I don't see how hard this can possibly be, but tons of people at the Smashing Pumpkins Philo board get pissed at it, so I wonder how it'll do over here:

Why the hell is there a 39598694898395 page topic debating the existence of God?

My theory is this simple: ALL RELIGIONS ARE BELIEFS!!!!! God is a belief. Allah is a belief. Hindu's god is a belief. The ancient Greek, Romans, Egyptians, and all other cultures are beliefs.

If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either.

Agree? Disagree? Think I'm full of shit?

I'm ready for the onslaught:p

good post youngwriter!

'My theory is this simple: ALL RELIGIONS ARE BELIEFS!!!!! God is a belief. Allah is a belief. Hindu's god is a belief. The ancient Greek, Romans, Egyptians, and all other cultures are beliefs.

If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either.'
--------------------------------------------------------

Excellent topic.

All religions are beliefs? You call it a theory, I call it opinion. I cannot speak for other religions. However, Christianity is based on evidence that is historically, archaeologically and prophetically accurate. We have eyewitness accounts, corroborated by New Testament writers and there is no contradictory evidence left by Romans and Jews of that time period. I 'believe' in the evidence.

><>

Originally posted by inspector


Excellent topic.

All religions are beliefs? You call it a theory, I call it opinion. I cannot speak for other religions. However, Christianity is based on evidence that is historically, archaeologically and prophetically accurate. We have eyewitness accounts, corroborated by New Testament writers and there is no contradictory evidence left by Romans and Jews of that time period. I 'believe' in the evidence.

><>

To me, theories are opinons you present to a group and back them up.

The Bible is not always historically accurate, although it is a fact that Jesus was born and lived in the same time period that the Bible refers to.

His Miracles, etc...are up for debate, but that is a completely different topic for a different thread.

Thank you for your feedback.

'To me, theories are opinons you present to a group and back them up.'
-----------------------------------------------------

Follow the logic. Opinions are subjective and based on emotions. However, I have presented evidence. This evidence 'backs up' the validity of Christianity. I am instructed in the Bible to teach the truth and expose error in 1 Peter 3:15.

“.......but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.”

><>

Most of us at sciforums have accepted this fact already YoungWriter, except for the Xian Fundies. It's really nothing new, but I'm glad that you recognize the true nature of religion :).

Some people love killing neurons debating God until their brain melts. Its a pleasure like any other. :eek: :eek: :eek:

...prophetically accurate

Er, no. There are numerous unfulfilled prophecies, given how vague most of the prophecies are the bible is quite unspectacular.

You are correct about one thing.............many biblical prophecies have YET to be fulfilled.

><>

youngwriter,

The basis of your argument seems to revolve around what is meant by ‘belief’, unfortunately I don’t think you understand what that means.

To believe something is to hold a conviction of the truth about that object or phenomenon. There are many reasons why someone will hold a particular belief.

I suspect you believe that there is a sun in the sky. According to your argument, just because this is a belief then it can’t be proved. Clearly this is nonsense since it is not difficult to prove the existence of the sun.

The issue should not be that someone holds a belief but what is the basis for his or her belief.

One should more correctly state – I believe x BECAUSE of y. The validity of the belief then revolves around the BECAUSE clause.

The validation process usually involves logical reasoning where facts and proofs are considered. Where a proof is available then we can claim a fact of knowledge. Reasoned arguments rest on the presence of facts.

If a proof is available for a given belief then the belief is rational (based on reason).

If facts are missing (i.e. no proofs) then the belief is irrational (fails the test of reasoned argument).

The atheist position is that theism cannot produce any proofs and therefore all theist beliefs are irrational.

Unenlightened theists claim there are proofs for gods, but have difficulty showing anything.

The more experienced theists recognize there are no proofs for gods and argue more along the lines of the basis for reasoning and that faith is a valid method for the determination of knowledge. This inevitably leads to a debate about how knowledge is derived, i.e. a discussion on epistemology.

I hope that helps resolve your apparent dilemma.

"The atheist position is that theism cannot produce any proofs and therefore all theist beliefs are irrational."
----------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. This is a fine example of how atheism is illogical. Let me explain. First, you cannot know all proofs regarding Christianity because this would require that you know all proofs from past, present and future. Therefore, your statement is illogical. Second, Christianity has many evidences supporting the existence of God. You simply dismiss these evidences because you do not like them and to satisfy your presuppostions.



"The more experienced theists recognize there are no proofs for gods and argue more along the lines of the basis for reasoning and that faith is a valid method for the determination of knowledge."
-----------------------------------------------------------

I have never claimed to have proof supporting the existence of God, only evidences. Similar to you not having proof contradicting the existence of God, only theories and guesses. Also, faith alone is not neccessarily evidence of God, but alone is the basis of soteriology.



"Unenlightened theists claim there are proofs for gods, but have difficulty showing anything."
-----------------------------------------------------------

The same can be said about atheists and their claims against God. This is simply your opinion and has no logical worth.



"If facts are missing (i.e. no proofs) then the belief is irrational (fails the test of reasoned argument)."
--------------------------------------------------------------

If this is true, then atheism is irrational because facts are missing and it is based on subjective evidence, not proof. Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to rest on.

><>

Scientists, and many humans, will not believe in something to exist unless there is physical proof. Therefore, to proof a purple pooka dotted elephant exists, you'd have to find the carcass of one (since skin tone can't be determined by just the bones).

So with God (or any god for that matter), many would have to see him/her/it for theirselfs before believeing in it.

I suspect you believe that there is a sun in the sky. According to your argument, just because this is a belief then it can’t be proved. Clearly this is nonsense since it is not difficult to prove the existence of the sun.

Good point, bad metaphor. In fact, you answered my argument. I believe that there is a sun. If I need to prove it to someone, then I walk outside during the daytime.

Great summary of theists, atheists, etc...Cris.

i can aswer that question about why the fans get so anal in the philo forum on the Pumpkins board..the thing is, each and every person that posts there feels they are entitled to a piece, if not all, of Billy Corgan. therefore, it makes sense that the athiests want billy to be like them, and, not believe..and, the more "religious" posters want billy in their corner. so, an all out battle is drawn ...either to save billy's soul or damn it to hell. hee hee.....that board is great!



:D

If this is true, then atheism is irrational because facts are missing and it is based on subjective evidence, not proof.
The burden of proof rest on those making the claims. In this case, theists make a claim god exists. Therefore, it is their burden to offer a proof that god exists.

It has to be this way or else you get all the silly arguments about not being able to 'prove' the non-existance of anything. The burden must lie on the ones making the claim.

Please do not try and say atheists are the ones making the claims...think it through first.

-fc

I don't see how hard this can possibly be, but tons of people at the Smashing Pumpkins Philo board get pissed at it, so I wonder how it'll do over here:

Why the hell is there a 39598694898395 page topic debating the existence of God?

My theory is this simple: ALL OF HISTORY AND ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ARE BELIEFS!!!!! Evolution is a belief. Big Bang is a belief. Black Hole is a belief. The ancient history, French war, Egyptians, and all other historical events are beliefs.

If they are beliefs, they cannot be proved to exist and/or took place. If they cannnot be proved, then they cannnot be dissproved either.

Agree? Disagree?

I'm ready for the onslaught:p

note: so much kids, so much ignorance, the harvest is many, but the workers are few...

The burden of proof rest on those making the claims. In this case, atheists make a claim God dont exists. Therefore, it is their burden to offer a proof that God dont exist. Otherwise if u say there is no reason to believe in Him, then be agnostic...

It has to be this way or else you get all the silly arguments about not being able to 'prove' the non-existance of anything. The burden must lie on the ones making the claim.

Please do not try and say theists are the only ones making the claims, you do as wwell for saying "God is made up and a myth"...think it through first CHILD.

Originally posted by inspector
If this is true, then atheism is irrational because facts are missing and it is based on subjective evidence, not proof. Logic is a very slippery slope for an atheist to rest on.
Most atheist do not believe that God does not exist but that there is no reason to believe in it's existence because there is no valid evidence or proof to warrent that belief.

The atheists reasoning for rejecting YHVH is the same reasoning you use in your disbelief of Zeus or Ra. As the saying goes 'We're both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do.'

~Raithere

The burden of proof rest on those making the claims. In this case, atheists make a claim God dont exists.

Sorry, thats not the way it works. If theists did not claim gods existed, there would be no need for anyone to say otherwise. On the other hand however, if atheists did not make any claims that gods did not exist, theists would continue to make claims that gods existed. Big difference.

Therefore the burden of proof is on those making the claims that gods exist.

Sorry Q, you're wrong again......The burden of proof rests with those wanting proof.....atheists.

Bigger difference! :D

Vienna,

Sorry Q, you're wrong again......The burden of proof rests with those wanting proof.....atheists.A beautiful example of theist muddle thinking.

