Is God real post your thoughts!

[Sly_Wizard]

And lol at your "contradiction". You picked one that even I can refute. Sweet!

 

 

 

Notice the 'supposed' in Luke 3:23? This translates to the word "nomizo", which means "to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage". This is important, because the lineage in Luke goes through Mary while the lineage in Matthew goes through Joseph (Heli was Mary's father).

 

 

 

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

 

 

 

(Look at the chart.)

 

 

 

The supposed here is to signal the customary 'adoption' of Jesus by Joseph, thus allowing him the heritage that came from being Joseph's biological son.

 

 

 

Oh, and yes, I'm defending that guy. Like it or not, war is not morally wrong.

 

 

 

(Sorry for breaking it up. Apparently TIF doesn't like special characters and whatnot.)

[Zierro]

See the problem with the Bible is that it claims to be infallible - homosexuality is wrong cause it says so, war isn't wrong cause it says so, killing under the name of God isn't wrong cause it says so. We're going in circles here. Can you take it back a step and give us a reason why those things are the way they are other than "the Bible says so"? No you cannot. Why does the Bible say so is the real question here. You can't just slap the label "infallible" onto something and expect it to give "the truth" while it ignores all forms of reasoning. That's skipping a logical step.

[Lenticular_J]

When did you start considering the Bible literal? :?

[Zierro]

What is the difference between "gays should be killed" in a literal sense versus a metaphorical sense?

[Lenticular_J]

It was more a general thing.

[tryto]

First of all, the Bible doesn't say that you will be punished for all eternity, seeing as how Hell as en eternal place of torment does not exist. Secondly, the notion that Luke is the only Gospel which could actually be called a historical document is wildly inaccurate.

 

 

 

Then why does the current pope believe in it and has issued statements to that effect? Why does nearly all of the American Christian population believe in it as a real place? Surely they haven't been...misled, have they?

 

 

1.) The Gospel of Luke was written after both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the latter of which it borrowed heavily from. In fact, if I remember correctly, 72% of what can be found in Mark is also found in Luke. The only thing which differentiates Luke from Matthew or Mark is that it uses an unnamed third source whereas the previous two Gospels appear to ignored, which is why you see certain concepts of Jesus' divinity appear within Luke. The Gospel of Luke is not more or less historically accurate than any other Gospel (Though, it should be noted that I believe there's a dating error in Luke. It might be Mark. I can't remember atm).

 

 

 

 

Luke alludes to sources. Luke admits his information is second-hand. At least he's somewhat honestly reporting facts. It's Matthew I think; has something to do with Herod iirc. Did you just admit to a inconsistency? :P. I did not say, nor did Carrier say, that it was less historically ACCURATE. I said it was more of a historical DOCUMENT. If I quoted something, you might want to know where it came from, right? That's a fixture of historical documents too, which Luke simply attempts to do, while the other Gospels don't.

Typically, the argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is that it is mentioned nowhere else, not even by Origen who happened to cite a lesser known passage in which Josephus linked Jesus as being the brother of James the Just. However, few historians dispute Josephus' claim as James the Just being Jesus' brother BECAUSE Origen mentioned it in a few of his works during the 3rd century.

 

 

 

I faily to see why you mentioned Hinduism in your post. Hinduism has no central figure who is claimed to be the founder. This analogy would work better for, say, Buddhism. Buddhism follows the teachings of the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), even though he didn't leave any writing for himself. Do you deny his existence, even though he lived about 500 years prior to Jesus? I highly doubt it. Why? Because it leaves too many question unanswered and raises many, many, many new ones. It's easier to claim that a man named Siddhartha Gautama did indeed exist and started a religion than it is to assert that he didn't exist and a group of people decided to conjure up a lie (A lie, mind you, nowhere near as big as the lie James, John and Peter would have had to conjure up).

 

 

 

The reason your Odysseus blurb didn't warrant a serious response is because we know, once again, that a man named Odysseus existed. Do you not read up on your history?

 

 

 

And I take it you didn't read the link I gave you, huh? Yes, it's to Wikipedia but it's got oodles and oodles of documented sources, which you would at the very least take time to read. But, apparently you didn't read it. If you had you would have noticed it says at the top, and I quote:

 

 

 

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

 

 

 

Furthermore, your entire "it didn't link to any other historical sources other than the Gospels" is a flat out lie. You really haven't addressed anything. All you've done is stick your finger in your ear and proceed to ignore the absolutely overwhelming number of historians who do not dispute the fact that Jesus existed. Link to Richard Carrier all you like. He's in he minority. I could link to Kent Hovind all day long, but that doesn't make any of the things he says true or represent a majority.

