I click on the site and then what?
I haven't gone there yet, but I suspect it's a site of Biblical contradictions, probably the same contradictions that I've already talked about on allforums, or at least the same list that is found in thousands of other sites on the web.
But whether I look at it or not doesn't change the fact that there was a claim- the four Gospels contradict each other in their account of the resurrection of Christ- so I offered up discussion of the "contradictions" between the Gospel, concerning Christ's resurrection. I discussed the contradictions, why they don't contradict, and how they, in actuality, fit together.
What I'm waiting for is a rebuttal that shows where there is actually a contradiction and how it breaks the law of non contradiction. Just asserting the point, "yes they do contradict each other" hardly fits the debate.

By the way there are thousands of Christian websites that deal with the contradiction websites, so where does that get us?

It is interesting that you said that I would disregard any contradiction that Thislin would post, what do you mean by disregard?
If you mean I'll ignore them, and not discuss them...by looking at my post, does that seem to be the way I operate in here?

As for your question:
Are you too lazy to click on that site?
No, I'm not too lazy to click on the site, but I am too lazy to paint the hallway that my lovely bride has been trying to get me to paint for ages now. It's not the painting it's the stripping the wall paper that kills me...okay, and the painting too.

By disregard I meant that you would still insist he was wrong. Your mind is not open to change. His probably is not either. So the back and forth that you do seems pointless.

I click on the site and then what?
I haven't gone there yet, but I suspect it's a site of Biblical contradictions, probably the same contradictions that I've already talked about on allforums, or at least the same list that is found in thousands of other sites on the web.
But whether I look at it or not doesn't change the fact that there was a claim- the four Gospels contradict each other in their account of the resurrection of Christ- so I offered up discussion of the "contradictions" between the Gospel, concerning Christ's resurrection. I discussed the contradictions, why they don't contradict, and how they, in actuality, fit together.
What I'm waiting for is a rebuttal that shows where there is actually a contradiction and how it breaks the law of non contradiction. Just asserting the point, "yes they do contradict each other" hardly fits the debate.

By the way there are thousands of Christian websites that deal with the contradiction websites, so where does that get us?

It is interesting that you said that I would disregard any contradiction that Thislin would post, what do you mean by disregard?
If you mean I'll ignore them, and not discuss them...by looking at my post, does that seem to be the way I operate in here?

As for your question:

No, I'm not too lazy too click on the site, but I am too lazy to paint the hallway that my lovely bride has been trying to get me to paint for ages now. It's not the painting it's the stripping the wall paper that kills me...okay, and the painting too.
The problem with the "Christian" web sites you mention is that they have to twist the words in all sorts of ways, or speculate about possible scenarios that might make both statements technically correct.

This is dishonesty compounded by religious blindness.

The problem with the "Christian" web sites you mention is that they have to twist the words in all sorts of ways, or speculate about possible scenarios that might make both statements technically correct.

This is dishonesty compounded by religious blindness.
I can't speak on the dishonesty or honesty of the other websites, but it seemed to me that pretty much all the contradictions presented by the website you linked to were a bit silly and unimportant.

By disregard I meant that you would still insist he was wrong. Your mind is not open to change. His probably is not either. So the back and forth that you do seems pointless.
It is a bit frustrating, although his ranks are many.

I would not agree that I am closed minded about all this--I don't think it is of great importance in the Christian-non-Christian decision, since I think any religious tradition that comes from the ancient world is necessarily largely mythical, and I think myths are often truthful and helpful (although there are, in Christianity, some really horrible myths that do great harm).

Besides, I've been there, done that, and gone on. He just has, for his own reasons, decided not to open himself up to things that contradict what he was indoctrinated with as a child, and will defend them with every bone in his body. It is the stuff that martyrs are made of, poor fools.

I can't speak on the dishonesty or honesty of the other websites, but it seemed to me that pretty much all the contradictions presented by the website you linked to were a bit silly and unimportant.
I dunno. What is "silly" or "unimportant?"

Do you "reason" or do you rationalize--look for passages that you can use to explain away difficulties?
I choose: reason.

The Bible is a large book and a lot of people pour over it regularly, so that the exercise of finding some other passage to "interpret" a given passage in a manner other than what the text actually says is not difficult, but is also unimpressive.
This is interesting. There is a claim that the four accounts of the resurrection of Christ, in the Gospels contradict each other. I use the four Gospels to demonstrate that they don't contradict, but complement each other. To do this I, of course, have to use text from each account, but you don't seem to approve...why is that? Could it be you don't want the Gospels to fit? You said that you attempted, but could not, harmonize the resurrection accounts, could it be because you didn't really want to? Could it be you just looked at the Gospels through the lens of saving your paradigm? That paradigm being-the Gospels contradict each other.
I cannot judge your intentions, but I can question them.

I note also that you keep referring to the different authors having different "perspectives." This does explain a lot of the problems, but in a way you won't like. What it shows is that they each made up things, and were not in direct contact. Also, they drew from oral as well as written sources, neither of which we can do more than make educated guesses about.
I don't buy it. If all the Gospels said exactly the same thing, the critic would claim collusion.
You said that it shows they made it up. The disciples lived in poverty, going town to town, being beaten, stoned, hated, whipped, and eventually killed, all claiming that they had seen the bodily resurrected Lord...why would they do that? To what end?

I don't think you understand the difference between "reasoning" and "rationalization," so let me explain--

What you do is rationalize. You have a belief and your intention is to defend it. Therefore you do not approach the evidence neutrally. You approach a Biblical horror story, or a contradiction, or some pre-scientific nonsense, with the intent of defending it, not reasoning about it but rationalizing about it.

I read the account of the resurrection in Luke and then I read the account in John and can see at once that they are not the same story. This is the rational approach. You, however, approach it with the assumption that they must be the same story, so you seek ways to explain away the obvious differences, and nit-pick those who can see more plainly. Your approach is like the way a lawyer tries to obscure the importance of evidence against his case.

You do this because you were indoctrinated as a child, and hence have a set of beliefs that you are not really aware of--and that when you question them your instincts get alarmed and make you defensive or angry or fearful or guilty.

In short, you need to know yourself. Until then, I really see little point in continuing to respond to your stuff, and intend to post more positive things than what you have up to now forced out of me.

I don't think you understand the difference between "reasoning" and "rationalization," so let me explain--

What you do is rationalize. You have a belief and your intention is to defend it. Therefore you do not approach the evidence neutrally. You approach a Biblical horror story, or a contradiction, or some pre-scientific nonsense, with the intent of defending it, not reasoning about it but rationalizing about it.

I read the account of the resurrection in Luke and then I read the account in John and can see at once that they are not the same story. This is the rational approach. You, however, approach it with the assumption that they must be the same story, so you seek ways to explain away the obvious differences, and nit-pick those who can see more plainly. Your approach is like the way a lawyer tries to obscure the importance of evidence against his case.

You do this because you were indoctrinated as a child, and hence have a set of beliefs that you are not really aware of--and that when you question them your instincts get alarmed and make you defensive or angry or fearful or guilty.

In short, you need to know yourself. Until then, I really see little point in continuing to respond to your stuff, and intend to post more positive things than what you have up to now forced out of me.

This is a good example of you saving your paradigm.

Interesting that you see me as being defensive angry, fearful or guilty, but then again you also see a contradiction where there is none.

As for whether you respond or not, well debate as you want, I'm in no position demand.

Though I have my suspicion that you will respond. You seem to have an urge to correct anyone who does not believe the way you do, and I celebrate that urge. You call it intolerance and closed mindedness, I call it an exchange of ideas and attempting to introduce someone to what is true.

I found this part of your post interesting
...and intend to post more positive things than what you have up to now forced out of me.
I forced you? I've seen some of your posts on other threads, I didn't force you...but you may just be revealing your nature.
But hey, who am I to tell you how to debate?

This is a good example of you saving your paradigm.

I'm just telling you the truth; maybe one day you will be willing to hear it, but not now.

By the way, I don't have a "paradigm." That is a bit of an insult you invented that up to now I just ignored.

I'm just telling you the truth; maybe one day you will be willing to hear it, but not now.
Remember you said this about truth from page 22 post #324:
The teaching is not exactly that all religions are "true," but that "truth," to a finite being, is an illusion.
So tell me is this "truth," that you speak of, an illusion?

By the way, I don't have a "paradigm." That is a bit of an insult you invented that up to now I just ignored.
Having a paradigm is an insult?

What is your definition of paradigm?

As for #2, One story says there were angels and another says there were none. Which is more contradictory than the example you used.
And #3, John says Mary went the tomb, by herself. The others say she went with other women. That is a contradiction.
As for #2 you are right if one says that there were angels and another says there were none that would be a contradiction. I think I've answered this post already, but can't remember so let me just add that no gospel account says that there were no angels.

As for #3, read John 20, nowhere does it say that Mary went to the tomb alone. What you will see is that John tells what Mary did early on the first day of the week.
No contradiction there.

So tell me is this "truth," that you speak of, an illusion?
I already explained your misunderstanding of this--as two different senses of the English word "truth." You think you know "truth," I would say I know "truths" the way a scientist knows that whales are mammals.

My "truth" (when the word is used in this sense) is only a way of expressing that this is something I feel quite sure accurately describes reality, but I am ready to change my mind if new evidence comes to my attention.

You are not ready to change your mind. You don't reason (or for that matter even listen or I wouldn't be having to post this again), but only rationalize to defend your indoctrination.
Having a paradigm is an insult? What is your definition of paradigm?
The word is a trite concept that was popular among business cliche-ists a decade or so ago. It applies to the "box" people often think in, a "new paradigm" being the adoption of a new box. I suppose it was a replacement of the old concept of "world view" except to apply to some limited domain instead of everything.

