Proof that Jesus Christ never existed!!! Christians read!
It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed.
I hope you too are able to find this truth.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
I will prove to you that he is right. Read on if interested in the real founded truth.
How arrogant do you have to be to assume that everyone will be convinced by your little rant?
Step 1: You're not considering other logical problems associable with each idea. Possibilities for the origin of the universe include infinite time, infinite regress, nothing existing before a certain point, etc. Each model possesses its own flaws.
Step 2: In step 1, you argued that the universe must have had a beginning. Yet, now, as one of your premises, you are assuming that this law isn't applicable to "God." What is your justification for this?
Step 3: Perhaps you are applying some knowledge that you gained from watching, "Way of the Master?" I'll just throw out some casual refutations. You know that a watch has a maker because you can travel to a factory and watch minimum wage joes making them. I highly doubt that you've ever seen God making a tree.
So, because a painting has a painter, a tree must have a creator? Why?
Step 4:
yet he got more accounts and sources than Alexander
No, he didn't.
And, there are no reliable "eyewitness" accounts. However, there are a few religious writings, which contradict each, that appeared decades after Jesus's death reminiscing about hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger
All of these are long debunked, although I haven't studied the details.
To start, try this page.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/compilation_of_works_from_rook_hawkins
Step 5: In order to use the Bible as evidence for anything, especially considering its internal inconsistencies and its contradictions with science, you must first prove the validity of the Bible itself.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
I have a question about this. So it looks like the best case for christians would be Jesus existed as it is written about. The worst case would be that the writers pretend he existed while knowing he's just a regular guy they modeled some stories off of and they didnt even think they were inspired or just a total fiction. Would the next best thing to having a literal interpretation be a spiritual jesus. I saw Rooks post on how Paul believed in a spiritual jesus. If that were true wouldnt that be way better than just being a fictional jesus? You could still say that the writers were inspired to complete the old testament. And it kind of solves the whole problem of God not "existing" or not being able to interfere with humanity since he is technically not part of the universe and undefinable in any way.
- Login to post comments
JesusSaves wrote:I told you it was revealed to me. I know for sure now. I hope you find out this truth.Sapient wrote:how do you know that for a FACT? were you there during the time of Jesus Lifetime?That's impossible. Who knew him and wrote about him? I already knew before anything was revealed to me that first hand accounts of Jesus don't exist. In addition it was revealed to me that he didn't exist. You don't have to believe me, I really don't care, just know you are definetly wasting your life in believing in him, because I know that he didn't exist for a fact.
LOL...I like this. Playing them at their own game.
- Login to post comments
Then whoever or whatever revealed that to you is lying.
I find it funny that every Prophet who has ever come along in human history has challenged the Status Quo. Even Jesus changed the rules from the Prophet before him - and yet when a new guy says, "Hey! I'm a prophet and here are the new rules!"
People immediately say, "You can't be! You're making new rules!"
Duh...
So, I believe Sapient must be right. Not to mention, I had the same revelation. Jesus never existed.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1
We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this
The idea that the Bible contains messianic prophecies in the Old Testament which were miraculously fulfilled by Jesus was completely and totally refuted by Thomas Paine over two hundred years ago. Read it for yourself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html
Others have echoed Paine's arguments in the years since, but his debunkery pretty much is the definitive statement of the case against this particularly silly "evidence" for the Christian faith. In fact, the doctrine of Messianic prophecy has been so falsified that there are only four possible reasons why a person would even think of bringing up such an argument in a modern discussion:
1. The person is woefully ignorant of the falsifying evidence against the messianic prophecy argument, indicating that they possess a lack of education that is going to ill serve them in debates with reasonably well-informed opponents.
2. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy argument, but nonetheless uses it in the hope that their audience is the type of ignoramus described in #1.
3. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy, but has deluded themselves by a number of nonsensical rationalizations into believing that messianic prophecy is nonetheless still a valid doctrine. These rationalizations mainly consist of insisting that Old Testament writers were really writing about the coming of Christ when they appeared to be writing about a completely different situation; or that Christ really did fulfill an Old Testament prophecy even when the prophecy specifies things he did not do or attributes he did not have.
4. The person suffers from a mental developmental disability which enables them to have a childlike faith and belief in a doctrine such as messianic prophecy, while it sadly prohibits them from possessing the higher reasoning and critical thinking faculties necessary to comprehend the falsifying evidence against that doctrine.
Tell me, "The Truth", which of those four categories do you fall under?
- Login to post comments
Stevesafe wrote:Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1
We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this
The idea that the Bible contains messianic prophecies in the Old Testament which were miraculously fulfilled by Jesus was completely and totally refuted by Thomas Paine over two hundred years ago. Read it for yourself:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html
Others have echoed Paine's arguments in the years since, but his debunkery pretty much is the definitive statement of the case against this particularly silly "evidence" for the Christian faith. In fact, the doctrine of Messianic prophecy has been so falsified that there are only four possible reasons why a person would even think of bringing up such an argument in a modern discussion:
1. The person is woefully ignorant of the falsifying evidence against the messianic prophecy argument, indicating that they possess a lack of education that is going to ill serve them in debates with reasonably well-informed opponents.
2. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy argument, but nonetheless uses it in the hope that their audience is the type of ignoramus described in #1.
3. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy, but has deluded themselves by a number of nonsensical rationalizations into believing that messianic prophecy is nonetheless still a valid doctrine. These rationalizations mainly consist of insisting that Old Testament writers were really writing about the coming of Christ when they appeared to be writing about a completely different situation; or that Christ really did fulfill an Old Testament prophecy even when the prophecy specifies things he did not do or attributes he did not have.
