Friendly question for all athiests (and those that are having a tough time believing)

What historical witnesses? In what other text is Noah mentioned?

 

One of them was the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. These were men that sat at the feet of the apostles, or of the feet of the people that sat at the feet of the apostles. If these men made up randomly what they wrote, why would they be willing to go as far as death, for there belief? Acts 2:32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses" John 20:30-31 "30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Nothing random about what they wrote I doubt. 'Apostolic Fathers' 'Apostles' and 'Disciples'. Like you say, people who were followers of a man calling himself the son of God...very close, you could say the inner circle, or the inner circle of the inner circle of a religious movement. If there was a person today calling himself the second coming of Jesus and he had a group of guys that all attest that he is...would you believe it? You say they are fakes but what if they arent and you are denying that which is holy as they did back then. Yes these people suffered for this movement and died...even the the scripture you quote is saying it happened because they WANT you to believe. Why did they get proof and I didn't...THEY didn't have to just believe the words of someone writing thousands of years ago...they were blessed to witness it, they got proof, why must I just take others words for it, why don't I get proof? No need to answer because I KNOW why. Just doesn't make sense...There are many other religious people through time who say they do miracles...and the people around them will back up what they say because they are in on it or they think they have witness miracles themselves...There are thousand who will tell you so-and-so healed the sick, they saw it...in Africa faith healers have HUGE followings...are they lying? some maybe, the others were duped. What if they are healing people through divine powers and you are doubtng and missing the true holy men of our times. When one is trying to gain followers in a religious movement they do these things. Why would they do it? Well...if it all went right, what kind of life could a man have in a crap hole little Roman Province in the middle east if the people accepted him as a god on earth...you think, if most of the people accepted his story that he wouldn't have had quite a lot to gain?


If you read the history of early Christians as they became more and more accepted, they had all different kinds of beliefs...about the nature of Jesus and God...they fought each other constantly over things like the nature of the trinity, was jesus a god? or was he human?...this is why early leaders sat down and decided to make ONE version of the bible...and that didn't even work because others broke away and decided not to accept it and started other sects. The Gnostics thought there were TWO gods...an old testament god who was evil and created the universe by accident, and the new god that fathered Jesus. During the rise of islam the Eastern orthadox church needed help from european christians, those two christian sect hated each other, it took a common foe for them to begrudgingly work together.

True, you can, and it's been done. But, it hasn't been proven that the events that took place in the Bible are fables, because they aren't. I still honestly don't understand how you can discredit one section of verses, and accept another to be honest with you.

In your opinion they are true though there is simply no way to prove it any way but subjectively...I have explained several times how one passage from ancient writings can be obviously false and the in the same sentence they can say something that could easily be true. One last time 'When Augustus died he was placed on a funeral pyre, a great many people witnessed his spirit rise to the heavens as he took his place among the gods.'

I believe he lived, I believe he died, I do not believe he was a god...even though many people saw it. The Catholics have a million saints, many of them worked miracles...many had witnesses? True? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Why would the apostles make up something, and tell the truth of another? If they were in any way false, they would've been proven wrong a long time ago.

How would they have been proven false? You either believe what is said or you don't, you cant prove or disprove something you weren't there to witness and all you have are the writings of others long ago to go by. It simply requires faith. Why would they make up stuff? Why does anyone make up stuff about people or themselves? In this case it was to make a case that Jesus was the son of God and not just a guy with some new way...Why were most emperors deified (proclaimed to be gods either after death or before)? Let me see...if the emperor was just a man...that's not that impressive, I can kill a man with no problem and take his power...but if the emperor is a god...it lends authority from a higher place, make him God and his son is now the son of a god and a god himself...raises him from just human to something different, he is a higher power. Kings say 'by the grace of god' when they talk about why they rule the people. What greater authority could they muster than that god set them on earth to rule...are THEY lying when they say they rule by the grace of god? Probably not, they believed it I am sure...I don't. People worshiped the emperor as a god...should I believe he was? Why would they lie? Why would they report facts about an emperor and then lie about him being a god? Can I not believe anything written about Augustus unless I also believe that he was a god? There are just a million possible reason why they would lie about godhood.

The people back then weren't as gullible as you make them out to sound. If they were, then they would've accepted whoever came along. But they didn't do that. The rejected Jesus, because they percieved Him as going against there teaching, He called them on what they were doing wrong. If they were gullible, they would've accepted everybody and anybody.


