# Disprove Christianity



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

I contend that the entire Religion of Christianity hinges on the fact of Jesus's resurrection.  Lets face it, if he wasn't resurrected then he was no different than David Koresh, Jim Jones and many others over the last 2000 years that made the claim of being the Messiah.  If his resurrection can be proven to be false then I will contend Christianity itself is a farce.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 8, 2013)

I watched a really good movie onetime that had an interesting take on that issue.  Its's called "The Man From Earth".  Check it out.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

Care to give us a brief storyline of the movie.


----------



## swampstalker24 (May 8, 2013)

From Wikipedia


> The Man from Earth is a 2007 science fiction film written by Jerome Bixby and directed by Richard Schenkman. The film stars David Lee Smith as John Oldman, the protagonist of the story. The screenplay for this movie was conceived by Jerome Bixby in the early 1960s and was completed on his death bed in April 1998, making it his final piece of work.[2] The movie gained recognition in part for being widely distributed through Internet peer-to-peer networks and its producer publicly thanked users of these networks for this. The film was later adapted by Schenkman into a stage play of the same name.
> 
> The plot focuses on John Oldman, a departing university professor who claims to be a Cro-Magnon (or Magdalenian caveman) who has somehow survived for over 14,000 years. The only setting is in and around Oldman's house during his farewell party, with the plot advancing through intellectual arguments between Oldman and his fellow faculty members. The movie is composed almost entirely of dialogue.


----------



## Four (May 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I contend that the entire Religion of Christianity hinges on the fact of Jesus's resurrection.  Lets face it, if he wasn't resurrected then he was no different than David Koresh, Jim Jones and many others over the last 2000 years that made the claim of being the Messiah.  If his resurrection can be proven to be false then I will contend Christianity itself is a farce.



So are you asking to disprove Christianity or disprove Jesus's Resurrection?

Christianity is a set of beliefs as well as a narrative... There are plenty of parts of the narrative that have been disproven, as well as plenty that are in question, pleanty that have been proven, and some that cannot be disproven by the nature of the evidence / claims.

If you're interested in discussing the resurrection claim, i think we recently had a big thread about that around easter. That being said i'm sure there are people on the board that would have NO problem going back over it!


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

SFD is at a slight disadvantage here being somewhat new. He has lots of good thoughts and posts them as they enter his mind but does not realize that they are nothing new that has not been discussed before, often many times before.

I am still shaking my head that he is asking us to disprove something that cannot be proven to have happened in the first place. Outside of the Bible(which in itself is suspect and holds ZERO clout in this section) the event is unrecorded by ANY of those 500 witnesses that the Bible says saw it (thousands according to some guys).


----------



## bullethead (May 8, 2013)

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=747406
Resurrection Thread


----------



## Four (May 8, 2013)

Because i think this thread is worth saving....

On a similar note, what do you guys think the criteria for disprove for Christianity is? or any religion i guess.

If one part of the bible is proven incorrect, does that disprove it?

What if 99% is proven incorrect?

Also, what if the % proven correct of a different holy book outpaces another, is one considered disproven?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2013)

I don't expect that it will ever be proven either way.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2013)

Ever is a bad choice of words. One day, we will know


----------



## hummdaddy (May 8, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Ever is a bad choice of words. One day, we will know



when that last spark fires off(a thought)leaves your brain,that's it! lights are out bubba and your worm bait!!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 8, 2013)

O.K.  Let me try this again.  Without the resurrection Christianity will/would cease to exist.  It is the central tenant that all others depend on.  To disprove it would forever erase Christianity from the religious landscape.  Is that any more clearer.  P.S. I did attempt to research this thread prior to posting.  Undoubtedly I did not do the  Title search correctly, because it found no results.  Pardon my beating a dead horse.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

One of the weakest arguments theists have. Next.


----------



## Four (May 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  Let me try this again.  Without the resurrection Christianity will/would cease to exist.  It is the central tenant that all others depend on.  To disprove it would forever erase Christianity from the religious landscape.  It that any more clearer.  P.S. I did attempt to research this thread prior to posting.  Undoubtedly I did not do the  Title search correctly, because it found no results.  Pardon my beating a dead horse.



Its really not a big deal to re-surface these things. This crowd has no problem going back over issues.


----------



## hummdaddy (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> O.K.  Let me try this again.  Without the resurrection Christianity will/would cease to exist.  It is the central tenant that all others depend on.  To disprove it would forever erase Christianity from the religious landscape.  Is that any more clearer.  P.S. I did attempt to research this thread prior to posting.  Undoubtedly I did not do the  Title search correctly, because it found no results.  Pardon my beating a dead horse.



  is Christianity  based  on jesus and his practices for what it is today


----------



## Four (May 10, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> is Christianity  based  on jesus and his practices



and does it matter if it was a spiritual Resurrection,  a physical ressurection? Or if he never died in the first place?

Also.. it seems like the Resurrection hurts more than helps christianity.

I thought the main tenant of Christianity is jesus being sacrificed for humanity.

Being a Martyr doesn't have the same weight if you come back to life, yaknow?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> is Christianity  based  on jesus and his practices for what it is today



This doesn't make any sense.  Did you mean to say "or" instead of "for"?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

Four said:


> Also.. it seems like the Resurrection hurts more than helps christianity.



As the Apostle Paul (and SFD) have said, there is no Christianity without the resurrection.




Four said:


> I thought the main tenant of Christianity is jesus being sacrificed for humanity.
> 
> Being a Martyr doesn't have the same weight if you come back to life, yaknow?



He's not a martyr.  Any man could have been a martyr.


----------



## Four (May 10, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> As the Apostle Paul (and SFD) have said, there is no Christianity without the resurrection.



Okay....



centerpin fan said:


> He's not a martyr.  Any man could have been a martyr.



debatable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr

_"The early Christians who first began to use the term martyr in its new sense saw Jesus as the first and greatest martyr, on account of his crucifixion.[2][3][4]"_

But the semantics doesn't really matter, the death was supposed to be a sacrifice, and it seems like less of a sacrifice if he comes back to life.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

He spent a few hours in the lake of fire for all of us..... Must have been he11....


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

Four said:


> debatable
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
> 
> _"The early Christians who first began to use the term martyr in its new sense saw Jesus as the first and greatest martyr, on account of his crucifixion.[2][3][4]"_



There's more to it than that.  He is Saviour, Redeemer and Knight in Shining Armor.




Four said:


> But the semantics doesn't really matter, the death was supposed to be a sacrifice, and it seems like less of a sacrifice if he comes back to life.



He _had_ to come back to life in order to restore life to fallen mankind.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He spent a few hours in the lake of fire for all of us.....



No, that is for the devil and his angels.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

Lake of fire.... He11... You're saying he didn't go to he11 while was still supposedly dead?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Lake of fire.... He11... You're saying he didn't go to he11 while was still supposedly dead?



He did not go to the lake of fire.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

I stand corrected.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

Four said:


> and does it matter if it was a spiritual Resurrection,  a physical ressurection? Or if he never died in the first place?



It absolutely matters and here's why.  He predicted his BODILY resurrection and there is no doubt that he was referring to a physical resurrection.  Even his enemies understood that his claims referred to a physical resurrection.  

Matthew 27:62 records this as:

“The next day, which followed the preparation day, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember that while this deceiver was still “alive He said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore give orders that the tomb be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, His disciples may come, steal Him, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead.’ Then the last deception will be worse than the first.”

So there is no doubt about the nature of the resurrection regarding this.  What I find amazing is this: He could have said "My spirit will arise after three days." and there would have been no way to disprove him.  It would have been an easy 'out' for him.  He didn't say that however.  

You see the most important aspect of the physical resurrection is that it is proof that not only is Jesus who he claimed to be, but also that his sacrifice on the cross for the worlds sin was accepted.   If he didn't show back up in person there would have never been a such thing as Christianity, because not a soul would have believed what he said.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

Proof? Maybe if there was proof of all of it happening.. .which there isn't... Little evidence, none really compelling. Either way....

His sacrifice was accepted? God, who is Jesus, accepted his sacrifice  of himself, to himself, to save humans from a certain bad eternity that he himself condemned them to? Wow..


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Proof? Maybe if there was proof of all of it happening.. .which there isn't... Little evidence, none really compelling. Either way....



Little evidence?  Give me a break.  He was seen by over 500 people in one instance.  Are you telling me if 500 people testified in a court of law as to an event, any event, that a jury would not find it as proof that the event occurred. 



TripleXBullies said:


> His sacrifice was accepted? God, who is Jesus, accepted his sacrifice  of himself, to himself, to save humans from a certain bad eternity that he himself condemned them to? Wow..



No Sir, we condemn ourselves.  

I think C.S. Lewis portrayed the situation accurately when he said 
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 10, 2013)

500 people may be good evidence that they saw a person alive. Little evidence that he was actually dead... Little evidence that any of it really happened. MANY possibilities considering what we are going by for reference. 

I didn't not choose to create a he11 to send myself to. I did not choose to be less than worthy of not being tortured for eternity. I didn't create the rules..


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Little evidence?  Give me a break.  He was seen by over 500 people in one instance.  Are you telling me if 500 people testified in a court of law as to an event, any event, that a jury would not find it as proof that the event occurred.



According to the Bible, 500 people. Outside of the Bible, Zero. 500 is a pretty nice even number don't you think? Not one of those 500 testified to anything. None of those 500 recorded the event. At the very earliest SOMEONE wrote about the event 40-60 years AFTER it "happened" and they may have been a little generous with their figures.
Now, if you have access to the writings/testimonies of these 500 people I am sure you would get some more credit with evidence like that.

The 4 Gospels do not even get the resurrection stories right with each other. They each tell a different story about WHO saw Jesus, who was in the tomb, who was guarding the tomb etc etc etc.

You have to find an alternate source outside of the Bible if you want to give us evidence. The writings in the Bible just do not add up with each other, let alone outside of the Bible and because of those reasons do not mean diddly in here.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You have to find an alternate source outside of the Bible if you want to give us evidence.



If I'm not mistaken, the bible is the most well documented collection of writings in the entire world, why would you want an alternate source?


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the bible is the most well documented collection of writings in the entire world, why would you want an alternate source?



Your Mistaken as to what you think "most well documented collection of writings" means.


----------



## stringmusic (May 10, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your Mistaken as to what you think "most well documented collection of writings" means.


Definition of document 

doc·u·ment1.formal piece of writing: a formal piece of writing that provides information or acts as a record of events or arrangements

What am I missing?


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2013)

It's as accurate as Harry Potter books.


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Definition of document
> 
> doc·u·ment1.formal piece of writing: a formal piece of writing that provides information or acts as a record of events or arrangements
> 
> What am I missing?



A few other definitions of document that better fit the Bible.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I stand corrected.



Christians can't even agree among themselves what happened or didn't happen.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

Four said:


> and does it matter if it was a spiritual Resurrection,  a physical ressurection? Or if he never died in the first place?
> 
> Also.. it seems like the Resurrection hurts more than helps christianity.
> 
> ...



The story has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> 500 people may be good evidence that they saw a person alive. Little evidence that he was actually dead... Little evidence that any of it really happened. MANY possibilities considering what we are going by for reference. .



Well the verse above states without a doubt even his enemies considered him dead.  It's interesting that his death is corroborated by other documents.  I think we can safely consider that he died.



TripleXBullies said:


> 5I didn't not choose to create a he11 to send myself to. I did not choose to be less than worthy of not being tortured for eternity. I didn't create the rules..



Will the same argument get you out of a speeding ticket?


----------



## pnome (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I contend that the entire Religion of Christianity hinges on the fact of Jesus's resurrection.  Lets face it, *if he wasn't resurrected then he was no different than David Koresh, Jim Jones and many others over the last 2000 years that made the claim of being the Messiah.*  If his resurrection can be proven to be false then I will contend Christianity itself is a farce.



Come on!  I don't believe in the resurrection but he's absolutely nothing like David Koresh or Jim Jones.  If I was a Christian I'd be offended.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

pnome said:


> Come on!  I don't believe in the resurrection but he's absolutely nothing like David Koresh or Jim Jones.  If I was a Christian I'd be offended.



That's not what was implied.  My point was that others have claimed to be the messiah and if Christ wasn't resurrected then in that manner he would have been like them.  Sorry if it wasn't clear.

When you say he was nothing like Koresh or Jones and you would be offended if you were a Christian, my question to you is why.   Before you answer, would you like to start another thread to discuss it without derailing this one.  I will if would you like, but the title needs to be broader.  Maybe something of Who do you say Jesus is?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 10, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The story has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese.



The guy in that video is so misinformed I wouldn't know where to start an informed critique, and honestly don't even see any worth in trying.  All I will say is that based on all the available arguments against the atoning death of Jesus, that one may be the weakest i have ever heard.  A good argument against something generally starts with understanding what you are countering.  He doesn't.  There's better counter arguments here on this thread than what's he's offered.


----------



## pnome (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's not what was implied.  My point was that others have claimed to be the messiah and if Christ wasn't resurrected then in that manner he would have been like them.  Sorry if it wasn't clear.
> 
> When you say he was nothing like Koresh or Jones and you would be offended if you were a Christian, my question to you is why.   Before you answer, would you like to start another thread to discuss it without derailing this one.  I will if would you like, but the title needs to be broader.  Maybe something of Who do you say Jesus is?



Have a good one!  I just realized I'm in bad mood and shouldn't be posting in this forum.


----------



## atlashunter (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The guy in that video is so misinformed I wouldn't know where to start an informed critique, and honestly don't even see any worth in trying.  All I will say is that based on all the available arguments against the atoning death of Jesus, that one may be the weakest i have ever heard.  A good argument against something generally starts with understanding what you are countering.  He doesn't.  There's better counter arguments here on this thread than what's he's offered.



Do you think the scenario he gives at the end of the video meets the biblical standards of atonement by sacrifice?


----------



## bullethead (May 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The guy in that video is so misinformed I wouldn't know where to start an informed critique, and honestly don't even see any worth in trying.  All I will say is that based on all the available arguments against the atoning death of Jesus, that one may be the weakest i have ever heard.  A good argument against something generally starts with understanding what you are countering.  He doesn't.  There's better counter arguments here on this thread than what's he's offered.



Like the unaddressed arguments in post #30 perhaps??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

Honestly I missed #30 until your prompt.  I was going to address the points one by one until I read



bullethead said:


> You have to find an alternate source outside of the Bible if you want to give us evidence. The writings in the Bible just do not add up with each other, let alone outside of the Bible and because of those reasons do not mean diddly in here.



Then I realized there's no point in it, at least not as far as you're concerned.  Prior to that statement I was assuming the points you made we're simply out of ignorance of not knowing the the truth.  After the statement I came to realized they were made because you don't want to know the truth or you want to suppress it.  Either way I'm wasting my time.


----------



## bullethead (May 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Honestly I missed #30 until your prompt.  I was going to address the points one by one until I read
> 
> 
> 
> Then I realized there's no point in it, at least not as far as you're concerned.  Prior to that statement I was assuming the points you made we're simply out of ignorance of not knowing the the truth.  After the statement I came to realized they were made because you don't want to know the truth or you want to suppress it.  Either way I'm wasting my time.



I am all about the truth. 
Truth is, you were going to answer these questions but outside of the Bible you cannot find any source to back up what is claimed. And since you have nothing you will come on here and pretend like you have all the answers but you are going to somehow spite us by keeping them to yourself as if that is some sort of punishment to us. Kind of like a "I'm gonna take my ball and go home because you guys are not letting me win" attitude.
If all you have are Bible stories that can't even agree with each other then yes you are wasting your time. You are highly mistaken if you think we are ignorant because we have never seen or read the Bible. It is because we are very familiar with all aspects of the Bible that we can make and back up many of the statements and claims we make with solid details. We don't need faith to fill in the gaps. If you have hard evidence show it. If you want to make excuses using the Bible, bring that on too. I have found that the best counter argument to Bible verses are more Bible verses. We can handle it, show us what you got. Heck I'll even throw in historical facts just for your benefit so you are not "wasting your time". Maybe we will each learn something.


----------



## oldfella1962 (May 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The 4 Gospels do not even get the resurrection stories right with each other. They each tell a different story about WHO saw Jesus, who was in the tomb, who was guarding the tomb etc etc etc.



That's classic sitcom writing. Four different accounts from the kids about how Dad's favorite bowling ball got demolished/son got crucified and they all blame each other. Some things never go out of style!


----------



## centerpin fan (May 11, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> The story has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese.



I agree with SFD.  This is not your best work.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I agree with SFD.  This is not your best work.



I knew you guys would like that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am all about the truth.
> Truth is, you were going to answer these questions but outside of the Bible you cannot find any source to back up what is claimed. And since you have nothing you will come on here and pretend like you have all the answers but you are going to somehow spite us by keeping them to yourself as if that is some sort of punishment to us. Kind of like a "I'm gonna take my ball and go home because you guys are not letting me win" attitude.



Do you even realize how preposterous your argument is?
Do you disbelieve the evidence for mathematics because there is only one principal source say Newtons "Principia Mathematica".  What about biology, because there's only one "Origin of Species".  
You state there is no other source to back up what the Bible claims which is patently false.  In fact a blatant lie.  The Bible is one of the most, if not the most critiqued book ever written.  It has been under attack essentially since day one.  Don't you think that if a major tenant had been disproven we would have known about it.  Would it even surprise you to know that the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today.  Do you understand what I just said.  The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact.  That's not what I say.  It's what they say.  So I ask, What do you know that they don't?  Do you have anything to offer other than an uninformed opinion.  Twice in the last few days you have referred to 'here' this forum, as sort of a higher sanctum where (to paraphrase) 'it takes more. '. Well tell me more.  Tell the scholars more.  Do you even realize that when you refute an assertion that 'it takes more' namely some sort of evidence on your part.  Several guys on 'here' are experts at refuting the assertions of the Bible and when someone defends the assertions with proof, they attempt to refute the proof without ever offering any proof what-so-ever of their original argument.
That may be all you need "here" to satisfy yourself that you are "all about the truth", but I'm afraid out there in the real world asserting or DENYING a proposition requires a bit more mental effort.




bullethead said:


> If all you have are Bible stories that can't even agree with each other then yes you are wasting your time. You are highly mistaken if you think we are ignorant because we have never seen or read the Bible. It is because we are very familiar with all aspects of the Bible that we can make and back up many of the statements and claims we make with solid details. We don't need faith to fill in the gaps. If you have hard evidence show it. If you want to make excuses using the Bible, bring that on too. I have found that the best counter argument to Bible verses are more Bible verses. We can handle it, show us what you got. Heck I'll even throw in historical facts just for your benefit so you are not "wasting your time". Maybe we will each learn something.



Cases in point above.  Refute,then ask for evidence.  Mentally it doesn't get any lazier than that.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2013)

I hope 1gr8bldr sees that last post.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you even realize how preposterous your argument is?
> Do you disbelieve the evidence for mathematics because there is only one principal source say Newtons "Principia Mathematica".  What about biology, because there's only one "Origin of Species".
> You state there is no other source to back up what the Bible claims which is patently false.  In fact a blatant lie.  The Bible is one of the most, if not the most critiqued book ever written.  It has been under attack essentially since day one.  Don't you think that if a major tenant had been disproven we would have known about it.  Would it even surprise you to know that the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today.  Do you understand what I just said.  The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact.  That's not what I say.  It's what they say.  So I ask, What do you know that they don't?  Do you have anything to offer other than an uninformed opinion.  Twice in the last few days you have referred to 'here' this forum, as sort of a higher sanctum where (to paraphrase) 'it takes more. '. Well tell me more.  Tell the scholars more.  Do you even realize that when you refute an assertion that 'it takes more' namely some sort of evidence on your part.  Several guys on 'here' are experts at refuting the assertions of the Bible and when someone defends the assertions with proof, they attempt to refute the proof without ever offering any proof what-so-ever of their original argument.
> That may be all you need "here" to satisfy yourself that you are "all about the truth", but I'm afraid out there in the real world asserting or DENYING a proposition requires a bit more mental effort.
> ...



Bravo!    
You sound like the President slinging out statistics and "facts". I can't wait to see your sources.

"the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today"

Back it up!!

"The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact"

All we need is the source.

Post up a link that lists all the critical biblical scholars, and all the liberal and skeptical scholars and lets count the Yes's and No's so we can see how you get to your "most" stats. No one polled me but I must not have been included in the statistics you used. I cannot wait to see the breakdown of the amount of 'critical bible scholars' and 'liberal and skeptical bible scholars" and their votes.

SemperFiDawg.....you just had your chance to list outside sources and NADA, ZIP, NOTHING. Major tenants have been dis-proven, they are well known, it is just you(and many like you) choose to ignore the facts and continue to try to use these writings as some sort of proof that the contents actually happened. Sorry sfd in "here" it does take more because if that Bible was half of what you claim it is there would be one religion worldwide and one denomination. The reason it is not that way is because so much of it has been dis-proven, shown to be false, shown to be full of errors, shown to be inaccurate, shown to be geographically wrong, shown to be historically wrong and there are so many instances where one verse contradicts the other that the entire book(forget just your resurrection "MAJORITY fact claim" is not only NOT believed by the majority of "scholarly skeptics, liberals and critics" but it is not believed by the majority of people on the planet. 

I'll give you a source:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/04/16/not-all-christians-believe-in-the-resurrection-of-christ/
And another:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14273/most-americans-dont-believe-in-the-resurrection
Skeptics,critics, and religious liberals believe in the resurrection(according to sfd) but the clergy doesn't:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lergy-do-not-believe-in-the-Resurrection.html
I'll post more when you site your sources that I asked for above.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

tenants /= tenets


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Back it up!!



He would but we are just too ignorant for him to waste his time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Bravo!
> You sound like the President slinging out statistics and "facts". I can't wait to see your sources.
> 
> "the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today"
> ...




http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...rticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...rticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf

http://www.newmediaministries.org/Jesus/Scholarship_S.html

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html


Here is a Secularist calling liberal theologians out for their "cold feet" in addressing the resurrection and rebuts others for accepting it, but I don't expect that to fly 'here' as evidence.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_green/resurrection.html
" Resurrection of Christ attempts to tackle the biggest miracle claim of all: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This popular-level book is actually an updated version of Lüdemann's earlier work What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach. Only this time, Lüdemann wants to be crystal clear. If we cannot believe that the Resurrection (as described in the canonical Gospels) really happened, then we cannot in good conscience call ourselves Christians. Lüdemann has acknowledged and rectified an earlier regret of his: his advocacy of the position that we could dispense with miracle claims such as the virgin birth, the miracle-working Jesus, and the Resurrection, and instead try to recover the historical Jesus for a modern age and see what he could tell our generation. The problem, though, is that without the Resurrection, we are being dishonest. The credibility of the Christian faith depends on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is why Lüdemann is no longer a liberal. If you do away with miracles, you have nothing left of Christianity. Christianity is essentially a story a miraculous, revelatory God who stepped into human history, was born of a virgin, worked miracles, preached about the coming theocracy of God, was crucified, and rose from the dead. The Christian faith is miraculous through and through. Divorce the miraculous from Christianity and you have nothing. Lüdemann realizes this and so has renounced the notion that we can dispense with the miraculous and recover a historical Jesus whose teachings can form the basis of a modern Christianity."

"Lüdemann begins with a fresh investigation of the historicity of the Resurrection. He examines the cold feet of liberal theologians like Hans Conzelmann, Rudolf Bultmann, and Willi Marxsen when discussing the resurrection of Christ (pg. 13). He proceeds to rebut the objections of liberal theologians that the resurrection of Christ can be an event of history and then proceeds to explain the rest of the book."


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SFD,

You just offered up a source that refutes your original claim. Congrats!


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

Still waiting for the links that show "most" and "majority" of skeptics,critics and liberal biblical scholars that now believe the resurrection happened.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> SFD,
> 
> You just offered up a source that refutes your original claim. Congrats!



Actually it was a book review of a source that refutes my original claim.  Whether or not it does so successfully is another matter; neither of which addresses the reason it was posted.   But I suspect you know that and choose to ignor it instead of addressing why some leading liberal Bible scholars accepting the resurrection as fact.  I guess thy aren't the only ones with "cold feet".


----------



## Corvus (May 12, 2013)

Coming into this a little late but I feel that the obvious should be stated. Believers of Christianity, the resurrection, and God in general, bear the burden of proof; it is their responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their beliefs are well founded. Non believers don't have to prove or disprove a thing as they aren't the ones asserting that something written down nearly 2000 years ago actually happened.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2013)

Corvus said:


> Coming into this a little late but I feel that the obvious should be stated. Believers of Christianity, the resurrection, and God in general, bear the burden of proof; it is their responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their beliefs are well founded. Non believers don't have to prove or disprove a thing as they aren't the ones asserting that something written down nearly 2000 years ago actually happened.


Agreed, but does not our higher moral standards prove... just kidding, those that know me here know that is not my thoughts


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Still waiting for the links that show "most" and "majority" of skeptics,critics and liberal biblical scholars that now believe the resurrection happened.



Not my words and you should know, because you quoted me correctly back in post 52.  Do you not remember this:

"Back it up!!

"The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact"

All we need is the source."?

Well Sir I provided the sources and instead of addressing them, you totally ignore them which I find ironic since you we're the one demanding them.  Perhaps you find it easier to twist and falsify my words than to address why liberal theologians accept the resurrection.  Its surely not because they want amy more than you do.  I would suggest the reason is because of the weight of the evidence supports it leaving them no other reasonable choice.  In academia, unlike 'here' you can't twist and falsify another's words without losing all credibility and becoming a laughing stock among your peers.  Or maybe those laws apply 'here' also.  All people, even children, have a most uncanny ability to see through deception and realize the truth, however Athiest probably don't agree with that either.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I hope 1gr8bldr sees that last post.


I just saw it. I realize that my belief of life after death is a hard sell. Maybe when I get there, I can sneak a few a my woody's friends in the back door


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

Corvus said:


> Coming into this a little late but I feel that the obvious should be stated. Believers of Christianity, the resurrection, and God in general, bear the burden of proof; it is their responsibility to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their beliefs are well founded.



I agree completely and there are many out there that are excellent at providing that the burden of proof is met.



Corvus said:


> Non believers don't have to prove or disprove a thing as they aren't the ones asserting that something written down nearly 2000 years ago actually happened.



That is true to a point and that point is this:  When one makes an assertion.  One can say I don't believe it and thats fine, no burden of proof exists. However, the minute I refute something isn't true then by definition I am asserting something else is, and therefore have the same burden of proof as the one I am refuting.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not my words and you should know, because you quoted me correctly back in post 52.  Do you not remember this:
> 
> "Back it up!!
> 
> ...



Got a list ranking these "most critical Biblical scholars"?
I have not twisted anyone's words. Your post makes it seem as if there was some sort of poll and the majority(ie:most) harshest critics of theology have all changed their minds and agree that the resurrection happened. Sorry "sir" that is not the case. Yeah you can find one or two as easy as I can find one or two former believers in the resurrection. There is no or was no mass conversion. There is no majority. Bust out the liberal theologians list, show us the who's who and their new outlook. Nationwide Christians that believed in the resurrection dropped 13% from last year. Those probably were not true Christians to begin with though right?
I'm not twisting words. I am holding you accountable for the claims YOU made. 
I didn't see any laughing going on in any of these posts. My guess is it is just you.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Not my words and you should know, because you quoted me correctly back in post 52.  Do you not remember this:
> 
> "Back it up!!
> 
> ...