 

 

 

Honestly, I'm not gonna' toot my own horn, so to speak, but this isn't a pissing contest-- This is a me proving you wrong contest.

 

 

 

2.) Furthermore, I'd like to know what, exactly was stolen from both Pythagoras and Empedocles. Pythagoras himself, believed in metempsychosis, which is equatable to the Hindu concept of reincarnation. As for Empedocles, well, the only thing I guess which could have been stolen from him was his concept of Love and Strife being the ultimate cosmic forces, but even that is a stretch.

 

 

 

Did it say it was stolen? No, it said it was the same type of document, just like how a physics textbook and a chemistry textbook are both science textbooks.

 

 

 

 

 

The label you proceed to place on those historians who do not support the "Jesus didn't exist" position is laughable. So, in other words, the majority of historians aren't really historians. Only that fringe group upon which you agree? Okay.

 

 

 

Tell me where I said that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth. Tell me where I said that, and I'll gladly back it up. I may have said that those who wrote the Gospels weren't historians, and damn right they weren't.

 

 

 

Now, I know that the Illiad isn't a Holy Book and I feel the point of the comparison was lost upon you. We were talking about the New Testament versus other Classical Era literature, of which there are significantly more copies and are about 99.5% contextually pure. Furthermore, yes, the oldest extant manuscript available is called the Rylands Papyrus. However, because that it the oldest surviving manuscript we have doesn't mean that the Gospels weren't written until then, as there is significant evidence that the 4 Gospels were mostly-- If not wholely-- Written in the 1st century AD. Generally, the proposed written dates of the 4 Gospels are as follows:

 

 

 

Mark: Somewhere between 57 - 73 AD

 

Matthew: 80 - 85 AD

 

Luke: 80 - 85 AD

 

John: 90 - 100 AD

 

 

 

Because it wasn't until many years after Jesus's death. Surely you've heard of the Myth of Bloody Mary?(http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/bloodymary.asp) It has sprung up in a very short time period; there are many other examples. I've talked about this even in my very first post and cited those dates nearly exactly, if you bothered to read it. I'm not disputing them(except for possibly John, it was written over a long time period and could be placed later or even earlier than your estimates. Rylands isn't much of a manuscript; it's a few verses, like I said :P.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really, I wonder what the point of bringing this up was. Anyway, continuing on.

 

 

 

 

 

Typically, the argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is that it is mentioned nowhere else, not even by Origen who happened to cite a lesser known passage in which Josephus linked Jesus as being the brother of James the Just. However, few historians dispute Josephus' claim as James the Just being Jesus' brother BECAUSE Origen mentioned it in a few of his works during the 3rd century.

 

 

 

 

 

I faily to see why you mentioned Hinduism in your post. Hinduism has no central figure who is claimed to be the founder. This analogy would work better for, say, Buddhism. Buddhism follows the teachings of the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), even though he didn't leave any writing for himself. Do you deny his existence, even though he lived about 500 years prior to Jesus? I highly doubt it. Why? Because it leaves too many question unanswered and raises many, many, many new ones. It's easier to claim that a man named Siddhartha Gautama did indeed exist and started a religion than it is to assert that he didn't exist and a group of people decided to conjure up a lie (A lie, mind you, nowhere near as big as the lie James, John and Peter would have had to conjure up).

 

 

 

Because I thought you would throw a fit about it being a conspiracy theory or some other trash. I'm not asserting that he didn't exist, because I simply haven't done enough research to be sure either way, so I'll fall into the line that he probably did. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN HIM. You do NOT believe in rebirth. So therefore, you believe that his spoken words about rebirth were FALSE.

 

I feel that this would work much better with Mithraism; it is based around a single man who performed miracles. Jesus was a man who worked miracles. I won't discuss any of the similarities because you'll throw a fit. In the time of that religion's heyday, people believed that he did miracles. Since Mithra himself did not spread those, it must have been his followers. Since you do NOT BELIEVE that his miracles occured, you must therefore state that they were LIES by his followers. What reason would they have for that? If Jesus did not exist, then wouldn't it be logical that his followers lied for the same reason or a similar one that Mithra's did, IF Jesus did not exist?

 

 

 

The reason your Odysseus blurb didn't warrant a serious response is because we know, once again, that a man named Odysseus existed. Do you not read up on your history?

