There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God

[Malintent]

Your head is not on straight because Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with more sources for Him than any ten figures in antiquity combined within 150 years of His death. Historians simply don't go your route so you're on your own. We can talk if you get your head back on straight above evidence.

You got it wrong.

A person with that name may have existed, but there is no mention of the many fictions in the new testament except in the new testament, written decades after this fictional character allegedly lived. If he was so special why did people wait so long to write it down? Or perhaps it just took that long for the legend to grow amongst these primitive people?

It took that long to write it down because they needed the ACTUAL eyewitnesses of the time to all be long dead... "That Jesus guy.. ya, he had some good ideas, but what a terrorist prick... he went about things all wrong and got himslef in trouble with the law. They executed him for varrious crimes". There's your "eyewitness" account you won't get from dead folks.

 

[Malintent]

So how do we get people banned from this place, again?


Back at the old forums you could get kicked out for preaching. Apparently this is not the case anymore.

They do not appear to enforce many of the rules with Creationist members... there are so few Religionists in existance that know how to operate a computer that these boards would just be an echo chamber if we scare the one or two away... so we apparently let them preach their hellfire and see if once they get it out of their systems if they are ready to engange in an actual dialog.

This one does not appear to be done preaching yet... be patient with them or just ignore the crazy is all I can offer for advice.

 

[Malintent]

I don't need to even open the Bible to know that its claims are false. A real God would not need to communicate through an ancient holy book. He could simply have us know what he wants us to know. He could then actually test if we will follow his wishes. The very existence of the bible tells me that the God depicted in it either intends not to be perfectly understood, intends all of the conflict with different interpretations, intends all of the wars between competing religions, or that he doesn't exist.

If God wanted us all to know him, there would be no atheists. There would instead be people who know God exists and what he wishes of them, and rebel against him. That isn't what atheists are. We actually think he's fiction.

Atheism is really a distrust in humans. A skepticism in what humans say. Especially from humans who lived thousands of years ago who knew so little of reason and science.

Religion is the distruct of our senses (it is nonsense to the core).
Atheism relies on our senses and induction, etc...

so, Atheists trust people and Christians do not trust anyone but their own imaginations (and group together based on matched imaginations - distructing all).

your statement is the opposite of the reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

so we apparently let them preach their hellfire and see if once they get it out of their systems if they are ready to engange in an actual dialog.

That can't be a hope for Troy Brooks, AKA revivin,
Savedwheat
envolve
Troy2
Freerat
gracedwithlife
Biblio
workerforthechurch
parture
Freewill
TomT
spiritualpower
TruthTells
Stalione
MOTG
Forever Saved
Cordrie

and at least six other banned sockpuppet accounts i can't find a reference to.

For a guy that feels unclean for being here, he sure goes to some effort to be here.

 

[funinspace]

A person with that name may have existed, but there is no mention of the many fictions in the new testament except in the new testament, written decades after this fictional character allegedly lived. If he was so special why did people wait so long to write it down? Or perhaps it just took that long for the legend to grow amongst these primitive people?

You couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions. May have? Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 sources within 150 years of His death, 17 of which are from non-Christian sources. No historian takes your approach, you're on your own. Mindless belligerency is your approach. When historians look for documenting history for Jesus all the criteria are met holding to the highest of standards.

Why assume people waited a long time to write it down? Take for example Luke who wrote Acts. He never made any mention of Paul's death. Paul died 65 AD in the Neronian persecutions. But Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. So that places Acts around 50 AD and Luke around 40 AD. But Luke took in part from Mark so that places Mark around 35 AD just 2 years after the cross. Is that too late for you? Peter was friend with Mark so that places Peter's two epistles right after the cross also.

Funny how my New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV, has this to say in its introduction to Acts:

Its author, identified by tradition as Luke, had already producted the Gospel (1.1-2).
<snip>
It is reasonable to date Acts sometime after Luke’s Gospel, which may be placed around 85-95 CE.

By 'tradition' it clearly implies that the authorship is not fully known.

As for Luke, the same Bible has this much differing statement to make:

The oldest traditions of the Christian Church identify Luke, a physician who was a traveling companion and coworker with Paul (Philem 1.24; Col 4.14), as the author of the Gospel and its sequel, The Acts of the Apostles. At times the tradition further identifies Luke as a Syrian from Antioch, but practically nothing else is remembered of the writer of the Third Gospel. The earliest of these traditions about the identity of the author are from the late second century and scholarly analysis of the Gospel and Acts raises critical questions about the accuracy of the attribution of the writings of the doctor, Luke, who was Paul’s associate.
<snip>
The typical suggestion of scholars that Luke wrote around 85 CE is plausible, though the Gospel could have been completed 5 to 15 years earlier ore even 5 to 10 years later. The available evidence form antiquity does not make precision possible in either locating or dating the origin of Luke's narrative.

As for Mark the NOAB-NRSV can only say that it is "thought" to be composed just before 66 CE.