Suppose a scientist says that if you drink an untested and probably deadly potion of drugs it will protect you from ever developing cancer. Based on your reasoning the scientist does not have to prove his claim. The result will be that millions of gullible people, those who don’t want proof, will drink the potion and will probably die. Those that do want proof (the more intelligent (atheists in your case)) will be forced to conduct their own research, and will probably not drink the deadly cocktail.

The world simply doesn’t work that way.

As Q says the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim.

The issue is generally that most theistic religions try to convince others to follow their faith. Christianity is specifically evangelical with rules that its participants should attempt to convert non-believers. It is theists who want to convince others of their cause. The atheist simply says that if you want to convince me of the truth of your claim then show some proof. Otherwise the atheist is not interested.

If you want to convince others you have something you want them to believe or you want them to buy, then you had better prove your case, otherwise you will be ignored, at least by those who have active brains.

So dream on.

Vienna

Sorry Q, you're wrong again......The burden of proof rests with those wanting proof.....atheists.

Therefore, if you tell me I have a purple dragon living in my swimming pool, it is up to me to produce the proof to substantiate your claim ?

Bigger difference!

No, massive nonsense.

"Suppose a scientist says that if you drink an untested and probably deadly potion of drugs it will protect you from ever developing cancer. Based on your reasoning the scientist does not have to prove his claim. The result will be that millions of gullible people, those who don’t want proof, will drink the potion and will probably die. Those that do want proof (the more intelligent (atheists in your case)) will be forced to conduct their own research, and will probably not drink the deadly cocktail."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing I love most about debating atheists is that, usually at some point during a debate, the atheist will say something that will make me laugh so hard that tears will fall down my face at least once. After reading this poor analogy, I had to grab a box of tissues. Thanks for the humor.

BTW, before this thread goes any further, can someone, preferably an atheist, please define 'atheism' for us, in your own words?

><>

Please do not try and say theists are the only ones making the claims, you do as wwell for saying "God is made up and a myth"...think it through first CHILD.
I asked you to think it through, but oh your feeble mind couldn't quite do it.

Atheists are not making claims that 'god is a myth'. Atheists are saying evidence for the claim that there is a god is not substantial enough to warrant a belief. Do you think before religion anyone stood up and said "There is no god!". Of course not.

I say that Zeus is in fact the true god. The greeks had it right all along. Is it up to you to prove Zeus does not exist? Oh wait, I also have a pet hamster that is actually typing this post! Ok, now prove he is not....Gets pretty stupid fast, huh?

If I am a child, you are but an infant...

-fc

Inspector,

The thing I love most about debating atheists is that, usually at some point during a debate, the atheist will say something that will make me laugh so hard that tears will fall down my face at least once.You are quite welcome.

Theism as you quite rightly indicate is indeed one of the most hilariously idiotic topics imaginable. I am pleased that as atheists we are able to highlight for you the more foolish aspects of theistic thinking.

Inspector,

can someone, preferably an atheist, please define 'atheism' for us, in your own words? I'll do better, here is a web link for you.

But I'm curious, since you have been quick to criticise atheism, why have you done that without understanding what it was you were criticising? Perhaps this will help you understand all your mistakes.

Definitions of atheism -

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

The rift between religion and science is growing wider by the day. In the time that Jesus lived, gods were the order of the day. People were deified regularly - many Roman emperors were deified. How long after Christianity did the Roman gods survive? They could not offer anything or do anything. They were dead gods. Rome was the hub of civilization at that time, and it was expanding fast - even in those circumstances Christianity not only survived, but thrived. Jesus was a reality to those people, but like most of history, people tend to differ about what really happened. The rift grows wider and wider until only faith can bridge it.


2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
2 Corinthians 3:16
But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
2 Corinthians 4:3
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


The more people learn, the blinder they become, because they trust themselves above all else and fail to see what God is showing them - their is a veil before their eyes, and that veil is the lie that you can only explain what you can see. You can't see beyond death, yet you believe that there is nothing there? You can't see God, and you believe He doesn't exist? The Bible says God is invisible:
Romans 1
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.


Acts 14:11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.


Christianity follows a living God, not a human one and not a dead one. He is invisible but is actions are visible, and He is praised by the witnesses of His actions. If you have not yet seen God's work, ask yourself why.


Acts:14:15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 16In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." 18Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.


Because God is unseen, God sees what is unseen, and rewards good that is done unseen. Because we say that we can see, we have no reason to be blind.

Christopher,

I am quite familiar with atheism. I have been to nearly every web site representing the subject. I debate atheists everyday on several sites (secular turf). I want YOUR definition of an atheist, in YOUR own words, please.

><>

The belief that all religions are beliefs is a belief. Which I only kind of believe.

Atheists are not making claims that 'god is a myth'. Atheists are saying evidence for the claim that there is a god is not substantial enough to warrant a belief. Do you think before religion anyone stood up and said "There is no god!". Of course not.

From dictionry.com

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

So you seem to be talking about an agnostic. Atheists will NOT believe in a god, no matter what.

Agnostics will believe when they are convinced, weather physical proof or someone convinces them.

Originally posted by Walker
The belief that all religions are beliefs is a belief. Which I only kind of believe.

There is not one religion out there that is completely based on fact. While the biblical Jesus certainly lived (FACT) (Roman historians and official government records indicate), the only other things we know about him are passed down from word of mouth, and were mostly put into the books of the Bible in the Christian form of the New Testament.

Catch my drift?

"While the biblical Jesus certainly lived (FACT) (Roman historians and official government records indicate), the only other things we know about him are passed down from word of mouth....."
-------------------------------------------------------

You're half right. However, you are conveniently neglecting to mention the EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. BTW, do you know God does not exist? Or, do you 'lack belief' in God? Inquiring minds want to know.

><>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by (Q)
Vienna

Therefore, if you tell me I have a purple dragon living in my swimming pool, it is up to me to produce the proof to substantiate your claim ?

Nah, I wouldn't be stupid enough to say that. You couldn't afford a swimming pool

:D

So you seem to be talking about an agnostic. Atheists will NOT believe in a god, no matter what.
Sorry youngwriter but what the hell? Does the definition say:

atheist - disbelief in the existence of god or gods no matter what for ever and ever amen!

Umm no. Just because somebody does not believe in something doesn't mean they are permenently committed to that belief no matter what.

That is how a theist thinks. Not an atheist. An atheist is prepared to change his position if given evidence that supports the claim that there is a god. But, just because that is a possibility does not mean it is remotely likely or even worth considering until it happens.

Let me try to make this clear for everybody- I do not think there is a god. If evidence were to be presented (such as direct contact) I would change my mind. This doesn't mean I am unsure in my belief...it is just being open-minded.

-fc

Vienna,

Why?

He appears to be asking someone who doesn't exist, and about something he already knows.

Vienna,

What do you mean? What was wrong with the web link?

Am I missing something here?

Vienna

Nah, I wouldn't be stupid enough to say that.

Yet, nowhere near smart enough to back yourself out of a corner without resorting to pathetic one-liners such as:

You couldn't afford a swimming pool

If you're unable to respond with a valid argument, don't bother responding at all. Not only are these lame remarks insulting to ones intelligence, they demean yours as well. If I want to be entertained with amateur stand-up comedy, I'll go to a nightclub.

Q
Up yours you condescending piece of shit, who do think you are anyway :D

Vienna,

You - didn't - answer - the - question. ROFLMAO What question? I don't see any question. And certainly nothing addressed to me.

What ????????

I agree - what?

I never said a word Cris :)

"Let me try to make this clear for everybody- I do not think there is a god. If evidence were to be presented (such as direct contact) I would change my mind. This doesn't mean I am unsure in my belief...it is just being open-minded."
--------------------------------------------------------

Not 'thinking' that God doesn't exist don't make it true. Christians have an abundance of evidence, however, you simply choose not to accept the evidence. As far as direct contact, if you had any knowledge of His Word (the Bible), you would be content with the evidence that already abounds in this world and you could experience Him through prayer. Open-minded? Hardly. This would suggest that you are objectively examining the evidence supporting God's existence, which of course, you are not, based on your need for 'direct contact'.

><>

Christians have an abundance of evidence,

Which I'm sure you will be so good as to cite. :rolleyes:

Anyways, athiesm is like good poetry. It means different things to different people. And what's wrong with that? Is Catholicism necessarily invalid because there are varying interpretations of the Trinity?

Of course, this is irrelevent. Christians will continue to use poor and invalid definitions of athiesm in order to continue the fiction that it is in any way rational to believe in God. If they had to actually examine what athiesm is, they might find their faith in their God somewhat challenged.

Since faith is such a precarious thing, they will necessarily respond by burying their heads up their collective arses and attacking anyone who threatens this state.

Inspector,
You are assuming that I know nothing about religion or the bible. Is that how you handle someone that doesn't agree with you? Assume that they are ignorant of the issue? Makes it easier for you to avoid thinking about it, huh?

