to march right through the fucking place.
Again, what obligates Josephus to talk about Nazareth, if it has little or no bearing on his account?
If they marched right through it (with nothing of significance happening during such time), there is no need for Josephus to mention it, especially if Nazareth had as bad a reputation as Nathaniel (one of Jesus' disciples) implied that it did. Regardless, Josephus' lack of mentioning Nazareth had NO bearing on the issue of the town's existence.
With that said:
"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources.....Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians (Now where have I heard that before? - MCWAY ;D ); the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." - Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament
Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century B.C. " - Eric Meyers and James Strange, Journal of Biblical Literature Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity
Again, you pick and choose when Josephus' work is valid. You use it to support your claim that Nazareth didn't exist. Yet, you call it a fraud, when it mentions the existence of Jesus. Make up your mind, please.
I do agree with your pal that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the Testimonium Flavianum which is clearly a late (probably 4th century) forgery. The fact that no Christian writer, including Origen who specifically referred to Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews in his work, makes any reference to the TF prior to Eusebius in the 4th century is crystal clear evidence that it did not exist until then.
So, on that one he's right. The TF is nothing but bullshit.
On the contrary!! At best, it would indicate that (assumimg your date is correct) such is the earliest-known copy, not that it was initially generated during that time. Yet again, you pick and choose with Josephus. Why would Origien NEED to make a reference to the TF? He isn't doubting the existence of Jesus. Therefore, he would not use the Testimonium to verify someone, of whose existence he had no doubt.
With that said, with your references to Origen, you remove yet more toes, from your argument. Origien proclaimed that Josephus "didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ". That, however, is with regards (once again) to Jesus' divnity, not His existence. Of course, that begs the question as to why Origen would make such a statement, if he weren't referring to the Greek version of the Testimonium. To top it all off, Origen DOES reference chapter 20 of Antiquties of the Jews, which has the smaller reference to Jesus, ".....the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
The other Christian writers (before Origen) do not doubt the existence of Jesus, either. When dealing with non-Christians, they made the case for Jesus' divinty. An earlier version of the Testimonium (without the "brackets") would be of no use to an early Christian writer, trying to convince a Jew (or anyone else) of Jesus' divinity.
Of course, your actually producing an example of the Antiquities that dates earlier than 4th century A.D. and DOES NOT contain the Testimonium would help your dubious argument. But, for some reason, I doubt you can do that.
And as Loco and I have asked of you REPEATEDLY, it would help your claim if you actually showed an example of the Testimonium that contains no reference to Jesus Christ, whatosever, and business will pick up.
-
Yes, Nazareth, a town that didn't even exist before the 3rd century, 2 centuries after the alleged Son of Man lived there... :D
That's funny!!! The "Nazarethmyth" link you gave on your other thread states, "A remarkable conclusion of my research into Nazareth archaeology is that not a single artefact can with certainty be dated before 100 CE" In fact, this Rene' Salm cat claims on the opening page that "...the village came into existence not earlier than 70 C.E.
That would mean that there's archaelogical evidence of Nazareth, Jesus Christ's hometown, that dates less than FORTY TO SEVENTY YEARS after Jesus' reported death and Resurrection.
In other words, ONCE AGAIN, archaeological discoveries are showing the accuracy of the Bible and making skeptics sound rather silly.
All of a sudden, Nazareth has gone from not existing at all, to not existing until 3rd century A.D., to not existing until 70-100 A.D.
Here we go again!!!
-
Again, what obligates Josephus to talk about Nazareth, if it has little or no bearing on his account?
If they marched right through it (with nothing of significance happening during such time), there is no need for Josephus to mention it, especially if Nazareth had as bad a reputation as Nathaniel (one of Jesus' disciples) implied that it did. Regardless, Josephus' lack of mentioning Nazareth had NO bearing on the issue of the town's existence.
With that said:
"Despite the Hellenization of the general region and the probability that Greek was known to many people it seems likely that Nazareth remained a conservative Jewish village. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70 it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would only settle in unmixed towns, that is towns without Gentile inhabitants. According to an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima the priests of the order of Elkalir made their home in Nazareth. This, by the way, is the sole known reference to Nazareth in antiquity, apart from written Christian sources.....Some scholars had even believed that Nazareth was a fictitious invention of the early Christians (Now where have I heard that before? - MCWAY ;D ); the inscription from Caesarea Maritima proves otherwise." - Paul Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament
Despite Nazareth's obscurity (which had led some critics to suggest that it was a relatively recent foundation), archeology indicates that the village has been occupied since the 7th century B.C., although it may have experienced a 'refounding' in the 2d century B.C. " - Eric Meyers and James Strange, Journal of Biblical Literature Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity
Again, you pick and choose when Josephus' work is valid. You use it to support your claim that Nazareth didn't exist. Yet, you call it a fraud, when it mentions the existence of Jesus. Make up your mind, please.
