NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm kinda bored. So I would like to get a panel of people together, perhaps 4 or 8 or so, inculding myself, and debate, with real evidence (which is so very hard to find on here), anything about Christianity. Like If Jesus ever lived, if He performed miracles, if the whole idea od God makes sense, jsut pretty much everything. You will be rquired to provide actual evidence, not just "I heard somewhere something about somebody finding some stuff somewhere..." I think half Christians and half Atheists/Agnostics (is there a problem with blending the two into one side in this?) would be fair. I'm a Christian, by the way. We'll all try very hard to leave our various biases behind and just examine the evidence. So it would be cool if anybody who's interested would post here, and after a day or two we'll make the panel, ask everybody else to leave, and start the debate. This is very similar to the Evolution debate...um...somebody, whose name I have forgotten...started a while ago. Hope to start soon.

*must not post the "not this shit again" picture*

Err, well, I don't want to be in the panel but I'd love to see a discussion on the whole issue of whether or not Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. I aways liked that argument.

Well, let's assume here (well I am, so sit down), that there is a God, and all that. Now, if Jesus had said what he had said and claimed to be what he had claimed WITHOUT being the Son of God, he would have been colossally blaspheming.
God doesn't really favour blasphemers, and certainly wouldn't resurrec them.
However, even though the disciples were in deepest despair after his death, SOMETHING on the third day made them decide he was alive and go out preaching happily.

*must not post the "not this shit again" picture*

Must... resist... must... not... link...

GAAAAHHHH!!!!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/fedup9wr.jpg

Sorry.

We could start with testable hypotheses, like

"If the world flooded, there would exist a large, uniform stratum containing fossils of diverse organisms."

or

"If the bible is an infallible record, it would be entirely precise and contain no demonstrable falsehoods."

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg There's another one!

Right, back to the point. Someone rebut me.

Must... resist... must... not... link...

GAAAAHHHH!!!!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/fedup9wr.jpg

Sorry.
I'm a christian but...LOL.
I would like to be on it. I agree that we should not argue and just examine the evidence.

when I saw the title my first thought is "Sure Christianity exists, after all I am a Christian and I exist" but then I realized that it was another one of those "prove it" threds. I can't prove it, I know it is true, but I don't have any scientifical evidence so nobody will be happy and most people will start in with thier "fundie idiot" and "fairy tale" comments so I think I am done, as I am in a bad mood today anyway. I may come back though. Like I said I don't actually have any indisputable evidence, so I can't add much. Though from what I understand the other side doesn't have any either, so it really seems like a pointless discussion, but most on here do anyway, and I still post. So who knows? :rolleyes:

:headbang: religon isn't about proof and facts, its about faith. Hence the reason it is religion and not science. :headbang:

It can't really be proved either way as long as you don't try to take the Bible word for word.

I recently came up with a long arguement saying that it is scientifically possible for a deity to exist but not in the directly interacting form of omnipotence that most religions believe in. I'm off to bed but I might post it on the forum if anyone's interested.

This is too broad. Maybe if we could focus on a particular belief, like the existence of a god, or the validity of the bible, or something along those lines.

Trying to prove or disprove a religion is like trying to put the shit back into the bull.you can but whats the point?for those with faith,no proof against their religion will make any difference.for those without any proof for a religion will make no difference.

athiest btw

Trying to prove or disprove a religion is like trying to put the shit back into the bull.you can but whats the point?for those with faith,no proof against their religion will make any difference.for those without any proof for a religion will make no difference.

athiest btw

I disagree. I for one know that if someone could give me proof that my beliefs are wrong I will change my mind.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/fedup9wr.jpg
How about some variation (http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg)? :D

How about some variation (http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg)? :D

How right you are!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/shootdog.jpg

yes, the idea was to debate sepcific bits one by one. we have 4 christians now...but for some reason, at least up until this point, no atheists seem interested in joining...haha, i wonder why that is :p jk, they're prob just gathering evidence or something...btw, on the giant flood issue, that is the only thing i can find in the bible that doesn't have some sorta physical evidence to support it...but i'm sure some will turn up sometime...so, some atheists for the board? please?

btw, the whole faith thing...yes, it is faith we base it on. everything has some degree of faith to it. most things have quite a bit less faith involved than religion, like math or hockey or something. but it always helps your faith in the religion if you can back it up with evidence. and i'm secretly hoping that some athesit somewhere will actually concede a loss on some unarguable point, like the credibillity of the gospels or something. so that's part of my goal...still waiting for atheists to volunteer for the board.

Right, back to the point. Someone rebut me.
You assumed that Yeshua ben Yosef actually rose from the dead. Your post is worthless unless you prove that said resurrection happened.

The issue with discussions of this nature is that it's not possible for any side to convincingly desrtoy the other one.

Atheism cannot destroy christianity on matters of faith.

Christianity cxannot destroy atheism on matters of science.

Etc.

And as long as people believe, religion lives. Why argue?

You assumed that Yeshua ben Yosef actually rose from the dead. Your post is worthless unless you prove that said resurrection happened.
so i suggest you join the panel, so that we can present the evidence for siad resurrection and you can examine it. because there is evidence, enough that (i believe) it is more probable that He was resurrected than that He wasn't.

so i suggest you join the panel, so that we can present the evidence for siad resurrection and you can examine it. because there is evidence, enough that (i believe) it is more probable that He was resurrected than that He wasn't.
there is some proof of the resurrection outside of the bible? that might be a thread id be interested in reading. the whole "is genesis the literal truth" crap is too boring to even click on.

proofs of christianity should only include the new testament and other christian/historical works. proof of the old testament is only a proof of judaism.

yes, the idea was to debate sepcific bits one by one. we have 4 christians now...but for some reason, at least up until this point, no atheists seem interested in joining...haha, i wonder why that is :p jk, they're prob just gathering evidence or something...btw, on the giant flood issue, that is the only thing i can find in the bible that doesn't have some sorta physical evidence to support it...but i'm sure some will turn up sometime...so, some atheists for the board? please?
Because we are too smart to even get into it ... we know you and the others really dont care about proof when it boils down to it, its all about faith

Maybe you should examine what you are trying to do and analize your ability to acomplish it.

Amazing we seem to understand the concept of faith better then you

so i suggest you join the panel, so that we can present the evidence for siad resurrection and you can examine it. because there is evidence, enough that (i believe) it is more probable that He was resurrected than that He wasn't.

Resurrection is still a 'magical' idea. There's gotta be a more rational explaination then 'god made him come back from the dead'.

Because we are too smart to even get into it ... we know you and the others really dont care about proof when it boils down to it, its all about faith

Maybe you should examine what you are trying to do and analize your ability to acomplish it.

Amazing we seem to understand the concept of faith better then you

Why is it that everyone assumes one with faith hasn't examined themselves? I've looked at a lot of evidence and I can honestly say that I found belief more reasonable than non-belief. Maybe a better topic would be naming stuff against christianity. Would you be more agreeable to that?

:headbang: religon isn't about proof and facts, its about faith. Hence the reason it is religion and not science. :headbang:

Here Here!

Reverbia']The issue with discussions of this nature is that it's not possible for any side to convincingly desrtoy the other one.

Atheism cannot destroy christianity on matters of faith.

Christianity cxannot destroy atheism on matters of science.

Etc.

And as long as people believe, religion lives. Why argue?


Hey, hey, hey, I resent this farse belief that Christians can't be scientific. Just because some neo conservative made some ruckus about it awhile back doesn't mean that it is true, or even that it is the majority view of Christians, I agree with what you say, but here is a better way to say it. Science can't disprove faith and faith cannot stand up to science, one requires proof and the other requires, well, faith.

yes, the idea was to debate sepcific bits one by one. we have 4 christians now...but for some reason, at least up until this point, no atheists seem interested in joining...haha, i wonder why that is :p jk, they're prob just gathering evidence or something...btw, on the giant flood issue, that is the only thing i can find in the bible that doesn't have some sorta physical evidence to support it...but i'm sure some will turn up sometime...so, some atheists for the board? please?

