It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence for God

page: 18
6
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
madnessinmysoul,

I cannot answer why God doesn't intervene more often in the problems of this world. Perhaps He is leaving this up to us humans to do. We all are born into sin though and He gives us choices to believe or not in Him. We can reject Him or love Him. Perhaps he gives us the resources and knowledge to solve problems and sits back to see how we do it.

We don't need God to solve alot of our ills. There is no reason why others should suffer from hunger and abuse, but humans are greedy and selfish and won't help those who aren't like them or they don't see as important.




posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ozmorphus
I rarely get inot arguments with non believers because I believe and if they don't then it is their soul that is lost, not mine.


and people say it's the atheists that are the arrogant ones



In the end all the arguments about God vs no God, Creation vs Evolution are a waste of time anyway.

If when we all die and there is no God then what will all the arguing matter. We wont know we were wrong are right because we will be dead.

But....

If when we die there is a God as described by Christianity, what will those who refused to believe feel at the moment they have to face Him and atone for their non-belief and sins?


why does pascal's (flawed) wager keep coming up?

what if you die and end up at the gates of valhalla? or in the hell of islam? you have no better chance of being correct than i do, i just choose to live a good life for the sake of being a good person (neutral good for the win) and any deity of any religion that can't accept me into their paradise for that is simply a fool that i wouldn't want to hang out with for eternity anyway.

[edit on 3/11/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Great story ozmorphus! Years ago my wife and I had another couple over one night and somehow we started talking about the antichrist. He had something in his car that gave more information on the subject, and identified a government figure as being a possibility. I walked outside with him to get the paper out of his car, and as soon as the door shut and we were in darkness I got a cold chill running up and down my back. I could actually feel it going up and down. The further we walked, the faster it got and the colder I got. Half way to his car my teeth began chattering I was so cold, even though this was July in Florida. By the time we got to the car, I was freezing, the chill was racing up and down, and my teeth were chattering so fast I could hardly stand it.

He reached inside and got the paper, but then turned to me and asked if I was okay. I asked why he wanted to know. He told me that the minute we came out and the door shut he began feeling a cold chill running up and down his back. He said, “I’m so cold right now my teeth are chattering, and I feel real weak.” All I could say above my own chattering was, “LET’S GET OUT OF HERE!”

We ran back to the house as fast as we were able, but with every step I got weaker, my teeth chattered more and more out of control, and the chills raced ever faster. However, the second I opened the door and the light hit us, I was totally normal – my strength was back, no chills, no chatter, comfortable temperature. Still, we never mentioned what we experienced again – I think we were both afraid to.

I cannot walk outside and look at the Earth without KNOWING we had a creator. Disbelievers say we had a big bang that created all this. However, our limited exploration of other planets doesn’t reveal the variety of minerals, elements and life we have here. It didn’t “just happen.” Sorry.

I also believe there is a high possibility that UFOs are real and do exist. Just because the Bible doesn’t cover that is of no problem to me. The Bible is a book of faith and religion, and not a history or science text book. The Bible tells of Lucifer being cast out of Heaven, and one-third of the angels going with him. Lucifer was God’s favorite angel, and God had given him great power and knowledge. Could ETs be these beings of great knowledge, coming to Earth to genetically alter themselves in preparation for Armageddon? Wild I know, but who really knows? And for those who believe we are the product of those ETs and not God, who created the ETs?

I know of too many normal and totally sane people who have had supernatural experiences with sprits, near death glimpses of Heaven and the likes to doubt the existence of an afterlife whether I believed going in or not. It’s dangerous to inject science and human logic into faith because the two are like apples and oranges.



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
How can we be sure this guy called Jesus preched he was a god. In fact how can we prove the bible was talking about the right guy. Jesus (pronounced he-suse) is a common name in certain cultures. So this means we can never be sure if the corrct Jesus was the one the bible mentions as the bible dates back too far.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by silk101]



posted on Mar, 15 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Think about it. If god created evrething, how waz he living. HOw waz he born. SO he just waz... how old does he get. If there is a god, how can he create bad people like hitler, and rapists, and murdererererereressss! Why would anybody in there own right mind create hate and death. I am not a devil worshiper.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   


At the council of Nicea most of the books written by eyewitnesses were included in the Bible. The ones that were not thought accurate and not written by eyewitnesses were not included.


