# Did Jesus Exist?



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...and yet you're willing to believe what scientists tell us about ancient man based on archeological digs and such....from thousands and thousands of years ago?  I'm just sayin'.
> 
> I get your point.  But very clearly he was written about by sources outside the Bible who had no vested interest in furthering the "myth".
> 
> ...



Yes, there is evidence in those digs.

He has been written about since by people that claim to talk to him and see him. Then again Elvis is seen DAILY by people that have no vested interest in furthering the "myth".

I can tell you this for certain, I have a Barber Shop. I HEAR it ALL! I get the inside scoop on everything. Unfortunately, unless I SEE it happening or YOU tell me it happened to YOU any other source is UNRELIABLE! PERIOD. It is not even earth shaking anymore when a customer who "died" last week walks through the door for a trim the next week. Reliable sources......I don't think so, not 40 years later, not 200 years later, not 2000 years later.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

Here's the whole quote.  I had changed it prior to this thread getting started.  The thing about great grandma is important.



> ...and yet you're willing to believe what scientists tell us about ancient man based on archeological digs and such....from thousands and thousands of years ago? I'm just sayin'.
> 
> I get your point. But very clearly he was written about by sources outside the Bible who had no vested interest in furthering the "myth". Several were within a single generation (and those are just the ones we know of at this point....tough for papyrus so survive 2000 years).
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Compelling:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

Once again....my accounts of my great-gramma are "hearsay".  Do you doubt her existence as well?  

I know people who are alive today who knew her well.  I never met the woman.  But I can give you accurate and reliable accounts that she did, indeed exist even thought she died many many years ago.

"You had to be there for me to believe it" is weak.  The hearsay argument is weak as well.

There are non-christian writings that occurred within a generation and two generations.  That is certainly enough for accurate reliable accounts...especially when dealing with a society that THRIVED on oral tradition.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool, no doubt about your great grandma and that example. My guess is that there is more evidence about her existence than Jesus and she did not perform miracles!

One did not have to be a believer or christian to witness Jesus in his prime. In the three years he did his preaching and miracles it had to be witnessed by THOUSANDS of people that were both with him, against him, or seeing it for the first time yet no accurate accounts of it are noted anywhere. Yet in those times accurate records were kept of deaths, taxes, births and events.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Once again....my accounts of my great-gramma are "hearsay".  Do you doubt her existence as well?
> 
> I know people who are alive today who knew her well.  I never met the woman.  But I can give you accurate and reliable accounts that she did, indeed exist even thought she died many many years ago.
> 
> ...



You don't have to be there to believe it. No not at all, BUT if your going to write about it like you witnessed it then you better have been there.


----------



## TheBishop (May 23, 2011)

There is more evidence than just hearsay to prove you grandmas exsitence.  There is not with Jesus.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Huntinfool, no doubt about your great grandma and that example. My guess is that there is more evidence about her existence than Jesus and she did not perform miracles!
> 
> One did not have to be a believer or christian to witness Jesus in his prime. In the three years he did his preaching and miracles it had to be witnessed by THOUSANDS of people that were both with him, against him, or seeing it for the first time yet no accurate accounts of it are noted anywhere. Yet in those times accurate records were kept of deaths, taxes, births and events.



I have the benefit of the internet, photographs and stories that are written on acid paper that will not degrade like papyrus.  Details of her existence are readily available because she only died a few decades ago.

Would you agree with me that most of the people that Jesus hung out with and preached to were likely not able to write, or could not likely afford a diary and pencil?  

Come on....are you really telling me that you're willing to deny historical accounts from within a single generation?  So, now you're going to "there is not a MOUNTAIN of evidence" now that the fact that there IS indeed evidence has been established?

All I asked is whether you agreed that there was sufficient evidence to at least establish that it's likely someone named Jesus existed around 33 AD.  I'm not asking you to accept him as savior.  I don't know how you can dismiss the fact that written historical evidence (in multiple source) does exist and that much of it is within a single (or two at worst) generation of his death.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> There is more evidence than just hearsay to prove you grandmas exsitence.  There is not with Jesus.



Too bad someone didn't take a Polaroid at Calvary....would have been helpful.  Too bad Wal-Mart was all sold out of instant film that day.


"Hearsay" is a weak argument.  Credible sources exist outside of the Bible.  Do you dimiss everything that those guys wrote then?  Or just the part you don't want to own up to?


----------



## TheBishop (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Too bad someone didn't take a Polaroid at Calvary....would have been helpful.  Too bad Wal-Mart was all sold out of instant film that day.
> 
> 
> "Hearsay" is a weak argument.  Credible sources exist outside of the Bible.  Do you dimiss everything that those guys wrote then?  Or just the part you don't want to own up to?



I dismiss pretty much the entire bible.  It's been diluted too much to support to many agendas.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I have the benefit of the internet, photographs and stories that are written on acid paper that will not degrade like papyrus.  Details of her existence are readily available because she only died a few decades ago.
> 
> Would you agree with me that most of the people that Jesus hung out with and preached to were likely not able to write, or could not likely afford a diary and pencil?
> 
> ...



Agreed that most people Jesus would have known or hung out with and preached to were probably illiterate and poor. And except for Paul being a teacher( who never claimed to have met Jesus and was not trusted by the Apostles), the disciples were probably poor uneducated fishermen, yet some claim they wrote the Gospels!

The evidence that Jesus was man is quite suspect and the lack of it speaks volumes to why I doubt he was the son of god. There is as much written about other "real" people that claimed to be the son of god well before Jesus too.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Too bad someone didn't take a Polaroid at Calvary....would have been helpful.  Too bad Wal-Mart was all sold out of instant film that day.
> 
> 
> "Hearsay" is a weak argument.  Credible sources exist outside of the Bible.  Do you dimiss everything that those guys wrote then?  Or just the part you don't want to own up to?



Most of those guys that wrote about Jesus, those credible sources listed in the articles, wrote about the hype, the movement, the following, the religious beliefs of the people who thought Jesus was the son of god. They did not write of his miracles or their witnessing him in action.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

I didn't ask that.  I just asked if there was sufficient evidence to believe he existed.  

I agree, there is very little written evidence of miracles outside of the Bible.


----------



## pnome (May 23, 2011)

I have 0 doubts that there was a man from Nazareth named Jesus who lived and taught and had followers in ancient Judea. 

I have 0 doubts that there was a man from Athens named Socrates who once lived and taught and had followers in ancient Greece.

Neither of these claims is extraordinary.  And thus, neither requires extraordinary evidence.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> I dismiss pretty much the entire bible.  It's been diluted too much to support to many agendas.



When do you think it was diluted?  In the first 100 years after it was written or pretty evenly over the years?  During the 1500s?  During the 1800s?  Curious.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> I have 0 doubts that there was a man from Nazareth named Jesus who lived and taught and had followers in ancient Judea.
> 
> I have 0 doubts that there was a man from Athens named Socrates who once lived and taught and had followers in ancient Greece.
> 
> Neither of these claims is extraordinary.  And thus, neither requires extraordinary evidence.



Excellent. Now do some research and see exactly WHEN the town of Nazareth existed.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I didn't ask that.  I just asked if there was sufficient evidence to believe he existed.
> 
> I agree, there is very little written evidence of miracles outside of the Bible.



With the amount of evidence( or lack of) that points to a guy named Jesus, no I do not think there is enough evidence for me to think he existed. I'll give a a definite maybe.


----------



## TheBishop (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> When do you think it was diluted?  In the first 100 years after it was written or pretty evenly over the years?  During the 1500s?  During the 1800s?  Curious.



Throughout its entire exsistence, with every translation and every version.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> When do you think it was diluted?  In the first 100 years after it was written or pretty evenly over the years?  During the 1500s?  During the 1800s?  Curious.



The very millisecond man put the first ink dot on paper.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Most of those guys that wrote about Jesus, those credible sources listed in the articles, wrote about the hype, the movement, the following, the religious beliefs of the people who thought Jesus was the son of god. They did not write of his miracles or their witnessing him in action.



But....you called them credible sources in this post.  I'm confused.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The very millisecond man put the first ink dot on paper.



"Diluted" implies that it was "pure" at some point.  This cannot be accurate if that's the case.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Throughout its entire exsistence, with every translation and every version.



interesting.  as far as the NT goes, we've got archeological finds of the NT that date back to mid 200s AD...less than 150 years from its original writing.  When compared to what we have today, it is more than 99% the same.

How do you reconcile your statement with archeological finds that prove otherwise?


----------



## pnome (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Excellent. Now do some research and see exactly WHEN the town of Nazareth existed.



I would hazard to guess that no one knows the answer to that question.

Look at Troy.  We've got archeological evidence of 9 different iterations of Troy.  That's just what we have evidence of.  One can imagine there had been a group of people living in that spot for much much longer.

The existence of a village called Nazareth or something similar is also not particularly extraordinary.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> But....you called them credible sources in this post.  I'm confused.



I was using your words so you know which sources I am referring to.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> "Diluted" implies that it was "pure" at some point.  This cannot be accurate if that's the case.



No it does not imply "pure" at any point. It means it was even more diluted when man decided to write it down hundreds and thousands of years after the fact. The fact that scrolls were found in the dead sea is quite awesome. The fact that within some of those scrolls told the story of God/Jesus AND stories that directly countered those tales is believable. The fact that MAN chose to pick and choose which ones would make the book is deplorable.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

Ah...


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> No it does not imply "pure" at any point. It means it was even more diluted when man decided to write it down hundreds and thousands of years after the fact. The fact that scrolls were found in the dead sea is quite awesome. The fact that within some of those scrolls told the story of God/Jesus AND stories that directly countered those tales is believable. The fact that MAN chose to pick and choose which ones would make the book is deplorable.



You do understand the concept of "diluted", correct?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> I would hazard to guess that no one knows the answer to that question.
> 
> Look at Troy.  We've got archeological evidence of 9 different iterations of Troy.  That's just what we have evidence of.  One can imagine there had been a group of people living in that spot for much much longer.
> 
> The existence of a village called Nazareth or something similar is also not particularly extraordinary.



We are not talking about Troy. You said "I have 0 doubts that there was a man from Nazareth named Jesus who lived and taught and had followers in ancient Judea." Well  I just wanted to inform you that he was given that title long after the fact. Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT and only first appears in Matthew which was written after Jesus died and about the time Nazareth was named. The area consisted of tombs and it was forbidden that anyone lived near it.


----------



## pnome (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT and only first appears in Matthew which was written after Jesus died and about the time Nazareth was named. The area consisted of tombs and it was forbidden that anyone lived near it.



Troy isn't mentioned in the OT either.  So what?  This is an insignificant detail.  I'll take the NT's word for it.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You do understand the concept of "diluted", correct?



Yes I do. I guess there is "pure" truth and "pure" fabrication. I bet you can guess which one of those I think it has been diluted from.


----------



## TheBishop (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> interesting.  as far as the NT goes, we've got archeological finds of the NT that date back to mid 200s AD...less than 150 years from its original writing.  When compared to what we have today, it is more than 99% the same.
> 
> How do you reconcile your statement with archeological finds that prove otherwise?



How many times has it been translated? How many versions are there? Is every version 99% accurate?  If thats the case why the need for so many?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> Troy isn't mentioned in the OT either.  So what?  This is an insignificant detail.  I'll take the NT's word for it.



I cannot fault you for that pnome. But realize that things like this are the things that lead me to believe that the entire book is fallible and full of error and the reasons why I believe the way I do.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 23, 2011)

I was curious about what you posted about Nazareth because, honestly, I had never heard that.  Literally....this is the first site that came up, so I make no claim as to it's accuracy.  But it seems to be a pretty compelling and well written history and it completely contradicts what you posted. 

Obviously, it accepts that Jesus existed and lived there and it heavily quotes the Bible.  But it seems to be a pretty cleanly laid out history of Nazareth and whether it was inhabited and why (or why not) it was not listed in many historical accounts.  It bases it's statements on history and archaeological finds for the most part.

Just a curious contradiction.  I'll have to do some more reading.  At the very least I can say pretty confidently that your account of Nazareth is not necessarily "well documented".