On the contrary!! At best, it would indicate that (assumimg your date is correct) such is the earliest-known copy, not that it was initially generated during that time. Yet again, you pick and choose with Josephus. Why would Origien NEED to make a reference to the TF? He isn't doubting the existence of Jesus. Therefore, he would not use the Testimonium to verify someone, of whose existence he had no doubt.
With that said, with your references to Origen, you remove yet more toes, from your argument. Origien proclaimed that Josephus "didn't recognize Jesus as the Christ". That, however, is with regards (once again) to Jesus' divnity, not His existence. Of course, that begs the question as to why Origen would make such a statement, if he weren't referring to the Greek version of the Testimonium. To top it all off, Origen DOES reference chapter 20 of Antiquties of the Jews, which has the smaller reference to Jesus, ".....the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
The other Christian writers (before Origen) do not doubt the existence of Jesus, either. When dealing with non-Christians, they made the case for Jesus' divinty. An earlier version of the Testimonium (without the "brackets") would be of no use to an early Christian writer, trying to convince a Jew (or anyone else) of Jesus' divinity.
Of course, your actually producing an example of the Antiquities that dates earlier than 4th century A.D. and DOES NOT contain the Testimonium would help your dubious argument. But, for some reason, I doubt you can do that.
And as Loco and I have asked of you REPEATEDLY, it would help your claim if you actually showed an example of the Testimonium that contains no reference to Jesus Christ, whatosever, and business will pick up.
So speaks the Minimalist to MCWAY the fundy...
Tell the shitstain that he should actually read all of Josephus, (as I have done) and not just the TF which is the only part that Josephus did not write.
Josephus has a mind-numbing capacity for detail. He mentions many insignificant little hamlets in the course of his campaign across Galilee but somehow, he "missed" the "city" of Nazareth? Not fucking likely.
In general, Josephus' geographical points have been proven by archaeology. About the only time when one needs to look askance at his writing is when he is either, a) kissing Titus and Vespasian's asses (which, as a good little toady he does quite often) and b) when he is trying to explain away his execrable conduct after the siege of Jotapata.
In any case, with Vespasian camped for a month and a half in front of Nazareth it is simply inconceivable ( to all but the stupidest fundies, apparently) that he would not have mentioned the existence of this "city." More, one wonders why he would have chosen to defend Jotapata when he could have had this "city" as his base and thus deny its resources to the Romans. Looks like Jesus is a shitty general in addition to everything else.
Then....there is the archaeology which it seems the church fucks have lied about in order to conceal the fact that there was no "Nazareth" at the time they need it for their godboy. Christians lie a lot, it seems.
-
So speaks the Minimalist to MCWAY the fundy...
Let me guess: You've run out of gibberish to say, so now it's back to "cut and paste" time, using the words of foul-mouthed atheists, whose blubbering is no more informing than yours is.
Tell the shitstain that he should actually read all of Josephus, (as I have done) and not just the TF which is the only part that Josephus did not write.
Perhaps, Mr. Minimalist should remember that, even if this silly statement of his were actually true, the Testimonium in chapter 18 isn't the only part of the Antiquties that has a reference to Jesus Christ.
Josephus has a mind-numbing capacity for detail. He mentions many insignificant little hamlets in the course of his campaign across Galilee but somehow, he "missed" the "city" of Nazareth? Not fucking likely.
Galilee had over 200 cities and towns, Josephus mentioned 45 (roughly a fifth of them) by name. Does that mean that the other ones he didn't mention are fabrications? NO!!! One more time, why does Josephus NEED to mention Nazareth?
In general, Josephus' geographical points have been proven by archaeology. About the only time when one needs to look askance at his writing is when he is either, a) kissing Titus and Vespasian's asses (which, as a good little toady he does quite often) and b) when he is trying to explain away his execrable conduct after the siege of Jotapata.
In any case, with Vespasian camped for a month and a half in front of Nazareth it is simply inconceivable ( to all but the stupidest fundies, apparently) that he would not have mentioned the existence of this "city." More, one wonders why he would have chosen to defend Jotapata when he could have had this "city" as his base and thus deny its resources to the Romans. Looks like Jesus is a shitty general in addition to everything else.
Funnny that he should mention archaeology. Does the author of this foolishness you just posted know of the "nazarethmyth" link you just posted last night? Does he/she know about the archaeological evidence that YOU linked to this forum, that shows evidence for the existence of Nazareth that dates (by the standards of the atheist who authors the site) 70-100 A.D.?