In other words, you were saying I was defending a cardboard box that I refused to look out of. That is insulting. Probably more to the point it is not true. I am far less in any mental box than you are.

Sheesh.

"No Gospel states there were no Angels." Angels appear and some of those reporting this don't think its worth mentioning.

Which Gospel doesn't think angels aren't worth mentioning?

My biggest point in this is that the stories get more miraculous as time goes on. Why wouldnt Mark mention Jesus ascending into Heaven, or that there were angels present. That seems like some pretty important information to ommit dont you think? But, again, the story get more and more miraculous as the story gets re-written.
More miraculous? You don't get more miraculous then the resurrection, and every Gospel records miracles. I don't know why John decided to mention some miracles that the other Gospels don't, but because he added a miracle that the others didn't doesn't mean they made the whole thing up. As for the ascension of Christ, John isn't the only one to mention it, Luke writes about it in the beginning of his book of "Acts."
Another point is that where Matthew was written to demonstrate to the Jewish community that Jesus is the Messiah, and Luke was writing as an historian, John was writing to show the Deity of Christ. That's why you see him start his book, not with the birth of Christ, but with the phrase: "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God." This "Word" that John is talking about is Jesus.
The Gospels don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.
Now, maybe you are still convinced that there is a contradiction in the resurrection accounts, if so I'd like to have you demonstrate what the contradiction is and how it is a contradiction.

Which Gospel doesn't think angels aren't worth mentioning?
You said that one of the accounts of the resurrection doesn't mention the presence of angels. I was only remarking that such an omission boggles the mind.

If you were an eyewitness or close to eyewitnesses and were writing an account of these events, would you omit any mention of angels that appeared?

More miraculous? You don't get more miraculous then the resurrection, and every Gospel records miracles. I don't know why John decided to mention some miracles that the other Gospels don't, but because he added a miracle that the others didn't doesn't mean they made the whole thing up. As for the ascension of Christ, John isn't the only one to mention it, Luke writes about it in the beginning of his book of "Acts."
Another point is that where Matthew was written to demonstrate to the Jewish community that Jesus is the Messiah, and Luke was writing as an historian, John was writing to show the Deity of Christ. That's why you see him start his book, not with the birth of Christ, but with the phrase: "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God." This "Word" that John is talking about is Jesus.
The Gospels don't contradict each other, they compliment each other.
Now, maybe you are still convinced that there is a contradiction in the resurrection accounts, if so I'd like to have you demonstrate what the contradiction is and how it is a contradiction.
You are right that all the stories contain miraculous and other wondrous stuff. That is the main reason for calling them myths.

I think "Phyrex's" point, however, is well taken. They do get more miraculous. More and more stories get incorporated--either stories that were floating about independently that the author includes or stories the author invents.

The historiographer, dealing with ancient texts, has the difficult job of trying to separate fact from fiction, since ancient authors did not have the checks imposed on them that a modern author has (nowadays statements can be checked by others).

We also understand the phenomenon of myth--studies have been conducted to see how quickly a myth gets into a non-literate culture, and it turns out to be within a few years, not the decades most people imagine. Memories are short and convenient, especially when exposed to social pressure.

Is it fair to disregard texts that record miraculous events from inclusion in history? After all, it may be that the text nevertheless has an historical kernel, or, it may be that miraculous things took place in ancient times.

The problem is we don't have any real choice, if we are objective, but to exclude such sources. We cannot say, "I believe this one," but "I don't believe that one." Stories that contain wondrous narratives cannot be trusted, considering what we know about mankind's myth making talent.

As far as an historical kernel might be involved, it is beyond question that mythical material often has such a kernel, but we are not able, from the text itself, to make any such assessment. The only way we can say there is a historical kernel is if it is confirmed independently by non-mythical sources developed independently of the mythical source. (In such a case we don't need the mythical material anyway, so that as historical source material miracle-containing narratives just simply must be dismissed).

Hey, sorry I abandoned this thread for a while, Ill think up some more arguments here soon.

Anyways, im sure you've heard of Occams Razor, Stark? "The simplest answer tends to be the correct one." I think it holds a lot of water. The Bible, for the most part, is hyperbole. If you take away all the miraculous things that happen in the Bible, you are left with almost nothing. Except the words of Jesus. Most of which, are good teachings. I think thats all that really can be taken seriously from the Bible.

We know, for example, that there was indeed a King David. But I would say that the version of events given in the New Testament is supported only by the version of events given in the New Testament. To my way of thinking this amounts to making a claim, hence the irony.
Yes, we do know that there was a King David, and certainly there are some who claim that David never existed or if he did exist he was nothing but a tribal chieftain, but archaeology says different.
There was the finding in 1993 by Dr. Avraham Biran who was digging at Tell Dan. He uncovered the remains of a black basalt stele with inscriptions speaking of "The King of Israel" and "House of David.
Then there is the very recent finding by Dr. Eilat Mazar in the southern shadow of the
Temple Mount, who has found a massive building which Mazar believes is King David's palace.

Now you said that "the version of events given in the New Testament is supported only by the version of events given in the New Testament." I guess, for me, that brings up a couple of questions:
1) What other "version" of events coming out of the first century are there?
2) What would you accept as evidence that supports the New Testament version of events?
This question is particularly interesting to me in light of my question to Phyrex after he claimed that::
All of that stuff was burried by the church, and anyone who mentioned it was deemed a heritic.
I had asked:
It's a claim, but what is the supporting facts?
and you posted:
Ha ha ha!!
I'm guessing the supreme irony of this question eludes you.
I'm assuming that you don't believe there is any evidence that supports the claims of the New Testament, but that may not be what you are saying.

Of course, I believe there is evidence, outside the Bible, that supports the Biblical claim, but I'd like to see your answers on those questions first.

You assert that we know there was a "King David." That is not true. There exists an incription of a "David" (not an uncommon name), of unknown date. This has been latched onto rather desperately by people like you, but it tells us nothing.
Can't really add much to this, except for: you're wrong.

Yes, we have submission/dominance instincts, and the Christianity meme makes use of them.
And you submit to what?
You have dominance over what?

Good people who are not Christians go to Hell while bad people who are Christians go to Heaven.
Good people? By whose standard are you using to judge someone as to whether they are good or not? The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God."

You misrepresent other religion's teachings on this. Generally, the non-Semitic religions of the world are not about judgment but about personal consequences and responsibility--not laying it off onto some ancient mythical sacrifice.
You make my point "...religions of the world are not about judgment but about personal consequences and responsibility..." Their concentration is making bad men good, Christ came to reach out to men to save them from spiritual death to life true life.

I don't really mind Hitler, et. al. going to Heaven. If there is an all-powerful, omnibeneficient deity, then we all get to heaven somehow or sometime. It's the good people who go to Hell just because they aren't Christians, when Christianity is intellectually so flimsy and dishonest, that I don't like.
Biblically all fall short of God's perfection.
People who have not accepted the sacrifice of Christ for their lives pay for their own sins. Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ, they respond or they just cast it aside and convince themselves that Christianity is intellectually flimsy and dishonest.

By the way, Nero doesn't really belong in your "evil men" list. Tacitus didn't like him and his history tears at him, but, as Roman Emperors went, he was well intentioned if ineffective. Better on your list would be "Caligula" or Commodus or Dominitian or Constantine.
It wasn't my list...but really I should do my own research on Nero to see what history really speaks of him.
If the whole torturing Christians to death thing is true, I'd suggest he's a little worse the ineffective.

Can't really add much to this, except for: you're wrong.
Could you please provide a citation on your response to "Phyrex" about the historicity of a David King of Israel. This is completely new to me and I naturally have my doubts. Also, of course, I would like to get more detail as to publication, peer review, and so on.

My understanding is that there really is no evidence for any of the Kings of the OT until you get up to Josiah, except for the "historical" parts of OT, and they were written after the Exile.

And you submit to what?
You have dominance over what?
We all have dominance/submission instincts--they are part of the primate behavior pattern for keeping a group together. Monkeys and apes get positive hormonal feedback from being both dominant (alpha) and submissive.

I think the pleasure one gets in "following orders" in all sorts of situations--being on a sports team to being in the military to worship of a deity would all be examples.
Good people? By whose standard are you using to judge someone as to whether they are good or not? The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God."
That is beyond petty. Do you argue that the crimes of a brutal dictator who put the world into war was and headed up massive genocide is no worse than an ordinary person who does nothing in life except struggle to raise a family?
You make my point "...religions of the world are not about judgment but about personal consequences and responsibility..." Their concentration is making bad men good, Christ came to reach out to men to save them from spiritual death to life true life.
You take your unproven assertion as evidence for it. That is called "begging the question," but I just call it self-righteous glibness.

It is true that religion is not mainly for making bad people good. I would say that more important is helping good people understand that no matter what nonsense Christians prattle they remain good people.
Biblically all fall short of God's perfection.
What is "perfect?" I am a "perfect" Martin. If I were not I would be someone else. We are all a "perfect" whatever-we-are. If you try to define perfection as without flaw, you run into the contradiction that a flaw is one context is an asset in another.
People who have not accepted the sacrifice of Christ for their lives pay for their own sins. Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ, they respond or they just cast it aside and convince themselves that Christianity is intellectually flimsy and dishonest.
That is arrogance speaking; you have no evidence that it is true. People sincerely and honestly look at Christianity and reject it because of claims like that. We cannot "choose" to believe a ponzi scheme when we see through it.
It wasn't my list...but really I should do my own research on Nero to see what history really speaks of him.
If the whole torturing Christians to death thing is true, I'd suggest he's a little worse the ineffective.
Nero's "bad rap" comes from Tacitus, writing over a century after Nero ruled. He consistently attacked Nero about everything--it is thought because he didn't approve of Nero's lavish lifestyle and his artistic pretensions. Other than from Tacitus (and others who came later) we would not know anything about any persecution of Christians, and most historians think it unlikely.

