Are you a Christian?

[LicensedToTrade]

The evidence you'd require is found in the most basic calculators. Solar panels convert the energy into electricity which powers the calculator. Physics can be used to determine how much energy, how much space, how much pretty much anything.

I too believe the Earth is spherical because I've watched satellites orbiting the planet with my own eyes. I've watched the Sun and the Moon come together at a given moment to provide me with an eclipse. I've watched the Earth curve when I've been up in a plane. I've got GPS data that confirms the faith. I've got photographs of the actual Planet from outerspace.

All of that evidence leads me not to faith, but to knowledge.

Unfortunately none of this is evidence from my point of view...again I would be relying on second hand information....faith in someone else. How does physics calculate energy? It is based on the equations invented by a human...if we use those equations then we use them in faith that they are true and accurate...faith. You have seen the moon eclipse the sun...that proves that the sun can pass in front of the moon...it doesn't prove the earth is spherical..this linear event could still occur if the earth was flat could it not? Faith. You have seen the curvature of the earth from a plane...this could prove that the earth is a large semi-circle could it not? You have faith the the curve continues until it meets back up at the other end...faith. You have GPS data...this is data generated from software written by a human, you have faith that the equations they used are true and accurate...faith. You have photographs of the earth from space...did you take them yourself? Faith.


Some old book tells you that some sandal wearing hippy went around performing miracles...evidence or faith? Is it any more evidence than GPS data?

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there is a God as such... but you should approach science in the same way you approach religion...cautiously. Whenever you rely on second hand or incomplete evidence you are taking a leap of faith when coming to your conclusions. Science has been wrong in the past.

 

[stockdam]

Use a bit of probability here. If you've got 300 Billion Stars. What's the chances that one of them is going to be at roughly the right distance to provide the right energy for life?

I don't know where this will go but you're just talking about life as we know it, Jim. There's nothing to say that life cannot exist in much more "extreme" environments.What stopped different types of life starting on the moon or Venus etc. If you allow for the fact that life could take many, many different forms then the chances suddenly reduce substantially.........in fact why then isn't the universe teaming with life in lots of different but highly adapted ways?

 

[stockdam]

Some old book tells you that some sandal wearing hippy went around performing miracles...evidence or faith? Is it any more evidence than GPS data?

The evidence for Jesus is pretty strong.

 

[Esk247]

Unfortunately none of this is evidence from my point of view...again I would be relying on second hand information....faith in someone else. How does physics calculate energy? It is based on the equations invented by a human...if we use those equations then we use them in faith that they are true and accurate...faith. You have seen the moon eclipse the sun...that proves that the sun can pass in front of the moon...it doesn't prove the earth is spherical..this linear event could still occur if the earth was flat could it not? Faith. You have seen the curvature of the earth from a plane...this could prove that the earth is a large semi-circle could it not? You have faith the the curve continues until it meets back up at the other end...faith. You have GPS data...this is data generated from software written by a human, you have faith that the equations they used are true and accurate...faith. You have photographs of the earth from space...did you take them yourself? Faith.


Some old book tells you that some sandal wearing hippy went around performing miracles...evidence or faith? Is it any more evidence than GPS data?

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there is a God as such... but you should approach science in the same way you approach religion...cautiously. Whenever you rely on second hand or incomplete evidence you are taking a leap of faith when coming to your conclusions. Science has been wrong in the past.

but the space station is real, you can see it with your own eyes (almost) if you have a telescope handy. so the people up there know the earth is round in the same way we KNOW the earth is round(ish) as we can travel across the oceans in a yacht, doesn't matter which way round we go we end up back where we started from eventually.

science can be proven in terms of humanity by looking through a microscope and watching cells divide, we can SEE IT, we can touch it almost.

the problem I have with religion is that it causes yet another level of division between people that doesn't need to be there. Like the 9/11 remembrance and mosque debate, its all about religion again, flamin hell..why can't we all just concentrate on the bigger picture..we're all humans!

 

[Esk247]

I don't know where this will go but you're just talking about life as we know it, Jim. There's nothing to say that life cannot exist in much more "extreme" environments.What stopped different types of life starting on the moon or Venus etc. If you allow for the fact that life could take many, many different forms then the chances suddenly reduce substantially.........in fact why then isn't the universe teaming with life in lots of different but highly adapted ways?

it is..there are organisms on moons and other planets, its being investigated but we lack the technology to reach these planets and really extract the information.

there was probably, life on mars at one stage, but the environment changed far too rapidly for anything to remain, if we go and stick a few organisms back on there now they'll multiply...probably.