Though I am not an atheist I would like to point out one problem: You can't prove a negative. For instance: prove there isn't a invisable, incorperal dragon that spits heatless fire and floats in the air living in my garage. Or, prove the Universe was not created 5 minutes ago with all our memories, bulletin boards, etc built in just to make it look like it was older. ;)

there is some proof of the resurrection outside of the bible? that might be a thread id be interested in reading. the whole "is genesis the literal truth" crap is too boring to even click on.

proofs of christianity should only include the new testament and other christian/historical works. proof of the old testament is only a proof of judaism.
i agree with you completely, besides prophecies in the old testament speaking of the messiah whihc are fulfilled by jesus, it is completely irrelevant to the christ. unfortunatley, most non-christian sources with evidence for the resurrection simply mention events or confrim realiabillity of the gospels, etc, but at least there is some.

Resurrection is still a 'magical' idea. There's gotta be a more rational explaination then 'god made him come back from the dead'.
from my point of view, that IS a rational explanation: there is a God, and He is omnipotent, so why not? (the above in my opinion, not proven yet :D)

Though I am not an atheist I would like to point out one problem: You can't prove a negative. For instance: prove there isn't a invisable, incorperal dragon that spits heatless fire and floats in the air living in my garage. Or, prove the Universe was not created 5 minutes ago with all our memories, bulletin boards, etc built in just to make it look like it was older. ;)
haha, i love your point. and i didn't quite mean prove...nothing can be proved, 100%. i meant more just stack the evidence and decide which side seems more reasonable.

okay, sorry i post so many times in a row, but i can only get on in a rather random and sporadic fashion. so, if those interested in participating could please telegram me, i can post the list and we can start

What are the facts that underlie . . . the credibility of the New Testament accounts of the resurrection of Jesus? It seems to me that they can be conveniently grouped under three heads: the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. Let's look briefly at each.

First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

Second, the empty tomb. Once regarded as an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment to Christian theology, the empty tomb of Jesus has come to assume its place among the generally accepted facts concerning the historical Jesus. Allow me to review briefly some of the evidence undergirding this connection.

(1) The historical reliability of the burial story supports the empty tomb. If the burial account is accurate, then the site of Jesus' grave was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, it is a very short inference to historicity of the empty tomb. For if Jesus had not risen and the burial site were known:

(a) the disciples could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus. For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms. In the words of E. E. Ellis, "It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, 'grave emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle."

(b) Even if the disciples had believed in the resurrection of Jesus, it is doubtful they would have generated any following. So long as the body was interred in the tomb, a Christian movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead man would have been an impossible folly.

(c) The Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair. The quickest and surest answer to the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus would have been simply to point to his grave on the hillside.

For these three reasons, the accuracy of the burial story supports the historicity of the empty tomb. Unfortunately for those who wish to deny the empty tomb, however, the burial story is one of the most historically certain traditions we have concerning Jesus. Several factors undergird this judgment. To mention only a few.

(i) The burial is mentioned in the third line of the old Christian formula quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.4.

(ii) It is part of the ancient pre-Markan passion story which Mark used as a source for his gospel.

(iii) The story itself lacks any traces of legendary development.

(iv) The story comports with archeological evidence concerning the types and location of tombs extant in Jesus' day.

(v) No other competing burial traditions exist.

For these and other reasons, most scholars are united in the judgment that the burial story is fundamentally historical. But if that is the case, then, as I have explained, the inference that the tomb was found empty is not very far at hand.

(2) Paul's testimony supports the fact of the empty tomb. Here two aspects of Paul's evidence may be mentioned.

(a) In the formula cited by Paul the expression "he was raised" following the phrase "he was buried" implies the empty tomb. A first century Jew could not think otherwise. As E. L. Bode observes, the notion of the occurrence of a spiritual resurrection while the body remained in the tomb is a peculiarity of modern theology. For the Jews it was the remains of the man in the tomb which were raised; hence, they carefully preserved the bones of the dead in ossuaries until the eschatological resurrection. There can be no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites pre-suppose the existence of the empty tomb.

(b) The phrase "on the third day" probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. Very briefly summarized, the point is that since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come to date it "on the third day?" The most probable answer is that they did so because this was the day of the discovery of the empty tomb by Jesus' women followers. Hence, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day. Thus, in the old Christian formula quoted by Paul we have extremely early evidence for the existence of Jesus' empty tomb.

(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark's passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:

(a) Paul's account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul's own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.

(b) The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say "The President is hosting a dinner at the White House" and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.

(4) The story is simple and lacks legendary development. The empty tomb story is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be characteristic of a later legendary account. Perhaps the most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yea". In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. These are how real legends look: unlike the gospel accounts, they are colored by theological motifs.

(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role of women in Jewish society.

(a) Woman occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as "Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women" and "Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female."

(b) The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women, whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and the gospels accurately record this.

(6) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb.

One could go on, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate why the judgment of scholarship has reversed itself on the historicity of the empty tomb. According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.

Finally, we may turn to that third body of evidence supporting the resurrection: the very origin of the Christian Way. Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus. The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of these earliest disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. The question now inevitably arises: how does one explain the origin of that belief? As R. H. Fuller urges, even the most skeptical critic must posit some mysterious X to get the movement going. But the question is, what was that X?

If one denies that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must explain the disciples' belief that he did rise either in terms of Jewish influences or in terms of Christian influences. Now clearly, it can't be the result of Christian influences, for at that time there wasn't any Christianity yet! Since belief in Jesus' resurrection was the foundation for the origin of the Christian faith, it can't be a belief formed as a result of that faith.

But neither can the belief in the resurrection be explained as a result of Jewish influences. To see this we need to back up a moment. In the Old Testament, the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgment is mentioned in three places (Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26, 19, Daniel 12.2). During the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the belief in resurrection flowered and is often mentioned in the Jewish literature of that period. In Jesus' day the Jewish party of the Pharisees held to belief in resurrection, and Jesus sided with them on this score in opposition to the party of the Sadducees. So the idea of resurrection was itself nothing new.

But the Jewish conception of resurrection differed in two important, fundamental respects from Jesus' resurrection. In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person.

With regard to the first point, the Jewish belief was always that at the end of history, God would raise the righteous dead and receive them into His Kingdom. There are, to be sure, examples in the Old Testament of resuscitations of the dead; but these persons would die again. The resurrection to eternal life and glory occurred after the end of the world. We find this Jewish outlook in the gospels themselves. Thus, when Jesus assures Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again, she responds, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11.24). She has no idea that Jesus is about to bring him back to life. Similarly, when Jesus tells his disciples he will rise from the dead, they think he means at the end of the world (Mark 9.9-13). The idea that a true resurrection could occur prior to God's bringing the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the world was utterly foreign to them. The greatly renowned German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias writes,

Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa (glory) as an event of history.

The disciples, therefore, confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.

As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains:

For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)

It is therefore evident that the disciples would not as a result of Jewish influences or background have come up with the idea that Jesus alone had been raised from the dead. They would wait with longing for that day when He and all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory.

The disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection, therefore, cannot be explained as the result of either Christian or Jewish influences. Left to themselves, the disciples would never have come up with such an idea as Jesus' resurrection. And remember: they were fishermen and tax collectors, not theologians. The mysterious X is still missing. According to C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University, here is a belief nothing in terms of previous historical influences can account for. He points out that we have a situation in which a large number of people held firmly to this belief, which cannot be explained in terms of the Old Testament or the Pharisees, and these people held onto this belief until the Jews finally threw them out of the synagogue. According to Professor Moule, the origin of this belief must have been the fact that Jesus really did rise from the dead:

If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?. . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church. . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself.

The resurrection of Jesus is therefore the best explanation for the origin of the Christian faith. Taken together, these three great historical facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, the origin of the Christian faith--seem to point to the resurrection of Jesus as the most plausible explanation.