 

 

 

Yes, a "KIng Odysseus". But did he travel to the Land of the Lotus-Eaters? Did he have a wife named Penelope pursued by suitors? Or did he merely share a name and possibly some characteristics. Jesus wasn't all that uncommon a name; if I found someone named Jesus at that time, I couldn't conclude that he was THAT Jesus without knowing of his activities. Jesus is a fairly common name in Southern America; are all of them THAT Jesus? Of course not.

 

 

 

And I take it you didn't read the link I gave you, huh? Yes, it's to Wikipedia but it's got oodles and oodles of documented sources, which you would at the very least take time to read. But, apparently you didn't read it. If you had you would have noticed it says at the top, and I quote:

 

 

 

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These historical methods use critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for the biography of Jesus, along with non-biblical sources to reconstruct the historical context of first-century Judea. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstructions vary, they generally include these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in the Iudaea Province during the governorship of Pontius Pilate.

 

 

 

I READ the entire thing. I read the whole thing, looking for these non-biblical sources. I found some on a linked page, but I addressed all of them in my first post.

 

 

 

Furthermore, your entire "it didn't link to any other historical sources other than the Gospels" is a flat out lie. You really haven't addressed anything. All you've done is stick your finger in your ear and proceed to ignore the absolutely overwhelming number of historians who do not dispute the fact that Jesus existed. Link to Richard Carrier all you like. He's in he minority. I could link to Kent Hovind all day long, but that doesn't make any of the things he says true or represent a majority.

 

 

 

Argumentum ad populum.

 

 

 

And lol at your "contradiction". You picked one that even I can refute. Sweet!

 

 

 

Notice the 'supposed' in Luke 3:23? This translates to the word "nomizo", which means "to hold by custom or usage, own as a custom or usage, to follow a custom or usage". This is important, because the lineage in Luke goes through Mary while the lineage in Matthew goes through Joseph (Heli was Mary's father).

 

 

 

http://wespatterson.com/biblical/adam_to_jesus.html

 

 

 

(Look at the chart.)

 

 

 

The supposed here is to signal the customary 'adoption' of Jesus by Joseph, thus allowing him the heritage that came from being Joseph's biological son.

 

 

 

Oh, and yes, I'm defending that guy. Like it or not, war is not morally wrong.

 

 

 

(Sorry for breaking it up. Apparently TIF doesn't like special characters and whatnot.)

 

 

 

Surely an all-powerful being could keep his Word from being completely wrecked and destroyed in meaning through translation. After all, it's only the key to salvation and the record of his glory. Would it not be simpler to just state that it is the line of Mary? Oh yeah, it's supposed to be as confusing as possible, heaven only has so many rooms in the father's house. Is rape morally wrong? Does the bible say that murder is wrong?

[Quoi_Tu]

Assuming religion is based on faith, what proof using reason could counter that which is outside the realm of reason? People have faith in God, but they have no evidence of God. They have no method of proving God's existence.

 

 

 

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

 

 

 

You're right, I didn't word that very well at all. By reason I meant factual reasoning. God cannot be proven to exist using factual evidence. That would be my point. God only exists through faith, which cannot be justified with fact. God cannot be proven to exist, but he also cannot be proven to not exist.

 

 

 

Even given that, people still pretend they can prove/disprove God's existence, which is just ridiculous.

[tryto]

Assuming religion is based on faith, what proof using reason could counter that which is outside the realm of reason? People have faith in God, but they have no evidence of God. They have no method of proving God's existence.

 

 

 

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood.

 

 

 

You're right, I didn't word that very well at all. By reason I meant factual reasoning. God cannot be proven to exist using factual evidence. That would be my point. God only exists through faith, which cannot be justified with fact. God cannot be proven to exist, but he also cannot be proven to not exist.

 

 

 

Even given that, people still pretend they can prove/disprove God's existence, which is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

I agree. God is inherently not falsifiable. God could probably prove his own existence, but no mortal could. However, with the clear complete lack of evidence, illogical traits, and the evils that have been propagated through religion, I do not believe that God exists.

[JtotheP]

I agree. God is inherently not falsifiable. God could probably prove his own existence, but no mortal could. However, with the clear complete lack of evidence, illogical traits, and the evils that have been propagated through religion, I do not believe that God exists.

 

 

 

The evils of this world is not the doings of God but of Satan. God isn't just going to go boom I'll fix every mistake of humankind. Instead he gives everyone a second chance by believing in Jesus as your Savior. This is the belief of the Christian religon.

[Quoi_Tu]

The evils of this world is not the doings of God but of Satan. God isn't just going to go boom I'll fix every mistake of humankind. Instead he gives everyone a second chance by believing in Jesus as your Savior. This is the belief of the Christian religon.