The Christians of the late Roman period were the persecutors, and in part justified it by claims of persecution when they were a minority. A few incidents of persecution from later on of Christians are historical, but nothing like the propaganda the Christians later spread and still spread.

Now you said that "the version of events given in the New Testament is supported only by the version of events given in the New Testament." I guess, for me, that brings up a couple of questions:
1) What other "version" of events coming out of the first century are there?There are written histories and the physical record (artifacts, ruins and such) that provide the most clear picture of events. It's all guesswork, of course, but it can be educated guesswork. Some people spend their whole lives examining and analyzing all the available evidence to write histories of the times. Those are the 'versions' I most readily accept.What would you accept as evidence that supports the New Testament version of events?How would I know what the nature of such evidence would be? If I'd seen it by now we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be helpful, I suppose, if Jesus had left us a book that he himself had written, or if there were corroborated and reliable histories that mentioned him.I'm assuming that you don't believe there is any evidence that supports the claims of the New Testament, but that may not be what you are saying.I was making fun of your calling out someone else for making claims without evidence. If you can't see the irony in that I don't know what I can tell you.Of course, I believe there is evidence, outside the Bible, that supports the Biblical claim, but I'd like to see your answers on those questions first.I doubt if you can produce any 'evidence' that I haven't seen before but who knows? Maybe you can.

By all means, let's hear it.

Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ.......

Evderyone?!?!?

Isn't it odd that the majority of human beings on the planet-- the 2 or more billion people who are not Christians-- have not been convinced by this supposed 'evidence' they have been provided. :rolleyes:

Evderyone?!?!?

Isn't it odd that the majority of human beings on the planet-- the 2 or more billion people who are not Christians-- have not been convinced by this supposed 'evidence' they have been provided. :rolleyes:
I have relatives back in Ireland (actually Ulster) who are Jehovah's Witnesses, and have been from long before I was born.

One of them is what they call the "elect," and testifies that she has been told by God or the Holy Spirit or something that she is destined for Heaven (in their teaching the number who go to Heaven is limited to 144,000--all other "good" people end up living on the Earth, once it is cleansed, for eternity).

I have questioned her closely about her sensation of being different from other Jehovah's Witnesses--how she could be "elect" and others--the vast majority it seems--not be, and how she could be so sure.

(Let me assure you--she is sure).

I presume there is some sort of psychological mechanism that leads to this sort of conviction. I know that when one meditates, there is a serious danger, when one is meditating on some teaching, of becoming utterly certain of it. The Sutras are full of warnings about this. The mental process of belief is not, I think, well understood.

Check here:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality

and here:

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jerusalem/Reclaiming_Biblical_Jerusalem.asp

For the King David info.

That first article was quite informative. The second was a little too propaganda-laden for me to read much of it.

The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a historical document.
This is from the site you sent us to.

It is interesting that a site prepared by an instrument of the Israeli government--a state that has to keep a significant minority of Orthodox Jews happy--is so honest.

Of course it only glosses over the negative evidence and goes into great detail about the positive evidence. (I presume otherwise you would not have chosen it to post. This is the sort of quote mining I talked about earlier.)

So what do we have? We have an inscription that a dynasty existed with that name--what this dynasty ruled is not clear. We also know that the area that is now Jerusalem has been occupied for a damn long time (not unique by a long shot for that part of the world).

In the meantime there is no mention in any Egyptian or Hittite or any other source, for that matter, of David. The Egyptians were not sloppy and kept lots of records of the goings-on of their neighbors. What are we to think?

We are to think either he did not exist or he was such a minor figure--more like a tribal chief than the king we are lead to imagine--that he was not worth mentioning.

As with all myths, there may be a historical kernel--but, just as the source you quote says--the Bible is not history. The portions of the Bible here were written much later for the purpose of creating a glorious history for the Jews and getting in good with the Persians (by portraying the Jews as having had long-term hostility with those the Persians now found to be hostile).

Did you know they found a land bridge under the red sea and that there are coral encrushed chariot wheels . Will I give you the web site, no I won't to any scoffers of YAHSHUA and YAHWEH. There many things that have been found lol but I don't post for unbelievers.

Did you know they found a land bridge under the red sea and that there are coral encrushed chariot wheels . Will I give you the web site, no I won't to any scoffers of YAHSHUA and YAHWEH. There many things that have been found lol but I don't post for unbelievers.

You should have posted this yesterday.;)

You should have posted this yesterday.;)
He reminds me of Joseph Smith who told us he translated (with an angel's help) the "Book of Mormon" from twelve golden tablets.

When challenged to produce these tablets, he reported that they had been destroyed as God would not allow skeptics and mockers to see them.

Did you know they found a land bridge under the red sea and that there are coral encrushed chariot wheels . Will I give you the web site, no I won't to any scoffers of YAHSHUA and YAHWEH. There many things that have been found lol but I don't post for unbelievers.

Or maybe you're just full of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?ex=1333252800&en=5bd9532a6c4fbcd6&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

Did you know they found a land bridge under the red sea and that there are coral encrushed chariot wheels.I am concerned for your soul that you seek physical evidence for that which you should already be certain about anyway.

Please strengthen your faith, janrich. I'll pray for you.

No I don't need proof but is great when YAHWEH gives it for the unbelievers.
If the doubters want to d a search jump right at it. After all The Bible was given to us as proof of YAHWEH and YAHSHUA.

I won't [provide proof] to any scoffers of YAHSHUA and YAHWEH. There many things that have been found lol but I don't post for unbelievers.
...
No I don't need proof but is great when YAHWEH gives it for the unbelievers.
...
The Bible was given to us as proofI wonder if you'd be entertaining enough as to rationalise that triplet of statements together.
After all The Bible was given to us as proof of YAHWEH and YAHSHUA.Don't forget the stone tablets.

I thought the gospels weren't even written until a couple of hundred years after said events were to have taken place? If so, they weren't written by the actual apostles Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. They would have been written by diciples. Also the chances of them being educated enough to understand the written word would be limited wouldn't it?
First, you're right, if the Gospels were written a couple of hundred years after said event they could not have been written by the actual apostles, which is why the gnostic gospels run into a little trouble when the claim is that they were written by the Apostles.
Second, you questioned whether the Apostles would have been educated enough to understand the written word. Well, Matthew was a tax collector working for the Roman government and Luke was a medical doctor. So they had some education, how much was needed for those jobs, I don't know, but they must have had some kind of education. John was a fisherman: not much need for an education there, but that doesn't mean he didn't know how to read. Finally there is Mark, I don't know what he did for a living, but again, that doesn't mean he wasn't educated enough to pen the Gospel of Mark.

There are a few reasons why I believe that the Gospels and the whole New Testament were written early.

One, the writers claim to be personal witnesses of the events, or to have interviewed personal witnesses of the events. If you read through the gospels you see that they are intended to be taken as true. Now some may suggest that the writers were lying, but to what end, and what is it about the accounts that suggests they were indeed lying?

Another reason I believe in an early writing of the New Testament is that there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem which took place in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had predicted that the Temple would be torn down, and with the destruction it would have been natural for the writers to have said, "see just as He predicted."

The Book of Acts gives a hint for an early writing. Notice that Acts ends rather abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome. Acts ends this way:
"For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ."
I think it ends there because that is all that had happened when Luke ends his historical account of the acts of the apostles. It's interesting to note that Luke, (the author of Acts) recorded the death of Stephen but not the death of Paul (mid 60's A.D.). Luke also didn't record the Jewish war with Rome, or the destruction of Jerusalem. This is because the events had not yet happened by the time Acts was written.

Another reason I believe in an early writing of the New Testament is that there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem which took place in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had predicted that the Temple would be torn down, and with the destruction it would have been natural for the writers to have said, "see just as He predicted."

Ah--that is good proof they were written after 70AD.

You seem to have no concept of the concept of pious fraud--either that or you are a practitioner. This sort of "first person" narration by people who wrote long later is extremely common.

The arguments you use for the "early writing" can also be applied to the Book of Mormon or The Q'uran.

Most scholars tend to put the writing of Mark as first, since Matthew and Luke take passages from it, and add stuff they either invented or got from other sources (my view is that Luke had other sources and Matthew was inventive).
Invented? What reason, do you suppose, would the Apostles have for inventing what they insist really happened?

This is dated from around 80 to 100 CE. John had to have come later, maybe well into the second century, and derives from a similar but separate tradition. By the time John was written Christianity was losing its cultic, primitive aspects and becoming a real religion needing philosophical foundation. Hence crude narrative found in the Synoptics is replaced with John's elevated style and neo-Platonic/Stoic (it seems to be a mix of the two) philosophy.
Why couldn't it just be that John had a style different from the other writers?

There is no question in my mind these could not have been written by eyewitnesses. Narration of things like Jesus' private prayer is the "novelist's perspective," not one of an eyewitness.
There is no question in my mind that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or (as in the case of Luke) by those who personally knew the eye witnesses.
I don't see a problem with the authors knowing the private prayers of Jesus, because in some cases Jesus could have told them, and failing that, remember the teaching is that the Bible was written by men, inspired by God. Or as the Bible puts it "God breathed."

Invented? What reason, do you suppose, would the Apostles have for inventing what they insist really happened?
Why would Joseph Smith have gone to the herculean effort involved to write the Book of Mormon and then told all the stories?

I don't know how much you know about the history of Islam, but it is plain enough that Muhammad was a deliberate (and effective) charlatan. People have all sorts of motivations--sometimes they think that by doing bad things they are achieving a greater good (indeed that is what Christianity's martyrdom complex is all about).

I am not sure that your statement that the Gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses is correct. I would appreciate citations. As you say, there are many passages where the authors take a "novelist's perspective" and tell us things no one would have known--such as Jesus' private prayers. How can this be?

