Evidence for God

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

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

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

why?

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

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

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

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

What about the last words of Christ?

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

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

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

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

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

False gospels trying to undermine the Christian faith.

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

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

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

There are a number of explanations, here are some:

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

or

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

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

I believe the latter.

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

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

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

What do you mean by historical truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by shihulud
Would there ??? Didnt the Romans decide to wipe most of the jews and jerusalem from the face of the planet around 30 years after the supposed death of christ - makes me think that people would have had other things on their mind than whether some mad little sect was telling the truth on their claims.

Yes, they tried to but Christianity kept on growing. I wouldn't call it little. It got big very quick. I'm not talking about other people disputing claims but people within the following.

Originally posted by shihulud
Herodotus was also a historian who wrote of winged monsters that stopped people stealing fruit or trees or something (can't remember off hand) but these monsters didnt exist, so why shouldn't Luke invent things???

That's because Herodotus was also a story teller. He wrote stories of these monsters not factual.

Originally posted by shihulud
As I said none of them even mention jesus - mentioning chrestus or christus is NOT evidence of jesus, only evidence of a chrestus/christus, and even at that there were plenty of messiahs

In the context of what they are writing there isn't much chance of it being anyone else. Who else could it be if Tacitus tells us Christus is man the Christians worship as their god. In the Babylonian Talmud Jesus is referred to as Yeshu which is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. And in text from Lucian he says "The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account". I don't reckon there is anybody else it could be. Josephus does mention Jesus by name. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man".

Originally posted by shihulud
There is not even evidence for the existence of these disciples - one or two yes but these people might not even have existed. I mean do you prescribe to the story of jesus moving to india after being 'crucified'?

If these disciples didn't exist then who else would of been the first followers of Jesus? There had to be initial first followers, and these first followers are the disciples we talk about today.

Ive never heard of this India story.

Originally posted by shihulud
Would there ??? Didnt the Romans decide to wipe most of the jews and jerusalem from the face of the planet around 30 years after the supposed death of christ - makes me think that people would have had other things on their mind than whether some mad little sect was telling the truth on their claims.

Yes, they tried to but Christianity kept on growing. I wouldn't call it little. It got big very quick. I'm not talking about other people disputing claims but people within the following.

Originally posted by shihulud
Herodotus was also a historian who wrote of winged monsters that stopped people stealing fruit or trees or something (can't remember off hand) but these monsters didnt exist, so why shouldn't Luke invent things???

That's because Herodotus was also a story teller. He wrote stories of these monsters not factual.

Originally posted by shihulud
As I said none of them even mention jesus - mentioning chrestus or christus is NOT evidence of jesus, only evidence of a chrestus/christus, and even at that there were plenty of messiahs

In the context of what they are writing there isn't much chance of it being anyone else. Who else could it be if Tacitus tells us Christus is a man the Christians worship as their god. In the Babylonian Talmud Jesus is referred to as Yeshu which is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. And in text from Lucian he says "The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account". I don't reckon there is anybody else it could be. Josephus does mention Jesus by name. "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man".

Can you please tell me about these other messiahs?

Originally posted by shihulud
There is not even evidence for the existence of these disciples - one or two yes but these people might not even have existed. I mean do you prescribe to the story of jesus moving to india after being 'crucified'?

If these disciples didn't exist then who else would of been the first followers of Jesus? There had to be initial first followers, and these first followers are the disciples we talk about today.

Ive never heard of this India story.

Originally posted by shihulud
Didnt the prediction call jesus emmanuel or something and wasn't the virgin just a mistake for young girl?

He referrers to Jesus as Immanuel which means "God with us" which is what Jesus was, God with us in the flesh.

As i mentioned in last post Isaiah definitely uses the word virgin.

Originally posted by LancerJ1

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

why?

because people didn't have a very good life expectancy back then. it's why the story completely drops joseph as a character. it would stretch credulity to say that joseph lived to see jesus at 30 because he was probably a good 10-15 years older than mary (as per traditions at the time). the authors knew enough about life expectancy to see that.... unlike the earlier hebrew writers....

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

i'd say you're being snarky

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

acts mentions it

What about the last words of Christ?

we have 4 different sets of the last words of jesus. only one of them can be correct.

