Hi, I'm another one of those annoying born again Christians :P

If there are any Atheists, who want to ask me some questions about Christianity or God then I'd be more then happy to answer them.

You can post them here, but to be sure I'll answer them email me the questions at

timpil@email.com

I'll answer every question as best I can. If you're bothered sending me a question, I'll be bothered answering it.

CyA :)

1) Is evolution supported by facts?

2) Is Creationism supported by facts? What facts?

3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts? What facts?

4) Are organic molecules common throughout the universe?

5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on Earth?

6) Is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator?

7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution?

8) Are there any transitional fossils?

What is the experience of "God", for you, like?

Why do you believe?

If god loves all of his creatures, than why does he send some to hell?

What religion was Jesus?

How could Jesus be the son of God if he had brothers and sister?

How can you argue against proof that Jesus moved off to France?

How could Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't fulfill his prophecies as predicted in the Bible? And please don't give me the go around on this one, its a rhetoric question.

Thankyou. I await your benevolent answers...


-Elbaz

Can you prove that a god exists?

Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?

If God is universally infinite how can any other aspect of him be defined?

~Raithere

It's a simple question with broad implications: Will the Devil be redeemed?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Section one ANSWER FOR Adam

QUESTION: 1) Is evolution supported by facts?
ANSWER: Yes. In part everything is supported by facts. I could say my shoe evolved from an ape. And that is partially supported by the facts that apes exist, and my shoe also exists. Yet just because there are some facts, it does not mean that it supports the theory.
QUESTION: 2) Is Creationism supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: Yes. There are many facts. One of the major supporting factors is that in no way can it be disproved, even atheists admit that. The Bible supports Creationism, and many facts support the Bible. There is evidence of a great flood, from sea shells on mountains. Some of the facts that supposedly support evolution in fact ƒº support the Creation account. I recommend reading the book ¡§In the minds of men¡¨. There are apparent facts like the time it would take for the river, which leads into Niagara Falls, to recede to its present state, from the state that it once was in ¡V was once used as a fact to support the many millions of years needed by the theory of evolution. Yet recent evidence and factors show that it really only took 7000 years for the river to recede. So it really supports Creationism. There are hundreds of facts like this, but you¡¦ve just got to have the faith needed to believe that they all point to one thing, God created the universe.
QUESTION: 3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: I guess this is answered by my above answer. If you ask a more specific question in relation to God¡¦s existence I¡¦ll answer it. But there is just so many facts it would take 500 000 words to just see the tip of the ice berg.
QUESTION: 4) Are organic molecules common throughout the universe?
ANSWER: Sorry I¡¦m not a scientist, but there are books out there written by scientists, that go bit by bit into scientific proof for the creation account. There is one written by a nuclear engineer, who goes into in-depth scientific proof on the topic, but I don¡¦t remember the name of it, sorry.
QUESTION: 5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on Earth?
ANSWER: Yes, if everything the theory said was true. But the only problem with its explanation; is that in reality it is a lie.
QUESTION: 6) Is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator?
ANSWER: I think there is something like a 17000000000000000000000000000000 in 1 chance of this happening. Don¡¦t quote me on the figure, but there is no doubt that it takes more faith to believe something so unlikely like this happening, then it does for believing that a Creator created it.
QUESTION: 7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution?
ANSWER: No. Evolution has made up a lot of other factors as well. Even the most basic aspect of evolution is faulty. They don¡¦t even know what a species is. Take for example a certain bird (sorry forget the name), it is classed as one species, yet there is another bird who is exactly the same in every way except that it has a different bird song, and that bird is classed as a different species. Now you¡¦ve got to think, what is a mutation by evolutions standard? If it involves something changing so much that it turns into a different species, then by the definition of a different species, it wouldn¡¦t be too hard at all to mutate. In fact by the definition of species that evolution uses, those who speak French and those who speak English would be a different species. But I could go on about this forever; I¡¦ll go on to the next question.
QUESTION: 8) Are there any transitional fossils?
ANSWER: No. A good example of this is the horse display. It is a display in a museum (sorry forget name againƒº) and it is the apparent transition of a horse. It was taken from lower to higher sediments in the ground. And it is neatly arrange from the smallest looking horse to the biggest looking horse. The only problem with this transition is that the small horse like animal was taken from recent times, the bigger one from older times, and everything was just rearranged to prove the transitional theory. If you look into any apparent transitional animal then you will find a fault. There is without a doubt that there are animals that look ¡§less evolved as others¡¨ but that doesn¡¦t mean that they are transitional. There is a much greater chance that they are a different species all together, which didn¡¦t evolve at all.

Section two ANSWERS FOR Elbaz

QUESTION: If god loves all of his creatures, than why does he send some to hell?
ANSWER: God sends those who still have sin (those who haven¡¦t accept Jesus¡¦ payment) to hell, because they are still with sin. If you reject Jesus¡¦ offer of forgiveness, then you have no other way of getting rid of your sin. And God rejects sin, so therefore he rejects those with sin. All hell is, is a place where God is not. Think of a world where only bad things happen, that is hell, for only with God come good things. But if you need a demonstration of God¡¦s love, look at what He sacrificed for you so you could be without sin, and be with Him. He gave His only son for crying out loud!
QUESTION: What religion was Jesus?
ANSWER: Jesus was a Jew, so I guess He was Jewish. :) But He introduced a new covenant, which He commanded us all to follow. And that new covenant is the basis for Christianity. So you could say that: He was from a Jewish background, but in Himself was Christianity.
QUESTION: How could Jesus be the son of God if he had brothers and sister?
ANSWER: Jesus is the son of God, because He is part God. He is also the son of man because He is part man. God created Him in a human (Marry) but God still created Him. So therefore He is both part deity and part human. And it is for this reason that He was able to live like a human, yet still be God. And it was for this reason that He could associate with sinful humans, because He was part human, and felt mercy for them. Whereas God is all deity and cannot associate with sin - So that is why He sends the sinful away from Him (to hell ¡V which is a place without God). But it was because of Jesus¡¦ human aspect that gave Him the ability to demonstrate His mercy on the cross. And because of His obvious difference from all other humans, it shows that He would indeed have brothers and sisters, but because of how He was created, He also is the son of God ¡V This took many books of the Bible to explain, so it won¡¦t be surprising if you don¡¦t understand.
QUESTION: How can you argue against proof that Jesus moved off to France?
ANSWER: Is this something to do with Mormons? I¡¦ve never heard about this, so I¡¦m not going to waste your time by making up an answer. :)
QUESTION: How could Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't fulfill his prophecies as predicted in the Bible? And please don't give me the go around on this one, it¡¦s a rhetoric question.
ANSWER: I¡¦m not a qualified theologian, so I¡¦m not even going to speculate the answers to that question. But you¡¦ve got to put prophecies into context. Not all are messianic, and I wouldn¡¦t be surprised if the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies weren¡¦t all recorded in the New Testament.
:)

Section 3: ANSWERS FOR Xev

QUESTION: What is the experience of "God", for you, like?
ANSWER: My expeience with God is love, joy, peace and security. Even though I'm a sinner God loves me. And for that I love Him. Even though my life can become anything but joyful, I still have joy in knowing that I have a loving God which I will spend eternity with. Although much of my life is not peacful, I still find peace in my fellowship with God. And although my life is not secure, my salvation is.
QUESTION: Why do you believe?
ANSWER: I believe because I know that I fall short of God's law. I have sinned, and I believe in Jesus because I need help to get to God. I by myself am worthless, sinful, and nothing. But with my belief I am so much more. God says that when one believer is converted, all heaven rejoices. So that makes me feel worth something. I am no longer sinful, because my sins have been taken away by Christ, because I believe in Him. And in God's eyes, I am not nothing, but I am His child.


__________________
"Love has been and is still the great act of subversion in the West"
--Octavio Paz

Part Two
Section one: ANSWERS FOR Cris

QUESTION: Can you prove that a god exists?
ANSWER: The author of "How to make an atheist backslide" says that he can prove God's existence, without taking faith and belief into the equation. But I'm no author and the amount of evidence some atheists require to believe in God is huge. But I find it interesting to ask; can you prove God does not exist? Every single knowlegable atheist believes that they cannot. So really this question and answer proves nothing much at all.
QUESTION: Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?
ANSWER: Yes. The most recent evidence of this was found on a tablet. It mentioned Jesus' name, with the names of two of His deciples. And it was the right age as well. It is rare for a Historian to believe that Jesus did not exist. But many still don't believe that He was who He said He was. If you look into it, there is tons of evidence to prove that Jesus existed.


__________________
STATEMENT: People should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.
ANSWER: I kind of agree. People should be free to do anything they wish, as long as it doesn't break God's law. And you'll find that this kind of freedom is a lot more satisfying then the freedom you talk about.

Is it possible for freewill to exist with an omniscient god?

Ahem...Could you have been more........trite

Why don't you quote the onion like Green World for heaven sakes. Your response, though really long and *explanatory* was very ambiguous in answering many of the questions. Including those that were meant to debunk your argument.

I by myself am worthless, sinful, and nothing. But with my belief I am so much more. God says that when one believer is converted, all heaven rejoices. So that makes me feel worth something.

Wait, so your telling me that you accept the fact that you as a christian are worthless sinful and nothing? And the only way you can get satisfaction is by rejoicing in the heavens? Sorry man, it just doesnt tweedle my dum. I believe in God. I also believe that I'm worth something cause I place value on my efforts to understand the world better. To lead a meaningful life in which I which learn and grow. Whereas the only way you can feel worth anything is by submitting to a fear that without Christianity, you will end up some place bad. By sticking to the same dirty routine and filth day in and day out. I'll tell you what; the only way you can end some place bad is by submitting to your fears. That's what hell is, IMO. And whether you like to believe it or not, any person that lives in fear and shame (which includes countless christians) is destined for hell. THat is to say that they'll never truly be happy no matter how much they try to convince themselves anything otherwise.