But of course there have been other explanations proffered to account for the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. In the judgment of modern scholarship, however, these have failed to provide a plausible account of the facts of the case. This can be seen by a rapid review of the principal explanations that have been offered.

A. The disciples stole Jesus' corpse and lied about the resurrection appearances. This explanation characterized the earliest Jewish anti-Christian polemic and was revived in the form of the conspiracy theory of eighteenth century Deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. To name only two considerations decisive against it: (i) it is morally impossible to indict the disciples of Jesus with such a crime. Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly good, earnest men and women, not impostors. No one who reads the New Testament unprejudicially can doubt the evident sincerity of these early believers. (ii) It is psychologically impossible to attribute to the disciples the cunning and dering- do requisite for such a ruse. At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, fearful, doubting, and burdened with mourning-not mentally motivated or equipped to engineer such a wild hoax. Hence, to explain the empty tomb and resurrection appearances by a conspiracy theory seems out of the question.

B. Jesus did not die on the cross, but was taken down and placed alive in the tomb, where he revived and escaped to convince the disciples he had risen from the dead. This apparent death theory was championed by the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century German rationalists, and was even embraced by the father of modern theology, F. D. E. Schleiermacher. Today, however, the theory has been entirely given up: (i) it would be virtually impossible medically for Jesus to have survived the rigors of his torture and crucifixion, much less not to have died of exposure in the tomb. (ii) The theory is religiously inadequate, since a half-dead Jesus desperately in need of medical attention would not have elicited in the disciples worship of him as the exalted Risen Lord and Conqueror of Death. Moreover, since Jesus on this hypothesis knew he had not actually triumphed over death, the theory reduces him to the life of a charlatan who tricked the disciples into believing he had risen, which is absurd. These reasons alone make the apparent death theory untenable.

C. The disciples projected hallucinations of Jesus after his death, from which they mistakenly inferred his resurrection. The hallucination theory became popular during the nineteenth century and carried over into the first half of the twentieth century as well. Again, however, there are good grounds for rejecting this hypothesis: (i) it is psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs; but in the disciples' case the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting. The disciples had no anticipation of seeing Jesus alive again; all they could do was wait to be reunited with him in the Kingdom of God. There were no grounds leading them to hallucinate him alive from the dead. Moreover, the frequency and variety of circumstances belie the hallucination theory: Jesus was seen not once, but many times; not by one person, but by several; not only by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locale and circumstance but at many; not by believers only, but by skeptics and unbelievers as well. The hallucination theory cannot be plausibly stretched to accommodate such diversity. (ii) Hallucinations would not in any case have led to belief in Jesus' resurrection. As projections of one's own mind, hallucinations cannot contain anything not already in the mind. But we have seen that Jesus' resurrection differed from the Jewish conception in two fundamental ways. Given their Jewish frame of thought, the disciples, were they to hallucinate, would have projected visions of Jesus glorified in Abraham's bosom, where Israel's righteous dead abode until the eschatological resurrection. Thus, hallucinations would not have elicited belief in Jesus' resurrection, an idea that ran solidly against the Jewish mode of thought. (iii) Nor can hallucinations account for the full scope of the evidence. They are offered as an explanation of the resurrection appearances, but leave the empty tomb unexplained, and therefore fail as a complete and satisfying answer. Hence, it seems that the hallucination hypothesis is not more successful than its defunct forebears in providing a plausible counter-explanation of the data surrounding Christ's resurrection.

Thus, none of the previous counter-explanations can account for the evidence as plausibly as the resurrection itself. One might ask, "Well, then, how do skeptical scholars explain the facts of the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith?" The fact of the matter is, they don't. Modern scholarship recognizes no plausible explanatory alternative to the resurrection of Jesus. Those who refuse to accept the resurrection as a fact of history are simply self-confessedly left without an explanation.

These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred.

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

Whopper of a post there, mayhaps you could do a nice summary for us next time? Very nice argument nonetheless.

ok well i think religion is a load of shit and anyone who follows ANY religion is following in blind faith....

why do i think that? science has proven countless times that the Earth is somewhere between 4.5 - 6.0 BILLION years old, in the bible Earth is only around 6000 years old....

christians are the worst in my opinion...why? for a period of about 800 years, its followers went world wide trying to spread the word of the "lord and saviour" and anyone who wasnt interested or wouldnt listen were tortured into belief...basically they would hang them up and while torturing them, they'd say the only person who can help you now is your saviour lord jesus christ....after a period of time when the victim couldnt take no more and had said that their god is the one and only and they will worship only in his name, they were released, thus their new god saving them....now after a few hundred years of doing that, it got extreme and religious wars broke out converting even more people....now you MUST relise that history as we know it is only told by the winners, the losers were never left alive to tell their side of the story, that was up untill around a few hundred years ago when history started to be constantly recorded, not just after a major war and such...

now in these scientific days, 1/3 of the world believes a man 2000 years ago died, came back to life and that the belief and living your life in his name will bring you eternal happiness, yeah right :rolleyes:

seriously, religion has held scientific and technological advances back around 800 years...considering the massive leaps in those fields in the past 20 years alone, in my opinion religion should be completely stamped out for holding humanity back for so long.....shit we'd all be cruising around space by now if it wasnt for religion so if you ever dreamed of going into space, you have religion to thanks for your dreams being shattered....

sure i might get flamed for this message, to be honest i couldnt care as i doubt i'll ever see this thread again, but i just hope a few of you have opened your eyes and relised that religion is just a bunch of shit...

besides if there is a god for us, why not other animals? if they have have their own gods, does that mean cats and dogs have seperate gods? if thats the case, there would be literally millions of gods for each species of animal and if we all have the one god, dont you think the trillions of insects that die every year would get in the way of your enternal happiness?

i could go on all day but fuck giving religion the time of day :sniper:

Whopper of a post there, mayhaps you could do a nice summary for us next time? Very nice argument nonetheless.

Yeah, sorry about the size of it. I'll try to do a Reader's Digest condensed version next time. I just thought the points were too well made and explained to let any "slip through the cracks" in a summary.

ok well i think religion is a load of shit and anyone who follows ANY religion is following in blind faith....

why do i think that? science has proven countless times that the Earth is somewhere between 4.5 - 6.0 BILLION years old, in the bible Earth is only around 6000 years old....

christians are the worst in my opinion...why? for a period of about 800 years, its followers went world wide trying to spread the word of the "lord and saviour" and anyone who wasnt interested or wouldnt listen were tortured into belief...basically they would hang them up and while torturing them, they'd say the only person who can help you now is your saviour lord jesus christ....after a period of time when the victim couldnt take no more and had said that their god is the one and only and they will worship only in his name, they were released, thus their new god saving them....now after a few hundred years of doing that, it got extreme and religious wars broke out converting even more people....now you MUST relise that history as we know it is only told by the winners, the losers were never left alive to tell their side of the story, that was up untill around a few hundred years ago when history started to be constantly recorded, not just after a major war and such...

now in these scientific days, 1/3 of the world believes a man 2000 years ago died, came back to life and that the belief and living your life in his name will bring you eternal happiness, yeah right :rolleyes:

seriously, religion has held scientific and technological advances back around 800 years...considering the massive leaps in those fields in the past 20 years alone, in my opinion religion should be completely stamped out for holding humanity back for so long.....shit we'd all be cruising around space by now if it wasnt for religion so if you ever dreamed of going into space, you have religion to thanks for your dreams being shattered....

sure i might get flamed for this message, to be honest i couldnt care as i doubt i'll ever see this thread again, but i just hope a few of you have opened your eyes and relised that religion is just a bunch of shit...

besides if there is a god for us, why not other animals? if they have have their own gods, does that mean cats and dogs have seperate gods? if thats the case, there would be literally millions of gods for each species of animal and if we all have the one god, dont you think the trillions of insects that die every year would get in the way of your enternal happiness?

i could go on all day but fuck giving religion the time of day :sniper:

Thats kind of harsh and a bit of profiling. To say that all christians are one way or the other is just prejudice. Yes medieval "christians" did a lot of terrible things. But those who actually followed the bible met much the same fate during, before, and after the "christians" took power as did those tortured and killed.