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

so... they were wrong. that's essentially what you're saying. and that implies that the book is flawed, which is really bad when people are trying to derive absolutist idealeology from it

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

but there are parts that are identical... there's a name for that and it's plagerism.

False gospels trying to undermine the Christian faith.

ok, what makes them false?

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

alright, examples of the historical and political accuaracy?
and even if they were accurate... does this prove the existence of god or jesus?

There are a number of explanations, here are some:

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

cop
out

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

explode and burst open with entrails are different things.

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

I believe the latter.

and you're dodging the issue. they are mutually exclusive accounts. either the guy exploded in THE MIDDLE OF A FIELD or he died some other way. it's that whole middle of a field part that really makes it one way or the other.

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

well, "it is also believed" is subjective. logic is objective. one thing follows from another logically.

What do you mean by historical truth?

as in, they didn't believe that some guy named jesus, who just happened to claim to be the son of god, actually existed on earth.

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

well... then the NIV is wrong. the word is clearly "young lady" in the original hebrew. however, the mistake is easy to make, it's the equivalent of mixing up "maid" and "maiden." two very different meanings yet so similar.

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

alright...
where does it say he'd be crucified?
most crucifixion didn't entail nailing.

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

again, that doesn't say crucified, it says PIERCED.
arrows pierce
swords pierce
pikes pierce
lots of things pierce

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

like it really matters... the authors of the gospel OBVIOUSLY pandered to jewish populations by saying he was born of a virgin because they themselves were working from the mistranslated greek version of that text which is the origin for the mistaken translation of "young lady" to "virgin"

To believe that the Christian god exists, or even that Jesus existed requires one to believe that the Christian bible is a reliable source of historical information. Unfortunately for Christians, this has been demonstrated to be false on many levels.

Lets start with the people of the old testament. Far from being led to to the promised land out of Egypt, archeological evidence indicates that the Jews are indigenous to the area and share common DNA with their neighbors. Nothing in Egyptian writings says anything about Jews, Moses, the Exodus, etc. because they were never there.

At some point the Jews just came up with their own polytheistic religion, much as many of their neighbors did. Eventually the religion of yahweh turned monotheistic, but the slim evidence of the time seems to at least hold open the door to the idea that the ancient "jews" were not monotheistic, but believed in many gods.

There is no rigorous evidence of Jesus existance, although many scholars believe that he is at least based on a true individual. In any case, most biblical scholars agree that none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

Problems with the biblical timeline are to numerous to list. For example, in Luke Chapter 2 it states that Jesus was born when Harod was King and Quirinius was Governon of Syria. We now know that these two things did not occur at the same time. (Because of this the bible is wrong in at least one point.)

Outside of the bible there is no evidence or even an account of the resurrection of Jesus, and as we've seen the bible isn't infallible.

So basically, the jews aren't the people that the bible describes and there is no solid evidence outside of the bible that god or Jesus existed. As a rational person I can only conclude that no god exists and that if there was a Jesus, which is doubtful, he was just a guy who tried to shake things up until the powers that be had him executed for heresy.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
because people didn't have a very good life expectancy back then. it's why the story completely drops joseph as a character. it would stretch credulity to say that joseph lived to see jesus at 30 because he was probably a good 10-15 years older than mary (as per traditions at the time).

The disciples were likely young at the time. Looking at Matthew 17:24-27 it's possible that besides Peter and Jesus all the disciples were under 20.

24After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"

25"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

26"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

You only had to pay taxes if you were over 20, and here only Peter and Jesus paid as it doesn't mention the other disciples though they were there.

It makes more sense for them to be young guys. If they had wifes and children there wouldn't be as much chance of them leaving everything to follow Jesus. Also younger guys would be more enthusiastic towards a change.

It is unlikely that the Gospels would of been accepted and gotten anywhere if they couldn't without a doubt be attributable to someone who was established as knowing what they were writing about.

There would have been 1st generation Christians living who remembered the apostles and their teaching, and lots more 2nd generation Christians who would have had that knowledge taught straight to them.

Looking at this passage again it mentions temple tax. This story wouldn't have any meaning if the temple was already destroyed which was in 70AD. This is a good indication that Matthew was indeed written before 70AD.

acts mentions it

Yes it does, i thought you meant Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

we have 4 different sets of the last words of jesus. only one of them can be correct.