Yes, I think they were, especially in the provinces...but you are right, for all our advancements, people are still gullible and they will still write checks to people who say they can heal them. You say these people are frauds but how do YOU know they are frauds? I have seen them take a person who is sick and heal them...or at least they say they did and the person they healed says they were healed...Gods and religious movements came and went and people believed or they didn't. I am not saying they accepted anyone who came along but they worshiped something, all of them, the idea of no Gods was unthinkable save to the rulers who, some have admitted, often didn't believe it themselves but felt it was important that the masses did. I think it is telling that not many were followers...almost gives credence to the fact that its not true...if large numbers of people in the ancient times saw a man rise from the dead or walk on water, they would have been on their knees for sure.

 

Today, those things don't happen for a reason. I agree, I don't believe those guys can do what they claim to do, because the miracles back then happened for a reason. They were done to prove that Jesus was/is the Son of God. If He didn't do the miracles, what could He do to help prove that He was God? It was a part of His divine nature to do those miracles as they are recorded by historical witnesses. Those miracles had to have taken place, otherwise, people would think that Jesus was just another common man. And that age wasn't as simple as you make it out to sound. They might not have had technology like we do, but they were well civilized from what I've read. They weren't simple minded folk that impressed easily with fire.

Convenient that these things don't happen now...those people closest to him get proof and we just have to have faith...lucky them to be chosen as witnesses, they don't have to have faith, they SAW it. If I saw a person walking on water I wouldn't have to have faith as I SAW it with my own eyes...so obviously he didn't do that great of a job PROVING he was the son of God seeing as though as far as I am concerned I have seen nothing but the writings of a few guys closest to him to recommend he was the son of god...and that's not even close to enough...its not evidence at all. No, they weren't impressed with fire but they were far more easily manipulated by religion than you seem willing to accept...

True, in a way it is a never ending circle. If both sides don't keep an open mind. I disagree with you about there is no way to make a scholarly study of the Bible, as it's been done! I'm going to try to get you an interesting book if you'd like, that is by Ed Wharton (same one I sent stainless), that makes a very well laid out historical scholarly study of the Bible. After going half way through, there really isn't as much "faith" involved as thought! Jesus, Jonah, and Noah, are real persons of history. The events that took place, are events of history. LMK if you are interested man.

See, again...I don't need to keep and 'open mind' when I study real history or factual information, in fact I am always skeptical with everything. Like with science, people talk about black holes as if they exist and know what they are and the properties of black holes...I have never seen any proof that a black hole is what they say it is, they don't know, science has a problem proceeding with a theory as fact as well. But still I do not find it hard to believe what was written about...say...Marcus Aurelius...this person was discussed and known by many...millions... and was known to many many people as a ruler of an empire and he wrote his own book as well in which he expresses his inner most thoughts...I don't have to have faith he existed, I don't have to be OPEN to it...it just is. Things that are obviously true require little faith as they exist whether I am open to them or not and can be proven to exist beyond doubt.

Honestly, I am quite a bit older now and have had these debates for 20 years or more, and lets face it, greater minds than you and I have debated this for some time, and you will not produce anything that someone else hasn't produced already long before you or I were born to make a case for god and jesus...If god wants to show himself to me...then I will accept it is true. Otherwise, I cannot think of a new argument you could make that would lend any more credence to the bible and its tales...Jesus, Jonas, Noah, Moses, Adam and Eve...maybe they were real, maybe not...maybe they did what is written about them, maybe not...there is no way for me to know but I will say I am skeptical of anyone who says they talk to god (let alone the son of god) or anyone who is telling me to just take their word for it...if they are asking me to take their word for it that they are hungry...no problem...that they parted the red sea by the power of god? no...I would have to see it to believe it. This is why such a debate doesnt go anywhere, its not like we are the first two people to debate this and find disagreements, where one person believes something, the other doesnt, and they go back and forth never giving one inch. This is a belief you hold, if you think its true then I say more power to you...I dont...and after many many years of study I have never seen a shred of emperical evidence to suggest that these tales are true, and I would be dishonest with myself and all around me if I just pretended to think its true. I AM open to it, I dont say it is NOT true...If proof comes along, I will be the first to say I believe. Like the apostles, its easy to believe in something when you see it...its much harder when all you have to go on are some papers written long long ago.