It's from inisrael.com which is just an Israeli travel site as far as I can tell.  Could they have made it up to draw tourism?  I suppose.



> The Importance of Nazareth in the Christian Tradition
> 
> Nazareth was a small and insignificant village during the period of Jesus. While the site was settled during the period 600-900 BCE, it was too small to be included in the list of settlements of the tribe of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16), which mentions twelve towns and six villages. Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of the Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus, and her name is missing from the 63 towns in Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.It seems that the words of Nathanel of Cana, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:47) characterized the site’s seeming insignificance. It is needless to say that the people of Judea had never heard of Nazareth.
> And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” (John 19:19) – meaning that the “King of the Jews” is from “nowhere.” The early name “Nazarenes” given to the Christians might have been a derogatory nickname that the people of Judea gave to the followers of Jesus (Matthew 26:71, Acts 6:38). Jesus was known throughout the Galilee as “Jesus of Nazareth” (Matthew 21:11 , Mark 14:67) – but for those not from the Galilee, this name had no meaning for them. In order to explain where Nazareth was located, the Galileans had to explain that the village was near Gat-Hyefer (Jonah’s hometown,Kings II 14:25), which could be seen from Nazareth. Archeological excavations conducted in Nazareth (by Bagati since 1955) show that Nazareth was a small agricultural village settled by a few dozen families.
> ...


----------



## Jeff Phillips (May 23, 2011)

If you are really looking for answers to this question, Lee Strobel, a former Atheist, has written several books on this subject. It only costs $6 and a few evenings of your time...

http://www.christianbook.com/journa.../9780310242109/pd/242109?event=AFF&p=1011693&


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

Here is another decent read with conversation at the end to answer some questions that were later proposed to the author.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> How many times has it been translated? How many versions are there? Is every version 99% accurate?  If thats the case why the need for so many?



Original language vs original language.  Obviously, my English Bible is going to have different words than my Spanish Bible.


----------



## TheBishop (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Original language vs original language.  Obviously, my English Bible is going to have different words than my Spanish Bible.



You do realize that from english to spanish there are some things to don't quite translate 99% of the way don't you?  Care to answer the rest of the questions?


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> Care to answer the rest of the questions?



Why?  You just did.  Things translate differently.  Different translations stress different things.  One might stress flow and ease of reading...while the other might stress trying to be true to the text.

So....looking at the original language of the NT we had in the early 1900s to the original language we had around 200 AD, they're very close to the same.  How do you reconcile that to your original argument?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

From This Site:  http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

"The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!"


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/RC-translationsA.htm

Add a word, take a word out, change a sentence....whats the difference?


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.windmillministries.org/frames/RC-translationsA.htm
> 
> Add a word, take a word out, change a sentence....whats the difference?



Are you asking me?  Seems to me that they all say the same thing....and when they don't, they add a note.

But...to take out any translational issues(for the NT), compare the greek versions we had in the mid 1900s to the earliest greek manuscripts that we have found to date (around 200 AD).

There aren't the major discrpencancies that Bishop and others would have you to believe.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Are you asking me?  Seems to me that they all say the same thing....and when they don't, they add a note.
> 
> But...to take out any translational issues(for the NT), compare the greek versions we had in the mid 1900s to the earliest greek manuscripts that we have found to date (around 200 AD).
> 
> There aren't the major discrpencancies that Bishop and others would have you to believe.



http://www.v-a.com/bible/origins_of_the_scriptures.html


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.v-a.com/bible/origins_of_the_scriptures.html





Lowjack...is that you?



Really though, your skirting the question.  We can debate the original language of the NT later...yes, they spoke Aramaic, but it was written in Greek.

So....based on the Greek text we have in the 1900s and then compared to the earliest manuscripts that we have to date, they are almost identical.  How then could there be all of these manmade injections and errors?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

NT was written in Greek because it was the Language of the Roman Empire. Understood. It was translated from the scrolls which were in Aramaic. The Greek version to todays is version is very similar. The man made injections and errors occurred when the  translation went from Aramaic to Greek. It is erred and therefore each translation or version after it is erred no matter how close the version.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> NT was written in Greek because it was the Language of the Roman Empire. Understood. It was translated from the scrolls which were in Aramaic. The Greek version to todays is version is very similar. The man made injections and errors occurred when the  translation went from Aramaic to Greek. It is erred and therefore each translation or version after it is erred no matter how close the version.



Okay...I'm not really understanding your post.  You say it was written in Greek in the first sentence.  Then you say it went from Aramaic to Greek.

When Luke wrote Acts, he wrote it in Greek.  When Paul wrote Romans, it was penned in Greek.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. When the church added it to the bible it was translated to and written in Greek.


----------



## applejuice (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Original language vs original language.  Obviously, my English Bible is going to have different words than my Spanish Bible.



Ancient Hebrew?
We to this day do not know what all the symbols meant. Some stood for #'s and letters both. 
An account of what happened at freds house saturday will sound different when told by steven or sam both in english.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospel_of_Matthew


----------



## centerpin fan (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> NT was written in Greek because it was the Language of the Roman Empire.



It was?  Then what did the Greeks speak?  Latin?

Is that really what you meant to say?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> It was?  Then what did the Greeks speak?  Latin?



It was the language of that part of the Roman Empire because it was the Greek empire before that.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_Bible_written/index.htm


----------



## centerpin fan (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It was the language of that part of the Roman Empire because it was the Greek empire before that.



Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Thanks for clarifying.



Koine Greek I believe was the language that was spoken most often by the region and Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek were spoken and understood by the Jews.


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2011)

bullethead,

From the source you cited,

"Most scholars consider the gospel, like every other book in the New Testament, to have been written in Koine Greek, though some experts maintain the traditional view that it was originally composed in Aramaic."

I don't think it is conclusive one way or the other what language it was originally written in.


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> So....based on the Greek text we have in the 1900s and then compared to the earliest manuscripts that we have to date, they are almost identical.  How then could there be all of these manmade injections and errors?



"Almost identical" is very subjective. We know that there are additions made to the gospels long after they were first written. We know that there were changes made. Some were intentional, many accidental. According to Bart Ehrman the earlier copies of manuscripts were less reliably copied because in the earliest years of the church you didn't have professional scribes working under the direction of a central authority like occurred once Constantine came along. You had copies of copies of copies being made and passed around by whoever in the church might have been literate enough to make a copy, even if they weren't literate enough to actually read what they were writing. And once one mistake was introduced into a copy, that mistake got copied along with all the prior mistakes so it was additive as time went on.

But what about all the changes and embellishments in the stories that happened in the oral retelling for the decades that passed after Jesus time until the NT books were written? Even if we had the very first manuscripts they still were written after decades, sometimes many decades, of these stories being told and passed around the region orally.

Jesus was certainly not the only proclaimed miracle worker of the ancient world. Why should the stories about him be considered any more credible than similar stories about other people?


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> bullethead,
> 
> From the source you cited,
> 
> ...



It does seem that way Atlas. Sometimes all or parts were in one language and then parts in another language. After doing a lot of reading about it today there seems to be many modern authors that think the writings of the NT were a conglomeration of authors mixed together per gospel while credit was given to only one per gospel. The different writing styles within those gospels is what leads to those thoughts.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Koine Greek I believe was the language that was spoken most often by the region and Hebrew and Aramaic and Koine Greek were spoken and understood by the Jews.



Yes, koine was the "common" (not classical) Greek.  When I was in college, one of the Greek professors used the Gospel of John as his basic text.  He didn't use it for religious reasons.  He just thought students had an easier time with it.


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, koine was the "common" (not classical) Greek.  When I was in college, one of the Greek professors used the Gospel of John as his basic text.  He didn't use it for religious reasons.  He just thought students had an easier time with it.



It seems like that is the version most universally understood.


----------



## oldenred (May 23, 2011)

The bible is not a credible source for anything but paper to wipe my butt. Man created the bible, Jesus, and God to control the world and it worked well for a long time but now man is allowed to think for himself, science has allowed man to come up with logical conclusions on earth's mysteries. When was the last miracle that happened?? Get a grip, if you need a lil non-existant man to make yourself feel better try Santa Claus. At least he'll bring you presents. 

Ohh, and i'd love to meet the smart son of a gun that did so. He was way ahead of his time.


----------



## TheBishop (May 23, 2011)

oldenred said:


> The bible is not a credible source for anything but paper to wipe my butt. Man created the bible, Jesus, and God to control the world and it worked well for a long time but now man is allowed to think for himself, science has allowed man to come up with logical conclusions on earth's mysteries. When was the last miracle that happened?? Get a grip, if you need a lil non-existant man to make yourself feel better try Santa Claus. At least he'll bring you presents.
> 
> Ohh, and i'd love to meet the smart son of a gun that did so. He was way ahead of his time.



Come on man, I don't  think the bible is any more credible than you but thats no reason to get so harsh.  Its one thing to use logic to refute and another just to bash.  We all debate in here for good fun neither side ever really wins but do try and keep it civil. Besides getting off kilter leads to discussions getting out of hand and locked down by das mods so.....


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> Troy isn't mentioned in the OT either.  So what?  This is an insignificant detail.  I'll take the NT's word for it.


I wonder if the people called "nazerites" are connected to the area called nazerine???  It could be called something different like "Ephrath" is also the same as "Bethlehem" if my translation is correct????Gen 35:19


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. When the church added it to the bible it was translated to and written in Greek.


It is of no proof and I don't know enough to know what difference it would make but I noticed recently while reading through the writings of the early church fathers from the first century that the writer that I was reading made a statement about Matthew writing in Hebrew. I could probably find it if it matters.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It does seem that way Atlas. Sometimes all or parts were in one language and then parts in another language. After doing a lot of reading about it today there seems to be many modern authors that think the writings of the NT were a conglomeration of authors mixed together per gospel while credit was given to only one per gospel. The different writing styles within those gospels is what leads to those thoughts.


If the writers had ever suspected that what they were writing would be subject to side by side comparison, then they would have been more careful. They were simply retelling what they had learned about Jesus through the oral passing down. As the stories began to get distorted, and the potential for worsening was realized, someone realized the need to record what they knew of before it got any worse. That's why, for example, Matthew is actually, "according to Matthew" and not by Matthew. And why John's gospel says things like, "the one Jesus loved"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 23, 2011)

I fully realize why others view the bible the way they do in view of some of the problems associated, but for me, I take a different route. The fact that it is so problematic leads me to believe that it was by man, but not some kind of conspiracy. If it was some kind of conspiracy, it would have been corrected, without so many problems. If you read a perfect essay, you might conclude that this is to good. Maybe so good that you might suspect that it could have been copied. But if you read an essay that is full of spelling errors, lack of professonalism, then you would conclude that this is a legitimate essay. Like my bad spelling, hehe


----------



## bullethead (May 23, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> It is of no proof and I don't know enough to know what difference it would make but I noticed recently while reading through the writings of the early church fathers from the first century that the writer that I was reading made a statement about Matthew writing in Hebrew. I could probably find it if it matters.



It seems like the "experts" differ on who wrote what in which language. After quite some time spent today reading on all this stuff I have seen articles that support 3 languages.


----------



## atlashunter (May 23, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> If the writers had ever suspected that what they were writing would be subject to side by side comparison, then they would have been more careful. They were simply retelling what they had learned about Jesus through the oral passing down. As the stories began to get distorted, and the potential for worsening was realized, someone realized the need to record what they knew of before it got any worse. That's why, for example, Matthew is actually, "according to Matthew" and not by Matthew. And why John's gospel says things like, "the one Jesus loved"



I agree. Perhaps Matthew should be called "Mark's gospel according to Matthew.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 24, 2011)

oldenred said:


> The bible is not a credible source for anything but paper to wipe my butt.



You stay classy San Diego! 




> When was the last miracle that happened??



May 2009.  My brother.  Diagnosed with thyroid cancer.  Confirmed by an oncologist and then by another as a second opinion.  Confirmed with TWO biopsies.  "You have thyroid cancer"

June 2009.  Operating room to remove confirmed thyroid cancer.  My father annointed him with oil and prayed over him for healing.  They put him under, opened him up and cut out half the thyroid.  Dr. felt like something wasn't "right".  The tissue didn't feel or look cancerous.  He sent it off to the lab for a check right then before they proceeded.