You are aware that the council didn't include Jesus' own account of the events... personal quotes and what-not??? AS it suggested that Christianity was Elitist, not for the common man as they wished it to be...

God might exist but he certainly does not conform to the views of Christianity and Catholicism... to much has been altered to use the bible as proof... too much withheld and too much altered... It may have once been accurate... but unless you can get an original bible then it's a uncredited source- and shouldn't be used as conclusive evidence.


However, our limited exploration of other planets doesn’t reveal the variety of minerals, elements and life we have here. It didn’t “just happen.” Sorry.


... As you say our exploration is limited... and we've already found everything from single hydrogen atoms to complex Carbon lattices (diamond). Lets not forget the massive elemental gases in Jupiter. Oh, and the atmospheric conditions on Titan... ooo and theres water on mars as well.

"God" argh... Do you honestly, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that when you die your soul will leave your body and you shall rise to live out an existence of eternal paradise or that it will fall to an un-earthly world where all of your sins are manifest... it just seems so naive... I just live every day on Earth, with an honest smile and a good heart... i don't do it because some deity will reward me... i do it because it makes me and those around me happy.

To quote ol' William Blake:

Dear mother, dear mother, the Church is cold;
But the Alehouse is healthy, and pleasant, and warm.
Besides, I can tell where I am used well;
Such usage in heaven will never do well.

But, if at the Church they would give us some ale,
And a pleasant fire our souls to regale,
We'd sing and we'd pray all the livelong day,
Nor ever once wish from the Church to stray.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Veenous]



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Life long Christian turned atheist around 1999 or so.

Evidence for God ?

There is none.

There can be no logical extensions, extrapolations or inferences for something that is absolutely not detectable by any means.

What some book claims some people saw, heard about or did thousands of years ago means nothing to me.

I doubt the Christian bible just like I doubt every other bible.

My question to you is : How can you doubt the other gods / bibles and chose to believe in just one ?

By what basis did you determine that Christianity is the "right one" ?

Or like the rest of us is your religion merely based upon where you were born.

Perhaps if you were born somewhere else you'd be telling us how XYZ is the one real god.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
Evidence for God ?

There is none.

...

What some book claims some people saw, heard about or did thousands of years ago means nothing to me.


That's not where you need to look to see evidence of God. While I would disagree with you about the stories from thousands of years ago are irrelevant, that takes a lot of research to validate (at least, it did for me).

On the other hand, if you look around this world, this solar system, this galaxy, this universe, it's hard not to see the fingerprints of God.

Actually, I take that back...Like those inversed images which say something that's presented in such a way that your eyes try to make sense of the background instead of the foreground, it can be hard to see it at first, but after seeing it, it's blatantly obvious every time you look.

This universe is so complexly simple, it's hard to see how it could have just happened. The macro and the micro match, everything works so perfectly together.

There are so many evidences out there pointing to a creator, but it's difficult to see at first.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by NoobieDoobieDo
Evidence for God ?

There is none.

...

What some book claims some people saw, heard about or did thousands of years ago means nothing to me.


That's not where you need to look to see evidence of God. While I would disagree with you about the stories from thousands of years ago are irrelevant, that takes a lot of research to validate (at least, it did for me).

On the other hand, if you look around this world, this solar system, this galaxy, this universe, it's hard not to see the fingerprints of God.

Actually, I take that back...Like those inversed images which say something that's presented in such a way that your eyes try to make sense of the background instead of the foreground, it can be hard to see it at first, but after seeing it, it's blatantly obvious every time you look.

This universe is so complexly simple, it's hard to see how it could have just happened. The macro and the micro match, everything works so perfectly together.

There are so many evidences out there pointing to a creator, but it's difficult to see at first.