-Elbaz

PART 2 SECTION 2: ANSWERS FOR Raithere

QUESTION: If God is universally infinite how can any other aspect of him be defined?
ANSWER: By that same logic, how can you define infinite to start with? If infinite means having no boundaries, then what is the boundary for the definition of the word infinite? No boundaries, then infinite could also mean dog, head, and speaker. There are obvious boundaries to the word, so there are obvious boundaries in the context that it is used. To try and use words to describe something as amazing as God, is to try and apply something worldly to something unworldly. You cannot understand every aspect of God, because He is exactly that, GOD. Yet He has shown us enough to understand the basics, and to understand enough to accept His salvation.

~Raithere


__________________
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

Elbaz
716 posts
Ahem...Could you have been more........trite

Why don't you quote the onion like Green World for heaven sakes. Your response, though really long and *explanatory* was very ambiguous in answering many of the questions. Including those that were meant to debunk your argument.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I by myself am worthless, sinful, and nothing. But with my belief I am so much more. God says that when one believer is converted, all heaven rejoices. So that makes me feel worth something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait, so your telling me that you accept the fact that you as a christian are worthless sinful and nothing? And the only way you can get satisfaction is by rejoicing in the heavens? Sorry man, it just doesnt tweedle my dum. I believe in God. I also believe that I'm worth something cause I place value on my efforts to understand the world better. To lead a meaningful life in which I which learn and grow. Whereas the only way you can feel worth anything is by submitting to a fear that without Christianity, you will end up some place bad. By sticking to the same dirty routine and filth day in and day out. I'll tell you what; the only way you can end some place bad is by submitting to your fears. That's what hell is, IMO. And whether you like to believe it or not, any person that lives in fear and shame (which includes countless christians) is destined for hell. THat is to say that they'll never truly be happy no matter how much they try to convince themselves anything otherwise.

-Elbaz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER: YOU really did misunderstand something that I thought was obvious. I wrote "BY MYSELF", as in without Christ in me, "I am worthless". And by saying "but with my belief I am so much more" I am saying that with my belief I have Christ, and with Christ in me I am so much more. Now applying that to what you said, it makes perfect sense.

tiassa
4891 posts

QUESTION: Will the Devil be redeemed?
It's a simple question with broad implications: Will the Devil be redeemed?
ANSWER: Thats up to God. It's not mentioned in the Bible, so I would not be able to honestly tell you. But I believe the chance of the devil accepting Christ as his savior is about as likely as evolution being true. :)

PART THREE SECTION ONE ANSWERS FOR Neutrino_Albatross
671 posts

QUESTION: Is it possible for freewill to exist with an omniscient god?

ANSWER: This is a good question. And I've heard many people stuff up the answer to it. Considering I'm responding to this question with my own opinion, I'll probably be another who stuffs up the answer. But I'll give it a try. The free will question is "If God knows the future, but still lets you follow the path of damnation that you are on, isn't he either, evil, or doesn't know everything, because if He did He would make you choose rightly?

Yes it is possible for free will to exist. - Even though God knows what you're going to do is wrong, it doesn't mean that he will stop you doing it. - And in the same way, just because God knows that what you will do is right, it doesn't mean His going to stop you. Because you have free will. Yet it is true that God moulds us, to His desire. I believe that He does not do this by making you do something, therefore cutting out free will. But He does this by moulding you with circumstances, and choices. He lays out circumstances and choices which mould you, but there is no point where these circumstances make you do anything. I believe God never crosses that line. But He does influence you through circumstances and choices. Just like Satan influences you. But neither makes you do anything, it is ultimately up to your decision. And every circumstance God uses to mould someone, whether good circumstances or bad, they are ultimately moulded in such a way that God will recieve Glory. In everyting God does, it is for His Glory.

all we can know is that we know nothing....

If Jesus got in a fight with Mohammad then who would win?

QUESTION: 1) Is evolution supported by facts?
ANSWER: Yes. In part everything is supported by facts. I could say my shoe evolved from an ape. And that is partially supported by the facts that apes exist, and my shoe also exists. Yet just because there are some facts, it does not mean that it supports the theory.

You seem to be missing the point of the term "theory". Events and conditions must be connected by some experimentally observable process, chain of cause and effect, or other phenomenon. So no, you can't say your shoe evolved from an ape.


QUESTION: 2) Is Creationism supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: Yes. There are many facts. One of the major supporting factors is that in no way can it be disproved, even atheists admit that. The Bible supports Creationism, and many facts support the Bible. There is evidence of a great flood, from sea shells on mountains. Some of the facts that supposedly support evolution in fact ƒº support the Creation account. I recommend reading the book ¡§In the minds of men¡¨. There are apparent facts like the time it would take for the river, which leads into Niagara Falls, to recede to its present state, from the state that it once was in ¡V was once used as a fact to support the many millions of years needed by the theory of evolution. Yet recent evidence and factors show that it really only took 7000 years for the river to recede. So it really supports Creationism. There are hundreds of facts like this, but you¡¦ve just got to have the faith needed to believe that they all point to one thing, God created the universe.

You are correct in saying that the god(s) can not be disproven now. However, that does not prove Creationism. It merely proves a lack of evidence one way or the other.

Archaeological evidence of floods provide proof only that there were floods. Stories about those floods prove only that people made up stories about floods.

Niagara Falls and the age of Earth:
http://www4.vc-net.ne.jp/~klivo/gen/geology.htm
http://www.und.edu/instruct/eng/fkarner/pages/wfall.htm
http://www.lockport-ny.com/Museum/geology.htm
http://6.1911encyclopedia.org/N/NI/NIAGARA.htm
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/rock.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000804075444.htm

As you seem to be unaware of it, I would like to point out that the oldest man-made stone structures are actually more than 6,000 years old:
http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/malta/malta.html
http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/malta_mega_temples/
http://archaeology.about.com/library/atlas/blmalta.htm
http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/projects/gozo/

And for some laughs:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/webstuff/bible/begats.html


QUESTION: 3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: I guess this is answered by my above answer. If you ask a more specific question in relation to God¡¦s existence I¡¦ll answer it. But there is just so many facts it would take 500 000 words to just see the tip of the ice berg.

So... no answer? Okay.


QUESTION: 4) Are organic molecules common throughout the universe?
ANSWER: Sorry I¡¦m not a scientist, but there are books out there written by scientists, that go bit by bit into scientific proof for the creation account. There is one written by a nuclear engineer, who goes into in-depth scientific proof on the topic, but I don¡¦t remember the name of it, sorry.

No answer.


QUESTION: 5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on Earth?
ANSWER: Yes, if everything the theory said was true. But the only problem with its explanation; is that in reality it is a lie.

Can you support your claim that evolution theory is a lie?


QUESTION: 6) Is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator?
ANSWER: I think there is something like a 17000000000000000000000000000000 in 1 chance of this happening. Don¡¦t quote me on the figure, but there is no doubt that it takes more faith to believe something so unlikely like this happening, then it does for believing that a Creator created it.

17000000000000000000000000000000 in 1 huh? So there is a 17000000000000000000000000000000% chance of it happening? Cool. So you support the idea. Good.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2


QUESTION: 7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution?
ANSWER: No. Evolution has made up a lot of other factors as well. Even the most basic aspect of evolution is faulty. They don¡¦t even know what a species is. Take for example a certain bird (sorry forget the name), it is classed as one species, yet there is another bird who is exactly the same in every way except that it has a different bird song, and that bird is classed as a different species. Now you¡¦ve got to think, what is a mutation by evolutions standard? If it involves something changing so much that it turns into a different species, then by the definition of a different species, it wouldn¡¦t be too hard at all to mutate. In fact by the definition of species that evolution uses, those who speak French and those who speak English would be a different species. But I could go on about this forever; I¡¦ll go on to the next question.

You are correct that we have changing definitions for some things as we learn more and more. Unlike fanatics, scientists are capable of accepting new knowledge and learning, as new facts arise. But thanks for answering, mutation is not the only facet of evolution.


QUESTION: 8) Are there any transitional fossils?
ANSWER: No. A good example of this is the horse display. It is a display in a museum (sorry forget name againƒº) and it is the apparent transition of a horse. It was taken from lower to higher sediments in the ground. And it is neatly arrange from the smallest looking horse to the biggest looking horse. The only problem with this transition is that the small horse like animal was taken from recent times, the bigger one from older times, and everything was just rearranged to prove the transitional theory. If you look into any apparent transitional animal then you will find a fault. There is without a doubt that there are animals that look ¡§less evolved as others¡¨ but that doesn¡¦t mean that they are transitional. There is a much greater chance that they are a different species all together, which didn¡¦t evolve at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/trans_faq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/horse_series.html
http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/pubserv/hos/dino/owe1863.htm
http://www.netpets.com/birds/reference/fun/fossil1.html
http://www.netpets.com/birds/reference/fun/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

Note that the existence of any fossils is also an answer to that stuff about geology and the age of Earth.

Voodoo Child
445 posts
QUESTION: If Jesus got in a fight with Mohammad then who would win?
ANSWER: FINALLY SOMETHING EASY TO ANSWER :) Its pretty obvious isn't it. Jesus would turn the other cheek, and then Mohammad would be sent to hell. lol

So Jesus would get his ass kicked?