Test came back.  "Dr.  there is no cancer in this tissue"..."Are you sure?"...."There is no cancer in this man's thyroid"..."but it was confirmed with two biopsies!"....."I don't know.  I'm just telling you....this man does not have cancer."

Dismiss it.  I know you will.  Praise God from whom all blessings flow.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2011)

Congrats to your brother. It is an incredible unexplainable event and I can see why it would lead you believe what you do. Sincerely, has the hospital or doctor hired or asked your father to do this for each patient now?


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2011)

Huntinfool,

How do you explain the prayer study of 1,800 coronary bypass patients that found no better outcomes for those who received prayer? Why wouldn't prayer have worked for them?


The real question is, what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that prayer to some God other than the one you believe in, resulted in miracles? I can answer that question for what it would take for me to believe. I suspect it would take more than the story you've offered to convince you. Not dismissing it. I'll take your word for it. My only question is if you heard the same story as testimony for a different religion would you find it convincing?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 24, 2011)

> How do you explain the prayer study of 1,800 coronary bypass patients that found no better outcomes for those who received prayer? Why wouldn't prayer have worked for them?



I can't.  If it were common, though, would you credit it as "miracle" or would you credit scientific advances?  It's miraculous BECAUSE it's not common....don't you think?

God is not required to heal everyone who asks.  I simply showed you an example of one time when he did.  I've said this before.  The healing was not for the glory of my brother or anyone else.  It was for the glory of God.  

Why doesn't he heal everyone?  I don't know.  It would be an awefully crowded world if we all lived forever, wouldn't it?  Ultimately, healing comes at death, though, doesn't it?




> The real question is, what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that prayer to some God other than the one you believe in, resulted in miracles? I can answer that question for what it would take for me to believe. I suspect it would take more than the story you've offered to convince you. Not dismissing it. I'll take your word for it. My only question is if you heard the same story as testimony for a different religion would you find it convincing?



I didn't tell you to convince you.  I told you to make "wipe my butt" boy look silly...

He asked.....I answered.

Now he'll ask for a "verifiable" miracle.  Short of Jesus actually returning and physically touching someone to heal them...I don't know that it's possible.

Would I believe it if someone told the same story and credited another "god"?  No....no I wouldn't.  Just gut level honest.  My mind is not open to the possibility of any other god than God.

I'm sure you'll say that's because I've been indoctrinated and my culture tells me that only God exists.  I can't stop you from believing that.  I've told you about my personal experiences with him and I am just as convinced that he DOES exist as you are that he doesn't.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> "Almost identical" is very subjective. We know that there are additions made to the gospels long after they were first written. We know that there were changes made. Some were intentional, many accidental. According to Bart Ehrman the earlier copies of manuscripts were less reliably copied because in the earliest years of the church you didn't have professional scribes working under the direction of a central authority like occurred once Constantine came along. You had copies of copies of copies being made and passed around by whoever in the church might have been literate enough to make a copy, even if they weren't literate enough to actually read what they were writing. And once one mistake was introduced into a copy, that mistake got copied along with all the prior mistakes so it was additive as time went on.
> 
> But what about all the changes and embellishments in the stories that happened in the oral retelling for the decades that passed after Jesus time until the NT books were written? Even if we had the very first manuscripts they still were written after decades, sometimes many decades, of these stories being told and passed around the region orally.
> 
> Jesus was certainly not the only proclaimed miracle worker of the ancient world. Why should the stories about him be considered any more credible than similar stories about other people?



Majority of the NT was written as a letter to start with and was not a oral story collection later penned.

Archeological finds have done more to disprove the Mormon notion that the Bible was corrupted over the centuries.  Kind makes ole Joseph Smith and the rest of you look foolish for still holding onto that argument.



oldenred said:


> The bible is not a credible source for anything but paper to wipe my butt. Man created the bible, Jesus, and God to control the world and it worked well for a long time but now man is allowed to think for himself, science has allowed man to come up with logical conclusions on earth's mysteries. When was the last miracle that happened?? Get a grip, if you need a lil non-existant man to make yourself feel better try Santa Claus. At least he'll bring you presents.
> 
> Ohh, and i'd love to meet the smart son of a gun that did so. He was way ahead of his time.



Who woulda thunk it.  Another epic post of the year.

Johnny....tell him what he's won!


----------



## Huntinfool (May 24, 2011)

A new roll of toilet paper!!!


----------



## oldenred (May 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> A new roll of toilet paper!!!



and i'll be sure to use it, perhapes i'll even come get some from your church!


----------



## rjcruiser (May 24, 2011)

oldenred said:


> and i'll be sure to use it, perhapes i'll even come get some from your church!



wow.  glad to know that the religious right doesn't have all the kooks.


----------



## pbradley (May 24, 2011)

oldenred said:


> and i'll be sure to use it, perhapes i'll even come get some from your church!



you're welcome to come to my church any time. This Sunday is "casual Sunday" and we're having a picnic on the grounds and hot air balloon rides afterwards for Memorial Day.


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I can't.  If it were common, though, would you credit it as "miracle" or would you credit scientific advances?  It's miraculous BECAUSE it's not common....don't you think?
> 
> God is not required to heal everyone who asks.  I simply showed you an example of one time when he did.  I've said this before.  The healing was not for the glory of my brother or anyone else.  It was for the glory of God.
> 
> Why doesn't he heal everyone?  I don't know.  It would be an awefully crowded world if we all lived forever, wouldn't it?  Ultimately, healing comes at death, though, doesn't it?



Well let me put it to you this way. For stories like yours to be considered evidence supporting the God you posit there needs to be an observable distinction between the outcomes of prayer to your God and the outcomes of prayer to some other entity or object and no prayer at all.

If I flip a coin and pray that it will land heads up and my prayer is answered 50% of the time that doesn't demonstrate that my prayer had any effect.

Jesus was said to perform miracles on a regular basis. Did the frequency make them any less miraculous? If you were to pray to Jesus for amputees that their limbs regrow and it worked every time but it never happened absent prayer or when any other God was prayed to well that would be pretty convincing wouldn't it? I suppose based on what you say below that if the same happened when some other God was prayed to but not Jesus that you wouldn't find it convincing. I would.





Huntinfool said:


> I didn't tell you to convince you.  I told you to make "wipe my butt" boy look silly...
> 
> He asked.....I answered.
> 
> ...



Well if that is the case then you are not as open minded as I might have thought. I'm open to the possibility of another God. I'm open to the possibility of your God. It's _possible_. Just incredibly unlikely based on what I know. There is a truthful answer to this question. You might be right. You might be wrong. If you're wrong, you're being convinced that you are right doesn't change the reality. Just means you'll go through life believing a lie.

It's interesting that you offer your miracle story but admit that you wouldn't be convinced by the same from someone of a different faith. Yet you clearly believe that your God is responsible in the case you gave. Doesn't that show you are stacking the deck in favor of the God you already believe in?

If prayer really worked we should expect to see it maybe not in a case by case basis if you want to say sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But to the extent that it works at all, you would see it in a cross section of people that included those who it worked for. If it had worked in say 5 or 10% of the cases in that study we would see it. But we didn't. If prayer doesn't work well enough to produce any distinguishable difference in outcome between those who pray and those who don't then how could it possibly be said to work? If praying to a milk jug will get you the same results over time, can you really convince yourself that it's doing any good? Really?


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Majority of the NT was written as a letter to start with and was not a oral story collection later penned.
> 
> Archeological finds have done more to disprove the Mormon notion that the Bible was corrupted over the centuries.  Kind makes ole Joseph Smith and the rest of you look foolish for still holding onto that argument.
> 
> ...



Such as?

Do you dispute the last 12 verses of Mark were a later addition? Or that the story of Jesus and the adulteress in John was a later addition?


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2011)

Concerning the oral tradition, any stories concerning the life of Jesus and what happened from the time of his death up until the books of the NT were written would have been passed down orally from person to person from town to town not just for months or year but for decades. And you think those stories didn't evolve through that process? How else could you explain the great variety of beliefs about Jesus in the early days of christianity?


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well let me put it to you this way. For stories like yours to be considered evidence supporting the God you posit there needs to be an observable distinction between the outcomes of prayer to your God and the outcomes of prayer to some other entity or object and no prayer at all.
> 
> If I flip a coin and pray that it will land heads up and my prayer is answered 50% of the time that doesn't demonstrate that my prayer had any effect.
> 
> ...



I gotta hand it to you Atlas, you have the knack of taking what goes through my head and putting down into words in a way that is clear. Another Good Job!


----------



## vowell462 (May 24, 2011)

bullethead said:


> i gotta hand it to you atlas, you have the knack of taking what goes through my head and putting down into words in a way that is clear. Another good job!


x 2


----------



## atlashunter (May 24, 2011)

Thanks gents, I appreciate that.


----------



## jmharris23 (May 24, 2011)

oldenred said:


> The bible is not a credible source for anything but paper to wipe my butt. Man created the bible, Jesus, and God to control the world and it worked well for a long time but now man is allowed to think for himself, science has allowed man to come up with logical conclusions on earth's mysteries. When was the last miracle that happened?? Get a grip, if you need a lil non-existant man to make yourself feel better try Santa Claus. At least he'll bring you presents.
> 
> Ohh, and i'd love to meet the smart son of a gun that did so. He was way ahead of his time.




I've read some disappointing things on here from both believers and non-believers, but this takes the cake. 

A little respect on both sides is expected. As far as what you wrote, I am truly sorry you feel this way. 

Maybe for your sake you're right, but I am of the mind that you will one day regret these type of statements very much.


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> I've read some disappointing things on here from both believers and non-believers, but this takes the cake.
> 
> A little respect on both sides is expected. As far as what you wrote, I am truly sorry you feel this way.
> 
> Maybe for your sake you're right, but I am of the mind that you will one day regret these type of statements very much.



I have to say that in my short time on here I have enjoyed the discussions/conversations on both sides. At times it gets a bit heated but I have read some very intelligent posts by each side and each side has obviously put a lot of thought into their posts and replies. I have found that each side is passionate about their thoughts and beliefs and I would not have it any other way but what has impressed me the most is that while a lot of disagreement is shared a fair amount of respect is included too. I would share a campfire/dinner/beer with anyone I have had conversations with on here and would say face to face to them what I have said on here. I suspect the same would go for most on here also. Also I think the Mods are very fair and let the talk go on with very little interference. I think a lot of dialog is misconstrued because it is hard to tell a persons feelings and conviction, sarcasm, or sincerity within type, and some comments may be taken in a way that is not really meant. I do not think that is the case with oldenred in that "wipe" comment. I think we are all grown up enough to keep it civil. We all have our own line in the sands where we deem something inappropriate and on this forum I think that comment crossed most of them. I know in the heat of "battle" or just to make a statement stronger some choice words are used in haste. I give oldenred the benefit of doubt and think that is what happened in that post. I say lets move on and continue with some more of the great discussions we have had in the past.

Just My .02


----------



## bullethead (May 24, 2011)

Getting back on course.......

Here is some reading on the NT, how other Gospels are based off of Mark, and how Mark is MIDRASH(a set of stories that follow the rely on the Jewish practice of drawing on scriptural themes and passages to create new stories). http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_gospels_are_midrash

It is another compelling argument in my opinion.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 25, 2011)

> Well if that is the case then you are not as open minded as I might have thought. I'm open to the possibility of another God. I'm open to the possibility of your God. It's _possible_. Just incredibly unlikely based on what I know. There is a truthful answer to this question. You might be right. You might be wrong. If you're wrong, you're being convinced that you are right doesn't change the reality. Just means you'll go through life believing a lie.



For you to NOT believe, you are required to be open to the possibility of multiple "gods" (assuming you're going to be open to the possiblity at all).  For me to believe, I am also required to believe in only ONE God.  There is no way around it.  He cannot be who I believe he is without being "I Am".




> It's interesting that you offer your miracle story but admit that you wouldn't be convinced by the same from someone of a different faith. Yet you clearly believe that your God is responsible in the case you gave. Doesn't that show you are stacking the deck in favor of the God you already believe in?



He's the only God who was asked to heal my brother.  Who else would I credit?