4. The person suffers from a mental developmental disability which enables them to have a childlike faith and belief in a doctrine such as messianic prophecy, while it sadly prohibits them from possessing the higher reasoning and critical thinking faculties necessary to comprehend the falsifying evidence against that doctrine.
Tell me, "The Truth", which of those four categories do you fall under?
After reading Rook Hawkins, it appears that a reasonable stance is to say that the new testament was specifically written to match the old testament prophecies. Especially, since that is the claim of the writers. The major question is is it a fiction? To argue that it doesnt match old testament prophecies actually strengthens the new testament as a independent work favoring a historical jesus. So which stance would you prefer?
- Login to post comments
It was very clever of God, when he decided to become an author, to learn Greek and to not learn it better.
- Login to post comments
Non-existent Jesus appeared to me in a dream last night and told me to call on a job. Guess what! He was right! Surely this is irrefutable proof of Jesus having never existed!
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
revealed to you by who? another athiest, like youself, who is scared to have any faith at all?
- Login to post comments
That's so crazy...because it was just revealed to me that Jesus Christ does exist! One of us is right. I hope it's you because then I'll be cool either way when I die. Vice versa?...not so great for you in the end.
Why does Jesus Christ make people so angry?
Why do people hate God so much?
What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children? So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
To even begin to try to understand that LOVE we need to de-human ourselves and that is impossible. The fact is that WE WILL one day understand it...until then its kinda like math (to compare God to math is weird, I know, but just hear me out). Why does 1+1=2? Seriously...think about it! What is one? Why does it equal 2? It's something so simple that we just acccept. It just makes sense and we don't question it once we accept it as truth.
How you live all boils down to when you die: I believe ALL COULD AGREE on this...
There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)
#1. God DOES NOT exist
OR
#2. God DOES exist
THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:
A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)
OR
B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.
Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.
- Login to post comments
That's so crazy...because it was just revealed to me that Jesus Christ does exist! One of us is right. I hope it's you because then I'll be cool either way when I die. Vice versa?...not so great for you in the end.
Why does Jesus Christ make people so angry?
Why do people hate God so much?
What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children? So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
To even begin to try to understand that LOVE we need to de-human ourselves and that is impossible. The fact is that we will one day understand it...until then its kinda like math (to compare God to math is weird, I know, but just hear me out). Why does 1+1=2? Seriously...think about it! What is one? Why does it equal 2? It's something so simple that we just acccept. It just makes sense and we don't question it once we accept it as truth.
How you live all boils down to when you die: I believe ALL COULD AGREE on this...
There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)
#1. God DOES NOT exist
OR
#2. God DOES exist
THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:
A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)
OR
B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.
Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.
- Login to post comments
That's so crazy...because it was just revealed to me that Jesus Christ does exist! One of us is right. I hope it's you because then I'll be cool either way when I die. Vice versa?...not so great for you in the end.
Why does Jesus Christ make people so angry?
Why do people hate God so much?
What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children? So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.
Sounds pretty awesome to me.
To even begin to try to understand that LOVE we need to de-human ourselves and that is impossible. The fact is that we will one day understand it...until then its kinda like math (to compare God to math is weird, I know, but just hear me out). Why does 1+1=2? Seriously...think about it! What is one? Why does it equal 2? It's something so simple that we just acccept. It just makes sense and we don't question it once we accept it as truth.
How you live all boils down to when you die: I believe ALL COULD AGREE on this...
There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)
#1. God DOES NOT exist
OR
#2. God DOES exist
THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:
A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)
OR
B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.
Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.
::facepalm::
I don't hate any God. I never met Jesus or ever been negatively effected by him directly in order to be angry with him.
Appeals to emotion or Pascal's wager are sooooo debunked it's crazy you'd try to use them.
- Why is staying dead bad?
- Why Should someone WANT to receive judgment or live for God?
When you say "revealed" that jesus DOES exist... would you explain exactly what this revelation was? It is based off evidence?
Bleh
- Login to post comments
Why do people hate God so much?
Non-theists don't hate God. Why would we hate something we don't believe exists?
What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children?
Nothing, but the God of the Bible allows his children to be tortured for all eternity. Sounds like an abusive father to me.
So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.
Why is it his purpose to live and die? Why must he do this?
There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)#1. God DOES NOT exist
OR
#2. God DOES exist
THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:
A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)
OR
B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.
Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.
No, you're ignorant. If Islam is true, you're going to hell. If reincarnation is true, we'll be born again. If Scientology is true, you're going to become an alien or something. The intent of Pascal's Wager (the name of the argument you're using) is to weigh the possible outcomes and argue that one decision is favorable because it produces a better average outcome. However, Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy because only the Christian/atheist choice and Christian/atheist outcomes are represented. Every religion that ever existed and every possible afterlife scenario not represented by a belief system must also be accounted for precisely because Pascal's Wager is just that, a wager.
Of course, even these outcomes are purely arbitrary. You assume that atheists will go to a hell and Christians will go to a heaven if they exist, when the opposite scenario, Christians going to a hell and atheists going to a heaven, is just as likely. If you attempt to argue that this is not the case, then you're no longer making a wager, so you would be effectively discarding the argument that you're trying to defend.