Since you're constantly running to the "Minimalist" to feebly attempt to save your sinking arguments, why don't you ask him to PROVIDE REFERENCE TO AN ANCIENT COPY of Josephus' Antiquities that DOES NOT contain the Testimonium, to back his warped claim. Loco and I have been asking you to do that for weeks and you've produced zip. Maybe, your buddy has the hook-up.
Perhaps, he should check out the Nazarethmyth link you provided, because, thanks to you, that link just proved a point of mine, namely: Josephus' not mentioning the town of Nazareth has NO BEARING on whether or not the town existed.
Then....there is the archaeology which it seems the church fucks have lied about in order to conceal the fact that there was no "Nazareth" at the time they need it for their godboy. Christians lie a lot, it seems.
How appropriate, folks, that Trapezkerl runs to a site, run by someone called the "Minimalist". After all, minimalization is EXACTLY the next step that skeptics/atheists take, when historical and archaeological evidence found supports the Bible and renders their claims to be FALSE.
Again, we see the pattern. First, there was no Nazareth AT ALL; then, there was no Nazareth, before 3rd century A.D.; now, the claim is that there was no Nazareth during Jesus' lifetime, although this atheist that Trapezkerl linked says "with certainty" that the archaeological evidence dates 70-100 A.D. (which, by the way, is a mere 40-70 years after Jesus' death and resurrection).
And, if all this weren't enough, the author of the same site, provided by Trapezkerl, states that "A remarkable conclusion of my research into Nazareth archaeology is that not a single artefact can with certainty be dated before 100 CE (unless, of course, one goes back to the Iron Period).
Perhaps, Trapzekerl or the "Minimalist" can kindly explain how Christians can lie and make up the town of Nazareth, when there's archaeological evidence for the existence of the town, that dates nearly SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS before the Man (from whom this pesky religion and its followers are named) was even born.
Assuming that the "Minimalist" isn't simply your alter ego, run and tell that to him Trapezkerl. And, while you're at it, why not show him the link you provided with late 1st/early 2nd-century evidence for the town you, he, and a host of atheists once claimed didn't exist.
-
sorry guys, i realize i started this thread and i haven't responded. busy life.
thanks mcway for fighting for the truth.
i wish i had the time to make thought out replies. but anyway, you anti-god people made your responses like i thought. shallow.
i still did not read any hard evidence against the existence of God from anyone. just the arguement of faith. so, why should i believe you?? ya'll aren't very convincing.
i've lived without God in my life and, now, with God in my life. and i'm telling you, i'm much more happy, content and fulfilled. and, by the statemet; "with God in my life" i mean praying, reading His Word, having faith in tough times and trusting Him. some people think that all they have to do is believe in God and He will bless you. wrong.
anyway, since i've pretty much lived on both sides of the fence, why should be swayed to NOT believe in God?? there is no life on that side of the fence. people, and much worse kids, are being taught they descend from animals, monkies, goo are whatever you guys believe and society tries to figure out why they act like animals. they wonder what life is about and a lot of people believe life is pointless. what else would can they believe when "scientists" tell them their cousins are apes.
we have dismantled your god as there is no more evidence for your god then any other. also, we keep telling you that you cannot prove something does not exist, your ignorance in spite of being told otherwise shows you are not here to reason.
-
we have dismantled your god as there is no more evidence for your god then any other. also, we keep telling you that you cannot prove something does not exist, your ignorance in spite of being told otherwise shows you are not here to reason.
And this "we" would be whom? And where, oh where, did this alleged dismantling occur?
Such has been the claim by atheists for over two centuries. Yet, our God is alive and well.
-
And this "we" would be whom? And where, oh where, did this alleged dismantling occur?
Such has been the claim by atheists for over two centuries. Yet, our God is alive and well.
will you stop saying that, jesus. your god is no where to be found but in your book and your head.
what of the dying children? your god does nothing, what a pitiful being. how come all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time?
-
will you stop saying that, jesus. your god is no where to be found but in your book and your head.
I'm sorry. Weren't you supposed to be telling us on how you have "dismantled" God?
what of the dying children? your god does nothing, what a pitiful being. how come all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time?
But, when God does do something, you and all your atheist buddies start bleating and whining about how mean He is for bringing judgment.
Of course, if man would actually obey God's word, there'd be far, FAR fewer children dying, because of his disobedience, now wouldn't there?
As for your claim of "all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time", apparently you've been asleep at the wheel. I've given examples of supernatural prophecies fulfilled, as predicted by the Bible. They are based in history and validated by archeaological discovery.