I was raised in a devout catholic family. I know the bible well. I was an alter boy throughout my teenage years. I have seen all the 'evidence'.

you simply choose not to accept the evidence.
Yes, I think the evidence is lacking.

Open-minded? Hardly. This would suggest that you are objectively examining the evidence supporting God's existence, which of course, you are not, based on your need for 'direct contact'.
I have objectively examined the evidence, why would you think I haven't? I said 'such as' direct contact. All I need is evidence that would lead me to believe. This is because I am a rational thinker. Religion asks that you believe without evidence. It is irrational. Funny how people stooped in religious dogma can say a free-thinker is not open minded. Hah what a joke.

-fc

"Christians will continue to use poor and invalid definitions of athiesm in order to continue the fiction that it is in any way rational to believe in God."
---------------------------------------------------------------

What is YOUR definition of atheism, in your own words? Do you know God does not exist? Or, do you 'lack belief' in God?




"If they had to actually examine what athiesm is, they might find their faith in their God somewhat challenged."
----------------------------------------------------------------

A Christian's faith is challenged every day on our fallen planet, but yet, this has nothing to do with the fallacy of atheism.




"Religion asks that you believe without evidence. It is irrational."
------------------------------------------------------------------

By your definition, atheism would likewise be irrational. Atheism, like Christianity, requires faith. To believe is an action. To disbelieve is also an action.



"All I need is evidence that would lead me to believe."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence is abundant. However, your presuppositions will not allow you to OBJECTIVELY and accurately examine the evidence. Think about it.



"Funny how people stooped in religious dogma can say a free-thinker is not open minded."
----------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing wrong with free-thinking or open-mindedness. I have doubts every day regarding my faith. However, I continue having faith because I long for the resolution of the plot, among thousands of other reasons. BTW, I forever cannot remember who said this, but I think it describes most honest Christians: "I both believe and disbelieve a hundred times an hour, which keeps believing nimble."



"I was raised in a devout catholic family. I know the bible well. I was an alter boy throughout my teenage years."
------------------------------------------------------------------

In the arrogance of my youth I, too, was a non-believer. Sorry to hear about your apostization. I hope you come back to your faith in Christ someday, soon.

><>

inspector:

My personal athiesm is this: I don't believe in God.

There is no reason to believe in God, and no evidence He exists. There's no benefit to believing, and I have a soul that has never known how to be servile in the face of power. Thus I cannot worship a God unworthy of me.

Now, you've promised "evidence". I was good enough to explain my athiesm to you, be good enough to show this evidence to me.

inspector,
By your definition, atheism would likewise be irrational. Atheism, like Christianity, requires faith. To believe is an action. To disbelieve is also an action.
So both are irrational? Perhaps you are agnostic after all. I believe rationality to be reason and logical thinking based on evidence and facts. In this respect I consider theism irrational and atheism rational.

Evidence is abundant. However, your presuppositions will not allow you to OBJECTIVELY and accurately examine the evidence. Think about it.
Who do you think is more likely to have presuppositions, you or me? Who do you think is more likely to be subjective vs. objective? I have cast away all fear and pressure society imposes on us. I have come to my own conclusions, how have you come to yours?

However, I continue having faith because I long for the resolution of the plot, among thousands of other reasons.
This is fine, however realize this is the ultimate in subjectivity. I say this in light of your 'OBJECTIVELY' comment above...

In the arrogance of my youth I, too, was a non-believer. Sorry to hear about your apostization. I hope you come back to your faith in Christ someday, soon.
Classic. You assume I am "young and dumb". Not that age has anything to do with this conversation, but I am not exactly in my youth hah! However, in the arrogance of my youth I was a believer. I was easily filled with fantasy and stories and wishfull thinking. But, I grew up and learned how to think rationally. And that has made all the difference!

I hope you see the light someday and free yourself...

-fc

Originally posted by YoungWriter
While the biblical Jesus certainly lived (FACT) (Roman historians and official government records indicate),

Nope. There is no proof at all that jesus lived.

"So both are irrational?"
----------------------------------

By your definition, yes.





"I have come to my own conclusions, how have you come to yours?"
-----------------------------------

Obviously, or I wouldn't be wasting my time with you.





"But, I grew up and learned how to think rationally."
-------------------------------------

I'll buy the 'grew up' part.





"I hope you see the light someday and free yourself..."
--------------------------------------

I have, and He is wonderful. Good luck in your journey, my friend.





"There is no reason to believe in God, and no evidence He exists."
----------------------------------------

You cannot say that there is NO evidence of God since it would require that you know and have had seen ALL evidences supporting His existence from past, present and future. Since this is impossible for you, your statement that there is NO evidence supporting God is illogical, opinionated and, therefore, invalid. Try again.

><>

Inspector,

You cannot say that there is NO evidence of God since it would require that you know and have had seen ALL evidences supporting His existence from past, present and future. Since this is impossible for you, your statement that there is NO evidence supporting God is illogical, opinionated and, therefore, invalid. Try again.You have said this a number of times now, and while you may be technically correct I think you miss the wider issue and that makes your accusation absurd.

The person who could present evidence that convincingly showed the existence of a god beyond any reasonable doubt would of course be the most famous person in the history of mankind. No such person appears to have come forward. An alternative is that such a person exists and is keeping it secret, in which case we wouldn’t know about it. But if evidence is not placed on the table for examination then the table remains bare – i.e. there is no evidence available for consideration.

Here I make the distinction between potentially existing evidence and evidence that has been presented or made available. Essentially potential evidence is clearly not evidence and can’t be considered, or rather must be considered non-existent for the purposes here.

You may feel that evidence exists and many have made claims of evidence, but claims of evidence are not the same as actual evidence. You have stated here that there is plenty of evidence but atheists do not accept it. Your conclusion seems to be that atheists are NOT PREPARED or DON”T WANT to accept such evidence. But why wouldn’t they? If your god is as good as you say then surely everyone would love to have such a benefactor, that would certainly be true for me. But clearly that isn’t happening because the claimed evidence has not convinced them.

In a court of law, for say a case of murder, there are two sides both usually fiercely skeptical of their opponent’s claims. The one thing that breaks the argument is evidence that is convincing beyond any reasonable doubt. Surely the evidence for the alleged most powerful being and creator of the universe must also be beyond any reasonable doubt. Even the fiercest of opponents concede defeat in the face of such evidence.

So your argument that atheists won’t accept any evidence no matter what you present is more to do with your inability to present any real convincing evidence than the perceived stubbornness of highly skeptical atheists.

It must be reasonable to assume that if any theist actually had real convincing evidence then he or she would be extremely eager to present their case and be able to stupefy all atheists in a single stroke. This clearly hasn’t happened. And we all know that theists would dearly love to thwart all their objectors. So with such eagerness we can only conclude that such evidence has not been presented because there is no such evidence.

There is no onus on the atheist to check all potential theist claims. It is the theist who wants to convince others of their claims. If theists have not presented or made aware any devastatingly convincing evidence then it is clearly reasonable to conclude that in such absence there is no evidence available.

In this light it is perfectly logical for the atheist to state with significant certainty that there is NO evidence of God.

Note that it does not take numerous occurrences of evidence to show the existence of a god, just one will do fine. If you believe the atheist assertion is incorrect then you can very easily prove him or her wrong by presenting your convincing evidence.

I doubt many, if any of us will hold our breath since theists have been trying this for thousands of years and no one has come close.

Cris

Inspecter:

One last time, what evidence do you have that God exists?

I note that if you are a Christian, you are ethically and religiously obligated to share it with us sinners, so that we would be able to realize our error and come back to Jesus.

Apparently, you want our souls to burn forever in the firey pits of hell.

Inspector: Would you please stop it? You're getting annoying.
FYI, I'm Catholic. It isn't the best religion, but its values are good, and there isn't another one out there that comes closer for my beliefs.
The Bible is not an extremely accurate source, as far as history goes. The reason is because these stories were passed down from word of mouth.

Ever played the game "telephone?" Where one person starts a message, and it goes on till the last person. Notice how much it changes?

Then you have the Bible. It has many historically accurate statements, but many are shrouded in mystery, or just aren't true.

Never take the Bible, or any religious literature, word for word.
That is one of the worst thing any person of any religion can do.
Eyewitness accounts goes into what is known as word of mouth.

YoukilledJesus: Then by your logic, there is no proof that Julius Caesar existed either.

fadingCaptain: You are describing an agnostic, which, in my opinion, ranges. It can be someone who doesn't believe in a god, but would change if s/he was convinced. Or it could be a person struggling with their religion.

Originally posted by Xev
Inspecter:

One last time, what evidence do you have that God exists?

I note that if you are a Christian, you are ethically and religiously obligated to share it with us sinners, so that we would be able to realize our error and come back to Jesus.

Apparently, you want our souls to burn forever in the firey pits of hell.