 

[Esk247]

The evidence for Jesus is pretty strong.

really? is it? does he have a youtube video out?

i just don't SEE IT!

 

[Top Hat]

The evidence for Jesus is pretty strong.

Is it? can you summarise evidence for Jesus (other than the bible)

 

[LicensedToTrade]

but the space station is real, you can see it with your own eyes (almost) if you have a telescope handy. so the people up there know the earth is round in the same way we KNOW the earth is round(ish) as we can travel across the oceans in a yacht, doesn't matter which way round we go we end up back where we started from eventually.

You haven't read what I have said properly, I am not doubting whether space is real or whether there is a space station...my point is that when you believe in science you are using faith. Yes people have been in the space station and said yep the earth is round...but you haven't...you are relying on them telling the truth...that is all faith is.

When you cross the ocean what navigational aid do you use? A compass? GPS? All man-made things...based on the calculations of another person...faith. This doesn't prove the earth is spherical.

science can be proven in terms of humanity by looking through a microscope and watching cells divide, we can SEE IT, we can touch it almost.

I was never trying to prove or disprove science...I'm not disputing whether science exists, just pointing out that belief in science is the same as belief in a God.

the problem I have with religion is that it causes yet another level of division between people that doesn't need to be there. Like the 9/11 remembrance and mosque debate, its all about religion again, flamin hell..why can't we all just concentrate on the bigger picture..we're all humans!

That is very true...science has also caused needless death over the millenia...yet I'm sure that religion takes the top spot for needless deaths.

 

[LicensedToTrade]

Some things are absolute and some are not. That gravity exists on earth is an absolute and can be measured - even by you. That climate warming is caused by people is a probability - at the moment a 90% probability.

Truth is not decided by the number of people who believe it, it's decided by the weight of evidence for or against. If the whole of the earth's population believed that the earth was flat (which it mostly did back when these daft religions were being dreamt up to explain the inexplicable) - it would not make it so.

The same can be said of the bible, it contains some things we can be sure ourselves are true...and the rest is faith. Yes I know that if I jump off a building I will fall to the ground and die...science gave it a name, gravity. But proving that objects fall towards earth is not the same as proving it is round. By personally proving one aspect of science, it does not automatically mean that all scientific statements are true.

 

[stugster]

How does physics calculate energy?

Well hang on, how are you interpreting these calculations? At the end of the day, it's just a scale. A scale from A through to B with points in between. A scale to determine how much of something there is. It's irrelevant whether it means anything in relation to anything else; as long as there is a difference between A on the scale and B when compared to the real life scenario.

How would you be relying on second hand information if you watched the Sun disappear behind the Moon? What about when you watch satellites going around Earth? Have you even seen a satellite? They're not the work of God by the way.

GPS data that I collected myself, for my own evidence. My longitude and latitudes can be shown on a globe. They determine every point on Earth's surface all the way round.

Magnetic force can be used to show the curvature of Earth.

Nobody's taking a leap of faith here. They're studying the evidence. They're looking at the different methods of working things out from themselves and they then make an informed decision.

As cjd already pointed out, theories can be proven wrong. If it turns out in a years' time that there was some space-time differential that only made it seem like Earth was round and there was sufficient evidence to substantiate this new found theory, I'd likely accept the theory in practice. That not only doesn't happen in religion, but it CANT.

 

[stugster]

The same can be said of the bible, it contains some things we can be sure ourselves are true...and the rest is faith.

Yes, but this point is moot. The points in the bible that can be proven don't determine the likelihood of God's existence. The points in the bible we'd accept are things like; Jews lived back then, water is wet, Adam and Eve (oh no, wait...).

Step back from the text, and what evidence do you have? What hard evidence substantiates the claims made in writing from people we've never met. From translations which could be completely inaccurate. From insertions that could have been put in as a joke when the writer wasn't looking.

Show me God, and I'll believe. Talk p1sh about his existence without showing me God, and I'll assume you're off yer rocker.

 

[cjd]

Unfortunately none of this is evidence from my point of view...again I would be relying on second hand information....faith in someone else. How does physics calculate energy? It is based on the equations invented by a human...if we use those equations then we use them in faith that they are true and accurate...faith. ..... Faith.

