The Minimal Facts Approach to the Bible

[JamRan]

Most scholars, including skeptics, agree that Paul experienced a conversion into the faith of Christianity. And Paul mentions several times his encounters with the 12 apostles, even mentioning some by name, such as John and Peter, as well as the brother of Jesus who is James. James who is a family skeptic also experienced conversion into the faith after seeing Jesus resurrected.

Paul talks about how they agreed with him and he agreed with them in their several encounters. Paul talked about their experiencing the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection in several different group sizes and settings. He talks about Jesus' "appearance" to himself when those men around him who also experienced the flash of light which caused them to crouch down and heard his voice, but they could not see "the man" that Paul could see.

The apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Jesus said He would be resurrected and that He is God. The tomb was empty on Sunday after Jesus was placed there on Friday, given spices by men on the Sanhedrin and secured by Roman guards before the Saturday Sabbath.

Hallucination is not possible because hallucinations occur individually, not in groups. Psychologically group hallucinations have never been recorded in history. Groups can experience illusions of an object that is already there, but it is misperceived. The apostles said they ate with Jesus, talked with Him and touched Him. If it was an illusion there needed to be an actual object there that was being misperceived, but that sort of thing usually happens at a distance, not with a person standing right next to you putting food in his mouth-the same person that walked with you for three and a half years in His ministry. Paul also saw Jesus, but somehow Jesus made it so that only Paul good see Jesus in the flash of light and in hearing the voice that the others with him could not.

We know God exists because everything in nature has a cause and effect, so that nature could not have caused itself. Therefore, logically speaking the big bang or singularity or first event in nature had to have been caused by the uncaused. That which is spaceless, immaterial, supernatural, timeless, eternal, infinite caused the space-filled, material, natural, time-filled, mortal, finite.

We also know we all sin, that is, make mistakes. As a sign of sin, notice that we throw people into jail. Sin leads to death, we all die. Sin also leads then to the second death, an eternal separation from God. We are all to be resurrected like Jesus was. Since God made us all in His image with a free-will to choose the cross to receive salvation, there is no excuse.

What Christian scholars then ask, since this evidence is so powerful, what alternative explanation do you have that can be supported and not merely conjectured about?

Michael R. Licona writes, "Many times this is simply an objection of the will rather than intellect. Perhaps this person simply does not want to have a relationship with God. Some enjoy the position of unbelief too much to want to give it up. A familiar position in which pride is invested would be lost if the questions about God really found answers. There are often motives behind our beliefs."

[Skeptical Greg]

Michael R. Licona writes, "Many times this is simply an objection of the will rather than intellect. Perhaps this person simply does not want to have a relationship with God. Some enjoy the position of unbelief too much to want to give it up. A familiar position in which pride is invested would be lost if the questions about God really found answers. There are often motives behind our beliefs."

Motives behind our beliefs ? No way !:eek:

Your very first sentence :

Most scholars, including skeptics, agree that Paul experienced a conversion into the faith of Christianity.


Is rife with fallacious reasoning, and it's pretty much downhill from there..

But thanks for sharing ..

[JamRan]

What is the fallacious reasoning?

[RandFan]

What is the fallacious reasoning? Welcome to the forum JamRan.

Socrates was mortal.
I'm a mortal.
I'm Socrates.

This is fallacious reasoning. It's not correct. As much as I'd like to think otherwise I'm not Socrates.

There are a number of ways to win an argument. One is to use sophistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism). Sophistry can be best summed up by "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bulls***".

The best way is to use logic and compose a valid argument.

Logic & Fallacies / Constructing a Logical Argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html)

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-python.html), "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."Your mission Jam, if you choose to accept it, is to think, discuss and debate in a logically valid manner.

Best of luck.

[Zygar]

I'll list out some of your fallacies.

Most scholars, including skeptics, agree that Paul experienced a conversion into the faith of Christianity.

Strawman.

Hallucination is not possible because hallucinations occur individually, not in groups.

Wrong. They're called Mass Hallucinations.

We know God exists because everything in nature has a cause and effect, so that nature could not have caused itself.

You do not know that God exists, and neither does anyone else.

We also know we all sin, that is, make mistakes.

Sins are not the same as mistakes. Misspelling "receive" is widely considered a mistake, but I am not aware of anyone that would call it a sin.

Michael R. Licona writes, "Many times this is simply an objection of the will rather than intellect. Perhaps this person simply does not want to have a relationship with God. Some enjoy the position of unbelief too much to want to give it up. A familiar position in which pride is invested would be lost if the questions about God really found answers. There are often motives behind our beliefs."

Another strawman. I personally can tell you that I started out as a very devout religious person, and through a great deal of research became an atheist. A strong desire for a relationship with God is what made me an atheist.

[JamRan]

RandFan,

How has this fallacious reasoning been found in what I said though?

[JamRan]

Zygar,

Wanting a relationship with God, what caused you to become an atheist then?

[Skeptical Greg]

This is going to be interesting.. For a page or two, at least ..

:popcorn1

[JamRan]

So most scholars agree that Paul truly believed he saw the risen Jesus and that he had agreement with the apostles on the resurrection appearances of Jesus, and most went to their death, if not all, with this claim, starting with James, brother of John. Paul said he was almost killed several times (Luke confirms this in Acts), so it was just a matter of time.

Since Paul is the most trustworthy source of all, do you have an alternate explanation for the resurrection appearances of Jesus?

[Ducky]

Since Paul is the most trustworthy source of all, do you have an alternate explanation for the resurrection appearances of Jesus?

Absolutely. Like the flood story in the OT, it is a piece of fictional mythology intended to further a religious premise and nothing more.

[ImaginalDisc]

Jam, you cannot possibly be serious that "We know God exists because everything in nature has a cause and effect, so that nature could not have caused itself" because it prompts the question, "what caused god?" You just said that everything has a cause.

And this:

We also know we all sin, that is, make mistakes. As a sign of sin, notice that we throw people into jail. Sin leads to death, we all die. Sin also leads then to the second death, an eternal separation from God. We are all to be resurrected like Jesus was. Since God made us all in His image with a free-will to choose the cross to receive salvation, there is no excuse. just gets sillier with every sentence. Sin is an abstract concept that requires a religious rburic. You cannot use a religious rubric allegedly sent to us by god as evidence god exists, that's circular. Sin does not lead to death. Everyone die no matter how arbitrarily virtuous. Furthermore, if you seriously believe that, it's tantamount to saying that people who die young, from say, cancer, deserved it because they sinned. The rest is a bunch of silly god noises.


Oh, and this junk about the stories about Jesus and the apostles and Paul all being true just because a bunch of guys agreed on what they believed is ridiculous. The early Mormons all believed that John smith had a hatfull of solid gold plates, and testitifed that they were real. Eyewitness testimony isn't worth much.

[Pauliesonne]

There are devil-like beings in older religions than christianity and they tempt people too.

Maybe everybody in the new testy and the old testy has been tempted?

Take a peek;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil#Hinduism...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asuras

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil#Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_%28demon%29

There's one called Zara..something that I don't really understand but you can see by what I've said that you have no good reason to believe that you're better off than anybody else.

Now, where are my damn bhaji's.....

[Zygar]

Zygar,

Wanting a relationship with God, what caused you to become an atheist then?

The fact that he doesn't exist.

I genuinely investigated many flavours of Christianity, as well as several non-Christian faiths. I sought for years before I realized the truth of the matter. It was not easy to admit that I had become an atheist after so many years of seeking the "true" god, but it was the inevitable conclusion of my search.

[JamRan]

fowlsound,

Whether the flood happened or not is no bearing on whether Paul was trustworthy or not, so you would still need to support the claim Paul was untrustworthy considering the data in support of him and especially since most scholars believe Paul truly believed in what he saw and worked continuously in the church to preach the gospel an set up the churches, before being martyred.

The same can be said of the flood. Since the local flood has been found where the ground gave way, and scientists are quite agreed on this, then the burden of the proof falls on you to show otherwise.

[ImaginalDisc]

fowlsound,

Whether the flood happened or not is no bearing on whether Paul was trustworthy or not, so you would still need to support the claim Paul was untrustworthy considering the data in support of him and especially since most scholars believe Paul truly believed in what he saw and worked continuously in the church to preach the gospel an set up the churches, before being martyred.

Wrong. No one needs to prove that Paul was untrustowrthy. You, the claimant, needs to prove that he was trustworthy, and correct, and whatever else it would take to convince people that Christanity is anything more than a delusion. The default position isn't Christianity.

The same can be said of the flood. Since the local flood has been found where the ground gave way, and scientists are quite agreed on this, then the burden of the proof falls on you to show otherwise.

Again, you're shifting the burden of proof. The world was never flooded all over with water kilometers deep. It's never happened.

[JamRan]

Imaginal,

Everything in nature has a cause, so it can't cause itself; therefore, that which is outside nature caused nature so that which is outside of nature has to be uncaused. As hard as that is to fathom, it is the only possibility.

Sin does lead to death. For example, if you eat only chocolate maybe and lack enough nutrients, eventually your body breaks down and dies. If you like to have a new sex partner each month, you have a high probability of getting aids and dying sooner than otherwise. Sin as defined are such things as these with no mention of God. If you murder someone, you go to jail. Life expectancy in jail is not as long as outside of jail. Surely you can see the consequences of these sins? On a global scale war is sin, and kills many lives.

Regarding Mormons, did you know that six of the eleven witnesses of the gold plates left the Mormon Church? It is recorded that all the apostles went to their death claiming the eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection. Christianity would not be what it is today if Peter, James, John, Paul, James brother of John renounced their faith. And just because some may have seen gold plates, it says nothing of their content. No archaelogical findings support the Book of Mormon. There is considerable evidence outside the testimony of the disciples to support the claim of the resurrection of Jesus such as the empty tomb and conversion of Paul and James. Plus the Mormon documents have serious problems with the Book of Abraham. The comparison is totally unalike. Besides, the Bible teaches the Trinity, not God being gods. If you have a bunch of gods called God, then you have another problem. You have to ask where they came from, since there is only a singularity of one being, not three beings of which is unclear who came first.

[JamRan]

Paulie,

What distinguishes Christianity is the resurrection which none can compare for multiple attestation. There were no resurrections before Christ, and many fraudulent and untenable resurrections after without any religio-historical context prophesized.

[Ducky]

fowlsound,

Whether the flood happened or not is no bearing on whether Paul was trustworthy or not, so you would still need to support the claim Paul was untrustworthy considering the data in support of him and especially since most scholars believe Paul truly believed in what he saw and worked continuously in the church to preach the gospel an set up the churches, before being martyred.

The same can be said of the flood. Since the local flood has been found where the ground gave way, and scientists are quite agreed on this, then the burden of the proof falls on you to show otherwise.

No, I do not need to support that claim. The default position in scholarly research is that any premise must be supported with evidence. Your assertions have taken facts into account without providing said supporting evidence. Your assertions are marginally supported by vague references to "scholars" and whether they agree or not. So let's start from the beginning.

