Existence of God v Science (655)
avecaimSan Jose, California USA9 Threads 1 Polls 4,084 PostsWOW I am with you on all of this 
------ This thread is Locked ------
Which is more difficult to believe to have come into existence spontaneously and without the help of any creator?
A beach ball
or
The universe and the earth
Stephen Hawking calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.
British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars - a necessity for planets and thus life - is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes.
P.C.W. Davies also estimated that if the strength of gravity or of the weak force were changed by only one part in a ten followed by a hundred zeroes, life could never have developed.
There are about fifty constants and quantities - example: the amount of usable energy in the universe, the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, and the proportion of matter to antimatter) - that must be balanced to a mathematically infinitesimal degree for any life to be possible.
A beach ball
or
The universe and the earth
Stephen Hawking calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.
British physicist P.C.W. Davies has concluded the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars - a necessity for planets and thus life - is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes.
P.C.W. Davies also estimated that if the strength of gravity or of the weak force were changed by only one part in a ten followed by a hundred zeroes, life could never have developed.
There are about fifty constants and quantities - example: the amount of usable energy in the universe, the difference in mass between protons and neutrons, and the proportion of matter to antimatter) - that must be balanced to a mathematically infinitesimal degree for any life to be possible.
------ This thread is Locked ------
and poof there was a universe and poof there was a sun and poof there was man
all in 7 days
Now who is delusional mikey?
poof
all in 7 days
Now who is delusional mikey?
poof
------ This thread is Locked ------
Nobel Prize winner Sir Francis Crick said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”
Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled with only the right building blocks (amino acids) and only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids) joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct equence. I had been taught in school that if chemicals had an ample amount of time to interact in the “warm little ponds” of early earth, eventually the improbable would become probable and life would emerge. “Scientists once believed in the idea of random chance plus time yielding life, because they also believed in the steady-state theory of the universe,” scientist Walter Bradley said. “This meant the universe was infinitely old, and who knows what could happen if you had an infinite amount of time? But with the discovery of background radiation in 1965, the Big Bang theory came to dominate in cosmology. The bad news for evolution was that this meant the earth was probably less than five billion years old. “Actually, it’s not as long as you think. And not only was the time too short, but the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn’t work. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
“Biochemist Michael Behe has said the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert—and doing it not just once, but three different times. Sir Frederick Hoyle put it colorfully when he said that this scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. “In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That’s why even though some people who aren’t educated in this field still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don’t believe it anymore.”
Even so, scientists have tried to come up with creative theories to try to explain how biopolymers (such as proteins) became assembled with only the right building blocks (amino acids) and only the correct isomers (left-handed amino acids) joined with only the correct peptide bonds in only the correct equence. I had been taught in school that if chemicals had an ample amount of time to interact in the “warm little ponds” of early earth, eventually the improbable would become probable and life would emerge. “Scientists once believed in the idea of random chance plus time yielding life, because they also believed in the steady-state theory of the universe,” scientist Walter Bradley said. “This meant the universe was infinitely old, and who knows what could happen if you had an infinite amount of time? But with the discovery of background radiation in 1965, the Big Bang theory came to dominate in cosmology. The bad news for evolution was that this meant the earth was probably less than five billion years old. “Actually, it’s not as long as you think. And not only was the time too short, but the mathematical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. Even if you optimized the conditions, it wouldn’t work. If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
“Biochemist Michael Behe has said the probability of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert—and doing it not just once, but three different times. Sir Frederick Hoyle put it colorfully when he said that this scenario is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. “In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That’s why even though some people who aren’t educated in this field still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simply don’t believe it anymore.”
------ This thread is Locked ------
"Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history"—John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers1
In considering the Old Testament, archaeology has vindicated the biblical record time and again. The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, written by a score of experts in various fields, repeatedly shows that biblical history is vindicated. To illustrate, the editor’s preface remarks,
Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere.2
John Arthur Thompson was director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology in Melbourne and has done archaeological fieldwork with the American Schools of Oriental Research. In The Bible and Archaeology he writes,
Finally, it is perfectly true to say that biblical archaeology has done a great deal to correct the impression that was abroad at the close of the last century and in the early part of this century, that biblical history was of doubtful trustworthiness in many places. If one impression stands out more clearly than any other today, it is that on all hands the over-all historicity of the Old Testament tradition is admitted. In this connection the words of W. E Albright may be quoted: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions."3
In considering the Old Testament, archaeology has vindicated the biblical record time and again. The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, written by a score of experts in various fields, repeatedly shows that biblical history is vindicated. To illustrate, the editor’s preface remarks,
Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere.2
John Arthur Thompson was director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology in Melbourne and has done archaeological fieldwork with the American Schools of Oriental Research. In The Bible and Archaeology he writes,
Finally, it is perfectly true to say that biblical archaeology has done a great deal to correct the impression that was abroad at the close of the last century and in the early part of this century, that biblical history was of doubtful trustworthiness in many places. If one impression stands out more clearly than any other today, it is that on all hands the over-all historicity of the Old Testament tradition is admitted. In this connection the words of W. E Albright may be quoted: "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions."3
------ This thread is Locked ------
Geisler and Brooks point out,
In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there is good evidence from archaeology that the scriptures are accurate.... While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics.4