 

I was fishing out back when a fish rose out of the water and told me to dig a hole under a bush that was aflamed from the heat of the sun and I found stone tablets written by angels that told me that Mohammad will descent from hevan on the back of an ass to spread the word of budda. It is all true, Hara Rama, Hara Kishna, Hara Rama.

 

I believe you...why would you lie?

 

If you were a true believer you will send a bank order for $19.95 to buy me a ticket to paradise foundation.

 

This is a long thread and I don't know what I am really replying to. I'll try to address the original post.

Ask yourself this--The God described by Christians is supposed to be perfect. Look around you. Could a perfect God create an imperfect world?

In the Bible , God Himself repented of his creation, so He recognized that it was not perfect.

As far as I am concerned, -- case closed.

Oh, and don't argue that the evil and imperfection in the world is caused by satan. Satan was also created by God.

 

You are suppose to PM me to ask for my post office box address so you can be saved and after I get your money. I also give blessing over the phone if you have a house warming, marriage, new car..but that is a 1-900 number.

 

This is wrong Andy, Jesus may love you but I am very upset. You are a good man and a forgotton hero but your sense of humor is off the path of god. I will pray for you.

 

Oh get a sense of humor, and get off your high horse, John Paul.

 

I do not understand this expression but i will pray for you as well for the good like the wicked often have blood on their hands.

 

Kill them all and let god sort them out

only joking but it does bring back memories.

 

Except, what a lot of people miss is God didn't create an imperfect world. It says in the Bible after God created the world, that He saw it as good. That when He was done, it was good. After that, He allowed free will in people and angels. That's when it went from there. And believe it or not, Satan had to be good at one time also. It was after certain choices that turned the world imperfect.

Phoenix

 

Hey Drusus, I'm not ignoring you man, I haven't had much time lately to get on the computer, much less reply to your posts. I will hopefully soon. Take care.

Phoenix

 

Just doesn't make sense...There are many other religious people through time who say they do miracles...and the people around them will back up what they say because they are in on it or they think they have witness miracles themselves...There are thousand who will tell you so-and-so healed the sick, they saw it...in Africa faith healers have HUGE followings...are they lying?

What makes you believe this is the case with Jesus?

some maybe, the others were duped. What if they are healing people through divine powers and you are doubtng and missing the true holy men of our times. When one is trying to gain followers in a religious movement they do these things. Why would they do it?

Maybe. I could be. But what you are saying can work both ways. What I have to go by is the historical testimony that the Bible provides. And I see the point you are making I believe. But, if Jesus was a "magician", why would He go through the rejection, and death that He went through, if He was in the least bit unreliable? And if you want to reject and forget about the New Testament for now, we have other historical sources that tell us that Jesus was crucified by Pilate, on the charge of sedition outside of the city of Jeruselum. Cornelius Tacitus (often refered to as the greatest historian of Rome) talks about Christ suffering the extreme penalty during the reign the Tiberius at the hands of Pilate.

There's proof right there that Jesus was and is a real man of history (I know you said that you believe that He was, but I'm throwing that in for others) Nothing from history disproves anything the Bible has said, nothing from archeology disproves it, and nothing from other people. But, there is an abundant amount of evidence that fits right in with the Bible. Would something like that be a mere coincidence?

Well...if it all went right, what kind of life could a man have in a crap hole little Roman Province in the middle east if the people accepted him as a god on earth...you think, if most of the people accepted his story that he wouldn't have had quite a lot to gain? [/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

But the thing is, no a lot of people accepted Him. If what He was doing a ploy, to get attention and gain material things, once He saw things weren't going good, or things like the crucifixion coming, He would've backed down?

If you read the history of early Christians as they became more and more accepted, they had all different kinds of beliefs...about the nature of Jesus and God...they fought each other constantly over things like the nature of the trinity, was jesus a god? or was he human?...this is why early leaders sat down and decided to make ONE version of the bible...and that didn't even work because others broke away and decided not to accept it and started other sects.

I've seen programs on tv about that. And naturally, being a family (that's what Christians claim to be, right?) they would bicker, and have disagreements. Or people that claim to be Christians, try to stir up trouble? These people, like us, wanted to have absolute certainty that what they followed was the truth. So, a group of men did sit down and piece together what was right. What you are leaving out though (probably not intentionally, as it is often overlooked) but the writings in the New Testament were circulated among the SAME generation in which the events took place. A reporter today tries there absolute best to get the full story, facts, etc. Why? Because they know if they put something in there that is not true, that the community will automatically reject it. Same as back then. That is why the books that are there now made the cut, and the others didn't. Why? Because, the books that are there were accepted and taken as historically reliable! That weren't just thrown in there because, oh, that sounds good, let's put it in there. They were put in there, because they were and are true, eye-witness testimonies and accounts.