At least one of your sources said the exact opposite of what you claimed.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually it was a book review of a source that refutes my original claim.  Whether or not it does so successfully is another matter; neither of which addresses the reason it was posted.   But I suspect you know that and choose to ignor it instead of addressing why some leading liberal Bible scholars accepting the resurrection as fact.  I guess thy aren't the only ones with "cold feet".



Now it's just some? What about the rest of them?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> I just saw it. I realize that my belief of life after death is a hard sell. Maybe when I get there, I can sneak a few a my woody's friends in the back door



I was referring to his claim about the most liberal and critical biblical scholars considering the resurrection as fact.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Got a list ranking these "most critical Biblical scholars"?
> I have not twisted anyone's words. Your post makes it seem as if there was some sort of poll and the majority(ie:most) harshest critics of theology have all changed their minds and agree that the resurrection happened.



So you quoted me correctly the first time, 
misquoted and falsified my quote the second time and now are suggesting its my fault because the syntax that was used caused you to infer something that it clearly did not imply.
Brother why not just man up say you misquoted me.  I did it last week when I misquoted atlashunter.  It was an honest mistake, but MY mistake just the same.  I said it and  I stood corrected on it.  I manned up.  People make mistakes.  If it was a mistake then no big deal, but the harder you try to avoid it the more you are making it look deliberate.



bullethead said:


> I'm not twisting words. I am holding you accountable for the claims YOU made.
> I didn't see any laughing going on in any of these posts. My guess is it is just you.



I am accountable and I was.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 12, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> when that last spark fires off(a thought)leaves your brain,that's it! lights are out bubba and your worm bait!!!



Prove it...isn't that the question? None of us can prove it to each other either way.  If you can show me one scientist that can create something out of nothing, I might think about it a little more.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Prove it...isn't that the question? None of us can prove it to each other either way.  If you can show me one scientist that can create something out of nothing, I might think about it a little more.



Who says something was created out of nothing? Even the term "out of" nothing is nonsense.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Now it's just some? What about the rest of them?



I didn't say all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> At least one of your sources said the exact opposite of what you claimed.



Really?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I didn't say all.



If you subtract some from all who does that leave? What do they have to say about the resurrection story?


----------



## hummdaddy (May 12, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Prove it...isn't that the question? None of us can prove it to each other either way.  If you can show me one scientist that can create something out of nothing, I might think about it a little more.



http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brain-death.htm

Due to the continual medical advancements, there will be more and more patients who are being maintained by ventilation support systems -- their body temperature, blood pressure, pulse, nutrition and fluid requirements are being artificially maintained, but they have a non-viable (dead) brain. These patients are brain dead without any hope of recovery or survival.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> If you subtract some from all who does that leave?



Undoubtedly more than you are willing to acknowledge.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So you quoted me correctly the first time,
> misquoted and falsified my quote the second time and now are suggesting its my fault because the syntax that was used caused you to infer something that it clearly did not imply.
> Brother why not just man up say you misquoted me.  I did it last week when I misquoted atlashunter.  It was an honest mistake, but MY mistake just the same.  I said it and  I stood corrected on it.  I manned up.  People make mistakes.  If it was a mistake then no big deal, but the harder you try to avoid it the more you are making it look deliberate.
> 
> ...



You are going to have to man up this time too and stop deflecting with these posts that try, but fail, to put the spotlight on me. I am still asking for answers to your same claims. Where are all the resurrection converts?

"the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today"

"The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact"

If a few random guys changed their minds then they certainly were not and are not part of the most critical, most liberal, and most skeptical bible scholars today.

If you want to re-word your original claims, go for it. If you want to stick with them then give us the names of these people and show us where they went on record saying they now believe Jesus was resurrected. Hopefully at least ONE of them is a well known critical, liberal, Bible scholar skeptic.


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Undoubtedly more than you are willing to acknowledge.




"Would it even surprise you to know that the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today. Do you understand what I just said. The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact."

 Just admit you were talking out your back side. As bullet said, time to man up. Let's see if you can do it.


----------



## bullethead (May 12, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> "Would it even surprise you to know that the resurrection of Christ is accepted as fact amoung the most liberal and skeptical Bible scholars today. *Do you understand what I just said. The most critical Bible scholars today consider it as fact."*
> 
> Just admit you were talking out your back side. As bullet said, time to man up. Let's see if you can do it.



I think a better question would be, "Does semperfidawg understand the importance of the specific claim he made and if so, can he back it up"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 13, 2013)

Did you two even bother to read the sources I quoted any further than the Titles?


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Who says something was created out of nothing? Even the term "out of" nothing is nonsense.



Right Atlas. 

and let em read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Did you two even bother to read the sources I quoted any further than the Titles?



Yes


----------



## jmh5397 (May 13, 2013)

Well, I got snookered back in here with this thread.  The argument seems like a colossal waste of time.  "Prove it", "No, you prove it"... give me a break!  It should be enough that the sun rises every morning to prove that God exists.  I can end this debate!  You need undeniable proof God exists?  Put a 45 about 1/2 inch above your right ear and pull the trigger. a) you won't hear a sound, b) you'll have your proof that God exists.


----------



## JABBO (May 13, 2013)

I hope you are not serious with this statement!!  If so, please explain...



jmh5397 said:


> It should be enough that the sun rises every morning to prove that God exists.  I can end this debate!  You need undeniable proof God exists?  Put a 45 about 1/2 inch above your right ear and pull the trigger. a) you won't hear a sound, b) you'll have your proof that God exists.


----------



## Four (May 13, 2013)

JABBO said:


> I hope you are not serious with this statement!!  If so, please explain...



It made me feel very uncomfortable to read.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> Well, I got snookered back in here with this thread.  The argument seems like a colossal waste of time.  "Prove it", "No, you prove it"... give me a break!  It should be enough that the sun rises every morning to prove that God exists.  I can end this debate!  You need undeniable proof God exists?  Put a 45 about 1/2 inch above your right ear and pull the trigger. a) you won't hear a sound, b) you'll have your proof that God exists.



I tried a 45, then a 78, then an 8 track, cassette, CD and mp3.....still no God.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> Well, I got snookered back in here with this thread.  The argument seems like a colossal waste of time.  "Prove it", "No, you prove it"... give me a break!  It should be enough that the sun rises every morning to prove that God exists.  I can end this debate!  You need undeniable proof God exists?  Put a 45 about 1/2 inch above your right ear and pull the trigger. a) you won't hear a sound, b) you'll have your proof that God exists.



Christians everywhere gotta be proud you are part of the gang.


----------



## stringmusic (May 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I tried a 45, then a 78, then an 8 track, cassette, CD and mp3.....still no God.



I see what you did there....


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I see what you did there....



I was at Cabelas this morning and bought another 250rnds of .45acp ammo, not gonna waste it on my thick skull.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 13, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> Christians can't even agree among themselves what happened or didn't happen.



Neither can y'all.

Matthew 27:51-53 [51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

These witnesses also witnessed their own loved ones  raised from the dead by the power of Christ's resurrection. Why would all those 'other' people lie about witnessing to the resurrection of their loved ones. That is of course an account in The Word, that you believe none of anyway.


----------



## jmh5397 (May 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I tried a 45, then a 78, then an 8 track, cassette, CD and mp3.....still no God.



 Good come back.  You didn't have any 33's?  For the other two......"am I serious"?  No more than you....no more than you.  You guys need to lighten up and except the fact that people are different. This whole thread, heck this whole section, has both of our sides quoting man as if "he" was the authoritative ends on the subject.  You don't "believe"....good for you.  The undeniable "proof" that you seek, died with Jesus (whether you choose to believe that or not).  He was the tangible evidence that you seeked, but we (man) said "no thank you" then, just as we are now.  You live in a world where 100% of everything around you has been created yet you don't believe in the great Creator.  You want to use science to disprove (or prove) God's existence.  Seems pretty dubious, when science is held back by man's own limitations to interpret.  If you _really_ think I wanted you to use a gun, well........ what can I say?  Any person that says they can prove...PROVE... beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God does/doesn't exist, should probably be discredited all together...IMO.  I have faith in Him, and I know that He exists.  But for you to understand that, you would have to walk a mile in my shoes.  We all know that cannot happen.  The same applies for me towards you and your situation.  The important thing here is that conversation exists and one day the "proof" we seek will be there in front of us all.   Carry on!  I'm sure bullet will get me back in on another thread in a week or two


----------



## jmh5397 (May 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Christians everywhere gotta be proud you are part of the gang.



Why is that?  Can I not be as cynical as you?  Come on man?  I thought you were one of the grown up ones in here that could handle tongue-in-cheek dialogue.  I'm sorry.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> Why is that?  Can I not be as cynical as you?  Come on man?  I thought you were one of the grown up ones in here that could handle tongue-in-cheek dialogue.  I'm sorry.



I didn't take it personally, there are just some things we all should hold back on because someone is going to take it the wrong way.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

jmh5397 said:


> Good come back.  You didn't have any 33's?  For the other two......"am I serious"?  No more than you....no more than you.  You guys need to lighten up and except the fact that people are different. This whole thread, heck this whole section, has both of our sides quoting man as if "he" was the authoritative ends on the subject.  You don't "believe"....good for you.  The undeniable "proof" that you seek, died with Jesus (whether you choose to believe that or not).  He was the tangible evidence that you seeked, but we (man) said "no thank you" then, just as we are now.  You live in a world where 100% of everything around you has been created yet you don't believe in the great Creator.  You want to use science to disprove (or prove) God's existence.  Seems pretty dubious, when science is held back by man's own limitations to interpret.  If you _really_ think I wanted you to use a gun, well........ what can I say?  Any person that says they can prove...PROVE... beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God does/doesn't exist, should probably be discredited all together...IMO.  I have faith in Him, and I know that He exists.  But for you to understand that, you would have to walk a mile in my shoes.  We all know that cannot happen.  The same applies for me towards you and your situation.  The important thing here is that conversation exists and one day the "proof" we seek will be there in front of us all.   Carry on!  I'm sure bullet will get me back in on another thread in a week or two



I think a lot of what is missed here by believers is that I (and I'm sure most others) have not always been unbelievers. Many of us started out being brought up in christian households and did all the things you guys are telling us we need to do now, we were once "as christian" as anyone else. I still find some of the things I think and say on here shocking as it goes against everything I had believed for 20 years. We just got to a point where things are just as good in our lives without the necessity of including a god. We know what we are missing and to be quite honest we aren't exactly missing anything. Literally have been there and done that. The more I wanted to really find out about the Bible, God, Jesus and religion, the less I liked what I found. This process was not over night. It was not because of a certain specific instance. It was because I looked into it deeply both in research and within my soul and have come to the point where I am now. I am not afraid to admit that I need more proof than I got from attending church, talking to pastors and priests and just relying on faith. The sun still comes up for me every day just like it did when I was sure MY God made it. Something may very well be responsible for creating that Sun but I have found that it is more likely than not, NOT any one of the thousands of Gods that man worships. I/We have walked miles in our own shoes and have kept pace with others so much so that we are on our second, third, fourth laps.


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I didn't take it personally, there are just some things we all should hold back on because someone is going to take it the wrong way.



I don't know... I kinda liked his post.  Imagine someone actually did blow their brains out because they wanted so desperately to know if god was real.  I see a lot of people on here saying "please Lord come quick!", begging for the end of this world.  Seems like the .45 to the side of the head would do the trick.   I mean, how could He be upset with you if you told him that you just couldn't wait to be with Him or that you exhausted all other means at your disposal to know that He is real?  

How would God deal with someone who jumped into a volcano shouting "Show me your sweet face Lord?"


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think a lot of what is missed here by believers is that I (and I'm sure most others) have not always been unbelievers. Many of us started out being brought up in christian households and did all the things you guys are telling us we need to do now, we were once "as christian" as anyone else. I still find some of the things I think and say on here shocking as it goes against everything I had believed for 20 years. We just got to a point where things are just as good in our lives without the necessity of including a god. We know what we are missing and to be quite honest we aren't exactly missing anything. Literally have been there and done that. The more I wanted to really find out about the Bible, God, Jesus and religion, the less I liked what I found. This process was not over night. It was not because of a certain specific instance. It was because I looked into it deeply both in research and within my soul and have come to the point where I am now. I am not afraid to admit that I need more proof than I got from attending church, talking to pastors and priests and just relying on faith. The sun still comes up for me every day just like it did when I was sure MY God made it. Something may very well be responsible for creating that Sun but I have found that it is more likely than not any one of the thousands of Gods that man worships. I/We have walked miles in our own shoes and have kept pace with others so much so that we are on our second, third, fourth laps.



Furthermore, my life is indeed better without Jesus or Buddah or Vishnu and there truly, TRULY was something to lose by believing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 13, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yes




Well if you read them you will notice with exception of the last one,the sources are cited in the footnotes. In the last resource the author doesn't footnote his references instead naming at least some of them in text.  Either way the sources are there.  If you guys want try to poke holes in these liberal scholar's credentials in order to ignore their conclusions be my guest.  I wouldn't think just the very fact that they are being both cited as well as refuted would seem to suggests they have a bit of clout in the academic world, but again be my guest. 
As to your links posted much earlier; please tell me you can do better than one noted New Testament scholar( N.T. Wright), most americans(not most Christians, just most Americans) and "A third of Church of England clergy" in the order you posted, to disprove my contention that the resurrection is the linchpin on which Christianity rises and falls.

Links to statements that support my assertion from Christian sources:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?ID=811
"The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central truth of the Christian faith. Without it there is no such thing as the Christian faith."

https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/64-the-significance-of-christs-resurrection
"The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the foundation of the Christian system (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:14ff). If there was no resurrection, Christianity is a hoax, and we are wasting our time."

http://www.icr.org/ChristResurrection/
"The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the crowning proof of Christianity. Everything else that was said or done by Christ and the apostles is secondary in importance to the resurrection. If the resurrection did not take place then Christianity is a false religion. If it did take place, then Christ is God and the Christian faith is absolute truth."

http://bible.org/article/resurrection-christ-theological-implications

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/Importance_resurrection.html
"    We are accustomed to thinking of the importance of Christ to us personally, as of course we should. However, in the remainder of this discussion I wish to focus on the importance of Christianity for the world and why the resurrection of Christ is the sine qua non of Christian belief. "

Paul
"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God.... If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile (1 Cor. 15:14-17)."



Links to statements that support my assertion from from Non-Christian sources:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap3.html

BTW This is without a doubt the best argument against the resurrection I have read.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

Christian sources that support the Resurrection as being The Focal Point Of The Christian Faith....whooda thunk it?

And your last link (from Infidels.org) is from their Library which has all kinds of pro-Christian articles in it that they review and critique.

Here is the rest of the article:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/

Here is what is in the library about the resurrection:
www.infidels.org/library/modern/the...ibrary/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Neither can y'all.



We don't need to. We aren't the ones claiming to have the perfect words of the perfect creator of the universe. Nor are we claiming to be in direct communication with them. When you do that it raises the bar just a little bit and you should be able to get your stories straight.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know... I kinda liked his post.  Imagine someone actually did blow their brains out because they wanted so desperately if god was real.  I see a lot of people on here saying "please Lord come quick!", begging for the end of this world.  Seems like the .45 to the side of the head would do the trick.   I mean, how could He be upset with you if you told him that you just couldn't wait to be with Him or that you exhausted all other means at your disposal to know that He is real?
> 
> How would God deal with someone who jumped into a volcano shouting "Show me your sweet face Lord?"



Good point. The way believers cling to life says a lot about what they really believe. I think many of them want to believe but deep down in their gut know or at least fear that this life may be all there is.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know... I kinda liked his post.  Imagine someone actually did blow their brains out because they wanted so desperately if god was real.  I see a lot of people on here saying "please Lord come quick!", begging for the end of this world.  Seems like the .45 to the side of the head would do the trick.   I mean, how could He be upset with you if you told him that you just couldn't wait to be with Him or that you exhausted all other means at your disposal to know that He is real?
> 
> How would God deal with someone who jumped into a volcano shouting "Show me your sweet face Lord?"



LOL, there would be a lot less .45 ammo if true believers really wanted to buck the line and be with God. DHS would probably appreciate some of the heat taken off them for ammo shortages though!
I get the feeling most believers will wait their turn and not try to speed things up.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2013)

SFD you're a hoot. You started out saying the most liberal and critical biblical scholars accepted the resurrection as fact. Then it became just some of them.

Now you are trying to back it up with links to the "Institute for Creation Research". Really? That article was written by Henry M Morris, the founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research. What exactly establishes his bonafides as a liberal or critical biblical scholar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris

He was a young earth creationist whose formal education and career was in civil engineering. _This_ is who you meant when you said THE most liberal and critical biblical scholars? I see nothing to indicate that this guy was either liberal, critical, or a scholar.

Then we've got the article from Christian Courier written by a Wayne Jackson. Who is Wayne Jackson? There is no information I could find about him on that web site.

Is this the same Wayne Jackson?

http://www.rwaynejackson.com/?page_id=62



> R. Wayne Jackson is a writer and teacher.  Having served as a Sunday school teacher in his church for over 30 years, Wayne brings a solid scriptural foundation to his writing and teaching.  His interests include studies in Biblical prophecy, Christian apologetics, heaven. and eternity.





> I began to feel God’s call to teach the Bible. My background is in education and business systems. During the next few years, God led me to the  point that I understood the entire Bible. Early in  the 1980′s, even though I was not a writer, God led me to write a book about the Bible. With a great deal of help from a close friend, a pen, a pad and the open Bible, I began to write. I did not have a word processor or any of the electronic tools that we have today. I wrote the part on the Old Testament with pen and pad. I began writing in the early 1980′s and finished the manuscript after I retired in 1999. Since then I have been using chapters from the manuscript and teaching two hour sessions over a twelve week period. Through this effort, with the leading of the Holy Spirit, I have made many revisions.
> 
> It is from this manuscript and all of its supporting materials, with heavy emphasis on Biblical prophecy, that I am now privileged to use the Web to expand my teaching ministry. I pray that my teaching will help lead the lost to Christ and to bring the children of God to a closer walk with Him and that in everything I write Jesus will be glorified.



This guy is a sunday school teacher with a "background in education and business systems" who writes on the side with the stated goal of spreading his religion. What exactly qualifies him one of the most liberal and critical biblical scholars? As far as I can tell just like the last guy he is none of the three.


Those are just two that I picked at random out of your list. I don't have time at the moment to look at the others. Maybe Bullet can. I will acknowledge here and now that there are many christian writers who consider the resurrection as factual. You may even be able to find a couple formally trained liberal scholars who would agree although as far as I can tell you have yet to supply that. You have supplied one source that criticizes liberal theologians for not abandoning the faith altogether after they have refused to accept the resurrection as historically factual. That runs counter to your original claim. I'm not sure if you get that.


----------



## bullethead (May 13, 2013)

I'm not sure sfd read his own links.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I tried a 45, then a 78, then an 8 track, cassette, CD and mp3.....still no God.



Atheist or not, that's funny.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Christian sources that support the Resurrection as being The Focal Point Of The Christian Faith....whooda thunk it?
> 
> And your last link (from Infidels.org) is from their Library which has all kinds of pro-Christian articles in it that they review and critique.
> 
> ...



Read them before I posted the link, but there's more than those.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 14, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> SFD you're a hoot. You started out saying the most liberal and critical biblical scholars accepted the resurrection as fact. Then it became just some of them.
> 
> Now you are trying to back it up with links to the "Institute for Creation Research". Really? That article was written by Henry M Morris, the founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research. What exactly establishes his bonafides as a liberal or critical biblical scholar.
> 
> ...




Atlas you need to go back and read post 96 again.  You missed the whole point of it.


----------



## bullethead (May 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atheist or not, that's funny.



Atheism is not about comedy. It is A-comedic.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 14, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> We don't need to. We aren't the ones claiming to have the perfect words of the perfect creator of the universe. Nor are we claiming to be in direct communication with them. When you do that it raises the bar just a little bit and you should be able to get your stories straight.



No what I'm talking about is y'all don't have the stories straight either. Y'all disbelieve stories that you don't even get the point of. Y'all post all about science stuff that you do believe in and most times I don't grasp it and it's commented about and then when you don't understand or quote stories incorrectly that you don't believe, then I'm still the one that needs to get my stories straight? What's the difference? You can do the same thing and it's ok?

Whatever


----------



## mtnwoman (May 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atlas you need to go back and read post 96 again.  You missed the whole point of it.



And I always thought I was the only one around here that missed points....except I miss points on everything, no matter what it is, so I'm told.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> No what I'm talking about is y'all don't have the stories straight either. Y'all disbelieve stories that you don't even get the point of. Y'all post all about science stuff that you do believe in and most times I don't grasp it and it's commented about and then when you don't understand or quote stories incorrectly that you don't believe, then I'm still the one that needs to get my stories straight? What's the difference? You can do the same thing and it's ok?
> 
> Whatever



I already explained the difference. We only have our fallible selves to rely on. You christians claim to have much more to rely on. If that claim is true then it should show. Hard to buy that you all are privy to divine knowledge when you can't even agree on what that knowledge is and isn't.


----------



## mtnwoman (May 14, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I already explained the difference. We only have our fallible selves to rely on. You christians claim to have much more to rely on. If that claim is true then it should show. Hard to buy that you all are privy to divine knowledge when you can't even agree on what that knowledge is and isn't.



It's obvious in the OT that those folks couldn't 'follow the rules' either, isn't it? Or they wouldn't need a redeemer. Yes it should show all the time. I can be around some of my old friends who are still in the same hole I was in and they tell me they  that I'm still the same person, but yet not the same, because I don't do what they still do....that is my witness to them. That I can still be happy go lucky and still have the same personality, but don't have to depend on drugs/alcohol to still have fun.
Hope that makes sense. 

Why should we all agree when most of us have been thru different things, we don't become robots to Christ, we just have the strength and power to change some of the things that is wrong with us.  I don't need help in the thou shalt not kill department or the thou shalt not steal department, so yes we are all different in the things we need strength in...just like every other human being. And I cry out to God everyday, please give me the strength to overcome this goliath that stands before me. No we don't all agree neither do atheists...do you like to be compared to Madeline O'Hare? I couldn't compare you to that so why do you think I should be any different than any other person Christian or not that has struggles in life that are hard to overcome? You don't know the good things that I do now, compared to how I used to be, people that know me can tell the difference. Believe it or not.


----------



## ambush80 (May 14, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> It's obvious in the OT that those folks couldn't 'follow the rules' either, isn't it? Or they wouldn't need a redeemer. Yes it should show all the time. I can be around some of my old friends who are still in the same hole I was in and they tell me they  that I'm still the same person, but yet not the same, because I don't do what they still do....that is my witness to them. That I can still be happy go lucky and still have the same personality, but don't have to depend on drugs/alcohol to still have fun.
> Hope that makes sense.
> 
> Why should we all agree when most of us have been thru different things, we don't become robots to Christ, we just have the strength and power to change some of the things that is wrong with us.  I don't need help in the thou shalt not kill department or the thou shalt not steal department, so yes we are all different in the things we need strength in...just like every other human being. And I cry out to God everyday, please give me the strength to overcome this goliath that stands before me. No we don't all agree neither do atheists...do you like to be compared to Madeline O'Hare? I couldn't compare you to that so why do you think I should be any different than any other person Christian or not that has struggles in life that are hard to overcome? You don't know the good things that I do now, compared to how I used to be, people that know me can tell the difference. Believe it or not.



You can do all that on your own.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> It's obvious in the OT that those folks couldn't 'follow the rules' either, isn't it? Or they wouldn't need a redeemer. Yes it should show all the time. I can be around some of my old friends who are still in the same hole I was in and they tell me they  that I'm still the same person, but yet not the same, because I don't do what they still do....that is my witness to them. That I can still be happy go lucky and still have the same personality, but don't have to depend on drugs/alcohol to still have fun.
> Hope that makes sense.



We aren't talking about your ability to follow the rules. We are talking about the irreconcilable views that Christians hold of what the rules are. They have what is supposed to be the perfect word of God and claim that God speaks to them yet we have understandings of God's word that are at odds. Is God schizophrenic? Or are these different rules and understandings man made?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 14, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> We aren't talking about your ability to follow the rules. We are talking about the irreconcilable views that Christians hold of what the rules are. They have what is supposed to be the perfect word of God and claim that God speaks to them yet we have understandings of God's word that are at odds. Is God schizophrenic? Or are these different rules and understandings man made?



Atlas, you are so critical of Christians for their beliefs , but tout your own belief in yourself with just as much gusto and egotism as your much despised nemesis.  So tell me atlas, if man is so great, answer these simple questions for me.  They deal with the very elemental things of life.
What is energy?
What is matter? 
96% of the universe is made up of "dark matter" which no scientist can even see, much less explain, but I'm sure you can.  What is it?  What is its nature?  How did it come to be? How does it respond to a variable?  Just one, not several. (Oh I don't know. Pick one, say for the heck of it something like 10 to the 240th power of Zaxbys chickin wings.  Mild sauce.)
What is information and where does it come from?
What happened before the universe existed, before time existed.?
What exists outside of the universe?
Come on brother?  These are basic questions.  Surely you have the answers.  

Here, I'll toss in an easier one.  What is Red?  Can you even answer that with something, anything, that will correspond to reality 100% of the time in every known circumstance, much less be coherent no matter the variables.  

Yeah, and yet you have the audacity to mock Theist for their faith in something they don't entirely understand.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atlas, you are so critical of Christians for their beliefs , but tout your own belief in yourself with just as much gusto and egotism as your much despised nemesis.  So tell me atlas, if man is so great, answer these simple questions for me.  They deal with the very elemental things of life.
> What is energy?
> What is matter?
> 96% of the universe is made up of "dark matter" which no scientist can even see, much less explain, but I'm sure you can.  What is it?  What is its nature?  How did it come to be? How does it respond to a variable?  Just one, not several. (Oh I don't know. Pick one, say for the heck of it something like 10 to the 240th power of Zaxbys chickin wings.  Mild sauce.)
> ...





Talk about coming unhinged!


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You can do all that on your own.



I was thinking the same thing. It's like seeing someone walking and convinced they wouldn't be able to walk without their invisible cane.


----------



## ambush80 (May 15, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I was thinking the same thing. It's like seeing someone walking and convinced they wouldn't be able to walk without their invisible cane.



"Why should you care if my invisible cane makes me feel good?  I'm not hurting anyone"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 15, 2013)

atlashunter said:


> I was thinking the same thing. It's like seeing someone walking and convinced they wouldn't be able to walk without their invisible cane.


That's funny


----------



## drippin' rock (May 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atlas, you are so critical of Christians for their beliefs , but tout your own belief in yourself with just as much gusto and egotism as your much despised nemesis.  So tell me atlas, if man is so great, answer these simple questions for me.  They deal with the very elemental things of life.
> What is energy?
> What is matter?
> 96% of the universe is made up of "dark matter" which no scientist can even see, much less explain, but I'm sure you can.  What is it?  What is its nature?  How did it come to be? How does it respond to a variable?  Just one, not several. (Oh I don't know. Pick one, say for the heck of it something like 10 to the 240th power of Zaxbys chickin wings.  Mild sauce.)
> ...




This post feels like your beliefs are being challenged and you don't like it one bit.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (May 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> This post feels like your beliefs are being challenged and you don't like it one bit.