For example, many aspects of Bible books have been confirmed over the views of critics, in particular the books of Moses, Daniel, Ezra, Kings, and Luke in the book of Acts. Daniel, for example, because of its clear supernatural predictions, is dated by critics to the time of the Maccabeans, around 165 B.C., though Daniel himself indicates or implies a sixth century B.C. date at the beginning of every chapter but one. Critics had also doubted the Exile and the return of the Jews referred to in the book of Esther, as well as its official government decrees. And the chronological records of the books of Kings were held to be hopelessly confused, according to the critics. To the contrary, archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson and others have provided many examples of how archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of these books. In his Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability, Dr. Wilson supplies examples, some of which we quote below:
There are other evidences of eyewitness recording by Daniel. That he knew Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt Babylon (Daniel 4:30) is a problem by those who argue for a later date for Daniel. This fact of history was recovered by excavation only in modern times, yet Daniel had recorded it correctly. One critic wrote that this was a difficulty; the answer to which "we shall presumably never know".... Linguistic pointers from the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., a recent targum of Job) also suggest an early, not a late, date for Daniel.... The overthrow of the nonhistorical view of the Exile and the return of the Jews came with the finding of the famous Cyrus Cylinder.... By this decree [of King Cyrus] the Hebrew people were given leave to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.... The same can be said about the style of writing in the Book of Ezra, for as Albright says; "If we turn to the Book of Ezra, recent discoveries have indicated the authenticity of its official documents in the most striking way." Albright shows that the language of Ezra had been seriously challenged, but that some of the very words that have been challenged have turned up in Egyptian, Aramaic, and Babylonian cuneiform documents that date to the exact time of Ezra. Albright goes on: "If it were practicable to quote from still unpublished Aramaic documents from fifth century Egypt, the weight of factual evidence would crush all opposition".... Still another convincing evidence of the genuineness of the Bible records is in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele. Where once it seemed that the dates of the kings in the divided-kingdom period were inaccurate and vague, he has been able to show remarkable synchronisms.... Once again, an area that many believed was total confusion has been shown to be staggeringly accurate recording, with fine chronological interweaving that cannot be claimed for any other book of ancient history.5
In every period of Old Testament history, we find that there is good evidence from archaeology that the scriptures are accurate.... While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics.4
For example, many aspects of Bible books have been confirmed over the views of critics, in particular the books of Moses, Daniel, Ezra, Kings, and Luke in the book of Acts. Daniel, for example, because of its clear supernatural predictions, is dated by critics to the time of the Maccabeans, around 165 B.C., though Daniel himself indicates or implies a sixth century B.C. date at the beginning of every chapter but one. Critics had also doubted the Exile and the return of the Jews referred to in the book of Esther, as well as its official government decrees. And the chronological records of the books of Kings were held to be hopelessly confused, according to the critics. To the contrary, archaeologist Dr. Clifford Wilson and others have provided many examples of how archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of these books. In his Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability, Dr. Wilson supplies examples, some of which we quote below:
There are other evidences of eyewitness recording by Daniel. That he knew Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt Babylon (Daniel 4:30) is a problem by those who argue for a later date for Daniel. This fact of history was recovered by excavation only in modern times, yet Daniel had recorded it correctly. One critic wrote that this was a difficulty; the answer to which "we shall presumably never know".... Linguistic pointers from the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., a recent targum of Job) also suggest an early, not a late, date for Daniel.... The overthrow of the nonhistorical view of the Exile and the return of the Jews came with the finding of the famous Cyrus Cylinder.... By this decree [of King Cyrus] the Hebrew people were given leave to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.... The same can be said about the style of writing in the Book of Ezra, for as Albright says; "If we turn to the Book of Ezra, recent discoveries have indicated the authenticity of its official documents in the most striking way." Albright shows that the language of Ezra had been seriously challenged, but that some of the very words that have been challenged have turned up in Egyptian, Aramaic, and Babylonian cuneiform documents that date to the exact time of Ezra. Albright goes on: "If it were practicable to quote from still unpublished Aramaic documents from fifth century Egypt, the weight of factual evidence would crush all opposition".... Still another convincing evidence of the genuineness of the Bible records is in The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Edwin R. Thiele. Where once it seemed that the dates of the kings in the divided-kingdom period were inaccurate and vague, he has been able to show remarkable synchronisms.... Once again, an area that many believed was total confusion has been shown to be staggeringly accurate recording, with fine chronological interweaving that cannot be claimed for any other book of ancient history.5
------ This thread is Locked ------
The reliability of the New Testament is also confirmed; based on archaeological data, "the evidence for its historical reliability overwhelming."6 In the case of the book of Acts,
It is widely agreed today that in this book we can see the hand of a historian of the first rank.... Luke is shown to be a most careful recorder of information, whether it be matters of geography and political boundaries, local customs, titles of local officers, local religious practices, details of local topography, or the disposition of buildings in Greek or Roman, Asian or European towns.7
A. N. Sherwin-White remarks, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."8
Consider some examples of Luke’s accuracy in historical reporting:
Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:41; 16:2, 6-8. He identified regions, such as that referred to in Acts 13:49, and various dues, as in Acts 14:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as "the temple-keeper of Artemis" (Acts 19:35).... he refers to different local officers by their exact titles—the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Philippi (Acts 16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile)—which was the title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23)....
Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images (Acts 19:26-27).9
It is widely agreed today that in this book we can see the hand of a historian of the first rank.... Luke is shown to be a most careful recorder of information, whether it be matters of geography and political boundaries, local customs, titles of local officers, local religious practices, details of local topography, or the disposition of buildings in Greek or Roman, Asian or European towns.7
A. N. Sherwin-White remarks, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."8
Consider some examples of Luke’s accuracy in historical reporting:
Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:41; 16:2, 6-8. He identified regions, such as that referred to in Acts 13:49, and various dues, as in Acts 14:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as "the temple-keeper of Artemis" (Acts 19:35).... he refers to different local officers by their exact titles—the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Philippi (Acts 16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile)—which was the title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23)....
Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images (Acts 19:26-27).9
------ This thread is Locked ------
I thought the part about the AGE of the Earth was interesting. How is that determined and does it depend on any sort of specific events? 