Finally, belief is a state, not a choice. To believe in something, you must, by definition, believe that it holds truth value, that it is actually likely to conform to reality. Since Pascal's Wager does not actually make God more likely to exist, it cannot make you believe in God; it can only make you want to believe in God.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascals_wager
http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascal039s_wager_version_20
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/5652
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
"Bleh"? Why "bleh"?
Staying dead is not bad at all. That would mean that there is no Christian God, which is a relief for atheists and agnostics.
No one wants to be judged but who better to judge us than our Creator?
If I were to prove to you that the Christian God is alive and the one and only true God, would you then believe?...If i had tangible, solid proof?
Woohoo
- Login to post comments
Tiff wrote:Why do people hate God so much?
Non-theists don't hate God. Why would we hate something we don't believe exists?
Quote:What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children?Nothing, but the God of the Bible allows his children to be tortured for all eternity. Sounds like an abusive father to me.
Quote:So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.Why is it his purpose to live and die? Why must he do this?
Quote:There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)#1. God DOES NOT exist
OR
#2. God DOES exist
THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:
A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)
OR
B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.
Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.
No, you're ignorant. If Islam is true, you're going to hell. If reincarnation is true, we'll be born again. If Scientology is true, you're going to become an alien or something. The intent of Pascal's Wager (the name of the argument you're using) is to weigh the possible outcomes and argue that one decision is favorable because it produces a better average outcome. However, Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy because only the Christian/atheist choice and Christian/atheist outcomes are represented. Every religion that ever existed and every possible afterlife scenario not represented by a belief system must also be accounted for precisely because Pascal's Wager is just that, a wager.
Of course, even these outcomes are purely arbitrary. You assume that atheists will go to a hell and Christians will go to a heaven if they exist, when the opposite scenario, Christians going to a hell and atheists going to a heaven, is just as likely. If you attempt to argue that this is not the case, then you're no longer making a wager, so you would be effectively discarding the argument that you're trying to defend.
Finally, belief is a state, not a choice. To believe in something, you must, by definition, believe that it holds truth value, that it is actually likely to conform to reality. Since Pascal's Wager does not actually make God more likely to exist, it cannot make you believe in God; it can only make you want to believe in God.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascals_wager
http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascal039s_wager_version_20
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/5652
How did you split each paragraph up and reply to them individually?
- Login to post comments
"Bleh"? Why "bleh"?
Staying dead is not bad at all. That would mean that there is no Christian God, which is a relief for atheists and agnostics.
No one wants to be judged but who better to judge us than our Creator?
If I were to prove to you that the Christian God is alive and the one and only true God, would you then believe?...If i had tangible, solid proof?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
- Login to post comments
OK. As that no "proof" was posted by Sapient, I can only assume that this thread is a satire on the arbitrariness of Christian Inspiration. Am I correct?
If this is the case, it isn't worth my effort to refute it. The refutation is complex. Besides, chances are that if the receiver is willing to satirize the opposition, he's not very "open minded."
I'll admit that I'm pretty closed-minded. The problem I have is that I can very clearly tell that you (plural) aren't either, but often assert otherwise.
PS: We both believe that our own particular visions of the future (religion destroyed for you, and a universal understanding of God for me) is inevitable. We don't need to resort to satirizing our opposition. All we need do is wait and see who's correct.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Is this satire as well?
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
It is very disrespectful for you to refer to our faith in jesus' non-existence as satire.
Of course not. Because revealed truth is irrefutable.
It is because we are so open-minded that we don't believe in jesus. I accepted jesus' nonexistence on faith alone, knowing that understanding would come with time.
Have you ever asked yourself: What if you're wrong?
Why should I wait, when the truth has already been revealed to me?
There are no theists on operating tables.
^ That isn't satire. That's sarcasm. Satire is when you are parodying something, sarcasm is when you say one thing and mean the opposite.
"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron
Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.
Dear Sir Valient, I know Jesus did not exist because my lord Sapient hath told me thus. And mine lord of lords Sapient the first hath never misledith me. Why doth thou question this being? Sapient hath spoken-ith.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
In all of history, the men who achieved most were those who could see and feel the untangible; the argument here is simply faith against the lack thereof. No amount of facts pushing either way will sway anyone's mind. If you really want to know all you need to do is ask God Himself.
Actually, that's not even close to true. The KJV on its own has a number of translation errors, and more, inserted passages that don't exist in earlier forms. When adding newer bibles to the mix, the differences grow. When adding older bibles to the mix, it changes even more... and that's just the 'canon' New Testament of the Roman Catholic Church. The other Apostolic Thrones have, in some cases (Alexandria/the Coptic church, f'rex) developed their own list of canon 'books'.
Actually, in his letter he refers to the execution of 'their wise king', and never actually names Jesus. Moreover, he's writing around 70-75 AD, by which point Barnabas, Paul, and Timothy have already established communities throughout asia minor and into Syria. It's not unreasonable to believe that word of mouth has been getting around. As with Tacitus, the simple fact that he'd heard Paul's line of bull doesn't make him a reliable independent source.
Thallus, for the record, also cannot be relied upon, because we do not have his citation to judge. What we have is George Syncellus, a 9th century author, citing Julius Africanus's statement that "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me." For all we know, Thallus, in turn, may have been saying 'The Christians claim the sun went dark, but that's just because they're mixing up their fairy tale with the eclipse five years earlier. You know how those cults get.'
Phlegon's in the same boat: we don't have his words to judge by, we have Eusebius of Caesarea referring to what he wrote as proof. The fact is, we don't know. We don't even know what he actually wrote. We only know what we're told he wrote.