Science builds on previously gathered knowledge, we generally call them facts - primary sources of evidence. If you need to, you can delve backwards to derive them from wherever you begin to lose faith in the assumptions you are using.

If you don't believe that hydrogen and oxygen when combined make water like it says in the books, you can do the experiment to prove it yourself.

Once you've proved also that CO2 is indeed heavier than air and that by adding sulphur, potassium nitrate and carbon in the correct parts you can blow your fingers off, you begin to have some good reasons to think that there might be some truth behind inorganic chemistry.

It would be faith that then allows you to believe that the book is likely to be correct on other things too and can be relied on - but if you still doubt, you can check.

How does that equate with a belief that if I pray to the Virgin Mary on the first Friday of the month using rosary beads which requires ten Hail Marys and One Our Father for each bead touched and if I do that for 9 consecutive months that I will get an indulgence from God that may get me into heaven early?

Or a belief that if I murder a Christian and die a martyr in a Fatwa I will get 7 virgins in heaven?

Or maybe that if I have a blood transfusion I can't be one of the 144,000 chosen to get to heaven when the apocalypse happens sometime very soon?

You see, there's faith and there's faith isn't there? Some kinds of faith are valid - those based on some rational and provable assumptions (ie that the moon will rise at 6.47 pm tonight as seen from Plymouth) and those based on no supporting evidence at all.

Science has been wrong in the past.

And it will be wrong in the future too. But when it finds that it's wrong it fixes it and moves on - we call it progress and it's the scientific method; if it can't be proven wrong, it's not science, it's belief.

 

[stugster]

The evidence for Jesus is pretty strong.

really? is it? does he have a youtube video out?

i just don't SEE IT!

Is it? can you summarise evidence for Jesus (other than the bible)

I'll be the third person to ask for evidence of Jesus, please.

 

[bdw]

The evidence for Jesus is pretty strong.

Count me in too. I would love to see this evidence. :|

 

[LicensedToTrade]

How would you be relying on second hand information if you watched the Sun disappear behind the Moon? What about when you watch satellites going around Earth? Have you even seen a satellite? They're not the work of God by the way.

Had you bothered to read my posts fully you would see that I already stated I'm not a believer in God...so why the dig? If you have seen a satellite orbit the earth whilst you were standing on the ground then you must have very fast running legs if you were able to follow it all the way around...very impressive. If you saw a geostationary satellite then you didn't notice any relevant movement at all. The sun being eclipsed by the moon doesn't prove that the earth is round, it proves that the path of the moon and sun are sometimes as such that the moon passes in front of the sun...that could happen on a linear pathway not just a orbital one...as I have already stated in an earlier post.

GPS data that I collected myself, for my own evidence. My longitude and latitudes can be shown on a globe. They determine every point on Earth's surface all the way round.

Using what device? With what software? Based on what calculations? Faith. I can plot points on a planet shapped like a banana if I used software that interprets the earth to be that shape...it doesn't prove the earth is shaped like a banana.

Magnetic force can be used to show the curvature of Earth.

Again based on pre-determined theory and equations. A compass will give you a 2D direction. Using more complex and modern devices to detect magnetic fields one again relies on the person who constructed and callobrated the device based on their equations...you are still using faith.

Nobody's taking a leap of faith here. They're studying the evidence. They're looking at the different methods of working things out from themselves and they then make an informed decision.

In reality I am a believer in science, not religion...but I have a lot more respect for a bible basher who says 'I have faith in God and accept that it might not be true' rather than a believer in science that says 'I believe in this 100% as there is evidence and I won't be swayed until I see further evidence to disprove it'.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that belief in science is a faith of sorts. Only a simpleton can have 100% trust in scientific statements.

 

[Esk247]

Had you bothered to read my posts fully you would see that I already stated I'm not a believer in God...so why the dig? If you have seen a satellite orbit the earth whilst you were standing on the ground then you must have very fast running legs if you were able to follow it all the way around...very impressive. If you saw a geostationary satellite then you didn't notice any relevant movement at all. The sun being eclipsed by the moon doesn't prove that the earth is round, it proves that the path of the moon and sun are sometimes as such that the moon passes in front of the sun...that could happen on a linear pathway not just a orbital one...as I have already stated in an earlier post.



Using what device? With what software? Based on what calculations? Faith. I can plot points on a planet shapped like a banana if I used software that interprets the earth to be that shape...it doesn't prove the earth is shaped like a banana.