Your answer is that Jesus might have told them--which rings false since they were intensely personal matters that would become trite if Jesus later talks about them.

Your other answer undermines your argument--you claim they had to be eyewitnesses but when problems with this are pointed out, you resort to miracle to "explain" them. While the miracle is possible, you can't have it both ways--evidence when it suits and miracle when it doesn't.

Invented? What reason, do you suppose, would the Apostles have for inventing what they insist really happened?

To be a leader you must have a following.


There is no question in my mind that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses or (as in the case of Luke) by those who personally knew the eye witnesses.
I don't see a problem with the authors knowing the private prayers of Jesus, because in some cases Jesus could have told them, and failing that, remember the teaching is that the Bible was written by men, inspired by God. Or as the Bible puts it "God breathed."

Well, the "god did it" argument can be overused. ;-)

The self-referential contradiction is easily dismissed by just saying that, except for this fact, it is a fact that truth to a finite being is an illusion. That is not a substantive approach--in fact is is simply petty.
You can say that truth, to the finite, is an illusion as much as you want, I'm fine with that--I just wanted to make sure that although you claimed truth as illusion in reality you really did believe that truth is knowable. Of course I didn't need to go through all the trouble, a casual reading of your posts prove you know that truth is knowable, also, the very fact that you are here saying I'm wrong and that you are right demonstrates your belief in truth rather nicely.

Yeah, I’ve been hit with the Mithra and other mystery cult / Christian similarity theory before, and it’s amazing to actually compare them. One of those similarities that someone his me with is that Jesus and Mithra were both born from a virgin and in a cave. In actuality Mithra was born out of a rock. Now, as I’ve said before, the rock may have been next to a cave, and was most probably a virgin, so there is a certain degree of similarity.

What you talk about are superficialities that I have not mentioned. They are interesting, but one can argue whether they came from Mithraism or vice-verse, and no one can know.
Superficialities? The virgin birth, resurrection, communion, and the others are the foundations of Christianity, interesting that you consider them superficial.
What do you think is the core of Christian teaching?
I wasn't suggesting that one came from another, I was saying that the similarities were not at all similar.

For example, I don't think there is any hint in really early Christianity, nor in the Gospels, that Mary was necessarily a virgin. This idea arrived quite a bit later, although probably from Mithraism.
No hint at all in the Gospels that Mary was a virgin?
At first I was going to jump all over this and then, upon a bit of scripture reading, I discovered that Thislin is correct, the teaching in the Bible, of the virgin birth of Christ is in no way a hint.
Matthew 1:22-23 says it was a fulfillment of a prophecy in the Old Testament. Luke 1:27 tells us that Mary was a virgin, and Luke 1:34 has Mary saying that she was a virgin.
So yes, the Gospels don't hint that Mary was a virgin, they come out and say it.

The important similarity is the betrayal (the Judas story is forced--they put it in there to follow the pattern, but Jesus could have been arrested any time without the need for such a "betrayal"). Similarly, the murder and death and resurrection are a common and important set of similarities (and quite contrary to Messianic ideas current in Judaism).
I don't understand what difference it makes as to whether Jesus could have been arrested with or without a need for a betrayal. The historical account from the Gospel writers is that he was betrayed.
Now, I must add that I may not understand your point.

Finally, the Mass--the Last Supper--the ritual of gaining salvation through a meal where the symbolic blood and body of the sacrificial victim, with ensuing atonement, is entirely Greek mystery religion.
Would you name one of those religions and describe the ritual, I'd like to check it out for myself.

You dwell on differences. The story you have is that that came from Egypt; we don't really know the story as it was taken up in Hellenism. The theme there was that Osiris' blood provides the sole route for the soul into the paradise parts of the underworld. The basic thrust is the same--betrayal (Judas or Horus), unjust death, resurrection (Isis recovering all the body parts) and salvation offered solely through the cult practice.[
Yes, I do dwell on the differences, it's the differences that are important. Take two of anything, take away the differences, and they will always be similar.

It’s interesting that every claimed similarity that someone has told me about that I’ve looked into, turns out to be nothing like the story of Jesus.

You seem to be good at concluding what you want to conclude, a bit in spite of the actual facts.
And the facts are...?

It’s interesting how many people claim that we can’t know truth, but live their lives, thinking, speaking, and moving, as if they know the truth. For instance, Thislin, you have spent a good bit of time in this thread telling me the “truth”, I’m fine with that, but you certainly believe in truth.

The problem is because of the language--I would distinguish between things we are reasonably persuaded describe reality and your claim the Christianity represents an absolute description of reality. English uses the word "truth" for both of these shades of meaning.
And what "shade" of truth are you using when you say things like:
There is no question in my mind these could not have been written by eyewitnesses. Narration of things like Jesus' private prayer is the "novelist's perspective," not one of an eyewitness.

A "scientific" approach to things realizes that no measurement is absolutely exact, no theory will ever reach the status of being proven, and that no such thing as proven fact can exist. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't make progress. The claim by religions that they have "Truth" (revealed to them via supernatural means) must be rejected out of hand, since any such revelation will itself be subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion.
Why would it be "subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion?

What the "author of all life" may or may not know is not something you are qualified to tell us, nor anyone else.
You are right, but the "author of all life" may tell us.

The prophesy has nothing to do with virgins and only indicates you are reading a translation by people who believed the virgin birth and their views distorted how they translated.

All "doctrine," let alone "dogma," is superficial and man-made disputation. They are shibboleths people use to make themselves feel superior to others.

The real core of a religion is not its doctrines but its morality and its behavior.

In this Christianity is good in some ways and not good in others.

Some of the good things: human equlity and fraternity; the concept of a loving, forgiving God; the harmfulness of hypocrisy and show-religion.

Some of the not so good things: The idea of a divine "king;" the subordination of women and animals in the ethical system; the claim to have the only truth and, even worse, the only way to salvation; the teaching that all are cursed sinners; the very concept of "sin."

Quote:
A "scientific" approach to things realizes that no measurement is absolutely exact, no theory will ever reach the status of being proven, and that no such thing as proven fact can exist. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't make progress. The claim by religions that they have "Truth" (revealed to them via supernatural means) must be rejected out of hand, since any such revelation will itself be subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion.
Why would it be "subject to interpretative misunderstanding and distortion?

Your bit about the "virgin" is a good example.

I must say that there are MANY similarities between Christianity and the early mystery cults, those worshiping Mithras and Dionysis and Osiris for example, and the main difference is that Christianity was marketed from the beginning to everyone. The mystery cults were quite exclusive (in Mithraism, for example, members had to be initiated to be considered members of the religion, and only the initiated could learn the secrets and rituals) and certainly did not try to swell their ranks by converting people in the style of Christianity.
That's right. True Christianity has never been exclusive; it is for all people.

The early Christians saw the appeal of a powerful, worldwide religion, a church that could have power without being sanctioned by monarchies or governments.
Are you saying that the reason Christians sought to convert people to Christ is to merely swell their ranks and become powerful?
If so would you provide some first or second century writings from a Christian believer that gives that as an explanation for spreading the word?
The first century writings I have claim that they bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to men.

As for the Christians fearing the Mithra religion....I'm a bit skeptic, I'd like to see the documentation on this.

Just read the two narratives. They are not the same stories at all--only the names are the same. In one the Holy Family goes off into Egypt because of Herod, in the other they are shortly in Jerusalem.

I just can't see how anyone can actually read these and not see what is so obvious.

You are, of course speaking of the birth narrative of Jesus Christ; from Matthew and Luke. I have already defused the problem, but am more then willing to take another look at the it.

In Matthew chapter 2 the narrative starts with Jesus having already been born and Magi stopping in Jerusalem looking to worship Jesus The King of The Jews. After checking around the Magi are sent to Bethlehem. The Magi find the house that Jesus was staying in (Mary, Joseph, and Jesus would not have taken up residence in the cave) and gave their gifts. After the Magi leave Joseph is warned to "Get up" and go to Egypt--so he did and he stayed there until Herod had died.
The question is: how long was Jesus and family in Egypt? A few months? A few years? Jesus was born around 5 B.C. and Herod the great died 4 B.C. I'm thinking Jesus' time in Egypt could be counted by the months not the years.
After Herod died Joseph was told to go back to the land of Israel, but because he feared Archelaus, and was warned in a dream he moved to the district of Galilee, to Nazareth. That's where the birth narrative ends.
Now let's go to Luke and find that contradiction:
Luke takes a different approach then Matthew, and in chapter 2 he starts the birth narrative with the night of Jesus' birth; in the manger. At this time there were no magi's present, only the shepherds. From there Luke jumps to the eight day at the time of Jesus circumcision where he also was named and given a prophecy by Simeon, and Anna. After the prophecies are given Luke says that Jesus and his family returned to Nazareth.
Is there a contradiction? No.
Luke is correct in saying that after the prophecies Jesus and his family returned to Nazareth, he just didn't add in the trip to Egypt. Now if Luke had said that immediately Jesus went to Nazareth, or that Jesus never went to Egypt, then there would be a contradiction.
It appears that Matthew and Luke are concerned with different details about the birth of Jesus, but they don't break the rule that A cannot be both A and non A at the same time and in the same relationship.

It is interesting how the conquering Christians, ruling as part of Constantine's usurpation of the Empire, claimed past persecution of Christians so much, when in fact they were the real persecutors. The even closed down the philosophical academies in Athens, stopped the Olympic games, and closed Delphi.
Are you saying that there was no great persecution of Christians in the first, second, and third centuries?
That's interesting that Christians stopped the Olympic games, closed down the philosophical academies, and closed Delphi. What do you have as evidence?
I was aware that they helped stop the practice of throwing away unwanted babies, and the gladiator events, and other things like that, but not what you mentioned. I'd like to see the source on your material.