1. Who defines 'sin,' as society make the rules, and we have many different societies on this planet?
2. Is it a 'sin' to have bad thoughts, and if so, how can one tell a person with a serious mental illness they are sinners for the thoughts they have??
3. Can clergy abuse young children, repent, and be forgiven?
4. Can Jeffery Dahmer be 'forgiven'?
5. Could a blind deaf and mute person understand the concept of christainity and would they go to 'heaven'. What about some pygmy tribes who have never seen a christian?
6. Why do some Christians believe that the concept of 'ET's" are evil?

That'll do for now :)

I hope my answers have been at least a little bit helpful. You have to remember that I'm only 16 years old so it's no surprise if I've left something out. I will no longer be answering any questions, basically because it’s taken me 7 straight hours to answer what I have answered so far. And school starts tomorrow so I won't have time (sorry)

I find it encouraging that many of you became so defensive with your Atheist beliefs. It shows me that I was at least getting somewhere with you all.

I'm not going to leave you without any more answers, it just wouldn't be me. So here is a site that goes through all the main questions atheists have:

http://www.evidence.info/

If you've still got questions that you want to ask, go to the chat site

http://www.worthychat.com/

There are many people there that will be able to help you, and answer your questions.

If you believe that God exists but don't know the why and how to be saved then go to this site:

http://www.livingwaters.com/good/001.shtml

I pray that I've helped you all today.

Bye

Thanks you for your answers answers. Yes, you've got to get a good night's sleep for school tomorrow.
I'm 35 and a mother, so feel very enlightened by such a worldly young man as yourself.

Of course nothing comes easy, so it makes sense that the link I posted for answer to athesits questions has stopped working.

So hopefully this link will work better :)

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/answers_for_atheists/default.htm

You'll find a lot of answer here, hope you have a look

Bye

answers:

Ambitious task for a young man. My respect.

Xev, anything is possible :)

question:

why do you think you can answer these questions meaningfully?

Question: "Ask any question you want about Christianity"

At what point in the Bible are the 7 billion years of Dinosaur evolution explained?

If the words are divine why is such a huge factor over looked. Christianity and religion in general were created when man evolved to a point where such things could be understood. Therefore Christianity and religion are creations of man alone!

jusmeig
17 posts
Question: "Ask any question you want about Christianity"

At what point in the Bible are the 7 billion years of Dinosaur evolution explained?

If the words are divine why is such a huge factor over looked. Christianity and religion in general were created when man evolved to a point where such things could be understood. Therefore Christianity and religion are creations of man alone!

I JUST HAVE TO ANSWER THIS ONE :)

Answer: your very reasoning is faulty. It is totally circular. You basically say, evolution proves that evolution is proof. Like come on! I could say, God is real, because in reality is God.

The fact is, there was no 7 billion years for the Bible to explain. So why explain something that isn't true?

And since the dawn of time (7 thousand years ago) men have been enlightened by God. Through prophets, through devine influence, and by the ultimate informer, Jesus Christ. To say that man evolved, and then God and everything was created is stupid. God created everything, including man, and since then He has communicated with man. There was no evolutionary gap.

You are trying to put evolution into the Bible, but it's never been there for a good reason. Because it is a waste of paper.

Have you ever attended any institution of formal education?

Originally posted by answers
And since the dawn of time (7 thousand years ago) men have been enlightened by God. The Septuagint timeline instead of the Massoretic. How quaint. :D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: your very reasoning is faulty. It is totally circular. You basically say, evolution proves that evolution is proof. Like come on! I could say, God is real, because in reality is God.

The fact is, there was no 7 billion years for the Bible to explain. So why explain something that isn't true?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answers I have said a prayer to the gOd of every religion for you. In fact I nearly cryed when I read you response. You are an idiot to deny the history of earth........and I will be praying to your version of Satan that you go straight to hell. People like you are holding this planet back from much greater things. Stop taking up the air that the rest of us need!!!!

Jus

spuriousmonkey
493 posts
question:

QUESTION: why do you think you can answer these questions meaningfully?

Answer: Define meaningfully. By your standards it's probably only meaningful if it changes your point of view. In that case no I don't think I can answer them meaningfully.

But if meaningfully is defined in regards to everyone who sees the answers, and if at least a few of them are a little bit changed, then yes I think I can answer them meaningfully.

I doubt anyone can look at every single answer that I've written and say that it didn't at least make them think. JUST WAIT. Who am I talking to? Of course it's possible for Atheists to look at evidence against their beliefs and to not think about it. BUT that is why even what you think is meaningful may not be right. Because some may think the answers are meaningful, because they take the time to think about them, while others are not bothered, and just think they are rubbish. IT IS UP TO THE PERSON READING MY ANSWERS, TO THINK THEY ARE MEANINGFUL OR NOT.

I just try my best, and let God do the rest. I never said that these answers would be meaningful, and especially not to everyone.

So don't waste everyone's time, and ask a question that is meaninful.

This is great. You have all now resorted to the classic "you are an idiot defence" that so many Atheists use.

LOL pray to Satan that I go to Hell. Thats a classic. Man I'm gonna tell everyone at Church about that one. Pray to Satan all you want, I'm pretty sure God is just a little bit more powerful then Satan, so I think I'm safe with that one :)

LOL have I ever had any formal education. Whats the point in regards to this argument. Many Atheists have had great education, yet they are still too blind to see the reality of God.

You say that I am stupid, that I should go to hell, that I should get an education.

I say you are stupid for not seeing God, that you are in fact going to hell, and even though you've recieved an education, you've failed to implement it.

Like come on! Get over yourselves!

Now you go pray to natural selection, and ask him to evolve me into an toad like good Atheists.

Answers - I feel very sorry for you. You should really consider questioning some of the sources of your information?

You are subsituteing scientific fact for what was written in bible. Let's put that another way - you blindly believe what men (who most likily believed the world was flat!!!) from 2000 years ago wrote down rather than what the what the great minds of today wrote down. Why don't you open you mind just a tiny little bit and think for yourself?

I want to believe in God, I do. I think the idea of an all powerful being controlling the entire universe and the idea that, if we're good people, when we die when we go to heaven is fantastic. I'd love to believe that!!!! And I envy you that you can believe without questioning. I think everyone would love to believe that and I think that man needs to believe that. We can't just die and turn into dust and worm food. But unfortunately, thats all that happens.

The FACTS (or the real answers) are that you can't prove that God exists anymore that you can't prove that Buda, Allah or the Celtic god of the Sun doesn't exist. God is just the most modern version of a fairy tale that men has been telling themselves to make sense of the World, life and death.

Originally posted by answers
IT IS UP TO THE PERSON READING MY ANSWERS, TO THINK THEY ARE MEANINGFUL OR NOT.



shit...don't start using caps, its like Whatsup has returned.


i asked the question about meningful answers, because I assume that you can answer question in such a manner that the answers actually have some significance. This implies that you know something I don't know. And I am wondering why you think you know this something I fail to see. And I am not even going into the religious shit here, since i am not interested in that. I want to know why you think you have answers. Why you have the 'authority' to answer questions and why your answers are more meaningful than, lets say, mine.
You seem put the responsibility at the reader. He has to decide if it is meaningful, but that wouldn't answer my question why you think your answers are meaningful. And you suggest in one sentence that your answers might not be meaningful, but why answer questions like this.
Why not come forward with a position or an essay about a topic. Why answering questions? To me answering questions suggest a certain mindset and I am curious to find out if my thoughts on this are right.


don't mind the atheist and theist debate....it is fruitless.

okay, you obviously don't believe what I say, so I'll give you some reliable sources concerning the proof of Christ. This is going to be fun :)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html


First Proof of Jesus Found?
By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News

Click to See the Inscription

In Depth: Jesus: The Full Story

On TV: Watch "Unsolved History"



Oct. 21 — The first archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence has come to light, literally written in stone, according to one of the top world experts in deciphering ancient Near East inscriptions.

"Amazing as it may sound, a limestone bone box, called an ossuary, has surfaced in Israel that may once have contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus," André Lemaire, professor of Hebrew and Aramaic philology and epigraphy at the Sorbonne University in Paris, wrote in the upcoming issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

"We know this because an extraordinary inscription incised on one side of the ossuary reads in clear Aramaic letters: 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,'" he wrote.








Kept in a private collection in Israel, the 20-inch long box is unfortunately empty. Nothing is known of its history prior to the current ownership, but experts believe it was probably one of hundreds uncovered in the Holy City.
In the first century, ossuaries were used in the second of a two- stage burial process, when bones of the deceased were transferred from burial caves.

Largely abandoned in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, the practice offers a rare period of self documentation, with hundreds of names carved in stone.

The 20 Aramaic letters etched on a side of the newly revealed ossuary read "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yoshua," or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

But is this the same James who, according to biblical accounts, was the brother of Jesus of Nazareth and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem? Or is he just another James whose father's name happened to be Joseph and whose brother was called Jesus?

Jesus, Joseph and James were common names in biblical times, but according to experts, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim.

In addition, said Lemaire, the mention of a brother is unusual, and indicates that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.

According to the scholar, the cursive shape of three engraved letters would date the ossuary to the last decades of 70 A.D. Further laboratory tests by the Geological Survey of Israel concluded that the ossuary has no modern elements, was worked with no modern tools, and appears to be genuine.

"If its authenticity is proven beyond doubt, this will be an outstanding discovery in modern scholarship," Paul Shalom, Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told Discovery News.

Until now, the most significant finds related to New Testament figures have been the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who handed Jesus over the Romans for crucifixion, and a dedication tablet on a monument. It mentions Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who passed the death sentence against Jesus.

