There is no god. - Page 150

FlyXJTnow · 07-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianS

The Bible is not a single source. It's 66 books written by over 40 different authors of widely different socio-economic backgrounds over a period of 1600 years on three continents in three different languages. That's certainly not a single source. The most amazing thing is all of these writings are in complete agreement. Just because these books are printed together doesn't mean they are a single source.

If that's true then how come there is no independent source, outside the bible, that Jesus even existed?

leadmx · 07-28-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyXJTnow

If that's true then how come there is no independent source, outside the bible, that Jesus even existed?

Lets see there is the "Annals" written by Cornelius Tacitus a Roman senator that wrote "a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace." He goes on to explain that "Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome ..."

Then Caius Suetonius Tranquillus overseer of Tome's libraries wrote "banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus [Christ] being their leader"

Then we have Pliny the younger, who was the Roman legate of Bithynia-Pontus, wrote to the emperor Trahan "that these Christians met regularly and sang hymns 'to Christ as if to a god' "

There are many, many other examples of people, besides the writers of the Bible, that wrote about Jesus. It is not a debate about if he exsisted, but rather a debate of if he is who he claimed. He is in history, check it out for yourself. (He his the author of history in my humble opinion)

FlyXJTnow · 07-28-2008, 02:06 PM

As you mention, all the people who wrote about Jesus did so after his "death". There was not one scribe or person who wrote about Jesus during his life. There is no roman record of Jesus during the time of his alleged life. There is not on single piece of evidence, from the Roman record, that shows Pilate crucified a man named Jesus.

Jesus supposedly did many things, including work as a carpenter. However, there are no structures that were built by Jesus.

When you start looking at the big picture you realize the context of writings about Christ. Christianity was a fringe religion on the verge of extinction when the Romans adopted it. The early church leaders, through lies and manipulation, were able to get the books of the bible accepted. It wasn't until Rome became a Christian nation that the "cult" began to take footing.

If you have some independent evidence from the life of Jesus please let the world know. Scholars have been searching for centuries.

BrianS · 07-28-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

I'm sure you'll ask for examples. according john, jesus was born in nazareth. according to mathew and luke - bethlehem. mathew had mary and joseph living in bethlehem and moving to nazareth later, while luke says mary and joseph are from nazareth but travlled to bethlehem for the birth.

John does not say that Jesus was born in Nazareth. John says that Jesus was from Nazareth. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for the census, Luke 2:4 (more about this later). They stayed in Bethlehem for a period of time since Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day in Bethlehem, Luke 2:21, and on the 40th day Jesus was taken to the temple in Jerusalem, Luke 2:22, for the sacrifice called for in Leviticus 12:2-8. After that it's likely Joseph, Mary, and Jesus settled down in Bethlehem because the wise men from the east found Jesus in the "house", Matt. 2-11. Also, Herod had all the children "two years old and under" killed in Bethlehem "according to the time which he had determined from the wise men", Matt. 2:16. I know this goes against nativity scenes and cartoons of the wise men and shepherds coming to see Jesus in the manger. Scripture only records the shepherds coming to the manger. The wise men found Jesus in a house. After the wise men leave, an angel appears to Joseph warning him to take his family to Egypt, which Joseph does, Matt. 2:13. After Herod dies Joseph is told by an angel to return to Israel, Matt. 2:19. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus then go to Nazareth where Jesus grows up into a man. Where do you see a contradiction here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

luke says they moved in order to comply with the census that was going on at the time. but written records of the census exist that date it at 6ad.

Just because we have not found historical evidence outside of Luke's account for this census does not mean it's not true. There are many references in the Bible that at one time or another have been called into question because of a lack of known corroborating historical evidence. Many cities in the Bible were doubted to exist until archaeological digs found them right where the Bible claimed they were. Also, it was long thought Pontious Pilate didn't exist and that the Bible was wrong. When archaeological digs turned up proof of Pontious Pilate the Bible record was affirmed. Luke is well known as a careful historian, so don't discount his record of this census.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

supposedly joseph was from david's lineage, although david lived 1000 years prior (do you know who your ancestors are 1000 year back?)

I do not know my lineage to a thousand years, but why should I? The Jewish people did because they had many reasons to. One reason is people anticipated the Messiah and the religious leaders kept records because of the prophecies of the lineage of the Messiah. Another reason, maybe more important for the average person, is the Jewish laws concerning land ownership. The land of Israel was divided based on the lineage of the 12 patriarchs, or tribes, of Israel. Land could be sold, but not forever. The ownership of land had to stay in the line of people that it was divided to. If me knowing my lineage to 1000 years past would provide for my right to own a piece of land, I think I would go through the hassle to research it. Look at the lengths we go to today to track and research land titles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

but if mary was a virgin, joseph's lineage is irrelevant...?