Okay, how about:
Tolerance: Allowing one the freedom to practice what they believe is true.

Freedom is a necessarily limited thing. We do not allow freedom, for example, to religions that teach child sacrifice. Nor are we "tolerant" of such a religion.
I'm fine with that, but you asked me my definition of "tolerant," you didn't ask me who or what we should be tolerant of.

To be tolerant, however, I would think goes further than only allowing freedom. I would say it is a frame of mind that tells us people in that religion are as good and religious and even holy as people in one's own religion.
Let's see if Christianity is tolerant using your definition that the people in other religions are as "good, and religious, and holy, as those in their own religion.
Okay, about "as good as": Christianity says that only God is truly Good, and that all people have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So that would apply to all people in all religions even the Christian religion...that's tolerant.
Now, "as religious as": Christianity teaches that it's about a relationship with Christ that is important, not the religious part. In Acts 22 Paul speaks to the Areopagus and comments that they are very religious, and in no way does he suggest that he is more religious then them...so this seems tolerant.
Finally, "as holy as": This one could go two different directions. If by holy you mean: perfect or free from sin, then I've already covered it under "good", but if you mean: set apart for sacred use by God, that's a different story. Romans 12:1 says: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God..." Biblical teaching is that to be a true child of God you must accept His Son Jesus Christ, rejecting him does not please God. All other religions reject Jesus Christ as he is portrayed in the scripture...in that case, by your definition, that is intolerance.
But by your definition, every truth claim is intolerant, which leaves you extremely intolerant, which is why I don't buy your definition of intolerance.

It also involves the acceptance that all religions contain great truths, and that therefore we can learn from all of them.
I'm fine with that...any religion that teaches mercy, kindness, love for one another, respect, teaches great truth, but not every religion brings salvation and communion with God the Creator of all things, that is found only in the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Holy Lord.

Your "politically correct" definition is a straw man. By the way, I very much consider myself a conservative.
That's true, but most of the posts against Christianity on these forums have been straw men of some form, I just thought I'd try out one and see how it feels to throw one... it was really easy.

Your own definition only allows others to speak; it contains no requirement that you listen. That would be my definition--that the open minded person actively listens to other views, and does not dismiss what others think lightly.
Excellent point, I want to add that to my definition.

An example: I don't particularly believe in ghosts, according to the haunting stories we have all seen breathless documentaries about on TV. However, I am actively interested in the subject, and consider them an interesting and worthwhile subject, even if it is just mostly misinterpretations of things around us.
I always wonder why the ghosts are wearing clothes, do the clothes die and come back as ghosts?

The word "lie" is loaded; I do hope I haven't used it. If I did it was not to imply deliberate falsehood (even the author of "Matthew," with his pious fraud was not "lying" in any ordinary sense).
Not only was Matthew not lying in any ordinary sense, he wasn't lying at all.

That is a tough question. I would say the most harmful teaching of Christianity is the concept of "sin," especially the idea that we are all born "sinful" and therefore rightfully condemned to Hell. Mankind is born elevated and good or lowly and bad by accidents of birth and upbringing, not by our inheritance of some mythical curse, and, even if we were inherently evil, that was out of our control and so we are not responsible.
You are right, when you use men as the measure, for who is good or bad, who is sinful or not, but we will stand before a Judge who measures sin with a measure of absolute Goodness, absolute Pureness, and absolute Holiness. Every person measured that way fails.

Jesus is sometimes portrayed as a very intolerant man.
By your definition...but by your definition Jesus never existed.

By the way, quoting scripture to me for proof-text only irritates me. I think you can understand that.
It's interesting that you would respond in this manner. I was trying to make a point about how Jesus thought, and so I quoted his own words, and you find that irritating...why is that?

If the Buddha had known other ways, he would have taught them as well; that doesn't mean he thought there were no other ways.
But he taught there is only one way to be a good Buddhist.

By the way, "Nirvana" is not the Buddhist "Heaven." Most Buddhas become Bodhisattvas and voluntarily surrender their ability to enter Nirvana in order to help others.
Hmmm self sacrifice to help others...Christ sacrificed himself to save others.

Nirvana is pictured a variety of ways--it is the state when you have conquered all of your desires, and that would include the desire to help others. This creates a logical problem that Buddhism has not really dealt with as fully as I might like. I therefore see Nirvana as an infinitely distant goal that probably is simple extinction, although there are Sutras that paint a very different picture.
I can't speak for Buddhism.

if Mithraism hadn't been a competitor to Christianity, the early Christians would not have gone after them.
What do you mean by "gone after them"?

What do you mean by "gone after them"?
What do you think I mean? I mean killed them, converted them, spread lies about all pagan religions, etc...

What do you think I mean? I mean killed them, converted them, spread lies about all pagan religions, etc...
Are you saying this took place in the first, second, and/or third centuries?

I think what you want to do is refute (through some stretched but marginally credible rationalization) whatever contradictions I might point out.
Isn't that the idea? You say that Christianity is false and that the Gospel accounts contradict each other, I say the opposite. You list the contradictions, but don't actually explain how they contradict; I take the "contradictions" and try to explain why they do not actually contradict.

Lord knows there are plenty of them, and even entire web sites that list hundreds.
I suspect there are thousands of websites that lists hundreds of Biblical "contradictions," I've seen the cut and paste version of them right in these forums. The cut and paste attack on Christian belief is extremely easy to do.

My point is quite different. I know that a lawyer can usually find some way to twist words around to make them mean things other than what most people think they mean. That is why lawyers should not serve on juries.
Lawyers can also point out where someone is twisting meaning, pulling a verbal slight of hand, or practicing misdirection.

My point instead is that the whole stories are different. I can read, and John's account of the events after the Crucifixion are completely different from the Synoptic accounts, and they differ in details from each other.
But they don't contradict each other. John's focus was on Mary and what happened to her, so of course the accounts will sound different.

In short, I am not interested in debating fine details of what might have been meant so that you can reinterpret things to avoid the appearance of contradictions.
It sounds as if you are saying that you are not interested in my explanation of what you consider a contradiction.

If you were honest with yourself you would read them without all this casuistry and see the fact that they don't jibe for yourself.
I'm not a believer in your paradigm, so I'm dishonest with myself?
I guess I'll just wait, for you to explain why the accounts are truly contradictory.

It sounds as if you are saying that you are not interested in my explanation of what you consider a contradiction.Your explanations are kind of irrelevant. I could make up technically coherent stories to explain away contradictions in the Bible, or in Star Wars for that matter. The problem is these stories become ever more elaborate, ever more improbable and ever more whimsical - technically coherent though they might be.

We all known there comes a point when one must just admit "Well, okay. Maybe that was just an oversight on the part of George Lucas". The same is true of the authors of the Bible.

Your explanations are kind of irrelevant. I could make up technically coherent stories to explain away contradictions in the Bible, or in Star Wars for that matter. The problem is these stories become ever more elaborate, ever more improbable and ever more whimsical - technically coherent though they might be.

We all known there comes a point when one must just admit "Well, okay. Maybe that was just an oversight on the part of George Lucas". The same is true of the authors of the Bible.
He builds epicycles within epicycles in order to "save the therory" instead of saving that data.

There is not much point, except perhaps for mental gymnastics, in trying to reach someone who is so determined to save the theory that they engage in this.

Quote:
In short, I am not interested in debating fine details of what might have been meant so that you can reinterpret things to avoid the appearance of contradictions.
It sounds as if you are saying that you are not interested in my explanation of what you consider a contradiction.

I see the fallacy in your approach, something which you are not willing to even imagine.

The whole point about lawyers quite went over your head; I will repeat--a smart lawyer can find "interpretations" in almost anything to get around what the contract actually says. That is what you do with the obvious contradictions.

He builds epicycles within epicycles in order to "save the therory" instead of saving that data.

There is not much point, except perhaps for mental gymnastics, in trying to reach someone who is so determined to save the theory that they engage in this.
So easy to accuse...
I'm still waiting for the explanation, as to how the Gospel accounts contradict.

They walk like myths and look like myths and talk like myths. I see no difference between reading the NT or Homer, except the literary standard of Homer is higher.
They walk like myths, look like myths, and talk like myths, only in a world where there is no God and miracles cannot happen.

If Christianity is not true it holds no spiritual importance what-so-ever. If Christianity is not true it not only is spiritually unimportant, it is a waste of time.
That is incorrect. For all we know God could have chosen these stories as his mechanism for conveying his revelation to the world. Indeed, I would say this seems to me a more likely way for God to reveal himself--through the myths of our cultures--than by talking out of a burning bush.
Interesting spirituality, make up stuff and then pretend it's true and let it guide your life...not for me, I'm with the Apostle Paul, if Christ is not raised I'm wasting my time.

However, even if there is no God at all, Christianity has a tremendous importance in human history and in millions of human lives today. Whether the original stories are myth or not is an intellectual thing, and does not pertain, if one is spiritually mature, to the reality of a religious tradition.
Whether Christianity is important to people or not...if something is not true it is false.

Buddhists do not try to speak for Buddhism. All we can speak for is our own understandings.
I'll let the Buddhist, answer whether that is a true or false statement.

Posted in response to Msg 394 by Stark

I have no need to let you frame the discussion the way you want to, and I have explained what is wrong with your appoach several times--it is a lawylerly and Jesuitic approach,...
I'm pretty sure why you don't approve of my approach.

...not one that will reveal any sort of truth.
But by your definition we can't reveal truth anyway, so any approach to explain any belief system would not be approved by you...including your own.

In spite of this you sound the same note over and over.
Yes, that note is that the Gospels have not contradicted themselves, but the note I have not sounded enough is that God so loved the world that he gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life. God exists, He's a personal God, He knows you, He has a plan for your life, and He seeks a relationship with you.