We were also told that Saddam Hussein bought uranium from Niger, and that his aluminum tubes were centrifuge parts. And that we'd be greeted with flowers and hailed as liberators.
We have no primary sources. The sources we have are thus already influenced by, or in the case of Eusebius and Syncellus, actively seeking to reinforce, the account that is being questioned. All must thus be discarded.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
1)Evolution doesn't require the creation or destruction of energy. The energy required for the processes is prexisting, be it in the form of geothermal power, or solar power generated through hydrogen fusion.
2)Evolution doesn't violate the second law, either, as what you see as 'more orderly' systems, the rest of us understand to be more wasteful, inefficient cascades of chemical reactions, resulting in more waste heat vs usable chemical processes.
3)Evolution doesn't address how life began. Thus, it cannot violate the theory of biogenesis. For that, you'd need the theory of abiogenesis.
4)Actually, it might be more accurate to say there is nothing that is not a transitional form. Achaeopteryx may indeed be a 'true bird', but it is also obviously a bird in a far earlier state than those we see today. The feathered skin impressions being found on various types of raptor-family fossils in China bear out the suspicions of direct relationships between Dinosauria and Aves (and one which is already tacitly recognized by the inclusion of Aves in the infraclass Archosaur, which includes Dinosauria and Crocodilia). Also visible as a 'transition form' may be Epidendrosaurus.
5)As the theists are so fond of pointing out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Fossils aren't common things. We have no idea how many species we may never know about. Would that the world were lucky enough that we'd been one of them.
5b)Neanderthal man is not Homo Sapiens in the sense of 'modern man'. That's Cro-Magnon. Neanderthal is Homo Neanderthalensis or rarely, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, though mitochondrial and morphological studies indicate that indeed, Neanderthalensis was not a subspecies of of Sapiens.
5c)Australopithecines such as Lucy may well have had similar body size, stature, and brain size to modern bonobos, but possessed significantly different pelvic and foot structures. Not the same critter. Sorry.
6)Nor does it seek to. See 3).
6b)Improbability is not impossibility. Nor can Hoyle and Wickramasinghe claim to know with utter certainty whether the assumptions upon which they base their projections are actually correct.
6c)As the requisite is 'an infinite number of monkeys', no finite amount of space, such as the universe, could possibly contain them all. Hoyle is indeed quite a wit, but Einstein thought his cosmological constant was a mistake, if you'll recall. Turns out "dark matter" and "dark energy" fit into that 'mistake' pretty well. Smart people aren't always right. The smartest among us are the ones willing to admit when we just don't know.
6d)Nonsense. It takes no more faith to believe any one thing over any other. Both, in order to be unassailable, require the same degree of faith: total. Anything less is self-defeating. That's why I prefer to embrace that I don't know, and can't know, with any degree of indubitable certainty. It leaves me free to explore all possibilities.
6e)Evolution is a theory with quite a lot of scientific evidence to back it up. Darwinian evolution certainly isn't perfect, but so far the evidence does bear out the general outlines; that changes in individuals, passed on to offspring, result in species differentiation.
6f)"Many were sacrificed to their ruthless utopian, amoral visions"... and how many were sacrificed to holy wars? How many continue to be sacrificed to holy wars? How many of those victims you lament in the concentration camps were there because of religious issues? Remember, the evil madman you claim to be influenced by evolution was far, far more influenced by the religious anti-semitism of folks like Martin Luther. And yes, an unborn fetus is an animal embryo. A born baby is an animal. You're an animal. I'm an animal. There is no 'right to life' save that we choose to hold ourselves to in our social contract. If you need proof, then just look at all the infants in the world who die of natural, if tragic, occurances. Look at all the mothers who try to do everything right, but still miscarry. Look at all of the fertilized eggs that get destroyed by fertility clinics. If the right to life were anything more than a conscious, human construct, those things wouldn't happen.
Naturalistically speaking, you do not have the right to life. You have the right to seek to preserve your life. To be a functioning member of society, you surrender many of the options you are naturally entitled to in exercising that right, and in exchange you gain the assurance of other members of your society that they will not seek to exercise those options on you. That's as far as a 'right to life' goes. If you want it to extend to the unborn, that's a lovely thought, but for my money, a fetus is a parasitic organism that is tolerated solely because of the biological drive to pass on our genes.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I'm only a beginner in understanding evolution,but I'll try answer.Since I doubt that all of isn't jut copy and pasted,I hope no one will mind if I do that.I have a basic understanding of most of the qustions,however I will just provide external answers for better clarity.Some answers are my own work,some are not.
Except for 150 years of scientific testing.
If we take into account other forms of evolution like evolution of computers and technology they will also violate second law thermodynamics if creationists are right. Modern day computers are much developed than those of older days. Yet nobody says they were created in a day.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Premises: ‘The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.’ This is said to disprove evolution, because life can only move towards a state of disorder, not evolve to be more orderly as seen in evolution. A car left for a decade will turn to rust, not a better car.The only possible answer is a creator.
Problem: This law only applies in a closed system, which neither our solar system nor the universe is. This argument would be perfectly true is there wasn’t a massive source of energy near the earth, like say, the sun. Furthermore, by Christian reasoning no one could even grow or live very long, since everything heads towards entropy. Babies would die soon after birth, since the universe moves only towards chaos, disorder, and death right?
in 1668, physician and biologist Francesco Redi decided to consider the question of rotting meat, which seemingly produces maggots, which ultimately become flies. But he noticed that rotting meat also attracts flies, so could those maggots be produced by those flies? He performed some classic experiments, exposing some rotting meat to air, while keeping flies away from some of it with gauze. Only the fly-accessible meat acquired maggots.