Oh and as to your "proof" from science? I assume that is referring to some form of carbon dating, which is flawed at its base. It is based on the half-life formula. To find the age of something you need to know 3 things, when the sample was taken(obviously), How much of the target substance the object has, and how much of the smaple it started with. That third ones the kicker, because it is assumed that it started with an amount similar to what exists now. If the earth is truelly as old as they say, then the envirenment would have been drasticly different. Add in any number of variables, ozone layer, relative abundance, metabolic differences and that assumption is ridiculus. But there is supposedly enough periphial evidence, like the evolutionary theory(a whole nother can of worms), that this assumption is valid.

In answer to your other two points, religeon holding back science and animal gods,. You must be kidding, science has advanced exponetially(thats like gaining speed) by virtue of simple population growth. More people have more ideas.

But seriously, animal gods?

why do i think that? science has proven countless times that the Earth is somewhere between 4.5 - 6.0 BILLION years old, in the bible Earth is only around 6000 years old....

christians are the worst in my opinion...why? for a period of about 800 years, its followers went world wide trying to spread the word of the "lord and saviour" and anyone who wasnt interested or wouldnt listen were tortured into belief...basically they would hang them up and while torturing them, they'd say the only person who can help you now is your saviour lord jesus christ....after a period of time when the victim couldnt take no more and had said that their god is the one and only and they will worship only in his name, they were released, thus their new god saving them....now after a few hundred years of doing that, it got extreme and religious wars broke out converting even more people....now you MUST relise that history as we know it is only told by the winners, the losers were never left alive to tell their side of the story, that was up untill around a few hundred years ago when history started to be constantly recorded, not just after a major war and such...

the bible only actually says the earth is that old if you take every word literally, which everybody agrees you can't do. most christians i know, including myself, believe that the "seven days" in genisis could easily be a few hundred million years. but this is the stuff to say in the debate, not before it. thanx for that huge post back there, i was planning on something along htose lines myself, but i was gonna break it down...and wait until we started to do so. if we have thsi unstructured environment for the debate, my guess is the atheists will just leave. and that's no fun :D

i almost forgot...persecution by christians? well, yes, people who called themselves christians persecuted those who didn't. but i would not call them christians. those who were ACTUALLY christians, namely the ones who didn't join the catholic church, or at least didn't believe the catholic church had it's whole thing about the pope and lack of sola scriptura and such right, never did such things. they actually tried to live the way jesus wanted them to. not saying there weren't catholics who did the same. just the catholic church did a pretty good job of screwing everything up by giving power to clerics and such.

My favourite proof of religion, and through history one of the more often used methods is:

Proof by intimidation.
See this bonfire? Therefore God exists.

300 Proofs of God (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)
Lol thanks for posting that I have had that bookmarked for months

There are actually some sources outside the Bible that do prove that Jesus, as a person, existed. Some documents from Romans survived, and since they didn't accept Christianity as a Religion until much later (Constantine in 300something, if I remember right), it's likely that they didn't hype it.

The reports tell about him doing miracles. It is unlikely, though, that the Romans themselves observed them but rather just heard it second hand. Those reports also tell that he was under suspicion of forming a rebellion against the Roman occupation, since he was assembling a sizable flock of followers, but it was dismissed as he repeatedly called for peace and tried to calm the hotheads, and the Romans generally didn't persecute him or his followers.

This is indeed from non-biblical sources, I'd have to look it up again where they found that (I did a paper on the question whether Jesus existed and what, if any, proof exists, but that was like 15 years or so ago). So it's quite likely that this person did exist in history, and that he was believed to work miracles.

Was he the "son of god"? Personally, I doubt it. Pretty much everything he did can be explained by rather mundane means. He was great at organizing and he was a very capable speaker, able to move the masses and very smart. But whether he was really His own son is something no source outside the Bible can prove.

By the way, I'm an agnostic. I believe in right and wrong, and that doing the right thing will give you more in the long run. But not 'cause some God tells you to, rather because you, as a person, are worthless if you don't.

My favourite proof of religion, and through history one of the more often used methods is:

Proof by intimidation.
See this bonfire? Therefore God exists.

300 Proofs of God (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

I only got a little ways down, but those are pretty funny. And sadly, a lot of them are actually used, which makes it funnier. One or two were butchered summaries of good arguments but, eh. Still a funny sit there.

whose to say the bible isn't a fictional story that some guy thought up?It would be like believing Harry Potter is a real person, and Hogwarts is a real place. How do we know that the "records" the romans or whoever have isn't just a tale, passed on as truth? Anybody play the game telephone as a kid?? What was said at the end, is never what was actually said in the beginning...You can't really prove, or disprove anything b/c we will never know what the truth is. It is all in what you believe. If you want to believe that Hogwarts is a real place,trees eat birds, and you can get to it by running into a train station wall, then by all means tackle that wall. If you want to believe that a person named Jesus existed, and he made miracles happen, and then he died and was brought back to life,and has ultimate power, then like I said before...by all means. I believe in the theory of evolution, why? because to me, it makes more sense...it's logical. I respect everyone's ideas and beliefs.....to each his own.

whose to say the bible isn't a fictional story that some guy thought up?It would be like believing Harry Potter is a real person, and Hogwarts is a real place. How do we know that the "records" the romans or whoever have isn't just a tale, passed on as truth? Anybody play the game telephone as a kid?? What was said at the end, is never what was actually said in the beginning...You can't really prove, or disprove anything b/c we will never know what the truth is. It is all in what you believe. If you want to believe that Hogwarts is a real place,trees eat birds, and you can get to it by running into a train station wall, then by all means tackle that wall. If you want to believe that a person named Jesus existed, and he made miracles happen, and then he died and was brought back to life,and has ultimate power, then like I said before...by all means. I believe in the theory of evolution, why? because to me, it makes more sense...it's logical. I respect everyone's ideas and beliefs.....to each his own.

It is known for a fact that the Bible was compiled over a long period of time by a variety of people, that is scientific fact. The debate is over the veracity of its content.

It is known for a fact that the Bible was compiled over a long period of time by a variety of people, that is scientific fact. The debate is over the veracity of its content.

And that is quite a debate conscidering the issue of which books were canon and which were apocrypha.

It is known for a fact that the Bible was compiled over a long period of time by a variety of people, that is scientific fact. The debate is over the veracity of its content.

Facts can be misleading...and I doubt that it is a "scientific fact"...considering religion and science doesn't get along, and I never questioned what the debate was over...I was just giving an interesting thought...

My 2 cents:

Argument for God: Millions of people indoctrinated since birth can't be wrong can they? Plus there's a lot of really neat shit going on that no-one can yet explin.

Argument against God: Just becasuse we don't YET understand doesn't mean that God exists. However proving a negative is almost impossible, so disproving God is like disproving the existace of the invisible unicorn in the corner of the room.

Alternate Argument.

God exists.

God made us in his image.

Ergo God has a sense of humour AND a nasty streak. The upshot is that one night after a round of heavy drinking he and the archangels came up with a game to think up the whackiest religions and God then wen and appeared to select groups of humans in a manner to elicit the creation of said religions. It was very , very late in the morning and the ideas were getting lame when he came up with teklling Hare Krishnas to wear orange and hang around in airports distributing flowers...

Alternately, god is a young God who just likes to stir shit up like young kids like to stir up an anthill with a stick hjust to watch the ensuing frenzied chaos.



Regardless, the notion of "proving" an article of faith is oxymoronic. People will believe or not as they wish.



