Is God real post your thoughts!

[Zierro]

But when you say it like that, it's saying it as if it has been confirmed... which means there is a burden of proof on you.

[venomai]

You're interpreting the words to mean "proven," which they do not.

 

 

 

And where the burden of proof lies is irrelevant to the question of hypocrisy. As I've said, it's not an argument for strong atheism.

[Zierro]

And this is not a two-way street because...?

[tryto]

Because it's not an atheists bailiwick to disprove something unproven in the first place. By the very definition of the word, an atheist cannot make a positive claim.

 

I say again, prove that Carl Sagan does not have an invisible, undetectable dragon in his garage.

[venomai]

And this is not a two-way street because...?

 

What does this have to do with anything?

 

 

 

I'm really getting tired of this... Can you show in any credible manner that I am indeed hypocritical or even unreasonable because I assert that god does not exist?

[tryto]

Did Jesus Even Exist?

 

Cobbled together something to get this thread off this irritating tangent.

 

 

 

Part A: No References to Jesus in his time.

 

 

 

The earliest writings on Jesus are the Gospels. The earliest of these, Mark, was written no earlier than 65 CE, and possibly as late as 75 CE. Jesus died around 30-35 CE, so Mark would have been written between 30-50 years AFTER Jesus's alleged death.

 

 

 

 

 

Later references to Jesus are listed below, in addition to the New Testament.

 

 

 

· Pliny - c110CE

 

· Thallus - cited in c300CE

 

· Talmud - 200-500CE

 

· Suetonius - c120CE

 

· Tactitus - 110CE

 

 

 

Jesus is shown in the Gospels to be of rock star popularity; huge crowds show up to meet him, people unable to move have to be lowered into buildings, crowds grow so big he is forced to sermonize from a boat, and thousands showed up to watch him perform miracles.

 

 

 

Remsberg notes: "(While) Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library, (no where)... in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged brief passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."

 

 

 

Wouldn't some of these people find this important enough to write about?

 

 

 

 

 

B. Prophecies.

 

 

 

The messiah was supposed to fulfill certain prophecies.

 

 

 

 

 

A. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

 

 

 

B. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One". (Zechariah 14:9).

 

 

 

C. Build the Third Temple. (Ezekiel 37:26-28 ).

 

 

 

D. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel. (Isaiah 43:5-6).

 

 

 

Jesus has fulfilled none of these prophecies. A second coming argument is useless as Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

 

 

 

OT passages are often taken out of context to show Jesus as having fulfilled prophecies.

 

 

 

http://my.opera.com/Heathen%20Dan/blog/ ... skepticism

 

 

 

To give but one example, in what is probably the most well known Messianic Prophecy, Mattew quotes a verse from the Book of Isaiah:

 

 

 

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

 

19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

 

20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;

 

21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

 

22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

 

23 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).

 

 

 

Matt. 1:18-23 (NRSV)

 

 

 

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

 

 

 

Isaiah 7:14 (NRSV)

 

 

 

There are a few problems with Matthew's quotation of Isaiah. One, Matthew uses the word virgin (greek - parthenos) whereas the original is young woman (hebrew - almah). While most other versions would also use the word virgin in Isaiah, it is usually because they're reading the verse in light of Matthew's quotation. It is believed that Matthew used virgin (parthenos) because he used the greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scripture, which also used the word parthenos. In the original Hebrew the word used is almah, which is not quite the same as virgin. Almah means young woman or maiden, while another Hebrew word, bethulah, would be the equivalent for parthenos/virgin.

 

 

 

Also, in Matthew's quote, he uses the future tense "shall conceive" while the original uses the present tense "is with child." Randel Helms notes that "Hebrew has no future tense as such" (p. 49) and suggests that it should be read in the present tense.

 

 

 

Ok, so Matthew is not a good transcriber, but even if the two objections can be met, he is still guilty of out-of-context quotation. If we read Isaiah 7, we can see that the verse does not refer to a future prophecy of the coming Messiah. The chapter starts with the Kingdom of Ahaz (Judah) being attacked by King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel . Isaiah was sent by the Hebrew god to Ahaz' court to console the king, assuring the monarch that the invasion will not succeed. To prove his point, Isaiah says:

 

 

 

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

 

15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

 

16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

 

 

 

Isaiah 7:14-16 (NRSV)

 

 

 

In other words, before the child learns good from evil (a time span of a few years), his enemies will be defeated. It's not a prophecy about Jesus or the Messiah, and Matthew grossly distorted what the text plainly says. A part of the child's life, from conception to about the age of three or four, is used by Isaiah as a metric of time. To read Messianic Prophecy from it is to engage in creative mental acrobatics.

 

 

 

C. Eye-Witness Accounts.

 

 

 

There aren't any.