As a former Christian I know what you're saying. I use to take my bible to work, school, girlfriends house, etc. I use to see god everywhere too and I like the OP sought to prove god was real. Then one day it hit me - why am I carrying this huge burden for someone who has never even spoken to me. Things went downhill from there (for the idea of god anyhow).

As an atheist I know both sides of the argument.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
That's not where you need to look to see evidence of God. While I would disagree with you about the stories from thousands of years ago are irrelevant, that takes a lot of research to validate (at least, it did for me).


well, all myth (yes, i called your religion a myth, but not to demean it. i happen to have the utmost respect for myth) has meaning. they are mostly irellevant to modern life, but they can teach us about ourselves.



On the other hand, if you look around this world, this solar system, this galaxy, this universe, it's hard not to see the fingerprints of God.


well, if you look at a cloud that looks just like a horse, it seems that someone designed it.

if there's an inkblot that looks like it was designed to look like something, it doesn't mean it was meant to.



Actually, I take that back...Like those inversed images which say something that's presented in such a way that your eyes try to make sense of the background instead of the foreground, it can be hard to see it at first, but after seeing it, it's blatantly obvious every time you look.

This universe is so complexly simple, it's hard to see how it could have just happened. The macro and the micro match, everything works so perfectly together.


the macro and micro do NOT match.
even the physics of the two are radically different. the supermassive and the sub-micro operate with different sets of physics.
hell, we need 3 forms of geometry, one for spheres, one for lobes, and one for planes, to make sense of the universe.



There are so many evidences out there pointing to a creator, but it's difficult to see at first.


yet you can't show us 1

there isn't EVIDENCE, all you have are assumptions. this looks like someone might have designed it, so it was designed. that's not a valid argument.



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Thanks for your support ozmorphus. It has been sometime since I have visited this thread as I grew weary of this debate, but now I am back reinspired by your account.

As you have discovered, God has given his followers the power to command demons.


“The 70 disciples came back very happy. They said, "Lord, even demons obey us when we use the power and authority of your name!"” (Luke 10:17)



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by ozmorphus
Lancer I totally agree with you. I firmly believe Jesus is Lord and He exists.

Your arguments are extremely logical. Why would people die for a total lie?


well, you contradict yourself. people have died in the name of a number of religions that you believe are total lies


Yes, people have died for religions that naturally any person not apart of that religion believe is a lie. But there is a difference in this case. At this time the religion of Christianity hasn’t really begun. These are the first Christians. These disciples that were killed, were killed because of what they claimed, which was there eyewitness accounts of seeing and speaking to Jesus after his death. They had no Bible, or teachers or preaches to persuade them over there life time. There faith was created solely from there experiences with their time with Jesus. So other people have died for lies, not knowing themselves it is a lie, but these disciples would know full well if they are lying or not. To die for a lie is one thing, but to die for a lie that you are aware of is another.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by ozmorphus
If Jesus was making it all up, then why would he endure his flesh being striped from his back, thorns thrust into his skull and nailed to a cross j ust to say, "I'm lying, but I won't give in?"


he wouldn't be the first person to die for something that they made up


Who else can you think of?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
then why won't your god show his power to the millions of starving children on the planet and feed them? why won't god show amputees his power and regrow their limbs?


That is a hard question and hard to understand. Firstly, God doesn’t choose for bad things to happen. In fact he is saddened when they happen. The world is the way it is because we have made it like this. Since the Fall of creation, this world has been consumed with sin, which has brought wars, disease, pain, famine etc. God could stop all of this, and he will in time. So many people in this world do not want to know about God, they want to live a life without him. In fact even Christian sometimes fell like this. So God is giving us what we asked for: a world where he is not present. And a world without God is chaos. But you do not have to walk this life alone. You only have to ask and God will help you through the tough times. This world will end soon and all will be made perfect. Perhaps He leaves us in this world so we can see a need for him, or to see what the world is like without him in control. This world is a test for us. It is for God to see who wants him. And God wants those who want him. This is the choice he has giving all of us. And He is withholding the world’s destruction so to give everyone their chance to want him.