It's why it's called "faith"

whose to say the bible isn't a fictional story that some guy thought up?It would be like believing Harry Potter is a real person, and Hogwarts is a real place. How do we know that the "records" the romans or whoever have isn't just a tale, passed on as truth? Anybody play the game telephone as a kid?? What was said at the end, is never what was actually said in the beginning...You can't really prove, or disprove anything b/c we will never know what the truth is. It is all in what you believe. If you want to believe that Hogwarts is a real place,trees eat birds, and you can get to it by running into a train station wall, then by all means tackle that wall. If you want to believe that a person named Jesus existed, and he made miracles happen, and then he died and was brought back to life,and has ultimate power, then like I said before...by all means. I believe in the theory of evolution, why? because to me, it makes more sense...it's logical. I respect everyone's ideas and beliefs.....to each his own.

Well, if all the 'proof' from outside sources is forged, someone went to rather insane lengths. I just don't believe in conspiracies, I usually go for the simplest explanation.

Because it's usually also the right one.

There are texts, from various authors, talking about this guy Jesus. All of them fake? Unlikely. It's rather likely that this guy existed and that he was wandering around as a prophet. That wasn't so unlikely in those days, actually. A lot of people were running around, telling people about the end of the world and that it's time to repent and whatnot. Not very uncommon during desperate times, it was quite the same during the medieval times when the plague rushed over Europe.

So I won't even question that Jesus is historical. There are also non biblical sources for other stories, from the old testament, that tell about the jewish kings. So why question whether they existed?

What I question is that God had anything to do with it. Back then, when something couldn't be explained readily, it was a 'miracle', divine intervention or whatnot. Lightning striking your enemy? Certainly God has decided to aid you. Lightning striking you? Certainly you did something that angered your God.

Coincidence just doesn't look good in religious books...

There are actually some sources outside the Bible that do prove that Jesus, as a person, existed. Some documents from Romans survived, and since they didn't accept Christianity as a Religion until much later (Constantine in 300something, if I remember right), it's likely that they didn't hype it.

The reports tell about him doing miracles. It is unlikely, though, that the Romans themselves observed them but rather just heard it second hand. Those reports also tell that he was under suspicion of forming a rebellion against the Roman occupation, since he was assembling a sizable flock of followers, but it was dismissed as he repeatedly called for peace and tried to calm the hotheads, and the Romans generally didn't persecute him or his followers.

This is indeed from non-biblical sources, I'd have to look it up again where they found that (I did a paper on the question whether Jesus existed and what, if any, proof exists, but that was like 15 years or so ago). So it's quite likely that this person did exist in history, and that he was believed to work miracles.

Was he the "son of god"? Personally, I doubt it. Pretty much everything he did can be explained by rather mundane means. He was great at organizing and he was a very capable speaker, able to move the masses and very smart. But whether he was really His own son is something no source outside the Bible can prove.

By the way, I'm an agnostic. I believe in right and wrong, and that doing the right thing will give you more in the long run. But not 'cause some God tells you to, rather because you, as a person, are worthless if you don't.

Go back and read my giant post on the first page.

Well, if all the 'proof' from outside sources is forged, someone went to rather insane lengths. I just don't believe in conspiracies, I usually go for the simplest explanation.

Because it's usually also the right one.

There are texts, from various authors, talking about this guy Jesus. All of them fake? Unlikely. It's rather likely that this guy existed and that he was wandering around as a prophet. That wasn't so unlikely in those days, actually. A lot of people were running around, telling people about the end of the world and that it's time to repent and whatnot. Not very uncommon during desperate times, it was quite the same during the medieval times when the plague rushed over Europe.

So I won't even question that Jesus is historical. There are also non biblical sources for other stories, from the old testament, that tell about the jewish kings. So why question whether they existed?

What I question is that God had anything to do with it. Back then, when something couldn't be explained readily, it was a 'miracle', divine intervention or whatnot. Lightning striking your enemy? Certainly God has decided to aid you. Lightning striking you? Certainly you did something that angered your God.

Coincidence just doesn't look good in religious books...

just think about it though...Jesus was killed, was miraculously brought back to life(something that modern science hasn't been able to do yet),and made miracles happen....sounds like a good plot for the very first fictional story in history. There probably was a guy named Jesus....and he tried to do everything he could for his people, maybe became a local hero of sorts, but unfortunately was killed, so in his memory his "followers" created a "story" to keep his legacy going....who knows....

Yes that sounds more likely. I have read through all the posts and I see the reasons that people would like to believe and the reason people think its a load of cobblers.

Like in previous posts ... It all comes down to faith. If you believe that what your reading is FACT ... then you go ahead and believe it and call yourself a Christian. If you believe its a load of OLD COBBLERS .... then you call yourself an atheist. Its just a matter of if you want to believe in whats been told in the Bible or if you don't.

Personally ... I think theres more proof in the existence of the Devil ... :eek:

Yes that sounds more likely. I have read through all the posts and I see the reasons that people would like to believe and the reason people think its a load of cobblers.

Like in previous posts ... It all comes down to faith. If you believe that what your reading is FACT ... then you go ahead and believe it and call yourself a Christian. If you believe its a load of OLD COBBLERS .... then you call yourself an atheist. Its just a matter of if you want to believe in whats been told in the Bible or if you don't.

Personally ... I think theres more proof in the existence of the Devil ... :eek:
The oposite of christian is not atheism ... there are other religions out there that do not accept their reasoning either

Though I am not an atheist I would like to point out one problem: You can't prove a negative. For instance: prove there isn't a invisable, incorperal dragon that spits heatless fire and floats in the air living in my garage. Or, prove the Universe was not created 5 minutes ago with all our memories, bulletin boards, etc built in just to make it look like it was older. ;)

I was wondering where my dragon got off to! Can I have it back please?

i agree with you completely, besides prophecies in the old testament speaking of the messiah whihc are fulfilled by jesus, it is completely irrelevant to the christ. unfortunatley, most non-christian sources with evidence for the resurrection simply mention events or confrim realiabillity of the gospels, etc, but at least there is some.

I disagree. The prophesies are QUITE relevant to the Christ. They are how the determination of the Christ was to be revealed. Without them, there was no basis for Jesus to make His claim.

I was wondering where my dragon got off to! Can I have it back please?

Sure, I just can't put my hands on it right now (being incorperal and all) :D

It is known for a fact that the Bible was compiled over a long period of time by a variety of people, that is scientific fact. The debate is over the veracity of its content.
if you guys would like to join, then we could get started on the actual debate. there is evidence that suggests, sometimes rather strongly, that the bible: a)has not been altered (besides vocab) since it was first written
b)is not legendary
c)is reliable in all it says
i cant wait for the debate to get started, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE telegram me if you want to join.

I disagree. The prophesies are QUITE relevant to the Christ. They are how the determination of the Christ was to be revealed. Without them, there was no basis for Jesus to make His claim.
sry, that was unclear. i was stating that the prophecies are essentially the only bits of the old testament relavent to christ.

I disagree. The prophesies are QUITE relevant to the Christ. They are how the determination of the Christ was to be revealed. Without them, there was no basis for Jesus to make His claim.

Isn't there a strong suspicion that Christ never made any such claim, and this was claimed for him in retrospect with the establishment of a new Religion, which invented the notion of original sin to justify his crucifixion and tied a few prophecies into this while they were about it?

if you guys would like to join, then we could get started on the actual debate. there is evidence that suggests, sometimes rather strongly, that the bible: a)has not been altered (besides vocab) since it was first written
b)is not legendary
c)is reliable in all it says
i cant wait for the debate to get started, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE telegram me if you want to join.

C is incorrect though: the size and volume cited for Noah's ark don't match.

My 2 cents:

Argument for God: Millions of people indoctrinated since birth can't be wrong can they? Plus there's a lot of really neat shit going on that no-one can yet explin.

Argument against God: Just becasuse we don't YET understand doesn't mean that God exists. However proving a negative is almost impossible, so disproving God is like disproving the existace of the invisible unicorn in the corner of the room.

Alternate Argument.

God exists.

God made us in his image.