It is too bad the Christian meme gets ahold of some people in childhood like that, robbing them of the willingness to be honest with themselves.
Interesting, I am happy in and with life. I have a sure and fulfilling foundation for my life based on the teachings of the Bible and the resurrection of Christ. I have sure and gratifying answers to those questions; Where do I come from, why am I here, who am I, and where am I going. For me life has hope, and meaning all based on the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the Word of God, (the Bible) a spiritual book that is correct, but because I don't believe as you do, I'm not honest with myself.
It's fine to just throw out the idea that I'm not being honest with myself, and it's very easy, but mean while I'll be waiting for you to explain how the Gospel accounts break the law of non-contradiction.

http://www.krysstal.com/contradi.html

It took me maybe two minutes to find a half a dozen similar sites.

Okay, then:

http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html

It didn't take me but a couple of minutes to find this...so where does that get us?

By disregard I meant that you would still insist he was wrong.
Of course I would insist he's wrong, Just because someone is sure they are correct doesn't make them correct...including me.
He is very sure that he has the truth in what he says, so am I supposed to say he is right because he's sure?

Your mind is not open to change. His probably is not either. So the back and forth that you do seems pointless.
What about your mind...have you decided that the Bible and everything it teaches about God and Jesus Christ is true? If not, would it be fair for me to simply say that you don't believe because "your mind is not open to change"?

First, you're right, if the Gospels were written a couple of hundred years after said event they could not have been written by the actual apostles, which is why the gnostic gospels run into a little trouble when the claim is that they were written by the Apostles.
Second, you questioned whether the Apostles would have been educated enough to understand the written word. Well, Matthew was a tax collector working for the Roman government and Luke was a medical doctor. So they had some education, how much was needed for those jobs, I don't know, but they must have had some kind of education. John was a fisherman: not much need for an education there, but that doesn't mean he didn't know how to read. Finally there is Mark, I don't know what he did for a living, but again, that doesn't mean he wasn't educated enough to pen the Gospel of Mark.

There are a few reasons why I believe that the Gospels and the whole New Testament were written early.

One, the writers claim to be personal witnesses of the events, or to have interviewed personal witnesses of the events. If you read through the gospels you see that they are intended to be taken as true. Now some may suggest that the writers were lying, but to what end, and what is it about the accounts that suggests they were indeed lying?

Another reason I believe in an early writing of the New Testament is that there is no mention of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem which took place in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had predicted that the Temple would be torn down, and with the destruction it would have been natural for the writers to have said, "see just as He predicted."

The Book of Acts gives a hint for an early writing. Notice that Acts ends rather abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome. Acts ends this way:
"For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ."
I think it ends there because that is all that had happened when Luke ends his historical account of the acts of the apostles. It's interesting to note that Luke, (the author of Acts) recorded the death of Stephen but not the death of Paul (mid 60's A.D.). Luke also didn't record the Jewish war with Rome, or the destruction of Jerusalem. This is because the events had not yet happened by the time Acts was written.

Thanks for your thoughts on that stark. I appreciate the analysis and the way you have laid out the time line.

The problem with the "Christian" web sites you mention is that they have to twist the words in all sorts of ways, or speculate about possible scenarios that might make both statements technically correct.

This is dishonesty compounded by religious blindness.

The problem with the anti-Christian web sites is that they don't even try to understand the difficulty. They build straw men and think they have ruined Christianity by knocking them down.

This is dishonesty compounded by ther own religious blindness.

Thanks for your thoughts on that stark. I appreciate the analysis and the way you have laid out the time line.

Thank you for the heads up Sal.

The problem with the anti-Christian web sites is that they don't even try to understand the difficulty. They build straw men and think they have ruined Christianity by knocking them down.

This is dishonesty compounded by ther own religious blindness.
You base your chronology on writings of unknown date by unknown authors that record fanciful and miraculous events and are inconsistent with each other (without all sorts of elaborate and dishonest rationalization). Such material cannot be trusted regarding what they claim about themselves.

The chronology I offer is based on real history and on critical (not skeptical or cynical) analysis of the early Christian sources. It is based on comparative religion (not looking at Christianity in isolation) in the context of its times and in the context of how religions develop and evolve.

I have pretty much given up trying to explain it to you, though. Maybe one day the light will dawn on your head what you are doing, maybe not. You do not even seem to understand what is said, since your responses are so unresponsive.

Of course I would insist he's wrong, Just because someone is sure they are correct doesn't make them correct...including me.
He is very sure that he has the truth in what he says, so am I supposed to say he is right because he's sure?


What about your mind...have you decided that the Bible and everything it teaches about God and Jesus Christ is true? If not, would it be fair for me to simply say that you don't believe because "your mind is not open to change"?
I don't believe in Christ, no, and I probably shall never. So yes, it would be fair to say that my mind is not open to change, but it is misleading to say that is the reason why I don't believe. I have seriously considered the Christian religion and I do indeed wish I could find a religion that I felt fit me, that inspired me. I am certainly open to change. I am not an atheist and I believe in god, I just haven't found a religion that inspires me enough to want to commit to it. Your mind is not open to change because you have already found the perfect religious views for you. Thislin as well has found what he truly believes in, I think. I have not.

Thislin as well has found what he truly believes in, I think. I have not.

Um, no. Buddhists do not "believe." Beliefs are things you don't question--they are part of your intuitive thinking and you are barely if at all aware they are there. They are the result of indoctrination, not education.

I can be a Buddhist and still be an atheist, or an agnostic, or a Taoist, or a Christian, or a Hindu, or even a Muslim (although they would probably kill me if I tried).

I would say a "Buddhist" is someone who agrees with the Buddha's diagnosis of the nature of the world and the situation we find ourselves in, and is willing to try the methods he proposed to escape it. However, "agreement" is only opinion, not belief.

Um, no. Buddhists do not "believe." Beliefs are things you don't question--they are part of your intuitive thinking and you are barely if at all aware they are there. They are the result of indoctrination, not education.

I can be a Buddhist and still be an atheist, or an agnostic, or a Taoist, or a Christian, or a Hindu, or even a Muslim (although they would probably kill me if I tried).

I would say a "Buddhist" is someone who agrees with the Buddha's diagnosis of the nature of the world and the situation we find ourselves in, and is willing to try the methods he proposed to escape it. However, "agreement" is only opinion, not belief.
Well then, I suppose you've found that you don't "believe" in anything, if you're going to put it like that. But someone who is an atheist or an agnostic has found what they believe is the correct way to go about thinking of religion or beliefs or lack of those.

Well then, I suppose you've found that you don't "believe" in anything, if you're going to put it like that. But someone who is an atheist or an agnostic has found what they believe is the correct way to go about thinking of religion or beliefs or lack of those.
I try not to "believe" in things. Beliefs get in the way of mindfulness--they are part of us and we desire to keep anything that is part of us. Besides, we can never really be sure enough of anything to make believing in anything other than an act of hubris.

A softer way to put things is that I generally thing certain things are probably true and others almost certainly not. The shorthand metaphor of "I believe" should be avoided in favor of "I think."

Earlier you said you believe in God. Is this a suspicion, or an opinion, or just a guess? Do you derive it from a feeling or evidence or logic or some combinaiton?

I think the "something" that is there is karma--the Indian pre-invention of the west's "Natural Process." That things happen logically--in processes we are able to comprehend in terms of causes and effects--is really a wonder that we take for granted when we should not.

We look at these processes as atoms bumping each other in the void, after Lucretius (this is classical physics, which informs lay thinking and education today, even though physics itself has gone on). The Indian thought system saw it more as a soup (Feynman's comparison) with waves moving back and forth and bouncing off the surface of the container to come back at us.

The extension of this to some sort of "mind" (sentience or purpose) happens in Chinese thinking when Buddhism and Taoism blend without merging.

It is all a frame of mind--a perspective--that fits Western science well without being materialist and at the same time without relying on miracle and supernaturalism.

You do make great points Thislin. I think my belief in God stems mostly from a feeling, as you put it. I'd call it a logical feeling, since it is logical if not necessarily correct to say that since so many people believe something there is a chance that there's something to it.

By disregard I meant that you would still insist he was wrong. Your mind is not open to change. His probably is not either. So the back and forth that you do seems pointless.
It is a bit frustrating, although his ranks are many.
I pray that there will be more.

Besides, I've been there, done that, and gone on. He just has, for his own reasons, decided not to open himself up to things that contradict what he was indoctrinated with as a child, and will defend them with every bone in his body. It is the stuff that martyrs are made of, poor fools.
Tell me, is it possible for someone who was indoctrinated from childhood to be an atheist, to, later in life, turn and become a Christian?
And what were you indoctrinated with as a child?

I already explained your misunderstanding of this--as two different senses of the English word "truth." You think you know "truth," I would say I know "truths" the way a scientist knows that whales are mammals.
So when you make this truth statement from post #373:
There is no question in my mind these could not have been written by eyewitnesses. Narration of things like Jesus' private prayer is the "novelist's perspective," not one of an eyewitness.
You know this is truth the way a scientist knows that whales are mammals?

My "truth" (when the word is used in this sense) is only a way of expressing that this is something I feel quite sure accurately describes reality, but I am ready to change my mind if new evidence comes to my attention.
I don't know if that is reality or not.

You are not ready to change your mind. You don't reason (or for that matter even listen or I wouldn't be having to post this again), but only rationalize to defend your indoctrination.
So much easier to make accusations.

I explain how the Gospel accounts of the resurrection do not break the law of non contradiction and your answer back is that I'm rationalizing, when you should have explained how the accounts do break the law of non contradiction. But as I've said; "debate the way you want."