"The Lord...is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2Peter 3.9)



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what if you die and end up at the gates of valhalla? or in the hell of islam? you have no better chance of being correct than i do, i just choose to live a good life for the sake of being a good person (neutral good for the win) and any deity of any religion that can't accept me into their paradise for that is simply a fool that i wouldn't want to hang out with for eternity anyway.


God has provided enough evidence for us to believe in him. Non-belief is inexcusable. You could be a person that is friendly to everyone, but if in your heart you do not want to live your life with God, He will give you your wish and you will not have to spend eternity with him.

www.evidenceofgod.com...



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by silk101
How can we be sure this guy called Jesus preched he was a god. In fact how can we prove the bible was talking about the right guy. Jesus (pronounced he-suse) is a common name in certain cultures. So this means we can never be sure if the corrct Jesus was the one the bible mentions as the bible dates back too far.


Because the evidence is so abundant. The Bible isn’t that old compared to other ancient texts. In fact it is the most accurate ancient manuscript known.

There is evidence in History: www.evidenceofgod.com...

Evidence in archaeology: www.evidenceofgod.com...

Evidence in science: www.evidenceofgod.com...

Evidence in prophecy: www.evidenceofgod.com...

Evidence in manuscripts: www.evidenceofgod.com...



What evidence is there that Jesus was a real person?

Substantial evidence exists in three different legal proof categories: (1) Eyewitness testimony, (2) Written investigations and (3) Inter-related events.
1. Eyewitness Testimony: The Gospels were written within a single generation of the actual events and therefore include events as testified by people who were actually there. Luke 1:1 states that his accounts were given to him directly by those who were eyewitnesses. The Gospels were published soon enough after the events to give anyone who had evidence to the contrary to come forward. There is no evidence that this occurred.

2. Written Investigations: At least nine different non-Christian writers reported events about Jesus as historical fact soon after the events occurred. They were (with approximate AD dates in brackets): Thallus [52], Josephus [64-93], Cornelius Tacitus [64-116], Pliny [112], Hadrian [117-138], Suetonius [120], Phlegon [140], Lucian of Samosata [170] and Mara Bar-Sepion [70]. A myriad of early Christian writers also confirm events by 130 AD.

3. Inter-related Events: The rapid spread of Christianity so soon after the life of Christ decreases the chance of the Gospel events being myth. Also, ten of eleven of the original Disciples died as martyrs within 30-35 years of the
Crucifixion. Nowhere, in any religion or belief, have a group of people ever gone willingly to their deaths for something they knew was a lie!
· In addition to the proofs above, there is the issue of accurate prophecy:
The Old Testament contains 332 prophecies about the Messiah, and every one was fulfilled by Jesus hundreds of years after their writing. These prophecies include who his ancestors would be (Gen 9:26, 12:3, 12:18, 17:16, 35:10-12, Isaiah 11 and 2 Sam 7:12-16), what his role would be (Is 7:14, 9:6-7, 49:6, 29:18, 53:1-3 and Psalm 118:22), when he would come (Daniel 9:20-27), where he would be born (Micah 5:2) and many other specific details (Zech 9:9, Psalm 41:9, Zech 11:12, Zech 11:13, Psalm 22:16-17, Zech 12:10, Is 53:1-3 and Psalm 22:18).

www.evidenceofgod.com...



Originally posted by Veenous

Originally posted by LancerJ1
At the council of Nicea most of the books written by eyewitnesses were included in the Bible. The ones that were not thought accurate and not written by eyewitnesses were not included.


You are aware that the council didn't include Jesus' own account of the events... personal quotes and what-not??? AS it suggested that Christianity was Elitist, not for the common man as they wished it to be...

God might exist but he certainly does not conform to the views of Christianity and Catholicism... to much has been altered to use the bible as proof... too much withheld and too much altered... It may have once been accurate... but unless you can get an original bible then it's a uncredited source- and shouldn't be used as conclusive evidence.


Jesus never had his own account. There is no evidence of alteration.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
Since people have been saying there is no proof of God and creationism, I have decided to write this showing logically why God exists.