No.  Not at all.  Just pointing out that some people are very adept at criticizing others for their beliefs without realizing the limits of their own.  I'll be the first to admit this cuts both ways.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 23, 2013)

Have you considered the number of people that witnessed the death and resurrection of Christ, who stood for him after and were killed themselves? I know that if i had been there and seen the body, I would not die for the faith! The disciples saw Him after the resurrection in the upper room and then they really witnessed and were all killed for their belief. Pretty convincing for me!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Have you considered the number of people that witnessed the death and resurrection of Christ, who stood for him after and were killed themselves? I know that if i had been there and seen the body, I would not die for the faith! The disciples saw Him after the resurrection in the upper room and then they really witnessed and were all killed for their belief. Pretty convincing for me!



Outside of the Bible give us ONE example of where any one of all those witnesses wrote these events down.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 24, 2013)

Bullethead

Give me one example outside of Caesars account that the galic wars ever happened. And that manuscript was not found and recompiled until 900 years later. The scriptures have been copied and passed down for thousands of years with no fallacy other than semantics of the words. It is a lot more compelling than he history of the world that you believe. One more thing since you keep coming up with "scientific proof", Gods word says that the life is in the blood and blood is referred to many times about not eating meat with the life blood still in it etc. it is the one thing that all of these great scientist cannot figure out how to reproduce! You know why? Because God is the creator of life"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Bullethead
> 
> Give me one example outside of Caesars account that the galic wars ever happened. And that manuscript was not found and recompiled until 900 years later. The scriptures have been copied and passed down for thousands of years with no fallacy other than semantics of the words. It is a lot more compelling than he history of the world that you believe. One more thing since you keep coming up with "scientific proof", Gods word says that the life is in the blood and blood is referred to many times about not eating meat with the life blood still in it etc. it is the one thing that all of these great scientist cannot figure out how to reproduce! You know why? Because God is the creator of life"



Okay, but just one.....
http://www.archaeology.org/issues/63-features/top-10//269-top-10-2012-caesar-roman-military-camp

Forgive me but I could not just leave you with one example.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/gaul-burial-site-france-gallic_n_3069978.html

As far as the blood goes...I don't know.
But what I do know through research does not point to the God of the Bible.

Getting close though!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22715765

Hey devils12, why don't jellyfish have blood and yet are alive?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 24, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Bullethead
> 
> Give me one example outside of Caesars account that the galic wars ever happened. And that manuscript was not found and recompiled until 900 years later. The scriptures have been copied and passed down for thousands of years with no fallacy other than semantics of the words. It is a lot more compelling than he history of the world that you believe. One more thing since you keep coming up with "scientific proof", Gods word says that the life is in the blood and blood is referred to many times about not eating meat with the life blood still in it etc. it is the one thing that all of these great scientist cannot figure out how to reproduce! You know why? Because God is the creator of life"



I notice you replied to me but never took the time to answer my question.
Now that I have given you your answers (feel free to debate/debunk them) are you going to answer my question about an outside witness to the resurrection?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

Since christianity was actually based on astronomy and pagan sun worship, it really had nothing to do with an actual person being resurrected. So, thanks to all the 'sun' worshipers before them, christianity is born. 

"Our solar hero, Jesus, rose from the dead after thirty-three years, witnessed at 'the rising of the sun' by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus. Mary was there at the birth - the start of the life-journey. Both women noticed that the large stone blocking the entrance of the tomb holding the body of the crucified hero had been rolled way. The resurrection story concerns itself with a solar hero rising again, at the same place, with the sunrise, at Easter, after thirty-three years. There is a very large stone blocking the tomb - the entrance to the underworld - which rolls away revealing the resurrected form and Jesus's entrance back into the visible world. We now have a reason why the number thirty-three assumed such importance in folklore and the oral traditions, many of which probably date back to the late stone age. It was the prime long-term solar repeat rising cycle observed at the megalithic solar observatories. The later Jesus story, whatever else it may be for Christians around the world, rides on the back of this astronomical fact, derived from what are now termed 'Pagan practices' in megalithic Europe. Ironically these very same practices were stamped out ruthlessly by the later Christian Church, and the astronomical source of the solar hero myth thereby lost."


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Bullethead

those are all good articles. I enjoyed them and do not deny that there were Galic Wars. I am simply stating that the proof for Jesus is more solid than the proof of Caesars accounts of the Galic Wars. This would be the same as asking you to prove that you are bullethead. You would get your license out, get your parents or wife to tell me, or any other piece of evidence. However, none of that is proof! You and many more do not want to use the Bible as you do not believe; it is as accurate as any of the history that you read on Romans, Mayans, or other ancient civilizations. The blood thing is pretty neat, however, they are using blood to make blood. They need to get their own main ingredient! Cant believe that you would go and get a BBC article, that is just like Christians using the bible!  They are more liberal than anything here in the US and we know that almost all liberals do not believe in creation! Again, they are biased towards their way of thinking just as Christians are to theirs! The jellyfish is pretty interesting! I had no idea that they did not have blood. They are just not a complex species and they only have two layers of cells. One is for intake of food and then it is absorbed into the outer layer. I got nothing else on that..!
All i can say is that, I am going to live and believe that Jesus is real and when i die if He is not, oh well i lived a good life, but if HE is...?!

Sorry, I had to go to bed last night!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Bullethead
> 
> those are all good articles. I enjoyed them and do not deny that there were Galic Wars. I am simply stating that the proof for Jesus is more solid than the proof of Caesars accounts of the Galic Wars. This would be the same as asking you to prove that you are bullethead. You would get your license out, get your parents or wife to tell me, or any other piece of evidence. However, none of that is proof! You and many more do not want to use the Bible as you do not believe; it is as accurate as any of the history that you read on Romans, Mayans, or other ancient civilizations. The blood thing is pretty neat, however, they are using blood to make blood. They need to get their own main ingredient! Cant believe that you would go and get a BBC article, that is just like Christians using the bible!  They are more liberal than anything here in the US and we know that almost all liberals do not believe in creation! Again, they are biased towards their way of thinking just as Christians are to theirs! The jellyfish is pretty interesting! I had no idea that they did not have blood. They are just not a complex species and they only have two layers of cells. One is for intake of food and then it is absorbed into the outer layer. I got nothing else on that..!
> All i can say is that, I am going to live and believe that Jesus is real and when i die if He is not, oh well i lived a good life, but if HE is...?!
> ...



I can cite multiple sources of information about the Gallic Wars outside of what Caesar wrote. There are abundant artifacts that back up what is written. Remember you just asked for one, I gave it to you and it proved what was needed.

I can cite multiple sources besides the BBC about scientists making synthetic blood. Again, you asked, I answered..you never said "besides the BBC, give me a source for this information"

Jellyfish (and quite a few other examples)are alive yet do not need blood,therefore it proves your "life is in the blood" claim as false. What I have in reserve is how these in your words.."not a complex species and they only have two layers of cells" evolved into more complex species that have multiple layers of cells and produce blood. I am not saying mammals were once jellyfish. I am saying at one point in time simple celled life formed into complex celled life. As I am sure you already know, but maybe overlooked that at the moment of human conception it is just a couple of cells not filled with blood and as they multiply and form, blood forms with them. Maternal and Fetal blood never mix. The cells form their own blood. We are not born and filled up with a few pints to give us life. Our bone marrow replenishes these blood cells once it and they form. I kept this answer short but you may research anything that you may not agree with.

As far as me proving myself.....
If me standing in front of you and handing you my license, having family and friends coming forward, news paper articles(call them multiple outside sources) involving me written about the time an event occurred that involved me(not 40-90years later), yearbook photos with information,pictures, personal items are not proof that I exist then you can see why I have a hard time believing in some fables written on an average of 50 years after the fact about a person that none of these writers ever knew, met or saw in person. Not only were they not there at times when multiple witnesses could have been there but these writers go into great intricate details about specific conversations that were between two people AND THEY WERE NOT ONE OF THE TWO!!!! It would be like ME, writing a book about YOU 25 years from now telling of conversations that you and your wife, mother, father, friend, guy behind the counter at the local Piggly Wiggly had. I think it would be quite a challenge for me to be very accurate and I am 100% positive NONE of what I wrote (other than I held a conversation in type on a message board in Nov. of 2013 with someone nicknamed devils12) would be considered at all, let alone considered factual.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

That is what i am saying about the evidence. There were actually accounts written right after Jesus' death. Not actually 40-90 years later. Also, they were written by people such as Dr Luke, who were very attentive to detail and not one who would go around writing without actually investigating.  The recounts of Jesus' life were actually written alot sooner than the rewriting of the notes of Caesar. This is what i got on the net about jellyfish: "Simple: jellyfish are diploblasts. They have only 2 layers of cells. The digestion takes place in the gastral cavity and the food gets absorbed through there. The nutrients get to the exterior layer through diffusion. So they do not need blood or a heart. " The only other thing that i can says is, look at this country and the shape we are in now... Once the 60's rolled around and God was taken out of society on a legal basis, things have gotten horrible. teenagers and 20 somethings are at an all time high for suicide per 1000, divorce is near 50 percent and 40 million fetuses have been aborted. Seems as though we need to scrap the notion that there is no God and get back to Him. If you tell a teenager that there is nothing after this life and no purpose for living, then when things get bad, they just end their life! Seems to be a good solution to them.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

I have no idea what happened to you in the church to get so far away. I am sure that there was something as i have been there myself and i ended up getting back to where i am as the alternative really doesnt make any sense to me. Intellectuals have a hard time not being able to explain God and then they get to viewpoints like yours. This is the reason that Jesus said that we should be like the children and believe. I am sure that we could sit down and have a long conversation about this and neither would change the others mind. Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving with your family and great holidays as well!


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Oh by the way, i am not making an assumption about you and church. Forgive me if i have mistaken you for another post that i read where he said he grew up in church.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Outside of the Bible give us ONE example of where any one of all those witnesses wrote these events down.



Tacitus

Pliny The Younger

Josephus

The Babylonian Talmud

Lucian


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> Since christianity was actually based on astronomy and pagan sun worship, it really had nothing to do with an actual person being resurrected. So, thanks to all the 'sun' worshipers before them, christianity is born.
> 
> "Our solar hero, Jesus, rose from the dead after thirty-three years, witnessed at 'the rising of the sun' by Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus. Mary was there at the birth - the start of the life-journey. Both women noticed that the large stone blocking the entrance of the tomb holding the body of the crucified hero had been rolled way. The resurrection story concerns itself with a solar hero rising again, at the same place, with the sunrise, at Easter, after thirty-three years. There is a very large stone blocking the tomb - the entrance to the underworld - which rolls away revealing the resurrected form and Jesus's entrance back into the visible world. We now have a reason why the number thirty-three assumed such importance in folklore and the oral traditions, many of which probably date back to the late stone age. It was the prime long-term solar repeat rising cycle observed at the megalithic solar observatories. The later Jesus story, whatever else it may be for Christians around the world, rides on the back of this astronomical fact, derived from what are now termed 'Pagan practices' in megalithic Europe. Ironically these very same practices were stamped out ruthlessly by the later Christian Church, and the astronomical source of the solar hero myth thereby lost."



Congrats on the most intelligent post you have yet to foist.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> That is what i am saying about the evidence. There were actually accounts written right after Jesus' death. Not actually 40-90 years later.


Post every single one that is not in the Bible.




devils12 said:


> Also, they were written by people such as Dr Luke, who were very attentive to detail and not one who would go around writing without actually investigating.  The recounts of Jesus' life were actually written alot sooner than the rewriting of the notes of Caesar.


Did Luke witness ANY of what he wrote about? Did he ever see Jesus, Meet with Jesus? Talk to Jesus? Was Dr. Luke running around with Jesus and the boys writing down everything that was said?
YOU keep bringing up Caesar as if it has anything to do with what we are talking about....but since you keep bringing it up, the things that Caesar wrote down are verifiable. Archeologists have found multiple sites where the evidence matches up with what has been written about the Gallic Wars.
Now on the other hand you are providing writings that tell about real places that have been found to exist, SOME real people that have been found to exist and some that have not a shred of evidence that they existed anywhere but inside the Bible, and when it really counts there is absolutely ZERO evidence of these events/miracles/conversations ever happening or witnessed by anyone that is not in the Bible. NOBODY saw these things and went home and wrote about what they saw. Either these miraculous things were so common "back then" that no one batted an eye lash at them ..OR.. it never happened.



devils12 said:


> This is what i got on the net about jellyfish: "Simple: jellyfish are diploblasts. They have only 2 layers of cells. The digestion takes place in the gastral cavity and the food gets absorbed through there. The nutrients get to the exterior layer through diffusion. So they do not need blood or a heart. " The only other thing that i can says is, look at this country and the shape we are in now... Once the 60's rolled around and God was taken out of society on a legal basis, things have gotten horrible. teenagers and 20 somethings are at an all time high for suicide per 1000, divorce is near 50 percent and 40 million fetuses have been aborted. Seems as though we need to scrap the notion that there is no God and get back to Him. If you tell a teenager that there is nothing after this life and no purpose for living, then when things get bad, they just end their life! Seems to be a good solution to them.



I know about jellyfish....it was "I" that used them as an example that refuted your "blood for life" claim. So your reply to "jellyfish not having blood" is a rant about God(who does not exist) being taken out of society back in the '60s??????  I have news for you. Human life on this planet has been a struggle since the first one shimmied down out of a tree. There is not a time on this Earth where things were "good" or "better". If you somehow think that before 1960 the world was a better place and everyone got along and teenagers didn't do the exact same things they do today and school shooting did not happen and people didn;t do drugs and people did not kill other people, and that SOMEHOW society is more powerful than your God....well then the guy you worship is not worthy of being called a God. You need a serious history lesson about the times "god" was running things and what a MESS the world was. If a god is all powerful all knowing, all wonderful and society can kick him out.........I would say he is none of those things, especially a god.

Now if you want to provide an example of ANYTHING that you have failed to provide up until this point now would be a good time to do it. I have asked you numerous times to give me evidence of what you are claiming and you have not given a single verifiable example, all the while I have been backing up what I have told you with facts.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

semperfidawg said:


> tacitus
> 
> pliny the younger
> 
> ...



not one of those people were there!!!

This discussion is not about whether or not a guy named Yeshua, Joshua, Jesus lived....it is about providing evidence...eye witness evidence that can back up these claims of the miraculous.

Read up your hero list
http://dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

Nice line of reasoning you got going there.  Discount the eyewitnesses because they were there and the others because they weren't.  Well I guess that's one way to discredit History.  Oh the hoops ones has to jump through to believe a lie.  It would be downright comical if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Done with this. You are continuously using the "not in the bible". That is the history book that is used. I am using caesar as an example of history. I do not believe all that is written in the Government History books myself! No use in continuing on. And God gives free will, that is what makes him God. If He just says, This is the way you are going to be, he would have made robots instead of humans. Last thing i will say... IF the disciples took His body, they would not have died for him, the soldiers definitley did not remove his body for fear of death. If the Pharisees would have removed it, they would have paraded him around in the streets to stop the movement. You think your way and i will think mine. One of us will be right!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

I'll post it because you will never take the time to read or acknowledge anything that goes against your "proof".






History's Troubling Silence About Jesus
by Lee Salisbury
www.dissidentvoice.org
October 12, 2004
	How many people have never heard about Jesus of Nazareth? Of course everybody has heard of Jesus. The bible tells us his fame spread throughout the lands of Palestine and Syria. This is the god-man/savior of the world who performed miracles only a God could perform: He turned water into wine; fed thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish; walked on water; stilled the raging storm; healed the blind, the deaf, the infirm, the withered hand and the demon-possessed; and raised the dead. His moral teachings are said to surpass anything ever taught. Rejected by his own Jewish people, the Romans brutally crucified him. But, that didn�t stop Jesus. At his crucifixion the bible tells us the heavens and earth affirmed his deity, causing a 3 hour eclipse of the sun over all the earth, an earthquake causing Jerusalem�s temple curtain to be split in two, and graves were opened with many Jewish saints resurrected and appearing to the people in Jerusalem. Within three days, the Son of God, defeated Satan the prince of darkness, rose from the dead, appeared to his disciples, then ascended into heaven. How can anybody not love such a story and want to believe it?

The problem sincere, objective-minded inquirers of history have with this astounding story is why the historical record is virtually silent about the Jesus of Nazareth story in the writings of non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers. Certainly news of such events, if true, would have spread throughout the Mediterranean world. Yet, the surviving writings of some 35 to 40 independent observers of the first one hundred years following the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus give virtually no confirmation. These authors were respected, well-traveled, articulate, thinkers and observers, the philosophers, poets, moralists, historians of that era. Some of the most prominent figures who make no mention of Jesus are:

Seneca, 4BCE - 65CE Rome�s most prominent writer on ethics, philosophy, morals, natural scientist who tracked eclipses & quakes; the alleged correspondence between Paul and Seneca was later exposed as fraudulent.

Pliny the Elder, 23-79 CE Natural History 37 books on natural events such as earthquakes, eclipse and healing.

Quintilian 39-96CE authored Instituio Oratio 12 books on morals and virtue.

Epictetus 55-135CE, former slave who became a recognized moralist, philosopher and wrote about the "brotherhood of man" and the importance of helping the poor and oppressed.

Martial 38-103CE Poet, wrote epic poems about human foibles and the diverse characters of Roman Empire

Juvenal, 55 - 127 CE Rome�s most powerful satirical poet, wrote about injustice and tragedy in Roman gov�t

Plutarch, 46 - 119 CE Greek, traveled Rome to Alexandria, wrote Moralia on morals and ethics.

Three Romans whose writings contain minimal reference to a Christ, Chrestos or Christians are:

Pliny the Younger, 61-113CE Governor of Bithynia In a letter in 112CE asking Emperor Trajan about prosecuting Christians who "met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as to a god." Some eighty years after Calvary, somebody was worshiping a Christ (Hebrew equivalent for Messiah)! But, nothing is said as to whether this Christ was Jesus, a teacher and miracle working man who was crucified and resurrected in Judea or a mythic Christ of the pagan mystery religions. Even Jesus allegedly said there would be many false Christs, so Pliny�s statement lends little if any credence for Jesus of Nazareth historicity.

Suetonius, 69 - 122 CE Lives of the Emperors , a history of 11 emperors; writing in 120 about Emperor Claudius 41-54CE who "expelled from Rome the Jews who under the influence of Chrestus, did not cease to cause unrest." Who is Chrestus? No mention of Jesus. Is this Chrestus a Jewish agitator, one of many false Messiah�s or a mythic Christ? This statement proves nothing for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Tacitus, 56 -120 CE noted Roman historian, in his Annuals 14-68 CE Book 15, chapter 44 written about 115CE gives the first non-Christian reference to Christ as a man executed in Judea by Pontius Pilate. Tacitus states "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate." Scholars point out several reasons to suspect this statement was not from Tacitus or any Roman records, but instead a later insertion in Tacitus� Annuals. #1. Pilate is referred to as "procurator" which is appropriate in Tacitus� day, but in Pilate�s day the correct title was "prefect". #2. If Tacitus�s comment was written in the early 2nd Century, why didn�t later church fathers who all sought to find proofs for Jesus historicity such as Tertullian, Clement, Origen, even Eusebius (Father of Church History) quote Tacitus? #3 Tacitus is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the 15th Century. This quotations inaccuracy and lack of use strongly suggest it is a later insertion.

The clear and indisputable fact is 80 to 100 years is a suspiciously long time after alleged events of such magnitude for no credible written recognition. Further, the brevity and scarceness of substantive fact in these three writings relative to the claim that this was about a miracle working Jewish Messiah named Jesus who was God in human flesh, crucified, and resurrected clearly calls into question the credibility of these writings.

Three 1st Century Jewish authors of great significance are:

Philo-Judaeus, 15 BCE - 50 CE of Alexandria, a Greek speaking Jewish theologian-philosopher, personally knew Jerusalem because of family living there. He wrote extensively on Jewish history and religion from a Greek perspective and taught the following concepts all prominent in John�s Gospel and Paul�s epistles: God and His Word are one; the Word is the first-begotten Son of God; God created the world thru His Word; God holds all things together thru His Word; the Word is the fountain of eternal life; the Word dwells in and among us; all judgment is committed to God�s Word; and the Word never changes. Philo also taught on God as Spirit, the Trinity, the virgin birth, Jews who sin will go to - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, Gentiles who come to God will be saved and go to heaven, and God is love and forgives. Yet, Philo, a Jew in nearby Alexandria, who would have been a contemporary of Jesus never once mentions anybody named Jesus nor any miracle worker being crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem, let alone an eclipse, an earthquake, or graves opening and resurrected Jewish saints walking the streets of Jerusalem. Why? Philo�s total silence about a Jesus is deafening!

Josephus, 37-103CE a Jerusalem born Pharisee, living in Rome wrote History of the Jews, 79CE and Antiquities of the Jews,93CE. Christian apologists (defenders of the faith) consider Josephus� Jesus testimony the one sure evidence of the historicity of Jesus. This Jesus Testimony is found in Josephus�, Antiquities of the Jews. Contrary to those Christian apologists, the Jesus testimony is considered by many scholars including the Encyclopedia Britannica�s scholars as "an insertion by later Christian copyists." This Jesus testimony states "Jesus is the Christ, a doer of wonderful works, was crucified, and appeared the third day as the divine prophets foretold".

Why is this Jesus testimony considered a later insertion?

1. Josephus was a Pharisee. Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a pharisee.

2. Josephus writing style is to write chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people and events. The Jesus testimony consists of four sentences. Why would Josephus� Christ (the Jewish Messiah) deserve only four sentences?

3. The paragraphs before and after the Jesus testimony describe Romans killing Jews. The paragraph following the Jesus testimony begins "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". Would the "sad calamity" refer to the appearing of the "doer of wonderful works" or Romans killing Jews? The Jesus Testimony clearly does not follow the preceding paragraph and characteristic of later insertions is out of context.

4. Finally, and most convincing had Josephus actually written the Jesus testimony, church fathers in the following 200 years would surely refer to it in fending off critics of Jesus� being just another myth. But, not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus� Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origen�s writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus� alleged Jesus testimony because it was not in Josephus� writing.

Not only does the Jesus Testimony appear fraudulent, but Josephus� historical accounts both contradict and omit other New Testament bible stories:

1. According to the bible John the Baptist was killed about 30 CE at the beginning of Jesus ministry. In Josephus, John the Baptist is killed by Herod when Herod is at war with King Aertus of Arabia in 34 - 37 CE.

2. Josephus makes no reference to the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem when allegedly devote Jews of every nation gathered and all received the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in new tongues; a Jewish fisherman Peter is head apostle of the new church; a fellow pharisee named Saul of Tarsus becomes the apostle Paul, or of the church�s explosive growth throughout Palestine, Alexandria, Greece, or Josephus� city of residence Rome. Peter and Paul�s alleged martyrdoms in Rome about 60 CE is unknown to Josephus. It bears noting that Christian apologists so determined to rely on the veracity of Josephus� Jesus testimony excuse his later oversights.

Is it probable, as the Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that Christian copyists distorted truth by inserting the Jesus testimony? Eusebius (265-339 CE), acknowledged as "Father of Church History" and known to be the emperor Constantine�s overseer of doctrine writes in his The Preparation of the Gospel published by Baker House (a Christian company)on page 619 "it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such treatment". Eusebius, one of the most influential Christians in church history, condoned fraud as a tool to promote Christianity! The probability of Constantine�s Christianity being a product of fraud is directly related to the desperate need of evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. Without Josephus� alleged Jesus testimony there is no credible first century non-Christian evidence of a historical Jesus.

Justus of Tiberius is the third 1st Century Jewish writer. The writings of Justus of Tiberius have been lost, but Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople 878-886 CE wrote Bibleotheca in which he reviewed the writings of Justus of Tiberius. Photius records "of the advent of Christ, of the things that befell him one way or another, or of the miracles that he performed, (Justus) makes absolutely no mention". Justus� home was Tiberius in Galilee (Jn 6:23). Justus� writing preceded Josephus� Antiquities of the Jews 93CE, so it is probable he lived and wrote during or immediately after the alleged era of Jesus, yet remarkably "makes absolutely no mention of him".

Rabbinic literature would logically be the one final inquiry for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible�s New Testament alleges Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophesy for the Messiah, having been crucified on Passover Day. On that day allegedly Jerusalem had an earthquake, its temple veil was split in two, there was an eclipse of the sun, Jesus is resurrected, even resurrected Jewish saints walked the streets of Jerusalem, a few days later on the Day of Pentecost Jews gathered from every nation to witness the Holy Ghost descending with tongues of fire, and the Christian church growth exploded with both Jewish and Gentile converts, signs and miracles being unleashed in abundance. In 70 CE Jerusalem is besieged by the Roman army and Israel as a nation is destroyed and dispersed. Regardless of Rabbinic rejection of Jesus as Messiah, the historical impact of events surrounding Jesus would logically be noted in Israel�s Talmudic commentaries known as the Midrash. Jewish oral traditions and history recorded in the Midrash were updated and given final form by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Qadosh around 220 CE. Quoting Frank Zindler�s The Jesus The Jews Never Knew " Remarkably, not a single early rabbinic source so much as hints at the events of a 1st Century false Messiah, of the events alleged surrounding Jesus crucifixion and resurrection, or for that matter of anyone identifiable with the Jesus of Christianity."

The Holy Land�s historic landmarks do not confirm the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Local monks, priests, and tour guides pointing Christian pilgrims (donations accepted) to the locations of events described in the Bible can hardly be considered as objective. Again quoting portions of Zindler, "Unbiased confirmation of these locations is severely lacking. Nazareth is not mentioned once in the Hebrew Old Testament. The Talmud mentions 63 Galilean towns, yet never mentions Nazareth. Josephus mentions 45 Galilean towns or villages, yet never once mentions Nazareth. Josephus does mention a Japha which is a suburb of present-day Nazareth. Lk 4:28-30 describes Nazareth having a synagogue and a "brow of a hill whereon their city was built" presumably steep enough to kill Jesus had they succeeded in throwing him over it. But, present-day Nazareth occupies a valley floor and the lower half of a hillside. There is no hill. Further, present-day Nazareth has no 1st Century synagogue ruins. Origen 182-254 CE who lived in Caesarea 30 miles from present-day Nazareth does not mention Nazareth. The first solid reference to Nazareth comes from Eusebius in the 4th Century. The best guesti-mates are that Nazareth did not come into existence until the 2nd Century. This historic evidence strongly suggests why no 1st Century non-Christian Roman, Greek, Jewish historian, or Rabbinic literature mentions a Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. there was no 1st Century Nazareth.

Time and space do not allow for discussion of other significant New Testament towns. The historical and archaeological evidence for 1st Century Capernaum (mentioned 16 times in the New Testament), Bethany, Bethpage, Bethabara, and Calvary, like Nazareth is equally unconvincing or even counter-indicative.

The mark of an objective, critical thinking mind is to seek non-biased confirmation of alleged facts. When the only available evidence of an event or product is, not only suspiciously questionable, but is what the event or product�s promoters want you to believe then "Buyer Beware". The facts are that non-Christian Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers of the decades following the alleged events of Jesus� crucifixion and resurrection are virtually silent about any person named Jesus of Nazareth. Though the fair-minded critical thinker is always willing to consider further evidence, today 2,000 years later, Christianity has no more 1st Century objective, unbiased evidence for its historicity then The Wizard of Oz, Paul Bunyan, Zeus, or any of the many mythical savior-gods of that era.

Lee Salisbury, Stillwater, Mn., was a former bible-believing Pentecostal pastor 1972-1986. He is founder/director of The Critical Thinking Club of MN, is a Columnist for www.axisoflogic.com, where this article originally appeared, and participates in public speaking/debates. Lee's e-mail is leesal@comcast.net. Copyright (C) 2004 Lee Salisbury

REFERENCES

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank R. Zindler

Encyclopedia Britannica

Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price, Ph.D.