But spontaneous generation died a very slow death; it was reinforced by the discovery of numerous microscopic "animalcules", which often seemed to be spontaneously generated. But Redi-style experiments showed that even microorganisms are not spontaneously generated; the deathblow was delivered by Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiments with meat broth.
Some creationists wave around Pasteur's experiments as if they are some sort of absolute demostration, but that is not the case. He only showed that abiogenesis does not take place in certain commonplace circumstances.
However, traditional spontaneous generation has been revived by Dr. Periannan Senapathy, who expounds this view in his book Independent Birth of Organisms. Its cover features an illustration of his theory: a crab, a frog, a turtle, a butterfly, and an earthworm crawling out of a DNA-infused pond. But this is considered pseudo-science.
This is actually a moot point as biogenesis and evolution are completly different fields.Evolution does NOT concern itself with how life began, only how it evolved from there.
Since those three laws have been shown to not violate evolution,this is a moot point. If I remember right,every fossil is a transitional fossil.
Punctuated equilibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps
All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape
Some Fossils Are Fake
Nebraska Man
Mistake. The original Nebraska Man specimen, a tooth probably belonging to an extinct peccary, was discovered in 1917, and even named Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. In 1922, this tooth was misidentified as belonging to a species of anthropoid ape; in 1927, this error was corrected. This misidentification came about because pigs and peccaries have cheek teeth that look very similar to those in humans. Creationists have asserted that Nebraska Man was cited as evidence for evolution in the Scopes trial; this is flatly wrong, inasmuch as no scientific evidence whatsoever was cited in that trial. Likewise, Creationists also assert that scientists covered up the mistake, which ignores the fact that the Nebraska Man recantation made the front page of the New York Times.
Misidentifications do happen. Other notable examples: Basilosaurus, first thought to be a marine reptile, but then shown to be an early cetacean. A ring-shaped creature, Peytoia, turned out to be the mouth of Anomalocaris -- and what was first thought to be the bulk of the animal turned out to be its front appendages. The worm Hallucigenia was first reconstructed as walking on some long spines and having mysterious upward tubes; turning it upside-down yielded a more reasonable reconstruction: an animal that walks with stubby legs and protects itself with upward-pointing spines. Such misidentifications are not, in and of themselves, particularly harmful to the scientists who make them, nor yet to science in general; it's only when a scientist clings to an error long past the time it has been demonstrated to be such, that any harm is done. In this context, it is instructive to compare the scientific community's treatment of Piltdown and Nebraska Man (each of which was discarded soon after the evidence refuted the notion that it could be a hominid ancestor) to the Creationist community's treatment of pretty much any of Creationism's numerous demonstrated errors (all of which are still in circulation -- including the ones on Answers In Genesis' "do not use" list).
Hoax. First specimens announced to public in 1912; Piltdown's fraudulent nature established by scientific examination in 1953-4. As of this writing, the identity and motives of the hoaxer are still unknown.
Piltdown Man, Eoanthropus dawsoni, was a supposed creature with a human-like cranium and an ape-like jawbone (mandible). When it was first "discovered", only British paleoanthropologists like Sir Arthur Keith took it seriously; most others tended to dismiss it as an accidental composite.
But the discovery of Piltdown II in 1917 was seeming evidence of reality; do accidental associations easily repeat themselves?
However, in 1924, Raymond Dart discovered the Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus) in southern Africa -- and it was the opposite of Piltdown Man: an apish skull with some adaptation for the human feature of walking upright. And as "real" early hominids were discovered, they fit into the Taung paradigm rather than the Piltdown one. As the number of Taung-style fossils increased, the Piltdown fossils got relegated to some obscure side branch.
The fossils were seldom considered to be potential forgeries until a 1953 conference of paleontologists, where Dr. J.S. Weiner brought up the possibility. Several of them then took a close look, and easily found signs of fakery -- something nobody had ever thought of doing before. But this was, in its own way, a vindication of the composite theory -- the Piltdown fakers had created composites from some human crania and orangutan jawbones, staining them and filing them to give them a more appropriate appearance.
The whodunit question has been much argued, with numerous suspects being proposed. One very interesting candidate suspect is paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who made only some enigmatic comments about those "fossils" over his whole career, like a comment that some feature was present "as if on purpose" (comme par exprès).
From what I have learned,it is rare for fossils to form. One can not expect perfect fossil records.I think you will find there have been hominin fossils of many kinds.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm
Watchmaker Argument
Premises: If you were walking along and found a watch, you would note it’s complexity and conclude someone had designed it. It is the same with the natural world. Everything needs a creator.
Problem: Watches are designed. We know this because we can go to the watch factory and talk to the designer, and see the plans and processed for it. I’ve yet to see anyone do this with the universes’ supposed creator. Watches are non-organic things, and therefore couldn’t naturally evolve. Of course you wouldn’t think it just grew there. You might with a plant though. It is interesting to note that while this is n argument against evolution, watches evolve in their own way. The complex digital watch you found started as a simple sundial. In using this argument, the creationist must give credence to evolution.
This boils down to everything created needs a creator. The thing here is, who created god?
If nothing, then everything, including the world, does not need a creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.
If something, then god is not the universe’s creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.
Argument from fine tuning/Improbability
Premises: The earth is just right for life. A bit more that way, it would too cold. A bit, more that way, too hot. It has just the right kind of atmosphere, nice solar system with a asteroid belt that protects us from errant meteors that could hit the earth, etc. Or just look at us. See how complex the eye is. That couldn’t have just happened.