I only quoted some of what you wrote because of the length. I'm sick of people claiming they have proof of God. They don't, you don't, no one does. You just presented what all christian fanatics always present.

Jesus was not the son of God, nor was he God. He was likely a very smart conman of his time, though he could have been a conman with good intentions. He sees a bunch of miserable primitives, and decides to take advantage (or help). If he took advantage, it would have been simple in those times, some sleight of hand, some careful wordplay, and BAM, he's God. Now, I do think he could've been trying to help. Let's say he sees those miserable primitives, and thinks,
"If I claim to be God, I can give these people hope and spiritual insight, therefore making their lives better."
Sounds reasonable, a little dishonest, but helpful.

As for all the scriptures, they had time to be written. Stories of Jesus' "powers", such as turning water into wine, could all be propaganda.

You haven't actually presented any real evidence for the "biblical" God. All you produced was ancient propaganda. Ever heard of a little place called North Korea? Ever think that Christianity is a "North Korean" Judaism?

My basic beliefs are in a Creator (he/she/it) that has never intervened with mankind. This "God" does not seek our worship. Why would an omnipotent creator demand worship, or else you go to a place called hell? Sorry, hell was "invented" to scare people into obeying laws. I would never allow myself to join a religion that has its followers fear an alternative to belief.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Its not proof as much but rather evidence. I am as equally sick of people saying there is no evidence for God. Nothing you have written proves the contrary of what i have presented

You say Jesus could of been a very smart conman. But would a very smart conman let himself be crucified when he had many chances to get out of it?


If he took advantage, it would have been simple in those times, some sleight of hand, some careful wordplay, and BAM, he's God.


It's not as easy as that. This does not fit logically with the facts we have.


Why would an omnipotent creator demand worship, or else you go to a place called hell?


You have the wrong idea. God doesn't demand worship from us, but he does seeks it and deserves it. And you don't go to hell if you don't worship. You go there if you do not believe when you have had reasonable opportunity to believe. And you are probably thinking of worship as going to church and singing hymns. This is only one form of worship. Worship is doing anything that pleases God.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1

Originally posted by silk101
How can we be sure this guy called Jesus preched he was a god. In fact how can we prove the bible was talking about the right guy. Jesus (pronounced he-suse) is a common name in certain cultures. So this means we can never be sure if the corrct Jesus was the one the bible mentions as the bible dates back too far.


Because the evidence is so abundant. The Bible isn’t that old compared to other ancient texts. In fact it is the most accurate ancient manuscript known.



What evidence is there that Jesus was a real person?

Substantial evidence exists in three different legal proof categories: (1) Eyewitness testimony, (2) Written investigations and (3) Inter-related events.
1. Eyewitness Testimony: The Gospels were written within a single generation of the actual events
There is no proof that they were written at this time.

and therefore include events as testified by people who were actually there. Luke 1:1 states that his accounts were given to him directly by those who were eyewitnesses. The Gospels were published soon enough after the events to give anyone who had evidence to the contrary to come forward. There is no evidence that this occurred.
But Luke was not an eyewitness to anything jesus did so what these people told him was hearsay - there is no evidence other than what Luke states he believes to be true.


2. Written Investigations: At least nine different non-Christian writers reported events about Jesus as historical fact soon after the events occurred. They were (with approximate AD dates in brackets): Thallus [52], Josephus [64-93], Cornelius Tacitus [64-116], Pliny [112], Hadrian [117-138], Suetonius [120], Phlegon [140], Lucian of Samosata [170] and Mara Bar-Sepion [70]. A myriad of early Christian writers also confirm events by 130 AD.
Do we really have to go through this argument again. Suffice to say that some claims are fraudulent and others so vague that they never even mention jesus by name so are not evidence for jesus


3. Inter-related Events: The rapid spread of Christianity so soon after the life of Christ decreases the chance of the Gospel events being myth. Also, ten of eleven of the original Disciples died as martyrs within 30-35 years of the Crucifixion.
Did they really now - not according to wiki they didn't