Again based on pre-determined theory and equations. A compass will give you a 2D direction. Using more complex and modern devices to detect magnetic fields one again relies on the person who constructed and callobrated the device based on their equations...you are still using faith.



In reality I am a believer in science, not religion...but I have a lot more respect for a bible basher who says 'I have faith in God and accept that it might not be true' rather than a believer in science that says 'I believe in this 100% as there is evidence and I won't be swayed until I see further evidence to disprove it'.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that belief in science is a faith of sorts. Only a simpleton can have 100% trust in scientific statements.

I know what you're getting at, in the same way those who believe in God 100% will not be swayed, us science followers will not be swayed in to believing that God exists...or something along those lines.

but we can still prove the earth is round, without using gps, we just use the stars while at sea, its how captain cook reached australia, they used some mechanical devices for mathematical calculations but still..by following the path of the moon/sun they could see they were travelling in a certain direction and at a certain speed.

this has more evidence than that of jesus or god because anyone can do it, even kids.

 

[bdw]

There is nothing wrong with admitting that belief in science is a faith of sorts. Only a simpleton can have 100% trust in scientific statements.

I don't think anyone is talking about scientific statements. What matters is that scientific facts can be proven.

 

[stugster]

Had you bothered to read my posts fully you would see that I already stated I'm not a believer in God...so why the dig?

No dig, it's generalisation.

If you have seen a satellite orbit the earth whilst you were standing on the ground then you must have very fast running legs if you were able to follow it all the way around...

No, I just understand physics. I can use calculations to work out when it's going to appear on the horizon, from where, what trajectory it'll take (because we know the earth is round) and where it'll disappear. I can then carry on with those equations and calculate when next it'll appear, for how long, in what direction, infinitum.

Using what device? With what software? Based on what calculations? Faith.

Using an old speed camera detector, stripped down to the PCB, connected via SERIAL to my laptop, and using the SIRF protocol to communicate with it to display the raw data.

I've also used this setup to trilaterate (not triangulate mind you) unsecured wireless networks. Physics, not faith.

I can plot points on a planet shapped like a banana if I used software that interprets the earth to be that shape...it doesn't prove the earth is shaped like a banana.

No, but it shows you pretty quickly when you look at the data that if you're in Glasgow, and you take note of your lat and long, and then you go to aberdeen, and you take note of your lat and long, then you go to Edinburgh, take note of lat and long, you can compare it with a map of Earth and magically it all ties up. Chance? Or would that be evidence?

Again based on pre-determined theory and equations. A compass will give you a 2D direction. Using more complex and modern devices to detect magnetic fields one again relies on the person who constructed and callobrated the device based on their equations...you are still using faith.

Not if you look at how the device works, determine what it does and how. Just like my example with the umbrella thermometer and tin can. That isn't faith, that's physics. It's an example of how one would be able to go about recreating the experiments to get to the same evidence. Then using that new found evidence create realistic probabilities (theories) upon how things work.

Faith is blindly believing something without evidence. I've shown on numerous occasions now why that isn't the case here.

IThere is nothing wrong with admitting that belief in science is a faith of sorts. Only a simpleton can have 100% trust in scientific statements.

I don't think anybody at any point has said we should have 100% trust in science. Time and time again science is proven to be wrong.

Here's the neat bit though; when science has made a cock-up, it's usually shown up by evidence or another theory. Science is the first to up its hands and agree that what it said originally wasn't accurate, and is happy to then take on the new theory or evidence.

Religion on the other hand, does not.

 

[stugster]

us science followers will not be swayed in to believing that God exists...

But, here's the thing. I would be more than happy to believe in God. I just need some sort of basis to start that belief. At the moment, there's absolutely nothing. Not even a tiny shred of evidence.

 

[Top Hat]

This argument about faith in science is a bit of a silly distraction.

Yes we all have to have faith in something, can't possibly check all the evidence, have to take some things on faith.

Me, I have faith that the scientific method is honest, and works towards the best/most correct answer.

To compare the faith required to believe in religion as equal to the faith required to believe in scientific evidence is just plain foolish and feels a bit like arguing for arguing sake.

Now, can we have some Jesus existed evidence.

 

[DCE]

But, here's the thing. I would be more than happy to believe in God. I just need some sort of basis to start that belief. At the moment, there's absolutely nothing. Not even a tiny shred of evidence.

Here's some evidence recorded in the history books, and we know the Jews didn't re-establish the State of Israel until May 14, 1948,

Jesus was God's greatest Prophet. First, note what he said would happen to Jerusalem: "Your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected." (Luke 19:43, 44) Jesus also said: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains."-Luke 21:20, 21.