 

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." [Luke 1:1-2 NIV]

 

 

 

What we hear are tales written several decades after the events have happened, and by people who WEREN'T EVEN THERE. Sly mentioned a game of telephone earlier :P. They can't be trusted as accurate.

 

 

 

D.

 

 

 

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Marks Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

 

- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

 

 

 

Here is a list of the parallels between the Gospels and the OT.

[Lenticular_J]

Well, if Jesus didn't exist, our calendars are even more all kindsa [bleep]ed up.

[Sly_Wizard]

I'm not reading that big blurb above.

 

 

 

Yes, Jesus existed.

 

 

 

/end

[Zierro]

And this is not a two-way street because...?

 

What does this have to do with anything?

 

 

 

I'm really getting tired of this... Can you show in any credible manner that I am indeed hypocritical or even unreasonable because I assert that god does not exist?

 

 

 

It's only unreasonable if you ask theists for proof if they say "God does exist". After all, Saru was giving a hypothetical and Ginger said those type of people are hypocrites. If you are telling me that you fit that description then I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree.

 

 

 

PS: Didn't we talk about this exact thing before on here?

[tennisnick12]

Since I am not a biblical or historical scholar I can not refute your individual claims tryto, but here is some proof.

 

 

 

Flavius Josephus. Josephus was born in either 37 or 38 A. D. When he was 26 years old, he took upon himself the mission of seeking to improve the relations between the Jews and the Romans. He was a historian who was highly respected by the Roman world. He was held in such high regard that he was allowed to accompany Titus when Titus led the Romans Army against Jerusalem (70 A. D.). Josephus wrote several books that have come down to us today, History of the Jewish War (seven different books) and Jewish Antiquities, to name some. Josephus was not a Christian himself. We read:

 

 

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

 

 

 

In all fairness, many among scholars today are claiming that the above just quoted was not originally written by Josephus but is an interpolation. However, the passage is present in every copy of which we have knowledge, just as quoted. The above passage was twice quoted by Eusebius as early as 315 A. D. Another passage in which Josephus mentions the historic Jesus is found in Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 9, and Section 1. This second reference has received comparatively little rejection. After exhaustive research, it could very well be that very early on, a copyist dressed up Josephus' first statement in an attempt to make it more favorable to Jesus. The passage is found in the context of references to sedition, before and after the passage. The above quotation does make reference to, "the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time." This is probably, no doubt, part of the pure text, if the text were doctored. However, even if we allow for the early changing of the text, most would have to agree that Josephus does historically allude to Jesus.

 

 

 

Carius Cornelius Tacitus (many of his writings were about 100 A. D.). Tacitus was a Roman historian who reportedly hated Christians. In writing about the life of Nero and the accusation that he burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians, Tacitus says:

 

 

 

"Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified; others having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death" (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

 

 

Notice that while Tacitus had no regard for the Christians of whom he wrote, he does mention Christ as being the founder of their belief.

 

 

 

Suetonius (Roman historian, born about 88 A. D.). While Suetonius does not mention Christ by name, he does refer to Christianity. This reference and many more that could be supplied proves the early origin of Christianity and details that are congruous with the biblical account. Hear his brief statement in also writing about the life of Nero whose reign began in 54 and ended in 68 A. D.:

 

 

 

"Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, pg. 197).

 

 

 

Pliny the younger, born in 61 A. D. Pliny was sent by the Emperor Trajan to Bithynia in 112 as propraetor. Having found a large number of Christians there, he wrote back to Trajan to get information on how to deal with them. Pliny says to Trajan:

 

 

 

"It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. For who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed." Under specific item number five of his letter, Pliny wrote: "All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose, together with the statutes of the deities; and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

 

 

 

Under item number six, he continued:

 

 

 

"Others named by the informer first said that they were Christians and then denied it; declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some having recanted three years or more before and one or two as long as twenty years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ."

 

 

 

Taken From:http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR217.htm

 

 

 

This is just some proof that has been compiled by people smarter than me.

[Saru Inc]

Exactly. I've no problem with people saying "I don't believe in God", because that's a personal opinion that doesn't need justifying to anyone else but you. The same applies to those who believe in God too.

 

 

 

Hell, I'll even go as far to say I wish there was a higher being. I just don't personally believe there is one.

 

 

 

It's when people go about saying, "God does exist", or "God definitely does not exist" that I have a problem. There is no 100% reliable, conclusive evidence for either of those two claims.

 

 

 

Well, here's the thing, there are facts for both side. You just have to figure out which hold more validity.

 

 

 

Athestic side:

 

 

 

Evolution

 

Big Bang

 

And "Logic"

 

 

 

While on the Christian side, we believe that the Bible holds all the facts we need, but you can find them out other ways. On another note, my dad is going to bring home a book from his work about the worlds leading Atheist who became a Christian. (I don't know who, but I can't wait to read.)