Josephus Complete Works translated by William Whiston, Ph.D.

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty

The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Other Articles by Lee Salisbury


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Nice line of reasoning you got going there.  Discount the eyewitnesses because they were there and the others because they weren't.  Well I guess that's one way to discredit History.  Oh the hoops ones has to jump through to believe a lie.  It would be downright comical if it wasn't so sad.



If the eyewitnesses cannot hold up and the non eyewitnesses cannot hold up then you have a real problem with believing a lie, not me.

So which eyewitnesses were there and wrote about it as it happened? Which eye witnessed followed Jesus every move and listened to every conversation he had? Tell me again which eyewitness was with the Roman guards and Jewish Priests when they had their conversation about the empty tomb?? Tell me eyewitnesses that kept a real time diary or account of what happened.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Done with this. You are continuously using the "not in the bible". That is the history book that is used. I am using caesar as an example of history. I do not believe all that is written in the Government History books myself! No use in continuing on. And God gives free will, that is what makes him God. If He just says, This is the way you are going to be, he would have made robots instead of humans. Last thing i will say... IF the disciples took His body, they would not have died for him, the soldiers definitley did not remove his body for fear of death. If the Pharisees would have removed it, they would have paraded him around in the streets to stop the movement. You think your way and i will think mine. One of us will be right!



"Done with this" is the best move you have made.

But if you want to continue..

Which disciples died for him? (besides of old age or natural causes)
Be very careful to be as accurate as you can because I have a lot of information that shows these "martyrs" dying multiple deaths or not dying at all except for Old Age


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

This guy says it better than me so...

" We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.

There is Herodotus, who was always a popular author and had been for centuries. He told of a Thracian religion that began with the physical resurrection of a man called Zalmoxis, who then started a cult in which it was taught that believers went to heaven when they died. We also know that circulating in the Middle East were very ancient legends regarding the resurrection of the goddess Inanna (also known as Ishtar), who was crucified in the underworld, then rescued and raised back to earth by her divine attendant, a tale recounted in a four thousand year old clay tablet from Sumeria.[38] Finally, Plutarch writes in the latter half of the 1st century how "Romeo-and-Juliet-style" returns from the dead were a popular theme in contemporary theatre, and we know from surviving summaries and fragments that they were also a feature in romance novels of that day.

The idea of "physical resurrection" was popular, and circulating everywhere. Associating Jesus with this trend would have been a very easy mistake to make. Since religious trust was won in those days by the charisma of speakers and the audience's subjective estimation of their sincerity, it would not be long before a charismatic man, who heard the embellished accounts, came into a position of power, inspiring complete faith from his congregation, who then sought to defend the story, and so began the transformation of the Christian idea of the resurrection from a spiritual concept to a physical one--naturally, calling themselves the "true church" and attacking all rivals, as has sadly so often happened in history.

 These are just some of the reasons why we cannot trust extraordinary reports from that time without excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical resurrection of Jesus. For on the same quality of evidence we have reports of talking dogs, flying wizards, magical statues, and monsters springing from trees. Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well--no. What about alien bodies recovered from a crashed flying saucer in Roswell, New Mexico? Many people sincerely believe that legend today, yet this is the modern age, with ample evidence against it in print that is easily accessible to anyone, and this legend began only thirty years after the event.

The differences between society then and now cannot be stressed enough. There didn't exist such things as coroners, reporters, cameras, newspapers, forensic science, or even police detectives. All the technology, all the people we have pursuing the truth of various claims now, did not exist then. In those days, few would even be able to check the details of a story if they wanted to--and few wanted to. Instead, people based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller, by his ability to impress them with a show or simply to persuade and "sell" his story, and by the potential rewards his story had to offer."


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> And God gives free will, that is what makes him God. If He just says, This is the way you are going to be, he would have made robots instead of humans.



So then what EXACTLY was your rant about society taking God out in the 60's???? If God made us not as robots but to have free will to do what we want why are you trying to say we were all better before the 1960"s???? The same nonsense and chaos has gone on from the beginning of human existence!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> this guy says it better than me so...
> 
> " we must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: We have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.
> 
> ...



spot on!!!


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

And another...

" In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't."


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tacitus
> 
> Pliny The Younger
> 
> ...



SFD, are you saying each one of these people that you are using as examples are your best attempt at backing up this:


> Originally Posted by devils12 View Post
> Have you considered the number of people that witnessed the death and resurrection of Christ, who stood for him after and were killed themselves? I know that if i had been there and seen the body, I would not die for the faith! The disciples saw Him after the resurrection in the upper room and then they really witnessed and were all killed for their belief. Pretty convincing for me!



Which is what I had replied to with this:


> Originally Posted by bullethead View Post
> Outside of the Bible give us ONE example of where any one of all those witnesses wrote these events down.



UNREAL!!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> This guy says it better than me so...
> 
> " We must consider the setting--the place and time in which these stories spread. This was an age of fables and wonder. Magic and miracles and ghosts were everywhere, and almost never doubted. I'll give one example that illustrates this: we have several accounts of what the common people thought about lunar eclipses. They apparently had no doubt that this horrible event was the result of witches calling the moon down with diabolical spells. So when an eclipse occurred, everyone would frantically start banging pots and blowing brass horns furiously, to confuse the witches' spells. So tremendous was this din that many better-educated authors complain of how the racket filled entire cities and countrysides. This was a superstitious people.



Now instead of banging pots, people cross their hearts or fall to their knees, clasp their hands and beg mercy from no one apparent.  

We've not come very far......


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

"So then what EXACTLY was your rant about society taking God out in the 60's???? If God made us not as robots but to have free will to do what we want why are you trying to say we were all better before the 1960"s???? The same nonsense and chaos has gone on from the beginning of human existence!!!! 
__________________
Actually, you have proved the point yourself. People have been pushing Him further away and not believing in Him just as you are doing. The evil is getting worse everyday, and the bible says that is what will happen. One of us will be wrong on judgement day and i hope it is not you! Eternity is a long time for weeping and gnashing of teeth. If i am wrong, then everyone will still be able to say i was a good person and had a generous heart. I cant lose!


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

By the way. you need to stop using the bible to make your argument. i do not believe what the atheist you have quoted use just as you do not believe the Holy Bible. Could you not find anything by Anton LeVay?

Frank Zindler (born 1939) is a prominent American atheist who served as interim president of the atheist organization American Atheists in 2008. He was former professor of biology and geology, and Chairman, Division of Science, Nursing, & Technology, at Fulton-Montgomery Community College of the State University of New York.[1] He is both editor of American Atheist Magazine and Director of American Atheists Press.[2] In the spring of 2011, he published a multi-volume anthology of his short essays and other works.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Do you think that i am not going to disagree with their writings just as you disagree with the writings in the Bible?

Seriously


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> And another...
> 
> " In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't."



You may have just opened a new door for a few on here. They may have a all the proof they need to be in awe of another doer of miraculous events!!
In here is kind of like being at Disney World and watching all the people walking around bright eyed, smiling and pointing at the spectacles. It is a good time don't get me wrong. You expect many of the children to believe it and then you realize some of the adults do too!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> "So then what EXACTLY was your rant about society taking God out in the 60's???? If God made us not as robots but to have free will to do what we want why are you trying to say we were all better before the 1960"s???? The same nonsense and chaos has gone on from the beginning of human existence!!!!
> __________________
> Actually, you have proved the point yourself. People have been pushing Him further away and not believing in Him just as you are doing. The evil is getting worse everyday, and the bible says that is what will happen.


There are more Christians now than there ever was and just as you say....evil is getting worse. I agree



devils12 said:


> One of us will be wrong on judgement day and i hope it is not you! Eternity is a long time for weeping and gnashing of teeth. If i am wrong, then everyone will still be able to say i was a good person and had a generous heart. I cant lose!




AHHHHH! the "can't lose" line of belief...

What if there is a 3rd option neither one of has thought of??? Then where does that leave you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Done with this. You are continuously using the "not in the bible". That is the history book that is used. I am using caesar as an example of history. I do not believe all that is written in the Government History books myself! No use in continuing on. And God gives free will, that is what makes him God. If He just says, This is the way you are going to be, he would have made robots instead of humans. Last thing i will say... IF the disciples took His body, they would not have died for him, the soldiers definitley did not remove his body for fear of death. If the Pharisees would have removed it, they would have paraded him around in the streets to stop the movement. You think your way and i will think mine. One of us will be right!



Devil.  You are gonna learn real quick these guys have no regard for the truth, and it's pretty much pointless attempting to have a reasonable conversation with them because of that fact.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Do you think that i am not going to disagree with their writings just as you disagree with the writings in the Bible?
> 
> Seriously



Difference is:
You can go and check the facts for yourself....you just choose not to.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Devil.  You are gonna learn real quick these guys have no regard for the truth, and it's pretty much pointless attempting to have a reasonable conversation with them because of that fact.



Absolutely.

We are not concerned with the truth you guys use. We rely on facts, verifiable facts. Fable and folklore "truth" is not something we deal with.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You may have just opened a new door for a few on here. They may have a all the proof they need to be in awe of another doer of miraculous events!!
> In here is kind of like being at Disney World and watching all the people walking around bright eyed, smiling and pointing at the spectacles. It is a good time don't get me wrong. You expect many of the children to believe it and then you realize some of the adults do too!





In a time when the land was just dripping with miracles from virtually everywhere, this is what they pick to believe? I would have picked the woman. 

Dudes following around another dude is just weird. 
Think if the entire Beatle audience was a bunch of screaming teenage boys. Weird.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Devil.  You are gonna learn real quick these guys have no regard for the truth, and it's pretty much pointless attempting to have a reasonable conversation with them because of that fact.



That made me raff out roud.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Still cant lose! Also, you are right about more evil than ever and more christians than ever. There is also more people than ever.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If the eyewitnesses cannot hold up and the non eyewitnesses cannot hold up then you have a real problem with believing a lie, not me.
> 
> So which eyewitnesses were there and wrote about it as it happened? Which eye witnessed followed Jesus every move and listened to every conversation he had? Tell me again which eyewitness was with the Roman guards and Jewish Priests when they had their conversation about the empty tomb?? Tell me eyewitnesses that kept a real time diary or account of what happened.



Oh, so now you say it's not valid if they were not only contemporaries who witnessed it, but only recorded it later: they had to record it as it happened to be a valid account.   Nice hoop you've created for yourself, because by that criteria almost no history can be true prior to the era of the newspaper correspondent.  It's a good thing most sensible people including Historians don't subscribe to that absurd notion.  It IS however a good example of how just how convoluted some atheist are willing to become in their reasoning to avoid the truth.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Now instead of banging pots, people cross their hearts or fall to their knees, clasp their hands and beg mercy from no one apparent.
> 
> We've not come very far......



The site of that would be disturbing but, MUCH better than the banging and horn blowing. 
I would stay far away from the kneeling and heart crossers. I would have to visit the pot bangers and horn blowers as a courtesy before law enforcement is called.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh, so now you say it's not valid if they were just contemporaries who witnessed it, but only recorded it later: they had to record it as it happened to be a valid account.   Nice hoop you've created for yourself, because by that criteria almost no history can be true prior to the era of the newspaper correspondent.  It's a good thing most sensible people including Historians don't subscribe to that absurd notion.  It IS however a good example of how just how convoluted some atheist are become in their reasoning to avoid the truth.



SFD, what I am saying is...the witnesses you use....their records do not stand up to the scrutiny like all the other valid contemporary ones.

I am counting out the biblical sources because their accounts are not verifiable like the others throughout history are.
Don't try to change the facts to suit your argument. Next you will be accusing me of being Joe Dirt!!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Still cant lose! Also, you are right about more evil than ever and more christians than ever. There is also more people than ever.



Sleep tight thinking you can't lose.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFi

Guess you cant throw the pearls to the swine.

"Devil. You are gonna learn real quick these guys have no regard for the truth, and it's pretty much pointless attempting to have a reasonable conversation with them because of that fact."

Merry Christmas Brother!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

660griz said:


> That made me raff out roud.



Well you know what they say about raffter being the best medicine


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> SFD, what I am saying is...the witnesses you use....their records do not stand up to the scrutiny like all the other valid contemporary ones.
> 
> I am counting out the biblical sources because their accounts are not verifiable like the others throughout history are.
> Don't try to change the facts to suit your argument. Next you will be accusing me of being Joe Dirt!!



I'm afraid most Historians would disagree.  As far as Joe and his questionable alias, I don't know what's up with that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> SemperFi
> 
> Guess you cant throw the pearls to the swine.
> 
> ...



You can't.  I don't hang around here hoping to convince these guys of anything, but there's a larger audience to consider; those that don't realize how unreasonable a position Atheism is.  That's the people I hope to influence.  

Merry CHRISTmas to you too.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> those that don't know realize how unreasonable a position Atheism is.



But it is reason that got us here. (atheism) 
While christianity is fear of the unknown.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Devil.  You are gonna learn real quick these guys have no regard for the truth, and it's pretty much pointless attempting to have a reasonable conversation with them because of that fact.




Do you believe that a donkey talked as did a burning bush?  Did men REALLY build a tower almost to heaven? Is it TRUE that those things happened?  Why do you believe it?  What is your basis for determining whether or not those things truly happened?

Explain to me how you have an accurate"truth tester".


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can't.  I don't hang around here hoping to convince these guys of anything, but there's a larger audience to consider; those that don't know realize how unreasonable a position Atheism is.  That's the people I hope to influence.
> 
> Merry CHRISTmas to you too.



It's unreasonable to ask for proof about a man rising from the dead, walking on water, talking donkeys?  Or is the more unreasonable position to accept that those things happened because they are written in a single book chock full of EVEN MORE nonsense?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 25, 2013)

Just poked my head into AAA to see what's up and I run smack dab into believers talking about non-believers being unreasonable and holding to positions that are indefensible. 

Well, that's enough ludicrous irony for one day.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm afraid most Historians would disagree.  As far as Joe and his questionable alias, I don't know what's up with that.






> Do you believe that a donkey talked as did a burning bush? Did men REALLY build a tower almost to heaven? Is it TRUE that those things happened? Why do you believe it? What is your basis for determining whether or not those things truly happened?
> 
> Explain to me how you have an accurate"truth tester".


__________________

SFD, any time you want to break out the figures that support "most" historians you can.
While your at it any time you want to show us any historians that can back up the Tower of Babel being built so high that it almost touched Heaven please go for it. Now I am not saying that a Tower of Babel type structure was not built or did not exist. There is evidence of that in another culture and evidence that the story has been handed down........but if you can give us legitimate historical proof that such a tower as described in the Bible existed and that is how all the languages of the world came to be then we would certainly appreciate it and we can can go back and forth with more in depth discussion from there.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Ambush

An 8' tall woman is unreasonable for me, but there she is in your avatar. I personally have never seen one or seen $1 million, but they both exist as does a couple of trillion $ evidently! Pretty funny that you want me to explain how i can believe in a burning bush or the dead rising and we are discussing God. If He can create a universe, i am sure talking donkeys and burning bushes are childs play! But for some reason, you think that pond scum turning into a chicken/rooster by chance and then more scum turning into the other in that ones lifespan is more plausible....

Geez!


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Just poked my head into AAA to see what's up and I run smack dab into believers talking about non-believers being unreasonable and holding to positions that are indefensible.



I know. It's like backwords world. 
The funny part is...I think their serious.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Ambush
> 
> An 8' tall woman is unreasonable for me, but there she is in your avatar. I personally have never seen one or seen $1 million, but they both exist as does a couple of trillion $ evidently! Pretty funny that you want me to explain how i can believe in a burning bush or the dead rising and we are discussing God. If He can create a universe, i am sure talking donkeys and burning bushes are childs play! But for some reason, you think that pond scum turning into a chicken/rooster by chance and then more scum turning into the other in that ones lifespan is more plausible....
> 
> Geez!



That is the problem, the Universe exists and you assign a creator to it...just so happens it is the same creator you worship. You guys go about it backwards and assign the grandest of magnitudes to a god that you cannot prove spent one second or actually did anything here on Earth. In no other facet of your lives do you jump to such wild conclusions based off of so little...wait ZERO evidence. 
If you took a quarter of the time to research how life MAY have gotten started (with multiple possibilities being in the mix) instead of saying an invisible super buddy that lives in a place that we cannot see him did it based off the writings of 6000 year old beliefs you might just have one eye partially opened.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Tacitus
> 
> Pliny The Younger
> 
> ...



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

 Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?
2002

    Lately, much effort has been expended by the more educated Christians in trying to establish that first century historians mention Christ in their writings. This is really nothing new, but a reincarnation of earlier attempts.

    Firstly, I should mention that I consider that it is a possibility that a man named Jesus really did live in that part of the world, at that time. If he did, I think he was a political radical, a religious reformer, and a teacher of morals (much like Ghandi), and I think his followers built up a religion around him, turning him into a god.

    But I will also state that it is a possibility that he never lived at all, and was a construction of those who would create a new religion. I do not know-- and I don't think anyone else does either.

    That being said, let us look into the possibility that first century historians wrote about him. If this is true, that would lend weight to the claim that he really walked the earth. But some caution needs to be exercised here. If there was positive proof that historians wrote about him, then that might substantiate his existence, but not his divinity. All it might do is indicate that a man of that name once lived. It might even mean less than that. It might show only what Christ's followers said about their leader, and may mean nothing in regards to the man himself.

    What is a good source? A contemporary historian-- that is to say, an historian that lived and wrote during the time in which Christ is said to have lived. Any historian living or writing after that time could not have seen the events with his own eyes-- possibly could not have even known any witnesses personally. Any historian writing decades or centuries after the events could only write of those things which he had heard others say. In other words, he would be writing hearsay... secondhand accounts of what Christ's followers said about him. Certainly, this cannot be considered as reliable information. The followers of any cult leader certainly would exaggerate the character of the man they follow. As you shall see, whatever the authenticity of the documents turns out to be, none of the historians in question were contemporaries of Christ. 

    Here is something to keep in mind as you read this article. Ask yourself this question. Could historic passages have been forged? Could the volumes of the historians have been tampered with? The answer is: yes they could have. Where were these historic volumes stored? In the local public library? In individuals' private homes? No. They were in the posession of the Church, who studied from them and made copies of them. In what form did these writings take? On a typeset page, bound like a modern book? No. The printing press was not invented for a further 1300 years. The fact that the Church could write means that the forgeries could have been made. The Church had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to forge historical documents.

    This simple truth is widely admitted by Christian scholars. One case in point is our first example: Josephus Flavius, a famous historian. There are two alleged mentions of Jesus in his histories. The first of them, the more extensive and more famous one, is no longer quoted by Christian scholars. That is because they know it is a blatant Christian forgery. The second passage is still in use.

    "Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He was born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was, for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen." (Remsberg, Ibid.)

    But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source.

    The first "Jesus Passage" is discussed below. The paragraph on Jesus was added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century, during Constantine's reign, probably by or under the order of Bishop Eusebius, who was known for saying that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the Kingdom of God. This behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where Paul writes in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

    Josephus
    John E. Remsberg, The Christ

    Late in the first century Josephus wrote his celebrated work, “The Antiquities of the Jews,” giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:
    “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as 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 at this day” (Book IXVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).

    For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.

    Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning, him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith-- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A. D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame:

    “If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.”

    Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.

    It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

    The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.

    As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to him. In his “Evangelical Demonstration,” written early in the fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss. if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).

    Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

    Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

    “I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother. It interrupts the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus. Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) expressly states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

    Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol.I, chap. iv).

    Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly ,conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

    The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says: “Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, ii), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).

    The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his “Lost and Hostile Gospels,” says: “This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi ; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 192), Tertullian (A. D. 193) and Origen (A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).”

    Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says: “The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169).

    Canon Farrar, who has written the ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious” (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46). The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the “Encyclopedia Britannica”: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.” “There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious-- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain.” (Ibid)

    The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: “Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A. D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his "Jewish Antiquities” that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand.” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27) This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

    Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says: “Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

The Silence of Josephus
J.M. Robertson

When we are considering the possibilities of underlying historical elements in the gospel story, it may be well to note on the one hand the entirely negative aspect of the works of Josephus to that story, and on the other hand the emergence in his writings of personages bearing the name Jesus. If the defenders of the historicity of the gospel Jesus would really stand by Josephus as a historian of Jewry in the first Christian century, they would have to admit that he is the most destructive of all the witnesses against them. It is not merely that the famous interpolated passage (19 Antiq. iii, 3) is flagrantly spurious in every aspect-- in its impossible context; its impossible language of semi-worship ; its "He was (the) Christ"; its assertion of the resurrection; and its allusion to "ten thousand other wonderful things" of which the historian gives no other hintâ€”but that the flagrant interpolation brings into deadly relief the absence of all mention of the crucified Jesus and his sect where mention must have been made by the historian if they had existed. If, to say nothing of "ten thousand wonderful things," there was any movement of a Jesus of Nazareth with twelve disciples in the period of Pilate, how came the historian to ignore it utterly? If, to say nothing of the resurrection story, Jesus had been crucified by Pilate, how came it that there is no hint of such an episode in connection with Josephusâ€™ account of the Samaritan tumult in the next chapter?

And if a belief in Jesus as a slain and returning Messiah had been long on foot before the fall of the Temple, how comes it that Josephus says nothing of it in connection with his full account of the expectation of a coming Messiah at that point?

By every test of loyal historiography, we are not merely forced to reject the spurious passage as the most obvious interpolation in all literature: we are bound to confess that the "Silence of Josephus" as is insisted by Professor Smith, is an insurmountable negation of the gospel story. For that silence, no tenable reason can be given, on the assumption of the general historicity of the gospels and Acts. Josephus declares himself to be in his fifty-sixth year in the thirteenth year of Domitian. Then he was born about the year 38. By his own account (Life, § 2), he began at the age of sixteen to "make trial of the several sects that were among us" --the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes-- and in particular he spent three years with a hermit of the desert named Banos, who wore no clothing save what grew on trees, used none save wild food, and bathed himself daily and nightly for purityâ€™s sake. Thereafter he returned to Jerusalem, and conformed to the sect of the Pharisees. In the ANTIQUITIES, after describing in detail the three sects before named, he gives an account of a fourth "sect of Jewish philosophy," founded by Judas the Galilean, whose adherents in general agree with the Pharisees, but are specially devoted to liberty and declare God to be their only ruler, facing torture and death rather than call any man lord. A careful criticism will recognize a difficulty as to this section. In § 2, as in the LIFE, "three sects" are specified; and the concluding section has the air of a late addition.

Seeing, however, that the sect of Judas is stated to have begun to give trouble in the procuratorship of Gessius Florus, when Josephus was in his twenties, it is quite intelligible that he should say nothing of it when naming the sects who existed in his boyhood, and that he should treat it in a subsidiary way in his fuller account of them in the ANTIQUITIES.

On what theory, then, are we to explain the total silence of Josephus as to the existence of the sect of Jesus of Nazareth, if there be any historical truth in the gospel story? It is of no avail to suggest that he would ignore it by reason of his Judaic hostility to Christism. He is hostile to the sect of Judas the Galilean. There is nothing in all his work to suggest that he would have omitted to name any noticeable sect with a definite and outstanding doctrine because he disliked it. He seems much more likely, in that case, to have described and disparaged or denounced it. And here emerges the hypothesis that he did disparage or denounce the Christian sect in some passage which has been deleted by Christian copyists, perhaps in the very place now filled by the spurious paragraph, where an account of Jesuism as a calamity to Judaism would have been relevant in the context. This suggestion is nearly as plausible as that of Chwolson, who would reckon the existing paragraph a description of a Jewish calamity, is absurd. And it is the possibility of this hypothesis that alone averts an absolute verdict of non-historicity against the gospel story in terms of the silence of Josephus. The biographical school may take refuge, at this point, in the claim that the Christian forger, whose passage was clearly unknown to Origen, perhaps eliminated by his fraud a historic testimony to the historicity of Jesus, and also an account of the sect of Nazaraeans.

But that is all that can be claimed. The fact remains that in the LIFE, telling of his youthful scarch for a satisfactory sect, Josephus says not a word of the existence of that of the crucified Jesus; that he nowhere breathes a word concerning the twelve apostles, or any of them, or of Paul; and that there is no hint in any of the Fathers of even a hostile account of Jesus by him in any of his works, though Origen makes much of the allusion to James the Just, also dismissible as an interpolation, like another to the same effect cited by Origen, but not now extant. There is therefore a strong negative presumption to be set against even the forlorn hypothesis that the passage forged in Josephus by a Christian scribe ousted one which gave a hostile testimony.

Over a generation ago, Mr. George Solomon of Kingston, Jamaica, noting the general incompatibility of Josephus with the gospel story and the unhistorical aspect of the latter, constructed an interesting theory, 3 of which I have seen no discussion, but which merits notice here. It may be summarized thus:
1. Banos is probably the historical original of the gospel figure of John the Baptist.
2. Josephus names and describes two Jesuses, who are blended in the figure of the gospel Jesus: (a) the Jesus (WARS, VI, v, 3) who predicts "woe to Jerusalem"; is flogged till his bones show, but never utters a cry; makes no reply when challenged; returns neither thanks for kindness nor railing for railing; and is finally killed by a stone projectile in the siege; and (b) Jesus the Galilean (LIFE §, 12: 27), son of Sapphias, who opposes Josephus, is associated with Simon and John, and has a following of "sailors and poor people," one of whom betrays him (9 22), whereupon he is captured by a stratagem, his immediate followers forsaking him and flying. Before this point, Josephus has taken seventy of the Galileans with him (5 14) as hostages, and, making them his friends and companions on his journey, sets them "to judge causes." This is the hint for Lukeâ€™s story of the seventy disciples.
3. The "historical Jesus" of the siege, who is "meek" and venerated as a prophet and martyr, being combined with the "Mosaic Jesus" of Galilee, a disciple of Judas of Galilee, who resisted the Roman rule and helped to precipitate the war, the memory of the "sect" of Judas the Gaulanite or Galilean, who began the anti-Roman trouble, is also transmuted into a myth of a sect of Jesus of Galilee, who has fishermen for disciples, is followed by poor Galileans, is betrayed by one companion and deserted by the rest, and is represented finally as dying under Pontius Pilate, though at that time there had been no Jesuic movement.
4. The Christian movement, thus mythically grounded, grows up after the fall of the Temple. Paulâ€™s "the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess. ii, 16) tells of the destruction of the Temple, as does Hebrews xii, 24-28; xiii, 12-14. This theory of the construction of the myth out of historical elements in Josephus is obviously speculative in a high degree; and as the construction fails to account for either the central rite or the central myth of the crucifixion it must be pronounced inadequate to the data. On the other hand, the author develops the negative case from the silence of Josephus as to the gospel Jesus with an irresistible force; and though none of his solutions is founded-on in the constructive theory now elaborated, it may be that some of them are partly valid.

The fact that he confuses Jesus the robber captain who was betrayed, and whose companions deserted him, with Jesus the "Mosaic" magistrate of Tiberias, who was followed by sailors and poor people, and was "an innovator beyond everybody else," does not exclude the argument that traits of one or the other, or of the Jesus of the siege, may have entered into the gospel mosaic.

Given the clear and undeniable forgery of this Josephus passage, no one, including any Christian, can say that the Christian Church cannot and did not forge historic documents. The fact that Christians do not generally use this passage is testimony to the fact that the guilt of the Church has been recognized. Given all this, what reason do we have for supposing that the second alleged mention of Jesus by Josephus is any more reliable? And if this first passage has been "retired", how long will it take before we see the inevitable demise of the second?