Nowhere, in any religion or belief, have a group of people ever gone willingly to their deaths for something they knew was a lie!
HA HA LOL
·

In addition to the proofs above, there is the issue of accurate prophecy:
The Old Testament contains 332 prophecies about the Messiah, and every one was fulfilled by Jesus hundreds of years after their writing. These prophecies include who his ancestors would be (Gen 9:26, 12:3, 12:18, 17:16, 35:10-12, Isaiah 11 and 2 Sam 7:12-16), what his role would be (Is 7:14, 9:6-7, 49:6, 29:18, 53:1-3 and Psalm 118:22), when he would come (Daniel 9:20-27), where he would be born (Micah 5:2) and many other specific details (Zech 9:9, Psalm 41:9, Zech 11:12, Zech 11:13, Psalm 22:16-17, Zech 12:10, Is 53:1-3 and Psalm 22:18).

www.evidenceofgod.com...
Oh yes, supervague prophecies that could be applied to virtually anthying.


I must admit that the evidence presented fell to pieces quite easily

Any more??

G



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   

There is no proof that they were written at this time.


There may not be proof as any dating this far back is difficult but we can have a pretty good estimation that the gospels were written somewhere between 30AD and 140AD with 30AD being the earliest possible date for Jesus' crucifixion. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references to Matthew as early as AD 110. Therefore Matthew was in circulation by that year. Same goes with the gospel of Mark which is possibly utilised by the author of Matthew.

It's possible that the gospel writers wrote there accounts in a rough draft form first and was later edited by there followers.

The date of there composition is not the main indication of the authenticity but the fact that they support each other. And if they did not tell the truth then there would still be a fair number of eyewitnesses around that time to dispute their claims.


But Luke was not an eyewitness to anything jesus did so what these people told him was hearsay - there is no evidence other than what Luke states he believes to be true.


Luke was a historian and scientist and it was his job to make sure his research was accurate. It is believed Luke is also the author of Acts which is full of historically and politically accurate details. So this gives us reason to believe the Gospel of Luke is accurate to.



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 07:26 AM
link   
There may not be proof as any dating this far back is difficult but we can have a pretty good estimation that the gospels were written somewhere between 30AD and 140AD with 30AD being the earliest possible date for Jesus' crucifixion. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references to Matthew as early as AD 110, indicating Matthew was in circulation by that year. Same goes with the gospel of Mark which is possibly utilised by the author of Matthew.

It's possible that the gospel writers wrote there accounts in a rough draft form first and was later edited by there followers.

The date of there composition is not the main indication of their authenticity but the fact that they support each other. And if they did not tell the truth then there would still be a fair number of eyewitnesses around that time to dispute their claims.


But Luke was not an eyewitness to anything jesus did so what these people told him was hearsay - there is no evidence other than what Luke states he believes to be true.


Luke was a historian and scientist and it was his job to make sure his research was accurate. It is believed Luke is also the author of Acts which is full of historically and politically accurate details. So this gives us reason to believe the Gospel of Luke is accurate to.


Do we really have to go through this argument again. Suffice to say that some claims are fraudulent and others so vague that they never even mention jesus by name so are not evidence for jesus


I agree some are vague. But we can be fairly certain that the others are referring to him as they certainly refer to Christians. Tacitus refers to Jesus as "Christus" the Latinised Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah".


Did they really now - not according to wiki they didn't


Wiki isnt the most reliable of sources. The time when they were martyred doesn't make much of a difference.


HA HA LOL


As ive mention before other people have died for lies, not knowing themselves it is a lie, but these disciples would know full well if they are lying or not. To die for a lie is one thing, but to die for a lie that you are aware of is another.


Oh yes, supervague prophecies that could be applied to virtually anthying.


You think predicting where Jesus would be born and that it would be a virgin birth and that he would be crucified is super vague?



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
There may not be proof as any dating this far back is difficult but we can have a pretty good estimation that the gospels were written somewhere between 30AD and 140AD with 30AD being the earliest possible date for Jesus' crucifixion.


no legitimate biblical scholar would say that any of the gospels were written as early as 30 CE, the earliest i've seen for a publication date was 70CE, a good 38-42 years after the supposed death of supposed messiah figure.



Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references to Matthew as early as AD 110, indicating Matthew was in circulation by that year.


well, matthew in some form. not necessarily the matthew you read today.



Same goes with the gospel of Mark which is possibly utilised by the author of Matthew.


but again, even if it had been in circulation for 30 years, that would mean the author couldn't have even been alive during the crucifixion



It's possible that the gospel writers wrote there accounts in a rough draft form first and was later edited by there followers.


it's POSSIBLE? is that all you really have?



The date of there composition is not the main indication of their authenticity but the fact that they support each other.


ugh, again:
last words o' christ
death of judas
lineages
etc.

and the parts that support each other... well, you said it yourself. the writers utilized the other gospels....



And if they did not tell the truth then there would still be a fair number of eyewitnesses around that time to dispute their claims.


that's why there are a boatload of other gospels....




Luke was a historian and scientist and it was his job to make sure his research was accurate.


he could have been a shoddy historian, a shoddy scientist, or he could have just had shoddy evidence to work from



It is believed Luke is also the author of Acts which is full of historically and politically accurate details.


yet it provides a third story of how judas died...
and it also shows that the apostles were communists (seriously, take a look)



So this gives us reason to believe the Gospel of Luke is accurate to.


no. that is not a logical train of thought. it relies on "it is also believed"



Wiki isnt the most reliable of sources.


just like the bible, except the bible doesn't get restored back to its original state when someone messes with it and adds stuff that just doesn't belong there.




As ive mention before other people have died for lies, not knowing themselves it is a lie, but these disciples would know full well if they are lying or not.


or maybe they were dying for a religion based on metaphors. they may have believed in the spiritual truth of it but not in the historical truth.



You think predicting where Jesus would be born and that it would be a virgin birth


incorrect. Isaiah predicted that the messiah would be born of a YOUNG LADY. it seems like the translation you're working from is KJV, that's one of its glaring mistakes. the difference in the original word is like the difference between maid and maiden.



and that he would be crucified is super vague?


where does it say he'd be crucified?



posted on May, 21 2007 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LancerJ1
There may not be proof as any dating this far back is difficult but we can have a pretty good estimation that the gospels were written somewhere between 30AD and 140AD with 30AD being the earliest possible date for Jesus' crucifixion. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, makes indirect references to Matthew as early as AD 110, indicating Matthew was in circulation by that year. Same goes with the gospel of Mark which is possibly utilised by the author of Matthew.
So why would Matthew (a disciple of jesus) need to utilise the gospel of Mark (who was NOT a disciple)?


It's possible that the gospel writers wrote there accounts in a rough draft form first and was later edited by there followers.

The date of there composition is not the main indication of their authenticity but the fact that they support each other. And if they did not tell the truth then there would still be a fair number of eyewitnesses around that time to dispute their claims.
Would there ??? Didnt the Romans decide to wipe most of the jews and jerusalem from the face of the planet around 30 years after the supposed death of christ - makes me think that people would have had other things on their mind than whether some mad little sect was telling the truth on their claims.



But Luke was not an eyewitness to anything jesus did so what these people told him was hearsay - there is no evidence other than what Luke states he believes to be true.


Luke was a historian and scientist and it was his job to make sure his research was accurate. It is believed Luke is also the author of Acts which is full of historically and politically accurate details. So this gives us reason to believe the Gospel of Luke is accurate to.
Herodotus was also a historian who wrote of winged monsters that stopped people stealing fruit or trees or something (can't remember off hand) but these monsters didnt exist, so why shouldn't Luke invent things???