Again, let me be clear.  He would be no less God had he chosen not to heal my brother.  The prayer was heard regardless because it was offered by a believer.  

I am less impressed with those who can praise God when a brother is healed from cancer than I am with those who can praise him at the funeral for the same brother.




> If prayer really worked we should expect to see it maybe not in a case by case basis if you want to say sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But to the extent that it works at all, you would see it in a cross section of people that included those who it worked for. If it had worked in say 5 or 10% of the cases in that study we would see it. But we didn't. If prayer doesn't work well enough to produce any distinguishable difference in outcome between those who pray and those who don't then how could it possibly be said to work?



God is not the "magic Pez dispenser in the sky".  Prayer "works" every time.  The problem is with the premise of how you understand prayer.

Jesus taught us how to pray saying "thy will be done"....that is what he asked for and that is what we should ALWAYS ask for.  

I go back to my statements about the fact that he knows much more than I do and he knows what's best.  As his child I can certainly come to him and say "Father, it is my desire that my brother be healed from this disease."  But it is also my role as his child/disciple/follower to say "but....thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".

You see, you're viewing prayer as a "magic fix".  Prayer is an opportunity to commune with the Father.  We may pour our hearts out to him and he will hear us every time.  He knows the number of hairs on our head and sees a sparrow when it falls to the ground.  He hears us.

Why does he heal some and not others?  I don't know.  

Tell me....no one has addressed this....what do you think happened in my brother's case?

Two Dr's.  Two biopsies.  What happened (objectively speaking).  Just really really bad diagnosis and two false positives on the biopsy?

I'm just curious.  Do you think it was a miraculous healing (regardless of the diety) or can you find a way to explain it?


----------



## stringmusic (May 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I have to say that in my short time on here I have enjoyed the discussions/conversations on both sides. At times it gets a bit heated but I have read some very intelligent posts by each side and each side has obviously put a lot of thought into their posts and replies. I have found that each side is passionate about their thoughts and beliefs and I would not have it any other way but what has impressed me the most is that while a lot of disagreement is shared a fair amount of respect is included too. I would share a campfire/dinner/beer with anyone I have had conversations with on here and would say face to face to them what I have said on here. I suspect the same would go for most on here also. Also I think the Mods are very fair and let the talk go on with very little interference. I think a lot of dialog is misconstrued because it is hard to tell a persons feelings and conviction, sarcasm, or sincerity within type, and some comments may be taken in a way that is not really meant. I do not think that is the case with oldenred in that "wipe" comment. I think we are all grown up enough to keep it civil. We all have our own line in the sands where we deem something inappropriate and on this forum I think that comment crossed most of them. I know in the heat of "battle" or just to make a statement stronger some choice words are used in haste. I give oldenred the benefit of doubt and think that is what happened in that post. I say lets move on and continue with some more of the great discussions we have had in the past.
> 
> Just My .02


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> For you to NOT believe, you are required to be open to the possibility of multiple "gods" (assuming you're going to be open to the possiblity at all).  For me to believe, I am also required to believe in only ONE God.  There is no way around it.  He cannot be who I believe he is without being "I Am".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IF prayer works, you honestly have no idea who else was praying to which god in order to heal or help your brother. The list could include friends and co-workers to nurses and janitors within the hospital not to mention the volunteers that go to hospitals every day to lend support. Who they were praying to is anybody's guess.
You have to understand that in your mind you owe it to one deity when every day multiple people are praying for the same things to multiple deities.  Which god steps up, if any, who knows?
Personally I do not think any of them do. Asking the same questions to that gallon of milk will get the same results. It is the law of probability. Nature is full of unique happenings.

The body is very mysterious. It does everything possible to heal itself. Cancer requires the mutation of cells and surrounding cells to further it's growth. If the body has a good immune system the cancer may not get the cells needed to continue growth and may just disappear. The body can also further cancers growth. It depends on each individuals system. I am glad for your brothers recovery and good health, but he is not unique.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27canc.html


----------



## rjcruiser (May 25, 2011)

Here's another example of a miracle.

Read this thread. Specifically post #1, 36, 62, 66, 80, 82, 89, 92, 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=605384

and this thread.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=620659


Credit who you want.  I'll give the credit to the God of the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Here's another example of a miracle.
> 
> Read this thread. Specifically post #1, 36, 62, 66, 80, 82, 89, 92,
> 
> ...



Parent to Parent, my heart goes out to the family. I am glad for her life and recovery. I am glad she has more time to go on with her life.

Owing it all to an invisible being, I don't buy that. I'd thank the Docs and nurses.

Give credit to the doctors


----------



## HawgJawl (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Jesus taught us how to pray saying "thy will be done"....that is what he asked for and that is what we should ALWAYS ask for.
> 
> I go back to my statements about the fact that he knows much more than I do and he knows what's best.  As his child I can certainly come to him and say "Father, it is my desire that my brother be healed from this disease."  But it is also my role as his child/disciple/follower to say "but....thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".



"thy will be done" has absolutely nothing to do with asking for a miraculous change in the course of future events.  It could be a sign of submission to the inevitable or a plea for God to steer you in the direction that He wishes for you, but it is NOT a plea for God to change His mind and change the course of events.  God has no need for man to ask God to do whatever God is already planning to do.  A prayer for a miracle is a plea for God to do something different than what God was planning to do or allowing to happen.  If what you are praying for was already God's will then it was already destined to happen so your prayer produced nothing.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> "thy will be done" has absolutely nothing to do with asking for a miraculous change in the course of future events.  It could be a sign of submission to the inevitable or a plea for God to steer you in the direction that He wishes for you, but it is NOT a plea for God to change His mind and change the course of events.  God has no need for man to ask God to do whatever God is already planning to do.  A prayer for a miracle is a plea for God to do something different than what God was planning to do or allowing to happen.  If what you are praying for was already God's will then it was already destined to happen so your prayer produced nothing.



Either you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 25, 2011)

> IF prayer works, you honestly have no idea who else was praying to which god in order to heal or help your brother. The list could include friends and co-workers to nurses and janitors within the hospital not to mention the volunteers that go to hospitals every day to lend support. Who they were praying to is anybody's guess.




Oh brother.  

Do your arms hurt?  You're stretching as far as you possibly can aren't you?




> The body is very mysterious. It does everything possible to heal itself. Cancer requires the mutation of cells and surrounding cells to further it's growth. If the body has a good immune system the cancer may not get the cells needed to continue growth and may just disappear. The body can also further cancers growth. It depends on each individuals system. I am glad for your brothers recovery and good health, but he is not unique.




The second biopsy was done 2 days prior to the surgery.  What say you?

I agree with you....the body is a wonderfully created thing, isn't it?


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Oh brother.
> 
> Do your arms hurt?  You're stretching as far as you possibly can aren't you?
> 
> ...



Hey Stretch, I'm not the one that believes ANY Supernatural Being did anything. But if one person prayed to a different deity for your brother to get well then the odds, possibility, probability are just as good.

I am not a medical doctor and probably medical doctors would have a hard time narrowing down what happened but I bet if you look on his chart it does NOT say cured by prayer. For all I KNOW, it could be that darned Oak Tree out in front of my house. I know it IS there for me to see, feel, and talk to. When I ask it for help things work out just as often as when I was religious. Flatly it has GOT to be the wishes of the Oak Tree.

How can you agree with something I did not say?


----------



## HawgJawl (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Tell me....no one has addressed this....what do you think happened in my brother's case?
> 
> Two Dr's.  Two biopsies.  What happened (objectively speaking).  Just really really bad diagnosis and two false positives on the biopsy?
> 
> I'm just curious.  Do you think it was a miraculous healing (regardless of the diety) or can you find a way to explain it?



Do you believe that it is probable or even possible that a similar miraculous healing has ever occurred in another person absent any prayer to any diety?


----------



## Huntinfool (May 25, 2011)

> I am not a medical doctor and probably medical doctors would have a hard time narrowing down what happened but I bet if you look on his chart it does NOT say cured by prayer.



Funny.  When he woke up, he was confused.  The Dr. told him that what happened was not medically possible.  He said "miracle" was the only explanation he had.





> How can you agree with something I did not say?



Because I knew it would gnaw at you.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that it is probable or even possible that a similar miraculous healing has ever occurred in another person absent any prayer to any diety?



Absolutely.  In fact, I would say that it is highly likely that the same thing (roughly speaking) has happened and not a single person prayed to anybody about it.


As long as you leave "miraculous" in it.


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Funny.  When he woke up, he was confused.  The Dr. told him that what happened was not medically possible.  He said "miracle" was the only explanation he had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Fantastic! Ask your brother if he could get a copy of the medical records, that would be something to hang on to. I wonder if it worded as "miracle" of nature or "miracle" of god induced by prayer. I am really curious now.

HF, nothing gnaws at me especially on here. There is not much in life to get upset about  so I save it for the really important things and I certainly do not lose any sleep over religious banter. It is something to pass the time with as well as talking hunting or anything else.


----------



## HawgJawl (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Absolutely.  In fact, I would say that it is highly likely that the same thing (roughly speaking) has happened and not a single person prayed to anybody about it.
> 
> 
> As long as you leave "miraculous" in it.



My favorite sports team wins sometimes and loses sometimes, whether I'm watching them on TV or not.

If I wear my lucky team jersey while watching them on TV, they win sometimes and lose sometimes.

When I watch them on TV while wearing my lucky team jersey and they win, is it realistic for me to credit my lucky team jersey for their win?


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

If your holding a rabbits foot or wearing a jersey it is silly superstition, but pray while doing it and THAT makes sense.


----------



## stringmusic (May 25, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> My favorite sports team wins sometimes and loses sometimes, whether I'm watching them on TV or not.
> 
> If I wear my lucky team jersey while watching them on TV, they win sometimes and lose sometimes.
> 
> When I watch them on TV while wearing my lucky team jersey and they win, is it realistic for me to credit my lucky team jersey for their win?



I say pick a team that wins more


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

No matter which teams wins, half of the fans watching the game are praying for one side and the other half are praying for the 2nd team. Every game should end in a tie.


----------



## ambush80 (May 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If your holding a rabbits foot or wearing a jersey it is silly superstition, but pray while doing it and THAT makes sense.



Careful. There are rabbit's foot doubters lurking.


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

'd-oh! My Bad!


----------



## atlashunter (May 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> For you to NOT believe, you are required to be open to the possibility of multiple "gods" (assuming you're going to be open to the possiblity at all).  For me to believe, I am also required to believe in only ONE God.  There is no way around it.  He cannot be who I believe he is without being "I Am".



I'm not required to be open to the possibility that I could be wrong. You're living proof of that.




Huntinfool said:


> He's the only God who was asked to heal my brother.  Who else would I credit?



If he would have been healed absent any prayer at all then there is no more reason to credit your God than a milk jug. If you think that the prayer changed the outcome for your brother then the question remains why we don't see this across large numbers of people who get prayed for? Do you think they would normally have a below average "cure" rate and the prayers just happen to provide just enough healings to bring them back up to the average and thus make them look the same as those not prayed for?




Huntinfool said:


> Again, let me be clear.  He would be no less God had he chosen not to heal my brother.  The prayer was heard regardless because it was offered by a believer.
> 
> I am less impressed with those who can praise God when a brother is healed from cancer than I am with those who can praise him at the funeral for the same brother.



Right. And when I pray on a coin flip my prayer is answered regardless of the outcome...




Huntinfool said:


> God is not the "magic Pez dispenser in the sky".  Prayer "works" every time.  The problem is with the premise of how you understand prayer.
> 
> Jesus taught us how to pray saying "thy will be done"....that is what he asked for and that is what we should ALWAYS ask for.



Why ask for something when you believe the asking will have zero effect on the outcome?




Huntinfool said:


> I go back to my statements about the fact that he knows much more than I do and he knows what's best.  As his child I can certainly come to him and say "Father, it is my desire that my brother be healed from this disease."  But it is also my role as his child/disciple/follower to say "but....thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".
> 
> You see, you're viewing prayer as a "magic fix".  Prayer is an opportunity to commune with the Father.  We may pour our hearts out to him and he will hear us every time.  He knows the number of hairs on our head and sees a sparrow when it falls to the ground.  He hears us.
> 
> Why does he heal some and not others?  I don't know.