One such example was the prophecies of Daniel, fulfilled quite nicely I might add. Check the prophecies in Dan. 7 and 8 and bounce them against world history. Of course, skeptics denied that such ever occured, until the evidence found the Bible's predictions to be accurate. Then, they backtracked (as usual), claiming the prophecies were written after the fact.
You can see another prime example of skeptic-dancing from one Trapezkerl, regarding the existence of Nazareth, another Biblical item that skeptics like you claimed was false and didn't exist. But, alas, when the evidence comes forth, the Bible is proven right again.
But, again, I'll ask you, where is this allegedly dismantling of God that you (and whoever else that comprised the "we") have done?
-
I'm sorry. Weren't you supposed to be telling us on how you have "dismantled" God?
But, when God does do something, you and all your atheist buddies start bleating and whining about how mean He is for bringing judgment.
Of course, if man would actually obey God's word, there'd be far, FAR fewer children dying, because of his disobedience, now wouldn't there?
As for your claim of "all of science has never found a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural occured, anywhere in time", apparently you've been asleep at the wheel. I've given examples of supernatural prophecies fulfilled, as predicted by the Bible. They are based in history and validated by archeaological discovery.
One such example was the prophecies of Daniel, fulfilled quite nicely I might add. Check the prophecies in Dan. 7 and 8 and bounce them against world history. Of course, skeptics denied that such ever occured, until the evidence found the Bible's predictions to be accurate. Then, they backtracked (as usual), claiming the prophecies were written after the fact.
You can see another prime example of skeptic-dancing from one Trapezkerl, regarding the existence of Nazareth, another Biblical item that skeptics like you claimed was false and didn't exist. But, alas, when the evidence comes forth, the Bible is proven right again.
But, again, I'll ask you, where is this allegedly dismantling of God that you (and whoever else that comprised the "we") have done?
all over the board.
there are many problems, one is the problem of evil. two is the problem of suffering, three is the fact that there is no naturalistic evidence for him. four is that your god has no more proof then any other god.
you where just proven wrong actually on the above exchange, but if you prefer to read it that way so be it.
here watch these videos, they are christians trying to offer proof and they look absolutely foolish on live television , with not a single shred of evidence, and arguments that are purely fallacious.
-
all over the board.
there are many problems, one is the problem of evil. two is the problem of suffering, three is the fact that there is no naturalistic evidence for him. four is that your god has no more proof then any other god.
1 and 2) Death and suffering come as a result of the same thing: Disobedience to the law of God.
3) Last time I checked, historical and archaeological evidence that back the Bible's statements and prophecies qualify as "naturalistic evidence".
4) I've already given examples of such, with regards to God and His existence. Why don't you compare the statements and prophecies of some of thost other gods (i.e. Dagon, Asheroth, Molech, etc.) and see if their edicts have the same veracity, as those found in the Bible.
you where just proven wrong actually on the above exchange, but if you prefer to read it that way so be it.
here watch these videos, they are christians trying to offer proof and they look absolutely foolish on live television , with not a single shred of evidence, and arguments that are purely fallacious.
[/quote]
So, the "we" that you referenced, when making claims of having "dismantled" God is from a Youtube video?
YOU made the claim that you'd dismantled God. So, for once, let's hear YOU (not a YouTube video) give some examples on the matter.
-
1 and 2) Death and suffering come as a result of the same thing: Disobedience to the law of God.
3) Last time I checked, historical and archaeological evidence that back the Bible's statements and prophecies qualify as "naturalistic evidence".
4) I've already given examples of such, with regards to God and His existence. Why don't you compare the statements and prophecies of some of thost other gods (i.e. Dagon, Asheroth, Molech, etc.) and see if their edicts have the same veracity, as those found in the Bible.
you where just proven wrong actually on the above exchange, but if you prefer to read it that way so be it.
here watch these videos, they are christians trying to offer proof and they look absolutely foolish on live television , with not a single shred of evidence, and arguments that are purely fallacious.
So, the "we" that you referenced, when making claims of having "dismantled" God is from a Youtube video?
YOU made the claim that you'd dismantled God. So, for once, let's hear YOU (not a YouTube video) give some examples on the matter.
i have offered many arguments on this site for and against gods existence. the fact is your god has no role in this universe.
1) if sin is a result of mans choice, why did god create man knowing he would sin since he can see the future? this makes no sense. also, it is logical that god being omnipotent could create a world that lacks suffering and teaches the same principles in life as they are very basic, this sin and suffering is a very weak argument.
for one, him knowing the future fucks that whole idea up and two it is a very poor design with far to grave a consequence for minor acts.
also. who created god? ive answered this a few times and i know your answer but id like to rebutt it.
these two will do for now.
-
also if youd kindly keep your points short that would be nice as i wont respond to page long rebuttals as im extremely getting an education from the devil.