This is not true. Mary's lineage links back to King David and provides a family line of birthright to the throne of David. Joseph's lineage also links back to King David but rather than a birthright, since Joseph is not Jesus' biological father, the lineage provides a legal right to the throne of David. This legal right through adoption was very common in Israel as it is today and is hardly "irrelevant".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

I have many, many more.

These questions were raised and answered before you and I were born. Why do you provide them as proof of anything?

BrianS · 07-28-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyXJTnow

If that's true then how come there is no independent source, outside the bible, that Jesus even existed?

There are independent sources outside the Bible that Jesus existed. For one, look at the Jewish historian Josephus. He wrote of Jesus' crucifixion and that his followers consider Him the Messiah.

Yariv · 07-28-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianS

John does not say that Jesus was born in Nazareth. John says that Jesus was from Nazareth. Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth and traveled to Bethlehem for the census, Luke 2:4 (more about this later). They stayed in Bethlehem for a period of time since Jesus was circumcised on the 8th day in Bethlehem, Luke 2:21, and on the 40th day Jesus was taken to the temple in Jerusalem, Luke 2:22, for the sacrifice called for in Leviticus 12:2-8. After that it's likely Joseph, Mary, and Jesus settled down in Bethlehem because the wise men from the east found Jesus in the "house", Matt. 2-11. Also, Herod had all the children "two years old and under" killed in Bethlehem "according to the time which he had determined from the wise men", Matt. 2:16. I know this goes against nativity scenes and cartoons of the wise men and shepherds coming to see Jesus in the manger. Scripture only records the shepherds coming to the manger. The wise men found Jesus in a house. After the wise men leave, an angel appears to Joseph warning him to take his family to Egypt, which Joseph does, Matt. 2:13. After Herod dies Joseph is told by an angel to return to Israel, Matt. 2:19. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus then go to Nazareth where Jesus grows up into a man. Where do you see a contradiction here?

Just because we have not found historical evidence outside of Luke's account for this census does not mean it's not true. There are many references in the Bible that at one time or another have been called into question because of a lack of known corroborating historical evidence. Many cities in the Bible were doubted to exist until archaeological digs found them right where the Bible claimed they were. Also, it was long thought Pontious Pilate didn't exist and that the Bible was wrong. When archaeological digs turned up proof of Pontious Pilate the Bible record was affirmed. Luke is well known as a careful historian, so don't discount his record of this census.

I do not know my lineage to a thousand years, but why should I? The Jewish people did because they had many reasons to. One reason is people anticipated the Messiah and the religious leaders kept records because of the prophecies of the lineage of the Messiah. Another reason, maybe more important for the average person, is the Jewish laws concerning land ownership. The land of Israel was divided based on the lineage of the 12 patriarchs, or tribes, of Israel. Land could be sold, but not forever. The ownership of land had to stay in the line of people that it was divided to. If me knowing my lineage to 1000 years past would provide for my right to own a piece of land, I think I would go through the hassle to research it. Look at the lengths we go to today to track and research land titles.

This is not true. Mary's lineage links back to King David and provides a family line of birthright to the throne of David. Joseph's lineage also links back to King David but rather than a birthright, since Joseph is not Jesus' biological father, the lineage provides a legal right to the throne of David. This legal right through adoption was very common in Israel as it is today and is hardly "irrelevant".

These questions were raised and answered before you and I were born. Why do you provide them as proof of anything?

I knew you would do this, which is why I asked you to read ahead a couple of pages, where I was asked to quote the actual verses, and I did. I won't waste my time doing it again, except one to make a point.

(underlines by me)
Luke 2:1-7 (King James Version)

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David )
5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Matthew 2:21-23 (King James Version)

21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

so according to luke, jesus was born in bethlehem because his parents moved there from nazareth for the census. accoring to matthew, he was already born (no mention where, but outside israel which means in judea) when his parents moved to nazareth.

this, my friend, is a contradiction, and there are many more, please read pages 81 and on so I don't have to waste my time, again.

and oh yeah, there's no mention anywhere in the records of the roman empire that anyone was ever made to move to their original city for the purpose of a census... defeats the purpose actually. a census counts the current population where they are.