------ This thread is Locked ------
As Merrill C. Tenney, professor of New Testament, points out about Luke’s writings, the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, "The two volumes he wrote comprise at least one-fourth of the total canon of the New Testament and provide the only piece of continuous historical writing that covers the period from the birth of Jesus of Nazareth to the establishment of a church in the capitol of the Roman Empire."10 In other words, the fact that Luke has been established as such a careful writer means that fully one-fourth of the entire New Testament, on the basis of his accuracy alone, bears the same marks of authenticity.
But it is this very same careful historical writer, the physician Luke, who reports that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead "by many convincing proofs"—and that he had carefully investigated the evidence for this from the beginning (cf., Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3). If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting, on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?
Noted biblical scholar and apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery summarizes the evidence when he writes, "Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history."11 And Dr. Wilson concludes, "Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book.…"12
In general, if not always in the particulars, the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, has been strikingly confirmed. Kitchen remarks that after "a fair and full investigation of the total available resources, the verdict is frequently a high measure of agreement between the Bible and the world that is its ancient and original context."13 Dr. Schoville observes, "Thus far, no historical statement in the Bible has been proven false on the basis of evidence retrieved through archaeological research."14 Thompson concludes his book by stating, "It is very evident that the biblical records have their roots firmly in general world history."15 Archaeologist Joseph Free, chairman of the department of archaeology at Wheaton College and later professor of archaeology and history at Bemidji State College in Minnesota, concluded his Archaeology and Bible History with the following words: "I thumbed through the book of Genesis and mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters was either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery—the same would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments."16
Again, given the large amount of data already uncovered in the last 150 years, this is no insignificant conclusion. There are literally thousands of opportunities for archaeological research to indisputably prove the Bible false—and yet it has never done so.
But it is this very same careful historical writer, the physician Luke, who reports that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead "by many convincing proofs"—and that he had carefully investigated the evidence for this from the beginning (cf., Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3). If Luke was so painstakingly accurate in his historical reporting, on what logical basis may we assume he was credulous or inaccurate in his reporting of matters that were far more important, not only to him but to others as well?
Noted biblical scholar and apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery summarizes the evidence when he writes, "Modern archaeological research has confirmed again and again the reliability of New Testament geography, chronology, and general history."11 And Dr. Wilson concludes, "Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book.…"12
In general, if not always in the particulars, the entire Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, has been strikingly confirmed. Kitchen remarks that after "a fair and full investigation of the total available resources, the verdict is frequently a high measure of agreement between the Bible and the world that is its ancient and original context."13 Dr. Schoville observes, "Thus far, no historical statement in the Bible has been proven false on the basis of evidence retrieved through archaeological research."14 Thompson concludes his book by stating, "It is very evident that the biblical records have their roots firmly in general world history."15 Archaeologist Joseph Free, chairman of the department of archaeology at Wheaton College and later professor of archaeology and history at Bemidji State College in Minnesota, concluded his Archaeology and Bible History with the following words: "I thumbed through the book of Genesis and mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters was either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery—the same would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments."16
Again, given the large amount of data already uncovered in the last 150 years, this is no insignificant conclusion. There are literally thousands of opportunities for archaeological research to indisputably prove the Bible false—and yet it has never done so.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Works cited above:
1 John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), p. 16, a book endorsed by an editorial board comprising American Liberal Clergymen, from Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), rev.), p. 166.
2 E. M. Blaiklock, "Editor’s Preface," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan, 1983), pp. vii-viii, emphasis added.
3 J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 5.
4 Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), p. 200.
5 Clifford A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Richardson, TX: Probe, 1977), pp. 98-110.
6 Geisler and Brooks, p. 200.
7 Thompson, pp. 375, 405.
8 Cited in Geisler and Brooks, p. 202.
9 Wilson, pp. 112-113.
10 Merrill C. Tenney, "Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke," in Roy B. Zuck (gen. ed.,), Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Reasons and Revelation in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995), p. 204.
11 John Warwick Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridicial Defense of Christianity" in J. W. Montgomery (ed), Evidence for the Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991), p. 326.
12 Wilson, p. 120.
13 K. A. Kitchen, The Bible and Its World: The Bible and Archeology Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), p. 134.
14 Keith N. Schoville, Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), p. 156.
15 Thompson, p. 442.
16 Joseph P. Free and Howard F. Vos, Archeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 294.
1 John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), p. 16, a book endorsed by an editorial board comprising American Liberal Clergymen, from Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), rev.), p. 166.
2 E. M. Blaiklock, "Editor’s Preface," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan, 1983), pp. vii-viii, emphasis added.
3 J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 5.
4 Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990), p. 200.
5 Clifford A. Wilson, Rocks, Relics and Biblical Reliability (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Richardson, TX: Probe, 1977), pp. 98-110.
6 Geisler and Brooks, p. 200.
7 Thompson, pp. 375, 405.
8 Cited in Geisler and Brooks, p. 202.
9 Wilson, pp. 112-113.
10 Merrill C. Tenney, "Historical Verities in the Gospel of Luke," in Roy B. Zuck (gen. ed.,), Vital Apologetic Issues: Examining Reasons and Revelation in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1995), p. 204.
11 John Warwick Montgomery, "The Jury Returns: A Juridicial Defense of Christianity" in J. W. Montgomery (ed), Evidence for the Faith: Deciding the God Question (Dallas: Probe/Word, 1991), p. 326.
12 Wilson, p. 120.
13 K. A. Kitchen, The Bible and Its World: The Bible and Archeology Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), p. 134.
14 Keith N. Schoville, Biblical Archaeology in Focus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), p. 156.
15 Thompson, p. 442.
16 Joseph P. Free and Howard F. Vos, Archeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 294.
------ This thread is Locked ------
MikeHD: TRISH123 !!!!