The word is a trite concept that was popular among business cliche-ists a decade or so ago. It applies to the "box" people often think in, a "new paradigm" being the adoption of a new box. I suppose it was a replacement of the old concept of "world view" except to apply to some limited domain instead of everything.
How about:
"a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind"
From Webster's

In other words, you were saying I was defending a cardboard box that I refused to look out of. That is insulting.
For someone so quick to insult you seem to get insulted very easily.

Probably more to the point it is not true.
Well, not much sense for me to debate whether you have a particular framework of thinking, or not; I'll just leave it up to the readers of this thread to look over the posts and decide for themselves.

I am far less in any mental box than you are.
In a mental box? Me?
Of course I'm in a mental box, it's a philosophy that believes the Bible is the true Word of God, that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind, and rose from the dead. It's a true philosophy, or if you would rather, it is a mental box that corresponds to reality.

Everyone is in a mental box of some form, the question that I have to ask is: is it built upon truth?

Or maybe you're just full of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/africa/03exodus.html?ex=1333252800&en=5bd9532a6c4fbcd6&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss


lol I know how disturbing some info can be, there is alot of info coming out about evolution and how much it is in error, well you know fairy tales.
Sodom and Gomorrah has been found and sulfur balls were found at Gomorrah.

lol I know how disturbing some info can be, there is alot of info coming out about evolution and how much it is in error, well you know fairy tales.I've always wanted to ask a creationist: Are you a mammal?

Here's the best part of that article about Egypt:
In Egypt today, visitors to Mount Sinai are sometimes shown a bush by tour guides and told it is the actual bush that burned before Moses.

My god people are gullible. And hilarious.

You are right that all the stories contain miraculous and other wondrous stuff. That is the main reason for calling them myths.
Are you saying that you know miracles do not happen? That makes you an incredibly knowledgeable person. Of course that may not be what you are saying, so I'll let you clarify.

I think "Phyrex's" point, however, is well taken. They do get more miraculous. More and more stories get incorporated--either stories that were floating about independently that the author includes or stories the author invents.
I understand Phyrex's point; it just doesn't have any fangs. The Gospels all speak of miracles performed by Jesus, like walking on water, and feeding thousands of people. Every Gospel tells of Jesus healing people, and himself rising bodily from the grave.

The historiographer, dealing with ancient texts, has the difficult job of trying to separate fact from fiction, since ancient authors did not have the checks imposed on them that a modern author has (nowadays statements can be checked by others).
It wouldn't have been to difficult for any of the religious or governmental readers of the resurrection of Jesus Christ to check the grave and see if there was a body or not. Many of the people who saw the events recorded, would have still been alive, and could have verified as to whether the accounts of the miracles of Jesus were true or not.

We also understand the phenomenon of myth--studies have been conducted to see how quickly a myth gets into a non-literate culture, and it turns out to be within a few years, not the decades most people imagine. Memories are short and convenient, especially when exposed to social pressure.
Really now? Myths about a popular figure develop and are believed by the populace within a few years? I'd love to see those "studies," could you tell me where to find them?
You have a greater problem since you don't believe Jesus even existed. That means someone had to come up with a character named Jesus, have him perform miracles, and attribute a large amount of teachings as coming from him. This person would have to be so convincing that people would turn to his fake character by the thousands shortly after his fake resurrection. The author of this myth would also have to make his story so compelling that even the character's enemies would believe he existed.
Can you think of a character from the last 50 years that didn't really exist, but that people now are claiming really did exist, and that they saw him perform great miracles?

Is it fair to disregard texts that record miraculous events from inclusion in history? After all, it may be that the text nevertheless has an historical kernel, or, it may be that miraculous things took place in ancient times.
It may also be that what you consider a myth is actually reality, and that the God you consider non existent exists, and that He knows you, and waits for you to call out to Him. Wouldn't hurt to call out to Him and ask Him to reveal His existence to you, and to reveal the Truth of His Son to you.

The problem is we don't have any real choice, if we are objective, but to exclude such sources. We cannot say, "I believe this one," but "I don't believe that one." Stories that contain wondrous narratives cannot be trusted, considering what we know about mankind's myth making talent.
The Bible is correct historically, archaeologically, prophetically, and scientifically, it took 1600 years to make using many different authors yet doesn't contradict itself in doctrine, theology, or thought. With credentials like that, to step out and say that it is also correct about its teachings on Spiritual matters, is not much of a leap.

As far as an historical kernel might be involved, it is beyond question that mythical material often has such a kernel, but we are not able, from the text itself, to make any such assessment. The only way we can say there is a historical kernel is if it is confirmed independently by non-mythical sources developed independently of the mythical source. (In such a case we don't need the mythical material anyway, so that as historical source material miracle-containing narratives just simply must be dismissed).
Unless the paradigm you have developed, which excludes all miracles, is wrong.

The Bible is correct historically, archaeologically, prophetically, and scientifically, it took 1600 years to make using many different authors yet doesn't contradict itself in doctrine, theology, or thought. With credentials like that, to step out and say that it is also correct about its teachings on Spiritual matters, is not much of a leap.


That literally made me laugh out loud.

Hey, sorry I abandoned this thread for a while, Ill think up some more arguments here soon.

Anyways, im sure you've heard of Occams Razor, Stark? "The simplest answer tends to be the correct one." I think it holds a lot of water.
Okay, let's go with that:
Simply; in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and He has revealed to men the history of His redemptive purpose ending with Jesus Christ in the book we call the Bible.

The Bible, for the most part, is hyperbole.
I'd say that hyperbole is used in the Bible, but what do you consider hyperbole within the pages of the Bible?

If you take away all the miraculous things that happen in the Bible, you are left with almost nothing. Except the words of Jesus. Most of which, are good teachings. I think thats all that really can be taken seriously from the Bible.
All this suggest that you have great evidence that there is no God, because if God exists then certainly the miraculous can happen, so...what is your greatest evidence for the non existence of God?

That literally made me laugh out loud.
I must be totally off, so where did I go wrong?
Let's see a the best example you have.

I must be totally off, so where did I go wrong?
Many things in the Bible have been proven (as far as we can actually prove something which admittedly is NOT 100% so don't take this as me saying that I absolutely know this for SURE) to be wrong historically, archaeologically, and scientifically. For evidence I refer you to the link posted by Vilepagan, quoted by Janrich a few posts up.

live and let live. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Many things in the Bible have been proved (as far as we can actually prove something which admittedly is NOT 100% so don't take this as me saying that I absolutely know this for SURE) to be wrong historically, archaeologically, and scientifically. For evidence I refer you to the link posted by Vilepagan, quoted by Janrich a few posts up.
Okay, I'll check the link, but mean while, what's the best evidence you have that the Bible is wrong.

When assessing an ancient writing, you cannot take it as history if it contains miraculous material. Otherwise we would take Homer and Hesoid and Virgil as history. The only reason we do not is their mythical base.

The Bible is not entitled to be treated any different. Basic historical procedure is to treat any such material skeptically.

There is in fact far more material supporting what Homer says about the Archaic Greeks and the city of Troy than there is supporting what the Bible says about Jesus. No end of archaeological digs have confirmed the historial accuracy of his geography and cultural descriptions and so on.

Still, we do not take Homer as dependable history. When it says Achilles could not be killed except by an arrow to his heel, we do not believe it just because he behaves as we would expect a Greek of that time to behave.

Similarly, you do not have the right to make such claims of the Bible just on the basis that miracles are possible.

You are engaged in the entirely incorrect business of trying to force the terrain to suit you map. The world doesn't work that way.

Okay, I'll check the link, but mean while, what's the best evidence you have that the Bible is wrong.
I never said that the Bible is "wrong". You are twisting my meaning. I just said that it is not entirely right. Apparently the Red Sea was never parted (unless god went and did some little magic that would erase the evidence of the parting of the Red Sea, I suppose you would believe that...). And then there is all the other archaeological evidence that sheds doubt upon other small details of the Bible. What I was saying is that you are wrong in making the absolute statement that the Bible is "correct historically, archaeologically,...and scientifically".

Forgive me if I was unclear.

We all have dominance/submission instincts--they are part of the primate behavior pattern for keeping a group together. Monkeys and apes get positive hormonal feedback from being both dominant (alpha) and submissive.

I think the pleasure one gets in "following orders" in all sorts of situations--being on a sports team to being in the military to worship of a deity would all be examples.
Actually I always had trouble following orders. I gained little in rank, and was almost booted out of the Air Force because I had trouble following orders. As for sports, I'm not a fan, and have really never been a team player. In school I had signed up for soccer, but when the coach told me I had practice on weekends, I dropped it.
So tell me, who do you happily submit to?

Good people? By whose standard are you using to judge someone as to whether they are good or not? The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God."
That is beyond petty. Do you argue that the crimes of a brutal dictator who put the world into war was and headed up massive genocide is no worse than an ordinary person who does nothing in life except struggle to raise a family?
Beyond petty? Why did you start your response to what I had said with "beyond petty"? I'm explaining what the Bible teaches: I was not weighing one person's sins against another, I was saying that, Biblically, one sin distances us from God, and all have sinned.
I recognize your nature when you debate, and I understand that is may be the type of person you are, but I'm just very curious as to why you do it.

You make my point "...religions of the world are not about judgment but about personal consequences and responsibility..." Their concentration is making bad men good, Christ came to reach out to men to save them from spiritual death to life true life.
You take your unproven assertion as evidence for it. That is called "begging the question," but I just call it self-righteous glibness.
Now it's "self-righteous glibness", it's very interesting that where I make a comparison between other religions and Christ, you see me being self-righteous. Could be some kind of misdirection, or maybe it's something deeper...
Anyway, if one where to examine religions around the world they would see that every one of them are about becoming a better person, a person who, once good enough, would then receive some form of reward. In Christianity the call is, indeed, be good, but the reward comes not from how good you are, but by the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross...God having paid the penalty that he requires, for the sin we commit.