Most scholars, including skeptics, agree that Paul experienced a conversion into the faith of Christianity. And Paul mentions several times his encounters with the 12 apostles, even mentioning some by name, such as John and Peter, as well as the brother of Jesus who is James. James who is a family skeptic also experienced conversion into the faith after seeing Jesus resurrected.

Please name the scholars that agree about this, and cite them explicitly (without violating forum rules on copyright violation) to establish this premise. Otherwise it is nothing more than a fallacy (appeal to incorrect authority and appeal to popularity) and means nothing.

Paul talks about how they agreed with him and he agreed with them in their several encounters. Paul talked about their experiencing the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection in several different group sizes and settings. He talks about Jesus' "appearance" to himself when those men around him who also experienced the flash of light which caused them to crouch down and heard his voice, but they could not see "the man" that Paul could see.

What evidence other than a firsthand witness do you have to support these assertions by Paul? What other references outside the bible can you cite to provide that this actually occurred?

The apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Jesus said He would be resurrected and that He is God. The tomb was empty on Sunday after Jesus was placed there on Friday, given spices by men on the Sanhedrin and secured by Roman guards before the Saturday Sabbath.

Again, other than the bible what source do you have to support this event actually happened? Eyewitness accounts are very unreliable, especially when most of these incidents were written down after the event happened.

In fact, can you provide evidence that any of the gospels were written at the time of Jesus' death?

Hallucination is not possible because hallucinations occur individually, not in groups. Psychologically group hallucinations have never been recorded in history. Groups can experience illusions of an object that is already there, but it is misperceived. The apostles said they ate with Jesus, talked with Him and touched Him. If it was an illusion there needed to be an actual object there that was being misperceived, but that sort of thing usually happens at a distance, not with a person standing right next to you putting food in his mouth-the same person that walked with you for three and a half years in His ministry. Paul also saw Jesus, but somehow Jesus made it so that only Paul good see Jesus in the flash of light and in hearing the voice that the others with him could not.

There are many inconsistencies within that paragraph. Please provide evidence outside the bible of these events even happening.

You do understand why we would want evidence outside the bible for you to establish that anything you have written about is indeed fact, right?

We know God exists because everything in nature has a cause and effect, so that nature could not have caused itself. Therefore, logically speaking the big bang or singularity or first event in nature had to have been caused by the uncaused. That which is spaceless, immaterial, supernatural, timeless, eternal, infinite caused the space-filled, material, natural, time-filled, mortal, finite.

Argument from design is also a fallacy. (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_design) In fact, I see no real logic to your posts at all. I do see alot of post hoc reasoning, though.

We also know we all sin, that is, make mistakes. As a sign of sin, notice that we throw people into jail. Sin leads to death, we all die. Sin also leads then to the second death, an eternal separation from God. We are all to be resurrected like Jesus was. Since God made us all in His image with a free-will to choose the cross to receive salvation, there is no excuse.


Appeal to popularity, appeal to incorrect authority, post hoc propter hoc, blind assertion without supporting facts, and appeal to emotion/guilt.

Next?

What Christian scholars then ask, since this evidence is so powerful, what alternative explanation do you have that can be supported and not merely conjectured about?

Strawman, begging the question, and not providing any evidentiary support for facts you are assuming. Name these scholars, and cite the poignant portion of the work you wish to use to support this premise.

Michael R. Licona writes, "Many times this is simply an objection of the will rather than intellect. Perhaps this person simply does not want to have a relationship with God. Some enjoy the position of unbelief too much to want to give it up. A familiar position in which pride is invested would be lost if the questions about God really found answers. There are often motives behind our beliefs."

Citing someone else is a good start, but this is a poor cite for you to use in support of your premises. It is a complete strawman, and makes wild assumptions and generalizations about atheists that are pretty much a tired old canard believers use to try to explain something they either have no wish to understand, or no ability to.

As for the flood, the description provided in the bible is not one of a regional flood, it is specifically of a worldwide catastrophic flood in which everything that was not herded into one boat died. Unless you have evidence of that description happening as written, you are no longer saying it is a fact. Furthermore, unless you can provide evidence outside the bible of the events you are discussing actually happening then you are doing nothing but practicing mental masturbation. I could just as easily use Moby Dick as a source to prove Moby Dick actually happened, but without evidence outside that work of fiction to support my premise it is nothing but an excersize in sophistry.

So, do you now understand that the onus is on you to suport your premises? Please don't attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you wish to convince anyone on this forum of anything, you will have to provide evidence to support your machinations.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Paulie,

What distinguishes Christianity is the resurrection which none can compare for multiple attestation. There were no resurrections before Christ, and many fraudulent and untenable resurrections after without any religio-historical context prophesized.

You might want to do some research on history - resurrections are quite common in most cultures predating Christianity. In fact, we've had very long discussions on this board about the historical supporting evidence for Jesus (here's a shocker, there is very little!).

[JamRan]

What would you constitute evidence outside the Bible?

[Zygar]

What would you constitute evidence outside the Bible?

What in the bible constitutes evidence?

[Ducky]

What would you constitute evidence outside the Bible?

I'm not doing your research for you, sir. Perhaps you should become more educated on the evidence outside the bible to support the stories in it before you make such wild assertions and appeals to authority.

You did reference "scholars." Why don't you start by sharing what scholars you refer to, and what evidence they found.

Or did you use the term "scholars" as an empty appeal to authority to make your arguments sound more bolstered?

[Pauliesonne]

Paulie,

What distinguishes Christianity is the resurrection which none can compare for multiple attestation. There were no resurrections before Christ, and many fraudulent and untenable resurrections after without any religio-historical context prophesized.


If the ressurection " did " happen then, my new friend, it was a.....wait for it....a temptation!

[ImaginalDisc]

Imaginal,

Everything in nature has a cause, so it can't cause itself; therefore, that which is outside nature caused nature so that which is outside of nature has to be uncaused. As hard as that is to fathom, it is the only possibility.

Dazzling BS, but that doesn't address the paradox of saying that everything has a cause, and then god is the first cause. Clearly, if A is true, then B is false.

Sin does lead to death. For example, if you eat only chocolate maybe and lack enough nutrients, eventually your body breaks down and dies. If you like to have a new sex partner each month, you have a high probability of getting aids and dying sooner than otherwise. Sin as defined are such things as these with no mention of God. If you murder someone, you go to jail. Life expectancy in jail is not as long as outside of jail. Surely you can see the consequences of these sins? On a global scale war is sin, and kills many lives.

And yet perfectly innocent people die, and cancer, for example, afflicts religious and obedient people are often as it afflicts "sinners." Your response is just an ad hoc hypothesis.

Regarding Mormons, did you know that six of the eleven witnesses of the gold plates left the Mormon Church? It is recorded that all the apostles went to their death claiming the eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection. Christianity would not be what it is today if Peter, James, John, Paul, James brother of John renounced their faith. And just because some may have seen gold plates, it says nothing of their content. No archaelogical findings support the Book of Mormon. There is considerable evidence outside the testimony of the disciples to support the claim of the resurrection of Jesus such as the empty tomb and conversion of Paul and James. Plus the Mormon documents have serious problems with the Book of Abraham. The comparison is totally unalike. Besides, the Bible teaches the Trinity, not God being gods. If you have a bunch of gods called God, then you have another problem. You have to ask where they came from, since there is only a singularity of one being, not three beings of which is unclear who came first.

The only way Mormonism is different from your belief in Jesus is that you haven't spent time rationalizing it to yourself. The heartfelt deathbed affirmations of a bunch of men means nothing. Testimonials do not constitute evidence.

Please try to use evidence that proves god that isn't in the Bible, a book of relentless contradictions and ceaseless, horrific, amorality.

[Terry]

Everything in nature has a cause, so it can't cause itself

what causes a radioactive decay to happen at the time it happens?

[JamRan]

Evidence in the Bible begins with the minimal facts approach in which most scholars agree the apostles and Paul truly believed they saw the resurrected Jesus, so did James, and that Jesus died. That the tomb was most probably empty is also considered.

[JamRan]

Am I to guess nothing outside the Bible is considered evidence, or what would you accept?

[JamRan]

Evidence outside the Bible are such things as early Roman and Jewish writers, and other independent writers that mention the death of Jesus.

Do you at least believe Jesus truly did die on the cross?

[Ducky]

Am I to guess nothing outside the Bible is considered evidence, or what would you accept?

I have already clearly addressed this concern of yours. Please scroll up and read my post again.

[JamRan]

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

[Ducky]

Evidence outside the Bible are such things as early Roman and Jewish writers, and other independent writers that mention the death of Jesus.

Do you at least believe Jesus truly did die on the cross?

Name the authors, cite their works. I don't take anything on someone's word, and I certainly am not going to do your research for you.

Once again:

What scholars were you referring to in your posts? What Romand and Jewish writers are you referring to and what did they say?

[Ducky]

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

You need to tread lightly. A cancer patient might take what you just posted as you saying they deserved their cancer, and that it is either the result of themselves or their family.

[JamRan]

The flood I read in the Bible is local, but to the people it is seemingly global from their perspective. It's like people considering the world is still flat.

Since you don't accept any outside evidence then what else is there? Because they rule you have applied is to reject everything in history since you don't accept any outside evidence such early writers. According to your theory there is no such thing as a past.

[JamRan]

Since I have supplied what I consider evidence from the Bible as well as evidence from outside the Bible, and you reject both, it seems like there is no such thing as evidence at all to an atheist.

[Ducky]

The flood I read in the Bible is local, but to the people it is seemingly global from their perspective. It's like people considering the world is still flat.

Since you don't accept any outside evidence then what else is there? Because they rule you have applied is to reject everything in history since you don't accept any outside evidence such early writers. According to your theory there is no such thing as a past.


You have given a poor strawman representation of what I have said, and misrepresented my point completely. I once again urge you to reread my posts and start citing all these scholars and authors you refer to.

[Ducky]

Since I have supplied what I consider evidence from the Bible as well as evidence from outside the Bible, and you reject both, it seems like there is no such thing as evidence at all to an atheist.

And another strawman argument.

I have in no way rejected any evidence you have offered because you have offered none. Again: cite what scholars and authors you are referring to in your previous posts.

[JamRan]

You have rejected all the evidence I gave, so I have no more evidence. The same evidence I gave is the evidence historical researchers use. They too have no more evidence to provide you in historical records. Then did anything ever happen in history?

[JamRan]

Fortunately, at least atheist scholars agree on 5 basic things (though other atheists don't accept their agreement):

1) Jesus died
2) The apostles truly believe he was resurrected
3) Paul was converted to Christianity and truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected
4) James, brother of Jesus, truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and converted to Christianity
5) the tomb was empty.

The only explanation for this then is that Jesus was resurrected because He is God since no alternative explanation is provided.

[Ducky]

You are completely missing the point here JamRan.

WHO are the scholars you are referring to?

WHAT did they write that is on point to your premise?

HOW are you expanding or relating their work?

If you are simply going to say "Scholars (be they atheist or theist) say X" and do not cite which ones or what they said, then you not providing any supporting evidence.