Have I told you lately that I love you?!?!?!
Well...
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I hope and pray you are doing awesome!
I wish I had more time to be here. I miss you!
Love ya whole bunches!!!
Have I told you lately that I love you?!?!?!
Well...
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I love you!
I hope and pray you are doing awesome!
I wish I had more time to be here. I miss you!
Love ya whole bunches!!!
Hiya Mike - ya loon pot
------ This thread is Locked ------
At the time of Jesus, the Jews had been persecuted for 700 years. Many Jews had been scattered and lived as captives in other nations. However, we still see Jews today, while we don’t see Hittites, Perizzites, Persians, Babylonians, Philistines, and other people who had been living in that time. Why? Because these people go captured by other nations, intermarried, and lost their national identity. Why didn’t that happen to the Jews? Because the things that made the Jews, Jews-the social structures that gave them their national identity-were unbelievably important to them. The Jews would pass these structures down to their children, celebrate them in synagogue meetings every Sabbath, and reinforce them with their rituals, because they knew if they didn’t, there soon would be no Jews left. The would be assimilated into the cultures that captured them.
And there’s another reason why these social institutions were so important: they believed these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death.
Now consider, in light of all this, that a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower-class region. He teaches for three years, gathers a following of lower- and middle- class people, gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified (along with 30,000 other Jewish men who were executed during this time period).
But five weeks after he’s crucified, over 10,000 Jews are following Him and claiming that He is the initiator of a new religion. And get this; they are willing to give up or alter all five of the social institutions that they have been taught since childhood have such importance both sociologically and theologically.
SOMETHING VERY BIG WAS GOING ON!
And there’s another reason why these social institutions were so important: they believed these institutions were entrusted to them by God. They believed that to abandon these institutions would be to risk their souls being damned to hell after death.
Now consider, in light of all this, that a rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower-class region. He teaches for three years, gathers a following of lower- and middle- class people, gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified (along with 30,000 other Jewish men who were executed during this time period).
But five weeks after he’s crucified, over 10,000 Jews are following Him and claiming that He is the initiator of a new religion. And get this; they are willing to give up or alter all five of the social institutions that they have been taught since childhood have such importance both sociologically and theologically.
SOMETHING VERY BIG WAS GOING ON!
------ This thread is Locked ------
The Bible isn't like any other book that's ever been written. The claims of the Bible are unlike any other book - it's not a human book! God called His Word living. But unless you have a rock-solid commitment to truth, the Bible won't change your life - it will only be so many words in a sea of words.
Many of the Eastern thought forms use Scripture. They use it to capture people's hearts. That's because the Bible is so powerful you can't ignore it. God has built life into His Word, and all of the strong cults rip it off. They steal bites out of the Bible and use it They use the truth of it to try, to justify the lies they tell. Just the fact that pieces taken out of context are powerful enough to draw men's hearts should tell you what the whole Word, used under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can do!
Some Credentials
Here are some facts that will be valuable for anyone with an open heart. Now, you don't have to throw your mind away in order to believe these facts, but if you don't want to believe, nothing will convince you. Mark Twain said, "It's not the things I don't understand in the Bible that bother me, it's the things I do understand!" This accurate insight exposes the real reason most people are afraid to study the Scriptures. They're afraid they might meet the Author, and they know they're not ready to do that...
So what are this book's credentials? I could say to you, "I've just written a book and it's the Word of God. It's a great book... took me a whole year to write it." And you would have every right to say, "Prove it!" In the various world religions, there are 30 or 40 books, each one claiming to be a superior revelation. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35)
The Bible doesn't attempt to defend its inspiration. You won't find any verse that says, "This book is really true, so you better believe it!!" But here is an interesting thing: Genesis opens with the words, "God said" nine times in the first chapter. The statement, "Thus says the Lord" appears 23 times in the last Old Testament book Malachi. So you have "God says" from Genesis to Malachi. "The Lord spoke" appears 560 times in the first five books of the Bible and at least 3800 times in the whole of the Old Testament! Isaiah claims at least 40 times that his message came directly from the Lord; Ezekiel, 60 times; and Jeremiah, 100 times! And the Lord Jesus quoted from at least 24 different Old Testament books - that's right, He just quoted.
In the mid-1700s Voltaire, one of the most influential writers of his day, held a copy of the Bible in his hand and stated that within 100 years from his time, Christianity would be swept from existence and would pass into history. What's hilarious is that merely 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his house and press to print and distribute stacks of Bibles! They even made his house their headquarters! God has an incredible sense of humor!
Many of the Eastern thought forms use Scripture. They use it to capture people's hearts. That's because the Bible is so powerful you can't ignore it. God has built life into His Word, and all of the strong cults rip it off. They steal bites out of the Bible and use it They use the truth of it to try, to justify the lies they tell. Just the fact that pieces taken out of context are powerful enough to draw men's hearts should tell you what the whole Word, used under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can do!
Some Credentials
Here are some facts that will be valuable for anyone with an open heart. Now, you don't have to throw your mind away in order to believe these facts, but if you don't want to believe, nothing will convince you. Mark Twain said, "It's not the things I don't understand in the Bible that bother me, it's the things I do understand!" This accurate insight exposes the real reason most people are afraid to study the Scriptures. They're afraid they might meet the Author, and they know they're not ready to do that...