On the second "mention of Jesus"
Excerpt from The Christ, by John E. Remsburg

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent; he was also of the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all of the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" (Josephus, Antiquities, Book XX, chap. ix, sec. I).

This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, â€œwho was called Christ,â€� which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter of secondary importance.

The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christâ€™s existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or later. Those who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus mentioned by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus Christ. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were named Jesus. Jesus, the son of - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -eus, succeeded Ananus as high priest that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later succeeded to the same office.

To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus [see the above quote] was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.  Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus, referring to the event narrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of Jesus Christ, â€œdid not die till long afterward.â€�

The brief "Discourse Concerning Hades", appended to the writings of Josephus, is universally conceded to be the product of another writer-- "obviously of Christian origin"-- says the Encyclopedia Britannica.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

On Tacitus
The Christ, by John Remsburg, pp. 39-43

In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:

“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man.” (Annals, Book XV, sec. 4)

This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:
1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.
2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them. .
4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.
7. At this time but one copy of the “Annals” existed, and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century—600 years after the time of Tacitus.
8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.
12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.
13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, “not even those of condemned criminals.”
14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the “Annals” believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative.

In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence.

Pliny the Younger

This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a pro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a letter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This letter contains the following:

“I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed. . . . . They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath-- not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it. . . . . I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.”

Notwithstanding an alleged reply to this letter from Trajan, cited by Tertullian and Eusebius, its genuineness may be well questioned, and for the following reasons:

I. The Roman laws accorded religious liberty to all, and the Roman government tolerated and protected every religious belief. Renan says: "Among the Roman laws, anterior to Constantine, there was not a single ordinance directed against freedom of thought; in the history of the Pagan emperors not a single persecution on account of mere doctrines or creeds” (The Apostles). Gibbon says: “The religious tenets of the Galileans, or Christians, were never made a subject of punishment, or even of inquiry.” (Rome, Vol. 2, pg. 215)
2. Trajan was one of the most tolerant and benevolent of Roman emnerors.
3. Pliny, the reputed author of the letter, is universally conceded to have been one of the most humane and philanthropic of men.
4. It represents the distant province of Bithynia as containing, at this time, a large Christian population, which is improbable.
5. It assumes that the Emperor Trajan was little acquainted with Christian beliefs and customs, which cannot be harmonized with the supposed historical fact that the most powerful of primitive churches flourished in Trajan's capital and had existed for fifty years.
6. Pliny represents the Christians as declaring that they were in the habit of meeting and singing hymns “to Christ as to a god.” The early Christians did not recognize Christ as a god, and it was not until after the time of Pliny that he yeas worshiped as such.
7. “I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered I ordered them to be executed.” That this wise and good man rewarded lying with liberty and truthfulness with death is difficult to believe.
8. “I therefore deemed it more necessary to inquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture.” Never have the person and character of woman been held more sacred than they were in Pagan Rome. That one of the noblest of Romans should have put to torture young women guiltless of crime is incredible.
9. The declaration of the Christians that they took a solemn obligation “not to do anything that was wicked; that they would commit no
theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word,” etc., looks like an ingenious attempt to parade the virtues of primitive Christians.
10. This letter, it is claimed, is to be found in but one ancient copy of Pliny.
11. It was first quoted by Tertullian, and the age immediately preceding Tertullian was notorious for Christian forgeries.

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny-- these are the disinterested witnesses adduced by the church to prove the historical existence of Jesus Christ; the one writing nearly one hundred years, the others one hundred and ten years after his alleged birth; the testimony of two of them self-evident forgeries, and that of the third a probable forgery.

But even if the doubtful and hostile letter of Pliny be genuine, it was not written until the second century, so that there is not to be found in all the records of profane history prior to the second century a single allusion to the reputed founder of Christianity.

To these witnesses is sometimes, though rarely, added a fourth, Suetonius, a Roman historian who, like Tacitus and Pliny, wrote in the second century. In his “Life of Nero,” Suetonius says: “The Christians, a race of men of a new and villainous superstition, were punished.” In his “Life of Claudius,” he says : “He [Claudius] drove the Jews, who at the instigation of Chrestus were constantly rioting, out of Rome.” Of course no candid Christian will contend that Christ was inciting Jewish riots at Rome fifteen years after he was crucified at Jerusalem.

Significant is the silence of the forty Jewish and Pagan writers named in this chapter. This silence alone disproves Christ’s existence. Had this wonderful being really existed the earth would have resounded with his fame. His mighty deeds would have engrossed every historian’s pen. The pages of other writers would have abounded with references to him. Think of going through the literature of the nineteenth century and searching in vain for the name of Napoleon Bonaparte! Yet Napoleon was a pigmy and his deeds trifles compared with this Christ and the deeds he is said to have performed.

With withering irony Gibbon notes this ominous silence: “But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded. all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe” (Rome, Vol. I, pp. 588-590).

Even conceding, for the sake of argument, both the authenticity and the credibility of these passages attributed to the Roman historians, what do they prove ? Do they prove that Christ was divine-that he was a supernatural being, as claimed? No more than do the writings of Paine and Voltaire, which also contain his name. This evidence is favorable, not to the adherents, but to the opponents, of Christianity. If these passages be genuine, and their authors have penned historical truths, it simply confirms what most Rationalists admit, that a religious sect called Christians, who recognized Christ as their founder, existed as early as the first century; and confirms what some have charged, but what the church is loath to admit, that primitive Christians, who have been declared the highest exemplars of human virtue, were the most depraved of villains.

[It is a] proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a historical character in the silence of the writers who lived during and immediately following the time he is said to have existed. The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:

Josephus, Arrian, Philo- Judaeus, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Paterculus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ’s own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ’s reputed existence. This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: “He [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did” (Photius’ Bibliotheca, code 33).

Judea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous ending of Christ’s earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of Palestine is intimately associated with Roman history. But the Roman records of that age contain no mention of Christ and his works. The Greek writers of Greece and Alexandria who lived not far from Palestine and who were familiar with its events, are silent also.

As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Taoitus, we credit them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no further; for if we do, we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame man and a blind man, in just the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must also believe the miracles cited by Josephus, that of the sea of Pamphilia opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of the Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/jesus_savior_fraud.html


----------



## 660griz (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.inplainsite.org/html/jesus_savior_fraud.html



Good read.

"Christians need to recognize as an undeniable fact—a fact confirmed by mythology, history, and even early Christian apologists—that ancient documents reveal that the story of Christ is not the first story ever told of a virgin-born, crucified, resurrected, miracle-working savior-god who supposedly died for the sins of humanity. These documents further reveal that many of Christ’s teachings can be gleaned—at times almost verbatim—from sources that were in circulation hundreds or thousands of years before Jesus was born. Early apologists acknowledged these facts because they were, and are, quite indisputable." 

Now Christians, after some more research...
The five stages of learning to live with a lost one, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Is there any historical evidence of Jesus Christ?

Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

THIS is KEY...
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (fromChristus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. 
In his Antiquitieshe refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, inLetters10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud(Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection,etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

So DID the 12 apostles "give" their lives and die as martyrs?
If so I'd like some examples.
Also give us some examples of the thousands of Christians that died for Christianity.

"Willing" and "died for" are two different things.

Thinking something is true is not knowing it is a lie, but what they think is the truth could be a lie....they just don't know it.

I am "willing" to go to the grave believing what I think is true.....Does that trump Christians or at least make it "as true" because I don't think it is a lie???

Back to your article...
If you bothered to read any of the articles I posted you will see the claims in yours have been shown to be false through provable facts. it is because of articles like yours that the others were written...to expose the untruths.
And I am shocked a God would allow any,most, if not all of the artifacts and witnesses that proves his son's existence to be destroyed by ravaging, pillaging invaders.

THIS IS KEY...
God stepped in and helped many of his "chosen" in the OT, where was he when all evidence of his only Son was being erased?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Ambush
> 
> An 8' tall woman is unreasonable for me, but there she is in your avatar. I personally have never seen one or seen $1 million, but they both exist as does a couple of trillion $ evidently! Pretty funny that you want me to explain how i can believe in a burning bush or the dead rising and we are discussing God. If He can create a universe, i am sure talking donkeys and burning bushes are childs play! But for some reason, you think that pond scum turning into a chicken/rooster by chance and then more scum turning into the other in that ones lifespan is more plausible....
> 
> Geez!



You're precious.

I don't even know where to start.  You don't see the difference in a book claiming the existence of an 8 foot tall woman and a photograph of one?  You don't believe that someone could produce 1milllion dollars for you to look at?  Besides, the picture is a fake:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/tallwoman.asp

Do you think that the wind and gravity are magical forces because you can't see them?  I would love to be able to help you learn how to think, I really do, I REALLY do, but I don't have the time.

I beg you to re-examine what you consider to be good proof of anything.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Do you believe that a donkey talked as did a burning bush?  Did men REALLY build a tower almost to heaven? Is it TRUE that those things happened?  Why do you believe it?  What is your basis for determining whether or not those things truly happened?
> 
> Explain to me how you have an accurate"truth tester".



What is your basis for determining they didn't?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What is your basis for determining they didn't?



Seriously?


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

I can think just fine. All you want is to argue and have monologue. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The problem with you and all other atheist is that you done have enough faith to believe there isn't a god, much believe that there is one. Explain to me how the atmosphere of this planet has everything that we need for life. That we are just the correct distance and angle from the sun so as to not freeze or burn up. And  (your example) that gravity is just right for us to be able to move and function. They all sounds like something that happened by chance to me!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

bullethead said:


> So DID the 12 apostles "give" their lives and die as martyrs?
> If so I'd like some examples.
> Also give us some examples of the thousands of Christians that died for Christianity.
> 
> ...



As to the martyrs, try Foxes Book of Martyrs.  It's considered a Classic.

As to the evidence of his only son being erased, a third of the Worlds population evidently feel there's enough evidence.  Only a dab over 2% are prideful enough to declare there isn't.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> I can think just fine. All you want is to argue and have monologue. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The problem with you and all other atheist is that you done have enough faith to believe there isn't a god, much believe that there is one. Explain to me how the atmosphere of this planet has everything that we need for life. That we are just the correct distance and angle from the sun so as to not freeze or burn up. And  (your example) that gravity is just right for us to be able to move and function. They all sounds like something that happened by chance to me!



devil12, ALL that is explainable much better than we can tell you (and you will not take our word for it anyway) by searching for it on the web. 

We are here because the conditions are right for life(as we know it) to exist HERE. No Kidding!! Please do not be so naive to think that all of this was provided to us by some magical over seer that made everything just perfect for us...and along comes a meteor that can and will wipe us all out in a split second.  It has happened before! Do not get so comfortable in thinking that we were placed just perfect from the Sun so that life is insured...all the while the Sun IS self destructing and WILL burn out and everything on this wonderfully planned and constructed planet will cease to exist.

If you really want to tax your brain do a search on how planets are formed.
Do a search on how many "Suns" are in our own Galaxy.
Do a search on how many planets go along with those Suns in our Galaxy.
Do a search on how many known Galaxies are in our known Universe and how many Suns are in all those Galaxies and how many planets there are to go along with those Suns.
Then do a search about the time and distances between the next "closest" Sun to us and then search just how long it takes in time and distance to reach the end of our own Galaxy.

Trust me, if you cannot fathom 1,000,000 you might not be able to appreciate the magnitude of the "closest" things I have asked you to search.

Keep in mind you will read things that talk about Light Years.
A Light Year is the distance that Light can travel in one year. The speed of light travels approximately 186,000 miles PER SECOND! You would be able to go around the Earth 7.5 times in ONE Second.

Please take the time to check into these things. I do not want you to change your mind about your God. I just want you to try to understand that this planet is not really that special and everything on it is an expression of the available chemistry set. It is possible that there is life elsewhere that is a representative of the chemistry available there, yet it is totally unlike everything we consider standard or normal.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 25, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Seriously?



Yeah.  Seriously.  Let's hear it.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

First of all, just because this is a redneck hunting website, it doesn't mean that I am a D.A! I have graduated from college and fl well know about the universe and light years etc! Second, I have seen the articles of magma from a volcano that is produced at eruption turning to a rock and them carbon dating saying the rock is millions of years old. Get over it, science is theories and they can/ are bent to meet the hypothesis the scientist is searching for. Even elementary children in government schools are taught this! It is obvious that you do not want to believe there is a God and no amount if discussion/arguing is going to change that. If you truly wanted a dialogue, you would have an open mind, however yours is closed. Yes this planet supports our life, you and thousands of liberals that do not want god to exist have tried hard for a long time and spent billions trying to just find water in Mars. It's not gonna happen. He created the universe and everything in it including you. If the scientist and you know how big this universe is, why can't you find the other life out there. Maybe when they come here you will remember this conversation and not play hide and seek with them!  Oh and another thing, give Pluto back the planet status.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

No offense to the rest of you on redneck comment. I definitely am one!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As to the martyrs, try Foxes Book of Martyrs.  It's considered a Classic.


Been reviewed and debunked a few times over.



SemperFiDawg said:


> As to the evidence of his only son being erased, a third of the Worlds population evidently feel there's enough evidence.  Only a dab over 2% are prideful enough to declare there isn't.



Then why the erased evidence the "KEY" excuse in devil12's article??

Luckily and thankfully numbers do not mean a darn thing to the truth.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

SFD

it's obvious that all of the books we read, whether they are secular or theological, are false. Only the titles he has read are true. Come find me in the deer or bowhunting section


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> First of all, just because this is a redneck hunting website, it doesn't mean that I am a D.A! I have graduated from college and fl well know about the universe and light years etc! Second, I have seen the articles of magma from a volcano that is produced at eruption turning to a rock and them carbon dating saying the rock is millions of years old. Get over it, science is theories and they can/ are bent to meet the hypothesis the scientist is searching for. Even elementary children in government schools are taught this! It is obvious that you do not want to believe there is a God and no amount if discussion/arguing is going to change that. If you truly wanted a dialogue, you would have an open mind, however yours is closed. Yes this planet supports our life, you and thousands of liberals that do not want god to exist have tried hard for a long time and spent billions trying to just find water in Mars. It's not gonna happen. He created the universe and everything in it including you. If the scientist and you know how big this universe is, why can't you find the other life out there. Maybe when they come here you will remember this conversation and not play hide and seek with them!  Oh and another thing, give Pluto back the planet status.



Now being a kolleje gadjumate and all you MIGHT understand that the magma pouring out of the volcano that makes the rock when cooled could very well be millions of years old when making it's way from the center of the Earth. The rock is not millions of years old as it just formed but the components that make up that rock certainly are.


You already know by your own post that you are intelligent enough to know that all the available information you THINK you know, is not all the available information.
Not sure how or why you lumped me in the "Liberal" category and I cannot tell you how much you are wrong.

You keep stating some sort of god created this Universe and everything in it but while that is a pretty stout statement you have not in any way shape or form given us a single shred of proof that this god exists, let alone is responsible for anything that you claim it is responsible for.
I could make just as stern a statement and insert one of any number of gods that mankind has claimed and worshiped for creating "everything" but I cannot find any evidence of those either.

You see, I am not trying to disprove a god, I am trying (and have for over 20 years now) to get evidence of a god but so far...and with no help from you....I cannot.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> SFD
> 
> it's obvious that all of the books we read, whether they are secular or theological, are false. Only the titles he has read are true. Come find me in the deer or bowhunting section



Again, I read it all.....take the available evidence.....and make a conclusion based off of logic, facts and evidence.
So far what you have posted here in the articles you have provided has been gone over thoroughly by men and women much more skilled than I and they have found errors, erroneous "facts", untrue statements and flat out fabrications. All based off of more thorough research that trumps some of the things that certain authors try to pass off as "true" OR was considered "true" at the time it was written but has since been found otherwise.

I am not the world's leading decision maker. But I am able to look at two things and use the available facts to decide(for me) which one is more likely to be more truthful than the other. I am not boasting that ONLY the things I choose to read are the correct things, no sir not at all....I am just showing you that there are other available avenues of information that use facts to make their argument more believable. I have read them both(not only ONE like some of you) and offer you the one I find more truthful.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> First of all, just because this is a redneck hunting website, it doesn't mean that I am a D.A! I have graduated from college and fl well know about the universe and light years etc! Second, I have seen the articles of magma from a volcano that is produced at eruption turning to a rock and them carbon dating saying the rock is millions of years old. Get over it, science is theories and they can/ are bent to meet the hypothesis the scientist is searching for. Even elementary children in government schools are taught this! It is obvious that you do not want to believe there is a God and no amount if discussion/arguing is going to change that. If you truly wanted a dialogue, you would have an open mind, however yours is closed. Yes this planet supports our life, you and thousands of liberals that do not want god to exist have tried hard for a long time and spent billions trying to just find water in Mars. It's not gonna happen. He created the universe and everything in it including you. If the scientist and you know how big this universe is, why can't you find the other life out there. Maybe when they come here you will remember this conversation and not play hide and seek with them!  Oh and another thing, give Pluto back the planet status.



Sorry I got to this thread so late in the game......


But if you think that new magma/rocks are formed out of a volcano, you are mistaken.  Any magma that is spewed out of a volcano is nothing more than melted rock that already existed.  Just because it was melted, then hardened again will not change it's rate of radioactive isotope decay.

And about that water on mars......

Its been know for quite some time that there is water on mars, where have you been?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_on_Mars


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Should have said life. My bad! Wish I could remember where I read the article, the just of it was that this certain magma had to be exposed to oxygen for the rock to form. Really vague description on my part but I remember the article. It was eye opening on the carbon dating piece


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Also, I recall the volcano wasn't even that old in its entirety. Maybe Washington state...


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Bullethead

You are correct. If I were trying to stay out of jail, I would be in bad shape. I have never studied apologetics or really cared. I believe what I believe because I have a child like faith. I have seen grown men dying and just before they go, they start screaming and freaking out. These people, I know did not believe in God and something had them very scared.mi have seen my grand parents and father in law pass away, all of which believed in God and not one of them were upset in the end. They all were happy to leave. That is enough for me to believe that there is something on the other side and those they did not know Him were very afraid!

Just my personal experience!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Also, I recall the volcano wasn't even that old in its entirety. Maybe Washington state...



Volcano could form today and be an hour old.....it is the magma/lava that comes out of it that comes from the Earths core that is OLD. When it gets to the surface and cools and forms a rock, an island or a continent the age of the newly formed item will be as old as the magma that made it.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 25, 2013)

Check this, sure is a lot of ASSumptions:

The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:

What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.[70]
That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.

If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.

To illustrate, suppose there is a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? This can be calculated if the candle’s burn rate and original length is known. However, if the original length is not known, or if it cannot be verified that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell for sure how long the candle was burning. A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since the initial physical state of the rock is unknowable, the age can only be estimated according to certain assumptions.

When dating a rock, the geochronologist (scientist who performs the dating procedure) must first assume the rock’s age before it is dated. For example, if a scientist believes a piece of rock is 4.5 billion years old, he or she may then use the uranium-lead dating method because it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. This involves circular reasoning, as is clearly evident in the article on dating in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “Most geologists must rely on geochronologists for their results. In turn, the geochronologist relies on the geologist for relative ages.”[71] The geochronologist must also be sure that the rate of decay, from uranium to lead for example, has remained constant in the rock over the past 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, the amount of uranium in the rock that was present to begin with must also be assumed. And neither uranium nor lead can have ever been added or removed from the specimen by any natural circumstances, catastrophic or otherwise. If all of these assumptions are correct, then the resulting dates are correct. However if even one of these assumptions is wrong, then the resulting dates are erroneous.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Bullethead
> 
> You are correct. If I were trying to stay out of jail, I would be in bad shape. I have never studied apologetics or really cared. I believe what I believe because I have a child like faith. I have seen grown men dying and just before they go, they start screaming and freaking out. These people, I know did not believe in God and something had them very scared.mi have seen my grand parents and father in law pass away, all of which believed in God and not one of them were upset in the end. They all were happy to leave. That is enough for me to believe that there is something on the other side and those they did not know Him were very afraid!
> 
> Just my personal experience!



I don't doubt that those instances happen one bit.

Think about this....would they have cried out to God if they had never been informed about him, raised in a family that never worshiped him, never lived in a society where the God of the Bible is common?
What do pigmies in Borneo do on their deathbed?

Now on the other hand....and you can check my previous posts about my Mother In Law being a devout religious woman....there was and is no denying she was just a true believer as anyone I have ever conversed with INCLUDING many clergy.....She cursed God as cancer ate her away.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

devils12 said:


> Check this, sure is a lot of ASSumptions:
> 
> The accuracy of these dating methods depends “critically” on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:
> 
> ...



You must understand there are different types of rock, how they are formed and how old they can be.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Geophys/magma.html


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> As to the martyrs, try Foxes Book of Martyrs.  It's considered a Classic.
> 
> As to the evidence of his only son being erased, a third of the Worlds population evidently feel there's enough evidence.  Only a dab over 2% are prideful enough to declare there isn't.



How Did the Apostles Die?
June 1, 2007 By Adam Lee

    “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

    —Matthew 10:2-4 (see also Mark 3:14-19) 

Lately I’ve been thinking about the twelve apostles of Christianity. According to Mark and Matthew, their names are as given above, although puzzlingly, the parallel list in Luke 6 omits Lebbaeus Thaddaeus and replaces him with James’ brother Judas, or Jude (apologetic tradition claims that the two are the same person). After Judas Iscariot’s death, Acts 1 informs us that Matthias was chosen to replace him.

An oft-heard Christian apologetic asks, “why would the apostles die for a lie?” Save for John, tradition holds, all of the original apostles eventually died martyr’s deaths – yet if the resurrection of Jesus was an invented story, they must have known that, and why would anyone go willingly to their death for a claim they knew to be untrue?

I’ll get into this claim in a moment, but first, an observation. One of the things I think any Christian should find strange is how little space the Bible gives to the twelve apostles. A few prominent ones such as Peter and John get more attention, but most of them vanish completely out of history after being named, with readers never being told anything else about them or anything they did. It is remarkable how unimportant most of the apostles seem to be in the Bible.

Of all the apostles, the Bible records the death of only two: Judas Iscariot, who either hanged himself or fell and burst open (depending on which contradictory gospel account one believes), and James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, whom Herod killed “with the sword” (Acts 12:2). The Bible has Jesus imply, in John 21:18-19, that Simon Peter will die by crucifixion, but such an event is not recorded in the text.

The question is, how did the other apostles die? More importantly, how does anyone know? Where textual evidence is lacking, tradition has obliged, and a wide variety of local legends sprang up in medieval times about the apostles’ journeys and eventual deaths. But most of these traditions are late, invented hundreds of years after the fact, and lack any basis in earlier evidence. They are simply stories, tall tales. Such popular myths provide no support whatsoever for modern Christian claims that the apostles were willingly martyred.

Below is a brief survey of what history has to say about the apostles, and what sources our traditions draw from:

Judas Iscariot: According to the Bible, either committed suicide by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or fell down and exploded (Acts 1:18). Not considered a martyr.

John: Not said to have been martyred. Reportedly died of old age.

James, son of Zebedee: Killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). The Bible gives no further information about his death, including whether it was willing. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius quoted an earlier, lost work by Clement of Alexandria which allegedly claims that James’ calm demeanor at trial sufficiently impressed one of his accusers to convert him (source).

Simon Peter: Crucifixion, as implied by Jesus in John 21:18-19. Tradition usually holds that this occurred in Rome, as mentioned by second-century sources such as Tertullian and the apocryphal Acts of Peter. The Acts of Peter also claims that Peter accepted crucifixion willingly, making him one of the few apostles for which the claim of willing martyrdom is at all plausible. Eusebius dismissed this book as spurious and heretical (source).

Andrew: Reportedly martyred by crucifixion on an X-shaped cross (“St. Andrew’s cross”). According to legend, he taught a gathered crowd while on the cross and refused their offer to take him down. This information comes from the apocryphal, probably second-century Acts of Andrew. Eusebius dismissed this book as spurious and heretical (source).

Philip: According to the apocryphal and probably fourth-century Acts of Philip, died after being hung upside-down with iron hooks through his ankles by the proconsul of Hierapolis. According to this book, before dying Philip cursed his enemies, causing seven thousand people to be suddenly swallowed up by an abyss. In return, Jesus appeared and rebuked Philip for “returning evil for evil”, and told him that he would be admitted to Heaven, but only after being tortured outside its gates for forty days as punishment. Like Andrew, Philip allegedly refused a crowd’s offer of rescue. The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia calls this work “purely legendary and a tissue of fables” (source).

Bartholomew: According to the third-century schismatic bishop Hippolytus, he was crucified in Armenia (source). A different tradition claims he was beheaded in India on the orders of King Astreges, who belonged to a demon-worshipping cult (source). Some traditions add that he was flayed alive before, or instead of, suffering either of these two fates. The New Advent encyclopedia says the manner of his death is “uncertain” (source), and adds that other than his name, “Nothing further is known of him”.

Thomas: Tradition holds that he was sent to India to preach, where he was killed by being stabbed with a spear. This claim is made by local Indian Christians and an apocryphal gospel called the Acts of Thomas, which Eusebius dismissed as spurious and heretical (source). The New Advent encyclopedia says that “Little is recorded” of Thomas’ life, and that “it is difficult to discover any adequate support” for the tradition of his death in India. It also notes that the Acts of Thomas presents Thomas as the twin brother of Jesus, which is not accepted by Christians today or in the past and seems to be a Christian/Gnostic-themed variation of a pagan salvation cult that followed twin gods called the Dioscuri.

Matthew: Conflicting traditions. Catholic.org says, “Nothing definite is known about his later life”, and it is even “uncertain whether he died a natural death or received the crown of martyrdom”. The Christian History Institute says, “We have nothing but legend about Matthew’s death.” Even among those who do believe he was martyred, there is no evidence as to where. Another source says there is conflicting information about whether he was martyred in Egypt or in Persia. The manner of his death is unknown, and some churches even say he died a natural death (source).

James, son of Alphaeus: Conflicting traditions. There are several people named “James” in the New Testament and early Christian history, and it is uncertain which, if any, should be identified with this apostle. He is often identified with the “James the Less” mentioned in Mark 15:40 as the son of Mary and Clopas, which is fairly uncontroversial. However, the Catholic church also identifies him with James, the brother of Jesus, which is not widely accepted by Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. If this identification is correct, the Jewish historian Josephus says that James was stoned by the Pharisees. This is seconded by Hippolytus. However, other sources (example) say that James son of Alphaeus was martyred by crucifixion in Egypt.

Jude/Lebbaeus Thaddaeus: Conflicting traditions. It is often said that he went with Simon to preach in Armenia, though New Advent says this legend is a late development not mentioned by contemporary historians of that region. The Catholic Patron Saints Index says he was clubbed to death; however, the apocryphal Acts of Thaddeus says he died naturally. Still another account says he was crucified (source). No reliable written sources seem to exist to corroborate any of this.

Simon the Zealot: Conflicting traditions. According to Catholic.org, Western traditions hold that he was martyred in Persia with Jude, usually by crucifixion, while Eastern tradition says he died naturally in Edessa. Other sources, according to New Advent, variously give his place of death as Samaria (Israel), or Iberia (Spain), or Colchis (Georgia), or even Britain. Some sources dispute the crucifixion account and claim he was instead sawn in half.