So along your logic I submit this:

Scholars agree that fecal matter is actually your penance for sin, and the physical form of sin as your body rejects it rather than byproduct waste of consuming nourishment.


Since I said "scholars" by your logic that statement is intractable. Prove me wrong.



ETA:

I also would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[Zygar]

Fortunately, at least atheist scholars agree on 5 basic things (though other atheists don't accept their agreement):

1) Jesus died
2) The apostles truly believe he was resurrected
3) Paul was converted to Christianity and truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected
4) James, brother of Jesus, truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and converted to Christianity
5) the tomb was empty.

The only explanation for this then is that Jesus was resurrected because He is God since no alternative explanation is provided.

Not true. Atheist scholars do not agree that Jesus ever existed. Nor do they agree that the tomb was empty, even if he did exist.

Do not state that anyone has rejected your evidence until you have provided something. Give us a single solitary contemporary undisputed document stating that Jesus existed. Anything. Just one.

[Terry]

Fortunately, at least atheist scholars agree on 5 basic things (though other atheists don't accept their agreement):

great, so you won't have any trouble providing the details of where these arguments were made then. History journals or something, right?


The only explanation for this then is that Jesus was resurrected because He is God since no alternative explanation is provided.

that doesn't follow.

[JamRan]

fowl,

I have read of these studies done by Gary R. Habermas where he has studied all the major scholars going back to 1950's to come to this conclusion. Get the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

[JamRan]

Dominic Crossan and Antony Flew believe Jesus died.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What would you constitute evidence outside the Bible?

Any reference what-so-ever in any one of the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:
Josephus
Philo-Judµus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phµdrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna

Taken from the article "Did Jesus Exist?" at http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

You might try reading the whole article if you really want any answers to your questions.

[JamRan]

We are at the point where none can find plausible explanation otherwise, that the only possibility is Jesus resurrected as He said He would because He is God.

Like Spock says on Star Trek when all known possibilities are impossible the impossible [being considered] must be true.

[Ducky]

fowl,

I have read of these studies done by Gary R. Habermas where he has studied all the major scholars going back to 1950's to come to this conclusion. Get the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Great, that's a name and a publication. Except I am not going to do your research for you.

What specifically in that publication are you referring to, and how does it support your case?

[JamRan]

In considering just the earliest accounts:

Tacitus said Jesus died
Josephus said Jesus died
Lucian said Jesus
Mara Bar-Serapion said Jesus died
Talmud said Jesus died

[Ducky]

We are at the point where none can find plausible explanation otherwise, that the only possibility is Jesus resurrected as He said He would because He is God.

Like Spock says on Star Trek when all known possibilities are impossible the impossible [being considered] must be true.

Oh the irony in quoting a fictional character in defense of another fictional story.

Why can we find no plausible explanation otherwise? Why dod you so quickly assume there is no evidence for you to present in support of your arguments?

Are you going to address my question regarding your comments on cancer?

[qayak]

Imaginal,

Everything in nature has a cause, so it can't cause itself; therefore, that which is outside nature caused nature so that which is outside of nature has to be uncaused. As hard as that is to fathom, it is the only possibility.

No, it is not the only possibility. Everything you see in nature is caused, or was caused, by something else in nature. So why must we assume that something outside of nature caused nature? Why couldn't it just be something natural like the Big Bang?

Sin does lead to death. For example, if you eat only chocolate maybe and lack enough nutrients, eventually your body breaks down and dies.

Chocolate is a sin!?!?

If you like to have a new sex partner each month, you have a high probability of getting aids and dying sooner than otherwise.

Neither disease nor early death is a sin. It is possible that it is a punishment for sin though. Of course! You are trying to say that god created AIDS to punish people who had more than one sex partner which is possible, assuming there is a god, but how do you account for the children who have not sinned, nor had a single sex partner, who contacted AIDS in the womb? Or the innocent people who contacted AIDS, not because they had multiple sex partners, but because their spouse did? Are you also saying your god punishes innocent people?

Are you suggesting your god screwed up?

Sin as defined are such things as these with no mention of God. If you murder someone, you go to jail. Life expectancy in jail is not as long as outside of jail. Surely you can see the consequences of these sins? On a global scale war is sin, and kills many lives.

You do not go to jail for committing sins. You go to jail for committing crimes. Eating meat on Friday used to be a sin but I don't know anyone that went to jail for it.

Regarding Mormons, did you know that six of the eleven witnesses of the gold plates left the Mormon Church? It is recorded that all the apostles went to their death claiming the eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection. Christianity would not be what it is today if Peter, James, John, Paul, James brother of John renounced their faith. And just because some may have seen gold plates, it says nothing of their content. No archaelogical findings support the Book of Mormon. There is considerable evidence outside the testimony of the disciples to support the claim of the resurrection of Jesus such as the empty tomb and conversion of Paul and James. Plus the Mormon documents have serious problems with the Book of Abraham. The comparison is totally unalike. Besides, the Bible teaches the Trinity, not God being gods. If you have a bunch of gods called God, then you have another problem. You have to ask where they came from, since there is only a singularity of one being, not three beings of which is unclear who came first.

I think it is funny that you point to one religion as having flaws and do not see the exact same flaws in your own reasoning. Actually, it isn't funny, it is very sad.

The good news is that once you get into discussions on this forum you will be an atheist in a few months. We already have your name on a card and some brochures in the mail for you and your family. We have a 100% success rate, just ask the atheists here.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10880458f5479f2a17.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3322)

We are watching!

[JamRan]

I trust Gary's findings since he has been right so far on everything else I have read.

[Cleon]

We are at the point where none can find plausible explanation otherwise, that the only possibility is Jesus resurrected as He said He would because He is God.

No, we're not. You've made a bunch of vague statements, have no substantiated any of them, and then declared victory.



Like Spock says on Star Trek when all known possibilities are impossible the impossible [being considered] must be true.

A) That's not what he said.
B) Spock didn't come up with it.

[Zygar]

Gary Habermas, Dominic Crossan, and Antony Flew are not atheists. And I am not aware of any of their work being considered well researched or supported.

[Terry]

Like Spock says on Star Trek when all known possibilities are impossible the impossible [being considered] must be true.

Sherlock Holmes

[Ducky]

In considering just the earliest accounts:

Tacitus said Jesus died
Josephus said Jesus died
Lucian said Jesus
Mara Bar-Serapion said Jesus died
Talmud said Jesus died

You're going to have to do better than that.

Book, chapter and verse citations please.

And I would LOVE to see where in the Talmud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud) Jesus is referred to.

The Talmud (Hebrew: תלמוד) is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history. The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah, which is the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara, a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh. The terms Talmud and Gemara are often used interchangeably. The Gemara is the basis for all codes of rabbinic law and is much quoted in other rabbinic literature. The whole Talmud is traditionally also referred to as Shas (a Hebrew abbreviation of shishah sedarim, the "six orders" of the Mishnah).

I have many jewish friends. you think they would have mentioned that.

[JamRan]

The Bible says once-saved-always-saved. This has been my experience too.

[Cleon]

Talmud said Jesus died

Bzzzt...Try again. The Talmud, which I have studied to a small degree, does NOT mention Jesus. At all. Period.

[Ducky]

The Bible says once-saved-always-saved. This has been my experience too.

How would you know?

[Ducky]

JamRan I am beginning to think you are not here for intellectually honest reasons, as you seem very relluctant to properly cite any of the supporting evidence and scholars you repeatedly refer to.

Nor have you answered my questions regarding your statements about cancer.

Please address those now, or I will be forced to conclude that you are not here for discussion, but rather to preach.

[SezMe]

Everything in nature has a cause, so it can't cause itself; therefore, that which is outside nature caused nature so that which is outside of nature has to be uncaused. As hard as that is to fathom, it is the only possibility.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I accept that there exists a creator of the universe. How do you know this creator is the god of the bible?

[Pauliesonne]

Did Kurious kathy start off this way?

I've only been here for a year so I wouldn't know.

[RemieV]

Just out of curiosity, where does the Bible say "once-saved-always-saved"?

[JamRan]

Josephus writes, "When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified..." (Antiquities 18.64)

Tacitus, "Nero fasted the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44, c. AD 115)

Lucian, "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinquished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account" (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)

Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to his son from prison, comments, "Or [what advantage came to] the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?" (In the British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,658. See The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325).

Talmud, "on the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged" (Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a). Yeshu is Joshua in Hebrew. The equivalent in Greek is Iesous or Jesus.

Dominic Crossan, unsaved, writes, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be".

[Ducky]

Did Kurious kathy start off this way?

I've only been here for a year so I wouldn't know.

No, she was much more rude and condescending. Despite the disconnect in JamRan's understanding of how to support his arguments, he is much more pleasant to have a dialog with.

[Pauliesonne]

ceo_esq would have a field day with you.....

[Cleon]

Talmud, "on the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged" (Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a). Yeshu is Joshua in Hebrew. The equivalent in Greek is Iesous or Jesus.

Oh, FFS. If you actually READ Sanhedrin you would be well aware that the "Yeshu" mentioned bears zero resemblance to the Christian "yeshuA" (Jesus).

[JamRan]

This is one of many OSAS verses: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3.16).

When the Holy Spirit enters at new birth and your spirit is quickened with God's life, it is everlasting. God is smart enough to know whom to give His life to at new birth, not to change His mind,

Romans 8:30 declares, "And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified."

[Ducky]

Josephus writes, "When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified..." (Antiquities 18.64)

Great. What's the rest of that sentence? Can you give the surrounding context of that writing so that we are sure it's not a game of quote mining?

Tacitus, "Nero fasted the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name has its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate" (Annals 15.44, c. AD 115)

Ok. Written 70 or so years after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified. How do we know this is perpetuation of myth or folklore? There are people 70+ years after Roswell that insist it happened. Is there anything tangible other than an opinion in that writing to be able to compare to archeological evidence?

Lucian, "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinquished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account" (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13)

Let's look at the whole statement from that work:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws

Hardly supportive of anything. I would think quoting a satirist such as Lucian isn't going to get you any historically accurate points.

Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to his son from prison, comments, "Or [what advantage came to] the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?" (In the British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,658. See The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325).

The problem with this quote is that I don't see anything specifically referring to Jesus.

Talmud, "on the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged" (Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a). Yeshu is Joshua in Hebrew. The equivalent in Greek is Iesous or Jesus.

There is some debate over the meaning of "Yeshu." It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro, meaning "May his name and memory be obliterated", a term used for those guilty of enticing Jews to idolatry and used in place of the real names of individuals guilty of such sins who are deemed not worthy of being remembered in history. (source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu)

It appears you have a very wrong interpretation of the Talmud, and are sadly mistaken about who Yeshu is.

Dominic Crossan, unsaved, writes, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be".

Great. Who is that, and what does it matter what he says?

[RemieV]

That does not say "once-saved-always-saved". That says that if you believe in God you'll have everlasting life. It doesn't say whether or not that changes if you happen to change your mind. I notice the part where you actually stated that doesn't have a citation next to it like the ones that mention what I said above do. Is that because you couldn't actually find it anywhere in the Bible?