So what are this book's credentials? I could say to you, "I've just written a book and it's the Word of God. It's a great book... took me a whole year to write it." And you would have every right to say, "Prove it!" In the various world religions, there are 30 or 40 books, each one claiming to be a superior revelation. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35)
The Bible doesn't attempt to defend its inspiration. You won't find any verse that says, "This book is really true, so you better believe it!!" But here is an interesting thing: Genesis opens with the words, "God said" nine times in the first chapter. The statement, "Thus says the Lord" appears 23 times in the last Old Testament book Malachi. So you have "God says" from Genesis to Malachi. "The Lord spoke" appears 560 times in the first five books of the Bible and at least 3800 times in the whole of the Old Testament! Isaiah claims at least 40 times that his message came directly from the Lord; Ezekiel, 60 times; and Jeremiah, 100 times! And the Lord Jesus quoted from at least 24 different Old Testament books - that's right, He just quoted.
In the mid-1700s Voltaire, one of the most influential writers of his day, held a copy of the Bible in his hand and stated that within 100 years from his time, Christianity would be swept from existence and would pass into history. What's hilarious is that merely 50 years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his house and press to print and distribute stacks of Bibles! They even made his house their headquarters! God has an incredible sense of humor!
------ This thread is Locked ------
Could You Write The Bible?
Say you were going to write a book, and this was how you had to write it: For a start find 40 different writers - totally different writers. Get some who are highly educated, even doctors - then get some farmers. Go dig a guy off a ranch somewhere and say, "I'd like you to help me write a book." Then find some fishermen. Go down to the wharf and find a couple of guys from San Francisco and say, "Hey! listen help me write a book." And they say, "Sure, fine... we'll help you." And then you get all of them to write on the following things: religion, poetry, ethics, science, philosophy, the creation of the universe and where it's going - and ask them to throw in a few things about where they think it will all end.
Next, you need to collect all that information, and then... oh, by the way, you have to separate these people so they can't communicate by phone or telegraph... only possibly word of mouth, passed down over the years. Ah yes, years... you collect all this stuff over about one and a half thousand years, and compile the whole thing in one book. What would you have? I know what you'd have - you'd have the most motley junk you've ever seen in your life, with people totally contradicting each other! I suggest you take a biology textbook from 60 years ago, and compare it with one today. And that's just 60 years! But that's not what you have when you read your Bible. The more you read this book, the more you see the incredible unity of it. Because the more you get into it, the more incredibly detailed it is, and you find there are not 40 people who wrote it, but One Person.
The Bible: Your Science Book
The Bible is scientifically accurate. The God of the Bible is the God who created the universe. True science and Scripture will always agree - they both have the same Author! No statement in the Scriptures is scientifically incorrect. Science can tabulate the "what," analyze the "how," and probe for the "why," but it can't tell us the "where from," nor the reason for which the universe exists. It can't say who you are or why you are here. It can tell us what we're able to do, but not what we ought to do.
At the same time the Bible was written, people thought the world was fiat and held up by three elephants. Big elephants. Someone asked, "What holds the world up?" Another said, "Three elephants." Then someone ventured to ask, "And what holds up the elephants??" Someone answered, "A big tortoise." And so the early sciences grew.
Now, listen to what God said. Remember, this wasn't written in the last hundred years, or even the last thousand. This comes from over 2500 years ago... "Have you not known? Have you not heard? ... Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:21-22) The word "circle" is the word "sphere" in Hebrew. Also, "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing." (Job 26:7) Well, so much for elephants!
There are many other astounding scientific facts in Scripture, presented centuries before it became part of man's "knowledge."
Argument Melts Down
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up." (II Pet. 3:10) This very verse was used nearly a century ago to prove that the Bible couldn't have been divinely inspired because, "How could there be a fire big enough to burn the whole world? Silly fisherman!" It took over two more generations for science to catch up to what God had spoken through Peter, that an atomic reaction could actually melt the basic building blocks of matter itself. God was prophesying how the world would end.
Say you were going to write a book, and this was how you had to write it: For a start find 40 different writers - totally different writers. Get some who are highly educated, even doctors - then get some farmers. Go dig a guy off a ranch somewhere and say, "I'd like you to help me write a book." Then find some fishermen. Go down to the wharf and find a couple of guys from San Francisco and say, "Hey! listen help me write a book." And they say, "Sure, fine... we'll help you." And then you get all of them to write on the following things: religion, poetry, ethics, science, philosophy, the creation of the universe and where it's going - and ask them to throw in a few things about where they think it will all end.
Next, you need to collect all that information, and then... oh, by the way, you have to separate these people so they can't communicate by phone or telegraph... only possibly word of mouth, passed down over the years. Ah yes, years... you collect all this stuff over about one and a half thousand years, and compile the whole thing in one book. What would you have? I know what you'd have - you'd have the most motley junk you've ever seen in your life, with people totally contradicting each other! I suggest you take a biology textbook from 60 years ago, and compare it with one today. And that's just 60 years! But that's not what you have when you read your Bible. The more you read this book, the more you see the incredible unity of it. Because the more you get into it, the more incredibly detailed it is, and you find there are not 40 people who wrote it, but One Person.
The Bible: Your Science Book
The Bible is scientifically accurate. The God of the Bible is the God who created the universe. True science and Scripture will always agree - they both have the same Author! No statement in the Scriptures is scientifically incorrect. Science can tabulate the "what," analyze the "how," and probe for the "why," but it can't tell us the "where from," nor the reason for which the universe exists. It can't say who you are or why you are here. It can tell us what we're able to do, but not what we ought to do.
At the same time the Bible was written, people thought the world was fiat and held up by three elephants. Big elephants. Someone asked, "What holds the world up?" Another said, "Three elephants." Then someone ventured to ask, "And what holds up the elephants??" Someone answered, "A big tortoise." And so the early sciences grew.
Now, listen to what God said. Remember, this wasn't written in the last hundred years, or even the last thousand. This comes from over 2500 years ago... "Have you not known? Have you not heard? ... Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:21-22) The word "circle" is the word "sphere" in Hebrew. Also, "He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth on nothing." (Job 26:7) Well, so much for elephants!