Do we really have to go through this argument again. Suffice to say that some claims are fraudulent and others so vague that they never even mention jesus by name so are not evidence for jesus


I agree some are vague. But we can be fairly certain that the others are referring to him as they certainly refer to Christians. Tacitus refers to Jesus as "Christus" the Latinised Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah".
As I said none of them even mention jesus - mentioning chrestus or christus is NOT evidence of jesus, only evidence of a chrestus/christus, and even at that there were plenty of messiahs



HA HA LOL


As ive mention before other people have died for lies, not knowing themselves it is a lie, but these disciples would know full well if they are lying or not. To die for a lie is one thing, but to die for a lie that you are aware of is another.
There is not even evidence for the existence of these disciples - one or two yes but these people might not even have existed. I mean do you prescribe to the story of jesus moving to india after being 'crucified'?



Oh yes, supervague prophecies that could be applied to virtually anthying.


You think predicting where Jesus would be born and that it would be a virgin birth and that he would be crucified is super vague?
Didnt the prediction call jesus emmanuel or something and wasn't the virgin just a mistake for young girl?

Yes I would say supervague!



G



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
no legitimate biblical scholar would say that any of the gospels were written as early as 30 CE, the earliest i've seen for a publication date was 70CE, a good 38-42 years after the supposed death of supposed messiah figure.


I know, i was just giving the widest possible dates. Most ive seen is between 50-70AD.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but again, even if it had been in circulation for 30 years, that would mean the author couldn't have even been alive during the crucifixion


why?



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's POSSIBLE? is that all you really have?


Just giving a possibility for another explanation mate. Would it mean anymore to you if i said "This is the answer"?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ugh, again:
last words o' christ
death of judas
lineages
etc.


Matthew is the only gospel book that mentions Judas' death.

What about the last words of Christ?

Lineages are slightly different because of the different authors perspective and writing manner, and may not have had contact with the same facts so some names are omitted.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and the parts that support each other... well, you said it yourself. the writers utilized the other gospels....


Its possible they have utilised other gospels, but maybe they havent. Perhaps they have drawn on a common source material. There is no direct reference in any of the gospels to the others.


Despite the extensive similarities, there are surprising differences between Mark and the other gospels. Some passages appear in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. There are also curious omissions of material found in Mark (e.g. Mark 6:45-8:26; nicknamed the 'great omission', because it so hard to explain why Luke would knowingly have excluded it from his gospel). And, although most of the material in Mark also appears in Matthew, even here there are unexpected omissions, such as Mk 4:26-9, 7:31-7 and 8:22-6, as well as textual differences. In fact, as may be noted, some of the material from these passages appears in neither. www.users.zetnet.co.uk...



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's why there are a boatload of other gospels....


False gospels trying to undermine the Christian faith.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
he could have been a shoddy historian, a shoddy scientist, or he could have just had shoddy evidence to work from


But he wasn't. As i said Acts is very historically and politically accurate. He did not have shoddy evidence to work from, his accounts of Paul's journeys are accurate because he was with him on a number of his journeys.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yet it provides a third story of how judas died...
and it also shows that the apostles were communists (seriously, take a look)


There are a number of explanations, here are some:

* Matthew describes how Judas PHYSICALLY died.
* Acts describes how Judas SPIRITUALLY fell from God.

or

Judas first hanged himself. Then, at some point, the rope either broke or loosened so that his body slipped from it and fell to the rocks below and burst open. Matthew does not deny that Judas fell and had his entrails gush out, and Luke does not deny that Judas hanged himself. Matthew records the method in which Judas attempted his death. Luke reports the end result.

A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another which is not the case here.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
no. that is not a logical train of thought. it relies on "it is also believed"


If that's not logical then i don't know what is.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
or maybe they were dying for a religion based on metaphors. they may have believed in the spiritual truth of it but not in the historical truth.


What do you mean by historical truth?


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
incorrect. Isaiah predicted that the messiah would be born of a YOUNG LADY. it seems like the translation you're working from is KJV


No, I have hardly read a KJV. It says clearly in the NIV:
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14.



Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
where does it say he'd be crucified?


"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." Psalm 22:16

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;.." Isaiah 53:5

It may not directly indicate Jesus will be crucified, but Isaiah describes other things about how Jesus would die.
-Standing silent before his accusers(53:7)
-Hands and feet pierced(53:5)
-Buried in a rich mans tomb(53:9)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join