[JamRan]

Cleon,

No. He is the same.

Messiah was to be rejected by his own people, the Jews (Is. 53.1,3, Ps. 118.22; Matt. 21.1-9, John 1.11, 12.12-16, Luke 23.18)

[Ducky]

JamRan are you ever going to acknowledge my questions regarding your statements referring to cancer and cancer patients?

I will requote them for you, just to remind you:

I also would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[Pauliesonne]

How the **** is you preaching supposed to help the argument?!?

You could easily be reciting people who were tempted by Mara ( BTW - Buddhism does have prophecy's about promised one's ).

[Ducky]

Cleon,

No. He is the same.

Messiah was to be rejected by his own people, the Jews (Is. 53.1,3, Ps. 118.22; Matt. 21.1-9, John 1.11, 12.12-16, Luke 23.18)

You know almost nothing of the Talmud or scholarly debate if you think quoting the christian gospels is a good source to explain an entry in the Talmud.

[Cleon]

Cleon,

No. He is the same.

I'm sorry, you're simply incorrect. I admire your stubbornness, but you're simply wrong.

Read Sanhedrin. No resemblance to the Christian Jesus whatsoever. None.

[JamRan]

Everlasting life does not change. It's everlasting.

[Ducky]

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[JamRan]

In all 5 cases, noone else qualifies than Jesus, whether Jesus was mentioned specifically by name or not. Just because some of these sources revile Jesus is no reason to discount the fact of his death.

[Pauliesonne]

Cleon,

No. He is the same.

Messiah was to be rejected by his own people, the Jews (Is. 53.1,3, Ps. 118.22; Matt. 21.1-9, John 1.11, 12.12-16, Luke 23.18)

Tell me again about the differences between what jews consider the messiah and what christians consider their messiah......

[Ducky]

In all 5 cases, noone else qualifies than Jesus, whether Jesus was mentioned specifically by name or not. Just because some of these sources revile Jesus is no reason to discount the fact of his death.

You are very wrong. I have cited a source to refute your position that the Talmud refers to Jesus. I have shown you to have a very wrong interpretation of the talmud, and that you have interestingly quote mined to make at least one other quote from a satirist appear to support you.

Now you posted this:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[JamRan]

We have Clement and Polycarp and Ignatius and Papias born in the first century that carried on the claims, so it did not need to wait 70 years. And Tertullian and on and on. Altogether we have 42 sources, Christian and Non-Christian, in the first 150 years after Jesus died talking about Him in some form or another.

[JamRan]

I think you are stetching a very short word, Yeshu into a very long sentence. So all 5 cases of Jesus dying stand.

Altogether we have 17 non-Christian sources in the first 150 years after Jesus' death. 12 speak of His death, 7 of His deity.

[RemieV]

And here we come to the issue with your arguments: What you just said has no relevance to the argument. Whether everlasting life is everlasting or not is not the argument. Whether it can be given and taken away is. Since the everlasting part would not happen until death, in between is when it is decided whether or not you will have it.

Like so:

I decide that when a certain person I care about dies, I will take flowers to their grave. Before they die, they irritate me. I decide that, after they die, I won't take them flowers after all.

You are creating meanings that simply are not there because they suit what you're saying.

I would suggest learning the material you're working with.

[Pauliesonne]

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

May " God " have mercy on his " soul " if he is infact saying that, b'cause nobody on this Earth will.

[Ducky]

I think you are stetching a very short word, Yeshu into a very long sentence. So all 5 cases of Jesus dying stand.

I think you don't know Hebrew, and therefore have no idea that your interpretation of the use of Yeshu in the Talmud is way off.

Now you posted this:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[Ducky]

We have Clement and Polycarp and Ignatius and Papias born in the first century that carried on the claims, so it did not need to wait 70 years. And Tertullian and on and on. Altogether we have 42 sources, Christian and Non-Christian, in the first 150 years after Jesus died talking about Him in some form or another.

"carried on the claims"

Right. So they're not anything buy eyewitness testimony to hearsay.


Once more with feeling:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In considering just the earliest accounts:

Tacitus said Jesus died
Josephus said Jesus died
Lucian said Jesus
Mara Bar-Serapion said Jesus died
Talmud said Jesus died

No they did not. Not a single one of these is not a lying Christian interpolation or an incredibly convoluted interpretation or a deliberate misquote. They are rolled out from the Christian Fundamentalist propoganda in every discussion I have ever had with a Christian Fundamentalist.

They are easily refuted on the www with references to Christian scholars who agree they are false.

Think for yourself. Do your own research.

[Cleon]

I think you are stetching a very short word, Yeshu into a very long sentence.

And I think you are full of baloney. What's your point?

I note that you are studiously avoiding explaining the similarities between the Talmudic Yeshu and the Christian Jesus. Which tells me the following:

A) You really haven't read Sanhedrin.
B) You really don't have any logical or substantive arguments, so you're trying to substitute stubbornness and bombast in the hopes that nobody will notice.

So all 5 cases of Jesus dying stand.

Non sequitur.

[Zygar]

Cleon,

No. He is the same.

Messiah was to be rejected by his own people, the Jews (Is. 53.1,3, Ps. 118.22; Matt. 21.1-9, John 1.11, 12.12-16, Luke 23.18)

Regardless of whether the Talmud is referring to Jesus of Nazareth, it is not contemporary. It was written about 400 AD.

[RandFan]

Since I have supplied what I consider evidence from the Bible as well as evidence from outside the Bible, and you reject both, it seems like there is no such thing as evidence at all to an atheist. (emphasis mine)

Sorry, I've been making merry. Christmas eve ya know.

WTF? Just because you consider something evidence doesn't make it evidence. If someone else has cleared this up then I apologize.

I will accept any evidence that is empirical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=empirical) or demonstrable (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demonstrable). The stories that you are talking about where written down long after Christ died and there is no external corroborating evidence. A book that says that it is true does not constitute truth.

[JamRan]

"Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23

"He that believeth on the Son HATH EVERLASTING LIFE:.. ." John 3:36

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE,. . ." 1 John 5:13

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH EVERLASTING LIFE,. . ." John 5:24

And THE LORD. . . WILL PRESERVE ME unto his heavenly kingdom:. . ." 2 Timothy 4:18

God can't preserve a saved person then change His mind.

". . .for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

". . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20

It's a done deal for those who are born-again.

". . . him that cometh to me I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT." John 6:37

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. . . For by one offering he hath PERFECTED FOR EVER them that are sanctified." Hebrews 10:10,14

[JamRan]

Even though Talmud is too late, I thought it important to include because it is a major Jewish document.

[Ducky]

"Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23

"He that believeth on the Son HATH EVERLASTING LIFE:.. ." John 3:36

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE,. . ." 1 John 5:13

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH EVERLASTING LIFE,. . ." John 5:24

And THE LORD. . . WILL PRESERVE ME unto his heavenly kingdom:. . ." 2 Timothy 4:18

God can't preserve a saved person then change His mind.

". . .for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

". . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20

It's a done deal for those who are born-again.

". . . him that cometh to me I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT." John 6:37

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. . . For by one offering he hath PERFECTED FOR EVER them that are sanctified." Hebrews 10:10,14

That's lovely. So I am correct in assuming you are not here for reasoned discourse based on evidence, but rather you are here to preach.

I would point out that quoting the bible as support for it's legitimacy is a fallacy.

once more:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[JamRan]

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby YE ARE SEALED unto the day of redemption." Ephesians 4:30

". . .after that ye believed, YE WERE SEALED with that holy Spirit of promise," Ephesians 1:13

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SEALED

". . .for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

". . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20

[Ducky]

Even though Talmud is too late, I thought it important to include because it is a major Jewish document.

...and it has been pointed out to you that it does not refer to what you say it does.

Again:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[RandFan]

Even though Talmud is too late, I thought it important to include because it is a major Jewish document. ???

It's mythology. A fraction of the stories from that time. Why is this collection of mythology significant?

[Ducky]

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby YE ARE SEALED unto the day of redemption." Ephesians 4:30

". . .after that ye believed, YE WERE SEALED with that holy Spirit of promise," Ephesians 1:13

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SEALED

". . .for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

". . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20



Hurray for preaching. You have now cowardly run from every reasoned inquiry into your posts and begun to do nothing but preach. This behavior does nothing to improve your standing as a debater or even to bolster the opinion of you (at least in my eyes) on this forum enough to be taken seriously.

One more time:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[RemieV]

I started by plugging your scripture into a Bible search, and then realized if I was going to cite every single one where you were incorrect about the meaning it was giving, it was going to take forever.

Let me say it this way: You are combining things that never claimed to be the same, taking bits and pieces and force-fitting them because you like them better a certain way.

I'll even go so far as to say this: I am not an atheist. But if you were the first person who had ever tried to feed me religion, I wouldn't believe. Because your arguments, frankly, stink.

[ceo_esq]

If you wish to convince anyone on this forum of anything, you will have to provide evidence to support your machinations.

Interesting choice of words. What do you think he's machinating here?

[JamRan]

I hope you at least accept OSAS now.

[RemieV]

No, JamRan. Although I *am* convinced that I no longer have to read where this is going - simply because you don't know what you're talking about. And therefore my curiosity has ended.

[Ducky]

I hope you at least accept OSAS now.

Why? You have done nothing but make unsupported assertions, thrown around uite a few logical fallacies and then resorted to preaching.

Again:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable. But we are only talking about direct sin that you can cause to happen to shorten your life.

I would like you to respond to my post #32 in this thread. Are you in fact saying cancer patients deserve their cancer and that they or their family history is the cause of it?

[RandFan]

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby YE ARE SEALED unto the day of redemption." Ephesians 4:30

". . .after that ye believed, YE WERE SEALED with that holy Spirit of promise," Ephesians 1:13

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SEALED

". . .for he hath said, I WILL NEVER LEAVE THEE, nor forsake thee." Hebrews 13:5

". . . and, lo, I am with you ALWAY, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:20Jam, we are not children. We are not idiots. We have been around the block. I've read the bible. Trust me on this one. This isn't going anywhere.

[Ducky]

Interesting choice of words. What do you think he's machinating here?

No it is not interesting. Do we need to look at the definition of "machination"?

–noun
1. an act or instance of machinating.
2. Usually, machinations. crafty schemes; plots; intrigues.

without any supporting evidence, his posts are nothing but crafty wordplay and unsubstantiated assertion.

Please ceo, I am not going to play your usual wordplay games. Unless you actually contribute something to the discussion, I'm simply going to ignore you.

[JamRan]

fowl,

No. I am not saying that about cancer patients.

[JamRan]

So we have basically 5 things that we can accept as true:

1) Jesus died
2) The apostles believed they saw Jesus resurrected
3) Paul (outsider skeptic) was certain he saw Jesus resurrected and was regenerated by the Holy Spirit to receive eternal life
4) James (family skeptic) thought the same as Paul
5) The tomb was empty

So what is the explanation for this if Jesus is not God?

[Ducky]

fowl,

No. I am not saying that about cancer patients.