[Rebdragon]

Again, for the love of God, Christianity and stupidity are not mutually inclusive.

[RayOxide]

@Ginger - You said something about "There's not proof aboutthere being no god"

 

or something like that

 

 

 

There literally is no proof of God.

 

(or what I have seen/heard)

 

 

 

And someone who said one person became to become a Homosapien,

 

lol no scientology pl0x.

[warri0r45]

Athestic side:

 

 

 

Evolution

 

Big Bang

 

And "Logic"

 

 

 

That's a very gross oversimplification, and it's wrong. Both atheists and Christians can accept evolution and the big bang. Take these Gallup polls, for example. [1] Even though Americans are around 75-80% Christian [2], around 50% of them accept evolution, be it with or without the aid of god.

 

 

 

What you described is the current scientific understanding of how we got here; it's not an atheist creed. It just so happens that many atheists, having no fundamental contradictory religious beliefs, see it as the most logical explanation to how we got here.

[Zierro]

@Ginger - You said something about "There's not proof aboutthere being no god"

 

or something like that

 

 

 

There literally is no proof of God.

 

(or what I have seen/heard)

 

 

 

And someone who said one person became to become a Homosapien,

 

lol no scientology pl0x.

 

 

 

There's literally no proof for or against God's existence which is why I think the burden of proof argument is so silly when applied here.

[RayOxide]

Well Zierro it's true there is no proof on God either way,

 

but there's much more proof by Science.

 

 

 

This hasnt started a real flame war yet thank god. :|

[Cup Lion]

Only 100+ pages of discussion that has gotten us nowhere. :D

[RayOxide]

Thats what happens in un-answerable threads.

[Saru Inc]

Athestic side:

 

 

 

Evolution

 

Big Bang

 

And "Logic"

 

 

 

That's a very gross oversimplification, and it's wrong. Both atheists and Christians can accept evolution and the big bang. Take these Gallup polls, for example. [1] Even though Americans are around 75-80% Christian [2], around 50% of them accept evolution, be it with or without the aid of god.

 

 

 

What you described is the current scientific understanding of how we got here; it's not an atheist creed. It just so happens that many atheists, having no fundamental contradictory religious beliefs, see it as the most logical explanation to how we got here.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the thing, Christians CAN'T accept Big Bang or Evolution, the Bible leaves no room for it. And in this case, your logic is an opinion. Everyone has their opinion of how we got here. For Atheists: science or whatever. Christians: God. It's facts to both sides, but still an opinion.

[RayOxide]

For Atheists: science or whatever.

 

 

 

Naise.

 

Many atheists do beleive in science, but a MAJORITY honestly do not care how they got on this world.

[warri0r45]

Athestic side:

 

 

 

Evolution

 

Big Bang

 

And "Logic"

 

 

 

That's a very gross oversimplification, and it's wrong. Both atheists and Christians can accept evolution and the big bang. Take these Gallup polls, for example. [1] Even though Americans are around 75-80% Christian [2], around 50% of them accept evolution, be it with or without the aid of god.

 

 

 

What you described is the current scientific understanding of how we got here; it's not an atheist creed. It just so happens that many atheists, having no fundamental contradictory religious beliefs, see it as the most logical explanation to how we got here.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the thing, Christians CAN'T accept Big Bang or Evolution, the Bible leaves no room for it. And in this case, your logic is an opinion. Everyone has their opinion of how we got here. For Atheists: science or whatever. Christians: God. It's facts to both sides, but still an opinion.

 

 

 

Of course they can, because they do. The bible says nothing of the specifics of creation, and many Christians take the genesis account metaphorically rather than literally, hence many of them can and do accept evolution and the big bang. I'm sorry, that's just plain obvious truth. You're still reducing the argument to a false dilemma.

 

 

 

Maybe you've not yet been introduced to the concept of theistic evolution.

[Obtaurian]

Athestic side:

 

 

 

Evolution

 

Big Bang

 

And "Logic"

 

 

 

That's a very gross oversimplification, and it's wrong. Both atheists and Christians can accept evolution and the big bang. Take these Gallup polls, for example. [1] Even though Americans are around 75-80% Christian [2], around 50% of them accept evolution, be it with or without the aid of god.

 

 

 

What you described is the current scientific understanding of how we got here; it's not an atheist creed. It just so happens that many atheists, having no fundamental contradictory religious beliefs, see it as the most logical explanation to how we got here.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the thing, Christians CAN'T accept Big Bang or Evolution, the Bible leaves no room for it. And in this case, your logic is an opinion. Everyone has their opinion of how we got here. For Atheists: science or whatever. Christians: God. It's facts to both sides, but still an opinion.

 

 

 

You always seem to talk about science like it's another religion. If I put a horse in front of you, and asked you if it was really there or not, what would you say?