The new find would be the first archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.

"This ossuary could be compared to the Turin Shroud: a big key artifact for believers. I would be thrilled if it were true, but I believe it is a forgery. Several things cast suspicion: the line of custody is insecure, and the inscription is too perfect. They would have never written 'brother of Jesus' in the first century," Robert Eisenman, professor of biblical archaeology at California State University, Long Beach, and author of "James, Brother of Jesus," told Discovery News.

Like the Shroud, the ossuary is set to become one of the most controversial relics in Christendom. World famous biblical scholar Rev. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, professor of the New Testament at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, found "no reason to object" to Lemaire's conclusions and called for it to be restored to the Christian church.

"Since it seems very likely that the inscription is authentic, then I find it intolerable that the ossuary should remain in a secret private collection in Israel," he told Discovery News.

Discovery Channel is producing a documentary about the find, which is scheduled to air in spring 2003.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/beyondstars/proof.htm


PROOF THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH!
[ Home ]


Hundreds and even thousands of years BEFORE Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the Old Testament Prophets predicted His coming. Their predictions were not just general ones that "a Messiah, a Saviour, will come" etc., but SPECIFIC prophecies about places, times and events that have been fulfilled in only ONE person who has ever lived--JESUS of Nazareth! In this brief lesson we have chronologically arranged several of the most outstanding Old Testament Messianic prophecies in the actual verbatim text of the Scriptures and followed them with their New Testament fulfillments.

HIS BIRTH

PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.


FULFILLMENT: In exact FULFILLMENT of this prophecy, Mary was a young VIRGIN engaged to be married to Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth, when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her saying that she would bear a child. "Then Mary said to the Angel, `How shall this be, seeing I have not laid with a man?' And the Angel answered, `The HOLY GHOST shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you! Therefore that holy One which shall be born of you shall be called the SON of GOD."--Luke 1:26-35. (Immanuel means "God with us", and for those of us who have received Jesus into our hearts, that's Who He IS: God is WITH us!)


PROPHECY: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: And the government shall be upon His shoulder: And His NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the MIGHTY GOD, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace!"--Isaiah 9:6. (Prophecy given 740 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: This shows that the ancient Jews, unlike most modern ones, believed that God had a SON--Who was to be born in the flesh and Whom the prophecy said was to be called "The Mighty GOD".


PROPHECY: Micah, prophesying in the eighth century B.C., predicted the exact village where the Messiah would be born: "You, BETHLEHEM, though you are small among the clans of Judah, yet out of you shall He come forth unto Me that is to be RULER over ISRAEL; Whose existence has been of old, from EVERLASTING."--Micah 5:2. (Prophecy given 710 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: The Gospel says "Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM of JUDEA."--Matthew 2:1. Although the Jews knew that their Messiah was to be born there (Matthew 2:4-6), they didn't, as a nation, accept Jesus as their ruler. Nonetheless, the prophecy says that He "IS to BE ruler". This takes place spiritually now for those who voluntarily accept His Messiahship, and will SOON take place LITERALLY by FORCE at His Second Coming!


Jesus' existence, as the prophecy says, "has been of OLD, from EVERLASTING". Jesus said, "Before Abraham was (around 2,000 B.C.), I AM."--John 8:58. He was here referring to Himself as the eternal God Who revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush as: "I AM THAT I AM"(Exodus 3:14), the eternal Son of God! (See also John 1:13,14.)

TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM

PROPHECY: The Prophet Zechariah commanded the people by the Spirit of the Lord to: "REJOICE GREATLY, O daughter of Zion! SHOUT, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your KING comes unto you: RIGHTEOUS, and having SALVATION; meek, and riding upon a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."--Zechariah 9:9. (Prophecy given 487 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: Five days before His crucifixion, as Jesus neared Jerusalem, He told His disciples, "Go into the village ahead of you, and at once you shall find a donkey tied there, and her colt with her: Untie them, and bring them to Me. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the donkey and the colt...and Jesus sat on them...and the multitudes that went ahead, and those that followed, SHOUTED, saying, `Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord!'"--Matthew 21:2-10.


Imagine!--The King of kings, God in the flesh, came riding into Jerusalem, meekly sitting on the lowly colt of a donkey, just as God's Prophet, Zechariah, had predicted over 500 years earlier!--And not only did JESUS fulfil this part of the prophecy, but the MULTITUDES of Jerusalem who "REJOICED GREATLY" and "SHOUTED" praises to Him as He entered the city were further proof that indeed, Jesus of Nazareth was "the KING" of whom Zechariah had prophesied!

HIS BETRAYAL

PROPHECY: Again Zechariah predicts: "And I said unto them, If you think good, give me my PRICE; and if not, keep it. So they paid me THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER."--Zechariah 11:12. (Prophecy given 487 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said to them, 'What will you give me, if I deliver Him to you?' And they counted out for him THIRTY pieces of SILVER."--Matthew 26:14, 15.
15. PROPHECY: "And the Lord said unto me, `Cast it unto the POTTER!--The handsome price at which they priced Me!' And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and CAST them to the POTTER in the HOUSE of the LORD."--Zechariah 11:13. (Prophecy given 487 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: "Then Judas, which had betrayed Him (Jesus), when he saw that He was condemned, repented, and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders...And he CAST DOWN the pieces of silver in the TEMPLE, and went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests picked up the silver pieces, and said, It is against the law to put this into the treasury, because it is the price paid for blood. So they decided to use the money to buy the POTTER'S Field, to bury foreigners in."--Matthew 27:3-6. The thirty pieces of silver WERE literally "CAST to the POTTER...IN the house of the Lord"!

HIS TRIAL

PROPHECY: "By arrest and judgement He was taken away: And who shall speak of His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living: For the transgression of my people was He stricken."--Isaiah 53:8. (Prophecy given 712 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: Jesus was ARRESTED by the soldiers of the High Priest.--Matthew 26:57. After judging Him in their religious court and condemning Him to death, they bound Him and handed Him over to Pilate, the Roman Governor.--Matthew 27:1-2. "While Pilate was sitting in judgement...the chief priests and elders persuaded the crowd...to have Jesus executed."--Matthew 27:19-20. "Finally Pilate handed Him over to them to be crucified."--John 19:16.


Pilate himself knew that Jesus was INNOCENT and had done nothing worthy of death, and that the Jewish religious leaders only wanted Jesus executed because of their religious jealousy, yet the religious leaders used their political leverage to force Pilate to have Him crucified anyway.--John 18:28-40;19:1-16; Luke 23:13-25; Matthew 27:18.

HIS CRUCIFIXION

PROPHECY: Around 1,000 B.C., King David prophesied: "Dogs have surrounded Me: A band of wicked men have encircled Me: They PIERCED My HANDS and My FEET. I can count all My bones. People stare and gloat over Me. They DIVIDE MY GARMENTS among them, and CAST LOTS upon My CLOTHING."--Psalm 22:16-18. (Prophecy given around 1,000 B.C.) (See also Zechariah 12:10;13:6.)


FULFILLMENT: That was written by King David, who died a natural death (recorded in 1Kings Chapter 1), so he wasn't talking about himself. But being a Prophet, he predicted the type of death that CHRIST would die! As it says in the New Testament, "then the soldiers, when they had CRUCIFIED Jesus (pierced hands AND feet), took His GARMENTS, and divided them into four parts, a part to every soldier; His undergarment remained. Now this garment was without seam, woven in one piece from top to bottom. They said therefore to one another, Let us not tear it, but let us cast LOTS for it, to see whose it shall be."--John 19:23,24.


Crucifixion, incidentally, was not practiced by the Jews of David's time. (They killed criminals by STONING!)--But David PREDICTED this type of death for the MESSIAH--a method of execution that was to become one of the principal means of execution by the Roman Empire ten centuries later!


PROPHECY: Here is another prophecy by David regarding "The Righteous", or the Messiah: "Many are the afflictions of The Righteous, but...He (God) keeps ALL His BONES: Not one of them is broken."--Psalm 34:19-20. (Prophecy given about 1,000 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: MANY of God's righteous servants have had their bones broken, especially in their martyrdom--But Jesus was "THE righteous", "My righteous Servant", as God called Him, Who through His death would "justify many" or make them righteous.--Isaiah 53:11-12. And to PROVE that He was "THE Righteous" Who would "justify many", God didn't let ANY of His bones be broken!


Jesus was crucified on the eve of the feastday of the Passover. To ensure that the bodies of the two thieves and Jesus wouldn't be hanging there on the cross during the Jews' holy day (death by crucifixion sometimes took days), they BROKE the LEGS of the thieves, causing their bodies to sag, cutting off their respiration and bringing a quick death. "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they did NOT break His legs."--John 19:31-33.


Jesus was "the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the World" (John 1:29), and was crucified at the time of the Jewish Passover, a religious festival when all the Jewish households killed a lamb as a sacrificial sin offering. Right at that SAME time, Jesus, "THE Lamb of God", died for the sins of Mankind. The Lord had commanded that NONE of the Passover lamb's BONES were to be BROKEN (Exodus 12:46), and Jesus' death fulfilled this specific point also!

HIS BURIAL

PROPHECY: "And He was given a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death."--Isaiah 53:9.
28. FULFILLMENT: In the eyes of His bitter religious enemies, Jesus was a criminal, a WICKED man, and as He died, there were "two ROBBERS crucified WITH Him".--Matthew 27:38. After His death, "a RICH man...named Joseph...went to Pilate and pleaded for the body of Jesus. And when Joseph had taken the body, he...laid it in his own new tomb"--A GRAVE with the RICH!!!--Matthew 27:57-60.