Lemme help. The Christian church teaches (as well as Jesus, Jews) that we are all sinners.

In this light it is perfectly logical for the atheist to state with significant certainty that there is NO evidence of God.

Maybe a slight use of the phrase.

There is no scientific (physical) evidence of the existence of any god.

There is certainly evidence, but not nearly enough for it to become a fact.

And of course, all evidence is up to debate. Just like with UFOs, for every outcome, there is one that may contradict it.

Youngwriter,

There is certainly evidence, but not nearly enough for it to become a fact.No that is still incorrect. There are certainly many claims of evidence but none have successfully linked their claims to a god. At best there is evidence of phenomena that cannot be explained, that doesn’t point to a god but simply that we have no explanation.

The temptation to claim a “god did it” when something cannot be explained is the mark of an undisciplined mind. It is nothing more than idle imaginative speculation.

Originally posted by Cris
Youngwriter,

No that is still incorrect. There are certainly many claims of evidence but none have successfully linked their claims to a god. At best there is evidence of phenomena that cannot be explained, that doesn’t point to a god but simply that we have no explanation.

The temptation to claim a “god did it” when something cannot be explained is the mark of an undisciplined mind. It is nothing more than idle imaginative speculation.

Ya know, I like your phrasing better.

Jenyar,

The rift between religion and science is growing wider by the day. In the time that Jesus lived, gods were the order of the day. People were deified regularly - many Roman emperors were deified. How long after Christianity did the Roman gods survive? They could not offer anything or do anything. They were dead gods. Rome was the hub of civilization at that time, and it was expanding fast - even in those circumstances Christianity not only survived, but thrived. Jesus was a reality to those people, but like most of history, people tend to differ about what really happened. The rift grows wider and wider until only faith can bridge it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
2 Corinthians 3:16
But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
2 Corinthians 4:3
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The more people learn, the blinder they become, because they trust themselves above all else and fail to see what God is showing them - their is a veil before their eyes, and that veil is the lie that you can only explain what you can see. You can't see beyond death, yet you believe that there is nothing there? You can't see God, and you believe He doesn't exist? The Bible says God is invisible:
Romans 1
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 14:11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christianity follows a living God, not a human one and not a dead one. He is invisible but is actions are visible, and He is praised by the witnesses of His actions. If you have not yet seen God's work, ask yourself why.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts:14:15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. 16In the past, he let all nations go their own way. 17Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." 18Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because God is unseen, God sees what is unseen, and rewards good that is done unseen. Because we say that we can see, we have no reason to be blind.

Very good post! :)

Originally posted by inspector
All religions are beliefs? You call it a theory, I call it opinion. I cannot speak for other religions. However, Christianity is based on evidence that is historically, archaeologically and prophetically accurate. We have eyewitness accounts, corroborated by New Testament writers and there is no contradictory evidence left by Romans and Jews of that time period. I 'believe' in the evidence.


I guess that depends on what you would consider "contradictory evidence" - does completely missing evidence count as "contradictory evidence"? The only secular evidence of Jesus' existence was from sources that were not contemporary with Jesus - in other words, hearsay. Not to mention that some of the "evidence" was obviously manufactured (e.g., the Josephus writings).

No, the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence is in the bible, but even that can be used to prove that Jesus wasn't the long-awaited Jewish Messiah (either that, or that the bible is not inerrant). It is my firm belief (based on my experience with Christian Fundamentalists) that Christians are deluding themselves, and that they actually want to be deluded. I cannot fathom why, but there it is.

Inspector:

Why don't you show this evidence? Do you really want me to burn forever in hell? :(

Thank you Truthseeker
Xev:
Mark 15:32
"Let this Christ,[ 15:32 Or Messiah] this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."

Belief cannot come from people. Therefore neither can the evidence. You are not alone in your disbelief:

Mark 16:11
When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
Luke 24:11
But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

The only people who did believe were the ones He chose for belief - His disciples - and even they didn't believe until they could touch Him. Even then, Jesus had to rebuke them because they did not believe what the people had told them. This is when Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." He knew that miracles could not replace the message - in those times people had miracles and proof of life, and still didn't believe.

That doesn't mean that it is harder to believe today; we are fortunate that God has chosen everybody for his kingdom. The obstacle for those who cannot believe isn't God, but Jesus (the "stumbling block" as he himself put it). Just as Jesus was visible then, and is invisible now because He is with God - the obstacle is the visible, not the invisible. The law, not the spirit of truth.

John 4:22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

John 6:36
But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

The Jews believe they are saved by upholding Biblical laws, and that the Messiah will create a kingdom on earth. They didn't recognise their messiah because they couldn't accept His message. Paul used to persecute 'the followers of the Way'.

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" 43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

You won't be drawn in by any proof if that proof is not God, neither by miracles or a convincing argument. You can be drawn in by recognising Jesus and the message of the Bible as a reality with a history and a future, that He died for us and has prepared a place for us in heaven. No, you won't burn in hell, that is the good news (gospel) of the Bible, after all. Won't it be a miracle if you believed even that?


No, the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence is in the bible, but even that can be used to prove that Jesus wasn't the long-awaited Jewish Messiah (either that, or that the bible is not inerrant). It is my firm belief (based on my experience with Christian Fundamentalists) that Christians are deluding themselves, and that they actually want to be deluded. I cannot fathom why, but there it is.

The only evidence? The Bible is a collection of manuscripts with a common message. And there are many manuscripts. If the same amount of manuscripts were available about any other event in history nobody would have reason to doubt it, and they would have been able to see where manuscripts deviated from the mainstream account. What reasons do you have to doubt the Bilical texts? How does the Bible prove that Jesus wasn't the Jews' messiah? That is probably also the reason why you cannot understand why Christians follow Jesus.

Jenyar:
Belief cannot come from people. Therefore neither can the evidence. You are not alone in your disbelief:

Okay, but inspector has claimed that evidence exists.

You won't be drawn in by any proof if that proof is not God, neither by miracles or a convincing argument. You can be drawn in by recognising Jesus and the message of the Bible as a reality with a history and a future, that He died for us and has prepared a place for us in heaven. No, you won't burn in hell, that is the good news (gospel) of the Bible, after all. Won't it be a miracle if you believed even that?

You're saying that I basically I have to believe something with no evidence in order to escape eternal torment?

Acts 26:28Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"
29Paul replied, "Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

The evidence Inspector is talking about has no use to you. You see, our faith isn't blind, we believe in an account that has been in the making since the beginning of time, since Judaism became the first monotheistic relgion. We have no reason to distrust those texts and testimonies, especially since we have seen its freeing effect on our own lives. That same God asks Christians to tell people what He has promised us - everybody - but also that our testimonies has no power if we do not live by our beliefs. Paul preached freedom to those who recognised freedom, and justice to those who lived by the law.

Acts 28:26" 'Go to this people and say,
___"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
_______you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
___ 27For this people's heart has become calloused;
_______they hardly hear with their ears,
_______and they have closed their eyes.
___Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
_______hear with their ears,
_______understand with their hearts
___and turn, and I would heal them.'

Why do you need proof? Because you are a slave to modern science, which doubts everything it cannot see. Face it, the reason you can't believe is not because you can't see God, but because you don't believe what you can't see, i.e. beyond death. You can't see your own death, but you know it will happen, because of a history that has proved that everbody dies. If you didn't see death, you would have thought you could live forever. But you do, and now you either ignore it or again turn to science to defy nature.

It is 'natural' that our bodies should die. We have no evidence of spirit, but humans are the only species with a spiritual awareness. Westerners have no evidence of chi, yet the Chinese have based life and medicine on it. We can't know something if no-one has experienced it and told about it.
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?

I have come to know a God who is unseen, made visible through the resurrection of Jesus: a revelation to all people and believed by Christians. With this knowledge we also expect the second coming of Jesus, when he will establish a new kingdom. We are all called to become citizens of that kingdom, and ordered to invite everybody into it. That little voice that is rebelling in your head now, and calling it "exclusive" or "weak", is the lie that we have to fight against.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The only evidence? The Bible is a collection of manuscripts with a common message. And there are many manuscripts. If the same amount of manuscripts were available about any other event in history nobody would have reason to doubt it, and they would have been able to see where manuscripts deviated from the mainstream account. What reasons do you have to doubt the Bilical texts? How does the Bible prove that Jesus wasn't the Jews' messiah? That is probably also the reason why you cannot understand why Christians follow Jesus.

Okay - so I used the term "evidence" rather loosely there. Plus you could argue that even that wasn't contemporary with Jesus, since all of the New Testament was written some time after Jesus' alleged death - so I retract my statement. There is no evidence of Jesus' existence.

As for proof that Jesus could not have been the Messiah, it may take us a little while to get there, but if you're game, we can start by looking at the two genealogies of Jesus. There's one in Matthew (Chapter 1), and one in Luke (Chapter 3). Can you explain why are they so different? For example, if you begin with Joseph (who was not even supposed to be the biological father of Jesus anyway), he is reported to have had 2 different fathers - Jacob and Heli. Unless that is another biblical miracle, that is obviously not even possible. So who is the real father of Joseph, and how do you explain two different fathers being listed?