 

 

 

You'd probably look at me funny and make a smartass remark about me being blind.

 

 

 

That's kind of how people feel when other people completely dismiss science. You can deny and deny until you're blue in the face, but evolution is real, the big bang happened, and the Earth is 4 billion years old.

 

 

 

No amount of faith and hope will change that.

[tryto]

Since I am not a biblical or historical scholar I can not refute your individual claims tryto, but here is some proof.

 

 

 

Flavius Josephus. Josephus was born in either 37 or 38 A. D. When he was 26 years old, he took upon himself the mission of seeking to improve the relations between the Jews and the Romans. He was a historian who was highly respected by the Roman world. He was held in such high regard that he was allowed to accompany Titus when Titus led the Romans Army against Jerusalem (70 A. D.). Josephus wrote several books that have come down to us today, History of the Jewish War (seven different books) and Jewish Antiquities, to name some. Josephus was not a Christian himself. We read:

 

 

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

 

 

 

In all fairness, many among scholars today are claiming that the above just quoted was not originally written by Josephus but is an interpolation. However, the passage is present in every copy of which we have knowledge, just as quoted. The above passage was twice quoted by Eusebius as early as 315 A. D. Another passage in which Josephus mentions the historic Jesus is found in Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 9, and Section 1. This second reference has received comparatively little rejection. After exhaustive research, it could very well be that very early on, a copyist dressed up Josephus' first statement in an attempt to make it more favorable to Jesus. The passage is found in the context of references to sedition, before and after the passage. The above quotation does make reference to, "the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time." This is probably, no doubt, part of the pure text, if the text were doctored. However, even if we allow for the early changing of the text, most would have to agree that Josephus does historically allude to Jesus.

 

 

 

Carius Cornelius Tacitus (many of his writings were about 100 A. D.). Tacitus was a Roman historian who reportedly hated Christians. In writing about the life of Nero and the accusation that he burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians, Tacitus says:

 

 

 

"Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified; others having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death" (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

 

 

Notice that while Tacitus had no regard for the Christians of whom he wrote, he does mention Christ as being the founder of their belief.

 

 

 

Suetonius (Roman historian, born about 88 A. D.). While Suetonius does not mention Christ by name, he does refer to Christianity. This reference and many more that could be supplied proves the early origin of Christianity and details that are congruous with the biblical account. Hear his brief statement in also writing about the life of Nero whose reign began in 54 and ended in 68 A. D.:

 

 

 

"Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, pg. 197).

 

 

 

Pliny the younger, born in 61 A. D. Pliny was sent by the Emperor Trajan to Bithynia in 112 as propraetor. Having found a large number of Christians there, he wrote back to Trajan to get information on how to deal with them. Pliny says to Trajan:

 

 

 

"It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. For who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed." Under specific item number five of his letter, Pliny wrote: "All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose, together with the statutes of the deities; and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

 

 

 

Under item number six, he continued:

 

 

 

"Others named by the informer first said that they were Christians and then denied it; declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some having recanted three years or more before and one or two as long as twenty years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ."

 

 

 

Taken From:http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR217.htm

 

 

 

This is just some proof that has been compiled by people smarter than me.

 

 

 

*Josephus is a known forgery, an interpolation penciled in over his work sometime in the fourth century. There ARE some earlier volumes found which do not have this.

 

 

 

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

 

 

 

Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

 

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html

 

 

 

*Pliny does not mention Jesus by name, and only alludes to a Christ(again, this is ~70 years after death)

 

 

 

*Tacitus again, only refers to Christos, does not mention his name, and is ~80 years after death.

 

 

 

*Suetonius does not mention a Christ or Jesus. Heh.

 

 

 

Next.

[Lenticular_J]

That's kind of how people feel when other people completely dismiss science. You can deny and deny until you're blue in the face, but evolution is real, the big bang happened, and the Earth is 4 billion years old.

 

I know the first one, pretty sure about the second, but I dunno about the last one. Can't really be too positive about that yet.

 

 

 

And someone who said one person became to become a Homosapien,

 

lol no scientology pl0x.

 

...You mean science? Every organism on the planet is somehow related to every other individual of its own species.

 

 

 

There literally is no proof of God.

 

(or what I have seen/heard)

 

No proof against Him, either. And if we're going off what people can see/hear over whether or not there's a God, there are billions.

[Utopianflame]

The generally accepted esitmate for the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years, although there is a solid lower bound of 3.8 billion years dated from earth rocks (this may actually be higher now, in september they found earth rocks that are currently dated to ~4.2-4.3 billion years) establishing the upper bound is the hard bit and is generally done with isochron dating on lead isotopes with assumptions on the formation of the solar system. So while it is possible the universe is older than we think, it is certainly not much younger and Saruman44's age of the earth being 1 million years or younger is unequivocally wrong.