As pointed out before, prayer to any other God or to an inanimate object will yield the same results.




Huntinfool said:


> Tell me....no one has addressed this....what do you think happened in my brother's case?
> 
> Two Dr's.  Two biopsies.  What happened (objectively speaking).  Just really really bad diagnosis and two false positives on the biopsy?
> 
> I'm just curious.  Do you think it was a miraculous healing (regardless of the diety) or can you find a way to explain it?



Can't say. All I know is what you've told us. I can think of other possibilities which I would consider more likely than a miracle.

I've already given what I would consider strong evidence in favor of your God. Your story falls far short of meeting that standard. Perhaps that is why it wouldn't convince you of any other deity coming from someone else.


----------



## bullethead (May 25, 2011)

It's god or nothing. People can heal and mend without prayer and do all the time. But as long as someone prays to some god that god gets the credit. Oddly in the mind of the person doing the praying it is ALWAYS their god. 10 different people pray to 10 different gods all for the same outcome and they all get credit individually but never would one give credit to another. If the outcome does not work out in their favor then it was not their god's will for it to happen. They believe in a made up entity but tell someone else their made up entity is not real. The mindset is mind boggling.


----------



## atlashunter (May 26, 2011)




----------



## HawgJawl (May 26, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I say pick a team that wins more



I think you just agreed with Atlas.


----------



## emusmacker (May 26, 2011)

Why do so many people want to try and prove that Jesus didn't exist.  Funny how there were so many references given to read about the discrepencies in the Bible, but those too are written by men. So who's right. Is history correct.  Man wrote about history, but I wasn't there to see Lincoln get killed in the Ford theater, how do I know that happened. It's easy to believe the things you want to believe. But I really can't undersatnd why so many people want to try and prove the Bible wrong.

Kinda like evolution, they keep searching for that one little "missing link" but can't find it, hmmmm wonder why?  some actually believe we evolved from apes, well my question is why aren't any of the apes today becoming man. And why did man stop eveolving, what is the next phase. Kinda sounds STUPID when you think about it.


----------



## bullethead (May 27, 2011)

emusmacker said:


> Why do so many people want to try and prove that Jesus didn't exist.  Funny how there were so many references given to read about the discrepencies in the Bible, but those too are written by men. So who's right. Is history correct.  Man wrote about history, but I wasn't there to see Lincoln get killed in the Ford theater, how do I know that happened. It's easy to believe the things you want to believe. But I really can't undersatnd why so many people want to try and prove the Bible wrong.
> 
> Kinda like evolution, they keep searching for that one little "missing link" but can't find it, hmmmm wonder why?  some actually believe we evolved from apes, well my question is why aren't any of the apes today becoming man. And why did man stop eveolving, what is the next phase. Kinda sounds STUPID when you think about it.



Believing in things you want to believe in is a 2 way street.
The deciding factor between the Lincoln assassination and things in the bible is evidence.
You should read up on evolution and an apelike ancestor that man and ape evolved from. Man did not evolve from ape, man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. Don't knock the stupid crowd, you might be a card carrying member.


----------



## atlashunter (May 27, 2011)

emusmacker said:


> Kinda sounds STUPID when you think about it.



Yep, sure does!


----------



## emusmacker (May 27, 2011)

The whole thing sounds stupid. The human has 23 chromsomes in the body, and ape only 18, if we evolved from the same creature then where is that creature and why have we and the apes stopped evolving.

Go ahead and believe stupidity, I don't.  To each his own, you're not going to change me, and I probably won't change you, but while ya'll sit around waiting on the missing link and for Oct 21st to get here and find the guy is a dummy, I'll be deer hunting.


----------



## atlashunter (May 27, 2011)

Do you even care that you've got your facts wrong?


----------



## emusmacker (May 28, 2011)

No, cause I don't.  Do you care that you have your "facts" wrong?


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

Yes you do. Wrong about ape genetics and wrong about what biologists say about evolution.


----------



## emusmacker (May 29, 2011)

Funny you want to believe biologists, how do I know they're not wrong?  most of their work is in a lab under controlled situations and can be altered to make their theories more believable.

I believe that biologists do great scientific work, but with all the technology we have they can't find the missing link yet. Wonder why, and no I didn't watch the video so why not tell me what we evolved from?


----------



## atlashunter (May 29, 2011)

The answer to your question is in the video. Skip to the 2:45 mark.

BTW, why would you talk about ape and human genetics if you think biologists are engaged in some grand conspiracy?

Here is your missing link.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/photogalleries/oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-pictures/


----------



## Thanatos (May 30, 2011)

If Jesus did not exist then why did most of his 12 followers die horrible deaths spreading the Word after he died? If Jesus was a fraud and he did not return from the grave please explain what overcame his followers? These men doubted Jesus resurrection the days right after his crucifixion. Here is what happened to these men after he rose again and showed himself to them. It is written that to escape the punishments below the disciples had to denounce God. Yet they died horrific deaths...for a lie? Or, for the truth? 

Here are the disciples fates.

*Judas*

-We all know what happened to him... 

*Andrew*

-According to Hippolytus:

Andrew preached to the Scythians [modern day Georgia] and Thracians [modern day Bulgaria], and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia [Greece]; and there too he was buried. 

*Bartholomew*

-According to Hippolytus, Bartholomew preached in India:

Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia [modern day southern Georgia]. 

-Eusebius, in his Church History, confirms the ministry of Bartholomew in India, and adds an eye witness account:

About that time, Pantaenus, a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria... Pantaenus...is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. ---- (Book 5, Chapter 10) 

*James, Son of Alphaeus*

-Hippolytus identifies that James was stoned to death in Jerusalem:

And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem, was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple. 

*James, Son of Zebedee*

-James was the brother of John, the disciple "that Jesus loved".

-According to the Book of Acts in the New Testament, James was killed by Herod:

Act 12:1 And at that time Herod the king threw on his hands to oppress some of those of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 

-This is confirmed by Hippolytus:

James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. 

-Eusebius descibed more precisely what was cut off of James:

First Stephen was stoned to death by them, and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded... (Book 3, Chapter 5) 



*John, brother of James and son of Zebedee*

-John was one of the few disciples that did not die a cruel death, but of "old age".

-Eusebius discusses the reason that John wrote his Gospel:

"Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity...And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry." (Book 3, Chapter 24) 

-According to Hippolytus, John was banished by Domitian to the Isle of Patmos, and later died in Ephesus:

John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found. 

*Matthew/Levi*

-Eusebius referenced to Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, as early as c. 110 A.D., bearing witness to Matthew's authorship of his gospel:

Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (Eusebius, Book 3, Chapter 39) 

 -According to Hippolytus:

Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia.\224 [Parthia is near modern day Tehran] 

*Simon/Peter*

-Eusebius, quoting Papias of Hierapolis (c. 110 A.D.), records a tradition that the Gospel of Mark preserved the Gospel as preached by Peter:

"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.... he accompanied Peter..." ---- (Book 3, Chapter 39) 

-Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) records a similar tradition, and mentions that Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter..." ---- (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book 3, Chapter 1) 

-Eusebius records that Peter was put to death under Nero in Rome:

It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. ---- (Book 2, Chapter 25) 

 (Paul was a Roman citizen can cannot be crucified but got an "easier" death sentence)

-Hippolytus confirmed the fact that Peter was crucified by Nero in Rome:

Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner. 

*Philip*

-According to Hippolytus, Philip preached and was executed in what today is eastern Turkey:

Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there. 

*Simon the Zealot*

-According to Hippolytus, Simon the Zealot was the second Bishop of Jerusalem:

Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude, became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120 years. 

*Thaddaeus/Judas son of James*

-According to Mat 10:3 (KJV): Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.... Thaddaeus is also known as Lebbaeus.

-Hippolytus records:

 Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there. 

*Thomas*

-Hippolytus records that Thomas was an active missionary, and that he met his fate in India:

And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spear at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> If Jesus did not exist then why did most of his 12 followers die horrible deaths spreading the Word after he died? If Jesus was a fraud and he did not return from the grave please explain what overcame his followers? These men doubted Jesus resurrection the days right after his crucifixion. Here is what happened to these men after he rose again and showed himself to them. It is written that to escape the punishments below the disciples had to denounce God. Yet they died horrific deaths...for a lie? Or, for the truth?
> 
> Here are the disciples fates.
> 
> ...



http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html


----------



## Thanatos (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html



Your website has almost no references from where his "facts" came from. 

If you took the time to read my post you will see that most of my information has two references and one is a JEWISH HISTORIAN!!!


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

So then you agree with the references he did list?


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Your website has almost no references from where his "facts" came from.
> 
> If you took the time to read my post you will see that most of my information has two references and one is a JEWISH HISTORIAN!!!



From the site:

Sources:
The Good Bible – in all its Goodly Versions
Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming (Crucible, 1986)
David Farmer, Oxford Dictionary of Saints (OUP,1997)
Bruce Metzger, Michael Coogan (Eds) The Oxford Companion to the Bible (OUP, 1993)
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1799)
Michael Walsh, Roots of Christianity (Grafton, 1986)
Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version (Penguin, 1991)
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (Morningstar & Lark, 1995)


----------



## Thanatos (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> From the site:
> 
> Sources:
> The Good Bible – in all its Goodly Versions
> ...



Some of the sources are books slamming Christianity. Yea...ill pass.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

I'm guessing IN those books you will find the sources used to make the claims this author used.
Book #1 is the Bible. In all it's goodly versions.....


----------



## Thanatos (May 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I'm guessing IN those books you will find the sources used to make the claims this author used.
> Book #1 is the Bible. In all it's goodly versions.....



Your website does show where he pulls his data from. For all we know he used the Bible for the names of the apostles and every other word came from some book with an anti-religion market share written in 1998. Again...no thanks.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Some of the sources are books slamming Christianity. Yea...ill pass.



You didn't think your going to hear any anti-christianity claims in a pro-christian book did you?
Ask a Braves fan who the best baseball team is and what answer are you going to get???

I had a face to face in depth talk with a priest that was going to marry my wife and I. He asked me to convert to Catholicism and I told him I would if he answered my questions honestly and if he honestly thought converting was "right" for me when we were through. He was more honest than anyone on the "inside" has even been with me, and he ended our 3hr conversation by saying that he can see why I do not want to convert and that converting would not be a good option for me.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Your website does show where he pulls his data from. For all we know he used the Bible for the names of the apostles and every other word came from some book with an anti-religion market share written in 1998. Again...no thanks.



For all we know we really don't know anything.  We also don't know if he is wrong or spot on.


----------



## bullethead (May 30, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Your website does show where he pulls his data from. For all we know he used the Bible for the names of the apostles and every other word came from some book with an anti-religion market share written in 1998. Again...no thanks.



You can also see why I dismiss your authors and sources too, right?


----------



## Thanatos (May 31, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You can also see why I dismiss your authors and sources too, right?



Check this out...

Hippolytus

Eusebius

Ill stick with these guys.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Check this out...
> 
> Hippolytus
> 
> ...



One born 140 years after the death of Jesus and one born almost 230 years after the death of Jesus. How did they know Jesus and contribute to what is written in the bible so long AFTER it all supposedly had taken place?

From the source you provided:

The influence of Hippolytus was felt chiefly through his works on chronography and ecclesiastical law. His chronicle of the world, a compilation embracing the whole period from the creation of the world up to the year 234, formed a basis for many chronographical works both in the East and West.

In the great compilations of ecclesiastical law that arose in the East since the 4th century, the Church Orders many canons were attributed to Hippolytus, for example in the Canons of Hippolytus or the The Constitutions through Hippolytus. How much of this material is genuinely his, how much of it worked over, and how much of it wrongly attributed to him, can no longer be determined beyond dispute even by the most learned investigation, however a great deal was incorporated into the Fetha Negest, which once served as the constitutional basis of law in Ethiopia — where he is still remembered as Abulides. During the early 20th century the work known as The Egyptian Church Order was identified as the Apostolic Tradition and attributed to Hippolytus; nowaday this attribution is hotly contested.