"Why don't you show this evidence? Do you really want me to burn forever in hell?"
----------------------------------------------------

Some Christians rely heavily on antiquated documents as evidence supporting the Bible, and ultimately, God. I have, on numerous occasions, presented this type of evidence, such as eyewitness testimonies corroborated by New Testament writers, to the bevy of atheists here on this site. However, I am consistently greeted with the typical knee-jerk responses by most. There are over 800 known NON-BIBLICAL documents in existence that are both historically accurate and archaeologically consistent with biblical narratives. Yet, each time I present this fact, it is predictably dismissed with the rubber stamp response of ‘that is not sufficient proof’ by most atheists here on this site. If you say that this is not valid, then we must analyze your criteria and methodology of examination to see if it is objective and reasonable.

For example, the Tell El Amarna tablets is a compilation of tablets dating back to 1390-1327 BCE, and is considered as perhaps the greatest archaeological discovery ever found in Egypt. These tablets contain information, told from the victim’s side, of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan. This archaeological discovery is consistent in facts, lexicon, nomenclature and locality with the narrative of the Bible.

Like I previously stated, there are hundreds more NON-BIBLICAL documents that support the validity of the Bible and it’s contents. The problem, once again, lies in presuppositions. Most atheists will immediately negate all evidence presented to them to both satisfy their presuppositions and to fulfill their circular reasoning, which basically is that there is no evidence. For those willing to listen, I am willing to teach the Truth.

><>

Originally posted by Jenyar
The only evidence? The Bible is a collection of manuscripts with a common message. And there are many manuscripts. If the same amount of manuscripts were available about any other event in history nobody would have reason to doubt it, and they would have been able to see where manuscripts deviated from the mainstream account. What reasons do you have to doubt the Bilical texts?

Reasons to doubt the veracity of the Biblical texts?

Because the Bible was assembled by biased editors (evidence; look to the non-cannonical texts and the reasons they were rejected).

Because there are no original 'source' documents; the earliest documents are copies (that have been subject to unknown editing) written about 100 years after Jesus's death.

Because the authors of the earliest texts available are largely (entirely?) unknown. We don't know who wrote them or from what sources they drew their material.

Because the couple of "unbiased" documents that refer to Jesus are suspect.

There are no originals, Jenyar. There are no manuscripts that were written by any eye-witnesses to Jesus' activities. The Bible has a common message because it was edited at various times for this express purpose. The Nicene Council was once such group of editors. Investigate Jenyar. That the Bible exhibits certain consistencies is no more surprising than finding out that a gradeschool level US History textbook contains certain consistencies... they were designed that way.

~Raithere

Originally posted by inspector
There are over 800 known NON-BIBLICAL documents in existence that are both historically accurate and archaeologically consistent with biblical narratives. Only, I believe, two of which give any reference to Jesus. And those two are suspect. (quick edit... I found 4 references to non-biblical accounts that mention Christ... all of the authors were born after Christ's death and 3 of them only reference Christ in reference to his followers, not directly).

Certainly, there are accurate historical references in the Bible. However, there are many, many more references that are not found anywhere except in the Bible or are directly refuted by historical evidence.

Now personally, I believe that Jesus or someone very like him existed. If only for the simple fact that revolutions require a leader. However to jump from a possible historical figure that somewhat fits the story of Jesus to asserting that the tales told of him hundreds of years later are entirely, literally, and factually true is absurd. To assert that he was God...

~Raithere

Fact:
Nothing can be proven about the origin of the scriptures nor can we say that jesus truly did exist. If you think otherwise, then you are stating a so-called fact based on blind faith. And that's ok. But it is still your opinion.

Fact:
I never let someone else tell me how to interpret the scriptures.
So I don't expect anyone else to do likewise.

Fact:

A book is a book, whether valuable or not. A book is meant to be read not believed. If you want to live the christian life based on informational doctrine than you have chosen to absorb. Well I encourage it. It's far better than learning ethics from TV. But don't expect me to see what you see.

Fact:
I am not an atheist for I am not stupid enough to think that all we know now is all we will ever know. However, God (whatever you wanna call it), showed me what he was without a book. And I don't believe in special creation because EVERYTHING is a product of special creation. If it weren't, we would be made of something strange like Jello and dogs would rule the galaxy. It's not though and for a reason. I gave up on the REASON. I just accept what is needed of me and not what should be needed of me.

Opinion:
Jesus would frown upon our petty arguing for he was supposedly a WISE person. And I find it wise to worry about the things in life that are physical and very personal. Not something I never set my eyes on nor touched to say whether it was real or not. Also, wasn't Christ a pacifist. Why so much war over his name? Because people believe in him more than themselves. And to me that is sooooooo sad. Who was it that said, "confront your fears". Why are we told to fear god? I don't see why.

Fact: God created everything?-from some point of view
well wouldn't that mean that god is science. And it takes science to even know anything. It's called thinking which last I checked was a chemical process in the brain. So that kind of blows the whole difference between religion and science bit out of the water.

The first mistake that the religious person makes is that they believe in anything. The first mistake the aethiest makes is BELIEVING in nothing.



Opinion: know thyself and then know god. If you do the first, you won't even need to do the second.

To assert that he was God...
I think that this is the reason for his importance. He was the first to admit it....
disclaimer---inaccuracy for dramatic effect only----

The discrepancies in the genealogies only show me this: That after nearly 2000 years even those so-called 'biased' editors did not presume to change anything in the Bible for the sake of cnsistency. Such a small change would never have been noticed if it had been made, because we have no way to verify any one. In Biblical times a person's status was largely (almost completely) dependent on one's ancestry. A class system that Jesus didn't follow anyway, since he mingled with people with no link to Israel or even Judaism (like the Samaritans), and no logical inheritance of the kingdom he proposed.

Fortunately, we don't need an accurate ancestry (although as a Biblical scholar once remarked, it would have been nice if the genealogies agreed).

The differences also tell me another thing. That these books were in fact different accounts, and not copies of each other. Also, they were written by different people with different perspectives, for different audiences. The message take precedent over the details, that has been the nature of Jewish tradition and aids accuracy of memory (probably since few of the common people were literate). Read /http://lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/

The amount of secondary texts agree so much that it is possible to practically rewrite the original texts. There is even a text called 'Q' that supposedly had to have existed, for so many different accounts to agree to such an extent, although I doubt if it ever did.

The non-canonical text weren't excluded willy-nilly. The Catholic church has no problem with them (that's where we get the popular depictions of Satan and demons and other tales). They provide interesting reading, and some are even recommended, such as the gospel of Thomas. But they do not add significantly to the message of the rest of the Bible, as a matter of fact most f them seem fabricated to prove a particular point or support a certain sect, such as Gnosticism (like the Dead Sea Scrolls). These books are peripheral to the rest of the Bible, and have less consistency and in some cases just confuse the issue.

*edit*
science created everything? Science is a study, not an energy!

Like I previously stated, there are hundreds more NON-BIBLICAL documents that support the validity of the Bible and it’s contents. The problem, once again, lies in presuppositions. Most atheists will immediately negate all evidence presented to them to both satisfy their presuppositions and to fulfill their circular reasoning, which basically is that there is no evidence. For those willing to listen, I am willing to teach the Truth.

I've never denied that the Bible has historical validity. However, the fact that Jesus existed does not make Him the son of God.

Now, I think you're enjoying the fact that I'm going to go to hell. You're probably a sadist just like your God.

You seem to take pride in the possibility. No Xev, I don't - I don't want anybody to go to hell, least of all you. As a Christian, I tell the good news that we don't have to go to hell, nobody has to.

In the Bible, it is when people were left to their own device, given over to their natural sinful natures, that sin got a hold over them. The effects of selfishness are evident. So are the effects of hate. Nobody can presume to call them 'good'.

You can't be sure whether ou will go to hell. That is not for me or anybody to judge. I can only tell you that Jesus saved us from the judgement, and only by acknowledging and living the resurrection of Jesus can you know this. There is no other way. Don't take pride in degrading and excluding yourself in someone else's eyes. Make up your own mind. Realise you are worth more to God than to yourself.

Realise what you are chained to, so you can be freed from it... I think you said that, actually.

PS. God is no sadist. You base that on a history you reject in the first place. Or if you accept it, why not accept all of it - anything less than the truth is not the whole truth is it?

Jenyar:
You seem to take pride in the possibility.

It amuses me infinitely to think of your God getting off on the torture of sinners.

In the Bible, it is when people were left to their own device, given over to their natural sinful natures, that sin got a hold over them. The effects of selfishness are evident. So are the effects of hate. Nobody can presume to call them 'good'.

What is "good"?