Ergo God has a sense of humour AND a nasty streak. The upshot is that one night after a round of heavy drinking he and the archangels came up with a game to think up the whackiest religions and God then wen and appeared to select groups of humans in a manner to elicit the creation of said religions. It was very , very late in the morning and the ideas were getting lame when he came up with teklling Hare Krishnas to wear orange and hang around in airports distributing flowers...

Alternately, god is a young God who just likes to stir shit up like young kids like to stir up an anthill with a stick hjust to watch the ensuing frenzied chaos.



Regardless, the notion of "proving" an article of faith is oxymoronic. People will believe or not as they wish.



It's why it's called "faith"
i know why it's faith. but faith can still be supported/undermined by facts. it helps alot to have facts supporting your faith. and most atheists say they don't believe because there are not facts. in theory then, if we can provide enough evidence to make our story scientificly probable, they should decide maybe it is worth something, end eventually, be saved. that would be awesome. that's part of my goal in doing this. my other goal is to se if my faith is really as well placed as i think it is. i can only examine my faith so well on my own, because i am biased. btw, please don't call us indoctrinated. the catholics probably are. but the rest of us like to think for ourselves. of all my christian buddies, i only know of one who hasn't questioned their faith enough to contemplate giving it up, and then decided, without outside influence, that they do in fact believe in God. i know lots of people whose parents are atheists and ban them from going to church, but they believe in God anyways. how is that "indoctrinated"?

C is incorrect though: the size and volume cited for Noah's ark don't match.
the terms actually meant different things. we'll get to that later, in the debate. you're right though, i'm very confused about everything concerning teh flood, especially the total lack of evidence concerning a giant flood. but since everything else the bible syas is credible, i think it's reasonable to give it the benifit of the doubt, at least for now. i will, when i get time, make a detailed search for explanations about wut the hell was going on.

Isn't there a strong suspicion that Christ never made any such claim, and this was claimed for him in retrospect with the establishment of a new Religion, which invented the notion of original sin to justify his crucifixion and tied a few prophecies into this while they were about it?
there is such a suspicion, but it is rather unsupported. historians are relatively certain that legend could not have developped while eye-witnesses were still alive, and mark was certainly written soon enough for that. there is even evidence that mark took his passion story from an even earlier source, with some estimates as early as 36 ad.

whose to say the bible isn't a fictional story that some guy thought up?It would be like believing Harry Potter is a real person, and Hogwarts is a real place. How do we know that the "records" the romans or whoever have isn't just a tale, passed on as truth? Anybody play the game telephone as a kid?? What was said at the end, is never what was actually said in the beginning...You can't really prove, or disprove anything b/c we will never know what the truth is. It is all in what you believe. If you want to believe that Hogwarts is a real place,trees eat birds, and you can get to it by running into a train station wall, then by all means tackle that wall. If you want to believe that a person named Jesus existed, and he made miracles happen, and then he died and was brought back to life,and has ultimate power, then like I said before...by all means. I believe in the theory of evolution, why? because to me, it makes more sense...it's logical. I respect everyone's ideas and beliefs.....to each his own.

I agree. I mean what real proof do we have that Julius Caesar existed? That whole history could be something some guy made up. As a matter of fact, I'm of the opinion that no one actually existed prior to the life of the oldest person still alive to tell about it. :D

the terms actually meant different things. we'll get to that later, in the debate. you're right though, i'm very confused about everything concerning teh flood, especially the total lack of evidence concerning a giant flood. but since everything else the bible syas is credible, i think it's reasonable to give it the benifit of the doubt, at least for now. i will, when i get time, make a detailed search for explanations about wut the hell was going on.
You miss my point: there are measurements cited for the ark, and the volume of the boat that can be worked out from these doesn't tally with the volume that's cited elsewhere in the description. (I can't recall either offhand, unfortunately.)

just think about it though...Jesus was killed, was miraculously brought back to life(something that modern science hasn't been able to do yet),and made miracles happen....sounds like a good plot for the very first fictional story in history. There probably was a guy named Jesus....and he tried to do everything he could for his people, maybe became a local hero of sorts, but unfortunately was killed, so in his memory his "followers" created a "story" to keep his legacy going....who knows....

Well apparantly God, if He exists, is a bit ahead of modern science. Modern science hasn't been able to create matter from nothing or create life in an inanimate object. I'm still waiting for them to show me how a universe can suddenly exist where there was nothing before.

sry, that was unclear. i was stating that the prophecies are essentially the only bits of the old testament relavent to christ.


oh..well.. good point then. :D

Isn't there a strong suspicion that Christ never made any such claim, and this was claimed for him in retrospect with the establishment of a new Religion, which invented the notion of original sin to justify his crucifixion and tied a few prophecies into this while they were about it?

not that I'm aware of

btw, please don't call us indoctrinated. the catholics probably are. but the rest of us like to think for ourselves. Please don't call us indoctrinated. We have too many children to easily indoctrinate all of them. :p

I know that I couldn't actually give up my faith now, EVER - and that's really odd and slightly bewildering.

Well apparantly God, if He exists, is a bit ahead of modern science. Modern science hasn't been able to create matter from nothing or create life in an inanimate object. I'm still waiting for them to show me how a universe can suddenly exist where there was nothing before.

That's easy, because time is created with the Universe... therefore when looking at the Universe from the "outside" there is no before and after, and it apears static, unchanging and eternal, neither created or destroyed.

(edit: This is just one possibility, not neccesarily reality)

Source: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

What are the facts.... ad nauseum

ARGUMENT FROM EXHAUSTION (abridged)
(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L'', L''' and J'' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING!?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ'' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.

The thing about science is: it sure isn't perfect. If it was, there would only be facts and not theories. Nothing would change in science because changing something perfect makes it imperfect. Therefore, science can't be taken as truth without skepticism. Carbon dating is seriously flawed because, for it to be accurate, 3 things have to be known:
1. The amount at start.
2. The rate if decay.
3. the time and amount the sample was taken.

The first one is basicly unprovable, the second one definitely requires faith, and the third one has many variables that need to be taken into account, ranging from the sample to human error.

My point is: Half of science is basicly faith. Most answers science gives us are actually vague. How do we know the tests aren't flawed? How do we know there isn't one more variable we haven't taken into account yet? How do we know limits are limits and that absolutes are? Do all things fall at the same rate or is there an unnoticeable difference? Will mixing sample A with sample B always result in sample C? Religion is flawed and so is science. Why? Because humans created both. You can't test tests without there being untested tests. If we can only believe in absolute facts, then we believe nothing.

Religion requires faith. Science requires faith. Get over it atheists. There's always going to be exceptions because of the unforeseen.

There are actually some sources outside the Bible that do prove that Jesus, as a person, existed. Some documents from Romans survived,
Then name those sources. I have yet to see any evidence that the Romans mentioned a Yeshua ben Yosef. (They did mention a Yeshua ben Pantera, but Pantera was a Roman soldier. I can go more in-depth if you want.)

We all should know that Jesus existed. Atheists should question not his existance, but his accomplishments. Not whether he was a person, but if he is what he said he was.

We all should know that Jesus existed. Atheists should question not his existance, but his accomplishments. Not whether he was a person, but if he is what he said he was.


My main doubts are if he said what other people said he said. Jesus wrote nothing himself, therefore everything is at best second hand (and most likely 4th or 5th hand)

Religion requires faith. Science requires faith. Get over it atheists.

Your argument makes no sense. If science is based on the same type of faith as religion, then how do you explain the enormous advances in technology within the last 100-200 years. Where did 2000 years of belief in Christ get us?

The fact is the scientific method is not based on faith, but on observation and logic. While your argument about geologic dating may be relevant if there were only one dating method, in reality there are a multitude of isotopes that can be geologically dated. And when used on samples appropriate for the age of their half-life, different methods yield CONSISTENT results. Such consistency is remarkable evidence that the assumptions and methodology of geologic dating is sound.

The thing about science is: it sure isn't perfect.