Differences in style and theology lead some scholars to conclude that some the works attributed to Hippolytus actually derive from a second author.[2]

Two small but potentially important works of Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles of Christ, and On the Seventy Apostles of Christ, were often neglected, because the manuscripts were lost during most of the church age and found late, thus people were not sure if they are original or spurious. The two are included in an appendix to the works of Hippolytus in the voluminous collection of Early Church Fathers [10]


From the source you provided:

Church History
Main article: Church History (Eusebius)

In his Church History or Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote the first surviving history of the Christian Church as a chronologically-ordered account, based on earlier sources complete from the period of the Apostles to his own epoch. This "historical account" has much of Eusebius's own theological agenda intertwined with the factual text including his view on God, Christ, the Scriptures, the Jews, the church, pagans, and heretics. At the very beginning of the volumes, Eusebius makes a statement about Jesus being God and man along with other ideas about his preexistence. This is a very strange way to begin a historical narrative proving that Eusebius was attempting to push his own ideas regarding the church into a text because it would later be considered fact. He wrote that Matthew composed the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The time scheme correlated the history with the reigns of the Roman Emperors, and the scope was broad. Included were the bishops and other teachers of the Church; Christian relations with the Jews and those deemed heretical; and the Christian martyrs. Like many other Christian writers, he also claims that heresy began with Simon Magus, a figure whom receives mention in Acts 8:9-13 for being a magician from the city of Samaria. However, Eusebius takes it a step further saying that Simon had demonic qualities and performed black magic in order to convince others he was divine. Overall, Eusebius took stories from Acts, Justin, and Iraneous to portray heretical teachers in order to gain an understanding of heresey and its roots.

Credible? Stick with them all you want.


----------



## oldenred (Jun 8, 2011)

OMG, I feel so sorry for you that you actually believe these things from a book that some old men wrote to control the world. NOTHING IN THE BIBLE IS A PROVEN FACT. If we can not prove it today with hard evidence then it doesn't exsist. Science is responsible for everything around you, nothing more, nothing less. But hey, i'll let ya'll believers go around believing in Santa Claus and what ever you want because I know it makes you feel good and right with the earth and helps you get by in your mundane life. It's sort of like having a make believe friend when your a child, they are always there to play with you and listen and help you out and get you through the tough times. I get it, some weak minded people just need that. 





Thanatos said:


> If Jesus did not exist then why did most of his 12 followers die horrible deaths spreading the Word after he died? If Jesus was a fraud and he did not return from the grave please explain what overcame his followers? These men doubted Jesus resurrection the days right after his crucifixion. Here is what happened to these men after he rose again and showed himself to them. It is written that to escape the punishments below the disciples had to denounce God. Yet they died horrific deaths...for a lie? Or, for the truth?
> 
> Here are the disciples fates.
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 9, 2011)

oldenred said:


> OMG, I feel so sorry for you that you actually believe these things from a book that some old men wrote to control the world.


Not even close, the count is 0-1, you still got two strikes to go.




> NOTHING IN THE BIBLE IS A PROVEN FACT.


"NOTHING"?? 0-2...... not looking good for the home team.






> If we can not prove it today with hard evidence then it doesn't exsist.


What if we can prove it tomorrow? Does that make it not exsist today? Steeeeeeeeerike 3!!!! your outa here.



> Science is responsible for everything around you, nothing more, nothing less.


(next at-bat)
Science is responsible for giving the most _likely_ answers to questions, science has not created anything I see around me, it may answer questions of things around me, but certianly not responsible for them. 0-1





> But hey, i'll let ya'll believers go around believing in Santa Claus


I speak for all the believers in this forum when I say that we do not believe in santa clause..... steeeeeerike 2!



> and what ever you want because I know it makes you feel good and right with the earth


We believers are in no way trying to "get right with the earth" Steeeeeeerike 3! your out again.





> and helps you get by in your mundane life.


Why must our life be mundane? I would say my life is to the contrary.




> I get it, some weak minded people just need that.


Now we are weak minded people?!? Tell me ol' swing-an-a-miss, are the only strong minded people of this world atheist?

Tough day on the diamond I know, head to the cages with coach, you'll get this turned around, I just know it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jun 9, 2011)

oldenred said:


> OMG, I feel so sorry for you that you actually believe these things from a book that some old men wrote to control the world. NOTHING IN THE BIBLE IS A PROVEN FACT. If we can not prove it today with hard evidence then it doesn't exsist. Science is responsible for everything around you, nothing more, nothing less. But hey, i'll let ya'll believers go around believing in Santa Claus and what ever you want because I know it makes you feel good and right with the earth and helps you get by in your mundane life. It's sort of like having a make believe friend when your a child, they are always there to play with you and listen and help you out and get you through the tough times. I get it, some weak minded people just need that.



Well just so we're clear, we who believe feel just as sorry for you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 9, 2011)

Plenty of people die horrible deaths for what they believe in that has nothing to do with any god... and even when whatever it is they believe in is wrong. You typed a lot for nothing...




Thanatos said:


> If Jesus did not exist then why did most of his 12 followers die horrible deaths spreading the Word after he died? If Jesus was a fraud and he did not return from the grave please explain what overcame his followers? These men doubted Jesus resurrection the days right after his crucifixion. Here is what happened to these men after he rose again and showed himself to them. It is written that to escape the punishments below the disciples had to denounce God. Yet they died horrific deaths...for a lie? Or, for the truth?
> 
> Here are the disciples fates.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 11, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> Plenty of people die horrible deaths for what they believe in that has nothing to do with any god... and even when whatever it is they believe in is wrong. You typed a lot for nothing...



In it's context it means a lot. I am sorry this is lost on you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> In it's context it means a lot. I am sorry this is lost on you.





It seems like they died many different deaths depending on who wrote the story. In context it is a good lesson, but unfortunately there are just too many versions of their deaths....or non-deaths...for any one to be considered true.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It seems like they died many different deaths depending on who wrote the story. In context it is a good lesson, but unfortunately there are just too many versions of their deaths....or non-deaths...for any one to be considered true.



You don't get it bullet. As long as the stories serve the intended purpose their veracity shouldn't be questioned.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You don't get it bullet. As long as the stories serve the intended purpose their veracity shouldn't be questioned.



 LOL, I hear you Atlas, I'm just one of those nit-wits that likes to think outside of the box and do a little research instead of taking anything at face value.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You don't get it bullet. As long as the stories serve the intended purpose their veracity shouldn't be questioned.



Care to quote a source of the validity this is not true? 

Some guy posting on his self made web site should not count right? We need reputable evidence correct?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 20, 2011)

Given the conflicting accounts, the motive of early christians to present the apostles as martyrs, and the fact that even canonized scripture can't even get the story of how Judas died straight, you can color me skeptical. I don't know how they died but I'm not inclined to take church tradition at face value.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2011)

The bible records the death of only TWO apostles.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 20, 2011)

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2c.htm#Apostles

More good reading about the "12"


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2c.htm#Apostles
> 
> More good reading about the "12"



Ahhh the interwebs...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2011)

The bible lists the deaths of two Apostles. Where did you get the information about the other ten? An author? And the author, had he lived today, would have posted the info on the "interweb"?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

had to laugh at that title!    


Most influential person to ever have lived.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

Flavius Josephus published a history of the Jews in twenty books around 93 CE.

_Antiquities 18.3.3. "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 receive 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 to this day." _

interesting 1st Century write up about Jesus from a non-christian.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 12, 2011)

He refers to him as the Christ, but isn't a christian?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

lol    A Christian would have said a lot more about Jesus that Josephus did.   Also, this 'testamonium' doesn't have christian 'flavoring'.    It's a historical statement.   Josephus also mentions John the Baptist.    

Apparently, there is a lost "Acts of Pontius Pilate" book that I would have loved to have read.    According to Justin Martyr, Pilate makes mention of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus.    Would have been a great read


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Flavius Josephus published a history of the Jews in twenty books around 93 CE.
> 
> _Antiquities 18.3.3. "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 receive 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 to this day." _
> 
> interesting 1st Century write up about Jesus from a non-christian.



Very interesting, 60 years after his death someone wrote about it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

published in 93ad....begs the question...."How long did Josephus know about this 'Jesus', and everything else he published in 'Antiquities', before he put it down on paper?"   

Anyone with a brain knows that he didn't just learn about it in 93ad....along with everything else he published in that book.   

regardless, Josephus stands as one of the best extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ....and what makes it even better; he could care less about christianity!    

"Did Jesus exist?"   I've been laughing about that one all day!    

Bandy


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> published in 93ad....begs the question...."How long did Josephus know about this 'Jesus', and everything else he published in 'Antiquities', before he put it down on paper?"
> 
> Anyone with a brain knows that he didn't just learn about it in 93ad....along with everything else he published in that book.
> 
> ...



You are probably right, he LEARNED about Jesus earlier than that. He wrote about someone that the christian beliefs are based off of. Did he witness Jesus in the flesh? See him perform miracles? Talk to him?
Odd that nobody that lived right where Jesus lived and witnessed things that Jesus did never wrote it down(outside of the bible guys...MANY years AFTER the "fact").

This should have you really cracking up then.

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Flavius Josephus published a history of the Jews in twenty books around 93 CE.
> 
> _Antiquities 18.3.3. "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 receive 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 to this day." _
> 
> interesting 1st Century write up about Jesus from a non-christian.



From the source listed in my previous post:

"ALLEGED HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE MAN JESUS IN THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS

In his work (circa 90 A.D.), The Antiquities of the Jews, Flavious Josephus, a messianic Jew and respected Roman historian, supposedly wrote:

“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 receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Hews, 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 love him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive against 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.”

Barker dispenses with the claim that this is the authentic Josephus with the following observations:

1. This paragraph about Jesus did not appear until the advent of the fourth century.

The disputed writing surfaced during the time that Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Roman emperor Constantine, was helping to fashion what would eventually become the orthodox version of Christianity. Barker notes that it was Eusebius who had argued it was justifiable for Christians to, in effect, “lie for the Lord” and that it was he who was the first person known to have cited this alleged Josephus account. As Barker notes, many Bible experts have concluded, in fact, that Eusebius forged the paragraph in question and then attributed it to Josephus.

2. The paragraph in doubt appears completely out of context.

It is dropped into Josephus’ writings after the historian gives an account of Roman taxation, various Jewish religious sects, Herod’s municipal building projects, the comings and goings of priests and procurators, the planning of seditious plots against Pilate, and Pilate’s construction of Jerusalem’s water supply using religious monies, which led to a Jewish protest, followed by Pilate’s bloody suppression of it. The questionable paragraph then follows, after which Josephus goes on to speak of “another terrible misfortune [that] confounded the Jews . . .” As Barker notes, only a Christian would have regarded this as a misfortune for Jews. Josephus himself was an orthodox Jew and would not have so described it.

3. Not being a believer in Christianity, Josephus would also not have used the language of a Christian convert in referring to Jesus as “the Christ.”

4. Josephus would also not have used the term “tribe of Christians,” since Christianity did not achieve organizational status until the second century.

5. Josephus’ alleged paragraph on Jesus portrays Josephus as having no other familiarity with the alleged Christian Messiah.

Barker observes that the Roman historian thus simply repeats what Christians would have already known, while adding virtually nothing to the Gospel accounts. In fact, Josephus’ supposed brief mention of Jesus is the only reference in all of his expansive writings to Christianity.

6. The paragraph does not reflect the careful wording of a responsible historian.

Rather, says Barker, it is written in the fervent language of a believing Christian and, further, is given with no citation of predictions from Hebrew prophets who supposedly foretold Jesus’ advent. (Barker, pp. 362-363)"


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

If they would have written about Him, and been witnesses of His acts, you know what they would call them? 

bible guys.   lol      circular reasoning.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> If they would have written about Him, and been witnesses of His acts, you know what they would call them?
> 
> bible guys.   lol      circular reasoning.



Credible??


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

You may want to look a little closer at Eusebius and his way with words.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Credible??



lol    no, they would have called them "bible guys"...as you stated in a previous post.   what I'm saying is that, if someone with firsthand knowledge of Jesus' works and teachings wrote about Him in the 1st century, they would be classified "bible guys" by you and every other atheist and their testimony discounted.   