Are you talking about the 7 last words of Christ? If so then there is no contradiction as these were all said but at different times.

so... they were wrong. that's essentially what you're saying. and that implies that the book is flawed, which is really bad when people are trying to derive absolutist idealeology from it

The reason why there is a difference is because Matthew and Luke trace the genealogy through different lines. Matthew traces it through Solomon the line of Joseph and Luke traces it through Nathan the line of Mary. Solomon and Nathan were brothers, David's sons.

but there are parts that are identical... there's a name for that and it's plagerism.

Perhaps some used the same source. It is highly possible that Mathew and/or Luke used text from Mark and maybe Luke used text from Mark and Matthew. There is no problem with this, with the 4 gospels together we have a fuller more complete picture. Some parts are the same because they had to rely on a common source. Eg Matthew must of relied on someone else's recored of the Transfiguration because he wasn't there. But ultimately they were inspired by the same Holy Spirit.

ok, what makes them false?

They are lacking in historical details, social and political information, and logical narrative which the New Testaments contains. They falsely credited there works to well known Christians eg. Mary, Phillip, Thomas. They were written after the New Testament texts.

alright, examples of the historical and political accuaracy?
and even if they were accurate... does this prove the existence of god or jesus?

Descriptions of different people, places, cultures, government administration, court scenes in Caesarea etc. Luke's description of his journeys with Paul are incredibly vivid and abundantly presents maritime details.

By itself it doesn't prove the existence of God or Jesus, but is there to support it.

explode and burst open with entrails are different things.

I don't believe i have said "explode".

and you're dodging the issue. they are mutually exclusive accounts. either the guy exploded in THE MIDDLE OF A FIELD or he died some other way. it's that whole middle of a field part that really makes it one way or the other.

Each does not exclude the possibility of the other. It doesn't say middle of a field, it just says field. Judas burst open in the middle, referring to his belly.

Judas hanged himself. After sometime gases built up within his body due to bacteria. The rope was untied or broke and he fell to the ground. His belly burst open from the internal pressure and his intestines spilled out. 2 accounts of the same event.

Consider this: A man was shot in the head, he fell and cracked his skull on the ground and his brains spilled out. There were 2 witnesses. The police ask them what happened, one answers "he was shot in the head" the other answers "he fell and cracked his head on the ground". Both of these are correct and together supplement each other. Same goes with the Judas accounts.

well, "it is also believed" is subjective. logic is objective. one thing follows from another logically.

The reason why "it is also believed" is because in this case it's logical to believe.

as in, they didn't believe that some guy named jesus, who just happened to claim to be the son of god, actually existed on earth.

That just goes against everything we already know.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well... then the NIV is wrong. the word is clearly "young lady" in the original hebrew. however, the mistake is easy to make, it's the equivalent of mixing up "maid" and "maiden." two very different meanings yet so similar.

Hey, it does to.

The original Hebrew was translated first into Greek the 'Septuagint'. The Hebrew has 'almah' meaning young lady, and the translators of the Septuagint translated this to 'parthenos' meaning virgin. In the time of this culture of the translators it would of been common to assume an unmarried young female Jew was a virgin. Maybe it wasn't the wisest thing to do, but it still cant be called a mistake.

again, that doesn't say crucified, it says PIERCED.
arrows pierce
swords pierce
pikes pierce
lots of things pierce

Alright, it doesn't say crucifixion directly. But after the crucifixion and looking back on the Old Testament we see that there are passages that foreshadow these things. Never was there anyone in the New Testament that new about any of the prophecies before they were fulfilled. Only once a prophecy had been fulfilled was it realised that it was foreshadowed in the OT. Even the disciples didn't realise Jesus had to die and rise again no matter how much Jesus talked about it to them. Only after these things passed did they remember the scriptures. The OT is the witness to the events in the NT. So, it may not say "Jesus will be crucified on a cross and nails hammered into his wrists", but we can definitely see the connections.

No, lots of people claimed to be God.

Jesus was real. I think that he is a good person, but told people lies to get them to be good. .

And how many people saw him being ressurected, it isn't proof because we don't know if we can trust the bible. We shouldn't, yet until there is different evidence.

Ressurection is silly, you can't come back to life at all. No one can. Did any of the popes come back to life? No

He was able to get away with the lie because everyone was gullible back then.