Problem: So the earth is just right for life and life happens to exist there? Didn’t see that coming! This doesn’t seem as amazing when you realize there are billions of planets, around billions of stars. Given the astronomical numbers worked with here, it isn’t that unlikely one would have the right conditions for life to appear. In fact, the universe speaks against intelligent design. So many galaxies and dead planets, so one can have life? It resembles far more the result one would get from an event such as the Big Bang.
The earth itself does not seem so intelligently designed. 70% of it is water, not much good for us non-gilled humans. Of the remaining land, much is in-hospitable dessert or ice land. Why would god give us one planet in the whole universe and make most of it useless?
It is the same if we look at the eye. Yes, it is very unlikely it just appeared. Remember to factor in few million years though, and it’s not so unbelievable that it manage to work it’s way here. If it was intelligently designed, why do so many people need glasses, and why are eyes so sensitive and easy to injure?
You say it is so improbable for us to exist that god mut have done us. Why is it you cannot grasp the chance of life arising by itself, but you jump at god as the answer. You don't seem to realsie-if the chance of life on earth is improbable, the chance of a being so advanced it could create it is far more improbable! You are taking the more comples route,and then accusing us of unnecsarily complicating matters. God is the ultimate print shop explosion,Boeing 747, or whatever. Anything is more likely that a being of infinte power existing that happened to create everything.
Argement from Fine Tuning and Improbability again
My goodness.If that isn't the most uninformed,silly thing I've read all week. Despite what your sunday school told you,there is not abundant evidence for creation. And yes, there is plenty for evolution. Why else would the entire scientific communtiy accept it? I have accpeted evolution for a releatively short time.Yes, I was a creationst before. Yet everything I've learnt in that time has made sense.In fact, I cannot see how anyone who honestly and open mindly looks at the facts cannot see it.
Evolution is not a faith.And why don't you open your eyes for a second and see that there are many who believe in god and accept evolution.They are so embarassed by the silliness of creation and evidence of evolution they admit it has much merit. Creationist fundamentalism is dying out, wether you acknowledge it or not.
Hitler and Stalin were atheist, they killed millions.
Problem: There is little evidence Hitler was atheist. He made many remarks consistent with a belief in god, such as:
‘Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator, by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” –Mein Kampf, pg 65
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”- in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933.
‘We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.’-Table-Talk ,pg 6
‘I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.’-from John Toland ,Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.
It is interesting to note Hitler was never excommunicated from the church, as opposed to say , Galileo , who was only pardoned in 1992.Furhtermore, his campaign against Jews was possible largely because of anti-Semitic preaching’s by the church for hundreds of years.
It is likely Hitler simply choose to say whatever his particular audience wanted to hear in regard to belief. There is no reason he should be called atheist.
Stalin may have been an atheist, but christians overlook one obvious fact. He killed in the name of Communism, not atheism. Communism is in itself a religion, where the state and leader are worshiped, as opposed to a deity.
Neither of these men, or any other leader I’m aware of, ever killed in the name of atheism.
While not strictly dealing with evolution,that explanation shows it is foolish to credit their actions to it and atheism.Evolution is an impersonal fact of life. Even if someone were to use it in a bad way, the person is at fault,not the science. If I push someone off a building,is it because gravity is a moraless belief that enabled me to kill?
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Yep. Damn that atheist gravitation!
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Hi David.
Because you think that the Gospels are biographies of sorts, could you please list for me the events which you feel really occurred historically in them? If you feel that all of the events occurred in them, that's fine too, but still list them.
I would appreciate it if you could separate the events in chronological order, i.e. (Baptism, Wilderness, etc...) and also organize them by Gospel. So an example would be:
MARK
(1) Baptism
(2) Temptations
(etc...)
MATTHEW
(1) etc...
Please do this so we can better have this dialog. Remember to keep the events chronological for me, and number the events so we can keep track.
Best regards,
Rook
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Nice statement, you got anything to back that up with? Here's one from me: In all of history, the men and women who achieved the most were those who didn't believe in Fairy tales.
Asked God... got no reply. Not helping your cause.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
There are very few historians that actually would go so far as to say that Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed. In fact his life is very much proven through historical text by both Roman, Jewish and Christian history. So the logic that is used to suppose that Jesus never existed is the same logic that is used to say that the holocaust never happened, the civil war was just a myth and that other written historical accounts never occurred.
The more intelligent debate regarding Jesus Christ should be centered on who he was. Was he truly the Son of God, God in the flesh, the Christ, the Messiah? Or was he some lunatic or liar? Investigate that and then maybe you will be on the right path to finding truth. I believe that He was who He said He was. A good book to read as reference is Lee Strobel's Case for Christ.
Strobel's books are good if you only want one side of the story because that's all you get when you read them (and I have).
Look at www.caseagainstfaith.com for a more proper analysis than Strobel will ever give.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That is because there are only very few historians who have had the truth revealed to them.
Those historical texts were put here to deceive us.
You first have to accept on faith that jesus never existed, and then use logic to confirm that faith.
If he existed, he would be a lunatic and a liar. But fortunately, he never existed.
There are no theists on operating tables.
No he isn't. But thank you for making a completely ignorant and irrelevant statement.
Could you show that correlation in a logical syllogism please.