It is true that religion is not mainly for making bad people good. I would say that more important is helping good people understand that no matter what nonsense Christians prattle they remain good people.
Wow, it sounds as if you are saying that religions are around to protect people from Christianity, which creates a problem for religions that existed before Christ, but I think most people will understand that you did not mean that, and that you were just lashing out...maybe to wound, maybe to protect yourself, or maybe something else. Hey I could just be way off.

What is "perfect?" I am a "perfect" Martin. If I were not I would be someone else. We are all a "perfect" whatever-we-are. If you try to define perfection as without flaw, you run into the contradiction that a flaw is one context is an asset in another.
"We are all a "perfect whatever-we-are." If that is true, why do you continue to "correct" us perfect whatever-we-are's at allforums by posting what you believe is the truth about reality?

People who have not accepted the sacrifice of Christ for their lives pay for their own sins. Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ, they respond or they just cast it aside and convince themselves that Christianity is intellectually flimsy and dishonest.
That is arrogance speaking; you have no evidence that it is true. People sincerely and honestly look at Christianity and reject it because of claims like that. We cannot "choose" to believe a ponzi scheme when we see through it.
Now I'm arrogant?
What would you accept as evidence that there is a God?

Nero's "bad rap" comes from Tacitus, writing over a century after Nero ruled. He consistently attacked Nero about everything--it is thought because he didn't approve of Nero's lavish lifestyle and his artistic pretensions. Other than from Tacitus (and others who came later) we would not know anything about any persecution of Christians, and most historians think it unlikely.
Tacitus was lying about Nero? Or mistaken? Tacitus wrote about Nero "over a century after Nero ruled"?
Let's see if this adds up:
Tacitus was born 52-55 A.D. and wrote his "Annals" 115-116 A.D.
Nero first became emperor in 54 A.D. and ruled until 68A.D.
It appears that Tacitus wrote about Nero around 47 years after Nero ruled not "over a century after Nero ruled."
You said that; "most historians think it unlikely" would you name some of these historians?

As for Tacitus being the only recorder of Christian persecution, here's something from Pliny the Younger:
Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey, wrote letters to a friend of his, Emperor Trajan. Much of his correspondence has been preserved. One of these letters was written around A.D. 111 and attests to the rapid spread of Christianity:
“I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished....
They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more that this; they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery....
This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave-woman, whom they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths.
Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96. Cited by Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D. in The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, pg. 83,84
Here we find that Pliny, himself, persecuted Christians, and under the authority of the Roman government to boot.

The Christians of the late Roman period were the persecutors, and in part justified it by claims of persecution when they were a minority. A few incidents of persecution from later on of Christians are historical, but nothing like the propaganda the Christians later spread and still spread.
Tacitus would disagree with you.
Tell me at what year did these "Christians" start their persecution and what is the source?

I am a GOD created human and evolution is a fairy tale. And with a straight face they try to say it is 68 million yrs old, ROFLOL

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/070412_dino_tissues.html

An adolescent female Tyrannosaurus rex died 68 million years ago, but its bones still contain intact soft tissue, including the oldest preserved proteins ever found, scientists say.


And a comparison of the protein’s chemical structure to a slew of other species showed an evolutionary link between T. rex and chickens, bolstering the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

There are written histories and the physical record (artifacts, ruins and such) that provide the most clear picture of events. It's all guesswork, of course, but it can be educated guesswork. Some people spend their whole lives examining and analyzing all the available evidence to write histories of the times. Those are the 'versions' I most readily accept
Good, Luke is just such a historian, read his opening few verses.

How would I know what the nature of such evidence would be? If I'd seen it by now we wouldn't be having this discussion. It would be helpful, I suppose, if Jesus had left us a book that he himself had written, or if there were corroborated and reliable histories that mentioned him.
Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, none of whom were Christians.
I'd like to add that the followers of Jesus would have been very reliable, such as John, Paul, Matthew, Luke, and the others.

I was making fun of your calling out someone else for making claims without evidence. If you can't see the irony in that I don't know what I can tell you.
This is how the discussion went:
All of that stuff was burried by the church, and anyone who mentioned it was deemed a heritic.
It's a claim, but what is the supporting facts?
Interesting that you would see me as "calling out someone else for making claims without evidence." When I just wanted to see what he had for evidence that convinced him that what he had said was true.
You notice, unless I missed his post, no evidence so far.

I doubt if you can produce any 'evidence' that I haven't seen before but who knows? Maybe you can.

By all means, let's hear it.
Well there is the above mentioned extra Biblical sources I mentioned.

There is the formation of the early church, started by Jews whose culture and life was their religion brought by Moses. Suddenly thousands turned and started worshipping this Jesus. Why would they do that knowing that they would be shunned by their community unless something happened.

There is communion; a celebration of the slaughter of the founder of the Christian movement. And the cross, the instrument on which he was killed. Why the celebration of these things, unless they meant something.

The disciples of Jesus, all living in poverty, going town to town, being beaten, whipped, stoned, and hated, their message...we saw Jesus alive, having resurrected from the grave, he is the Messiah, turn to him for salvation. These guys didn't get rich or powerful, they ended up dying martyrs deaths. Why, to what end...just so they can say that people believed them?

When the Christian movement, or at that time "The Way" was first starting it's greatest enemies where the Roman Government and the Jewish Religious leaders. The easiest way these two organizations had to end the Christian movement would have been to bring out the body of Jesus, show it around town, or at the least offer tours of the grave, and say, "here he is, there was no resurrection." The early church was built on the fact of a resurrected Messiah.

There are more, but at least enough for now.

But I have to ask...are these examples reasonable? I didn't ask if you believe, or if you were converting to Christ, I just want to know if you think they are reasonable evidences for Christianity being true.

Evderyone?!?!?

Isn't it odd that the majority of human beings on the planet-- the 2 or more billion people who are not Christians-- have not been convinced by this supposed 'evidence' they have been provided. :rolleyes:
Yes, interesting and predicted:
Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

This is from the site you sent us to.

It is interesting that a site prepared by an instrument of the Israeli government--a state that has to keep a significant minority of Orthodox Jews happy--is so honest.

Of course it only glosses over the negative evidence and goes into great detail about the positive evidence. (I presume otherwise you would not have chosen it to post. This is the sort of quote mining I talked about earlier.)
The important point is that there is "positive evidence."

Quote mining? I give you two articles demonstrating some evidence about King David, and then you start your post with a small quote from one of the articles that said:
The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a historical document. and you suggest I'm quote mining?
Personally, I'm fine with quote mining...mine away.

So what do we have? We have an inscription that a dynasty existed with that name--what this dynasty ruled is not clear. We also know that the area that is now Jerusalem has been occupied for a damn long time (not unique by a long shot for that part of the world).

In the meantime there is no mention in any Egyptian or Hittite or any other source, for that matter, of David. The Egyptians were not sloppy and kept lots of records of the goings-on of their neighbors. What are we to think?

We are to think either he did not exist or he was such a minor figure--more like a tribal chief than the king we are lead to imagine--that he was not worth mentioning.
Archaeologist and historians found it significant.
What about the evidence found in the Old Testament...why should that be discounted?

As with all myths, there may be a historical kernel--but, just as the source you quote says--the Bible is not history. The portions of the Bible here were written much later for the purpose of creating a glorious history for the Jews and getting in good with the Persians (by portraying the Jews as having had long-term hostility with those the Persians now found to be hostile).
And you are supporting this claim by what evidence?

Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ, ...

Everyone?!?!? Isn't it odd that the majority of human beings on the planet-- the 2 or more billion people who are not Christians-- have not been convinced by this supposed 'evidence' they have been provided.

Yes, interesting and predicted:
Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Ahhhh....so now that you have been called on it, you freely admit that (just as I pointed out) your prior claim of --""Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ""-- was false. (if we are to accept your "perfect book" the Bible as being correct)

Thank you for that. We're beginning to make progress.

Ahhhh....so now that you have been called on it, you freely admit that (just as I pointed out) your prior claim of --""Everyone comes to a point where God gives them evidence that will lead them closer to Christ""-- was false. (if we are to accept your "perfect book" the Bible as being correct)

Thank you for that. We're beginning to make progress.
Oh, I thought everyone would have understood the "given." The "given" is, not everyone will accept the evidence.

Romans 1:20-22
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

But I have to ask...are these examples reasonable? I didn't ask if you believe, or if you were converting to Christ, I just want to know if you think they are reasonable evidences for Christianity being true.No. The events described in the New Testament are supported only by the New Testament. It's laughable that you would cite Luke as an independent source, did you forget what the question was? The account of Josephus is an obvious fraud (why would a Jew recognize Jesus as the Messiah and then not convert??). Tacitus and Pliny only confirm that Christians existed in the 1st Century which is something we already knew. I can just as easily fabricate a story of my own that is just as plausible (or implausible) as the one told in the New Testament.

I really don't understand why some Christians insist on the historicity of Jesus. It can't be proven and besides, Christian faith requires exactly that: faith, which is a conscious decision to suspend your disbelief. It's fine by me if you want to believe things that can't be proven. I just think you look pretty foolish when you ask others to provide evidence for theirs.

I really don't understand why some Christians insist on the historicity of Jesus. It can't be proven and besides, Christian faith requires exactly that: faith, which is a conscious decision to suspend your disbelief. It's fine by me if you want to believe things that can't be proven. I just think you look pretty foolish when you ask others to provide evidence for theirs.

This is a flaw that permeates Western thinking--that "truth" is some sort of singular, absolute thing. It leads to people like fundamentalist Christians on the one hand and the materialist atheist on the other.

It is kinda funny that this derives from Aristotle-