There are many other astounding scientific facts in Scripture, presented centuries before it became part of man's "knowledge."
Argument Melts Down
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up." (II Pet. 3:10) This very verse was used nearly a century ago to prove that the Bible couldn't have been divinely inspired because, "How could there be a fire big enough to burn the whole world? Silly fisherman!" It took over two more generations for science to catch up to what God had spoken through Peter, that an atomic reaction could actually melt the basic building blocks of matter itself. God was prophesying how the world would end.
------ This thread is Locked ------
In fact, two verses later we find these words, "...the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!" (vs. 12) Do you know what the word "destroy" is? It's a Greek word that literally means to untie. That's an atomic physics statement from a fisherman! These and countless other examples show us how the Lord has hidden unsurpassed knowledge and wisdom in His Word.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Lots Of Lucky Guesses?
If there's one thing the Bible dares to do, that no other book in the world does, it's to accurately predict the future. God can arrange the situations and circumstances of history to bring about patterns laid down before the foundation of the world. The outline of many of these patterns is revealed in the Bible.
There are about 3,856 verses directly or indirectly concerned with prophecy in Scripture - about one verse in six tells of future events! God's challenge to the world is "Prove Me now - I am the Lord... I will speak, and the word that I speak shall come to pass." (See Jer. 28:9; Ezek. 12:25, 24:14) Buddhists, Confucianists, and Muslims have their own sacred writings, but in them the element of prophecy is obviously absent. The destruction of Tyre, the invasion of Jerusalem, the fall of Babylon and Rome - each were accurately predicted in the Bible and fulfilled to the smallest details.
In the brief life of Jesus alone we see over 300 fulfilled prophecies. The odds that these would all coincide by accident in one person are laughable. By the laws of chance, the conservative odds of even just 48 of those prophecies being fulfilled by one man are one in 10157. (That's 1 followed by 157 zeros!!!) Let me try to give you an idea of how immense this number is.
We'll take a very small object, let's say an electron. (Electrons are so small that if you lined them up, it would take 2½ quadrillion of them to equal one inch.) Now let's go back to our figure of 10157. If you tried to put this many electrons into a big pile, it would be 10,000,000,000 times lager than the universe as we know it - which scientists calculate to be 6,000,000,000 light-years across. (A light-year is the distance that light will travel in one year, moving at the speed of 186,000 miles per second.)
Now, take just one electron out and color it red. Stir it back into this pile for a hundred thousand years with all the others. Then blindfold a man and send him in to pick it out - first time! Impossible? These would be the same odds that one man would live and die according to only 48 of the prophecies about the Messiah, if it were only an accident. The Scriptures specifically predict events and happenings that are as modern as tomorrow's news release.
No Other Conclusion
You can put any test you like on this book and nothing is even in the same category, not even in the same class. It's not just a book - it is God who has spoken in history, and that's why He says that His word is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword"! (Heb. 4:12) Only the 66 books of the Scriptures bear this divine seal. No other work of man in any language even faintly resembles the intricate structure and design of the Bible. The fact remains - only an infinite mind could have devised this Book of books.
The Bible is a book with a universal message for all men. It's the only volume that a child and scholar may find equal delight in. Its simple, life-related principles can work in any country, transcending barriers of culture and race to bring peace, love, joy, and forgiveness. Only the Bible can make bad men good inside, transforming the rebel into the saint.
The greatest proof of the Bible is the difference its message can make in your life. If you haven't done so - will you ask God the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of His power to your heart through its pages? But pray honestly, "God, I don't know if this is Your Word or not, but if it is and You can help me, please show Yourself to me as I read," and God will meet you in a living demonstration of His reality.
If there's one thing the Bible dares to do, that no other book in the world does, it's to accurately predict the future. God can arrange the situations and circumstances of history to bring about patterns laid down before the foundation of the world. The outline of many of these patterns is revealed in the Bible.
There are about 3,856 verses directly or indirectly concerned with prophecy in Scripture - about one verse in six tells of future events! God's challenge to the world is "Prove Me now - I am the Lord... I will speak, and the word that I speak shall come to pass." (See Jer. 28:9; Ezek. 12:25, 24:14) Buddhists, Confucianists, and Muslims have their own sacred writings, but in them the element of prophecy is obviously absent. The destruction of Tyre, the invasion of Jerusalem, the fall of Babylon and Rome - each were accurately predicted in the Bible and fulfilled to the smallest details.
In the brief life of Jesus alone we see over 300 fulfilled prophecies. The odds that these would all coincide by accident in one person are laughable. By the laws of chance, the conservative odds of even just 48 of those prophecies being fulfilled by one man are one in 10157. (That's 1 followed by 157 zeros!!!) Let me try to give you an idea of how immense this number is.
We'll take a very small object, let's say an electron. (Electrons are so small that if you lined them up, it would take 2½ quadrillion of them to equal one inch.) Now let's go back to our figure of 10157. If you tried to put this many electrons into a big pile, it would be 10,000,000,000 times lager than the universe as we know it - which scientists calculate to be 6,000,000,000 light-years across. (A light-year is the distance that light will travel in one year, moving at the speed of 186,000 miles per second.)
Now, take just one electron out and color it red. Stir it back into this pile for a hundred thousand years with all the others. Then blindfold a man and send him in to pick it out - first time! Impossible? These would be the same odds that one man would live and die according to only 48 of the prophecies about the Messiah, if it were only an accident. The Scriptures specifically predict events and happenings that are as modern as tomorrow's news release.