There was a criteria for books/epistles to be considered 'canon'.   the author had to have firsthand knowledge of Jesus, be it an apostle or a companion of an apostle.   It's silly to throw away the accounts of the New Testament authors just because they are in the New Testament!   lol


Oh, and for anyone interested in a good read on the Flavius Testamonium, I suggest this link...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html#authentic

It gives reasons for and against believing the testamonium was genuine.    

Bandy


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    no, they would have called them "bible guys"...as you stated in a previous post.   what I'm saying is that, if someone with firsthand knowledge of Jesus' works and teachings wrote about Him in the 1st century, they would be classified "bible guys" by you and every other atheist and their testimony discounted.
> 
> There was a criteria for books/epistles to be considered 'canon'.   the author had to have firsthand knowledge of Jesus, be it an apostle or a companion of an apostle.   It's silly to throw away the accounts of the New Testament authors just because they are in the New Testament!   lol
> 
> ...



The point is that not even the "bible guys" wrote it down. No historian that lived among Jesus wrote it down. Nobody that was there recorded anything about Jesus, yet they did write about everything and everybody else. Not until the "movement" got underway did these 3rd person accounts of Jesus start to show up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

Luke (who FF Bruce calls "an historian of the first rank) writes in 1:1

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

and again in Luke 3:1

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.


"an historian of the first rank".    I like that.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Jul 12, 2011)

Bullethead, I've fought six battles with cancer. I was bed ridden over 3 years. I had my physician give me 3-6 months, (In 1987), and say he couldn't do anything else for me. When you get near the end and need PEACE, it's not a scientist you will call. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No man cometh to the FATHEr, but by him.


----------



## JFS (Jul 12, 2011)

Michael F. Gray said:


> Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No man cometh to the FATHEr, but by him.



There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.   You convinced now?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

Michael F. Gray said:


> Bullethead, I've fought six battles with cancer. I was bed ridden over 3 years. I had my physician give me 3-6 months, (In 1987), and say he couldn't do anything else for me. When you get near the end and need PEACE, it's not a scientist you will call. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No man cometh to the FATHEr, but by him.



Michael, with all sincerity I am happy that you are still here with us. Congrats to you! I am glad you found your peace.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Luke (who FF Bruce calls "an historian of the first rank) writes in 1:1
> 
> Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
> 
> ...



Does FF Bruce tell us exactly who Luke was/is?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Does FF Bruce tell us exactly who Luke was/is?



Are you now doubting that Luke existed?    No person of antiquity has the overwhelming manuscript support than Jesus Christ.   If one is to deny that Jesus existed, in the face of overwhelming manuscript support, one would have to deny the existence of every other figure from history.  

I find it amazing that Jews throughout history never denied Jesus' existence (there may be one or two recent adherents, but none through history)....they just denied Him as Messiah.   They also claim that someone stole Jesus' body.   You'd think that the Jews would have been the first to claim Jesus never existed.    Instead, we find that they believe He was just a prophet gone bad, or something like that.

I think many atheists (or non-believers in general) HAVE to tell themselves that Jesus never existed.   That way they never have to answer the following question....

Jesus Christ....was He 'Lord', 'Liar' or a 'Lunatic'.    If Jesus existed, everyone must decide which one they think He was.    

Like Michael said earlier, Jesus said that He was "the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No man comes to the Father but by Me"   John 14:6

If we believe Jesus lived, then we have to decide if that was a lie or the truth.    If you don't believe Jesus existed, then live, laugh, drink, die.  

Bandy


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

Probably a real person, the rest fabricated.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

An historian of the first rank???? Reliable????
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2010/reliability-luke-historian/


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2011)

http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/genluke.html


----------



## dawg2 (Jul 13, 2011)

Here is your "test" on whether Jesus existed.  Consult one of the oldest religions still practicing today: JUDAISM.

Do they believe or have any writings saying Jesus existed?  If they do, well it surely can't be a conspiracy, as they would have nothing to gain by supporting the fact that Jesus existed.  If it is all lies that no man like Jesus existed, then surely Jewish texts would be void of his name.

Here are some names of early writers mentioning Christ.  Do research, he was a documented individual. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> An historian of the first rank???? Reliable????
> http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2010/reliability-luke-historian/




lol    what a bogus site!   here's a quick snip from their site, listing a few reasons why they say Luke can't be trusted.

_ Luke forged a genealogy for Jesus (P) even though he (P) had no father. The genealogy has no historical standing. Worse, his genealogy contradicts the one forged by Matthew.
    Luke provides an infancy narrative which is irreconcilable with the infancy narrative provided by Matthew.
    Luke mentions a census under Quirnius during the birth of Jesus (P) which is almost universally recognized as a major historical blunder on Luke’s part._


lol    this is a muslim site, too....let's all keep that in mind. 


"forged a genealogy of Jesus even though he had no father"     

I love sites like these.    they are grasping   lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Here is your "test" on whether Jesus existed.  Consult one of the oldest religions still practicing today: JUDAISM.
> 
> Do they believe or have any writings saying Jesus existed?  If they do, well it surely can't be a conspiracy, as they would have nothing to gain by supporting the fact that Jesus existed.  If it is all lies that no man like Jesus existed, then surely Jewish texts would be void of his name.
> 
> Here are some names of early writers mentioning Christ.  Do research, he was a documented individual. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm



the 'Jesus never existed' hypothesis is a 20th century invention.    Gives them something to run with, though.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> the 'Jesus never existed' hypothesis is a 20th century invention.    Gives them something to run with, though.



20th century because the more research that is done, the less reliable info is found.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    what a bogus site!   here's a quick snip from their site, listing a few reasons why they say Luke can't be trusted.
> 
> _ Luke forged a genealogy for Jesus (P) even though he (P) had no father. The genealogy has no historical standing. Worse, his genealogy contradicts the one forged by Matthew.
> Luke provides an infancy narrative which is irreconcilable with the infancy narrative provided by Matthew.
> ...



What bloodline did Jesus' father come from? Are you talking Joseph or God?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> 20th century because the more research that is done, the less reliable info is found.



So, why are there no 1st, 2nd, 3rd century manuscripts that say Jesus was a fabrication?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What bloodline did Jesus' father come from? Are you talking Joseph or God?



Im just saying it's silly to complain about Luke including Joseph as Jesus' father when he states in the 1st chapter that God was Who impregnated her.   lol     Maybe Luke forgot that he had already said that the conception was by the Holy Ghost?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Im just saying it's silly to complain about Luke including Joseph as Jesus' father when he states in the 1st chapter that God was Who impregnated her.   lol     Maybe Luke forgot that he had already said that the conception was by the Holy Ghost?



Being an accurate historian and inspired by god, I can see how Luke forgot.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, why are there no 1st, 2nd, 3rd century manuscripts that say Jesus was a fabrication?



 You said it was a 20th century thing. Do you realize how little Jesus was known in those centuries?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> There are writings from those times that say that. You said it was a 20th century thing.



Can you find me a document from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries that state that Jesus never existed?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Can you find me a document from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries that state that Jesus never existed?



No but I erased that and posted a link that gives examples of those early writings with NO mention of Jesus. I'm thinking it might have been a big deal if it happened.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html



As Pnome would say....this is an "argument from ignorance".   You've got your homework cut out for you.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    what a bogus site!   here's a quick snip from their site, listing a few reasons why they say Luke can't be trusted.
> 
> _ Luke forged a genealogy for Jesus (P) even though he (P) had no father. The genealogy has no historical standing. Worse, his genealogy contradicts the one forged by Matthew.
> Luke provides an infancy narrative which is irreconcilable with the infancy narrative provided by Matthew.
> ...



Late archaeological discoveries prove this statement false! It seems the more we find digging around in the middle east, the more the Bible is proven true.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

Josephus mentions Jesus.   He thought he was significant enough to mention Him.   Very few scholars believe that Josephus' statement was a complete forgery.   Most all believe that it is at least partly correct, with the exception being the statement about Jesus being 'the Messiah'.    

Most historians didn't deal in religious matters, either.   They were focused more on the political realm.   Not writing about Jesus is not proof that he didn't exist.   Lots of people wrote about Him in the 1st century, but since they were mainly religious people some discount their testimony.    That's why I would LOVE to read an authentic version of the Acts of Pontius Pilate....which Justin Martyr (2nd Century) mentions when debating Trypho.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> 20th century because the more research that is done, the less reliable info is found.



On the contrary.... it's the exact opposite.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Late archaeological discoveries prove this statement false! It seems the more we find digging around in the middle east, the more the Bible is proven true.



String...I think your comments are falling on deaf ears.   lol

Good point, though.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> String...I think your comments are falling on deaf ears.   lol
> 
> Good point, though.



Yea, I know I have been in this forum for a long while, very fun debating and it teaches me alot! 

BTW, glad to have you around!

P.S. That is a beast in your avatar!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Yea, I know I have been in this forum for a long while, very fun debating and it teaches me alot!
> 
> BTW, glad to have you around!




I had taken a few months off since hunting season.   I agree, this forum is a great place to learn.   I thoroughly enjoy it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> P.S. That is a beast in your avatar!



Thank you.   FAVOR!    161" gross     Buck of a lifetime for me.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

String, like you always ask for.....examples please!

I've stated this before, Personally I believe a man named Jesus existed. I do not think he was the son of god and I think he had followers just like many before and after him. I do think it took decades for any writings about him to start and then centuries for organized writings to tell the tales that wanted told. For every example one side posts the other counters with an equally opposite example. I cannot say that I have found overwhemling evidence that Jesus did not exist, but I have found enough to convince me that he was not God, god-like or the son of god.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> For every example one side posts the other counters with an equally opposite example.



I agree.   Makes for endless discussions at times.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> String, like you always ask for.....examples please!
> 
> I've stated this before, Personally I believe a man named Jesus existed. I do not think he was the son of god and I think he had followers just like many before and after him. I do think it took decades for any writings about him to start and then centuries for organized writings to tell the tales that wanted told. *For every example one side posts the other counters with an equally opposite example*. I cannot say that I have found overwhemling evidence that Jesus did not exist, but I have found enough to convince me that he was not God, god-like or the son of god.



While I somewhat agree(with whats in red), I will have to give the examples of my post tomorrow, it is in a book I'm reading and I don't remember specifics right now.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I do think it took decades for any writings about him to start and then centuries for organized writings to tell the tales that wanted told.



Few biblical scholars date any of the NT books later than the first century, and most place them all as written by "a baptised Jew" before 70AD.    Again, just because the writers are religious isn't a reason to throw out their testimony.   IMO, it's more of a reason to believe that they are telling the truth.   The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is a great example of an ardent law-following Jew converting to christianity after he met Jesus.   Saul's conversion is also listed in most all Roman history books.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Few biblical scholars date any of the NT books later than the first century, and most place them all as written by "a baptised Jew" before 70AD.    Again, just because the writers are religious isn't a reason to throw out their testimony.   IMO, it's more of a reason to believe that they are telling the truth.   The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is a great example of an ardent law-following Jew converting to christianity *after he met Jesus. *  Saul's conversion is also listed in most all Roman history books.



We have been having a BIG argument over this one! I'm sure Bullet will let you in on it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

lol    sorry....i came in late on the discussion and only read the last few posts.    

I'll try to find some of those posts....but I've got to work, too!   lol


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 13, 2011)

Read the last page of this thread if you get a chance, we talked about it some, I think there are a few other threads that have had the discussion on whether Paul met Jesus.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=6110146&highlight=#post6110146


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Few biblical scholars date any of the NT books later than the first century, and most place them all as written by "a baptised Jew" before 70AD.    Again, just because the writers are religious isn't a reason to throw out their testimony.   IMO, it's more of a reason to believe that they are telling the truth.   The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is a great example of an ardent law-following Jew converting to christianity after he met Jesus.   Saul's conversion is also listed in most all Roman history books.