You can't be sure whether ou will go to hell. That is not for me or anybody to judge. I can only tell you that Jesus saved us from the judgement, and only by acknowledging and living the resurrection of Jesus can you know this. There is no other way.

On what evidence?

Don't take pride in degrading and excluding yourself in of someone else's eyes.

You mean, I should not audition for "Jackass: The Sequel" ?
And that probably rules out a career in bondage pornos. Okay.

Make up your own mind.

Okay, I prefer Coke to Pepsi.

Realise what you are chained to, so you can be freed from it... I think you said that, actually.

*Raises an eyebrow*

Advice on liberation? From a slave?

(Note: Please don't take this amiss, Jenyar, I like you, as much as I like anyone. I was really taunting inspector more than you.)

*Edit*

And please don't be offended that I call you a slave. We all are, in our own ways. I didn't mean it as an insult....more a statement of fact.

No problem Xev. I have already freely admitted my slave-turned-friend relationship with God.

Good is what rewards goodness. Bad is that which rewards evil. God has only rewarded good. When we suffer it is because of people, and suffering can be a blessing if you know why it is happening and survive it. We are all sinners, and no sinner is any less a sinner because of his beliefs. That is not the point of Christianity - but it is the misconception perpetuated by the Church in the Middle Ages, and what Calvyn protested against.

Jesus preached salvation, not condemnation.

You seem to project your preference for S&M onto God. Isn't that a bit shortsighted. In what way does God, or the idea of God, cause you pain?

What do you hold on to and what can't you let go of? There definitely is something. Do you have a valid reason for resenting God? More valid than Job's?

PS. Have you read Paradise Lost?

"Certainly, there are accurate historical references in the Bible. However, there are many, many more references that are not found anywhere except in the Bible or are directly refuted by historical evidence."
--------------------------------------------

Please present these 'references' you have, from that time period, that refutes the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Since there were NO writings by the Romans OR Jews OR anyone from that time period that contradicts His resurrection, you will be famous if you can produce these valid 'references' for me. Maybe you better do your research on your god's website, infidels.org, as I am sure they have fabricated some false information regarding this topic by now. I'll be waiting.

BTW, get ready. I have many, many more valid, historical, archaeological discoveries which verify the content of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I also have original eyewitness testimony for the existence of Jesus Christ. Just remember, in an above post, you said, 'Now personally, I believe that Jesus or someone very like him existed.'

><>

Originally posted by Jenyar
The discrepancies in the genealogies only show me this: That after nearly 2000 years even those so-called 'biased' editors did not presume to change anything in the Bible for the sake of cnsistency. Such a small change would never have been noticed if it had been made, because we have no way to verify any one. In Biblical times a person's status was largely (almost completely) dependent on one's ancestry. A class system that Jesus didn't follow anyway, since he mingled with people with no link to Israel or even Judaism (like the Samaritans), and no logical inheritance of the kingdom he proposed.

Fortunately, we don't need an accurate ancestry (although as a Biblical scholar once remarked, it would have been nice if the genealogies agreed).

The differences also tell me another thing. That these books were in fact different accounts, and not copies of each other. Also, they were written by different people with different perspectives, for different audiences. The message take precedent over the details, that has been the nature of Jewish tradition and aids accuracy of memory (probably since few of the common people were literate). Read /http://lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/

Apparently you disagree with the arguments written on that webpage? Here is what they had to say regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke genealogies:

Luke's Audience
The original readers of Luke's works were Greek Christians. While Matthew wrote to the Jews, Luke wrote to the Greeks.
Matthew's genealogy emphasized Jesus' claim to the throne of David. Since Luke's readers were less concerned about the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, his genealogy focused on Jesus' descent from God. It placed no emphasis on Jesus being the descendant of King David.

Reason for Differences
Differences between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke may be attributed to the fact that Matthew traced the ancestry of Joseph, while Luke traced the that of Mary.

Do you agree or disagree with their assertion that the Matthew genealogy traced the ancestry of Joseph, while the Luke genealogy traced the ancestry of Mary? If you would agree, then what clues are there in the two genealogies that would tell us which genealogy was which?

I'm not sure whether or not you will answer my questions, since you didn't really give me a straight answer to my last question. It would seem to me that you are admitting that the genealogies may be totally inaccurate, or even complete fabrications, and that you're okay with this? And that it doesn't really matter to you whether or not Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, or whether or not the bible is inerrant - you choose to believe regardless of the evidence? If that is the case, I am indeed wasting my time since you would clearly prefer to cling to your beliefs whether or not they have anything to do with the truth. I would argue that the unexamined faith is no faith at all.

Remember the biblical advice to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good; also remember that the simple man believes every word, while the prudent man looks well to his going. Are you willing to take an honest look at these discrepancies or not?

Since I am no expert on Jewish tradition or these genealogies, I can't say much more than I have before I have done some research.

Yes they do disagee. My point was that the genealogies were cited to the audience who would question anything otherwise. They were convincing enough evidence to the people who knew them and understood them when they were presented, and that is good enough for me.

Jesus' messiahship doesn't depend on memories, but on His actions - i.e. His death and resurrection. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to correct their errors. What He did is proof of His message.

The only people who would benefit to disagree with these genealogies are the people who hold faith to them, such as the Jews, and they are the ones who wrote them in the first place.

I have no problem with them. To me, Jesus is the one who did what He came for.

If you are really interested, I'll do some more research. Here's the genealogy as I understand it (being neither Greek or Jewish): God <-> Jesus <- > Holy Spirit <-> us <- God.

"Remember the biblical advice to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good; also remember that the simple man believes every word, while the prudent man looks well to his going."
------------------------------------------------

It is also written in Job 28:20-22,





"Where then does wisdom come from?

Where does understanding dwell?

It is HIDDEN from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air.

Destruction and Death say,
'Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.'"

><>

"Are you willing to take an honest look at these discrepancies or not?"
----------------------------------------------

There are no discrepancies. Sorry, you will have to find another avenue to support your fallacies.

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were un aware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

><>

inspector,

So you do agree that the Matthew genealogy is Joseph's and the Luke genealogy is Mary's - we seem to have that much out of the way at least. I do accept that answer, since the Matthew genealogy uses the word begat, while the Luke genealogy uses the phrase son of, and this is consistent with biblical traditions.

So my question to you is, would you agree that wherever there appears to be such a discrepancy, and one passage says that so-and-so is the son of such-and-such, but another passage says that whosits begat so-and-so, the biological father would be whosits, and such-and-such is probably a father-in-law or step father, or something other than a direct biological progenitor?

"So my question to you is, would you agree that wherever there appears to be such a discrepancy, and one passage says that so-and-so is the son of such-and-such, but another passage says that whosits begat so-and-so, the biological father would be whosits, and such-and-such is probably a father-in-law or step father, or something other than a direct biological progenitor?"
----------------------------------------

Nehushta, thanks for responding.

I am sorry, but this is a generalization or 'blanketed question', therefore I cannont reply affirmatively or negatively. I would require a specific example or passage before I can answer your question.

><>

Originally posted by inspector
I am sorry, but this is a generalization or 'blanketed question', therefore I cannont reply affirmatively or negatively. I would require a specific example or passage before I can answer your question.

Saying that begat necessarily indicates a direct biological relationship is a generalization? How so? I thought it was pretty clear myself - in fact, I'd say begat is one of the least vague words used in the entire bible! :confused:

Well then, I can already guess your answer to my next question, but here goes:

Does the word begat carry less weight in indicating a direct biological relationship than the phrase son of in the Matthew and Luke genealogies where the parentage of Salathiel is concerned? In other words, can you honestly say that Neri is the true biological father of Salathiel, even though his name only appears once in the entire bible (see Luke 3:27, which vaguely assigns Salathiel as the "son of" Neri), while Jechonias is mentioned at least twice as the father of Salathiel (see 1 Chronicles 3:17 & Matthew 1:12), and Matthew specifically uses the word begat?

Interesting question, or should I say destinction. I don't know where you're heading, but I'd like to know what the Greek/Hebrew words were that were used, since usually they have more subjective meanings than the English.

Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son [or [ son]; also in verse 12 ]; today I have become your Father. [Or [have begotten you] ]
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[ Or his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Acts 13:33
...he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: " 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.[ 13:33 Or have begotten you] '[ 13:33 Psalm 2:7]

These passages seem to indicate both variations were used - in the biological and the general sense. Begotten is a more active word, indicating a purpose of intent, while son of seems more incidental. In the NIV, "son of" is more predominant.

I got this from The Bible gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/webcommentary?language=english&version=niv&book=luke&chapter=3)

In the period between David and Jesus only two names are common in the lists: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Some sixty names in Luke's list are not in Matthew's. The most significant differences are that David's descendant in Matthew's list is Solomon, while Luke mentions Nathan; and Jesus' grandfather in Matthew's list is Jacob, while in Luke it is Heli (Stein 1992:141). The difference after David helps to explain the vast variation in names after that point.