ARGUMENT FROM SCIENCE (I)
(1) Science is not always true.
(2) Therefore there is room for religious faith.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

WTF???? Are you on something or is this a typo?


(1) Science is not always true.

While it is fine to debate about statistics, and argue over small mentions of this and that in the Bible versus what is shown through science, I choose to follow a different path and line of thinking.

I believe God exists, that he came to earth (Trinity) and took the form of Man and was named Jesus. I believe he lived and died for my sins as well as those for all mankind, past, present, and future.

And I believe this not because I was 'indoctrined,' I chose. Out of all the creatures and beings of his creation, God in his wisdom gave humans on thing that makes us the most unique creation ever. Free Will.

He gave us the choice to Love and obbey him, or the choice to not to. He did this, not because he was bored or 'drunk' (that never happens by the way) and decided to do it, its because he loves us unconditionally. We could take the bible and throw it into the dirt, kill his followers, destroy his temples; and he would still forgive you and love you still, even if it pained him.

Have you ever known a person to love another one unconditionally? I haven't, except for God, and hes not human; and I have never known someone to fully forgive another, its a hard thing to do, if it ever happens.

My faith is my own, I do not force it upon others, but I do express it and defend it. In the end, when the final day comes, we will all see for a final time whether my faith was true.

And my faith, to me, gives me something that no one who is an unbeliever has. I have no fear of death. I however do pray that those who do not believe find God and through him the assurance they are missing in Life or a peace of mind. And if not, then I pity you and will pray for you anyway.

He did this, not because he was bored or 'drunk' (that never happens by the way)
He's a bit of a lightweight next to the Norse and Greek Gods, then...

My point is, due to the fact that there is no way to get the absolute truth because of the fact that new discoveries are made, science does require a great deal of faith. Many scientists hindered progress because of the fact that they are humans. Computers aren't perfect because humans are involved heavily in the creation of computers. Sure, robots make them now, but who made the robots? other robots? Who started the chain of events by making the first robots? People. There could be some unintended flaw in all computers because of human error. Glitches. Viruses. Hardware malfunction. Can we trust computers if heavily flawed creatures made them? Can we trust that tests aren't flawed and/or weren't tested with flawed tests? Science is basicly a faith based off of HUMAN observations. You need faith in order to believe that there isn't a hidden flaw giving you the same incorrect answer every time. You don't know if you'll need information about sub-atomic properties to get an accurate answer. Was it all a coincidence? Does nothing else matter? In science, you need faith. You need to trust tests. You need to hope that the instruments aren't flawed. You need faith in science because you'll never know if the observations are accurate. Scientists have loads of faith in science. They hope that human error doesn't catch up to them and prove many theories completely unvalid. What is science but a godless, observation-based religion? It's a faith based on observation. That's my two cents.

The thing about science is: it sure isn't perfect. If it was, there would only be facts and not theories. Nothing would change in science because changing something perfect makes it imperfect. Therefore, science can't be taken as truth without skepticism. Carbon dating is seriously flawed because, for it to be accurate, 3 things have to be known:
1. The amount at start.
2. The rate if decay.
3. the time and amount the sample was taken.

The first one is basicly unprovable,


Yes but good guesses can be made: Measure the current carbon in like samples with known starts, compare.


the second one definitely requires faith,


No it requires observation. I can believe and have faith all I want that the rate of decay is twice what it is, but that doesn't change the observations.

and the third one has many variables that need to be taken into account, ranging from the sample to human error.

The time (of the sample taken) is gnerally known in scienitic experiements, while the time of when the sample was no longer living is what we are trying out. The variable of amount is meaninless in percents as long as a big enough sample is taken (enough to get a few trillion carbon atoms)

My point is: Half of science is basicly faith.

On the contrary we are encouraged NOT to take things on faith but constantly ask for evidence. When we do accept something it is only on a perliminary basis until something better comes along. Einstein the pattent clerk overthrough the God of Physics Newton. Later the young guys didn't listen to Einstein the New God of Physics when he said he did not beleive in Quantumn Mechanics (The "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote.) and overthrough him.

Most answers science gives us are actually vague.

Gravitational force is approximately: G(6.67390·10-11 m3/kg·s2 +- 0.0014 %) Mm/ r^2

Ideal Gas Law: PV = NkT (or = nRT for the chemists amoung you)

If you want to know the next ecclips?, I can give it to you down to the minute. You want to know the sex of your unborn child? I can be 99% sure when I tell you. You want to be inoculated against small pox, we can do that. You want to be able to produce a certain amount of any substance? We can do that within a percent. I don't think those answers are vague.

Another thing I want to point out. Look again at Big G in the gravitational equation. See that litttle +-? That is there as a testimony to the fact science admits it's uncertainty. We don't have faith, we admit willingly that we may be (in fact we almost deffinately are) wrong about many things and are constantly striving for better answers. With all do respect, I rarely see the conservative religions admit they may be wrong. When did Augustine say, "well, this could all be wrong"? In fact history has shown that they excomunicate or worse many people who disagree with them. The Bible is not called by conservatives, the Word of God +- 1%

Once again, Einstein disagreed with Newton, they gave him a Nobel Prize. Feynman, Heisenberg, Gell-Mann, etc disagreed with Einstein, they got Nobel Prizes. Far from demanding conformity we reward those who challange our greatest minds the highest honor, provided they can deliver the goods.


How do we know the tests aren't flawed? How do we know there isn't one more variable we haven't taken into account yet? How do we know limits are limits and that absolutes are?

We don't and we admit we don't know. We just demand evidence before we change our minds on matters of science. We fully admit we don't know the absolutes (remember that +- sign?) Does religion do the same? I often here about the infalubity of the Bible or the Qu'ran, which makes me think it does not.

If we can only believe in absolute facts, then we believe nothing.
Except math :-) If you want absolute proofs, stick to math.

Religion requires faith. Science requires faith.

Again science does not require faith; in fact, it requires a lack of faith. Where would we be if we had faith in Newton? Where would we be if we had faith in Einstein? We are open to all ideas, all we say is "Show me it works better, and I'll gladly get rid of my old idea."

You need faith in order to believe that there isn't a hidden flaw giving you the same incorrect answer every time.

We have no faith in that, that is why we test over and over and over again in as many ways as we can think of and toss it the moment something comes up.

You need to trust tests.

Again we don't trust tests, if you provide us with falsifiable information that indicates what are tests tell us is false, we'll gladly get rid of what are tests said.

You need to hope that the instruments aren't flawed.

That why we do it again and again, have other people do it. And if even one problem crops up that is repeatable, it all is discarded.


You need faith in science because you'll never know if the observations are accurate.

That is why we trash them when something else comes along, we don't cling to our answers.

They hope that human error doesn't catch up to them and prove many theories completely unvalid.

Here is a wake-up call. MOST OF OUR THEORIES ARE INCOMPLETE OR WRONG! There, said by a scientist. All we want you to do is show us something that works better.

What is science but a godless, observation-based religion?

What religion rewards it's heretics with the highest honor it can bestow? What religion allowes each person to chalange authority as long as they can deliver that goods? What religion uses error bars when pronouncing it's Laws?

I don't put much stock in any religion, including Christianity for many reasons...but since we're talking Christianity here, then that's what I'll focus on.

Simply looking at the religion from the surface, it's a mutt religion. Most of the stories in the Bible are derivatives of stories that had been told in the ancient world before and passed down through cultures and time. Further more, it has none of it's own holidays, but rather alternate explanation for peagan events, this even includes Christmas....which is in fact a celebration of the winter solstice.
Really, when you get down to it and study how the religion spread to new populations, it wasn't so much about serving the Lord as it was marketing the ideas. You're not going to get those use to believing in Mithraism to give up their solstice celebration, or the norse to give up their solstice celebration, so you call it Christmas and everyone's happy. Having trouble with that pesky spring fertilization celebration? Call it easter, say it has something to do with Christ, and we're all happy.
You take a little of this religion, a little of that religion, call it all something new, and you get Christianity. That's simply what happened. That's a difficult thing to believe in when you view it from that standpoint.