Matthias: According to the 14th-century historian Nicephorus, died by crucifixion in Colchis, in the modern nation of Georgia. Alternatively, the 17th-century historian Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont says that he was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem. According to the New Advent Catholic encyclopedia, “all… information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory” (source). Many apocryphal sources confuse Matthias and Matthew.
* * *

As we can see, information regarding the life and death of the apostles is extremely dubious and fragmentary. This fatally undermines the Christian claim that the apostles were martyred for their faith; there is simply no good evidence that would support such a claim. The gaping void in the historical record when it comes to these twelve men is certainly strange and unexpected under the assumptions of orthodoxy – how could the original twelve Christians, handpicked by Jesus himself, vanish so completely out of history so quickly? However, it does support the mythicist theory that early Christianity arose from a tissue of legends, not from the exploits of actual historical figures. Jesus, the central figure of this myth, became better fleshed out over time, but this process never proceeded so far as to be applied to the apostles.

There is another important point here: for the modern apologists’ claims to be proven, we must have evidence not only that the apostles died as martyrs, but that they died in a situation where recanting would have saved them. This requires specific and strong evidence, but then again, it is a very specific claim.

There is no biblical evidence that, for example, James could have saved himself by recanting Christianity. Herod might have been determined to kill him no matter what he said. The same goes for Peter’s eventual presumed crucifixion. And these are the best attested of all the apostles’ deaths (though that is a relative term). For the majority of the apostles, we have no good evidence even of how they died, much less that they could have saved themselves by recanting. Most of the sources we do have are late, contradictory, and dismissed as unfounded even by early Christian historians. The next time a Christian challenges you to explain why the apostles would have died for a lie, I suggest this response: “How do you know how the apostles died?” Judging by the cases I have seen, they will be unable to come up with an answer.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...ckles-myth-christian-martyrdom-151620492.html


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

Debunking Christianity

"Die for a Lie" won't Fly
By DagoodS at 5/11/2006

One of the arguments that Jesus was physically resurrected is that he appeared to his Disciples, and they believed it to the point they died for it. If it were a “hoax” they would not have “died for a lie.” For many Christians, this is the anchor of the argument for a resurrection. We can discuss empty tombs, and swoon theories and wrong tomb theories, but many keep coming back to the fact that the disciples believed it to the point of dying and cannot get around it.

It is not as strong an argument as Christians believe, and few have actually researched the area. In order to explain why the argument is frail, we must understand what exactly is being claimed first.


The claim is composed of five elements. It requires:

1) A group of individuals;
2) Specifically named;
3) Who saw a physically resurrected Jesus;
4) Willingly dying for this belief; (key issue)
5) And not for any other reason.

In the back of our mind, it must be remembered that the events surrounding the early church were not recorded contemporaneously, but after they had happened. These are not daily reports, nor newspaper headlines. Paul recorded certain events, then the Gospels were written, and finally Acts was written.

Whether one holds that these were written only a few years, or many decades after the event, either situation provides ample opportunity to add, remove, or modify events with just the flick of a pen. We should keep a careful and cautious eye investigating these events.

The longer the period of time from the happening to the writing, the better the opportunity to introduce legend, or hyperbole, or myth. Many Christians do not accept books written after 100 CE as being too late. Too far after the event. This argument has the same problem.

Let’s review each element.

Group of Individuals Certainly a most significant force of this argument is that not one, or two, but many of those persons claimed to have seen a physical resurrected Jesus.

If all we had were one or two disciples, it is very possible they saw a vision, had a dream, and deluded themselves. One? Very possible. 12? Not so likely, is how the argument goes.

In fact, we can tragically recall the events of Heaven’s Gate, in which one person, Marshall Applewhite became convinced there was a spaceship traveling behind the Hale-Bopp Comet. We all agree this man was delusional (he had a history of mental instability), yet was firmly convinced of an untruth. So convinced, he not only died for this belief, but managed to convince 37 others to die as well.

Equally, one disciple could possibly convince other disciples of seeing a physically resurrected Jesus. In order to make this case powerful, the proponent would like to state every disciple, each from their various beliefs and walks of life, uniformly confirms as to what they saw. In short—they need a group.

And is that what we see? Well….not exactly. During Jesus’ life he had many followers. But primarily he had Twelve Disciples. Of the Twelve, he displayed a preference for Peter, James and John. (Mark 14:33) Traditionally, even of these three, John was slightly closer. (Jn. 21:20)

But following the resurrection, it is Peter that assumes the leadership role among the Disciples. He preaches the first sermon. Although he is walking with John, it is Peter that heals the cripple on the way to the temple. (Acts 3:6) John, the beloved disciple, receives cursory mention, and then is heard no more. In fact, when counting separate instances in the Acts of the Apostles, John Mark is referred to as many times as John the Disciple, and John the Baptist is referred to more! What happens to John is not recorded in Acts.

Philip, another disciple, also receives cursory mention. Assuming he was one of the Seven (Acts 6:5) a story is recounted about his witnessing to an Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8) What happens further to Philip is not recorded.

Peter is the most talked about disciple in the early church. The first part of Acts is replete with his tales. By Herod (died 44 CE) his tales start to peter out (sorry) and he is only mentioned once more in the Council of Jerusalem. (Acts. 15:7) What happens to Peter is not recorded.

The rest of Acts focuses on Paul’s ministry.

The only disciple noted as killed is James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2) and even then it is merely an introduction into a story about Peter. More on James in a bit.

The inspired Bible does not record all Twelve of one accord. It does not mention what each one did separately. It does not indicate they were not “dying for a lie.” While referred to as a group, the events recorded as history do not include information as to their death.

The concept of an entire group is not laid out specifically in the Bible, and must be read, in between the lines. The Bible does not provide us very much information at all for this argument. It begins to smell of speculation.

Specifically Named. There are other people recorded as having seen Jesus physically appear after his resurrection, but are not specifically named. Without even knowing who they are, attempting to lay any claim as to their mode or reason for death becomes mere speculation.

The argument for silence cuts both ways—if one can speculate that these unknown persons are some that died, it is just as credible to speculate they are not. The problem with silence is that it doesn’t tell us anything.

Remember, this is not the silence of “the Bible says it, but history does not record it, so it still could have happened. Just because History is silent doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” No, here we have history AND the Bible not recording it. The silence has graduated to nobody stating it, but it still could be true.

In fact, to some extent, these unknowns hurt this claim. Paul, writing first about them, claims Christ appeared to more than five hundred at the same time. (1 Cor. 15:6) Matthew admits that some actually saw this resurrected person but doubted. (Mt. 28:17) Doubted about whether it was he, whether he had died, or whether it was a vision or not is unclear. The author of Acts, writing last, concedes within a few months of this appearance, there were only 120. (Acts 1:15)

Simple math tells us 500 seeing –120 believers = 380 believers that doubted! In other words, on this argument, 3 out of 4 believers would not die for the lie—they did not believe in a physical resurrection!

As we shall see, we have problems enough confirming what happened to the few actually named, let alone starting to guess over people we do not know, as to how they possibly died, and the possible reasons why.

The Gospels record various women having seen Jesus. Their deaths are unknown and unrecorded. Paul, of course, does not even mention their existence. While they are named, I do not recall ever seeing their deaths as being reason to prove the resurrection of Christ, and will not address them.

We have exactly twelve named individuals—the eleven disciples and James, the brother of Jesus. Again, Paul gives us James as a witness, but the Gospels do not. (As a side note, I am presuming “The Twelve” is a title in 1 Cor. 15:5, and does not include Judas. If Paul was including Judas, that becomes an interesting story, but committing suicide does not help this particular argument any.)

We know we are looking for the events surrounding twelve individual men’s death. The searching narrows.

Saw a physically resurrected Jesus You may have noticed I did not include Paul in the list of named individuals. That is because Paul saw Jesus in a vision, not within the 40 days prior to Jesus’ ascension. Paul’s vision (or the vision of any other) does not confirm or deny a physical resurrection and provides us no new information on the subject.

Proponents of this argument occasionally indicate Paul as one of those that wouldn’t “die for a lie.” They forget what they are arguing. This is a claim that Jesus physically resurrected, with a body that walked, talked, ate fish and touched people. That people saw this body, and because of the miraculous implications, went to their death. It is not a claim about what visions people have at a later time.

If Jesus died, and his soul was taken to heaven (a spiritual resurrection) Paul could still have a vision of Jesus. If Jesus died, and physically re-animated, and then ascended to heaven, Paul could still have a vision of Jesus. Paul’s vision provides no information that mandates a physically resurrected Jesus.

Paul, in recounting his interaction with Jesus, refers to it as “God’s son revealed in me.” (Gal. 1:16) Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to him, just like Jesus appeared to the other apostles. (1 Cor. 15:8) [Is Paul arguing that Jesus appeared as a vision to the other apostles? Hmm….]

But Acts makes it very clear this is a vision. Paul is recorded as only seeing a flash of light and hearing only a voice. (Acts 9:4; 22:7; ) Paul records later seeing Jesus in a vision. (Acts. 18:9; 22:17; 23:11) Paul tells King Agrippa this is a vision. Acts 26:19

Paul speaks of getting information directly from Jesus. (1 Cor. 11:23. 2 Cor. 12:9) Every encounter of Paul with Jesus is in the form of a vision. This does not even remotely promote a physical resurrection.

I wonder if any Christian that claims Paul is helpful in this regard consistently maintains that method. We have visions of the Virgin Mary today. Is this evidence that not only Jesus, but also Mary was physically resurrected from the dead? Of course not!

This is belief that Mary, living in heaven, occasionally graces us with a ghastly apparition, or a ghostly appearance left on the incidental grilled cheese sandwich. It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with her physically resurrecting. (Although it is confirmation of a spiritual resurrection, perhaps.)

Any visions, or appearances of a spiritual Jesus do not qualify for this particular argument. While they may be interesting in other discussions—not here

Why they died The crux of the matter.

You can die. You can be a Christian. You can even die because you are a Christian. You can be a martyr. But all that does not mean you had a choice as to whether to “die for a lie.”

In order for this argument to work, the proponent would need to demonstrate that the disciple (or James) had an opportunity to avoid death by claiming, “It is a hoax,” and did not take it. Simply dying because they are a Christian, (while making them a martyr) is not enough for this argument.

Let me use a few examples to emphasize this point. Imagine I decided to go on a killing rampage. I decide, for whatever inexplicable reason, that I will kill all Christians whose name starts with “X.” The extent of depth of the person’s belief, whether they actually saw Jesus or not, makes no difference on my violence. They will die, because they are Christians, and even be martyrs, but they had no choice in the matter. It was my picking out Christians, not what they believe.

Or another. Tacitus recounts Nero blaming Christians for the burning of Rome (64 C.E.) and then persecuting them. Whether the Christians recanted, or did not would not make a whit of difference. They were being the “fall-guy” for the blame of a crime. Traditionally Peter was killed during this persecution. How would that provide him an opportunity to absolve himself, and avoid dying for a lie?

Imagine Peter leading a church service at that time, and Roman Soldiers bust in:

Soldier: All right. Who is in charge here?
*Everyone points to Peter*
Soldier: You, and your entire group here are charged with the crime of arson. You will be tried, found guilty, and executed, and not necessarily in that order.
Peter: But it is all a hoax. Jesus wasn’t physically resurrected. I don’t want to die for a lie.

Now, is the Soldier going to apologize for bothering Peter, and then leave, chuckling how he single-handedly eliminated Christianity? Of course not. He will proceed with his orders, and, regardless what Peter says, Peter will die. Yes, he is a martyr. Yes, he died for being a Christian.

But that does not address the crux of this argument—did he voluntarily assume a risk that by claiming it was a hoax could be avoided? According to Acts, the Disciples were the first vocal supporters of the new Christian Church. Any persecution that would focus on the leaders would center on these disciples. They could not “avoid” it by recanting. By then it is far too late.

King Herod, having killed one disciple, arrests Peter because it would please the people. (Acts 12:3) Whether Peter would have died or not at this point was dependant on what the people wanted, not what Peter would or would not say.

A more modern example would be the Salem Witch Trials. A young woman would be accused of being a witch. After various accusations, cross-examinations and times of imprisonment, she may “confess” to being a witch.

Does anyone believe this confession would be accurate—they really were a witch? Nope. It would be felt the confession was extracted out of them by violence. According to Christianity’s own claimed history, the methods of torture and persecution would be as bad. If someone even overheard Peter say it was a lie, would they record it as a truth? Not at all, in the same way, they would assume he was coerced into the statement.

Some of the accused women insisted they were not, nor ever were witches—yet they were still executed! When a persecution cycle begins, what the accused say will neither save them, nor - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - them. They will be killed, regardless.

Some of the accused women offered up others, in the hope of saving themselves. It only brought in more martyrs and saved none. If 10 or 15 people all accused a disciple, regardless of whether that disciple decried it was all a hoax, they would still die.

According to Acts, the Disciples were at the forefront of the Christian movement. They would be well known, and acknowledged as the leaders of the church. If the persecution was as widespread, and involved literally the death of Christians, the Disciples would be singled out. They would be marked for death, despite any trial, any statements, anything they might claim. The person that argues, “would not die for a lie” forgets that the impetus of persecution, for whatever reason, would not stop simply because the Disciple recanted. That is not what persecution was about! It was about stopping the movement through threat and application of violence.

In order for this argument to be persuasive, the proponent would need to show how and what manner the named individuals died. We have no facts, no history, no Biblical support. It is here this argument crashes.

Before we briefly look at four specific examples, the last requirement—

Not for any other reason Although Christians may not like the materialistic side to it, there would have been a great deal of wealth and power as the leaders of this new movement. Perhaps they were in it up to their necks, before realizing it might mean their necks, and could not extract themselves from it in time.

We have twelve disciples and the brother of Jesus all from Galilee. Some had houses, some had family, but in a word—they had roots. After the Pentecost, the most natural place to begin this new movement was at home, in Galilee. But what do they do? Stay in Jerusalem. How are all twelve (not a one returns to Galilee) able to afford and survive this move? Even the family of Jesus comes along. Acts 1:12-14.

A simple question—what are they living on? They had either given up their jobs, or only worked part-time for three years. Funds must be low. The answer becomes apparent; they are living off the funds of the new converts.

People were selling their possessions, and giving to those in need. (Acts 2:45) As the Disciples had little or nothing, they needed the most!

Ever research First Century Economics? Not much is known, of course, but it seems that landowners tended to live in towns, and have managers work the tracts of agricultural land in the country. The landowners may have houses both in the country and the city. If one did not read Jesus’ penchant for the poor, in reading Acts it would seem that Christianity attracted the rich!

Acts 4:33 says the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Is it just coincidence that the very next sentence notes that all who possessed land and house(s) sold them and brought to the proceeds to the apostles’ feet? Barnabas is mentioned as having done so. (Acts 4:37) And, obviously, our very famous couple, Ananias and Sapphira. They provided a portion of the sale of their land, but lied about giving all of it. God killed them. Great fear spread through the church. (Acts 5:11)

One could apostatize, preach against Paul, and cause division in the church, and be forgiven. But lie about money? That was a capital offense, causing fear among the constituents. Proponents of this argument might need to face the fact that the reason the disciples and church was persecuted, and the reason what they said would not matter, is that it was a wealthy competitor to other religions.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 25, 2013)

Now for our examples:

James the Disciple Killed by Herod for reasons unknown. Acts 12:1 says Herod was “harassing the church” and killed James with a sword. We can speculate that James was given a chance to recant and save his life, but that is pure guesswork. Not in the text, not in the history.

This argument is supposed to validate the physical resurrection. How strong is it to be based on pure opinion? Further, Stephen’s death was exemplified as being a martyr’s. (Acts 7:59) If the author of Acts felt that James’ death was as well, would it have received more than a mention?

More importantly, it was not recorded that Herod couldn’t get James to break, so he went after Peter. He went after Peter for political reasons—because it would please the Jews. Herod wanted a public trial! Why hold a public trial, if James had held true to a physical resurrection? That would hurt Herod’s position. More likely Herod was to put on a “show” trial, and then execute Peter, without Peter even having a chance to say anything at all.

We can opine that James could have saved his life by recanting, but it is presuming the very argument the proponent is trying to make.

Per chance the next one will fair better.

James the Just The only named individual we obtain our information from an extra-Christian source, Josephus. Here, though, it would seem that James was killed for political reasons, and, again, had nothing to do with what he could, or would not say.

If you read the passage, without the identifier that James was the brother of Christ, there is nothing here to indicate James was a Christian, no Christian activity for which he would have been accused, nothing specific as to why he was even targeted. Without that identifier, we would not even be looking at this section!

Ananus, a Sadducee, decided to flex his political muscle, assembled a Sanhedrin without consulting the Pharisees, formed an accusation against James, and had him stoned. The Pharisees, upset over this breach of their law, have Ananus deposed.

There is nothing here about James being questioned, what James could or would have said, or even if James had said, “It was all a hoax” that Ananus would have let up. James was merely a safe pawn of a rival belief, which Ananus used to show he was boss by killing him.

Just like the other James, the only way to claim he voluntarily did not “die for a lie” is to read it into the story. Make it up.

Peter Really the best shot for martyrdom. Whoever wrote 2 Peter wanted to tie it into Peter himself, and writes as if it was prepared within a short time period prior to his death. (2 Peter 1:14) This demonstrates knowledge of his death, and a connection to bolster the validity of the book.

Whoever wrote John 21:18 presumes his audience has knowledge of the fact not only that Peter is dead, but how he died. (While it certainly could be read as crucifixion, it is not exactly clear.) Again, indication of general knowledge of Peter’s death

1 Clement 5:4 designates Peter as a martyr. Unfortunately, none of these accounts tell when, where, or the circumstances of Peter’s death. Yet again, we are left with speculation as to the ability of Peter to avoid death by virtue of any claim about the physical resurrection of Christ.

The problem with 1 Clement is that the author only lists Peter and Paul as martyrs. No James the Disciple. No James the Just. No Philip. No Simon. No Thaddaeus. After listing Paul, the next biggest names he can come up with are Danaids and Dircae. You remember them, of course, from….from…..well, no we don’t remember them.

Even placing 1 Clement as early as 95 CE, there should be more of these disciples well known for being martyrs. Yet strange silence.

The most famous of all—Peter—and as of the end of the First Century, we have no information as to how he died. More speculation.

And that is it for information within the Disciple’s lifetime. After this, it becomes information from someone who heard it from someone else. Dangerously introducing a high likelihood of myth making, and lack of reliability.

Bartholomew Those that have read the Gospel of Mark, with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, know he is one of the Disciples. If one only read the Gospel of John, one would ask, “Who?” But, Mark, Matthew and Luke do not record a Nathaniel as a Disciple, but the Gospel of John does.

As always, the resolution proposed is that Bartholomew had two names, and the Gospel of John only knew him by Nathaniel. As that may be, the last individual record the Bible gives of Bartholomew is prior to the Pentecost. (Acts 1:13) Nothing is stated as to how he died.

Nothing in the Second Century. Nothing in the Third Century. Not until the very beginning of the Fourth Century do we hear the tale of Bartholomew’s ministry and death. Not until Eusebius records that Pantaeus heard from other converts that Bartholomew had preached in India. Sounds a bit like “I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard a rumor about it.”

Even then, there ARE conflicting legends, as to his name, how he died, and where he preached. Since one legend claims he was flayed alive, he can be depicted as holding his own skin. Yuck.

These legends are too removed in time from the events to be of any value. If Christians today can see the usefulness of having a disciple die a horrible death in support of Christianity, it should be no surprise that others thought of it as well.

In reviewing these claims of how the Disciples would not die for a lie, we begin to see that the tales of how they did die did not emerge until more than 100 years after they lived. Far too long a time to develop a legend to be of any use. Of course I am assured this is not legend, but “Church Tradition.” What I see is a shifting of methodology: when it is convenient to be too late, it is considered invalid information, when convenient, it is “tradition.”

Don’t believe me? Look at the developing legend of Jesus. With Paul we start on bare-bone facts. A Jew that was betrayed, crucified, buried and resurrected. No ministry, no miracles, no sermons, no parables, no quotes of any kind (The Eucharist comes directly from Christ.) Mark begins to flesh out the tale, giving us one year of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew and Luke add even more, giving us birth narratives, resurrection stories and more sayings. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Thomas give us even more history and statements of Jesus. As time develops, we get more and more and more fantastic stories, and even of Letters back and forth between Jesus and a king!

The Christian often rejects anything dated after 100 CE as being “too late.” Too much time for legend to be written. No verification, since those that would have seen it are dead.

But when it comes to the disciples’ death, faced with the lack of information, the same Christian will claim that traditions would have been valid, even though they were not recorded for 200 years!

A bias is showing, here.

When faced with the question, “Would the Disciples die for a lie?” I reply, “When did they die, how did they die, and what were the circumstances of their death?” Upon review, we see that it is a guess, pure opinion that they had a chance to recant and save their lives.

History does not record it. The Bible does not record it. The church does not record it until so long after, it cannot be considered reliable. The proponent of this argument, through all the claims, and statements and cute catch phrases, is really saying, “I guess they wouldn’t die for a lie, but I have no facts to demonstrate otherwise.”


----------



## 660griz (Nov 26, 2013)

There was nothing, then a big bang and there was everything. 
Universe is STILL expanding, proving the big bang.
Nothing can create something. E=MC(squared) 
Done.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 26, 2013)

A good one to wrap your mind around:
http://scienceforums.com/topic/24079-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/


----------



## 660griz (Nov 26, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What is your basis for determining they didn't?



My basis is that: Talking donkey(assuming it is a donkey we think of today and assuming talking is communicating verbally using words and stuff. )
 1) that would be awesome and everyone would have a donkey.
2) No donkey has ever been heard talking by sober people since.
3) They just do not have the necessary brain function and other equipment to talk. 

Burning Bush: (once again, assuming flames plus plant)
1) I  have actually burnt bushes...nothing. 
2) They also lack the equipment and brain function to talk. 
3) If they could, surely fire would provide the necessary stimuli.
4) Now if the donkey went "eee oh, ee oww", and the guy said, "Donkey say pack too heavy", then o.k., whatever. 

Building a tower to heaven:
1) The same folks that think an eclipse is witchcraft have the engineering skills and materials to build anything over 'hut' height would be impossible.
2) We know what it takes to build a skyscraper...they didn't have it. 
3) Is heaven reachable? Couldn't the believers just fly their now?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 26, 2013)

Creation ex nihilo - without God (1997)
(Updated 2011)
Mark I. Vuletic



The first version of this article, which I wrote all the way back in 1997, merely compiled a list of quotes from physicists affirming that something can indeed come from nothing through entirely natural processes, and that the entire universe might be one such thing. I offered the list simply as data, without any attempt at assessing the correctness of the quoted claims, or their relevance to theological debates about the origin of the universe. Afterwards, I studied the matter in greater depth, and developed a line of argument which I pursued in the first entry of my Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism. However, I neglected to revise the first version of this article; this update rectifies that problem. For this version, I have written straight text, and moved the supporting quotes to a section at the very end, which is referenced throughout.
Can Something Come from Nothing?

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. [Q1] [Q2] They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.[Q3] [Q4] These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.[Q5] In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.
Can the Universe Come from Nothing?

Virtual particles are constrained to have short lives because they represent an increase in the energy of the universe; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One might think, then, that quantum vacuum fluctuations cannot have any relevance for the origin of the universe. On the contrary, some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation.[Q6] The key feature of the universe that would make this possible would be a total energy of zero. You might wonder how the universe could have a total energy of zero. The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out.[Q7] [Q8] Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor the first law of thermodynamics, place any limit on the length of time a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin.[Q9] The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect.[Q10] [Q11]

In these kinds of proposals, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime. Other proposals, most notably that of Alex Vilenkin, do not involve a preexisting spacetime at all, and rely upon quantum tunneling rather than vacuum fluctuation.[Q12]
Is the "Nothing" of the Physicists Really Nothing?

Now we come to an objection to all of the above. The objection is that when the physicists quoted refer to "nothing," they are, in fact, referring to something other than the literal absence of anything. To try to keep things as clear as possible, I will refer to the absence of anything as "nothingness." So, the contention is that the "nothing" of physics is not nothingness. Quote [Q5] may seem, at first glance, to bear this out. I contend that that is a misreading—Morris is just trying to say that space never is truly empty—but we need not get into an exegetical dispute here, since it is quite true that on Tryon-type models, the universe-producing quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in a preexisting spacetime.

What can one say about this challenge? There are two things to say:

(i) First off, the reason most people affirm the proposition that something cannot come from nothing is because they do not see things coming into existence out of the empty space around them. They are willing to equate empty space with nothingness. Hence, showing that particles do, and universes might, spontaneously arise from empty space, does address the intent behind popular claims that the universe could not have come into existence from nothing. Once one has shown that universes can arise from empty space, not many people will remain so secure about their metaphysical intuitions that they will insist that empty spacetime itself must have come from something.

(ii) Second, even if we do count spacetime as something, this would have no bearing on Vilenkin-type proposals. At this point, critics contend that Vilenkin's proposal requires quantum mechanics, and that the laws of quantum mechanics are "something." This is a strange claim, for two reasons: (1) It seems as though the critics wish to reify natural laws, which are not things, but just descriptions of the way things work. It is unclear why one should regard the fact (if it is one) that universes come into existence from time to time in a manner describable by quantum mechanics, as a thing. (2) If if one does count facts as things, then nothingness is a logical impossibility: if nothing existed, then it would be a fact that nothing existed, meaning that at least one thing (the fact that nothing exists) exists, which would, in turn, contradict the original hypothesis. Consequently, if one counts facts as things, then some fact must obtain; but, if at least one fact must obtain, why should it not be the fact that quantum mechanics applies?
Conclusion

I have not attempted to argue that the universe did come from nothing, or even to survey everything in cosmology or philosophy that bears upon the question of whether or not the universe was created. All I have attempted to do is to argue that an atheistic universe ex nihilo, in both a popular and a technical understanding of nihil, is possible. Even that modest step is bitterly contested by many theists, but modern physics appears to underwrite it decisively.
Supporting Quotes

[Q1] Paul Davies:

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)

[Q2] Richard Morris:

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris 1990: 24)

[Q3] Paul Davies:

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies 1994: 32)

[Q4] John Barrow and Joseph Silk:

[Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute—only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk 1993: 65-66)

[Q5] Richard Morris:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25)

[Q6] Heinz Pagels:

Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels 1982: 247)

[Q7] Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

[Q8] Paul Davies:

There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies 1983: 31-32)

[Q9] Edward Tryon:

[T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. (Tryon 1973:397)

[Q10] Victor Stenger:

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger 1996)

[Q11] William Kaufmann:

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval ... short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann 1985: 529-532)

[Q12] Martin Bojowald:

Vilenkin's tunneling condition relies on another effect of quantum mechanics, again a consequence of properties of the wave function. A wave function can often penetrate barriers with its tails, even if those would be too high for a corresponding classical particle...Vilenkin proposed in 1983 that the universe itself might have emerged by such a tunneling process. Our universe would the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big bang and its singularity. But from where did the universe tunnel, and from where came the bulk of the wave function, whose tail our universe is supposed to be, before the tunneling process? Vilenkin's answer, obvious only at first sight: From nothing ...

One can hardly attribute physical meaning to tunneling from nothing in a literal sense. Regardless, Vilenkin's postulate does have sense with regard to the wave function of the universe, endowed by the tunneling condition with certain initial values at vanishing volume. (Bojowald 2010: 222)

References

Barrow, John D. & Silk, Joseph. 1993. Left Hand of Creation. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Bojowald, Martin. 2010. Once Before Time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks.

Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam.

Kaufmann, William J. 1985. Universe. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Morris, Richard. 1990. The Edges of Science. New York: Prentice Hall.

Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam.

Stenger, Victor. 1996. Inflation and creation. URL:<http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/inflat.html>. Spotted 15 April 2011.

Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 26, 2013)

bullethead said:


> A good one to wrap your mind around:
> http://scienceforums.com/topic/24079-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/



Good stuff. 

Except for NOTHING is faster than the speed of light. 
During the big bang, expansion happened faster than the speed of light. What moved faster than the speed of light? That's right. Nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2013)

660griz said:


> My basis is that: Talking donkey(assuming it is a donkey we think of today and assuming talking is communicating verbally using words and stuff. )
> 1) that would be awesome and everyone would have a donkey.
> 2) No donkey has ever been heard talking by sober people since.
> 3) They just do not have the necessary brain function and other equipment to talk.
> ...




Thanks. I woke up late.


----------



## devils12 (Nov 26, 2013)

Gods word says that all of firmament attest to who is. At some point in humanity someone had to come up with god if this were not true. That is another reason that I believe. I don't think for one minute that my ancestors(native Americans) just developed god out of nothing. They have one Great Spirit and several spirits that they believe in. This was before white man came preaching Jesus. 
Other societies have also had written documentation/cave drawings or whatever that attest to a supreme power. You had mentioned in your post yesterday about God allowing all if the proof of his son to be wiped out. I personally do not think that he needed to protect the temple and the writings. Also you mention things about him allowing this that or the other and I replied that he made humans not robots. He is not a cosmic sheriff running around looking to bury us when we do not follow his word. That is why Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice. Once for all so that no more blood sacrifice would be required by the law. His forgiveness is never ending and his love is never ending. I am sorry about what happened with your MIL. I have given you some examples and I also have my personal testimony of healing and Gods power. Her or my father in law and many others dying is not for me to explain. I do believe that god has his purpose for healing some and not others. Everything under the sun has a season!

Love ya an hope you have a great thanksgiving!


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 26, 2013)

660griz said:


> My basis is that: Talking donkey(assuming it is a donkey we think of today and assuming talking is communicating verbally using words and stuff. )
> 1) that would be awesome and everyone would have a donkey.
> 2) No donkey has ever been heard talking by sober people since.
> 3) They just do not have the necessary brain function and other equipment to talk.
> ...




DMT explains the first two.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 28, 2013)

bullethead said:


> How Did the Apostles Die?
> June 1, 2007 By Adam Lee
> 
> “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”
> ...



Laughable


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Laughable



The only thing funny is the lack of refutations.

Sort of like "ha ha ha ha ha....I got 'nothin"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 28, 2013)

When I post articles I try to include the ones that not only make a claim but also back the claim up with valid data/resources/studies/research on how they got to those conclusions. Whenever possible I try to post articles that include a sound rebuttal to what has been posted previously. If I read two articles that state something about a particular subject and one article refutes the others statements by providing sound reasons based off of solid information then I tend to believe the article that makes the best effort to back up it's claims.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 29, 2013)

I did NOT read all of the posts in this thread, especially the annoyingly long ones.

I thought this was an interesting read, and pertinent:

http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The only thing funny is the lack of refutations.
> 
> Sort of like "ha ha ha ha ha....I got 'nothin"



Adam Lee is a blogger.  If you visit his blog Daylight Atheist, you will note that he does not list 1 (that would read "one") degree from any educational institution in his bio.  In fact there's no mention of his education at all.  Now that in itself certainly doesn't mean he doesn't have an education, it's just highly irregular.  I do think, however we can conclude he's no Bart Ehrman.  

If you research him a bit deeper you would find that apparently some of his fellow atheist have labeled him as dishonest.  Could be true, maybe it isn't.  Who knows?   But again he's no Bart Ehrman.  

Look, I'm certainly no Historian, but I have read enough and studied enough to recognize a hack job when I see one and the article you posted is just that:  a hack job by an accused hack from within his own ranks. If you want to cite some material from a reputable liberal or skeptic scholar like Ehrman that would be great, I would like to read it, but this, this is ........well, like I said, laughable.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Adam Lee is a blogger.  If you visit his blog Daylight Atheist, you will note that he does not list 1 (that would read "one") degree from any educational institution in his bio.  In fact there's no mention of his education at all.  Now that in itself certainly doesn't mean he doesn't have an education, it's just highly irregular.  I do think, however we can conclude he's no Bart Ehrman.
> 
> If you research him a bit deeper you would find that apparently some of his fellow atheist have labeled him as dishonest.  Could be true, maybe it isn't.  Who knows?   But again he's no Bart Ehrman.
> 
> Look, I'm certainly no Historian, but I have read enough and studied enough to recognize a hack job when I see one and the article you posted is just that:  a hack job by an accused hack from within his own ranks. If you want to cite some material from a reputable liberal or skeptic scholar like Ehrman that would be great, I would like to read it, but this, this is ........well, like I said, laughable.



Then you should have zero problems proving it incorrect. 

If I wanted to use the author as "proof" I would have typed his first and last name and left it at that. Since the content of what he wrote, including references throughout, is what I wanted conveyed....I shared the entire "blogticle".

If you insist I must use someone "better" or "more credible" then I insist the next time you cite,quote, or paraphrase from the hack job authors of the NT,, you instead please cite the material from a reputable Christian author like....oh I don't know.....Jesus??

Unless of course you are now offended by the insults and are  "done here"....... if so feel free to go find a few more dozen "notable" apologists quotes and post them till you feel better.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

Maybe this guy will do??

About the Author

Some people want to know where I'm coming from: I'm an ex-college lecturer, ex-photographer, ex-computer salesman – but not an ex-Christian, Jew, Moslem or Nazi! I had a religion-free childhood and from the youngest age acquired an interest in history. In turns I was both fascinated and appalled by the history of the 'Christian Faith' and have made its legacy and crimes a life-long study, not because – as Christian apologists often imagine, I was ever 'hurt', abused, or rejected by the Church or Christians – but because humanity's fate has for so long been held captive by this pernicious creed. But all religion is inherently dangerous.

        "With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."


Religion can give coherence and rationale to the evil acts of people who themselves may have been hurt. Religion demonizes. Religion simplifies. Religion sanitizes inhumanity. Religion promises hopes beyond reality. A good person 'high' on religion can, with a good heart, kill others for the greater Glory of God and his own salvation. My web site offers a great deal of information in the hope that those without a closed mind will take time and trouble to learn a complex truth, rather than opt to believe a simple falsehood. It is maintained entirely at my own expense. And if it's H3ll I'm going to then at least I shall be in good company!
Kenneth Humphreys

His take about the apostles
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

Alright, maybe this guy is better?
Who Would Die for a Lie? (1 of 2)
August 8, 2012 By Bob Seidensticker 

Almost all of the original apostles that surrounded Jesus died martyr’s deaths. If they knew that he was just a regular guy and that the resurrection story was fiction, why would they go to their deaths supporting it? Lee Strobel said that though people may die defending their beliefs, “People will not die for their religious beliefs if they know that their religious beliefs are false.”

While people have died for lies—the 9/11 hijackers, for example, or the Heaven’s Gate cult—they didn’t know it was a lie. That the apostles were in a position to know and still died defending it is strong evidence that the Jesus story is accurate.

Or, at least this is the story Christians tell themselves.

There are several issue here, but let’s focus first on the big one: how do we know how the apostles died? Since their dying as martyrs is key to this apologetic, you’d think that this was well established in history. But sometimes Christian historical claims have a very weak pedigree.

Our one-stop shopping source for this question is historian Hippolytus of Rome (170–235) in his “On the Twelve Apostles.” At best, this is an early third century work written close to 150 years after the facts it claims to document. At worst, it was written even later by an unknown author (called “Pseudo-Hippolytus” by historians) and inadvertently or deliberately compiled with the writings of Hippolytus.

Here’s the summary:

    4 apostles were crucified: Andrew, Bartholomew, Peter, and Philip (the last three upside down).
    3 were killed in some other way: James the son of Alpheus was stoned, James the son of Zebedee was killed with a sword (presumably decapitated), and Thomas was killed by spear.
    5 died natural deaths: John, Matthew, Matthias (the new twelfth disciple added after Judas left the group), Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James (Thaddeus).

Another popular source for this information is John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, first published in 1563 and in many later editions. Its late age, 1500 years after the events, is enough to disqualify it since we have the earlier account, but its popularity makes it an important source. To a large extent Foxe was simply a mouthpiece for the anti-Catholic sentiment in England at the time, and many sources dismiss its accuracy (Wikipedia, 1911 Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia).

Foxe largely agrees with Hippolytus on the deaths of the apostles except for the ones that Hippolytus says died natural deaths, giving that fate only to John. He says that Matthew was “slain with a halberd” in Ethiopia, Matthias was stoned in Jerusalem and beheaded, Simon the Zealot was crucified in Britain, and Judas the son of James was crucified in what is now eastern Turkey.

James the son of Zebedee seems to have the oldest martyrdom story. Hippolytus probably got his account from Acts 12:2, written in the latter half of the first century, which says that Herod Agrippa (grandson of Herod the Great) killed him “with the sword.”

For most of the other apostles, however, contradictory stories cloud the issue. For example, Bartholomew’s death is documented in a number of contradictory ways. One account says that he was beaten and then drowned. The Martyrdom of Bartholomew (c. 500) says that he was beaten and then beheaded. The most popular, perhaps because it’s the most gruesome, is that he was skinned alive and then crucified (or perhaps beheaded).

Various sources add to the story of Matthias. He was crucified in Ethiopia. Or he was blinded by cannibals but rescued by Andrew. Or he died a natural death in Georgia on the coast of the Black Sea.

Simon the Zealot might have been sawn in half in Persia. Or crucified in Samaria. Or martyred in Georgia.

Add to this:

    the many additional contradictory stories about other apostles not included in this brief list,
    the decades-long period of oral history from event to writing, and
    the time span, usually centuries-long, between the original manuscripts documenting the martyrdom stories and our oldest copies that make those copies suspect.

What can we conclude given this evidential house of cards? Only that “most apostles were martyred for their faith” is historically almost indefensible.

And it’s not just that the claim for any particular martyrdom story is flimsy; it’s that we can be certain that many of them are false because they contradict each other.

Let’s pause for a moment to savor this lesson. “Tradition holds that” or “The Church tells us that” is never enough—be sure to look behind the curtain to see what evidence actually supports a historic claim.

“Who would die for a lie?” I dunno—let’s first establish that someone died at all.

Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity,
never of the correctness, of a belief.
— Arthur Schnitzler (1862–1931)


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

Second verse as informative as the first:

Who Would Die for a Lie? (2 of 2)
August 10, 2012 By Bob Seidensticker 

The “Who would die for a lie?” apologetic lies in tatters at our feet. The claim that almost all of the apostles died as martyrs is too weakly attested in history to support much of anything. Not only can no historical consensus emerge from the blizzard of contradicting claims about how they died, we have scant evidence—even if the apostles were executed or murdered—that these were martyrdoms. (See Part 1 for more.)

And on this, apologists want to support what may be the biggest claim possible: that the universe has a supernatural creator, and he came to earth 2000 years ago.

Let’s move on to pursue a few other aspects of this argument. A story could be a lie in two ways. (1) It could be a false story that was either false from the start or (more likely) grew with time. The adherents wouldn’t know that it was false. Most of us would put the 9/11 hijackers in this category—their views of afterlife were wrong, but they honestly believed them. Or those who drank the Kool-Aid in Jonestown. Or who burned to death with David Koresh.

We must distinguish between two categories of disciples. Those mentioned in the Bible and in the summary of Hippolytus are legendary. We can say nothing with confidence of their work; we can’t even say for certain if any were historical figures. The second category includes those disciples who actually did the work to proselytize early Christianity. Someone helped spread the word, so we can be sure that they existed. They would likely have been, like the 9/11 hijackers, true believers who believed a story but didn’t witness the history claimed to back it up.

Now consider (2) the other way a story could be a lie. Can someone die for something that they know is false? Sure—consider captured soldiers or spies who maintain a false story to their deaths.

Robert Price gives the example of the second-century philosopher Proteus Peregrinus, “a charlatan prophet, [who] immolated himself because he could not resist such a grandstanding opportunity.”

The 19th-century Millerites, while not faced with loss of life, were faced with their own difficult challenge. They were a Christian sect that predicted the end of the world on a particular day in 1844. Many made themselves right with God by selling all their possessions. When Jesus didn’t show up as expected, this became known as the Great Disappointment. So the thousands of members of this sect who had very clearly backed the wrong horse walked away poorer but wiser, right? Of course not—some couldn’t admit the lie to themselves and doubled down on prophetic religion, and the Seventh-Day Adventist church was one result. Though no one died for a lie, they drastically rearranged their lives for what they had been given ample evidence was a lie.

The most significant example of someone who died for a lie might be Joseph Smith. Not surprisingly, I don’t accept the Mormon claim that the angel Moroni showed Smith a set of golden plates that he translated from “reformed Egyptian” into English using a seer stone. Rather, I think he was a treasure hunter and con man who either took advantage of or was caught up in the Second Great Awakening and created a new religion.

Mormonism was the invention of one man, and that man died for it. Of course, it’s possible that Joseph Smith gradually came to believe his own PR. But either way, he died for a lie, exactly what Christians deny is possible.

Compare Joseph Smith with the supposedly martyred apostles. Apologists would have us believe that the apostles (1) saw the earliest days of the Christian church and so were in a position to know whether the gospel story was correct or not, (2) were killed because of their faith, and (3) never recanted.

Bingo—that’s Joseph Smith. He (1) knew all details of the founding of the Mormon religion, (2) was killed in the middle of religious controversies brought on by his faith, and (3) never recanted.

Does Joseph Smith’s death show that Mormonism is correct? If not, then why is the equivalent argument trotted out to show that Christianity is?

And note how much stronger the Mormon case is. The gospels are simply snapshots of the Jesus story at different places and times. They are the result of decades of oral history that evolved within a credulous prescientific culture. They are legends. But there are no decades of oral history in the Mormon case. No one argues that Joseph Smith didn’t exist or that his story grew with the retelling because he wrote the story himself.

One final problem with the “die for a lie” argument is that it suggests the ridiculous notion that a doomed man could recant his beliefs and be set free. This kind of exchange comes to mind:

Judge: “You have been found guilty of sedition and are sentenced to die by stoning. What do you have to say for yourself?”

Condemned Man: “Okay, okay—I’ll admit it! That whole Jesus thing—it was just made up!”

Judge: “Well, that wasn’t so hard now, was it? You could’ve saved us all a lot of bother by admitting that earlier. Very well—case dismissed.”

From what capital charges are you released by admitting that Jesus isn’t divine? Sedition? Incitement to riot? Treason? Offending a powerful person? General rabble rousing?

“Why would they die for a lie?” fails because it pretends that rejecting Jesus would have gotten the apostles released from capital charges, because we have negligible evidence that they were martyred, because there’s little reason to suppose that the stories of the original apostles are more than legend, and because the earliest actual missionaries were probably just like today’s—earnest believers who were converted by a community rather than by being eyewitnesses to history.

Inquiry is fatal to certainty
— Will Durant, historian


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

This one is from a (gasp!!!!) Muslim....but it is the content and sources I am going with.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/apostle_martyrdoms.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

http://ehrmanblog.org/historians-can-talk-resurrection/

SFD, Ehrman is a blogger, but according to you a more credible source. You'll have to check out the blogs on the right side of the page too.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2013)

More help from Ehrman on this  Disprove Christianity thingy..


Bart D. Ehrman

Author, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are'

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Posted: 03/25/11 09:38 PM ET


Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 30, 2013)

...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> ...



Refills are free with the purchase of a large soda.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Nov 30, 2013)

It's almost impossible to "disprove" anything after the fact.
For example just this morning I woke up with several very satisfied beautiful young women. I guarantee not one of you can disprove it. BTW while you are trying to disprove it, I will embellish my story. Have fun!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2013)

oldfella1962 said:


> It's almost impossible to "disprove" anything after the fact.
> For example just this morning I woke up with several very satisfied beautiful young women. I guarantee not one of you can disprove it. BTW while you are trying to disprove it, I will embellish my story. Have fun!



Another miracle worthy of worship.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then you should have zero problems proving it incorrect.
> 
> If I wanted to use the author as "proof" I would have typed his first and last name and left it at that. Since the content of what he wrote, including references throughout, is what I wanted conveyed....I shared the entire "blogticle".
> 
> ...



I truly feel sorry for you Bullet.  Anyone seething with the bitterness you have toward God has to be hurting.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I truly feel sorry for you Bullet.  Anyone seething with the bitterness you have toward God has to be hurting.



I bet you do. Don't beat yourself up over poor old me. Funnel those emotions into coming up with something solid, on track, to the point, and able to refute what I've posted. What you've posted has been torn to shreds. Now you are trying to distance yourself from the thread.
IF YOU MUST...start a "who feels bad for bullethead" thread and you can all get in your PJ's, put your hair up in curlers, paint your nails and tell each other what a poor lost bitter sole I am. It serves no purpose here except to try to deflect.

Me and this God thing are alright, it is his cheerleaders that are constantly making claims about him that they can never back up that I have a problem with.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I bet you do. Don't beat yourself up over poor old me. Funnel those emotions into coming up with something solid, on track, to the point, and able to refute what I've posted. What you've posted has been torn to shreds. Now you are trying to distance yourself from the thread.
> IF YOU MUST...start a "who feels bad for bullethead" thread and you can all get in your PJ's, put your hair up in curlers, paint your nails and tell each other what a poor lost bitter sole I am. It serves no purpose here except to try to deflect.
> 
> Me and this God thing are alright, it is his cheerleaders that are constantly making claims about him that they can never back up that I have a problem with.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Me and this God thing are alright, it is his cheerleaders that are constantly making claims about him that they can never back up that I have a problem with.



So, it's God's Cheerleaders vs. Satan's Glee Club.  I like the sound of that.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> So, it's God's Cheerleaders vs. Satan's Glee Club.  I like the sound of that.



Can you name one of "us" in here that have anything to do with Satan?

Personally all I think this Satan character is....is a necessary excuse for believers in God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 1, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I bet you do. Don't beat yourself up over poor old me. Funnel those emotions into coming up with something solid, on track, to the point, and able to refute what I've posted. What you've posted has been torn to shreds. Now you are trying to distance yourself from the thread.
> IF YOU MUST...start a "who feels bad for bullethead" thread and you can all get in your PJ's, put your hair up in curlers, paint your nails and tell each other what a poor lost bitter sole I am. It serves no purpose here except to try to deflect.
> 
> Me and this God thing are alright, it is his cheerleaders that are constantly making claims about him that they can never back up that I have a problem with.



Sad


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2013)

More laughs and sadness

http://fundamentals-freethought.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-jesus-christ-rise-from-dead.html

 Did Jesus Christ Rise From The Dead?

DID JESUS CHRIST RISE FROM THE DEAD?
by Marshall J. Gauvin,
The corner stone of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity crumbles. Prove that Christ did not rise from the dead, and you prove that Christianity is but a superstition--a superstition born of ignorance and credulity, of piety and fraud, of weakness and cunning, of priestcraft and persecution -- a superstition that must disappear as fast - as its real character is found out.

I purpose to examine in this lecture what is called the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Truth always gains from being investigated; it is error alone that shrinks from inquiry.

The doctrine of the resurrection from the dead is far older than Christianity. Thousands of years before the preaching peasant of Palestine was born, India, Egypt, Babylonia-all the ancient countries, indeed--knew the story of the resurrection, These countries, whose religions were of great antiquity, had numerous gods. They had virgin-born saviors who were the sons of their gods. These saviors, while they lived, preached and worked miracles, and after their death, they arose again and ascended into heaven.

All the doctrines of Christianity are far older than Christ; and all that can be said in favor of the resurrection of Christ can be said in favor of the resurrection of a dozen other saviors. Let us consider for a moment the resurrection of some of these pagan gods.

About twelve centuries before Christ was born -- and there is no certainty at all that he ever was born -- Chrishna, the crucified Hindu savior, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Attended by celestial spirits, amid the wondrous illumination of heaven and earth, Chrishna, the savior of men, slowly rose from earth to Paradise, while witnesses exclaimed with joy: "Lo, Chrishna's soul ascends its native skies."

Five centuries before Christ, the great Buddha, the founder of Buddhism--a religion that now embraces one-third of the human race-lay dead in India. From heaven's supreme God came the command: "Rise, Holy Love!" Then the shroud of Buddha unrolled itself; by divine power the lid of his coffin was removed; and Buddha, the Enlightened One, the savior of mankind, released from the grip of death, rose to heaven's glory.

Ancient Egypt worshipped the risen Osiris. Mr. Bonwick, in his "Egyptian Belief," says: "It is astonishing to find that, at least five thousand years ago, men trusted in Osiris as the 'risen savior and confidently hoped to rise, as he arose, from the grave.'' among the Greeks, Aesculapius, the son of God, the savior, the divine healer, he who was called the "Great Physician" -- after being put to death, rose in triumph from the grave. In the following manner, the poet Ovid makes the mother of Aesculapius ten in prophetic form, the story of the life, death and resurrection of her divine child:

"Once, as the sacred infant she surveyed,
The god was kindled in the raving maid;
And thus she uttered her prophetic tale:
Hail, great Physician of the world! all hail!
Hail, mighty infant, who in years to come
Shall heal the nations, and defraud the tomb!
Swift be thy growth, thy triumphs unconfined,
Make kingdoms thicker, and increase mankind,
Thy daring art shall animate the dead,
And draw the thunder on thy guilty head;
Then shalt thou die, but from the dark abode
Shalt rise victorious, and be twice a god."

The resurrection of gods was a fundamental idea in the religions of all the nations by which the Jews were surrounded, With these religions the Jews were familiar, and from them they borrowed many ideas. For example, the worship of Adonis, the virgin-born savior, of the Syrians, was well known to the Jews long before the time of Christ. The Jews themselves worshipped Adonis. This was a part of the idolatry into which they were continually lapsing. In the Hebrew, the word "Adonis," means "Our Lord"; and this god had an altar in the very temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem. The resurrection of Adonis was annually celebrated in Judea -- in Bethlehem, indeed even as late as 386 A.D. St. Jerome says: "Over Bethlehem (in the year 386 after Christ) the grove of Tammuz, that is, of Adonis, was casting its shadow! and in the grotto where formerly the infant anointed (i.e., Christ Jesus) cried, the lover of Venus was being mourned."

Observe the significance of this declaration. In the grotto, the cave, where Jesus cried, Adonis, says this Christian Father, was mourned. For centuries the church had a tradition that Christ was born in a cave. Among the Fathers of the church, who believed that tradition, was St. Jerome, the learned ecclesiastic who translated the Latin Vulgate of the Bible, and thus gave the Christian world its "Word of God." This saint tells us that nearly four hundred years after the birth of Christ, the death and resurrection of Adonis, the mythical savior of the Syrians, were observed in the very cave where the Christian savior was believed to have been born. But there is another thing worth noting in connection with the death and resurrection of Adonis, and that is that according to the learned author of that masterpiece of scholarship "Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions" -- the celebration of the resurrection of Adonis, became the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is there any wonder that orthodox churches are silent about the science of comparative religions, when that science proves that our reputed divine religion is but a pagan superstition under another name? How could the clergy preach about the uniqueness of Christ if their congregations were familiar with Kersey Graves' learned work, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors?"

For if the story of the resurrection of a god who was the son of a god is far older than Christianity, if thousands of millions of people in India, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, Greece and Rome lived and died in the conviction that savior gods had risen from the dead in their behalf, and if these resurrection stories were well known to the people among whom Christianity arose, how can we be certain that the account of Christ's resurrection is not the ancient myth told again?

The worship of Osiris continued for about six thousand years. During that time thousands of millions of Egyptians implicitly believed that he had risen from the dead. Christianity is less than two thousand years old; and the resurrection of Christ is rejected today by nearly every human being who has impartially examined its claims. By what criterion, then, shall we decide that the resurrection of Osiris was a fable, while the resurrection of Christ was a fact? Buddhism is at this hour the religion of five hundred million human beings. Christianity in all its forms cannot number one million intelligent believers -- people who know what they believe, and why they believe it; people who have examined the foundations of their faith, and are satisfied that those foundations are sound. By what standard, I ask again, are we justified in determining that the Buddhists are mistaken about the resurrection of their savior, and that the Christian belief is founded upon a revelation from God? Is a religion false merely because it happens to be another man's religion? Is my religion true simply because it is mine? Buddha, according to Buddhism, arose from the dead, five hundred years before Christ was born. Does that make the story of his resurrection false? Buddhism is the religion of more than twice as many people that seriously profess Christianity. Does that prove, that Buddha, did not rise from the dead, but that Christ did? Why, my Christian friend, do you reject as false the divine resurrections of the old religions, and accept as true the resurrection story of the religion of yesterday?

Will you answer by saying that Buddha was only a man, and, therefore, could not rise from the dead; that Christ was God and as God, conquered the grave? Let me show you that this is the position you must take; I shall also show you that you can not maintain it. If Christ was only a man, his death was only a human death, and therefore could not be an atonement for the sins of the world. Christianity teaches that Christ was God; that his sacrifice was divine and infinite; and that as God, he rose from the dead. But if Christ was God, how could he die? How could a few moments' suffering destroy the infinite resources of a God's longevity? How could a God's infinite hold on life be conquered by the frail means used to overcome the life of a man? Nothing could be more flagrantly absurd than the idea that a God was put to death by piercing the hands and feet of a Jewish peasant!

But let us suppose that God did die. Let us suppose that the creator of the universe threw his life away, and allowed the crucifixion to reduce him to the cold, pathetic stillness of death. God was dead! They buried him! God lay dead in the tomb! Well, how did he come to life again? Who, or what, resurrected him? A dead God becomes a living God--by what means? Could he thrill his nerves with the melody of life when he was dead? Could he, in death, re-animate with infinite designs the brain from which all consciousness had fled? If he could not return himself to life, what in the universe could restore him? There was no other God to resurrect him. He was the only God, and he was dead! Think of the audacity of the superstition that would attempt to paralyze our faculties and dwarf our minds, pervert our emotions and benumb our powers of perception, by having us believe that a god of infinite wisdom and power-grand, wondrous and sublime in the wealth of his everlasting mastery of a boundless universe - came down among the ancient Jews; allowed them to nail him to a cross; threw away his life with the recklessness of a gamester; was buried in a hole in a rock just outside of Jerusalem; and there, while dead, infused himself with life again; fled from his tomb, and flew back to heaven! No Arabian tale, no story ever invented to scare children, could be more absurdly false than this fundamental fable of Christianity. How apropos are the words of Shakespeare: "In religion, what - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -ed error; but some sober brow will bless it and approve it with a text hiding its grossness with fair ornament." If Christ was a man, he did not rise from the dead, for dead men have the uniform habit of staying dead. If he was God, he could not and did not die, and therefore, he could not and did not rise from the dead.