Then please explain exactly what you meant when you said this:

Naturally because sin affects many generations and we are all born into sin, some good people will get cancer. It is unavoidable.

Your statement above directly contradicts your assertions previously quoted.

Does sin then cause cancer? From your choice of words it appears you believe sin that hasn't been committed by the patient could cause cancer.

Do explain. Leaving your statement as is would be a mistake, as it would appear you hold a very offensive position regarding cancer patients.

[Cleon]

So we have basically 5 things that we can accept as true:


No.

[Ducky]

So we have basically 5 things that we can accept as true:

1) Jesus died
2) The apostles believed they saw Jesus resurrected
3) Paul (outsider skeptic) was certain he saw Jesus resurrected and was regenerated by the Holy Spirit to receive eternal life
4) James (family skeptic) thought the same as Paul
5) The tomb was empty

So what is the explanation for this if Jesus is not God?

Really? How can we accept them as true if you refuse to provide any evidence they actually happened except third person hearsay and misquoted Talmudic references?

[JamRan]

Sin can cause cancer, but it is not always the sin the person caused, but the person may have been born into that sin. God does not blame anyone for being born into sin as long as they receive the cross.

[RemieV]

Break out the cats.

[JamRan]

Cleon,

What's your issue?

[Ducky]

Sin can cause cancer, but it is not always the sin the person caused, but the person may have been born into that sin. God does not blame anyone for being born into sin as long as they receive the cross.

If it is not sin the person caused, how does it affect them to get cancer? What are they born into?

You are in essence saying that those that get cancer somehow have fault, or their families have fault to cause it. Do you not understand why this is a horribly offensive statement to make?

Do you have any evidence sin causes cancer? Please share that.

[Zygar]

So we have basically 5 things that we can accept as true:

1) Jesus died
2) The apostles believed they saw Jesus resurrected
3) Paul (outsider skeptic) was certain he saw Jesus resurrected and was regenerated by the Holy Spirit to receive eternal life
4) James (family skeptic) thought the same as Paul
5) The tomb was empty

So what is the explanation for this if Jesus is not God?

How did you manage a double post with an hour and a half between them? ;)

You said this before. We ripped it apart. Don't repost garbage unless you want to replay the entire discussion.

[JamRan]

fowl,

How is Paul's own writings hearsay? Moreover what historical document do you accept that is not hearsay?

[Terry]

So we have basically 5 things that we can accept as true:

no. you haven't established that. proof by blatant assertion doesn't cut it.

[JamRan]

Scientifically gentically we know some people are more likely to get cancer than others. They should know where it comes from. The Bible talks about sin going down to the 4th generation and other sin down to the 10th generation. The reason why David could not be king before Saul is because one more generation was needed to make 10 generations to pass the sin that started. Guess what that sin was?

[Cleon]

no. you haven't established that. proof by blatant assertion doesn't cut it.

Terry, Terry, Terry. It's not proof by blatant assertion, it's proof by repeated blatant assertion, which makes all the difference.

[Ducky]

fowl,

How is Paul's own writings hearsay? Moreover what historical document do you accept that is not hearsay?

I have read no credible corroborating evidence where he witnessed the crucifixion or resurrection. Therefore, it is hearsay where he quotes others, and nothing but assertion where he states things firsthand.

Answer my other questions.

[JamRan]

Ok here is the answer. Deut. 23.2,3 why 10 generations. Judah sinned with Tamar to have two illegitimate children. Saul is the 10th generation from Judah, David is the 11th.

[JamRan]

fowl,

Paul never said he witnessed the crucifixion.

[Ducky]

Scientifically gentically we know some people are more likely to get cancer than others. They should know where it comes from. The Bible talks about sin going down to the 4th generation and other sin down to the 10th generation. The reason why David could not be king before Saul is because one more generation was needed to make 10 generations to pass the sin that started. Guess what that sin was?

So despite the fact that you said you did not assert it, you are in fact saying the following:

1) Sin causes cancer.
2) either by being directly responsible, or by fault of their family, the cancer patient suffers cancer due to sin.

You have not provided any evidence that sin causes cancer. Please do so. What, other than your very offensive assertion, provides any evidence that cancer patients get cancer due to sin?

[Ducky]

fowl,

Paul never said he witnessed the crucifixion.

...and you just proved my point about hearsay.

[Ducky]

Ok here is the answer. Deut. 23.2,3 why 10 generations. Judah sinned with Tamar to have two illegitimate children. Saul is the 10th generation from Judah, David is the 11th.

I see no evidence in your post that sin causes cancer. Please provide it.

[JamRan]

Cancer need not exist if Adam didn't fall.

If you smoke too much this produces cancer.

[JamRan]

Paul said He saw the risen Jesus just like the apostles did, and James. Scholars believe they really believed it, but here is the problem. Mass hallucinations don't exist in psychology that we know of. Plus the conditions for a hallucination does not work for Paul and James. James did not believe Jesus was God and Paul had no reason to do so either. There was neither expectation or ecstasy.

[AZAtheist]

JamRan, I followed the discussion to this point and see that there is probably no chance of changing anyone's mind here. There is an old saying we hear often about wrestling with a pig...no one wins.

So I'd like to try a new approach. When you came here did you plan on changing anyone's mind or inserting something that we've not heard before? If so, best of luck but I wouldn't give you very good odds at doing that task.

When you came here were you just looking for a fight? Already firm in your conviction with the full knowledge that you're right and you're going to show those heathens a thing or two? If that is your goal, you've succeeded in getting the fight but not really showing up those that have answered. Quit now and declare victory.

But if you came here looking for answers that you may find. If you were you looking to test out your view of the world and find any weakness in the foundation of your knowledge, stick around ask questions and learn. You'll find you'll get further working with this group than against it. Here's a good place to start...look to yourself. Is there anything within your belief structure that doesn't feel or seem right? Do you have a question that bothers you when no one is looking? Many of us came to where we are today because of the little things. It may start off with an unanswered question or worse an answered question that doesn't fit.

For example, the stories about the death of Jesus include the sun standing still in the sky. If that happened, every civilization in the planet would have noticed and some would have made note of it. It bothered me that something that big had escaped notice.

That's just an example from my experience. You might have a question or two from your own.

By the way, skeptics also look into the historical observations of biblical stories for validation. It's part of the scientific method. I think it was the podcast "Point of Inquiry" about the explanation for the the observation of the Star of Bethlehem.

Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge.

[Ducky]

Cancer need not exist if Adam didn't fall.

If you smoke too much this produces cancer.

I can name pages long lists of types of cancer that have nothing to do with smoking.

You still have not addressed my point. You have asserted that sin somehow causes cancer. This assertion has several implications. The first is that the cancer patient somehow is to blame either directly or by relation, for their own disease. This is referred to as blaming the victim. It is offensive and reprehensible. The second is that God gives cancer to people because of sin either that they have committed or because they are related to someone that sinned. This is again reoprehensible and sadistic behavior.

Now, how exactly does sin cause cancer? Oh yes you said smoking. Well, yes smoking can cause lung cancer. Great. How exactly did smoking cause Multiple Myeloma? It is well documented that Multiple Myeloma is not related in any way to alcohol or tobacco use. It specifically is a cancer in the bone marrow.

What sin caused that?

[Ducky]

Paul said He saw the risen Jesus just like the apostles did, and James. Scholars believe they really believed it, but here is the problem. Mass hallucinations don't exist in psychology that we know of. Plus the conditions for a hallucination does not work for Paul and James. James did not believe Jesus was God and Paul had no reason to do so either. There was neither expectation or ecstasy.

Yes, we've been over this, and your assertions are nothing more than assertions.

[JamRan]

Which verse are you looking at regarding the sun? I couldn't find it.

Where we are at in the conversation is seeing that Jesus died, apostles, James and Paul truly believed what they saw was the risen Jesus bodily, and the tomb was empty.

I was just curious if someone could give an explanation if Jesus is not God.

[Doubt]

Where we are at in the conversation is seeing that Jesus died, apostles, James and Paul truly believed what they saw was the risen Jesus bodily, and the tomb was empty.

I was just curious if someone could give an explanation if Jesus is not God.

The most plausible explination is that the story was an oral tradition that changed over time before anyone wrote it down.

[JamRan]

fowl,

This was based on the data, both secular and Christian, so this is the conclusion one comes to that Jesus would be God. What data do you have to reject the apostles, James and Paul's claim, that the tomb was empty and Jesus died?

[JamRan]

Doubt,

We know that not enough time accrued to make it legend since Paul writes his account within 20 years and talks about the early creed in 1 Cor. 15, which he got from Peter and James when they met in Jerusalem within 5 years after Jesus' death.

So still the only possibility that makes sense is Jesus is God.

[Ducky]

fowl,

This was based on the data, both secular and Christian, so this is the conclusion one comes to that Jesus would be God. What data do you have to reject the apostles, James and Paul's claim, that the tomb was empty and Jesus died?

Yes, if you reread this thread, we've been over your data. Repeating yourself doesn't change the fact that your assertions are nothing but assertions, nor does it change the thorough ripping your data took under analysis.

How about you respond to my questions a few posts ago? Here, I'll requote for you:

I can name pages long lists of types of cancer that have nothing to do with smoking.

You still have not addressed my point. You have asserted that sin somehow causes cancer. This assertion has several implications. The first is that the cancer patient somehow is to blame either directly or by relation, for their own disease. This is referred to as blaming the victim. It is offensive and reprehensible. The second is that God gives cancer to people because of sin either that they have committed or because they are related to someone that sinned. This is again reoprehensible and sadistic behavior.

Now, how exactly does sin cause cancer? Oh yes you said smoking. Well, yes smoking can cause lung cancer. Great. How exactly did smoking cause Multiple Myeloma? It is well documented that Multiple Myeloma is not related in any way to alcohol or tobacco use. It specifically is a cancer in the bone marrow.

What sin caused that?

[Ducky]

Doubt,

We know that not enough time accrued to make it legend since Paul writes his account within 20 years and talks about the early creed in 1 Cor. 15, which he got from Peter and James when they met in Jerusalem within 5 years after Jesus' death.

So still the only possibility that makes sense is Jesus is God.

Roswell's alien crash site is legend and that took less than 20 years to be written about.

[JamRan]

fowl,

How is it an assertion if the data points to the resurrection of Jesus? And we can find no othe plausible explanation. What data do you have, but an assertion? I have seen no data from you. At least I gave you the writings of Paul and the gospel accounts, secular writings about Jesus and a religio-hostirical context for the perfect sacrifice to replace the animal sacrifices, plus the Jews prophesied a resurrection and sacrifice. And Jesus said He is God.

[Doubt]

About the "secular" proof of Jesus:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

One of the things the point out there is there is only one refrence. Nothing from before. And if Josephus believed this was true, how come he was not a Christian?

[Ducky]

fowl,

How is it an assertion if the data points to the resurrection of Jesus? And we can find no othe plausible explanation. What data do you have, but an assertion? I have seen no data from you. At least I gave you the writings of Paul and the gospel accounts, secular writings about Jesus and a religio-hostirical context for the perfect sacrifice to replace the animal sacrifices, plus the Jews prophesied a resurrection and sacrifice. And Jesus said He is God.