You seem to have a very different idea of known Biblical historical facts when compared to Christian theological scholars. We have some near complete copies of Paul's letters from the second century, but then again he isn't an eye witness by his own account. It isn't until roughly 150 years after the purported Jesus' crucifixion, that we even have a couple chapters extant from the Gospels. Add in the opportunity for Christians to continue editing the tales over the 100 plus years after his purported execution, and yeah that is too late for me

There is no person in antiquity that has sources closer than does Jesus. Plato, Aristotle and Julius Caesar earliest sources are dated over a 1000 years after they died. For Jesus it is just a couple years.

Quite laughable, as Christian scholars don't even agree with your "couple year" BS. Sure the extant copies of Julius Caesar's own writing are nearly a 1000 years old. However, Jesus never wrote anything by your own mythos. We have coinage and statues galore dated to Caesar's lifetime. You probably couldn't even fit all the evidence if we stacked it up floor to ceiling in your house. The physical evidence for Jesus could easily slip thru the eye of a needle, as nada is pretty small. We have commentary from people from Julius Caesar's lifetime in Rome: Cicero, Sallust, Catullus, Asinius Pollio, and Virgil. Jesus' eyewitnesses' are all "thought" to be the said writers of each Gospel, but even Christian theological scholars admit it this primarily based upon tradition. One group is creating a god, the other group is dealing with mortal political events. Which group is more likely to make shit up?

Since the gospel goes all the way back to the cross...

False claim already addressed....

In the end, you really should take up your fundamentalist drivel up with mainstream Christian theological scholars, before trying to ply your tripe on those who don't even buy into <fill in the blank> god...

 

[funinspace]

I guess we can add 'condemn' to the list of words you apparently don't understand.

So where are we now?

Condemn.

Holy Zeus, I read that twice before figuring out that he didn't not understand condoms...Freud help me!

Let me know when he starts quoting the O.R.G.A.S.M.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So where are we now?

Condemn.

Holy Zeus, I read that twice before figuring out that he didn't not understand condoms...Freud help me!

Let me know when he starts quoting the O.R.G.A.S.M.

Actually, Self is practically a tenured professor compared to Troy.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I can't condemn you. I can only report back to you what the Bible says. The Bible says, and I fully agree, that you are going to Hell because you are unwilling to come to the cross to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior.

revivin, do you think we are all lying to you when we tell you we don't believe your god exists and that there is a "Lord Jesus" to receive as "Savior"? Do you think we are all just pretending we don't believe like you do?

It always struck me how believers seem incapable of understanding that others may not believe as they do, and instead declare that we do believe, and are disobedient, rebellious, or too proud to follow God. I think it threatens believers to think that somebody somewhere may not be convinced god exists. I think they fear it will make them question their own beliefs and they dare not do that.

 

[OLDMAN]

Since professed believers in Christianity behave exactly as non-believers behave. They rape, they steal, they kill. And atheists behave exactly as professed Christians. They love, they nurture, they bear with patience. What exactly is it that the invisible sky-god of the Bible wants?

He collects those who will believe wild fanciful stories with no evidence, merely claims?

That is some great trait?

This!
and doesn't it follow somehow that if I come to the wrong religion using only faith and not the bible or logic, then I am still doing what God asks of me? In fact why use the bible at all, isn't that a lack of faith. We should simply agree to what others tell us God told them we should believe...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it threatens believers to think that somebody somewhere may not be convinced god exists. I think they fear it will make them question their own beliefs and they dare not do that.

I think they fear more that it would make them question their god.
If we actually do believe in god but behave otherwise, then we deserve to be put in hell for making the positive choice to move away from God. And it's only 'fair' for God to allow us to make that free choice.

If we just don't see a reason to believe in Jesus, the same as the thumper sees no reason to believe in Kos, Willy Wonka, Darth Vader or Tom Bombadill, that's not an evil act. It's not a subverted choice. We aren't really doing something evil, we're being honest. So it would be an evil act for God to punish us for our honesty.
Same as it would be Evil for Hades to drag them down to the Underworld simply because they honestly thought Jesus was god.

Far more comfortable for the theist to think that disbelievers are liars and thus deserve to dishonest our way to Hell.

 

[revivin]

As two animals are only mentioned in Mathew, and there is no mention of the presence of two animals in the other gospels, it strongly indicates that the writer ''Mathew'' attempted to present his account as a fulfillment of OT prophesy but made an awkward error in detail. Just as he embellished his account of the crucifixion with the dead rising from their graves.

Mark, John and Luke could have easily mentioned 2 asses, but they didn't showing their independent testimony of what they remembered or simply wanted to focus on since the colt represented the Gentiles not the Jews. Matthew records what he observed legally as a tax collector.

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

These are extraordinary events, monumental, yet not even a mention of it to be found in any other source? That it is not mentioned in the other gospels, not mentioned by the Romans, Not mentioned by the Jews, not by any historian, writer, scribe, etc....tends to support the proposition that the writer 'Mathew'' was simply attempting to embellish his account of the miracle of the divinity of Christ and his crucifixion and resurrection.