True to the prophecy, Roman armies under Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem in 66 C.E. Strangely, however, he did not press the siege to its completion, but, as the first-century historian Flavius Josephus reported: "He retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

With the siege unexpectedly lifted, opportunity was afforded to heed Jesus' instruction to flee Jerusalem. The historian Eusebius reported that it was the Christians who fled.

Less than four years later, in 70 C.E., Roman armies under General Titus returned and encircled Jerusalem. They cut down trees for miles around and built a city-encircling wall, "a fortification with pointed stakes." As a result, Josephus observed: "All hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews.

Josephus noted that after a siege of about five months, aside from three towers and a portion of a wall, what was left "was so thoroughly laid even with the ground that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.

About 1,100,000 died during the siege, and 97,000 were taken captive.

To this day a testimony to the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy can be seen in Rome.

There the Arch of Titus stands, erected by the Romans in 81 C.E. to commemorate the successful capture of Jerusalem.

That arch remains a silent reminder to the fact that failure to heed the warnings in Bible prophecy can lead to disaster.

 

[stugster]

Here's some evidence.....

Jesus was God’s greatest Prophet.

Ah ok. That's definitely evidence right there. You've typed the words "Jesus was God's greatest Prophet".

Cleared things up for me. Thanks

 

[stugster]

(Luke 19:43, 44)
Luke 21:20, 21.

This is not evidence. This is text in ONE book. We asked for the evidence, you've given us nothing.

as the first-century historian Flavius Josephus reported:

Where did he report?

The historian Eusebius reported that it

Where?


Do you have an issue with understanding the word evidence?

 

[cjd]

There is nothing wrong with admitting that belief in science is a faith of sorts. Only a simpleton can have 100% trust in scientific statements.

'Of sorts' yes - it's just a sloppy use of language. But when you try to say that simple and proven facts - like the earth is a sphere - is a matter of faith; you're just plain wrong and I don't think that even you 'believe' in your own argument.

 

[Esk247]

Here's some evidence recorded in the history books, and we know the Jews didn't re-establish the State of Israel until May 14, 1948,

Jesus was God’s greatest Prophet. First, note what he said would happen to Jerusalem: “Your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.” (Luke 19:43, 44) Jesus also said: “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.”—Luke 21:20, 21.

True to the prophecy, Roman armies under Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem in 66 C.E. Strangely, however, he did not press the siege to its completion, but, as the first-century historian Flavius Josephus reported: “He retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

With the siege unexpectedly lifted, opportunity was afforded to heed Jesus’ instruction to flee Jerusalem. The historian Eusebius reported that it was the Christians who fled.

Less than four years later, in 70 C.E., Roman armies under General Titus returned and encircled Jerusalem. They cut down trees for miles around and built a city-encircling wall, “a fortification with pointed stakes.” As a result, Josephus observed: “All hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews.

Josephus noted that after a siege of about five months, aside from three towers and a portion of a wall, what was left “was so thoroughly laid even with the ground that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.

About 1,100,000 died during the siege, and 97,000 were taken captive.

To this day a testimony to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy can be seen in Rome.

There the Arch of Titus stands, erected by the Romans in 81 C.E. to commemorate the successful capture of Jerusalem.

That arch remains a silent reminder to the fact that failure to heed the warnings in Bible prophecy can lead to disaster.

isn't that just the same as what reporters do? predict that something will happen..in the same way it was predicted that america would attack afghanistan within a few days of the twin towers attack? and its making a statement that Jesus actually existed and wrote a very large book with his predictions...really? did General Titus know about this?

didn't Jesus tell the people what would happen? he'd predicted it

 

[rattytattydesigns]

I judge everybody the same way. I certainly wouldn't trust someone more if they had a specific religion. I do find that quite a few people who bang on about how moral they are and how good their god is blah blah are hypocrites.

My next door neighbour is a committed christian, when she had a serious gas leak and was told to evacuate. knowing that I was a smoker and had 3 ruptured discs rushed 8 miles away without telling me or the neighbour on her other side who also had mobility issues and was also a smoker.

Backfired a bit cause she forgot to leave her keys with someone and they had to break her door down. Who says there isn't a god. LOL

I also in the past sold a few bits and peices on ebay. A bloke i know who always had a real go at me if i ever said God or even bloody as he said it was taking his faith in vain and blasphamy, asked me how i got my free boxes. So i said if I tell you, you can find someone else like my supplier who had a health food shop. Next time i went to get my free boxes I found that my christian friend had taken them.

