Egyptian Account of Exodus.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Because they all use the same circular reasoning to prove themselves. They quote earlier books as evidence for the claims that they are making in the new books. Yet none of the original claims were ever proven with real evidence. So it is just one long circular chain of agreeing with itself.


Subjective claims are anything written down or said by a human. Objective claims are anything shown by physical evidence. The bible is a bunch of subjective claims since it is a book written by humans. None of the claims are tested or explained how to be tested in the bible so we have to just assume that these people are telling the truth. Quite a tall order when humans are prone to lie. If you want to make a subjective claim, you better be able to back it up with objective evidence.

Well said. Their desperation to convince others leads to convoluted machinations that simply are not credible. It also strongly suggests that their beliefs aren't as solid as they'd like us to believe. Once they start researching this stuff, as those who make these silly arguments have, they see the gaping cracks in the story and become desperate to convince themselves, by convincing others, that the evidence is solid.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because they all use the same circular reasoning to prove themselves. They quote earlier books as evidence for the claims that they are making in the new books.

Who or what is they? This argument isn't very clear and its also way to broad making it logically fallacious.

Subjective claims are anything written down or said by a human.

This is simply not true, and I'll show you with one claim:
"Something is itself." This isn't subjective, and it doesn't require any form of physical evidence to prove its validity. It is a simple truth statement.

Objective claims are anything shown by physical evidence.

This coming from the guy who made reference to the Q source earlier?

This may be true in Science, but not history. You said " None of the claims are tested or explained how to be tested in the bible so we have to just assume that these people are telling the truth. " No historical claim can be tested or explained how to be tested. You are trying to act as though we should have repeatable evidence for historical claims. Thats simply not the case. Can a historical claim ever be proven? No. As I have said multiple times we can only come up with an educated opinion. That doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The post above will not show up completely dunno whats going on.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Just suck it up, and have a rational discussion. "Lack of evidence" is the tool of those in opposition of your beliefs. You're way behind in terms of producing evidence.

Except I am the only one who has evidence corroborating their claims. Anyone can see that by simply re-reading the post. I have given Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny as evidence for Jesus existence and his crucifixion. People have done nothing to show these are not references to Jesus. They have simply said they are not. I have given logical proofs as to why these are references of Jesus of Nazareth, although any rational person wouldn't need input to realize these people are talking about Jesus the Christ.

But, I understand, you're new at Apologetics. This probably isn't the best 'training ground' for you yet.

Not new, been studying the Bible for over 3 years daily. You never answered why such a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Christians? What did they do to you?

I have sat here asking people to produce evidence of their claims. They haven't done that at all. Because all the evidence we have says these three sources are referencing Jesus.

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

a reply to: Tangerine

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

Still spouting off the same nonsense...contemporaneous documentation is not the only form of historical evidence nor is it always considered the most valuable. Example: Julius Caesar has one contemporaneous Document, and scholars don't consider it anywhere near as valuable as the others(which are dated hundreds of years after his death) because of who wrote it.

The biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after he lived.....you see you just ignore the fact that the Bible exceeds pretty much all ancient sources from its day when it comes to evidence supporting its reliability.

You again just come on here shouting an opinion and don't have any evidence to say otherwise.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

As I am tired of doing personal research for people who made up their minds before the conversation began I will let this thread die out with John 3:12

"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

The reality of the establishment existing? Huh? So you're arguing that Isis and Zeus existed, too, because people worshipped them?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

The reality of the establishment existing? Huh? So you're arguing that Isis and Zeus existed, too, because people worshipped them?

do the majority of the global population follow Isis or Zeus?

Christians and their ideology is overwhelming evidence that Jesus still exists to this very day.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

The reality of the establishment existing? Huh? So you're arguing that Isis and Zeus existed, too, because people worshipped them?

do the majority of the global population follow Isis or Zeus?

Christians and their ideology is overwhelming evidence that Jesus still exists to this very day.

You have a very imperfect understanding of evidence. The "overwhelming" belief that the earth was flat didn't make it fact.

yes... 2000 years of hard tangible factual evidence that one can touch with their hands and mind.

Vs. what... doubt? from a minority none the less.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Looks like this is another pious fraud and a Suetonius is another victim of Christian interpolation.

Please explain to me how you jumped to this completely irrational conclusion.

I come to this conclusion because of the other historians of time, who also chronicled the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, and Claudius decision' had nothing to do with a small cult of Jesus worshipers.

Eusebius and Jerome were not shy about lying for Jesus.

originally posted by: AinElohim
yes... 2000 years of hard tangible factual evidence that one can touch with their hands and mind.

Vs. what... doubt? from a minority none the less.

You have zero factual evidence proving that Jesus ever lived. Zero. Name one person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed him living. One.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

The reality of the establishment existing? Huh? So you're arguing that Isis and Zeus existed, too, because people worshipped them?

do the majority of the global population follow Isis or Zeus?

Christians and their ideology is overwhelming evidence that Jesus still exists to this very day.

A case of "Build it and they will come!", the gods, that is! LOL

I guess believing makes stuff true! LOL

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

The reality of the establishment existing? Huh? So you're arguing that Isis and Zeus existed, too, because people worshipped them?

do the majority of the global population follow Isis or Zeus?

Christians and their ideology is overwhelming evidence that Jesus still exists to this very day.

You have a very imperfect understanding of evidence. The "overwhelming" belief that the earth was flat didn't make it fact.

the naysayers simply can not prove beyond a doubt that Jesus never existed, you can't prove your own negative, it's against the nature of the universe.

on the other hand, the Christians and their establishment existing adds heaps and mounds upon your negative.

meaning... you only strengthen their case.

a reply to: AinElohim

I guess 1 billion Hindi make Krishna, Kali, Shiva, and the rest true gods as well, by your logic.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have ignored the fact that none of your sources lived when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed him living. Your sources are not contemporaneous documentation and, therefore, are worthless when it comes to proving that Jesus actually lived.

the reality of the establishment existing kind of nullifies any doubt.

the dude obviously existed and is an historical figure, and I would wager Einstein never existed he simply has no following to speak of.

The reality of the establishment existing? Huh? So you're arguing that Isis and Zeus existed, too, because people worshipped them?

do the majority of the global population follow Isis or Zeus?

Christians and their ideology is overwhelming evidence that Jesus still exists to this very day.

You have a very imperfect understanding of evidence. The "overwhelming" belief that the earth was flat didn't make it fact.

the naysayers simply can not prove beyond a doubt that Jesus never existed, you can't prove your own negative, it's against the nature of the universe.

on the other hand, the Christians and their establishment existing adds heaps and mounds upon your negative.

meaning... you only strengthen their case.

It's impossible to prove a negative. That it is impossible to prove that Frodo did not live does not prove that Frodo did live. The onus is always on the person making the positive claim (ie.Jesus lived) to prove it. I should think that it would be easy to understand that only someone who lived when Jesus alleged lived could have witnessed him living and only such a person could have documented his existence. I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AinElohim

I guess 1 billion Hindi make Krishna, Kali, Shiva, and the rest true gods as well, by your logic.

yes we could all be talking about the same omniscient transcendent God.

this cross cultural difference could simply be subjective reality... no two people see or feel for that matter the same about the color blue.

and each culture has its own language used for expression.

en.wikipedia.org...

and bringing other religion into it is only going to add more heaps and mounds to the Atheists negative.

hence... God/gods do exist and atheists themselves still being in the minority.



*gotta love democracy... but democracy is something I do not expect communist nations to love.

a reply to: AinElohim

How many people who lived before you lived or didn't live at all have you, personally, witnessed living?