No Other Conclusion
You can put any test you like on this book and nothing is even in the same category, not even in the same class. It's not just a book - it is God who has spoken in history, and that's why He says that His word is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword"! (Heb. 4:12) Only the 66 books of the Scriptures bear this divine seal. No other work of man in any language even faintly resembles the intricate structure and design of the Bible. The fact remains - only an infinite mind could have devised this Book of books.
The Bible is a book with a universal message for all men. It's the only volume that a child and scholar may find equal delight in. Its simple, life-related principles can work in any country, transcending barriers of culture and race to bring peace, love, joy, and forgiveness. Only the Bible can make bad men good inside, transforming the rebel into the saint.
The greatest proof of the Bible is the difference its message can make in your life. If you haven't done so - will you ask God the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of His power to your heart through its pages? But pray honestly, "God, I don't know if this is Your Word or not, but if it is and You can help me, please show Yourself to me as I read," and God will meet you in a living demonstration of His reality.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Most of your references are Grand Rapids...What?...Press...Books...Seminary?
One source not half a dozen.And one unknown to me.A source with an agenda perhaps?
You love probabilities with long odds.How were they computed?Where does the One possibility that keeps them all from being Zero come from?
Your assertion that modern archaeology confirms Old Test. history is ludicrous.There is not a shred of evidence that four million Hebrews wandered around the Sanai desert for 40 years .Looks like they would have left garbage behind.
You might consult the ongoing Jesus Seminar which has concluded repeatedly that evidence of historical Jesus is scant.
I think your Thesis borders on Sophistry.Would you care to state your academic qualifications?
One source not half a dozen.And one unknown to me.A source with an agenda perhaps?
You love probabilities with long odds.How were they computed?Where does the One possibility that keeps them all from being Zero come from?
Your assertion that modern archaeology confirms Old Test. history is ludicrous.There is not a shred of evidence that four million Hebrews wandered around the Sanai desert for 40 years .Looks like they would have left garbage behind.
You might consult the ongoing Jesus Seminar which has concluded repeatedly that evidence of historical Jesus is scant.
I think your Thesis borders on Sophistry.Would you care to state your academic qualifications?
------ This thread is Locked ------
Mike, cos you or I may post a few bits doesnt make either of us right on this - but lets keep bringing all this good reading matter to the table ok
I was reading this earlier and found it pretty interesting;
Did The Biblical Jesus Ever Actually Exist?” pitted American Atheist editor, author, and scientist Frank Zindler against Dr. Carolyn Thomas, a Catholic professor at the Pontifical College Josephinum and the author of several books herself.
As I’ve mentioned before – and as Zindler pointed out in his opening remarks – we actually have very little information about Jesus. If he existed, he doesn’t seem to have written anything. If he existed, nobody seems to have bothered to note what he looked like, let alone draw his picture. If he existed and did any of the things the Bible credits him with, nobody at the time seems to have cared enough or been impressed enough to write about it. It’s a very odd situation, to say the least.
The oldest reports concerning Jesus seem to be the letters of Paul. These letters seem to have been written years after Jesus had died by a man who never met him in the flesh. Paul is alleged to have had a vision or hallucination of Jesus, but it’s hard to accept that as proof that Jesus actually once existed even if that vision did unfold as the Bible reports. The same Bible tells us that those who allegedly had known Jesus in the flesh didn’t much care for Paul and at times angrily disputed his interpretation of Jesus’s message, which does little to bolster Paul’s credibility or authority. Some of the letters attributed to Paul and have made their way into the Bible are now recognized as forgeries written by people claiming to speak for him. Dr. Thomas herself granted this, claiming that it was a common and acceptable thing to do back then. She went on to claim that these unknown forgers nonetheless accurately conveyed Paul’s beliefs – a claim that begs for lots of supporting evidence. Alas, she gave none.
Virtually everything else people claim to know about Jesus comes from the four Gospels. As virtually everyone seems to agree, these Gospels weren’t written as objective reports of events but are the passionate attempts of Christians to sway others to their point of view. They are, to put it simply, theological propaganda written by unknown authors decades after the events they claim to describe. That’s at least three huge strikes against the Gospels right there, and here are three more: These Gospels disagree on many key points; they’ve clearly been tampered with by later, unknown people with their own agendas; and there’s virtually no independent collaboration for anything important that they have to say (other than for such trite things as yes, there was a Rome, and yes, there was a Jerusalem). For example, the Gospel of Matthew claims the Temple curtain was rent the day Jesus died, and a three-hour darkness fell over all the land, and an earthquake occurred, and saints rose from their graves and wandered Jerusalem. Not even the other Gospel writers noted these things, let alone the Romans. Dr. Thomas didn’t even attempt to defend what Matthew says as being historically accurate – she merely said one had to read it as symbol and poetry. If that’s the way we’re supposed to read the Bible, however, it’s hard to understand why we ought to believe Jesus actually existed anymore than we ought to believe the gods mentioned by Homer really existed.
contd;
I was reading this earlier and found it pretty interesting;
Did The Biblical Jesus Ever Actually Exist?” pitted American Atheist editor, author, and scientist Frank Zindler against Dr. Carolyn Thomas, a Catholic professor at the Pontifical College Josephinum and the author of several books herself.
As I’ve mentioned before – and as Zindler pointed out in his opening remarks – we actually have very little information about Jesus. If he existed, he doesn’t seem to have written anything. If he existed, nobody seems to have bothered to note what he looked like, let alone draw his picture. If he existed and did any of the things the Bible credits him with, nobody at the time seems to have cared enough or been impressed enough to write about it. It’s a very odd situation, to say the least.