There is no certain explanation for these differences. Some argue that there is no way to bring the two accounts together (L. T. Johnson 1991:72). But various explanations have been proposed. (1) A popular explanation is that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy while Luke gives Mary's, especially given his concern for Mary in Luke 2 and the remark about Jesus' being thought to be Joseph's son in Luke 3:23. The problem with this is that a genealogy based entirely on a female line of descent would be rather unprecedented, especially for establishing a regal claim to promises associated with David. Furthermore, Luke 1:27 appears to tie Jesus' Davidic connection to Joseph. (2) Other variations argue for two ways to trace Joseph's line. Some speculate that Matthew has the natural line and Luke the royal line. Others suggest the reverse: Luke has the physical line while Matthew has the royal line. A third option suggests that Matthew gives the physical line while Luke gives the legal and "physical" line, with the physical contact being a sister who remarries and bears a child after a childless marriage. All these options appeal to levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10) as the key at some point in the list, in the vicinity of the grandfathers--so one parent would be the physical progenitor, but the other parent, who died childless, had his name and line carried on through the birth after the levirate marriage. (3) Still a final option suggests that Mary, having no brothers, is an heiress to Heli (also spelled Eli in some translations). Heli adopted Joseph as son, as in other cases where a man had no biological son (Num 32:41; Ezra 2:61; Neh 7:63). So Luke's list reflects adoption (Nolland 1990:170-72). Luke's line may be the legal one because of the curse of Jeconiah (Jer 22:30), when he was cast out of the promised line (though Matthew does mention him). (A modern illustration of how a regal line can take a detour is the Duke of Windsor, who renounced all claim to the throne for himself and his descendants.)

Every explanation requires a conjecture that we cannot establish, so which approach might be right is uncertain. Regardless of which option is chosen, what is clear is the list's intention. Jesus has a claim to the throne through David and is related to all humankind through Adam. He has the proper roots to be God's promised one. He has the right heritage to inherit this ministry of deliverance. His roots extend to David, Abraham and Adam. God has carefully designed his plan. There are no historical surprises in Jesus. Ultimately all humanity is a unit, and Jesus is concerned with more than deliverance of the tiny, elect nation of Israel. With him comes realization of the Old Testament hope for that nation, but bound up in him also is the fate of all people.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Interesting question, or should I say destinction. I don't know where you're heading, but I'd like to know what the Greek/Hebrew words were that were used, since usually they have more subjective meanings than the English.

Psalm 2:7
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son [or [ son]; also in verse 12 ]; today I have become your Father. [Or [have begotten you] ]
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[ Or his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Acts 13:33
...he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: " 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.[ 13:33 Or have begotten you] '[ 13:33 Psalm 2:7]

These passages seem to indicate both variations were used - in the biological and the general sense. Begotten is a more active word, indicating a purpose of intent, while son of seems more incidental. In the NIV, "son of" is more predominant.
[/URL]

As you say, begat indicates a more active role, while son of might indicate a more incidental role, particularly when it would seem to contradict another passage where the word begat was used. Here is the Greek word which was translated to begat in the Matthew genealogy:

1080 gennao {ghen-nah'-o}

from a variation of 1085; TDNT - 1:665,114; v

AV - begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1,
be delivered 1, misc 3; 97

1) of men who fathered children
1a) to be born
1b) to be begotten
1b1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
2a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
2b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his
way of life, to convert someone
2c) of God making Christ his son
2d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

What I'm getting at is that if you accept that Jechonias begat Salathiel when you read Matthew's genealogy, then you must accept that he still begat Salathiel when you read Luke's genealogy, even though it states in Luke that Salathiel is the son of Neri. There cannot be two biological fathers for one man, can there? So if you are willing to be honest, you must accept that Jechonias' name should appear in both genealogies as the father of Salathiel. So, according to the New Testament Jesus was a descendant of Jechonias, both legally and biologically, and therefore could not inherit the throne of David - and therefore could not have been the Jewish Messiah!

"There cannot be two biological fathers for one man, can there?"
--------------------------------------

There isn't. Nehushta, you are really reaching, now. You apparently have no sincere desire to learn about Christianity, but rather, are simply attempting to stir up dissension. However, for every piece of misinformation you acquire from infidels.org or anywhere for that matter, there exists a refutation for.

Anyway, the probable explanation of the apparent discrepancy is that Salathiel was the son of Neri, the descendant of Nathan, and thus, heir to the throne of David on the death of Jeconiah (Compare Jeremiah 22:30).

><>

Originally posted by inspector
There isn't. Nehushta, you are really reaching, now. You apparently have no sincere desire to learn about Christianity, but rather, are simply attempting to stir up dissension. However, for every piece of misinformation you acquire from infidels.org or anywhere for that matter, there exists a refutation for.

Anyway, the probable explanation of the apparent discrepancy is that Salathiel was the son of Neri, the descendant of Nathan, and thus, heir to the throne of David on the death of Jeconiah (Compare Jeremiah 22:30).><>

I'm reaching? You wish to change the meaning of the word begat to fit your religious beliefs about Jesus, but I'm the one who's being insincere? By the way, I didn't get this from infidels.org - I got it from reading the bible, along with the various commentaries available at blueletterbible.org!

Originally posted by inspector
Please present these 'references' you have, from that time period, that refutes the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are no historical refutations to the resurrection that I know of. But neither are there any non-Biblical documents to support it. I do not consider a single, biased source to be enough evidence to support such unusual claims. If you do then I would ask why you do not believe in the Greek Gods, Buddha, Mohammed, etc.

BTW, get ready. I have many, many more valid, historical, archaeological discoveries which verify the content of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. We're covering this in the God does exist. thread. No need to cover it in two. I will, however, repeat the important point; there is no outside verification for any miraculous event recorded in the Bible.

I also have original eyewitness testimony for the existence of Jesus Christ. Just remember, in an above post, you said, 'Now personally, I believe that Jesus or someone very like him existed.'No, you do not have any eyewitness testimony. Once again, we are addressing this topic elsewhere.

~Raithere

Yes, exactly. I begin with the premise that the Bible is God's Word revealed to us. It is proven to be historically accurate and archaeologically consistent. It is YOU who is questioning the authenticity of the Bible, not me. However, I will continue to anwer any questions you have regarding the contents and text of the Bible. BTW, don't be so defensive. ;)

><>

Jeremiah 22
30 This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah."

Men cannot give birth. Jesus was born from Mary, who did not come from Jeconiah's (Jehoiachin) "forbidden" line. Joseph had no biological right to Jesus, since he was not a biological father - he was "childless". But Joseph was the legal father, and the father appointed by God. Thus the proper royal lineage (of God) overtook the earthly royalty of David, gave it it's true meaning. That is why we are all sons of David, spiritually adopted by Jesus, just like Jesus was legally and biologically "adopted" by Joseph.

In a way you can say the curse was lifted by God, but humanwise the prophesy was left inviolate. For all we know Jeconiah died, and Shealtiel was legally adopted by Neli, also descendent from David.

"I do not consider a single, biased source to be enough evidence to support such unusual claims."
-------------------------------------------

Simply because YOU do not consider the Bible to be sufficient evidence does not invalidate it.




"If you do then I would ask why you do not believe in the Greek Gods, Buddha, Mohammed, etc."
--------------------------------------------

Because the Bible does not acknowledge greek gods, buddha, mohammed, etc. See Isaiah 44:6, 44:8.




"No, you do not have any eyewitness testimony. Once again, we are addressing this topic elsewhere."
---------------------------------------------

And we will address it here, also. Several writers of the New Testament walked with Jesus, saw Jesus perform miracles, etc. The apostles Peter, John, and others to name a couple. These are the authors of books in the New Testament. This is DIRECT eyewitness testimony. Please review the definition of eyewitness testimony. Once again, just because you dismiss parts of the Bible, does not neccessarily make it any less true.

><>

Originally posted by inspector
Yes, exactly. I begin with the premise that the Bible is God's Word revealed to us.And therein lies the problem. What is the foundation for your premise?

It is proven to be historically accurate and archaeologically consistent.No, it is not entirely accurate. There is no evidence supporting a global flood, for instance. The town of Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' day. And there is not a single piece of substantiating evidence that a single miracle ever occurred.

It is YOU who is questioning the authenticity of the Bible, not me.Obviously.

BTW, don't be so defensiveI'm not. :D Personally, I could care less what you believe. But we're debating certain issues. I know my manner of writing sometimes comes off as curt but I'm in no way upset... I'm just having fun.

Simply because YOU do not consider the Bible to be sufficient evidence does not invalidate it. And just because you believe it to be entirely true does not validate it. So where does that leave us?