The whole lunatic or liar bunk is all about distracting people from the issue. The issue being that there is absolutely no credible attestation for the existence of Jesus. Thanks for playing!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
did you happen to see the Zeitgeist video, Cuz it explains in-depth why he doesn't exist, (his name, the date, seeing it as a parody of other mythologies, etc.)
"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.
Obviously he was riding them rodeo-style, with one foot on the back of each.
Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)
Nobody can prove Jesus never existed. They can postulate arguments, but not proof. He lived 2,000 years ago; and there is more then sufficient data establishing His existence, as far as the historical method is concerned.
Read
HISTORY AND CHRISTIANITY, by John W. Montgomery [He holds three doctorates]
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE, by F.F, Bruce
THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS, by Craig Blomberg
THE HISTORICAL JESUS: ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE LIFE OF CHRIST," by Gary Habermas. [garyhabermas.com].
You read one or more of the books listed above, and you will have no problem dealing with any "mythicist" campaigner.
By "dealing with" you mean "being laughed at by"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
As I have read this it looks to me that most of what has been said is to just go back and forth with out end. None of the sides moving no mater what evedence is given to them. I believe each person comes to a conclusion on their own dispite everyone else. I encourage you all to forget your beliefs and convictions and come honustly before God with out harrdened heats and ask Him to reviel Himself. Spend a week persuing Him in desperation. When you come to the end of that week you will have your answer on whether or not He exists. You can not deny Jesus until you truly try to have a relationship with Him and you can not blindly fallow a God you do not know. I call all of you to this if you believe in God or not. Just one week.
How can you have a relationship with someone that doesn't exist?
Atheist - no belief in a god
I would say that we have left belief in a god behind...
How does that look; pursuing him in desperation? Many of us have already walked a path with "jesus" or what we thought was supposed to get us close to the supposed savior. I love it when theists automatically believe that we just haven't heard the 'good news' or that we have never attempted a connection to a spiritual side.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Wait, then how does he use the bathroom?
Jesus, schmesus. It's my birthday! Time for cake.
Crap, I'm diabetic.
Time for slightly less cake.
Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)
Very clever Sapient. This thread began in 2006 ! .... worth another bump.
Only superstitious idol seeking wishful loons can believe in a miracle performing god man as described in the bi bull, and all such similar ancient writing. It makes absolute no difference to my grace if a man existed, such as a non writer Socrates, called Jesus, from which the silly folklores of hocus pocus were possibly inspired.
I can say I am an "atheist for jesus", while rejecting his actual mortal existence, and still erect a positive atheistic message from those fables. Using a buddha awakened sense we are all the Christ, we are god, as all is ONE. The details as is science is awesome, Gawedsome, Yesyeah. () To the awe, I hold my hands together. To Paul and his, I give the finger.
Atheism Books.
BRIAN SAPIENT!
Praise be upon him!
Are you looking for an award for Most Ironic Post?
BTW, what evidence do you have that the Supernatural (or Subnatural) exists? The claims of Bronze Age writers 2000 years ago that claimed it exists? Wow! What evidence did these writers give you other than their claims? A jock strap with "JC" written on it?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Listen guys.
Firstly, David, I think you are very brave to take your stand while being stoned by these guys.
Have you ever read the book of Daniel?
There things were revealed to Daniel, which were explained to him by an angel.
These things were what would happen in the future, and funny enough, everything happened exactly like they said..... try to prove that wrong.
You are given the choice to accept God & Jesus, and you will ultimately be judged.
Just remember, the rapture might happen in our lives, and then you should realize that God & Jesus are real. But then you still have a chance
I hope and pray that you guys will find it it your heart to accept Jesus.
David, good luck man
Somebody mentioned the book of Daniel!
Oh Daniel, what a failed prophet are thee! Let me count the ways!
1. The name he gives for the King of Judah during the siege is wrong. Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, was king during the siege.
2. He calls Belshazzar a king, but the kingdom had fallen while Belshazzar was still prince. Belshazzar never became a king.
3. He claimed that Darius the Mede would receive the kingdom on the " ...very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain.". And yet it was Cyrus the Persian that took the kingdom, not Darius the Mede. There never was a Darius the Mede. Darius the Persian was a famous figure, and the lying author of Daniel seems to have gotten his chronology wrong while creating his hoax.
4. His claiming to have been studying Jeremiah's writing in the ' sacred books '. This gives us a time stamp as to when the book of Daniel was really written. Jeremiah was roughly a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, meaning that he was alive around 585 BCE. The problem here is that Jeremiah wasn't considered cannon, or as the fake book of Daniel puts it ' sacred book '. until about 200 BCE. The author of this lie was familiar with the canonical books, and unwittingly gave away the date of authorship here.
5. The author was dead-on with his ' predictions ' of things pertaining to the temple during 167 BCE, but starts getting things wrong when he tries actual prophecy by predicting that Antiochus IV would die between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean sea. Antiochus IV died in Persia.
In conclusion, we can see how the author of Daniel lied by claiming a date in the 6th century BCE. This is obvious due to his confusing and distorting history. The man had a poor grasp of what actually happened at that time. His accurate portrayal of events during the second century BCE show a familiarity with his actual current events, and his failure to accurately predict the death circumstances of Antiochus IV tells us that the book was in reality written between 167 and 164 BCE. In short, the author was a fraud, making poor historical " predictions " after the fact, accurate contemporary " predictions ", and abysmal failures at real prediction.
So, what can I say but thank you. Thank you ever so much for mentioning Daniel and allowing us all a glimpse at failed prophecy, biblical inaccuracy, and pious forgery in the Bible.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
I am really impressed by the way David handled all you guys attacking him with simple statements and him responding to everyone with intelligent founded evidence. I will prove to you that he is right. Read on if interested in the real founded truth.