HIS RESURRECTION

PROPHECY: "For You will not leave My soul in hell (the grave, death); neither will You allow Your Holy One to see CORRUPTION (decay)."--Psalm 16:10. (Prophecy given around 1,000 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: King David, who gave the prophecy, died and was buried in a grave and his flesh saw corruption and decay. But Jesus was RAISED from the grave and hell THREE days AFTER His death, and "His soul was not LEFT in hell (or in the grave), neither (did) His flesh see corruption (decay)."--Acts 2:27-31. As the Angel said to the mourners who came to Jesus' tomb, "He is not here, but is RISEN! Why do you seek the LIVING among the DEAD?"--Luke 24:6,5.


Jesus is ALIVE! The Scriptures show that He walked the Earth for 40 days after His Resurrection and was seen by HUNDREDS of followers!--Acts 1:3; 1Corinthians 15:4-6. He then ascended up to Heaven where He sits at the right hand of the throne of God.-Mark 16:19.

EXACT YEAR OF HIS CRUCIFIXION

PROPHECY: "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince shall be seven sevens, and 62 sevens (or a TOTAL of 69): The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. And after 62 sevens shall the MESSIAH be CUT OFF, but not for Himself."-Daniel 9:25,26. (Prophecy given 538 B.C.)


The city of Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the armies of Babylon when the Jews went into captivity and exile in 586 B.C. But 133 years later, in 453 B.C., Artaxerxes Longimanus, King of the Persian Empire, gave the Jews the commandment to go forth (from captivity into the land of Israel), "to restore and to build Jerusalem".
34. We know his decree was issued in 453 B.C., and that Jesus was "cut off" in 30 A.D. Therefore, if we add the 453 years B.C. to the 30 years A.D., it equals 483 YEARS. Let's see now if Daniel's specific time prophecy coincides with this:


The prophecy predicted that from the time of this decree until the death of the Messiah the Prince would be--HOW long?--"7 sevens plus 62 sevens"--or 69 SEVENS. 69 sevens would be 69 x 7, which equals 483. So Daniel predicted that 69 sevens of YEARS, or 483 YEARS, would pass between the issuing of the decree to build Jerusalem and the "cutting off" of the Messiah.--And that's EXACTLY how many years DID pass between 453 B.C. and Jesus' death in 30 A.D.!--What an amazing EXACT FULFILLMENT of prophecy! And this astonishing prophecy was given in the year 538 B.C.--almost 600 years BEFORE Jesus the Messiah was crucified! It's also interesting to note that this 483-year period was divided into two periods: First a period of 7 sevens (49 years), then a period of 62 sevens (434 years). History reveals that it did take the Jews 49 YEARS from the time the decree was issued to "rebuild the walls and streets of Jerusalem". Once Jerusalem was rebuilt, it was exactly 434 years (62 sevens) later that Jesus the Messiah was crucified!


Daniel's prophecy continues with undeniable PROOF that this MESSIAH had to be JESUS:

DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AFTER HIS COMING

PROPHECY: "At the end of 62 sevens shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: AND the people of the RULER that SHALL COME shall DESTROY the CITY (of Jerusalem) and the SANCTUARY (the Jewish Temple)."--Daniel 9:26. In other words, ac cording to this prophecy, AFTER the Messiah's death, the city of Jerusalem AND the Jews' Temple would be DESTROYED! Was it? YES! Only 40 years later!


FULFILLMENT: After Jesus was cut off (or crucified in 30 A.D.), "not for Himself", but for the sins of the WORLD, do you know what happened to Jerusalem and to the Jews' Temple? In 70 A.D., the Roman legions of the Emperor Vespasian ("the people of the ruler"), under his son, General Titus, marched in and burnt Jerusalem to the ground and so utterly destroyed their Sanctuary that not one stone was left upon another!


Jesus Himself, in a set of amazingly detailed prophecies given 40 years before these catastrophic events, predicted EXACTLY what would happen! (See Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 19:42-44;21:20-24.)

SHUTTING OF EAST GATE AFTER HIS COMING

PROPHECY: "Then he brought me back to the outer GATE of the SANCTUARY, the one facing toward the EAST; and it was SHUT. Then the Lord said unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and NO MAN shall enter in by it; because THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED IN BY IT, therefore it shall be SHUT."--Ezekiel 44:1,2. (Prophecy given 572 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: When Jesus ("the Lord, the God of Israel") made His TRIUMPHAL ENTRY into Jerusalem on the back of the colt of an ass, He came from the Mt. of Olives and entered into Jerusalem's EAST Gate (Matthew 21:9-12), the gate which led into the TEMPLE COURTS, as it says here, "the OUTER gate of the SANCTUARY which faces toward the EAST."


In 70 A.D., the city of Jerusalem was utterly destroyed and it remained in ruins for centuries after. But in 542, the Moslem Sultan Sulieman rebuilt the walls of the city. Because the Jews who had rejected Jesus believed their Messiah was STILL to come and was YET to make His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Sulieman (who wanted to avoid the Jews rallying around a "Messiah" and rebelling) WALLED the "East Gate" completely SHUT, and thus unwittingly fulfilled the ancient prophecy of Ezekiel, "It shall be shut...because the Lord (Jesus), the God of Israel, HAS ENTERED in by it." And the East Gate REMAINS sealed shut until this very day!


Most Jews believe that the Messiah has not yet come, but according to these two FULFILLED HISTORICAL FACTS: 1) The destruction of Jerusalem, and 2) The walling up of the East Gate, the Messiah has ALREADY come!--And if it wasn't JESUS of NAZARETH, who WAS it?


WHO ELSE was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, was called God, rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on an ass, was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, was proclaimed innocent yet condemned unjustly to be crucified while soldiers parted His garments, was associated with the wicked in his death, was buried in a rich man's tomb and rose from the dead--all in FULFILLMENT of Messianic PROPHECY! The answer, of course, is NO one else but JESUS CHRIST!--And the prophecies that we have quoted here are only a FEW out of nearly 300 specific Old Testament proph ecies which Jesus fulfilled!

WHY (did Jesus die on the cross)?

WHY did Jesus die on that cross?--Because He LOVED you! He loved you enough to take your punishment, to die and be separated from His Father for a while so that He could bring YOU the LOVE of God and ETERNAL LIFE! As another prophecy says, "All we like sheep have gone astray; each of us have turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on HIM the iniquity of us all. There was no deceit in His mouth, yet it was the Lord's will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer. HIS soul (Jesus') shall be made an offering for SIN, and by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant JUSTIFY (make righteous) many; and HE shall bear THEIR INIQUITIES!"--Isaiah 53:6,9-11. (Prophecy given 750 B.C.)


Jesus died for YOU!--And God gave all these prophecies and had them written down and preserved down through the centuries and millenniums so that your faith might be strengthened by them enough to BELIEVE that "God so LOVED the World, that He gave His only begotten SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life."--John 3:16. Do YOU?


God LOVES you and Jesus is just WAITING at your heart's door for you to open to Him. He says, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: If ANY man hear My voice, and OPEN the door, I WILL come in to him and WILL sup with him, and he with Me."--Revelation 3:20. Would YOU like to receive Jesus into your heart? If you would, sincerely pray from your heart this simple prayer: Dear Jesus, I know that I've done wrong things and I'm sorry. I believe that You died for my sins and I ask You to please come into my heart and forgive me.-And please help me to live for You and others by reading Your Word and telling others about Your Love!--In Jesus' name, amen.

Copyright (c) 1998 by The Family

Extra-Biblical Proofs of Jesus and the Bible


JEWISH SOURCES

Josephus on John the Baptist

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5, Section 2

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.



Josephus on Jesus Christ

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."


The Babylonian Talmud on Jesus

Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"


The Babylonian Talmud on Jesus

Sanhedrin 107b (200-500 C.E.)

"One day he (Rabbi Joshua) was reciting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick and worshiped it.....And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray.'"


ROMAN SOURCES

Pliny the Younger on Christians

Letter to Trajan 10.96 - (c.111-117 C.E.)

"I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed....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 unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished.....they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."


Suetonius on Christians

Vita Nero (De Vita Caesarum - Nero)16.11-13 (c.110 C.E.)

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."


Tacitus on Jesus and Christianity

The Roman Annals 15.44 (c.115-117 C.E.)

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."


MISCELLANEOUS AND CATHOLIC SOURCES

Eusebius

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 27

"They observed the Sabbath and the rest of the disciples of the Jews just like them, but on Sundays they performed ceremonies like ours in commemoration of the Lord's Resurrection. Therefore, because of such practices they received their name, since the name of Ebionites signifies the poverty of their understanding, for the poor man is called by this name among the Hebrews."


Justin Martyr

The First Apology to Caesar, Chapter 67 (c. 140-165 A.D.)

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the fist day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead."


Ignatius of Antioch

Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 9 (c. 98-117)

"How, then, shall we be able to live apart from Him, seeing that the prophets were His disciples in the Spirit and expected Him as their Master, and that many who were brought up in the old order have come to the newness of hope? They no longer observe the Jewish Sabbaths, but keep holy the Lord's day, on which, through Him and through His death, our life arose."


Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 15

"This is why we also observe the eighth day with rejoicing, on which Jesus also rose from the dead, and having shown himself ascended to heaven."


The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (c. 65-69 A.D.)

The Didache 14:1

"And on the Lord's Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure."


The Dead Sea Scrolls

(c. 50-100 C.E.)