I'm of the oppinion that Christianity's just a fad anyhow. Yeah, I know it's been the dominant global religion since 380AD roughly, but in terms of history, it's a fad. The basic greek religion lasted a LOT longer, and even the Romans believed in the basics of it after having renamed the gods with Latin names. But does anyone believe in Zeus/Jupiter anymore? Of course not. We look at it as mythology. A story, and little more, and that's how future generations will come to look upon Christianity after we as a civilization evolve further.
Deities are really entities created to explain what we as people do not understand. But now, through science and a pursuit of higher understanding and thinking, we're able to comprehend the universe. We've essentially eliminated the need for a god to explain things. Basic things such as prayer are, if you look at it objectively, more acts of routine and habit then they are out of honest belief. That is to say that, while the person praying may truly believe god or Christ can help, they really cannot explain why they feel that way. It's not as though they're praying to the gods to prevent a flood or to fertilize the soil...just simply praying.

Anyhow, I could go on and on when it comes to this subject but I'll keep it short. Feel free to email me at crows_loft@hotmail.com if you care to discuss it further.

Further more, it has none of it's own holidays, but rather alternate explanation for peagan events, this even includes Christmas....which is in fact a celebration of the winter solstice.
Saturnalia. It's been suggested Christ was more likely born in Febuary or March (when a certain census, all of the results of which Constantine had destroyed, was taken), but the date was shifted to co-opt an existing festival.

Yes but good guesses can be made: Measure the current carbon in like samples with known starts, compare.



No it requires observation. I can believe and have faith all I want that the rate of decay is twice what it is, but that doesn't change the observations.



The time (of the sample taken) is gnerally known in scienitic experiements, while the time of when the sample was no longer living is what we are trying out. The variable of amount is meaninless in percents as long as a big enough sample is taken (enough to get a few trillion carbon atoms)



On the contrary we are encouraged NOT to take things on faith but constantly ask for evidence. When we do accept something it is only on a perliminary basis until something better comes along. Einstein the pattent clerk overthrough the God of Physics Newton. Later the young guys didn't listen to Einstein the New God of Physics when he said he did not beleive in Quantumn Mechanics (The "God does not play dice with the Universe" quote.) and overthrough him.



Gravitational force is approximately: G(6.67390·10-11 m3/kg·s2 +- 0.0014 %) Mm/ r^2

Ideal Gas Law: PV = NkT (or = nRT for the chemists amoung you)

If you want to know the next ecclips?, I can give it to you down to the minute. You want to know the sex of your unborn child? I can be 99% sure when I tell you. You want to be inoculated against small pox, we can do that. You want to be able to produce a certain amount of any substance? We can do that within a percent. I don't think those answers are vague.

Another thing I want to point out. Look again at Big G in the gravitational equation. See that litttle +-? That is there as a testimony to the fact science admits it's uncertainty. We don't have faith, we admit willingly that we may be (in fact we almost deffinately are) wrong about many things and are constantly striving for better answers. With all do respect, I rarely see the conservative religions admit they may be wrong. When did Augustine say, "well, this could all be wrong"? In fact history has shown that they excomunicate or worse many people who disagree with them. The Bible is not called by conservatives, the Word of God +- 1%

Once again, Einstein disagreed with Newton, they gave him a Nobel Prize. Feynman, Heisenberg, Gell-Mann, etc disagreed with Einstein, they got Nobel Prizes. Far from demanding conformity we reward those who challange our greatest minds the highest honor, provided they can deliver the goods.




We don't and we admit we don't know. We just demand evidence before we change our minds on matters of science. We fully admit we don't know the absolutes (remember that +- sign?) Does religion do the same? I often here about the infalubity of the Bible or the Qu'ran, which makes me think it does not.


Except math :-) If you want absolute proofs, stick to math.



Again science does not require faith; in fact, it requires a lack of faith. Where would we be if we had faith in Newton? Where would we be if we had faith in Einstein? We are open to all ideas, all we say is "Show me it works better, and I'll gladly get rid of my old idea."

The problems with carbon dating are the problems with any of isotope dating. And that problem is, we dont know how much of the substance we started with. If the world is really billions of years old, am I really expected to believe that everything worked the same, that a plant that looks like a fern is biologicly similar to a present day fern? That the environment these ferns lived in is the same as the one today? That there were not any catalysts present somewhere in all those years to scew results? Any one of these could easily be a worldwide problem that would yield similar results.

We with faith are only saying that it is scientificly possible, our reasons for believeing this possibility to be true do not come from science, rather reason, philosophy, and experience.

Does anyone else think this thread is getting repetitive?

Saturnalia. It's been suggested Christ was more likely born in Febuary or March (when a certain census, all of the results of which Constantine had destroyed, was taken), but the date was shifted to co-opt an existing festival.

Actually, somewhere around August 1 is the most likely date of his birth.

Actually, somewhere around August 1 is the most likely date of his birth.
It's August? My mistake, then.

We with faith are only saying that it is scientificly possible, our reasons for believeing this possibility to be true do not come from science, rather reason, philosophy, and experience.


And it's scientifically possible that invisible, incorperal dragons that float in the air and spit heatless fire live in my garage. What we who believe there is a difference between faith and science say is, "Fine, just don't demand belief without evidence."

(Personal note: I do count myself among the people of faith. God is an ultimate reality for me, but what I'm saying is faith and science ARE different. Science actually honors it's heretics like Einstein, Feynman, etc. Do the Catholics honor Jon Huus? or Giordano Bruno? Or Michael Servetus?)

(Personal note: I do count myself among the people of faith. God is an ultimate reality for me, but what I'm saying is faith and science ARE different. Science actually honors it's heretics like Einstein, Feynman, etc. Do the Catholics honor Jon Huus? or Giordano Bruno? Or Michael Servetus?)

I think they honor Joan of Arc... sort of.

That's easy, because time is created with the Universe... therefore when looking at the Universe from the "outside" there is no before and after, and it apears static, unchanging and eternal, neither created or destroyed.

(edit: This is just one possibility, not neccesarily reality)

oddly enough, there's that word...created.

as much i enjoy all this discussion, and how for the first time in like a year i don't have to defend my faith all by myself, i really don't have time to read all this. so if those interested could please telegram me, and those who don't want to would please just shut up, then we could start. so far, there is only myself and some mysterious dude(or chick) who classifies him/herself as a non-christian, but not an atheist...and doesn't seem to have any other religion(s/theological viewpoint(s)) to speak of :confused:

Your argument makes no sense. If science is based on the same type of faith as religion, then how do you explain the enormous advances in technology within the last 100-200 years. Where did 2000 years of belief in Christ get us?

The fact is the scientific method is not based on faith, but on observation and logic. While your argument about geologic dating may be relevant if there were only one dating method, in reality there are a multitude of isotopes that can be geologically dated. And when used on samples appropriate for the age of their half-life, different methods yield CONSISTENT results. Such consistency is remarkable evidence that the assumptions and methodology of geologic dating is sound.



ARGUMENT FROM SCIENCE (I)
(1) Science is not always true.
(2) Therefore there is room for religious faith.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

well unless you are doing the testing/dating/observing yourself, you need faith to trust those that are. How do you know they aren't fucking it up? How do you know they aren't lying to you? How do you know they aren't just pompous nerds who want the world to think they're smart? I'm not saying they are any of these things but it takes faith on your part to get past these kinds of questions.

well unless you are doing the testing/dating/observing yourself, you need faith to trust those that are. How do you know they aren't fucking it up? How do you know they aren't lying to you? How do you know they aren't just pompous nerds who want the world to think they're smart? I'm not saying they are any of these things but it takes faith on your part to get past these kinds of questions.

And science says exactly that, don't take it on faith, do it for yourself. Do believe me try it and see for yourself. In science arguments from authority mean nothing. In fact, in science there are no authorities, at most there are experts.