There is another point I wish to bring before you. Suppose there was a Jewish reformer named Jesus two thousand years ago; suppose his enemies succeeded in bringing him to the cross; how can it be known that he died in the crucifixion? According to the Gospel of Luke, Christ was on the cross about three hours. If Mark is correct, he hung on the cross about six hours. It is altogether improbable that a man should have died of crucifixion in that length of time. Crucifixion was a long-drawn-out agony. The victim died. Not from the loss of blood, but from the protracted nervous strain and, from hunger. Frequently, the crucified lived on the cross for several days. A Negro slave, crucified in Jamaica in 1760, lived on the cross for two hundred and ten hours--nearly nine days. In Kitto's "Biblical Encyclopedia," a standard orthodox work, it is said that "We may consider thirty-six hours to be the earliest period at which crucifixion would occasion death in a healthy adult." Now if a healthy man would live at least thirty-six hours on a cross, how shall we explain the death of Christ in, three or six hours? Was Christ a weakling? Did he lack average health and endurance? Why did he die in so short a time? Again, we are told that the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves, who were crucified with him, but his legs were not broken. This makes it more difficult to believe that he should have died so early; and quite reasonable to suppose that these unbroken legs may have enabled him to get away later on! It is said, however, that he was speared in the side, and that blood and water came from the wound. But nothing is said as to the seriousness of this wound. It was only in the side, and there is no intimation that it touched any vital organ, or was more than a slight flesh wound. Moreover, science, voicing its conclusion in Dr. Schmiedel's article on "John, Son of Zebedee," in the "Encyclopedia Biblica," declares that, "In spite of all efforts, no one has yet been able to show that blood and water actually do flow from a wound of this kind." The Gospel fabulist was not up on his physiology!

When told that Christ was dead, Pilate marveled that be should have died in so short a time; and when the crucified was taken from the cross, he was not examined by physicians to ascertain whether he was really dead. No effort was made to determine whether the last spark of life had fled. No restoratives were administered. In view of these facts, who shall say that Christ was dead? How can we know that he had not swooned? How can we be sure that his disappointment and his pain had not banished consciousness from her throne while life remained? How can we be certain that he was not buried alive, but unconscious? He was not buried in the earth. He was laid in a sepulcher in a rock. Against the mouth of this tomb a stone was rolled. If he was yet alive he had air to breathe, and in a few hours he may have recovered consciousness. Perhaps the stone that stood between him and freedom was not too large for him to roll away; or his disciples, returning to the tomb in the night, may have heard him cry for assistance, and helped him to make his escape. On the other hand, if he was dead, they may have stolen away his body and buried it where none might find his grave. Either of these suppositions is infinitely more probable than that a dead man or a dead God, rose from the dead. Men in pain have swooned; men have been buried alive; dead men have been stolen from their graves. These things are natural--within human experience. But all experience denies that a dead man ever became alive again; and the whole universe mocks the superstition that a God could die!

Do I hear some Christian say that the Roman soldiers guarded Jesus' tomb, and that, therefore, his disciples could not have stolen his body? Matthew is the only writer who mentions the Roman guard; and he assures us that the guard was not placed at the tomb until the second night. During the whole of the first night, there was no guard at the grave. What was there, then, to prevent Christ's escape, if he were alive, or his body from being taken away, if he were dead? Nothing! Admitting, therefore, that soldiers were stationed at Jesus' grave on the second night, as Matthew says; admitting also that they sealed the tomb, and stood guard until they were officially relieved of their watch, the story of the resurrection gains nothing, for he may have escaped, or been stolen away, during the first night, when, as yet, there was no guard about. In such a situation, we might reasonably suppose that the soldiers arrived a day too late, and that they guarded an empty tomb.

But there is something else to be said in connection with the guard. Who went to Pilate and asked him to set a guard at the sepulcher? The Chief priests and Pharisees--the Jewish Sanhedrin. Why did they ask for a guard? Matthew says they said to Pilate: "Lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, he is risen from the dead." Mark well this fact--the day after the crucifixion of Christ, the idea of his being stolen from the grave was, according to Matthew, in the minds of the Jewish leaders. Is not that significant? In assuring us that the Jews feared that the body of Jesus would be stolen, the "inspired" writer unwittingly suggests the solution of the empty tomb!

But was there really a guard at the sepulcher? Matthew alone says there was. The testimony of the other Gospels proves that there was not. That testimony is negative, positive and conclusive;-- negative, in that neither Mark, nor Luke, nor John knows anything whatever of the guard -- positive, in that according to Mark and Luke the women brought spices to anoint the body of Jesus, which they would not have done had they known that Roman soldiers stood sentinel at his grave, -- conclusive, in that the women on reaching the tomb, said among themselves: "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?" The women saw no soldiers at the tomb, either to guard it or to roll from its portal the closing stone, because there were none there.

That the story of the watch is a myth is further proved by Matthew's statement that the Jewish priests bribed the soldiers to say that, "His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept." The Roman soldier's devotion to duty has never been surpassed in the military annals of the world. Moreover, under the inflexible discipline of Roman militarism, the soldier who slept on duty was unceremoniously executed. But Matthew would have us believe that for a bribe, Roman soldiers not only sold out their honor, but exposed themselves to the certainty of immediate and ignominious death! This is not only a libel alike on the integrity and sanity of the martial character of Rome: it is an insult to the common sense of the world.

If yet further testimony be required to prove that there was no watch at the tomb, it is found in the fact that, according to the Gospels, nobody felt the need of one. Why? Because the disciples believed that Christ was dead, and that he would remain dead -- because they knew nothing of his resurrection, and were not looking for it. Luke says that when the women told the disciples of the resurrection, "their words seemed to them (the disciples) as idle tales, and they believed them not." Why did the disciples refuse to believe? Let John answer: "For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead." To whom is John referring particularly? To Peter and "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and with them all the disciples.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Peter was the prince of the disciples; according to John, the chief disciple was the disciple whom Jesus loved--that is to say, John. These bosom companions of Jesus went and beheld his empty tomb. They were amazed to find it empty. Why? Because "they" -- the foremost disciples who must have understood the mission of their master's life, -- "knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead.''

Now let us ask: if the most intimate disciples of Christ, those who knew him best and were most devoted to him---those who had followed him throughout his whole career--if these had never heard of his coming resurrection, where did the Jewish priests get their suspicion that his disciples would claim he had risen from the dead? Did Christ go and apprise his enemies of a stupendous secret which he kept carefully guarded from his friends? The ministry of Christ lasted for one year, or for three -- the Gospels are so full of contradictions that nothing definite can be learned from them--and during all that time, according to John, his disciples never heard from him that he was to rise from the dead. Yet the priests at Jerusalem, whom he had scarcely seen, knew all about the Christian doctrine of the resurrection! If the disciples were in ignorance as to a proposed resurrection, nothing could be more reasonably certain than that the priests and Pharisees had never heard of it; and if these men of the Sanhedrin knew nothing of Christ's teaching that he would rise from the dead, they certainly did not ask Pilate to set a guard at the tomb.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2013)

Part 2
I am, of course, aware that according to Matthew, Jesus had said to the scribes and Pharisees: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'' But there are four decisive facts which prove the spurious character of this supposed prophecy. These facts are, first, that our knowledge of the origin of the Gospels makes it quite unreasonable to rely upon anything they contain as being the words of Christ; secondly, that this prophecy was unknown to the disciples, since, as the Gospels show, they did not anticipate the resurrection; thirdly, that according to the prophecy, Christ compared his prospective stay in the earth with the myth of Jonas' sojourn in the whale--likened his resurrection to an event that never happened; and fourthly, that whereas, according to the prophecy, he was to be in the earth three days and three nights, the Gospels represent him to have been in the grave only one night and a few hours alike of the preceding and of the following day--that is to say, perhaps thirty hours in all. He was buried on Friday evening; his grave was empty at sunrise on Sunday morning, if not, indeed, according to Matthew, at the end of the Sabbath, on Saturday evening. By no possibility, therefore, can his stay in the sepulcher be harmonized with the duration of Jonas' alleged confinement in the whale, since thirty hours; or less can not be made to cover a period of three days and three nights.

But the sleeping sentries suiciding for priestly gold to spread the rumor that a grave was vacated, not by a risen God but by a stolen corpse, is but one of the fond fancies of "The Gospel According to St. Matthew." In his exuberant imagination the writer of this pious piece assures us that when Christ was crucified many unusual phenomena occurred. An earthquake rent the veil of the temple in twain; tore rocks asunder, and opened the graves of sleeping saints. Thereupon, these saints "arose," and standing upright or sitting in their tombs politely waited until Christ had risen from the dead, when they left their graves, "and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." The resurrection of these "saints" born from death into life in the shattering rumble of an earthquake, stands on precisely the same authority as the resurrection of Christ. So there was not one resurrection only; there were many.

But who were these resurrected saints so deferential to Christ that they remained in their open graves from Friday evening till Sunday morning? How long had they been dead? Did they come from their tombs-in their putrefying flesh? in the bareness of their clattering bones? or merely as unsubstantial ghostly forms? Were they clothed or nude? And who were the "'many" to whom they appeared? Did they die again soon? If they came from a world of endless joy, why did they not leave mankind some record of their experience in the realm of the dead? Is it not strange that the history of the time is silent about Matthew's earthquake; that the Jews never heard of the rending of the sacred temple's veil; and that the appearance, in Jerusalem of a band of resurrected saints -- corpses infused with life for exhibition purposes--neither excited the slightest commotion, nor drew from the pen of any writer of the time even the passing notice of a single line? How shall we explain the fact that three of the Gospels and the universal voice of history have absolutely ignored these stupendous miracles? Very simply. They never happened except in Matthew's perfervid imagination!

Let me say here, that in assuming that the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear, I do so merely for convenience. As a matter of fact, nobody knows who wrote a line of any of the Gospels. It is certain that they were not written by the disciples of Christ, or by anybody acquainted with Christ or his immediate followers. They are not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; but Gospels "according" to these persons. These superscriptions did not originally belong to the Gospels; they were added by the church; and whether Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were ever more real than the imaginary characters of fiction, nobody will ever know. Where these Gospels were written, and when, are matters of equal uncertainty. There is no evidence whatever to show that they were in existence during the first century after the supposed events they pretend to describe. Emerging from the darkness of early Christian times, wholly anonymous in their character, composed of myths and legends that had floated for ages in the fancy of ignorance and credulity, selected from a spurious mass of pious drivel, declared divine by superstitious priests and the votes of quarreling religions councils, embellished with frauds by forging hands in the interest of the church--such were and are the Gospels; and the doctrine that they are the inspired word of God is a fond religious fiction that rests on no authority whatever but the lies of priests. But for convenience I assume that they were written by those whose names they bear.

The story of Christ's resurrection is proved to be hopelessly false by the clamoring tongues of its many contradictions. Was Christ embalmed before he was buried? John tells us that he was. According to John, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embalmed him with a mixture of "myrrh and aloes of about a hundred pounds weight" -- enough to embalm a dozen bodies! According to Matthew he was not embalmed; and Luke's story plainly shows that there was no embalmment. Luke says he was wrapped in linen and laid in the sepulcher, and that the women who saw him so laid away, returned to prepare spices and ointments which they brought to the tomb later. But why should the women who, according to Luke, saw the body laid away, prepare spices to embalm it if they knew that it was already embalmed as elaborately as John describes? According to Luke the women prepared the embalming spices before the Sabbath began before sunset on Friday; according to Mark they did not buy them till after the Sabbath had ended - after sunset on Saturday. Surely no one will ever accuse the Scriptures of monotonous harmony!

How many women came to the sepulcher John says that one came - Mary Magdalene. Matthew says there were two -- Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark holds that there were three-Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. And Luke insists that there were at least five -- "Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them." Four inspired writers, yet not one of them can tell us how many women came to the sepulcher of a risen God!

At what time did the women come to the tomb? Matthew says they came "in the end of the Sabbath" - at sunset Saturday evening. Mark says they came at sunrise on the first day of the week -- on Sunday morning.

When the women came to the tomb they found it empty. The stone had been rolled away. The grave clothes lay where they had been cast. Jesus was no longer in the grave. How long had the sepulcher been empty? Nobody knows. No writer ventures the information that he was present when the resurrection took place; nor does any writer say that anybody else ever said that he or she was present when it happened. The resurrection stands without a single witness. All that the Gospels tell us is that when the women visited the tomb Jesus was not there.

When the women came to the sepulcher, whom did they meet? Matthew says they met "the angel." Mark says they met "a young man." Luke is certain that they met "two men." You are all wrong, declares John; they met "two angels." Matthew, where was the angel when the women met him? "He was sitting on the stone outside the sepulcher." Mark, where was the young man? "He was sitting in the sepulcher, on the right side." What did the women do when they were told that Jesus had risen from the dead? Answer, Matthew. "They departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word," Mark, is that what they did? "No, it is not." Then tell us, Mark, what they did? "They went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher, for they trembled and were amazed; neither said they anything to any man, for they were afraid." These are last words of the Gospel of Mark, as it existed in the early centuries. The last twelve verses of that Gospel as we have it, are acknowledged by Christian scholars to be a forgery. They are not found in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel. But I shall make use of these verses, for, though forged, they are a part of the Bible.

Note the last contradiction to which I called your attention. Matthew says the women hurried from the tomb to tell the disciples of the resurrection; Mark says they fled in fear, and for that reason said nothing about it to any man. Both of these statements can not be true.

As we are considering what is called the evidence for the resurrection, let me tell you something about evidence in general. It is a rule in the logic of evidence that the more unusual, the more important, is the fact sought to be established, the greater in amount, the more precise and conclusive in character, must be the evidence required to establish it. An ordinary fact is established by ordinary evidence. An unusual fact, a fact of vast significance, a fact involving life, liberty, reputation, can be established only by a great amount of evidence - evidence of the best quality, evidence that will bear scrutiny and analysis. A modest amount of evidence would be sufficient to prove that a man in good health rose from his bed and dressed himself this morning. Why? Because the fact is one of most common occurrence. "But how much evidence do you suppose it would require to convince an intelligent court that a man walked down the street on his ears, and that he walked faster than a healthy athlete who followed him could walk on his well developed legs? Such a proposition could not be proved at all. And why not? Because the thing alleged is unnatural, unreasonable, impossible, and, therefore, false!

A court could more easily believe that a hundred or a thousand witnesses had been deceived by optical illusion, or that they were lying, or that they were insane, than that a man could walk a mile in a few minutes on his ears.

If, moreover, in trying to establish such an unusual proposition, the witnesses did not agree as to the facts; if they contradicted one another in vital essentials as to time, place and circumstances; do you think the court would conclude that the thing had actually happened? Now such a case would be an exact parallel to the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The thing affirmed as a fact is unnatural, unreasonable, and, according to every canon of human experience, impossible. Therefore, no amount of human testimony can make it credible. If all the writers of the New Testament were in absolute agreement about it, that would not even tend to make it true; and when we find the writers who deal with it contradicting one another vitally, the story proves itself to be hopelessly false.

But there are other contradictions. Let us return to them. Where did Mary Magdalene first meet Jesus after his resurrection? John says she met him at the tomb. Matthew says she met him while on her way to tell the disciples. Was she alone when she met him? According to John she was. According to Matthew she was not. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when she met him? Matthew tells us that she did, that Jesus saluted her saying, "All hail!" John assures us that she did not know him, that she thought he was "the gardener." Did Mary Magdalene touch Jesus when they met? Yes; according to Matthew, she "came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." No; according to John, Jesus said to her: "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father." Where did Jesus desire to meet his disciples after the resurrection? Matthew declares he gave Mary Magdalene the following message: "Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me" Luke avers that the words of Jesus to his disciples were, "Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.'' Where, then, did Jesus first meet his disciples after his rise from the dead? Matthew is certain that it was on a mountain in Galilee. Luke insists that it was in Jerusalem; and John adds that it was behind closed doors, where the disciples had met for fear of the Jews. Galilee is at one end of Palestine, and Jerusalem at the other. The two points--one in the North, the other in the South -- are separated by what was then known as a three days' journey, Now as Luke and John declare that Jesus met the disciples on the evening of the day of his resurrection, it is certain he could not have met them in so short a time at a point so far away. If Luke and John are correct, the meeting did not take place in Galilee; if Matthew was well informed, it did not occur in Jerusalem, a little less "inspiration" and a little more truth might have saved the reputation of these writers!

When the disciples saw Christ, were they agreed that it was he? They were not. Matthew tells us that some doubted. Here was a man with whom they had been associated for one year -- or for three years -- a man with whose person, whose voice, they were entirely familiar, a man whom they revered as their teacher and leader, and yet, when they saw him, they were not satisfied that it was he; they looked on him, talked with him and doubted!

There are Christians who contend that Christ did not rise in his physical body. They believe that he arose in spirit form only. But the Gospels teach that he arose in his body of flesh and blood. According to Luke he said to his disciples: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." And did he not, according to John, invite doubting Thomas to feel his several wounds? And does not Luke insist that he ate some broiled fish and honey-comb just before his ascension? To argue after all this that the resurrection was spiritual only is to turn the Gospels into a wild burlesque.

There remains the testimony of St. Paul.

Paul tells us that Christ's first appearance was to Cephas, that is, Peter. This is contradicted by all the Gospels. His second appearance, according to Paul, was to the twelve disciples. But there were at that time; only eleven disciples--Judas had hanged himself. Of the treachery and suicide of Judas, Paul is utterly ignorant. Paul says that Christ's third appearance was to "above five hundred brethren at once." But not one of these gentlemen has anywhere testified that he saw the resurrected Jesus; and of this appearance to the multitude the Gospels are wholly silent. To certify that Paul is quite mistaken here we may observe that there were not five hundred Christian brethren in the world at that time. "After that," says Paul, "he was seen of James." The Epistle of James knows nothing at all about the resurrection; and no appearance to James is mentioned in the Gospels. "And last of all," declares Paul, "he was seen of me also." It may be so Paul, but you are the only witness in your behalf. No other writer knows anything whatever about any appearance to you.

The testimony of Paul is in hopeless conflict with the four Gospels. While the Gospels quarrel with one another, Paul quarrels with them all.

While the four Gospels teach that Christ rose from the tomb in his body of flesh and blood, and while two of them declare that with that body he ascended into heaven, Paul challenges the Gospels with this positive pronouncement: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." Very well, Paul; but.if this is so, will you be so good as to explain to us what Christ did with his human body when he got beyond the clouds? After this we can easily agree with the Rev. John W. Chadwick, who says: "Paul's witness to the resurrection is the ruin of the argument."

I call your attention to but one more contradiction. According to Luke, Christ ascended into heaven on the evening of the day on which he rose from the tomb; but according to the Acts of the Apostles he was with his disciples for forty days before his ascension. If there was a memorable period in the life of Christ, it certainly was the period that intervened between his resurrection and his ascension. The incidents of that period must have been indelibly impressed on the minds of the disciples. Never could they have forgotten their associations and conversations with him who had triumphed over death and the grave. His answers to their eager questions as to the world he had visited would have become a part of the very texture of their souls. But in these things the disciples evinced no appreciable concern. They did not question their risen master about the life beyond the tomb. Having brought him from the grave, their only interest in him seems to have been in getting rid of him. They even forgot the time he spent with them in those wonderful days. Luke remembers only from the morning to the evening of the resurrection day; while the writer of Acts extends his stay to forty days. Both accounts may be "inspired," but it is certain that both can not be true.

The ascension of a resurrected God ought to have been considered important enough to merit a fairly complete description. But Matthew does not even mention it. Mark ignored it until the forger referred to it in a meager line. John passes over it in silence. Luke alone of the disciples mentions it, and in his hurry to take leave of the subject dismisses it with this brief reference: "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."

Luke did not know that the earth revolves on its axis, and that the direction we call "up" is continually changing. He did not know that if Christ went "up" the direction he took would depend precisely upon the time he left, and that twelve hours later he would have gone in the opposite direction. He did not know that the stars are thousands of millions of miles away, and as far apart; that it would take Christ, traveling with the velocity of a cannon ball thousands of ages to reach the nearest of them; that the interstellar spaces are infinitely cold--a thousand times colder than ice; and that the telescope, in sweeping the immensity of space, would never discover the fable land of heaven. Astronomy has no time to consider seriously the story that any being with a human body ascended among the stars.

The evidence by which Christianity seeks to prove that a man or a God rose from the dead is infinitely inadequate. What! Prove the truth of a story that all human experience denies, that the whole universe declares to be false, and prove it with the glaring contradictions offered by ignorance!

There is not a court in the civilized world that would accept such evidence as is offered for the resurrection of Christ as proof against a man of bad reputation that he had killed his neighbor's chickens. The evidence is not only worthless; it is self destructive. Yet upon such evidence--evidence that crumbles -- the moment it is examined -- Christianity, with its threat of endless pain, has ever stood and still stands. "If Christ be not raised," says Paul, "your faith is vain." Paul stakes the whole belief in immortality on the resurrection of Christ. How absurd is such a doctrine! How childish is the claim that whether there is or is not a life beyond the grave, depends upon whether a Jewish reformer did or did not rise from the dead!


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2013)

Pt3
"But," some may ask,''if Christ did not rise from the dead, how shall we account for the great Easter festival which is celebrated by the Christian world?" Let me explain that the Easter celebration has nothing to do with the resurrection of a God. The celebration of Easter was hoary with age, long before Christ was born. It was an old pagan festival in honor of the reanimation, the rejuvenation of nature at the vernal season of the year. On the twenty-first of March the sun, who, as it were, has been buried in the darkness of winter, crosses the line of spring, and, as it appears, ascends triumphantly into the heavens. With the rise of the orb of day, all nature awakens and thrills with newness of life--the grass grows green; the trees shoot out their leaves; the flowers bring forth their buds. It is Nature's resurrection, at this time of the resurrection of the great forces of nature -- the forces of life and growth -- all the ancient nations celebrated the resurrection of their mythical gods. The Christian church followed the custom of the pagan world; she made her God to rise when the other gods had risen.

Nor is the Easter egg a Christian institution. The egg has ever been regarded as the symbol of life; and at the Easter season, the ancients ate eggs and presented eggs to their friends. The very name of this festival is of pagan origin, Oestra was a Norse goddess, and was worshipped as the devoted patroness of the renewing life of spring. The name of this pagan goddess was borrowed, and became a conjuring word in the vocabulary of Christianity.

There is still another argument. If it were really true that Christ rose from the dead, the world would know the exact date on which the resurrection took place. The date of a fact of such momentous importance -- a fact that hurled defiance in the face of Nature, and conquered the forces of the world -- could never be forgotten by the mind of man. But the Christian church has never known, nor does she now know, the date of Christ's resurrection. The resurrection is celebrated, not on the anniversary of any particular day, but in accordance with astronomical facts, Easter Sunday is always the first Sunday after the first full moon after the twenty-first of March -- the spring equinox, the celebration of the resurrection is therefore a festival of changing time--it may occur as early as the twenty-second of March, or as late as the twenty-fifth of April. Could anything be more curious than this manner of celebrating an historical event? Why should the resurrection of Christ, if an actual occurrence, depend upon the course of the sun and the phases of the moon? Why should it be celebrated in March one year, and in April the next? Simply because the resurrection story is only a pagan fable retold in Christian form.

Nobody knows that Christ ever lived. If he was crucified, nobody knows that he was dead when he was buried. Nobody saw him rise from the tomb. Nobody knows who wrote the resurrection stories; but any thinking person who will examine these stories will discover that they are myths.

Let us face the truth with candor. Christ did not rise from the dead; but the intellect of men is rising today from ages of confinement in the grave of superstition. There was no resurrection of Deity on the fabled Easter morn; but humanity is being resurrected today from the prisoning hold of a crumbling creed. God did not burst the bonds of the tomb; but man is riving the fetters with which religion has enthralled him, and standing in the light of day, determined to be free. Superstition's gloomy night that palled the world with hate and fear is passed. The sun of reason floods the world with the rosy dawn of a hopeful day. The promise of the future lures the steps of those with eyes to see the light. The priest and the preacher are falling to the rear in the great forward march of mankind. Humanity is rapidly recovering from the Bible's blinding blight. Honest souls no longer tremble at the thought of the bigot's - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -. The mirage of heaven that once charmed the human mind and made of earth a desert, is ceasing to sap the energy of the race. Unchained, unafraid, thoughtful, erect, free!--caring for the concerns of this world alone, the men and women who have reached their intellectual maturity-who no longer feel the need of the pious pap of priests--who prefer healthy truth to sickly lies--have come to know that this world, and not another, is our home; that this world can be greatly enriched and improved, that the joys of heaven, plucked from hope, can be realized in this life. So these forward-looking souls are striving to enlarge the realm of freedom in thought and toil; to broaden the sphere of justice; to banish the wolf of want; to bring to all a needful measure of the means of life; to diffuse knowledge; to banish disease and war and crime; to encourage the cultivation of the beautiful; to do the best that can be done to make this world a fit abode for mankind. This is the true resurrection--the resurrection of humanity to a better life.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 6, 2013)

I didn't take the time to read all this.....did anyone disprove Christianity? Just curious as to whether I needed to read it all or not


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I didn't take the time to read all this.....did anyone disprove Christianity? Just curious as to whether I needed to read it all or not



Taking someone elses' word for it is probably why you are where you are at with Christianity.
It is always better to do your own homework and decide from there.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Taking someone elses' word for it is probably why you are where you are at with Christianity.
> It is always better to do your own homework and decide from there.



That's not very nice.  You're assuming a lot.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> That's not very nice.  You're assuming a lot.



I based it off of my own path to Christianity. Simply, I did not ever know of any other possibilities.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I based it off of my own path to Christianity. Simply, I did not ever know of any other possibilities.



It's a common path.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I didn't take the time to read all this.....did anyone disprove Christianity? Just curious as to whether I needed to read it all or not



This was the "post really ridiculously long stuff nobody is going to read" thread.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> This was the "post really ridiculously long stuff nobody is going to read" thread.



Nobody clicks the links so a copy paste might get more views.
The people that are interested in gaining knowledge will read, the ones that are content with what they know will not.
Can't say help wasn't given.... or made easy.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 6, 2013)

Hey man, no offense meant!  Most of the time I am looking at this on my iPhone. If I have to up swipe with my thumb more than 10 times to get through one post, I don't care if it's letting me know I won the lottery, I ain't reading it.  In the case of this thread, I already know what I believe ( or don't) so I wasn't about to read. Much easier to drive by post....


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Taking someone elses' word for it is probably why you are where you are at with Christianity.
> It is always better to do your own homework and decide from there.




I was mostly trying to be funny. As far as to where I am, you're barking up the wrong tree. 

I'm well read and I suppose of at least average intelligence. 

I'm where I am because it's exactly where I want to be. Same as you.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I was mostly trying to be funny.


Yes, I know



jmharris23 said:


> As far as to where I am, you're barking up the wrong tree.


If you want to share I'd listen.




jmharris23 said:


> I'm well read and I suppose of at least average intelligence.


I never thought otherwise



jmharris23 said:


> I'm where I am because it's exactly where I want to be. Same as you.



I can't say that is accurate....at least on my part.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I can't say that is accurate....at least on my part.



Not quite sure I get you here? 

Do you want to believe in a higher power but can't?


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> Not quite sure I get you here?
> 
> Do you want to believe in a higher power but can't?



I have believed in the God of Abraham as I have read in the Bible and have been taught in  Sunday School and Church.
I now believe that particular version of a God is not accurate.
I am always open to the idea of some sort of higher power yet I am all but convinced it is not a loving, caring, interactive supernatural being.

Want has nothing to do with it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have believed in the God of Abraham as I have read in the Bible and have been taught in  Sunday School and Church.
> I now believe that particular version of a God is not accurate.
> I am always open to the idea of some sort of higher power yet I am all but convinced it is not a loving, caring, interactive supernatural being.
> 
> Want has nothing to do with it.



I understand....thanks for answering.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I understand....thanks for answering.



You are welcome. I have no problem being honest.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You are welcome. I have no problem being honest.



I've recognized that in you 

That said, neither do I.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 6, 2013)

jmharris23 said:


> I've recognized that in you
> 
> That said, neither do I.


----------