Messianic Prophecies - 4QTestimonia (or Messianic Anthology, 4Q175 [4QTest])

Fragments of Ecclesiastes - 4Q109 Qohelet a

The Book of Isaiah - 4Q Isaiah Pesher b (4Q162 [4QpIs b])


The Gospel of Thomas

114 (Alleged) Sayings of Jesus

This "gospel" is not accepted by Protestant Christians. Nonetheless, it is a historical document that was written near the time of Jesus Christ. For the purposes of this web site, I won't quote from it.



RESOURCES

Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger

Jesus Under Fire, J.P. Moreland, Michael Wilkins and Edwin M. Yamauchi

The Letters, Pliny the Younger

Nero, the End of a Dynasty, M.T. Griffin

The Roman Annals, Tacitus

The Works of Josephus, Flavius Josephus

http://www.bohne.com/jesus.html

Is There Proof That Jesus Existed?
On a recent television survey, people were asked if they thought Jesus was real. Amazingly, many people said they doubted His existence!
“Well, there aren't any photographs of Him, obviously . . . I'm not sure if He isn't just a myth,”, said one subject.

“I believe only what I can see . . . and I've never seen Jesus,” said a young lady in her twenties.

Hmmm . . . evidently these people don't believe in the existence of:

Christopher Columbus
Caesar Augustus of Rome
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
And scores of other figures in history.
In fact, based on the flawed logic of the people quoted above, we would have to throw out over 90% of all information contained in the world's libraries and archives today! It may surprise you to know that there is more documentation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ then there is of many of history's most famous figures that people take for granted. Not myth or legend, but actual documentation that existed in archives of the Roman Empire!

Want more proof? No problem: the information that was recorded in Rome was based on eyewitness accounts. And the Bible's recording of the resurrection was written less than thirty years after the death of Jesus, also taken from eyewitnesses!

Look, I've never seen Louis XIV, but I believe he existed. I've never seen Jesus, but I believe HE existed. If someone wants to convince me that Jesus didn't exist, they're going to have to do better than the lame premise, “Well, no one I know has ever seen Him!”, or “I only believe what I can see.” Get real!

What About ABC-TV's The Search For Jesus?
I always thought Peter Jennings was a fairly good journalist . . . he's dropped a notch in credibility from where I stand. While the show (which aired in July of 2000) stated to present an unbiased view with commentary from several sources, it was definitely misleading and slanted. Three of the six sources most often quoted were all presenters of “The Jesus Seminar.” In a nutshell, these guys are “out there.” They took things that Jesus said in the Bible, and if He didn't say it more than once, He didn't say it at all, in their opinion.

Gee, does that mean Patrick Henry never said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”, since he only said it once? Oh, and throw away the Gettysburg Address, because Lincoln only read that in public once, too.

Another guideline these Jesus Seminar presenters use is comparison to myth. For example, they doubt the virgin birth of Jesus. They claim that it is very similar to Caesar's claim of divinity (for those of you a little rusty in the Roman myth department, Caesar's family claimed a Roman god, embodied as a snake, came to earth and impregnated his mother while she was praying to him in the temple, therefore making Caesar divine). The Jesus seminar folks say, "If you believe one, you have to believe the other. If you don't believe one, you can't believe the other."

Says who? The birth of Jesus was based on historical fact. None of the disciples questioned the Virgin Birth concept.

On the other hand, most Roman citizens of the time smirked privately at the concept of Caesar's mother being impregnated by a god that came to earth as a snake. Of course, they'd never take issue with Caesar in public, unless they had a penchant for battling lions in the coliseum . . .

Another faux paus: one commentator said that crucifixion was “Devised by the Romans and used only by the Romans.” WRONG! It was devised by a pagan civilization that the Romans conquered. This society believed that their god lived in the center of the earth, and if they killed a blasphemer while he was standing on the ground, his sin would pollute the earth and anger this god--ergo crucifixion. The Roman Legions brought this punishment back to Rome.

The Search for Jesus would have been better titled The Search for Ratings While Offending As Few People As Possible. While it had some truth, it was definitely biased. In fact, Jennings own Religion Coordinator was vociferously opposed to the presentation--does that tell you anything?

PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?

spuriousmonkey
496 posts
PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?

Answer: Immanuel is Jesus in a different language, i'm pretty sure it was Jewish, but it might have been greek.

spuriousmonkey, I'm not too sure on the naming thing. It might have been a different language, but I'm not certain. Maybe this will put it all in perspective:

Names and Titles Of
A number of titles applied to Jesus Christ are related to his person and ministry. In his Messianic titles, he is the Aforepromised; the Anointed One; the Messiah (Christ); the Son (Only Begotten; seed) of God; King of the Jews; the Lion of Judah; the Comforter; the Counsellor; the Prophet (prophesy); the Suffering Servant; the Lamb of God; the High Priest (great); the Dayspring (east) and Day-star.
In terms of his preeminence and authority, he is Lord; Head; Prince; Chief Shepherd; Chief Cornerstone; the Word of God; the firstborn; the firstfruits; the forerunner.
In his act of salvation, he is Jesus; Savior; the surety and Mediator of the new covenant; the rock and the Author of life.
In the “I am” sayings of John’s Gospel, he is the bread of life; the door; the light (clear); the true vine; the way and the truth (Amen), and his disciples frequently called him their Master (Rabbi; Rabboni) and Teacher, and after his resurrection, Maran-atha.

W.E. Vine, Vine’s complete expository dictionary topic finder [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996 by W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd. of Bath, England.

NOW KEEPING WITH MY NAME I WILL POST A SERIES OF ANSWERS. Someone said that question and answer doesn't prove anything. Maybe you won't think that after you see these.

1. Does anything other than matter and energy exist, and if so, do we know anything about it?
You want me to believe that God exists. But everyone knows only matter and energy are real.
On the contrary. I think I can prove that things other than matter and energy are real.


Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves. Left to themselves, they would never have produced the order around us, and left to themselves even now they would eventually reach the point of absolute disorder. Scientists refer to this tendency toward randomness as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Whatever enforces order on matter and energy cannot itself be matter and energy. For no matter or energy is exempted from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This should lead us to two realizations: First, without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on matter and energy, there could be no order or design in the universe. Everything would be absolutely random. There would be no thinking and nothing to think about. You and I wouldn't be talking here.

But that's not so. Some matter does impose order on other matter, like genes causing life to form in one way and not in another.

Genes do cause order in some matter and energy but they do so only because they are already ordered themselves. They didn't cause their own order, but got it from something else. Whatever little bits of order and of order‑causing matter there may be in the universe, still the universe as a whole cannot have brought about that order, and there must be a cause for it outside matter.

The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.


We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.

Okay, something other than matter and energy exists. But you can't really know anything about it. After all, statements only have meaning if they can be investigated for truth or falsehood by empirical means. I take the scientific approach: nothing is meaningful that can't be tested empirically.

Think for a moment about that statement. Can it be tested empirically? Definitely not. It is an overarching principle about empirical investigation, and cannot itself be tested by empirical means. If it is true, then it calls itself meaningless. Whatever is meaningless cannot be true, since truth depends on meaning. So, that principle cannot be true.

Nothing prevents our talking sensibly about non‑material things.


Fine. In principle I have to agree-it isn't meaningless to talk about non-material things. But you can't know anything about them.

Do you know that you can't know anything about them?

Yes.


Then you do know something about them! You know that you cannot know anything about them. But if that's true, then it's something you know about them. Your own statement condemns itself, you can and do know something about non-material things.


Fine. But you can't know anything more about them.

Except that, you can't know anything more about them? Every time you limit what may be known about non‑material things, you add something else you know about them. The only logical approach is to admit that you can know about non‑material things, and then see where the evidence leads to determine what you know about them.

Well, all right. Where does the evidence lead? What do you think we can know about non‑material things?

First, we know that they exist‑or that at least one non‑material thing exists. At least one non‑material thing must have made matter and energy. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


2. Did the universe have a beginning?
You're talking about creation, but didn't evolution disprove that?
Let's leave evolution for later, if you don't mind. We're not talking about how all things got to their present form; we're only talking about how the material universe came into existence in the first place. In that sense, yes, we're talking about creation.

This isn't contrary to the idea of evolution, and it isn't contrary to science. One of the leading astronomers of our age, for instance, Robert Jastrow, says that scientific research about the universe has led to one extremely important conclusion: "... I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy‑partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues.


"The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time ... for the astronomical evidence proves that the Universe was created ... in a fiery explosion...


"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly, a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. " (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: Warner Books, 1984, pp. 11-16.)

3. Is there a creator? Is there a God? What can be known about a creator? How do we know things?
Okay, so we know the universe had a beginning. And we know there must be at least one non-material thing that created it. What else do we know about non-material things?

We know for instance that whatever created the universe has more power than all the power in the universe and that it is intelligent, capable of thinking on levels infinitely beyond our own abilities.

How do we know those things?

It's not difficult. We know that whatever force produces an effect must be sufficient to account for all the force within the effect; an effect cannot be greater than its cause. If an effect were greater than its cause, then there would be some part of the effect that was uncaused‑that would have come from nothing. But since nothing comes from nothing, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

Now for intelligence. Matter and energy are not capable of ordering themselves. Left to themselves they tend toward maximum disorder. It takes intelligence to bring about order in our material world. When you see a powerful computer, you don't suppose it just happened by accident, you ask who designed it, who built all its parts, who put those parts together. When that computer functions, you don't assume it does that by accident, either; you ask who wrote the program that guides it.


The universe has much more design than any computer in it (the computer is, after all, part of the universe, and the part cannot be greater than the whole). Human brains are thousands of times more complex than any computer. The scientific mind will ask the same questions about the order in the universe that it asks about the computer: who designed It, who gave it the program by which it processes so much information, who built its parts? If it didn't design itself, then its designer must be non‑material and must have intelligence greater than that in the universe.