 

 

 

How is that a response to anything? Seriously, what?

[JtotheP]

Messed up the quote it was only to quote tryto. But I quoted it all. :wall:

 

 

 

On topic: I agree God cannot be proven or disproven accept its a matter of faith. And to me it just doesn't seem likely evolution got us to the way we are now. The probablity of what the evoultion theory states is far to large.

[Shinjula]

Then your missing the point of evolution, its not just random, its constrained by functionality, THAT'S what makes it work.

 

 

 

Its easiest to see it working in design, evolution works great when used as a tool, pick a design for something, make thirty copies but each with a small difference, then throw away the ones you dont like, then take each of those and make thirty small changes to them adnthrow away the ones you dont like, then pick the best one from those you have left, then repeat the process.

 

 

 

I use this when I'm making abstract sculptures and it works superbly, once you understand the process its easy to see how it would work with an organising agency (i.e.) me simply replaced by 'ability to survive'

 

 

 

And sure it doesn't explain where life came from initially, but then it's never supposed to. It may be that a random chance occured which kick started the whole process off, or that life came from space (which whilst doesn't answer the question of where it came from does dramatically increase the space in which the random event occured to the point of infinity making it almost a certainty of happening) or maybe some god came along and sprung it into existence. But thats not the point, evolution can be seen in the world today, it can be seen in the past theres so much scientific evidence for it that the only people who deny it are those with a clear agenda not to accept it.

[JtotheP]

I'm mainly talking about the big bang and all that jazz. The possibility of all those events working out so well is so slim. And why hasn't another organism just randomly appeared on this earth? I believe in adaptation more then evolution. If we came from monkeys then why do monkeys still roam the earth? You don't see homo erectus walking around.

[Shinjula]

but the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, its physics not biology, why would you mention evolution there?

 

 

 

neither did we come from monkeys

[JtotheP]

Then the evolution theory I was taught in school is terribly wrong.

 

 

 

But the big bang theory has everything to do with God because most people who believe in God believe in creationism.

[Shinjula]

apparently so, and so may i suggest that you pop to a library and find some books on evolution from a pro evolution stance and have a bit of a look, because you sound like a fari minded chap and it sounds like your teachers have done you a great disservice.

 

 

 

You might be surprised to find, give a chance to explore on your own how rational a theory it actually is.

[Shinjula]

But the big bang theory has everything to do with God because most people who believe in God believe in creationism.

 

Not sure quite what you mean here, I'm guessing you arent talking about the branch of chiristianity called "Creationism" here? If so what do you mean?

[JtotheP]

Which theory evolution or big bang.

[Shinjula]

evolution,

 

 

 

er, and the big bang theory is probably quite different to qhat you imagine also, are you aware it doesnt talk about what happened right at the start of the universe? and that its entirely compatible with a creator god?

[JtotheP]

So then why are we talking about evolution now lol. BESIDES the fact that I said evolution instead of big bang on my first post becausae it late at night and I wasn't thinking straight.

[Shinjula]

ok sure not a prob, everyone makes mistakes, but at least from a science guys perspectiive those two things are so far away from each other, that i hope its understandable if i do a double take, and do wonder a bit about your education, im not meaning an insult to you, but to your teachers

 

 

 

so whats the problem with the big bang?

[JtotheP]

Public school systems at its best. AND I got straight A's in that class.

[warri0r45]

JtotheP,

 

 

 

Check out the following site for easy to understand info on evolution:

 

 

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

 

 

We didn't come from monkeys, we share common ancestry with them (a concept the site will explain). As for why Homo erectus is no longer with us, the species died out a long time ago.

[Shinjula]

im not convinced its anything to do with public schools, im also from a publiclly funded school.

 

 

 

so whats the problem with the big bang theory?

 

 

 

The universe is getting bigger, so projecting backwards it came from something smaller, if it came from a single point there would be a remnant of radiation in the microwave range which would be detectable, we look for that remnant, and hey presto we find it. Its one of the most simply breathtaking results of the modern world, a theory which makes a single prediction, something no one else had every thought to look for and when we look and find it thats damn good evidence that the theory is right.

 

 

 

Beyond that, thousands and thousands of results have also been predicted by the theory and lo and behold those results have been found to be true.

 

 

 

There are some smaller pieces of data which have initially fail to fit the pattern but really all thats done is to slightly improve the theory.

[JtotheP]

Yet it will always be a "theory" and just like God will never be proven.