Because the Bible does not acknowledge greek gods, buddha, mohammed, etc. See Isaiah 44:6, 44:8. But there is just as much 'evidence' for these figures as there is for Jesus. In some cases there is more. For instance Mohammed is extremely well documented by non-religious historical sources. Sounds to me as if your disbelief based purely in bias. In your own preconceptions. You're not interested in the truth but only interested in validating your existing beliefs.

And we will address it here, also.No, I won't. You can talk to yourself. One place or the other, I don't care. But it's simply stupid to address the same exact thing in more than one post at the same time.

Several writers of the New Testament walked with Jesus, saw Jesus perform miracles, etc. The apostles Peter, John, and others to name a couple. These are the authors of books in the New Testament. This is DIRECT eyewitness testimony.There is nothing to prove that the NT gospels were written by these people. In fact, most of the earliest documentation was written well after their deaths. What proof do you have that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew?

~Raithere

"What proof do you have that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew?"
------------------------------

What proof do you have that he didn't write it? Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis around AD 120-140, recorded that "Matthew composed the writings in the Hebrew dialect [Aramaic] and everyone translated them as he was able." Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons towards the close of the second century and described as a hearer of the apostle John, asserted that this original document was written by Matthew while Peter and Paul were founding the church in Rome (the mid-sixties). There is no other name that surfaces in the early church as a possible author. It would be hard to explain how, within a period of 60 or 80 years, the name of the true author of such a significant book could have been lost and a fictitious name substituted. The earliest tradition cannot be lightly set aside.

The bottom line is this. I have lots of evidence supporting the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. You choose to deny the evidence, and place your FAITH in naturalistic explanations of the universe. I choose God.







"The town of Nazareth did not exist in Jesus' day."
-------------------------------

Matthew 2:22-23
But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called NAZARETH.

.........and there are many more if needed.







"And there is not a single piece of substantiating evidence that a single miracle ever occurred."
----------------------------------

Once again, eyewitness testimony.......denying it don't make it any less true.








"And just because you believe it to be entirely true does not validate it. So where does that leave us?"
------------------------------------

Regarding this conversation..........simply a stalemate. Regarding salvation.........well you figure it out.








"There is nothing to prove that the NT gospels were written by these people."
----------------------------------------

Do you feel the same way about ALL historical documents, or only those that challenge your naturalistic beliefs and intellectual fallacies? Do you question the authenticity of the Declaration of Independence and it's authors, also? Your logic is flawed.

><>

Originally posted by Jenyar
Jeremiah 22
30 This is what the LORD says:
"Record this man as if childless,
a man who will not prosper in his lifetime,
for none of his offspring will prosper,
none will sit on the throne of David
or rule anymore in Judah."

Men cannot give birth. Jesus was born from Mary, who did not come from Jeconiah's (Jehoiachin) "forbidden" line. Joseph had no biological right to Jesus, since he was not a biological father - he was "childless". But Joseph was the legal father, and the father appointed by God. Thus the proper royal lineage (of God) overtook the earthly royalty of David, gave it it's true meaning. That is why we are all sons of David, spiritually adopted by Jesus, just like Jesus was legally and biologically "adopted" by Joseph.

In a way you can say the curse was lifted by God, but humanwise the prophesy was left inviolate. For all we know Jeconiah died, and Shealtiel was legally adopted by Neli, also descendent from David.

It seems that you choose to be blind to the fact that a man can only have one biological father, and Matthew clearly named Jechonias as Salathiel's father. And he used the word begat - what could be clearer than that? Are you trying to say a man's biological father changes depending on which of his decendants you're talking about? Or are you overlooking the fact that Salathiel's name appears in both genealogies? And it doesn't matter if Salathiel was adopted by Neri or not - he is still is from the seed of Jechonias, and therefore none of his descendants can inherit the throne of David!

Nehushta, I mean no offense, but I addressed the issue of Salathiel earlier. If you do not understand the basic literary precedents and biblical sophistication, there are many books that cover these topics. However, I believe you simply do not accept the answers given to you because they clash with your presuppositions.

><>

Originally posted by inspector
What proof do you have that he didn't write it? Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis around AD 120-140, recorded that "Matthew composed the writings in the Hebrew dialect [Aramaic] and everyone translated them as he was able." And how reliable is that?

But I suspect you haven’t quite given a full enough picture of Papias’ so-called testimony. First of all, you fail to point out that we have no surviving writings of Papias. We rely for what he said on Eusebius, a fourth century historian of the Church. Perhaps Eusebius is quoting Papias correctly, but even so, what can we glean from that quotation? It’s pretty clear that Papias is himself passing on secondhand reports about these documents and their reputed authors. He says that his information about "Mark" comes from "the elder" who, as you acknowledge, may or may not be identifiable with the apostle John. And although Papias is not explicit, the same is likely true for the document he says was compiled by "Matthew," that he got his information about this one, too, from the elder. The fact that Papias said nothing himself to confirm what the elder told him about the nature of these documents, tells us that he probably didn’t possess copies of them. In fact, we can be quite certain of this, since Eusebius and other later commentators who quote from his writings are silent about him discussing anything from the "Mark" and "Matthew" he mentions.
CHALLENGING THE VERDICT - A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ by Earl Doherty

The bottom line is this. I have lots of evidence supporting the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. You choose to deny the evidence, and place your FAITH in naturalistic explanations of the universe. I choose God.The bottom line is this: What you choose to call evidence does not meet my criteria. I find your evidence, thus far, unconvincing.

Matthew 2:22-23
But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called NAZARETH. So? I'm waiting for your outside source.

Once again, eyewitness testimony.......denying it don't make it any less true.Then show me an eyewitness testimony and prove to me that it is genuine.

Do you feel the same way about ALL historical documents, or only those that challenge your naturalistic beliefs and intellectual fallacies? Do you question the authenticity of the Declaration of Independence and it's authors, also? Yes, I do feel this way about all historical documents. Of course, regarding the Declaration of Independence we have the original document written and signed by the men who wrote it. We have an unbroken historical record of it's existence. If we did not have the original and it's history... if 'all of a sudden, 100 years after it was said to be written, 'discovered' a copy. Then, no, I probably would not believe it was entirely true. Not without other substantiating evidence. And if the copy had numerous discrepancies to other existent copies, my belief in it's accuracy would be further diminished. And if the IoD contained fantastic claims such as Jefferson raising the dead and Washington crossing the Delaware by walking on water I would probably not believe those claims at all.

Your logic is flawed.There is nothing wrong with my logic, friend.

Here's an interesting article regarding the historical accuracy of the OT:
http://college4.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2002/03/09/906776.xml

~Raithere

"There is nothing wrong with my logic, friend."
---------------------------------

I beg to differ, friend.



"What you choose to call evidence does not meet my criteria."
----------------------------------

Herein lies the problem. Evidence does not have to meet YOUR criteria to be considered as evidence. As a self-described logical person, you should clearly see this. Your method of examination is not objective, but instead, biased and tainted with prejudice.



"Then show me an eyewitness testimony and prove to me that it is genuine."
-----------------------------------

Gospel of John, both books of the apostle Peter, etc.



"Yes, I do feel this way about all historical documents."
-----------------------------------

This is due to your contrarian nature. I am willing to bet you have a problem with logical absolutes, also, since you like to dwell in the house of subjectivity.


BTW, take a minute to review the following archaeological evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, then proceed to explain it away with subjective and circular reasoning. Your presuppositions are waiting.

The Archo Volume
The Archo Volume is a 245 page book that contains letters between Pilate and Caesar; Valleus's notes to Pilate about the arrest trial and crucifixion of Jesus; Gamaliel's interviews with Joseph and Mary, and others about Jesus; Jonathan's interviews with some Bethlehem shepherds; and more. All of these are NON-BIBLICAL documents which testify about the existence of Jesus. Let me list the table of contents.

Chapter 1) How these records were discovered.
Chapter 2) A short sketch of the Talmuds.
Chapter 3) Constantine's letter in regard to having fifty copies of the Scriptures written and bound.
Chapter 4) Jonathan's interview with Bethlehem shepherds; letter of Melker, Priest of the Synagogue at Bethlehem.
Chapter 5) Gamaliel's interview with Joseph and Mary and others concerning Jesus.
Chapter 6) Report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the execution of Jesus.
Chapter 7) Report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
Chapter 8) Pilate's report to Caesar of the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus.
Chapter 9) Herod's defense before the Roman Senate in regard to the execution of John the Baptist.
Chapter 10) Herod's defense before the Roman Senate in regard to his conduct at Bethlehem

[Archo pg 1-245].


><>

Originally posted by inspector
Nehushta, I mean no offense, but I addressed the issue of Salathiel earlier. If you do not understand the basic literary precedents and biblical sophistication, there are many books that cover these topics. However, I believe you simply do not accept the answers given to you because they clash with your presuppositions.

><>

Inspector, I mean no offense, but ditto. I'm looking at exactly what the bible says - you are the one who has to redefine words to make it fit your beliefs. So where does that leave us?