Okay, but that doesn't prove that God exists.

You're right. We Christians believe much more about God than that He is more powerful and has more intelligence than the universe. But tell me-what would God have to do to prove to you that He exists?

I don't really know what it would take to convince me that God exists. But I'm willing to listen to any reasons you have.

That's great. Now, one more question: If God proved to you that He exists, would you trust Him?

I'm not sure I'd be willing to trust God, but perhaps I would. You'd have to give me some good reasons to do it. How can we know that God exists?
There are three basic ways we know things: reason, experience, and authority-and we Christians add a fourth, revelation, which is really another kind of authority.

Pure reason-logic and mathematics-affords absolute or 100% proof of things. Experience and authority only afford approximate proof. But we don't denigrate experience and authority simply because they don't give absolute proofs. We still trust them a great deal-sometimes we trust them 100% even though they don't give us 100% proof.


For instance, experience might tell you it's safe to cross the street. But you don't have absolute proof. Still when you cross the street you take 100% of yourself across; you trust yourself 100% to the answer experience gives to the question, "Is it safe for me to cross the street now?” Every day we make decisions like that trusting ourselves 100% to things we cannot know with 100% certitude but that we can know with varying degrees of certitude.


Sometimes we trust ourselves completely to something even when there is a fairly high degree of certitude that the thing will turn out to fail us. If we can only see two options, and one of them will almost certainly bring us disaster and the other has even a very low degree of certainty of saving us, we might well trust ourselves—100%—to that highly uncertain option that could mean deliverance.


Imagine, for instance, that you are standing in a sixth floor room of a burning building. You're convinced that if you stay there you will burn to death. You're also pretty sure that if you jump, you'll break your leg or kill yourself, or at least knock yourself out and die when the building collapses on top of you and burns you. What will you do? Quite probably you w1l1jump despite the danger, because you consider the slight chance of your survival by that means to be more attractive than the high chance of death if you stay in the building.


You would never have jumped had the building not been burning and had there been no other life-threatening situation leading you to make that decision. The stakes involved in a decision, then, can justify our trusting some things on little evidence that we would not ordinarily trust even on much greater evidence.


When we approach the question, "How can you prove that God exists?" we're dealing with a question that cannot be answered by pure reason alone-mathematics and logic. It must be answered by some combination of reason, experience, and authority. The evidence given must always fall short of absolute proof, but it is not insufficient for commitment. As with any other question of this sort, we must make our decisions based on degrees of probability. Naturally our decisions will be affected in part by the stakes in the matter.

All this is fine, and I can go along with it. But you still haven't given me any reasons to believe God exists. Are there any?

Yes, I think so. First, experience and reason have led us to believe that the universe was created/Christianity says that the Creator is God. Second, experience and reason have led man to believe that the universe must have been designed by some intelligent being; Christianity says that the Designer is God. Third, Christians say we believe God exists because He has told us so‑that's "revelation," that special kind of authority I mentioned. Fourth, Christians believe God exists because we believe He appeared in human flesh, He became a man in Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute! Why should I believe all these things?!

You've already agreed to the first two. I'm just telling you that from the Christian point of view, when we say "God" we're referring to that non‑material Creator/Designer. After all, we might as well use some term to designate the Creator/Designer, and throughout history philosophers have used the term "God."

Suppose the universe does have a creator. Where did that creator come from?

In any chain of cause and effect, there either is or is not a first cause‑a cause uncaused by any other cause. The chain of cause and effect cannot be circular, because then each effect would have to be both before and after its cause.

Nothing tells us that the universe's cause cannot itself be an effect-nothing in reason and experience alone, that is, though Christians believe God tells us so by revelation. But something does tell us that there must be some cause that is not an effect at all.


We're talking about the principle of contingency, i.e., that effects do not explain themselves, do not give the reasons for their own existence. If everything were contingent then nothing would be explained at all. But we know there must be a reason for the existence of the universe, since once it did not exist and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then something must not be contingent. Something must be uncaused.


No matter how many links we might think are in the chain of cause and effect, there either is a beginning to the chain, or there is no chain at all. But we believe there is a chain, so we must believe there is a beginning to it. This beginning is what the great philosophers, like Aristotle and Plato, called the "uncaused Cause." When we Christians speak of God, we mean the "uncaused Cause"‑though we mean much more than that: that the uncaused Cause is persona intelligent, loving, good, just, and other such things.

Okay, so there's an uncaused Cause that's powerful and intelligent. But what about your two other reasons for believing God exists?

At this point we're really asking not whether God exists, but what God is like. Fair enough?

Yes.

We know what God is like because He has told us by revelation and because He became a man in Jesus Christ to demonstrate to us what He is like. So if we really want to know what God is like, the best way is to meet Jesus. The Bible tells us about Him.
RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


4. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and absolutely good, why is there evil?

Wait a minute. Before we get to Jesus, I just realized a problem with the whole idea of God Himself. You tell me that God is all-powerful and I know you believe He's good. But then, what about evil? An all-powerful and all‑good God wouldn't permit evil to exist, and even if it did exist temporarily, He would destroy it. If God exists—the God you believe in-then why is there evil?
That's a good question. Actually, Jesus has a lot to do with our answer to this problem. But for the moment, let's handle it just on the logical level.

What we Christians must show is that the proposition "God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good" is logically compatible with the proposition "There is evil in the world." One way to do this is to show that there is some third proposition that is compatible with the first and that implies the second. In other words, we can show that A is compatible with B, no matter how incompatible they at first appear, if we can show that C is compatible with A and implies B.

What I'd like to suggest as that third statement is, "It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them."


I don't see how that ties the first two together at all.

I don't blame you. It isn't immediately apparent how this works. Let's look into this proposition, "It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them," and see just what is implied in it.

The key question is, 'What is a morally free being?" The answer is that a morally free being is a being that is free to do either good or evil at any given time—nothing forces him to do one thing or the other. This means it is always possible for a morally free being to do evil.


So, if it is truly better for God to create a world with morally free beings, then it is better for God to create a world with the possibility of evil than a world without that possibility.


Okay, but why is it better to be morally free than not?


You tell me. You're morally free. That means people can praise you for doing good and blame you for doing evil. A hammer isn't morally free. If someone uses it to do something evil, no one condemns the hammer; if someone uses it to do something good, no one praises the hammer, either. Now, which would you prefer: to be yourself, capable of right and wrong and so susceptible to praise or blame, or to be the hammer, capable of neither right nor wrong, and so susceptible to neither praise nor blame?


Okay, I’d rather be myself than a hammer. I’ll grant it's better to be morally free than not.

Good. Now, if God is morally good, and if it is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them, then if God creates anything He should create a world with morally free beings. But such a world is a world in which evil is possible. That means that our first proposition (Gods exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good) is compatible with a third (It is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them) which entails at least the possibility of our second proposition (There is evil in the world). This means God's existence and the reality of evil are not logically contradictory to each other. They are compatible.

But why doesn't God destroy all evil and prevent its returning?

He could, of course, but in so doing He would be destroying morally free creatures. And God could have created a world in which evil was impossible; but then He would have to have created a world without morally free creatures. The only alternative to a morally good world that contains evil is not a morally good world that contains no evil but a morally neutral world that contains neither good nor evil. Such a world, of course, wouldn't contain us. So which do you prefer: a world that contains you, or a world that doesn't?

A world that contains me. I see your point. I guess God and evil are compatible. But just why would God have permitted evil? What purpose is there in it?

First of course it was the only way to create a morally good world. But what was His purpose for evil? Christians believe evil serves a number of purposes, all consistent with God's plan for the world and, especially, for individual people.

One purpose is to occasion certain moral goods that could never come about without evil. One can never forgive someone without someone's doing something evil, right? Forgiveness is one of the highest moral goods, but it is a moral good that could never come about without evil. One could not have mercy without someone's doing something evil that deserved punishment. One cannot have compassion for those who suffer without someone's suffering, and compassion is also a very high virtue. These and other goods all depend for their existence and expression on the existence of evil. So God permits evil in part so that greater goods can occur than could ever occur without it.


Christianity says there is one even higher good that could never have occurred without evil: God's voluntary sacrifice of Himself to bear punishment for us. Think what kind of act gets the highest praise among men. Isn't it when someone voluntarily sacrifices his life in order to save the lives of others? Such self‑sacrifice is a tremendous good. The greatest such sacrifice was when God sacrificed His life in the Person of Jesus Christ to save the lives of all who believe in Jesus.


This doesn't make sense to me. Why was such a sacrifice necessary? What do you mean by God's having saved the lives of those who believe in Jesus? What did they need to be saved from?

They needed to be saved from two kinds of evil: sin and suffering. Christianity says all men are sinners-we all do evil. The possibility of our doing evil is entailed in our being morally free. The reality of it we see in our own lives and in the lives of others.

Justice requires that evil be punished. Punishment involves suffering. But suffering is a kind of evil—an evil of one kind brought on by another. So the problem for God was how to satisfy the demands of His justice and, at the same time, to deliver people from suffering His punishment upon evil. This He did by becoming man in Jesus and then suffering for our sins in our place.

5. Is man basically good?

But I think man is basically good, not sinful.

The question is simply whether man sins at all. Do you do everything you know you ought, and nothing you know you ought not? Have you never done anything wrong in all your life? Have you never lied, cheated, stolen, coveted what belonged to someone else, or hated someone?


Okay, I sin.