I am not going to rehash the past 100 posts to remind you of how your assertions are simply assertions.

Why do you dodge my questions on cancer? If you're right, I would suspect many an oncologist would love to nominate you for a nobel prize.

How does sin cause cancer? What are your responses to my explanation of how offensive blaming the victim is? What sin causes Multiple Myeloma?

[JamRan]

Let's talk about Roswell. What was the first mentioning of it and what was said? And then what year did the story change, and what was that story?

[JamRan]

Doubt,

He believed Jesus died, he did not believe he was God. He believed Paul and the apostles made claims, but he didn't believe them. Why do people reject Christ? It's a free country. But they have no evidence like the data we see for resurrection.

[JamRan]

Your example does not apply, there was no legend development, but false to start,

In early July 1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947), a strange object reportedly crashed about 75 miles northwest of the city on a ranch, leaving a large field of debris. The local air base at Roswell investigated after the rancher first reported it to Roswell authorities on July 6. On July 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_8), the Roswell Army Air Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_Army_Air_Field) (RAAF) announced it had recovered a "flying disk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object). A few hours after the initial "flying disk" press release, U.S. Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) officials stated that it was not a UFO, but a weather balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon). When the question of what crashed was revived in the early 1980s, the "Roswell Incident" became a focus of conspiracy theorists, "abductees," and UFO investigators.

[Ducky]

I see.

Evasion noted.

It appears you don't want to own up to your particularly nasty statements about cancer patients. This is not surprising. Nor do you want to provide anything but vague references to "scholars" and citings that in at least 2 examples I have listed are either out of context or completely false.

JamRan, I'm not going to continue to feed your wish to troll on this forum any longer. In one thread you have refused to understand how to properly provide any type of evidence or citation to reasearch to support yourself, and you have insinuated that cancer patients are to blame for their disease.

Here's a little tidbit for you: I have Multiple Myeloma. I am a cancer patient, and your assertions about cancer show that you have no grasp on what cancer(s) are, how they work, or what causes them. You also (I hope) have had no one close to you have cancer or you show yourself to be particularly cold-hearted and nasty in disposition to them, as you obviously think they deserve it.

Nice talking to you, but you have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest and offensive. Therefore I am done with this thread.

[AZAtheist]

JamRan, my mistake on the sun standing still, that happened elsewhere in the bible and Joshua made it happen. The passage in Matthew says darkness fell over the world for 3 hours. However, remember I was using it as an example of what started making me ask the questions. It did happen and it did make me wonder if that was indeed possible and what the rest of the world thought about it.

Isn't there anything that you've looked into in your studies that give you pause?

[Ducky]

Your example does not apply, there was no legend development, but false to start,

In early July 1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947), a strange object reportedly crashed about 75 miles northwest of the city on a ranch, leaving a large field of debris. The local air base at Roswell investigated after the rancher first reported it to Roswell authorities on July 6. On July 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_8), the Roswell Army Air Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_Army_Air_Field) (RAAF) announced it had recovered a "flying disk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object). A few hours after the initial "flying disk" press release, U.S. Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) officials stated that it was not a UFO, but a weather balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon). When the question of what crashed was revived in the early 1980s, the "Roswell Incident" became a focus of conspiracy theorists, "abductees," and UFO investigators.

Yet people believe very factually incorrect things about it.

Nope. The analogy stands. You wanted a way the stories of Jesus could be wrong. You just provided it. Thanks for proving my point.

Have a nice day, I'm done with this.

[Doubt]

Doubt,

He believed Jesus died, he did not believe he was God. He believed Paul and the apostles made claims, but he didn't believe them. Why do people reject Christ? It's a free country. But they have no evidence like the data we see for resurrection.

quoting a quote on the page I linked:


Catholic Admission
"The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."
– (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Even a lot of Christians think somebody altered Josephus.

In short, it is not a credible source. The lack of cross referencing to other events suggests it was not part of the original work.

[Susheel]

I can name pages long lists of types of cancer that have nothing to do with smoking.

Incidentally I read somewhere that a study showed lower incidence of prostrate cancer among men who masturbated regularly. Iknow this is your quoter fowlsound, but I am too lazy to scroll back to find Jamran's original sin=death quote so I settled for the closest ref. The post is addressed to JamRan though.

Puts a bit of a damper on the sin=death equation, unless masturbation is no longer a sin in Xian eyes.

Incidentally JamRan, when are you going to stop quoting the Bible to prove the bible is true and come up with something a little more substantial. Many of us here have already undergone your present strategies for argument at various times in life and have found very strong grounds to reject them.

I would suggest you hit the History books and find out:

When the various books of the bible were written.

Why were these books selected in the bible as we know them today.

Who selected them.

Read about the proceedings of the Nicean creed.

Then go on from there. But I have this feeling that you are one of those who think that the Bible is sufficient reading material to cover all truths.

Incidentally I really admire the Xian strategy of getting quotes to mean whatever they want it to mean by pulling them out of context and dealing with as if they were individual entities. Who thought that one up?

[JamRan]

Cancer will help a person come to Christ, so give up and give in.

[JamRan]

Not all of Josephus is considered untrue. We are only concerned with those parts that most scholars agree is authentic.

[SezMe]

fowl, rip him a new one.

ETA: Oops, I see you plan on ignoring JamRan. Don't blame you but I'd still like you to lean on him some more.

[Doubt]

Not all of Josephus is considered untrue. We are only concerned with those parts that most scholars agree is authentic.

The parts that are considered to be authentic are the ones that have nothing to do with Christianity.

[AZAtheist]

Knowledge and reason will set you free.

[Doubt]

Cancer will help a person come to Christ, so give up and give in.

Really now. What about infants?

[JamRan]

I think what you are trying to say about Roswell is that a false statement there was a disc picked up made immediately then changed a couple hours to a weather baloon later is somehow like the resurrection claims. How so?

[JamRan]

The parts that are accepted by scholars is the parts I gave you for Josephus. We did not go beyond that.

[JamRan]

There is an age of accountability in the Bible, so though a child may get cancer and die, he would be saved.

[Doubt]

The parts that are accepted by scholars is the parts I gave you for Josephus. We did not go beyond that.
Evidence?

That site I linked to said it was all in one paragrah. Just one.

[Doubt]

There is an age of accountability in the Bible, so though a child may get cancer and die, he would be saved.

Why would god put a baby through that at all?

Pain and suffereing for someone who cannot understand it. That is torture at the hands of your god.

[JamRan]

So where it stands is:

1) Jesus died agreed by Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion and Talmud
2) Scholars accept the apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Hallucinations in groups is not possible when there is no ecstasy or expectation. We are told the disciples never expected a resurrection
3) Paul was converted to the faith by what he believed was the appearance of Christ
4) James was converted to the faith by what he believed was the appearance of Christ
5) Tomb was empty

They all taught a bodily resurrection since they saw Jesus bodily.

An atheist never tries to show an alternative possibility of what happened to the apostles and Paul and James, and I think this is because no other possibility exists.

[JamRan]

Obviously God looks at all the strands of people procreating and figures there is the greatest amount of good with the least amount of evil.

[Susheel]

The parts that are accepted by scholars is the parts I gave you for Josephus. We did not go beyond that.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm.

It is exactly those parts that have been claimed to be later interpolations even by Christian scholars.

[JamRan]

We should really get back on topic about how the scholars agree with these 5 points, so the next step is to find an alternate possibility that could work, otherwise Jesus is God.

The study of scholars agreeing to these 5 points is found in the studies done by Gary Habermas and he is one of the leading scholars on resurrection. He converted one of the leading atheists Antony Flew to theism.

[Zygar]

So where it stands is:

1) Jesus died agreed by Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion and Talmud

You have not proven this.

2) Scholars accept the apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Hallucinations in groups is not possible when there is no ecstasy or expectation. We are told the disciples never expected a resurrectionMary was the first to see the resurrected Christ, according to the Bible. She very easily could have induced the mass hallucination by convincing them that he was resurrected.

Plus this is hearsay.

3) Paul was converted to the faith by what he believed was the appearance of ChristHearsay. Besides, so?

4) James was converted to the faith by what he believed was the appearance of ChristMore hearsay.

5) Tomb was emptyCompletely unproven. There is no context under which you could call this anything but hearsay. There are no documents outside the Bible which even suggest at the truth of this statement.

They all taught a bodily resurrection since they saw Jesus bodily.

An atheist never tries to show an alternative possibility of what happened to the apostles and Paul and James, and I think this is because no other possibility exists.There is no need. It is all hearsay.

[JamRan]

Mass hallucination closeup can't occur with groups at all actually. Name one situation where different groups are seeing and touching and seeing the person eat who is not there? How silly.

[JamRan]

To discount all the information we have regarding the tomb, while still not providing any yourself, your thought is disregarded.

[JamRan]

If everything is hearsay, then all documents in history are not admissable to prove anything in history about anything. That would not be reasonable.

If you think something hearsay, you need to support your claim.

[Zygar]

Mass hallucination closeup can't occur with groups at all actually. Name one situation where different groups are seeing and touching and seeing the person eat who is not there? How silly.

Even if that is true, and I cannot at this moment in time provide references to prove otherwise, this is still all just hearsay. You have nothing.

[Zygar]

To discount all the information we have regarding the tomb, while still not providing any yourself, your thought is disregarded.

Disregard what? You have nothing. You have given no supporting evidence. It is not on my to provide proof that you lack evidence.

[JamRan]

Since you have no reason to believe it is hearsay, then your thought is disregarded.

[JamRan]

The evidence we have is 42 sources of His life over the past 150 years after His death. What do you have? Nothing.

[Zygar]

If everything is hearsay, then all documents in history are not admissable to prove anything in history about anything. That would not be reasonable.

If you think something hearsay, you need to support your claim.

A single compendium of documents written a hundred years after the fact, by people who were not present, with no supporting historical evidence, and no archeaological evidence is hearsay. There is no possible way you can deny that the biblical account of Jesus as we know it today is hearsay.

[JamRan]

The documents of Jesus in the NT were all written in the first century. John wrote the book of Revelation about 95 AD.

[Zygar]

The evidence we have is 42 sources of His life over the past 150 years after His death. What do you have? Nothing.

I don't need to provide anything. You still have given no solid references to back any of your statements.

Provide evidence. Do not tell me what I have, since I am making no claims.

[JamRan]

Since you reject all possible references, can't you see no reference qualifies?

[JamRan]

That's disingenuous.

[Zygar]

A single compendium of documents written a hundred years after the fact, by people who were not present, with no supporting historical evidence, and no archeaological evidence is hearsay. There is no possible way you can deny that the biblical account of Jesus as we know it today is hearsay.

The documents of Jesus in the NT were all written in the first century. John wrote the book of Revelation about 95 AD.

You have not provided an argument for my above argument. Disputing my statement with a single unrelated fact will not win the debate.

[Zygar]

Since you reject all possible references, can't you see no reference qualifies?

Can't you see that no reference qualifies? There are no references to prove Jesus existed. Your argument hinges entirely on this fact. Thank you for admitting defeat.