The Gnostics thought there were TWO gods...an old testament god who was evil and created the universe by accident, and the new god that fathered Jesus. During the rise of islam the Eastern orthadox church needed help from european christians, those two christian sect hated each other, it took a common foe for them to begrudgingly work together.

True, you can, and it's been done. But, it hasn't been proven that the events that took place in the Bible are fables, because they aren't. I still honestly don't understand how you can discredit one section of verses, and accept another to be honest with you.

In your opinion they are true though there is simply no way to prove it any way but subjectively...I have explained several times how one passage from ancient writings can be obviously false and the in the same sentence they can say something that could easily be true. One last time 'When Augustus died he was placed on a funeral pyre, a great many people witnessed his spirit rise to the heavens as he took his place among the gods.'

But there is! Proverbs 28:26 says:

A man who trusts in his own heart is a fool,
But whoever walks wisely will be delivered.

Pretty strong, but it makes the point that Subjective feelings are no way in proving Christianity. If you can trust Subjective feelings with Christianity, and use them to prove it, why can't you do the same with Hinduism, Buddhism, etc? You can't! That's because Christianity is NOT based on feelings. Christianity is NOT grounded upon teachings. Christianity is grounded and based on events that took place in history. If those events didn't happen, Christianity would be no more. Christianity is not a subjective religion (contrary to popular belief), but it is an historical objective religion.
I believe he lived, I believe he died, I do not believe he was a god...even though many people saw it. The Catholics have a million saints, many of them worked miracles...many had witnesses? True? I don't know, I wasn't there.

Why would the apostles make up something, and tell the truth of another? If they were in any way false, they would've been proven wrong a long time ago.

How would they have been proven false? You either believe what is said or you don't, you cant prove or disprove something you weren't there to witness and all you have are the writings of others long ago to go by.

They would've been easily proven false by the people that lived back then, and were alive at the time. No argument there really IMHO.

It simply requires faith. Why would they make up stuff? Why does anyone make up stuff about people or themselves? In this case it was to make a case that Jesus was the son of God and not just a guy with some new way...

But, what leads you to the conclusion they made it up? Jesus made many claims that are recorded in the New Testament. in John 6:38 Jesus claimed to have come down from heaven. Pretty hefty claim if He was a mere man. Jesus in John 10:30, 36 claimed to be GOD. He also made quite a few other claims too. But whether you believe He was who He said He was or not, the fact is that there was a man from Nazareth, that lived and claimed to be God. Again, I ask you, would you die for a lie?

Why were most emperors deified (proclaimed to be gods either after death or before)? Let me see...if the emperor was just a man...that's not that impressive, I can kill a man with no problem and take his power...but if the emperor is a god...it lends authority from a higher place, make him God and his son is now the son of a god and a god himself...raises him from just human to something different, he is a higher power.

Good point, except, Jesus, even though claiming to be God, was scorned, abused, and killed?

Kings say 'by the grace of god' when they talk about why they rule the people. What greater authority could they muster than that god set them on earth to rule...are THEY lying when they say they rule by the grace of god? Probably not, they believed it I am sure...I don't. People worshiped the emperor as a god...should I believe he was? Why would they lie? Why would they report facts about an emperor and then lie about him being a god?

Except, these men didn't have to go under persecution to my knowledge because of their claims, or their beliefs. Jesus, and the Christians did, but remained faithful and never gave up. Why doesn't that give atleast a little credibility to them?

Can I not believe anything written about Augustus unless I also believe that he was a god? There are just a million possible reason why they would lie about godhood.



The people back then weren't as gullible as you make them out to sound. If they were, then they would've accepted whoever came along. But they didn't do that. The rejected Jesus, because they percieved Him as going against there teaching, He called them on what they were doing wrong. If they were gullible, they would've accepted everybody and anybody.


You say these people are frauds but how do YOU know they are frauds?

From what God's word says.

I'm done for tonight, lol, but I hope I'm making some sense, and I hope you and everyone does respond to this. I hope I'm not being taken as trying to stuff something down your throat, as I'm not trying to do that. My intent is to show you and everyone else the evidence there is, and by using the function of reason, you and everyone else can draw a conclusion upon the claims and evidences that are made that with keeping the them.