Bandersnatch, one problem I have with the early writings(and I know all about the canonization of the books) is that there were many more things written down by people just as credible and those stories were not used. Much of the reason is because it tells a story that is different than what the gospels tell. It was written around the same time, by similar authors and because it is not included by the church, it is not considered. Like when we each cite our sources, we use sites that tend to lean towards our side. It is like asking a Georgia Bulldogs fan who the best College Football team is, odds are.................And that is how I see the writings in the bible. Anything that did not tell a similar story did not make the cut, despite the fact that it was written when the others were written.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> We have been having a BIG argument over this one! I'm sure Bullet will let you in on it.



Now Now Now, did he meet Jesus while Jesus was alive and witness his actions in person? Or, Did Paul(then Saul) Get blinded by a light and hear the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus? Did Paul also have other visions and apparitions?

I cannot find a source where Paul met Jesus.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Bandersnatch, one problem I have with the early writings(and I know all about the canonization of the books) is that there were many more things written down by people just as credible and those stories were not used. Much of the reason is because it tells a story that is different than what the gospels tell. It was written around the same time, by similar authors and because it is not included by the church, it is not considered. Like when we each cite our sources, we use sites that tend to lean towards our side. It is like asking a Georgia Bulldogs fan who the best College Football team is, odds are.................And that is how I see the writings in the bible. Anything that did not tell a similar story did not make the cut, despite the fact that it was written when the others were written.



Florida Gators are the best....it's a no-brainer.  

I'm sure you'd agree that there HAD TO BE some criteria for books to be included in the canon, correct?   Well, I do, too.   That criteria would include at least the following:

Written in the 1st century
Written by people who were very close to the events

2nd century gnostic writings had nothing to add, as they were too far removed from the actual events.   

Most would agree that the 21st century book titled, "The Gospel according to Bandy" would not make the cut!   Too far removed.    

Can you tell me which writings you are talking about that were 'cut' that were unanimously considered by biblical scholars as 1st century?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Now Now Now, did he meet Jesus while Jesus was alive and witness his actions in person? Or, Did Paul(then Saul) Get blinded by a light and hear the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus? Did Paul also have other visions and apparitions?
> 
> I cannot find a source where Paul met Jesus.



Let me interject...Paul was taught by Jesus (if you believe Paul's writings  lol)

Galations 1:11-12


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Let me interject...Paul was taught by Jesus (if you believe Paul's writings  lol)
> 
> Galations 1:11-12



Um Hmmmmmm.


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Let me interject...Paul was taught by Jesus (if you believe Paul's writings  lol)
> 
> Galations 1:11-12



I guess that puts an end to that question.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Let me interject...Paul was taught by Jesus (if you believe Paul's writings  lol)
> 
> Galations 1:11-12



Taught? not.


11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Taught? not.
> 
> 
> 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.



Well, I stand corrected.  lol    What I was trying to convey was that Paul said that his knowledge of Jesus' life and purpose came from Jesus, Himself.     

Good to know that you actually read the scriptures we throw out there, Bullet.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

Michael F. Gray said:


> Bullethead, I've fought six battles with cancer. I was bed ridden over 3 years. I had my physician give me 3-6 months, (In 1987), and say he couldn't do anything else for me. When you get near the end and need PEACE, it's not a scientist you will call. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. No man cometh to the FATHEr, but by him.



I assume those six battles were fought without any aid from modern medicine?

Also, if Jesus heals people of cancer does their faith factor in at all or does he randomly heal all people so that there is no statistical difference between Christians who recover from cancer and non-Christians who recover?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I assume those six battles were fought without any aid from modern medicine?
> 
> Also, if Jesus heals people of cancer does their faith factor in at all or does he randomly heal all people so that there is no statistical difference between Christians who recover from cancer and non-Christians who recover?



Atlas, I'm a christian (obviously from my posts) but I've always took issue with those who claimed 'devine healing' while also letting doctors cut and hack away.  (Not that Michael did that...i have no idea)    I was told the same thing in '94 by the 'gods' at Shanes Hospital at the University of Florida.    Lymphnode-involved Melanoma they said.    Their exact words were "This will take you out" and "You've been dealt a bad hand".   LMBO!    My wife and I called them when we got back home and scolded them for acting "all powerful" and that we were christians and believed that God had final say!    Anyway, they were wrong.   All they could offer me was to get in an experiment, which I did.   they said chemo and radiation didn't work with that cancer, and, being so young, I should get into a protocol somewhere.    

I qualified for Duke's 'vaccine' program they had.    When I went up there, they told me that with bilateral lymph node involvement of the neck that I had a 70-80% recurrence rate the first year, and that the vaccine wouldn't cure me, but would slow it down WHEN it came back.    I took the vaccine shots, but had a major attitude with the medical community (mainly because all they could talk about was how much money that vaccine was going to make when it was made public, and also because I didn't want to go with there other options WHEN it recurred)  so I never went back for follow ups.  That was in 94.  

Well, in 2005 I decided to go to a dermatologists in town just to get checked, since I'm in the sun fishing a lot.    I told him my story and he told me that I could not have had melanoma, because I'd be dead if it was lymphnode-involved and only took Duke's vaccine.   He said they stopped the vaccine trial since it didn't work.    All I could say was, "well, they told me it was a malignancy, Melanoma, and they never found a primary site, and I'm still breathing!"     No surgery.   No chemo or radiation.   Nothing but a shot that didn't work for anyone else.

Anyway....just thought I'd share that with you guys.   

dont claim devine healing if you lean on the arm of man. (doctors) 

Let me also share what my son told me last night.  (I have mentioned in the 'speaking in tongues' thread that he was at a church camp)   

He calls me at 11:30pm  (i'm in a deep sleep  lol) and he can hardly talk because he is crying most of the time.   He said that the evening's service went hours longer than it supposed to, being a great service.   He and a couple of his church buddies were walking back to a lunch hall and saw a man talking to another of their buddies from church.   As they got closer, the man asked them to agree with him in prayer as he prayed for the boy's ears.   This boy i've known personally a very long time, since he was a young boy, and he has been nearly deaf his whole life.   (he's now 17 and wears hearing aids)   My son said that they prayed along with the man, and then the man asked the boy how his hearing was.    The boy said, "I think it's a little better..."   My son tells me that the man said, "well, God isn't a "little better"-God, lets pray again for 100% hearing.   Then my son, hardly able to talk to me without crying said, "Dad, God healed Richard 100% right in front of all of us!!!!"   total complete hearing!!    

Say what you want.   God is awesome.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2011)

First, it is awesome that the young man can now hear.

I have some questions:
Has anyone ever prayed for this young man before? Who was this Man that offered up the prayer? Has he done this before with success?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> First, it is awesome that the young man can now hear.
> 
> I have some questions:
> Has anyone ever prayed for this young man before? Who was this Man that offered up the prayer? Has he done this before with success?



Hmmm   I have no idea who the man was.   My son just referred to him as "one of the ministers" from the camp.    

As to if he's been prayed for before, I would have to assume that it had been MANY times, especially since the boy's parents were missionaries to the Marshall Islands.   

Not sure why no one prayed with efficacy before, but what I do know about this time is that if they would have only prayed the one time the boy would have just been left hearing "a little better", as he stated.    Praying again was what got the job done in this case, apparently.

Again, this was a 5 minute conversation with my son at midnight!   lol    That was the gist of it, though.

Let me add that this boy is a boy that we've known for about 15 years!   Not just some stranger.   This boy has been wearing hearing aids from day one.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

I find it curious, too, that the Gospel writers include Jesus' inability to heal the blind man on the first attempt.   Mark 8:24.      Surely authors who were just making up the stories wouldn't have included this inability?   Or the inability to do miracles at Nazareth?   Mark 6:4-5    The authors also portray Jesus' disciples as scaredy cats....hiding out after Jesus crucifixion, and women discovering the empty tomb.   

Food for though, IMO


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I find it curious, too, that the Gospel writers include Jesus' inability to heal the blind man on the first attempt.   Mark 8:24.      Surely authors who were just making up the stories wouldn't have included this inability?   Or the inability to do miracles at Nazareth?   Mark 6:4-5    The authors also portray Jesus' disciples as scaredy cats....hiding out after Jesus crucifixion, and women discovering the empty tomb.
> 
> Food for though, IMO



It is entirely possible and likely that because parts of these writings were taken from other writings at the time that these stories made the cut.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is entirely possible and likely that because parts of these writings were taken from other writings at the time that these stories made the cut.



What other writings were they taken from?   Or are you being presumptuous? 

Bandy


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2011)

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/NT-synoptics.htm

http://bibleresources.americanbible...ce-center/books-of-the-bible/gospels-and-acts

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gospels

http://earlychristianwritings.com/


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

Perhaps something like this?



Or this?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2011)

He is a National Treasure. I'm dumping my Miracle ear stock as we speak.


----------



## JFS (Jul 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> He is a National Treasure.



And just think of all the good he can do once he collects the $1,000,000:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2011)

JFS said:


> And just think of all the good he can do once he collects the $1,000,000:
> 
> http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html



Go Benny, Go Benny, Go Benny.......


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Atlas, I'm a christian (obviously from my posts) but I've always took issue with those who claimed 'devine healing' while also letting doctors cut and hack away.  (Not that Michael did that...i have no idea)    I was told the same thing in '94 by the 'gods' at Shanes Hospital at the University of Florida.    Lymphnode-involved Melanoma they said.    Their exact words were "This will take you out" and "You've been dealt a bad hand".   LMBO!    My wife and I called them when we got back home and scolded them for acting "all powerful" and that we were christians and believed that God had final say!    Anyway, they were wrong.   All they could offer me was to get in an experiment, which I did.   they said chemo and radiation didn't work with that cancer, and, being so young, I should get into a protocol somewhere.
> 
> I qualified for Duke's 'vaccine' program they had.    When I went up there, they told me that with bilateral lymph node involvement of the neck that I had a 70-80% recurrence rate the first year, and that the vaccine wouldn't cure me, but would slow it down WHEN it came back.    I took the vaccine shots, but had a major attitude with the medical community (mainly because all they could talk about was how much money that vaccine was going to make when it was made public, and also because I didn't want to go with there other options WHEN it recurred)  so I never went back for follow ups.  That was in 94.
> 
> ...


 Keep us informed on this. I do hope this to be a miracle but I will say that many times the person feels presured to tell them what they wish to hear. I hope this is not the case. Seen a preacher once, He asked if anyone that wanted to speak in tounges to come foward. About 10 people came foward. He would not stop untill they mumbled something. Most of them regular never returned again while I was visiting there. They did mumble something just to get the pressure off


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Hmmm   I have no idea who the man was.   My son just referred to him as "one of the ministers" from the camp.
> 
> As to if he's been prayed for before, I would have to assume that it had been MANY times, especially since the boy's parents were missionaries to the Marshall Islands.
> 
> ...



Did this happen at the ignited church by any chance?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 15, 2011)

Oh Boy.

http://healingherald.org/2009/09/glass-eye-healed-lakeland-fl/


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2011)

bullethead said:


> He is a National Treasure.



I would substitute "Embarassment" for "Treasure".


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh Boy.
> 
> http://healingherald.org/2009/09/glass-eye-healed-lakeland-fl/



That's Todd Bentley, who is a real piece of work in his own right.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 15, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh Boy.
> 
> http://healingherald.org/2009/09/glass-eye-healed-lakeland-fl/



Glass eyeball.......


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I would substitute "Embarassment" for "Treasure".



Would have made a great first century story teller. Heck he might have even been turning water to wine back in the day.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Would have made a great first century story teller. Heck he might have even been turning water to wine back in the day.



There's precedence for that.  See Acts 8:9-25.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 15, 2011)

One man's sorcery is another man's miracle.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I would substitute "Embarassment" for "Treasure".



Now imagine his followers... his believers... writing about him and all the stuff that they have witnessed, all the stuff he claims will happen, and all these miracles he has performed right in front of them.
 Not only has someone probably written it down(history) and even told others about it(oral tradition), but there is video of it happening right in front of our eyes.  It has got to be true. How can you be so skeptical when his small group of followers are so sure?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 16, 2011)

bullethead said:


> How can you be so skeptical when his small group of followers are so sure?



I'm skeptical of any minister wearing a $2,000 suit.  Apparently, his followers are not.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm skeptical of any minister wearing a $2,000 suit.  Apparently, his followers are not.



So it would be legit if he were in a set of sweatpants and a hoodie?


----------