[JamRan]

We can certainly move onto your issues later, but we are right now at the matter of what scholars agree upon:

1) Jesus died
2) apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus
3) Paul said he saw the risen Jesus and converted
4) James said he saw Jesus raised and converted
5) the tomb was empty

I can find no possible explanation for this other than Jesus is God. What about you?

[H3LL]

Your example does not apply, there was no legend development, but false to start,

In early July 1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947), a strange object reportedly crashed about 75 miles northwest of the city on a ranch, leaving a large field of debris. The local air base at Roswell investigated after the rancher first reported it to Roswell authorities on July 6. On July 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_8), the Roswell Army Air Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_Army_Air_Field) (RAAF) announced it had recovered a "flying disk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object). A few hours after the initial "flying disk" press release, U.S. Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) officials stated that it was not a UFO, but a weather balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon). When the question of what crashed was revived in the early S, the "Roswell Incident" became a focus of conspiracy theorists, "abductees," and UFO investigators.

The above is a quote and not your words or work. Plagiarised from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell,_New_Mexico):

In early July 1947 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947), a strange object reportedly crashed about 75 miles northwest of the city on a ranch, leaving a large field of debris. The local air base at Roswell investigated after the rancher first reported it to Roswell authorities on July 6. On July 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_8), the Roswell Army Air Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roswell_Army_Air_Field) (RAAF) announced it had recovered a "flying disk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object). A few hours after the initial "flying disk" press release, U.S. Army Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) officials stated that it was not a UFO, but a weather balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_balloon). When the question of what crashed was revived in the early 1980s, the "Roswell Incident" became a focus of conspiracy theorists, "abductees," and UFO investigators.

[JamRan]

It's quite obvious it was wikkipedia given all the wikki links.

[RandFan]

Fortunately, at least atheist scholars agree on 5 basic things (though other atheists don't accept their agreement):

1) Jesus died
2) The apostles truly believe he was resurrected
3) Paul was converted to Christianity and truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected
4) James, brother of Jesus, truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and converted to Christianity
5) the tomb was empty.

The only explanation for this then is that Jesus was resurrected because He is God since no alternative explanation is provided. Do you have a link or some proof that atheist scholars agree?

[JamRan]

Let's get back to what the scholars agree upon and see if you can disprove them wrong. If not, the reasonable thing to do would be to accept Jesus as God.

[JamRan]

I can only comment on what Gary Habermas has claimed is his experience with dozens of atheists. He is the leading scholar in the world on the resurrection.

Antony Flew is one person who accepts all 5 points. He was once considered the leading atheist in the world.

Gary Habermas has also noted some studies done on what percentage of atheist scholars accept all 5 points and it is a very high percentage.

[Zygar]

Do you have a link or some proof that atheist scholars agree?

He has given this same post 3 times, now. And once more with a minor modification. He has since provided nothing but fallacies, strawmen, and poorly researched, highly disputed references. He has nothing, and once he is shown this he falls back to his unsupported assertion.

Let's just let his thread die.

[JamRan]

Accusations without support for them are disregarded.

It stands, we know Jesus died for both Christians and non-Christians agree. The apostles believed they saw the resurrected Jesus, and so did Paul and James which converted them, and the tomb was empty.

Since all scholars believe Paul lived and worked, and Paul said he was with the apostles finding agreement, and they agreed they saw the same Jesus resurrected, it stands, since no competing view has been put forth.

[JamRan]

I welcome challengers.

[RandFan]

I can only comment on what Gary Habermas has claimed is his experience with dozens of atheists. He is the leading scholar in the world on the resurrection. Worthless.

Antony Flew is one person who accepts all 5 points. He was once considered the leading atheist in the world. Fallacy, appeal to authority.

Gary Habermas has also noted some studies done on what percentage of atheist scholars accept all 5 points and it is a very high percentage. This is a claim. It is worthless. It is the responsibility of the person making the claim to substantiate the claim.

[RandFan]

He has given this same post 3 times, now. And once more with a minor modification. He has since provided nothing but fallacies, strawmen, and poorly researched, highly disputed references. He has nothing, and once he is shown this he falls back to his unsupported assertion.

Let's just let his thread die. Good point.

[JamRan]

You'll need something to support your position, because the documentation that exists disagrees with you.

For example I give you Paul's writings, writings of non-Christians and a religio-historical context. What do you bring to the table except conjecture? That shows you have nothing.

[RandFan]

Whatever.

[JamRan]

Self is at the center of conjecture.

[JamRan]

Don't shut your mind down.

[JamRan]

We should get back to the resurrection because the resurrection makes or breaks the divinity of Christ. Most scholars accept:

1) There was a real person Jesus who died by crucifixion
2) The apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus
3) Paul converted because he saw Jesus resurrected
4) James converted because he saw Jesus resurrected
5) The evidence points strongly to the tomb being empty.

The challenge for the atheist then is to find a different scenario to these events than Jesus being God.

[RandFan]

?

If you are not going to discuss the issue in good faith then what is the point?

[JamRan]

How am I not discussing in good faith?

[JamRan]

We should get back to the resurrection because the resurrection makes or breaks the divinity of Christ. Most scholars accept:

1) There was a real person Jesus who died by crucifixion
2) The apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus
3) Paul converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected body
4) James converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected bodily
5) The evidence points strongly to the tomb being empty.

The challenge for the atheist then is to find a different scenario to these events than Jesus being God.

[JamRan]

Can you at least accept they believed they saw? If not, why?

[RandFan]

How am I not discussing in good faith? You are making spurious arguments. You are making false claims. You refuse to support your claims.

That's bad faith.

[JamRan]

If everyone is lying, that's quite the conspiracy eh?

[JamRan]

How is it spurious and false? Where's your support for this?

I gave 5 non-Christian sources and the fact that most scholars accept Paul was a real person.

If these sources are false then you are calling non-Christians liars. And if you have no reason for calling Paul a liar, then your idea is disregarded.

[The Atheist]

Holy crap! 200 posts in 9 hours. Nice thread.

While I've indulged in some serious gluttony, this has all come up. I've read the OP and I can guess what's in the middle, so I'll ignore the other 190 posts and dive right in.

JamRam.

I'm convinced. I am gonna become The Christian, first thing tomorrow morning. On this most holy of days; the day that our Lord Jesus Christ was born, only to give his life as a sacrifice for all, you have shown me the error of my ways. I will get down and pray to our Saviour, the Lamb of God, His Most Holy Son.

Your evidence on the resurrection has shown me the light. All I ask, to be able to complete my journey into the warm arms of Jesus is that you show me where he was entombed.

Thanks very much.

Yours in Christ, The Christian formerly known as The Atheist.

[The Atheist]

That's pretty kewl, there were six posts while I typed that sucker out.

You guys would die at Clingford's ship - the flood control there is two minutes. Even drives me crazy.

[RandFan]

Can you at least accept they believed they saw? If not, why? I don't even know if the events happened.
I don't know if they existed.
If they existed I don't know if they made up a story.
If they existed I don't know if they were deluded.

I have no basis to accept the stories as anything other than stories. There are other stories. Similar stories of other faiths. What of them?

[JamRan]

This is a good approach. Do you accept Jesus existed?

[The Atheist]

Antony Flew is one person who accepts all 5 points. He was once considered the leading atheist in the world.What utter poppycock!

What christian website gave you that gem? "Leading atheist in the world" ! "Considered" by whom?

Genius.

[JamRan]

Ask yourself what evidence would convince you Jesus existed? You'll find nothing can convince you.

[The Atheist]

This is a good approach. Do you accept Jesus existed?Who's that addressed to?

[JamRan]

That's disingenuous to admit nothing as evidence. If that is the case then we can not have a high degree of confidence about anything in history, even the multiple attestation of Jesus.

[The Atheist]

Ask yourself what evidence would convince you Jesus existed? You'll find nothing can convince you.I'm convinced.

Like I said, I'm sold. Hand me the bread & wine, baby, I'm in.

Just tell me where his grave was.

You know, the holiest place in christendom? The very spot that his father, the holy ghosty guy blew life back into his cold, dead body.

Where was it? That's all. I'll go pray there immediately. And I'll give all my worldly goods to YOUR church. How's that for a deal?

[SezMe]

Following The Atheist, I'll wash his feet with my hair if you can tell me EXACTLY who was at the tomb when it was discovered to be empty, what, EXACTLY they saw, and who EXACTLY they told of the discovery.

The resurrection of Jesus is, as you know, JamRan, THE central tenet of Christianity. Therefore, the details of its occurrence are critically important. Please give us the essential details listed above so The Atheist and I can truly celebrate Christmas on our knees in fellowship with our new found Lord.

[RandFan]

That's disingenuous to admit nothing as evidence. If that is the case then we can not have a high degree of confidence about anything in history, even the multiple attestation of Jesus. Truth is the bible scholars admit that the accounts of Christ were written after he died. It's not like there was testimony given in a court of law. On the contrary. These were stories. Kind of like our myths and legends. Tall tales. So, I'm not refusing to admit the bible as evidence. It's just that I have to accept that it is very poor evidence.

[JamRan]

Since you have no reason for thinking they are stories and relying merely on assumption, that will not do.

The evidence seems to be more than sufficient for documenting this information. 42 sources of Jesus in the first 150 years after His death. Compare that to the emperor of Rome who died 11 years after Jesus. He only had 10 sources written about him.

The evidence is amply supplied for Jesus.

[JamRan]

Your contradiction is to say the support for Jesus is not enough while you accept many things in history with much less support in those days. That's irrational.

[Pauliesonne]

That's disingenuous to admit nothing as evidence. If that is the case then we can not have a high degree of confidence about anything in history, even the multiple attestation of Jesus.

You IDIOT!

You don't have a *********** idea about what scholars skeptical of christianity think because if you did you'd know that the *********** tomb dosen't have anything to do with their reasons to be skeptical.

Not only that, you arrogant prick, if you decided to look into hinduism and later buddhism ( before christianity ) you'd realize that you're risking your eternity like you think we ARE!

*********** troll!!!

:mad:

[JamRan]

Hinduism and Buddhism are false since you can't come back as a goat.

[JamRan]

We should get back to the resurrection because the resurrection makes or breaks the divinity of Christ. Most scholars accept:

1) There was a real person Jesus who died by crucifixion
2) The apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus
3) Paul converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected body
4) James converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected bodily
5) The evidence points strongly to the tomb being empty.

The challenge for the atheist then is to find a different scenario to these events than Jesus being God. If none is forthcoming, may you give your life to Christ.

[The Atheist]

...snip...
The resurrection of Jesus is, as you know, JamRan, THE central only tenet of Christianity. ...snip...

Fixed it for you.

[SezMe]

You IDIOT!
You should have said: You IDIOT (http://piv.pivpiv.dk/)!

[Pauliesonne]

Hinduism and Buddhism are false since you can't come back as a goat.

How the **** would you know?

For all you know the Asura ( or the Mara ) could have tempted you with false knowledge?

I think I'm paraphrasing that ******* Rick Warren, but what the hell.