Phoenix

 

Except, why do you believe what is written in Caesar's Gallic Wars, written in 58-50 B.C., and it's oldest manuscript copy dates back to somewhere in 800 A.D.?

Again, I probably wouldn't accept all that was written about the event contemporarily. I would take into consideration the source. Most importantly I believe the wars occurred. Do I believe everything written in the accounts of the Gallic wars, Agricola and the Germania, or the accounts of the Punic Wars? No...For a great number of reasons ancient historians must be looked at with a bit of skepitssm. I believe what they say sometimes and others I think they are exagerating or waxing on, introducing elements, naratives that didnt happen, or might not have happened, to make it a better read...Ancient historians are a funny bunch.


How would they have been proven false? You either believe what is said or you don't, you cant prove or disprove something you weren't there to witness and all you have are the writings of others long ago to go by.

They would've been easily proven false by the people that lived back then, and were alive at the time. No argument there really IMHO

Well, I would say there are a lot of things that couldn't be disproved that I and many don't think is true. I couldn't prove I don't reincarnate (unless I use other religious text) but I dont think we do Its all in the narrative you chose...being able to easily disprove OR prove something, especially in things like the divine, is impossible IMO....but I like how you approach it because I indeed think someone who is saying that there is an invisible all knowing, all powerful being that created all that is, and his child born of a virgin walked on water and rose from the dead, etc...This is something that must be proven to be believed by all. The burden of proof is on the person who is asserting something that is not apparent exists. I am not saying this fantastic story is true, thus I dont need to disprove it or prove it, I am removed from it as I admit I dont know.

They just didnt say we are all made up of atoms without proving it...they said this microscopic particle existed and set about to prove it...and did. I believe an atom exists even though I cant see it. In my opinion god has never proven to such a standard.

It seems to me there were a very good many people who obviously didn't believe he was what he said he was and saw him as a fake, did not witness miracles, etc... It would seem to me that to the temple leaders, and probably most at the time, Jesus was just a blink of the eye, another guy saying he is the messiah put to death. In his story we are mainly getting one side from the people who followed Jesus. The Jews were not concerned with chronicling his life or confirming or disproving anything, I would think.

Pretty strong, but it makes the point that Subjective feelings are no way in proving Christianity. If you can trust Subjective feelings with Christianity, and use them to prove it, why can't you do the same with Hinduism, Buddhism, etc? You can't! That's because Christianity is NOT based on feelings. Christianity is NOT grounded upon teachings. Christianity is grounded and based on events that took place in history. If those events didn't happen, Christianity would be no more. Christianity is not a subjective religion (contrary to popular belief), but it is an historical objective religion.

I think that is how it should be, I agree that God, if one exists, does not conform to how YOU or I think it is but how it is. If something exists, it exists outside our own vision of it, but never having experienced it, and having so many to chose from, I have no idea what God is...so for me its either subjective, or the words of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheist, Satanists, etc..etc...So I could never say or know until it is revealed to me definitively, lets face it, we are talking only about Christianity here, there are so many others religions in this world, all sure they are right.

Its a fundamental difference we have. How can one even discuss the validity of miracles worked by the SON of God when I dont even know if there WAS a God...How can I accept the fantastic feats of biblical characters when I dont know if there is a soul, an after life, miracles, prophets, or gods. I dont think the Bible is the word of god any more than the Vedas, the Quran or any tomes that say they are speaking for god, passing down gods will, past and present.

I am not saying they arent true, I just cant reconcile them. Its been a pleasure

 

Thank you for the way you put your thoughts and words not only in your last post, but your other posts as well Drusus. I'm seeing more and more where you are coming from, where you aren't exactly saying everything the Bibles wrong, but where you want proof to make your decision, and I respect that. (insert thumbs up smilie here ) I will respond again, lol, but not at this time.

Phoenix

 

Not once did Jesus ever claim to be God. Religion is the only one that has made that claim, so how can you read the Bible and not understand this?

Ribbit

Ps: I believe in Jesus but I cannot believe in religion, since it is corrupted by the very thing Jesus sought to end . . . GREED!

 

'After all this time, I believed in Jesus. After all those drugs, I thought I was him. After all my whining and crying and suffering. I aint clean enough, I aint good enough, to be him!'.-The Clash.