This is where we go back to the importance of Jesus in how God is dealing with evil. You see, God is dealing with evil by saving men from it, using it to make them better (by giving them opportunities to develop virtues that could not exist without evil), and making them triumph over it through Jesus. By Jesus' death and resurrection from the dead, God conquered evil, even though He did not annihilate it. This is how, as the early Christian writer Paul of Tarsus put it, God was able to "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). God was just, in that He punished evil, thus satisfying the demands of justice against sin; and He justified those who had faith in Jesus. How? By putting the punishment on Jesus, who voluntarily took our place, and by crediting Jesus' goodness to our accounts. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE



6. What about atheism, agnosticism, and humanism?

I'm following you I guess, but all of this is getting pretty confusing just now. What about those who are agnostics, atheists, or humanists?
You already know atheism is wrong, since we've proved the universe must have a Creator and Designer. Besides, someone can only be an atheist who says that in all existence, there is no such thing as God. Only someone omniscient‑like God‑could know that. So an atheist, if he realized what he was claiming, would be claiming to be God!

We've already seen that atheism and agnosticism are false. For those who have gone through the reasoning you and I have gone through together, neither is an option. You've already acknowledged God's existence, and so you're neither an agnostic nor an atheist. For you to declare yourself one now would be for you to ignore everything you just discovered, and that wouldn't be intellectually honest.


Fine. But what about those who haven't gone through that reasoning? What's wrong with their being agnostics?

Nothing. It's how they respond to claims about God that's important. You see, there are two kinds of agnostics: those who simply say they don't know if God exists, and those who say no one can know. The second kind is really saying he knows the minds of all other people and knows what is and is not possible for them to know. I've never yet met anyone who could support such a claim. The first kind, to act consistently with his claim not to know whether God exists, should be open to and interested in arguments others can give him for the existence of God. Surely one who claims not to know something is wise to listen to those who claim to know it.

That sounds reasonable. And humanism?

Originally "humanism" referred to the belief that man and the works of man‑literature, art, science, music, drama, etc.‑were legitimate subjects of study. That may seem obvious to us today, but there was a period in the history of the western world, at least, when most people thought the only proper subjects of study were those connected with God and His works‑religion, essentially. Originally "humanism" simply reminded us that it was okay to study things outside religion, and for that we are thankful.

But there is another sense in which people call themselves humanists. They claim that man is totally self‑sufficient, that he can solve all his problems without God or God's help. Of course man can solve many problems himself. But Christianity says he cannot solve the problems of sin and of deserving God's punishment for sin without God's help.


Christianity welcomes the first kind of humanism, but rejects the second because it leaves the most important Being In all existence out of the picture and falsely exalts man, claiming he is better than he really is.

7. Isn't Christianity just wish—fulfillment?



So we really need God if we're going to solve all our problems. But that doesn't mean God actually exists, or that Christianity is true. Aren't you just wishing this stuff were true, and then claiming that it is?

Oh no! The mere fact that one wishes for something to be true doesn't make it untrue, any more than it makes it true. Haven't you ever wished for something and it ended up happening? We have to answer the truth or falsehood question independently of whether we wish for it or not. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


8. Did Jesus claim to be God, or was He really just a good moral teacher, or might his disciples have made up the story of his claims to be God?


Okay, then, what are the evidences for Christianity? Some say, for instance, that Jesus never existed, that he's just a fictional character.

The most important evidence for His existence is the New Testament, a collection of twenty‑seven writings (the first four devoted entirely to telling about His life and teachings‑two of these written by eyewitnesses), all of which tell of Jesus, of His life, of His teachings, and of the movement He started, which we know today as Christianity. These documents are strong evidence for the existence of Jesus.


But the New Testament isn't the only document attesting Jesus' existence. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, not a Christian, wrote of Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews. In describing the period of Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of the area where Jesus lived, Josephus said:



Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works‑a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities, Bk. XVIII, Ch. iii)



Josephus wrote his Antiquities in the late first century, completing it in the thirteenth year of the Roman emperor Domitian (A.D. 93‑94). It is one of the primary sources of historical information about late Jewish history.



The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, writing around A.D. 112 about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV,44). Roman historian Seutonius wrote around A.D. 120 mentioned Jesus and His followers Life of Claudius, 25.4); and the Roman historian Pliny the Younger wrote of Jesus around A.D. 112 (Epistles X.96)



The Apostle Luke, one of the writers of the first four books of the New Testament the "Gospel of Luke," was a careful historian (he also wrote the New Testament Book of Acts). At the beginning of his writing about the life of Jesus, Luke assured his friend that he intended to convey the most carefully‑researched historical facts:



Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1‑4)



When Luke began writing about the public works of Jesus, he put it in a historical setting:



Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.... (Luke 3:1‑2)



The other three Gospels, or stories of the life and teachings of Jesus. also contain clear historical references. They were written by people who respected historical fact. Two of these men, Matthew and John, were followers of Jesus during His ministry; one, Mark, was the close friend of another follower, Peter (who himself wrote two short letters in the New Testament), and Luke was a close companion of Peter and several others of Jesus' followers, and recorded not only the life and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, but also the lives and works of His closest followers and their first followers in the Book of Acts.



So there's very good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. In fact, we know more about the life and teachings, and even the birth and death of Jesus than about almost any other figure in the ancient world.



All right, Jesus existed. But why should I believe you when you say he's God in the flesh? I think of Him simply as a good moral teacher.



Good moral teachers don't knowingly teach falsehoods, do they? And they don't lead people to trust them to do things they can't do, do they? They also don't make grandiose claims about themselves, like claiming to be God, do they?



No, I suppose not But did Jesus make any such claims?



Yes, He did,



One of the ways Jews referred to God in Jesus' day was the "the Father," and Jews and Christians to this day refer to Him as such. At one point in His teaching, one of his followers, Philip, asked Him to show him and others of His followers the Father. Jesus responded, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father Is in Me? ... Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me..." (John 14:8‑11)



At another time, Jesus was assuring His followers that the Father would take care of them; he concluded by saying, “I and the Father are one." The response of the Jewish leaders to this made it clear they had understood Him to be claiming to be God: "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him" (stoning was a way of killing people believed to have dishonored God by blasphemy). "Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?“ The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30‑33)



In the Old Testament, the most commonly‑used name for God is Jehovah or Jahweh. This name is a rough transliteration of YHWH, Hebrew meaning "I AM." It is a name for God that expresses His eternal existence, or, in terms borrowed from our earlier conversation, His noncontingency. I AM" as a name for God indicates that He owes His existence to nothing else, that He is in fact the first Cause, not an effect (Exodus 3:13‑15).



The Jews of Jesus' day were thoroughly familiar with this designation for God, and so was Jesus. But Jesus applied this designation to Himself when He said, for instance, "... unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24), and "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM..." (John 8:28). Later Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews puzzled over this and responded, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM" (John 8:56‑58). Notice the distinction Jesus makes between Himself and Abraham here? He claims that Abraham came into existence, but claims eternal, non‑contingent existence for Himself. What was the Jews' response? "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:59). They believed He had dishonored God by calling Himself God.



Not only did Jesus claim to be God, His followers believed that claim. The Apostle John, one of His closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his Gospel; John also quoted Thomas, another of Jesus' followers, calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Peter, another of Jesus' closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his second letter (2 Peter 1: 1). The Apostle Paul called Jesus God in his letter to another Christian named Titus (Titus 2:13).


But that doesn't mean it's true. Just because someone claims to be God doesn't mean he is.


You're right. But what are the alternatives? We know Jesus claimed to be God. If He isn't God, then how else might we explain that claim?



I suppose he could have been lying, or he could have been insane.


Those are the only options if he is not God. But each option fails to stand careful questioning.



Was He a liar? Jesus always condemned lying. It seems psychologically pretty unlikely that Jesus was such a liar if He also condemned lying so thoroughly and consistently. Besides this, the idea that He purposely deceived people just doesn't fit with His whole character. Jesus loved people. He went out of His way time after time to help them. He healed them, got them out of trouble, fed them when they were hungry, urged them to love each other, and told them how. That someone like this could have been a liar of the magnitude of a man who would claim to be God when he wasn't is pretty hard to imagine.



Was He insane? Again, the idea just doesn't fit with what we know about Jesus. His teachings about human psychology, contentment, fulfillment, service to others, and the path to happiness are clear, compelling, and enormously convincing to many psychologists. Indeed, if people would live consistently in accord with His teachings in the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5‑7) their lives would be enormously more fulfilled and their mental health much greater than it is when they live contrary to those teachings.



One great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, became a Christian after years as an atheist and, later, an agnostic, and was a professor of medieval literature and philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford universities in England. In his book Mere Christianity Lewis stated this dilemma forcefully,



... even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less to unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.



I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be alunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg‑or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronzing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, London, England: Collins Fontana Books, 1960, pp. 52‑53.)



Of course, in the long run, this must be your decision. The only good way for you to decide whether you think Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic, or really who He said He was, God in human flesh, is to get to know Him, to read thoroughly about Him in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Read those, or at least one of them, and you'll have a clear picture of Jesus' character‑then decide for yourself whether you think He was lying, insane, or God.

Perhaps Jesus never really made these claims. Maybe the writers of the New Testament just made those things up. Maybe their histories of the life and teachings of Jesus aren't really accurate.

That's a logicial possibility, of course, but the evidence is entirely against it.


First, historians and archeologists, Christians and non‑Christians alike, who specialize in studying the region and times of the New Testament are coming to realize increasingly how accurate and reliable the New Testament is as a collection of historical documents. They are finding again and again that if the New Testament says something happened, it happened.



There's ano