[JamRan]

The apostles went to their death by being martyred, but how could they do that based on something they knew was a lie, so they really believed they saw Jesus resurrected. Since group hallucination is not possible, then they must have really seen Him.

[Zygar]

Hinduism and Buddhism are false since you can't come back as a goat.

I have a goat that used to be Jesus. I know this because my friend, John the Baptist, came to me and told me. He was a turtle at the time, so it took him a while to tell me, but I wrote it down in a book, and so now it must be true.

[The Atheist]

We should get back to the resurrection because the resurrection makes or breaks the divinity of Christ. Most scholars accept:

1) There was a real person Jesus who died by crucifixion
2) The apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus
3) Paul converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected body
4) James converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected bodily
5) The evidence points strongly to the tomb being empty.

The challenge for the atheist then is to find a different scenario to these events than Jesus being God. If none is forthcoming, may you give your life to Christ.Mate. How many times do I have to tell you?

I believe all of that. I accept it as the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, his Dad the Big Godly Bloke and their friend the Holy Spirit. I believe.

But to commence my cleansing from the sordid world of atheism, I NEED to worship at the grave of His Most Holiness.

So just tell mw ehere it is and I'm off, with, as I see it, a travelling companion.

That's TWO of us you've convinced on Christ's own birthday!

Legend.

Where is it, mate?

[Pauliesonne]

You should have said: You IDIOT (http://piv.pivpiv.dk/)!

In the Top 5 best things I've seen this year.

[JamRan]

If you believe that, then Jesus has to be God and what Jesus said about His being God with the Father, and the Spirit, must be true.

[Zygar]

I'm with The Atheist. I'll book my flight immediately upon being told the location of the tomb.

[RandFan]

Since you have no reason for thinking they are stories and relying merely on assumption, that will not do.

The evidence seems to be more than sufficient for documenting this information. 42 sources of Jesus in the first 150 years after His death. Compare that to the emperor of Rome who died 11 years after Jesus. He only had 10 sources written about him.

The evidence is amply supplied for Jesus.No, not really. Big difference between Caesar and Christ. The writings of Caesar were contemporary. They were written down by historians at the time he lived. The stories of Christ were written AFTER he died and were based on oral accounts.

More importantly, it is parsimonious to assume that the events of Caesar actually were possible since there was nothing magical about his life. No walking on water, turning water into wine, resurrection.

I think most scholars believe Christ lived. The magical events? There's no rational reason to suppose that they happened.

[The Atheist]

I have a goat that used to be Jesus. I know this because my friend, John the Baptist, came to me and told me. He was a turtle at the time, so it took him a while to tell me, but I wrote it down in a book, and so now it must be true.That is so funny, I've nominated it. Outstanding work.

[JamRan]

Even if there was a wrong tomb the appearance of Jesus can not be accounted for.

The testimony of the Gospels is that the empty tomb convinced no one but John: Mary concluded the gardener stole the body; disciples did not believe upon seeing the empty tomb.

No sources exist that they went to the wrong tomb.

Burial by Joseph of Aramethea indicate the presence of the tomb was known.

[The Atheist]

I'm with The Atheist. I'll book my flight immediately upon being told the location of the tomb.I smell party!

We'll have to charter a whole 747!

Any others aboard the Flight For Jesus?

[RandFan]

I'm with the Atheist on this one.

[JamRan]

I wasn't talking about Caesar. Funny.

[JamRan]

Rationally we have no choice but to accept Jesus is God, since no possible explanation can account for the resurrection of Jesus.

[The Atheist]

Even if there was a wrong tomb the appearance of Jesus can not be accounted for.

The testimony of the Gospels is that the empty tomb convinced no one but John: Mary concluded the gardener stole the body; disciples did not believe upon seeing the empty tomb.

No sources exist that they went to the wrong tomb.

Burial by Joseph of Aramethea indicate the presence of the tomb was known.
No, no. I'm not arguing about any wrong tomb, I just want to know which one Jesus was buried in. You must know that, mate? WHERE YOUR GOD WAS BURIED?

I believe he was resurrected from his tomb. I just want the location.

Cheers

[JamRan]

There are natural events, and there are supernatural events. Since it is not possible to be raised naturally, it had to be supernatural.

[RandFan]

I wasn't talking about Caesar. Funny. Please substitute Roman emperor for Caeser. At 1:00 am it's really not all that odd that I would make that mistake.

[The Atheist]

Rationally we have no choice but to accept Jesus is God, since no possible explanation can account for the resurrection of Jesus.
HELLO!!! Is there anybody home??


WE BELIEVE YOU! Jesus is god. No problemo.

Where was he buried?

[Pauliesonne]

SKEPTIC'S OF CHRISTIANITY DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT THE TOMB!

CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU *********** MORON!

Or are you really just a little troll?

[JamRan]

It is not relevant for you to know which tomb, but that Burial by Joseph of Aramethea indicate the presence of the tomb was known.

[JamRan]

We should get back to the resurrection because the resurrection makes or breaks the divinity of Christ. Most scholars accept:

1) There was a real person Jesus who died by crucifixion
2) The apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus
3) Paul converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected body
4) James converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected bodily
5) The evidence points strongly to the tomb being empty.

The challenge for the atheist then is to find a different scenario to these events than Jesus being God. If none is forthcoming, may you give your life to Christ.

[RandFan]

Most scholars accept: And there is your fatal flaw. No. Not true. You haven't established that this is true.

[JamRan]

The best argument I heard so far is it was all made up, every last ounce of it; just lies upon more lies. But that is a horrible argument still because it demands such a fantastic conspiracy and so many liars involved, who could believe it?

[JamRan]

After the supporting items were given, then to respond by saying there was none given is itself unsupported.

[JamRan]

Don't shut your mind down like that. To do so is unsupported.

[RandFan]

The best argument I heard so far is it was all made up, every last ounce of it; just lies upon more lies. But that is a horrible argument still because it demands such a fantastic conspiracy and so many liars involved, who could believe it? Not true at all. They were tall tales. Passed around the tales would grow taller each time they were told. Like I said, these were not accounts taken in a court of law. There is no conspiracy for Paul Bunyon. It's just a legend.

[Pauliesonne]

Brahman, the true God, reaches out for you but yet you ignore.

JamRan, please unleash yourself from the evil clutches of the Asura's pawn ( Jesus ) and you will be eternally happy.

Apu seems to like it.

[RandFan]

After the supporting items were given, then to respond by saying there was none given is itself unsupported. One more time, the accounts of Jesus were not recorded until AFTER he died.

[The Atheist]

SKEPTIC'S OF CHRISTIANITY DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT THE TOMB!

CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU *********** MORON!

Or are you really just a little troll?Oi, me old Irish geezer.

Get with the context. Of course sceptics care [or should care] about Jesus' tomb. We talk about evidence, here's the perfect opportunity to provide some. Check in on the flight, we'll have Guinness.

[Pauliesonne]

Guinness is disgusting.

Double vodka's?

[JamRan]

The leading scholar on the resurrection says most scholars accept these 5 basic points. He obviously has his reasons in the study he did to conclude this.

1. Jesus died
2. Apostles believed they saw Jesus risen
3. Paul believed he saw Jesus risen and it converted him
4. James, brother of Jesus, beleived he saw Jesus risen, and it converted him
5. Tomb was empty.

I love that you can find no alternative explanation.

[The Atheist]

It is not relevant for you to know which tomb, but that Burial by Joseph of Aramethea indicate the presence of the tomb was known.Of course it's bloody relevant. This wasn't Martin Smith of Croydon being chucked behind the Great Rock, it was G.O.D.. You, know, he whose life yours is committed to.

I'm bloody delighted that the location was known. I guess it kind of has to be, given that the whole business is contingent on it being found empty. So WHERE is it?

Come on, one simple question. Ask the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Jerry Falwell. One of you must know.

[The Atheist]

Guinness is disgusting.

Double vodka's?42 below ok?

Kiwi brand, so I have to ask.

Have you seen him try to answer it yet?

[meg]

So where it stands is:

1) Jesus died agreed by
Josephus No. Scholars agree that the quote you referenced was probably altered by christians between the 3rd and 4th century AD.

Tacitus, No. Tacitus's writings could at best show that christians existed.

Lucian, NO. The works of a second century Greek satirist making fun of the christians of the day doesn't exactly prove anything other than there probably were some christians.

Mara Bar-Serapion No. Written somewhere between 73AC and the third century AD. Let's look at the full quote:

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given

Not exactly proof of the life of christ, you know what I mean? At best, one could say, he infers that a wise king lives on in the teachings he had given. Again, it's really only evidence that christians existed.

Talmud No. Jesus is not referenced in the quote you provided.



2) Scholars accept the apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected.

What scholars? Where? In what publications?


Hallucinations in groups is not possible when there is no ecstasy or expectation. We are told the disciples never expected a resurrection

Mass hallucination is a common explanation for mass UFO sightings, appearances of the Virgin Mary, and other paranormal phenomena. Even if the disciples were not "expecting" a resurrection, that does not mean that they weren't possibly subject to the power of suggestion. It also does not rule out the idea that as these texts were written, some decades or longer after the events occurred, that the author did not misremember or embellish the story, or their own role in it.


3) Paul was converted to the faith by what he believed was the appearance of Christ
4) James was converted to the faith by what he believed was the appearance of Christ

A couple people said they converted because they said they saw him. Is this really evidence that supports anything? I don't see how. They could be lying. They could have seen something/someone else and thought it was christ. Perhaps they even were tricked.


5) Tomb was empty
What evidence is there that there ever really was a tomb? And is it not possible, even if there was, that the body was just removed from it? Perhaps grave robbers. Perhaps intentional trickery.

So, what is you evidence here? Let's review:

1) *Some* quotes that seem to infer that christians existed in the first century AD.
2) You have given no evidence that the apostles "truly believed" they saw a resurection. And even if they did, that does not rule out the idea that they hallucinated, they were tricked, they misremembered the events, or that they just plain lied.
3&4) Paul and James could have hallucinated, they could have been tricked. They could have misremembered. They could just have lied.
5) Any allegedly empty tomb, that could have been emptied (if it really existed) by human robbers or tricksters.


So, put it all together and what can you say?

At best, I would say that 1-5 indicate that christians have existed since the first century AD, some christians have intentionally rewritten texts, and that it's possible the whole story is a combination of hallucinations, poor memories, trickery and lies.


Given that there's no evidence that god exists, and quite a lot evidence that people hallucinate, misremember, trick and lie to each other, I would say the latter is the far more likely.

[The Atheist]

The leading scholar on the resurrection says most scholars accept these 5 basic points. He obviously has his reasons in the study he did to conclude this.

1. Jesus died
2. Apostles believed they saw Jesus risen
3. Paul believed he saw Jesus risen and it converted him
4. James, brother of Jesus, beleived he saw Jesus risen, and it converted him
5. Tomb was empty.

I love that you can find no alternative explanation.

We believe ALL of that [I say again, again, again.]

Just refer to the bit of your post I've highlighted.

Where is it?