Bash religion all you want. In creating religion we created something good but also evil. Cannot have a good without a bad, up without a down. So the balance remains in humanity. Morallity = morals. Morals = good. Imagine a world without fear and you can do anything. You are not judged for crimes and is not responsible for your actions. Remove faith and there you are, for that matter they WE are. I wouldn't want a world like that no way.

I see the stories of the bible and yes, some make you go hmmm. Most is stories of doing what is right and to be a good person for humanity.

For the non believers, you are right. The bible was created by man and has many faults most of which was manipulated by the church. Bad on them but the message is clear to me. Dont be stupid, enjoy life, be good, see you soon!

God? Yes he exists in my opinion. Why wouldn't he? Helped me type this!

Originally posted by Keebie
Bash religion all you want. In creating religion we created something good but also evil. Cannot have a good without a bad, up without a down. So the balance remains in humanity. Morallity = morals. Morals = good. Imagine a world without fear and you can do anything. You are not judged for crimes and is not responsible for your actions. Remove faith and there you are, for that matter they WE are. I wouldn't want a world like that no way.

Are you saying that if you didn't believe in God you would have no morals?

www.richarddawkins.net...

[edit on 22-6-2007 by Skunky]

Debater, you're wrong. we can't be sure if jesus was real

keebie, um... are you insane? are you saying that, without religion, you'd go out and throw babies against rocks? if that's what you're saying, you are insane.

and you're making the world dichotomous. we don't have a "it's this or it's that" world
example: you say things are either up or down. both are relative
let's say you said that things were either hot or cold
bull, there is no such thing as cold, only an absence of heat.

religion may have its points, but we don't need it

I'd like to make a comment here, It wasn't until joining ATS that I knew just how evil the world really was. I have been really naive. And it's this forum in particular. I have participated in other Christian/Atheist forums here, but none have sickened me like this one. All the OP here was doing was what most Christians are led to do, as believers in Christ. And that is to spread the Good News. I can see now why the Bible cautions us not to cast our pearls before swine. "Lest they turn and rend us to pieces." He wasn't trying to put anyone before a firing squad or anything. Nothing he said called for some of the vile and vulgar answers he got. You should all be ashamed. Let me re-phrase that: The guilty should be ashamed.

Originally posted by janasstar
All the OP here was doing was what most Christians are led to do,

Hey janasstar, wazzup.

May I ask what the OP is, sorry I dont know.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by janasstar
All the OP here was doing was what most Christians are led to do,

Hey janasstar, wazzup.

May I ask what the OP is, sorry I dont know.

OP is referred to as person who started this forum.

whazz up wid u this morning?

I have one more thing to say. I have heard many Christians ask time and again, "why do the atheists persecute the Christians and not the other religions?" I think I figured it out. Because we have the, 'turn the other cheek' teaching. So people feel pretty safe pushing the Christians around.
Here's some food for thought; A person only has two cheeks. After that, it's every man for himself! :-))

[edit on 08/11/2007 by janasstar]

Originally posted by LancerJ1
The existence of Jesus is a fact.

Just like the existence of Horus, Mithra, Krishna and every other "son of God" born of a virgin on December 25th?

Yeah, The "son" of God exists. It's that bright glowing thing in the sky that rises and sets (dies/reborn) every day.

Wake up.

Originally posted by janasstar
I have one more thing to say. I have heard many Christians ask time and again, "why do the atheists persecute the Christians and not the other religions?" I think I figured it out. Because we have the, 'turn the other cheek' teaching. So people feel pretty safe pushing the Christians around.
Here's some food for thought; Aperson only has two cheeks. After that, it's every man for himself! :-))

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Atheists "persecute" (shall we discuss you and your fellow Christians' persecution of all non-believers several centuries ago?) Christians because out of all religions (other than Islam, perhaps) it is the most steeped in hypocrisy and its followers are the most affected by said hypocrisy. I know a lot of Hindus who believe in a lot of strange gods, but they also believe in and practice the peaceful philosophy of their religion. I don't know too many Christians that don't judge others, turn the other cheek, love their neighbor as they love themselves, et al. In fact, I know more atheists that practice some of the teachings of the Sermon on the mount than Christians.

If only modern Christians would follow the steps of say Justin Martyr and started practicing Christian Humanism. Or just stopped believing in an ancient fairy tale all together.

I believe you would have to prove to me that that was Christians doing the persecuting of non-believers, and not the Catholics or some Puritan sect