I'll stop now because this thread and this debate is not bible study. non of this brings us any closer to any reason to think god exists, even if the bible was reliable and inerrant, which clearly it is not.

preludespeeder · 07-28-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianS

There is nothing automatic about my use of the word God. Logically I've proven the universe had a beginning. The Bible claims to answer how that beginning came into being. Since 66 books written by over 40 different authors on 3 continents in 3 languages over 1600 years are in agreement on the creation of the universe by God, the thought needs to be at least considered. There is no evidence given by you or anyone to prove this thought of God creating the universe is false. This idea of God creating the universe is currently the only hypothesis that does not contradict itself. "Science" looks for evidence of another hypothesis, but none has ever been found. Philosophers have looked for another possible reason for the creation of the universe, but none has ever been found. What's more logical, to accept the only hypothesis that doesn't contradict itself or to put your faith in a hypothesis that is contradictory?

Also, if I remember the scientific method correctly from my school days the first step in the scientific process is obeservation. No other step is ever to come first in science. Since none of us were here to observe the creation of the universe, can the scientific method be used purely to answer this question? The answer is, of course, no. Since the universe was created before us, one has to have a hypothesis or premise to start rather than observations. That's not really the scientific method then, is it? Aren't you just taking your faith and belief in contradictory theories and slapping the word science on them?

You are still side stepping the question as most due. How does slapping the explanation that God did it all answer the question of where we came from. He does not answer the problem. Where did he come from, who gave him the power to do this, where did he get the material to make it, and so on. You seem satisfied to say that God did it but that does answer the question. You are correct the first process in the scientific method is observation. Where is your observations of God doing his little handy work. How does a book written by man up to 1600 years ago answer the question about something that is over 13,000,000,000 years old. You want to disregard this huge inconsistency with a proven amount of time. Please answer my question about how using God answers the question of where we came from. If what you say is true then you need to explain where he came from.

preludespeeder · 07-28-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianS

There are independent sources outside the Bible that Jesus existed. For one, look at the Jewish historian Josephus. He wrote of Jesus' crucifixion and that his followers consider Him the Messiah.

Well I do agree with you on this one. I have not doubted ever that during the early times of christian religion there was probably some prophet named Jesus or Christ that led people. That is a pretty popular name, even the Hispanics still use it today. But with that issue of there being historic examples of this named man in history is not factual evidence to a supreme being that had fairy tale powers to save the world. History has shown that dying on a cross is nothing special to people of this time. They had roads going out of roman cities with hundreds hung on the a T shaped stand. Where is the outside factual evidence about his special powers. How is it that people many years later who were promoting this religion can write about his special powers but people of the time have no writings of this. Any person promoting something can fabricate writings to make there story seem true, if I wanted to start a new religion I could do the same thing and 100 years from now people reading my musings could argue about the validity of this but does it change the fact that I lied from the start.

FlyXJTnow · 07-28-2008, 06:19 PM

P,

couldn't have said it better. Thanks for tackling that one. Some people just continue to look the other way when the facts show otherwise.

the saying "You can't change stupid" applies here but I wouldn't use the word stupid. I don't get it.

Maybe these same people think Branded is going to be a success and grow into something bigger and better.

leadmx · 07-28-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yariv

I knew you would do this, which is why I asked you to read a head a couple of pages, where I was asked to quote the actual verses, and I did. I won't waste my time doing it again, except one to make a point.

(underlines by me)
Luke 2:1-7 (King James Version)

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David )
5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Matthew 2:21-23 (King James Version)

21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

so according to luke, jesus was born in bethlehem because his parents moved there from nazareth for the census. accoring to matthew, he was already born (no mention where, but outside israel which means in judea) when his parents moved to nazareth.

this, my friend, is a contradiction, and there are many more, please read pages 81 and on so I don't have to waste my time, again.

and oh yeah, there's no mention anywhere in the records of the roman empire that anyone was ever made to move to their original city for the purpose of a census... defeats the purpose actually. a census counts the current population where they are.

I'll stop now because this thread and this debate is not bible study. non of this brings us any closer to any reason to think god exists, even if the bible was reliable and inerrant, which clearly it is not.

Except in you wonderful example of this condradiction you forgot Matthew 2:1 "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Jerod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,"

Your quoting pieces of a story and not the whole story. Both tell the same story just diffrent parts of it. If I said "Billy left his house and went to Kroger to buy some milk." Then You said "after buying the milk Billy went to Walmart." Why would I question you on way Billy bought milk at Walmart?

It is the same story just two diffrent points of view and at diffrent times in the story.