The oldest reports concerning Jesus seem to be the letters of Paul. These letters seem to have been written years after Jesus had died by a man who never met him in the flesh. Paul is alleged to have had a vision or hallucination of Jesus, but it’s hard to accept that as proof that Jesus actually once existed even if that vision did unfold as the Bible reports. The same Bible tells us that those who allegedly had known Jesus in the flesh didn’t much care for Paul and at times angrily disputed his interpretation of Jesus’s message, which does little to bolster Paul’s credibility or authority. Some of the letters attributed to Paul and have made their way into the Bible are now recognized as forgeries written by people claiming to speak for him. Dr. Thomas herself granted this, claiming that it was a common and acceptable thing to do back then. She went on to claim that these unknown forgers nonetheless accurately conveyed Paul’s beliefs – a claim that begs for lots of supporting evidence. Alas, she gave none.
Virtually everything else people claim to know about Jesus comes from the four Gospels. As virtually everyone seems to agree, these Gospels weren’t written as objective reports of events but are the passionate attempts of Christians to sway others to their point of view. They are, to put it simply, theological propaganda written by unknown authors decades after the events they claim to describe. That’s at least three huge strikes against the Gospels right there, and here are three more: These Gospels disagree on many key points; they’ve clearly been tampered with by later, unknown people with their own agendas; and there’s virtually no independent collaboration for anything important that they have to say (other than for such trite things as yes, there was a Rome, and yes, there was a Jerusalem). For example, the Gospel of Matthew claims the Temple curtain was rent the day Jesus died, and a three-hour darkness fell over all the land, and an earthquake occurred, and saints rose from their graves and wandered Jerusalem. Not even the other Gospel writers noted these things, let alone the Romans. Dr. Thomas didn’t even attempt to defend what Matthew says as being historically accurate – she merely said one had to read it as symbol and poetry. If that’s the way we’re supposed to read the Bible, however, it’s hard to understand why we ought to believe Jesus actually existed anymore than we ought to believe the gods mentioned by Homer really existed.
contd;
------ This thread is Locked ------
A good deal of the debate centered on Flavius Josephus instead. Josephus was a Jewish historian who seems to make reference in his works at least twice to Christ, if not Jesus. Alas, Josephus, too, seems not to have been born until after Jesus had allegedly died, so whatever information he gives us about Jesus is secondhand, at best. That information’s reliability seems completely undermined by the fact that it’s been tampered with. As the Britannica summarizes, what was written “has been heavily revised by Christian scribes, and Josephus’s original remarks cannot be discerned.” According to Zindler, Josephus’s comments about Jesus violate the flow of his writing the way a meteorite violates a bowl of soup. In the works that Josephus wrote which specifically address the time and place Jesus allegedly lived, no mention of him is to be found. Jospehus does mention Herod, and his dislike for the man apparently caused him to catalog his many sins and faults; unfortunately for Bible-believers, however, he makes no mention of the Slaughter of the Innocents which Matthew quite famously ascribes to him. In the end, not only are we left with no independent corroborating evidence for what the Gospels say, we end up with good reasons to doubt their claims.
As Zindler pointed out at the start of his talk, it is not up to us to prove Jesus didn’t exist – it is up to those who claim that he did to prove it. Dr. Thomas barely even tried. At one point she lamely resorted to saying “People have believed in Jesus for almost two thousand years now, and no atheist is going to change that fact.” She may as well have said people have believed in astrology, or Hinduism, or the inferiority of women for even longer, and no amount of fact and logic will ever convince people to reject those things. Such comments about what people are likely to do are utterly irrelevant to the question of what they ought to do.
It’s possible that some of Dr. Thomas’s colleagues might have been able to offer a better defense of the claim that people ought to believe Jesus really existed, but a local newspaper tells me that they declined to enter the fray at all. “It would be hard for me to take the position [that Jesus didn’t exist] seriously,” one is quoted as saying. “I might have come out a little too strong.” A bit later, he’s quoted as saying “Our positions are diametrically opposed…. I wouldn’t know how to do it.” Do what? Debate someone who disagrees with you?? Why is it that Christians so often refuse to talk to those who disagree? Exactly what are they afraid of?
As Zindler pointed out at the start of his talk, it is not up to us to prove Jesus didn’t exist – it is up to those who claim that he did to prove it. Dr. Thomas barely even tried. At one point she lamely resorted to saying “People have believed in Jesus for almost two thousand years now, and no atheist is going to change that fact.” She may as well have said people have believed in astrology, or Hinduism, or the inferiority of women for even longer, and no amount of fact and logic will ever convince people to reject those things. Such comments about what people are likely to do are utterly irrelevant to the question of what they ought to do.
It’s possible that some of Dr. Thomas’s colleagues might have been able to offer a better defense of the claim that people ought to believe Jesus really existed, but a local newspaper tells me that they declined to enter the fray at all. “It would be hard for me to take the position [that Jesus didn’t exist] seriously,” one is quoted as saying. “I might have come out a little too strong.” A bit later, he’s quoted as saying “Our positions are diametrically opposed…. I wouldn’t know how to do it.” Do what? Debate someone who disagrees with you?? Why is it that Christians so often refuse to talk to those who disagree? Exactly what are they afraid of?
------ This thread is Locked ------
trish123: Hiya Mike - ya loon pot
Hey Trish123 !!!
How is my favorite and most gorgeous adversary doing today?
These are for you:
I hope you are having a great weekend.
The library is about to close, so I have to go, but I will be online tomorrow. I will look for you then.
I know you have seen me post many of this before, but please don't hesitate to comment.
These discussions are not the same without you.
I will be back to see your experts and raise you 3.
Talk to you soon.
Love ya!
Mike
------ This thread is Locked ------
This Thread is locked
More Threads
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
men's perspective towards women
the way you look
Feel Good Music
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
Sleepy Don!
The Best of the GOP
other can see but not you
Common Issues with the BMW X1
your personality
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).