Starting from 0:
Step 1: Proof the universe had a beginning
We have existence, we all exist in a known universe with time and this Time factor is passing by. Now To say there is no beginning is equal to saying there was infinite time before now but that just doesn't make sense. Why? If I say I will go to the movies in an infinite amount of time, will I ever go to the movies? Of course not. So if there wasn't a beginning, we simply wouldn't have a "Now". So you see why we must have a beginning.. Case closed
Step 2: Proof of an energie prior to existence
We have already proved there was a beginning. We have only two possibilities (and no others): either all this came out of nothing, or out of something..
All the scientific laws (chemistry, physics, etc..) point to this fact: Nothing is created, Nothing is lost, Everything is transformed!
So to say that something came out of nothing just doesn't make sense at all and would contradict the most simplistic scientific laws. So all this came from some real energie. Let's call this energie God without defining him. Case closed
Step 3: Great evidence of an Intelligent Creator God
Let's say you are walking back from a stip club and you find a watch laying on the ground. You pick it up and open it and see all the intelligent design and how all the pieces are attached to each other. Would you think for one second that nobody made it? That it assembled itself by chance or a series of coincidences?
Atheists always say that we have the burden of proof, they say for example that it's unlikely that miracles happen because reality doesn't reflect it. I agree with this view and I am using it here. It is highly unlikely that miracles happen and so it is highly unlikely that this watch had assembled itself by chance or by whatever. Somebody assembled it, a designer.
By the same reasoning, this intelligently designed and incredibly complex universe was created by an intelligent designer, GOD!!! Case closed
Step 4: Proof Jesus existed
This is actually very easy, who would ever say that Alexander the Great didn't exist? Noone. Why? because there was historic evidence of him.
Actually this is what Wikipedia had to say about Alexander the Great's historic sources:
"The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and some letter-fragments of dubious authenticity. Contemporaries who wrote full accounts of his life include the historian Callisthenes, Alexander's general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus. Another influential account is by Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published. His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of these works survives, but we do have later works based on these primary sources."
Bare in mind that we are talking about Alexander The Great, the conquerer of the WORLD!!! Jesus was nothing compared to Alexander, yet he got more accounts and sources than Alexander. Eye witnesses could include Matthiew and John. Marc was Peter's companion and Luc Paul's companion. Actually most scholars agree that Luc should be put among the best historians. Don't you ask yourself these questions?
Some say only the bible mentions Jesus. Oh yeah what about these sources:
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger
Actually this is what tacitus the ROMAN historian said:
"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[60]"
Don't forget Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. So he had access to all the records.
In the court of law, this is "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."
Jesus certainly existed, people who say he didn't exist are simply ignorant or don't want to deal with their sins.
I would prefer a million times to argue about Jesus resurrection then about his historicity. Case closed
Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1
We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this passage is not talking about Jesus.
Isaiah 53:
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Not bad for an 8th century BC passage.. huh?
Without going into all the details,
"For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. "
prediction of death, this has surely happened, Tacitus declares it.
"he was pierced for our transgressions" This is crucifixion, 700 BC crucifying people didn't even exist. Tacitus said Christ suffered the extreme penalty under Poncius Pilate, which was crucifixion at the time.
"He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death, "
with the rich in his death, Joseph of Arimathea was in the Sanhedrin he put him in the tomb he chose.
"After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ; "
And WHAT A COINCIDENCE? on top of all this an empty tomb that not even the Jews deny.
JESUS IS GOD!!!
Jesus existed as a human based on Josephus mentioning in some detail "James brother of Jesus" and Paul's letters to the Galatians 1:19 "I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's Brother. These show that a human named Jesus existed but do not give credit or evidence to Jesus being the Son of God and Messiaih. Do not mistake me saying Paul is proof for Jesus being the Lord. I am not saying this and I do think Paul hijacked Christianity and made a himself a new religion.
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger
Jesus certainly existed, people who say he didn't exist are simply ignorant or don't want to deal with their sins.
Ok I used Josephus but not the way you used him. You would love to use the Forgery that was added by Christians who had control of Josephus's writings and added in stuff about Jesus then turn around and try to say that it is a secular source which you fail at. So do you think anyone will take Josephus seriously thanks to either ignorant or decietful people using him as proof for Jesus son of God for their own gain? Why should I take you seriously from this post when you show to take the conservative christian point of view all the while probably ignoring all the misses that History has shown?
Tacitus mentions a Christos one time in all his writings. This is not a good person to use and you should of known this before even mentioning him. Again this is a grasp at air move attempt to Justify you belief system and try to get others to join up with your belief. Sorry but you are not convincing me of Jesus son of God which is different then Jesus the human.
Did you really mention Pliny the Younger??? Pliny the Younger was a Christian so ergo their will be bias that he will claim Jesus existed it goes with his faith system. Why do you set yourself up to be looked at the very least as ignorant?
Ok time for evidence on your part! Jesus existed I don't disagree. Now again can you prove God? I will not look at this post as evidence for God because it is not. As for this idea "don't want to deal with their sins" sorry buddy but I think we can see why Stevesafe believes in Christianity; he needs fire insurance and does not want to go to hell for his sins. Sorry Steve ignorance is not a proof nor is the idea that people won't listen to God because they sinned for sins. Please can you provide us evidence of God and Sins before we go any further about the Bible?
General-Forrest