So I take people as i find them, if they bang on about their religion all the time I am less likely to trust them, If people are honest and good they really shouldn't have to tell everyone all the time.

 

[Top Hat]

Here's some evidence recorded in the history books, and we know the Jews didn't re-establish the State of Israel until May 14, 1948,

Jesus was God's greatest Prophet. First, note what he said would happen to Jerusalem: "Your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected." (Luke 19:43, 44) Jesus also said: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains."-Luke 21:20, 21.

True to the prophecy, Roman armies under Cestius Gallus came against Jerusalem in 66 C.E. Strangely, however, he did not press the siege to its completion, but, as the first-century historian Flavius Josephus reported: "He retired from the city, without any reason in the world.

With the siege unexpectedly lifted, opportunity was afforded to heed Jesus' instruction to flee Jerusalem. The historian Eusebius reported that it was the Christians who fled.

Less than four years later, in 70 C.E., Roman armies under General Titus returned and encircled Jerusalem. They cut down trees for miles around and built a city-encircling wall, "a fortification with pointed stakes." As a result, Josephus observed: "All hope of escaping was now cut off from the Jews.

Josephus noted that after a siege of about five months, aside from three towers and a portion of a wall, what was left "was so thoroughly laid even with the ground that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.

About 1,100,000 died during the siege, and 97,000 were taken captive.

To this day a testimony to the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy can be seen in Rome.

There the Arch of Titus stands, erected by the Romans in 81 C.E. to commemorate the successful capture of Jerusalem.

That arch remains a silent reminder to the fact that failure to heed the warnings in Bible prophecy can lead to disaster.

The bible was written after those predictions came true (if they did, can you provide evidence?). Those predictions only add to the evidence that's its all just made up.

 

[bdw]

The only fact that is certain so far in this discussion is that there is no evidence to support the existence of any god in any religion but I am realistic enough to accept that the religiously committed people in here are not going to let a minor detail like that get in the way of their argument.

 

[cjd]

If you're looking for evidence that JC actually existed, you need to google 'historicity of Jesus'

Here's a start

^ White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4: "This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry."

 

[bdw]

I have just been reading about the new saint who is to be ordained during Pope Ratzinger's visit to England. Apparently some old guy had a bad back. He prayed to this chap who died 110 years ago and next morning he was cured. Apparently in the eyes of the church that's conclusive proof. So he's got to be a saint then, eh?

Personally I cannot understand how any educated adults could believe in this nonsense. It's just another religious absurdity.

 

[DCE]

The bible was written after those predictions came true (if they did, can you provide evidence?). Those predictions only add to the evidence that's its all just made up.

The scrolls were read out to the congregations during there meetings prior to these events taken place.

How did the Christians know to flee to the mountains if it was written after the fact.:|

 

[Esk247]

The scrolls were read out to the congregations during there meetings prior to these events taken place.

How did the Christians know to flee to the mountains if it was written after the fact.:|

what..jesus read the scrolls to the congregation?

or was it just that they knew the attacks were coming...as you would..by spying on the enemy?

 

[stugster]

How did the Christians know to flee to the mountains if it was written after the fact.:|

Normal people would suggest here that they were tipped off, they had spies, or even that they didn't flee at all and fought...

Lunatics say it was God.

 

[DCE]

what..jesus read the scrolls to the congregation?

or was it just that they knew the attacks were coming...as you would..by spying on the enemy?

Jesus was put to death in 33 CE,what he had said was written down by the Apostles.

 

[stugster]

But what evidence have you got, other than their word?

Actually. Nah, I'm out. This is just a silly conversation. A time waster. It's not my responsibility to ensure people aren't suckered into it. They can make their own mind up; there's enough evidence out there of the truth. You don't even have to look far - what you're using to post these messages is a basis of Physics, a basis of technology, and a basis of human success without any God involvement.

 

[stugster]

Just for a laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydbbd-4oEds

 

[cjd]

Jesus was put to death in 33 CE,what he had said was written down by the Apostles.

Oh no they didn't

^ White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4: "This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry."

 

[DCE]

Oh no they didn't

^ White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4: "This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry."

Rubbish of the highest degree.

 

[cjd]

Well argued

 

[stugster]

Just 'cause.