We have had such cases in history of people coming out of graves and flatlining in the hospital. Since the Apostles testified seeing Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings and people don't willingly die for what hey know is a lie, they could not have embellished seeing Jesus alive after the cross by which they set up those first churches in Acts and Pau's epistles on the resurrection testimony of the Apostles themselves.

 

[funinspace]

There are many natural explanations.

Peer pressure; wanting to belong to some group so you say things you know aren't true.

Ambition; the desire to be the biggest friend of the creator and have everyone know it.

Malice; lies as a way to strike out at perceived enemies of god.

And this is off the top of my head. The list is probably quite long.

Again, people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so that covers these naturalistic theories.

Why don't you come up with a naturalistic explanation for the birthing pains of the Latter Day Saint's and then apply to your own mythos...people most certainly do die for a lie. People also willingly die for pride, nations, and loved ones.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mark, John and Luke could have easily mentioned 2 asses, but they didn't showing their independent testimony of what they remembered or simply wanted to focus on. Matthew records what he observed.

But if those accounts fail to mention the elements of the prophecy, they fail to support the prophecy. Independent accounts do need to agree on the critical information in order to be useful.

We have had such cases in history of people coming out of graves and flatlining in the hospital.

Yeah, i would expect anyone that's been exhumed to flatline at the hopsital.
Do we have any historical accounts, contemporary to Jesus' execution, of dead people walking around Jerusalem?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think it threatens believers to think that somebody somewhere may not be convinced god exists. I think they fear it will make them question their own beliefs and they dare not do that.

I think they fear more that it would make them question their god.
If we actually do believe in god but behave otherwise, then we deserve to be put in hell for making the positive choice to move away from God. And it's only 'fair' for God to allow us to make that free choice.

If we just don't see a reason to believe in Jesus, the same as the thumper sees no reason to believe in Kos, Willy Wonka, Darth Vader or Tom Bombadill, that's not an evil act. It's not a subverted choice. We aren't really doing something evil, we're being honest. So it would be an evil act for God to punish us for our honesty.
Same as it would be Evil for Hades to drag them down to the Underworld simply because they honestly thought Jesus was god.

Far more comfortable for the theist to think that disbelievers are liars and thus deserve to dishonest our way to Hell.

Indeed. And note how he avoided the question.

 

[Underseer]

There are many natural explanations.

Peer pressure; wanting to belong to some group so you say things you know aren't true.

Ambition; the desire to be the biggest friend of the creator and have everyone know it.

Malice; lies as a way to strike out at perceived enemies of god.

And this is off the top of my head. The list is probably quite long.

Again, people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie so that covers these naturalistic theories.

Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 2.16).

God is actually Satan. He's a faggot version of Satan. A faggot version of Satan who prances around in a polka-dotted tutu while humming show tunes.

The above statement is true because you can't prove me wrong.

 

[revivin]

Do we have any historical accounts

Yes.

It's funny how Keith has a hard on for me everyday giving me additional negative reputation. That's funny. So cute.

 

[Sarpedon]

The depressing thing is that people will die for all sorts of bad causes. I'm sure you'd like to think otherwise, but facts are facts.

Remember the poisoned coolade people? How about the Hale-Bopp comet people?

Cult mentality is a very real thing. People who are brought into groups, isolated, and subjected to peer pressure and brain washing will say and do almost anything. It is absolutely terrifying to see how easily people can be molded. Of course, you don't want to see it, and you certainly don't want to think that may be what happened to you. Your religion is the right one, isn't? But that's what they all say, isn't it?

I didn't leave my religion because of science, or infinite regress or wanting to sin, or anything like that. I was a well behaved christian, and now I'm a well behaved atheist. What made me leave was one day stumbling on the inescapable conclusion that I had been brainwashed. I was teaching sunday school, and suddenly it hit me: the only reason I believed what I did was that because years ago, I had sat in the same schoolroom, getting the same lesson I was then teaching the children. And that was all there was to it.

 

[Angry Floof]

Do we have any historical accounts

Yes.

It's funny how Keith has a hard on for me everyday giving me additional negative reputation. That's funny. So cute.

How does it feel to belittle Keith? Does it feel like agape?

You don't believe in any god or goodness. You believe in ideology, a degraded one.

 

[Cobalt]

Do we have any historical accounts

Yes.

It's funny how Keith has a hard on for me everyday giving me additional negative reputation. That's funny. So cute.

And you don't have anything better to do, Troy? You believe you'll be raptured away from earth in 384 days and you're pissing your time away here with the hopelessly degenerate who don't appreciate a single thing you have to say. Why?

 

[free radical]

Do we have any historical accounts

Yes.
It's funny how Keith has a hard on for me everyday giving me additional negative reputation. That's funny. So cute.

Its funny how xians troll atheist forums looking for gay lovers

Must be their twisted logic making them think that since atheists lack fear of god and consequently
have no proper morality they'll be into any perversion..am I. Right revivin!?

All the sexual innuendos references to homosexuality,submitting to Jebus etc give you away every time!