Merged Religous Debate Threads

[Mens Rea**]

Some of Paul's letters date to 50-60 CE

What's up with the destruction of the temple?

WIKI: Jesus is also the subject of the writings of Paul of Tarsus, who dictated[17] letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life, though he knew some of Jesus' disciples including Simon Peter, and claimed knowledge of Jesus through visions.

 

[Lubaolong]

But there were at least a few historians that wrote about Jesus in a completely non-religious way, and then all the ones that wrote about him as the saviour.

Can you give me a list of all these? I honestly haven't heard this before. I would be interested to see all of these historic records about Jesus.

 

[Mens Rea**]

None of these people were thinking "hmmmm, in 2000 years people will be arguing about this, I better write this down to clarify"...think about it. Paul wrote for a contemporaries, and that is who he is challenging to prove him wrong. Also, if paul wrote about the temple burning down, and that is certainly in 72 AD, then why has every source I have ever seen date paul's letters before the gospels, usually around 45-55 ad?

I messed up on appolonius, he was not the historian I was talking about. But there were at least a few historians that wrote about Jesus in a completely non-religious way, and then all the ones that wrote about him as the saviour.

All shaky at best.

Also, did you know that we don't have anything written about alexander the great that is still around, until biographies were written about him over 300 years after his death. So maybe you are the one that should do some research on these things.

Ohhh snap!

To be candid, I don't really care about him.


But let's be honest, what's a bigger mistake, me lumping him in with Julius Caesar or you thinking that Appolonius of Tyana was a historian who wrote about Jesus?

 

[xceptionalguysd]

First of all, Buddha lived about 500-600 years before Jesus, so how could he belive in something that didnt exist at the time. Secondly, are you saying that everyone else that lived before Jesus is now in hell, JUST because they lived before Jesus? That seems a bit unfair, doesnt it? I personally don't think Jesus actually said things like "if you dont believe in me, then your going to hell" because it doesnt seem to go along with the rest of his message of loving, kindness, and forgiveness. I personally think that the church would have a HUGE motive to add that into the gospels, to verify the church and make it seem like it was the ONLY church that will get you into heaven.

Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama during the 6th century BC. His life coincides with the time when the people of Judah were exiled in Babylon.

Jesus Preexisted all. Jesus is the Creative power which God used in order to create all things. What do you think in Genesis 3:15 states when God speaks to the serpent (satan) and to Adam and Eve. He reveals the promise, of which Adam and Eve were waiting upon. They thought Cain would be the promise, he was their first son born after they sinned. They had others born before this point. Cain wasn't the promise but a murderer. Abraham was waiting on the promise as was every other patriarch. When Christ died His death was substantial for ALL people past present and future.

Buddha did not claim to have a personal relationship with God. He didn't even consider the matter of God's existence to be important, because it did not pertain to the issue of how to escape suffering. On the other hand, Jesus did claim to have a special relationship with God (john 3:!6; 6:44; 10:30;14:6,9).

Buddha claimed to point the way by which we could escape suffering and attain enlightenment.
Jesus Claimed to be the way by which we could receive salvation and eternal life (John 14:6; 5:35)
Buddha taught that the way to eliminate suffering was by eliminating desire.
Jesus taught that the solution to suffering is not foundin eliminating desire byt in having a right desire. (matt 5:6)

Jesus answered "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed His seal of approval. Then they asked him "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" John 6:27-29)

 

[Mens Rea**]

I don't care about the historicity of Jesus, the years, historians, forgeries, or any of this business.

Even if people did write about Jesus at the time and there were hundreds of written accounts, I would not be impressed or believe. We have people witnessing the miracles of god men TODAY and yet Christians do not believe it. Christers, why are you not impressed by the miracles of Satya Sai Baba? Yet when if placed these "miracles" in a pre-science world with shaky historical accounts they are gospel. :redface:

 

[xceptionalguysd]

You get more and more corny with each passing post.

 

[randyispwn]

Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama during the 6th century BC. His life coincides with the time when the people of Judah were exiled in Babylon.

Jesus Preexisted all. Jesus is the Creative power which God used in order to create all things. What do you think in Genesis 3:15 states when God speaks to the serpent (satan) and to Adam and Eve. He reveals the promise, of which Adam and Eve were waiting upon. They thought Cain would be the promise, he was their first son born after they sinned. They had others born before this point. Cain wasn't the promise but a murderer. Abraham was waiting on the promise as was every other patriarch. When Christ died His death was substantial for ALL people past present and future.

Buddha did not claim to have a personal relationship with God. He didn't even consider the matter of God's existence to be important, because it did not pertain to the issue of how to escape suffering. On the other hand, Jesus did claim to have a special relationship with God (john 3:!6; 6:44; 10:30;14:6,9).

Buddha claimed to point the way by which we could escape suffering and attain enlightenment.
Jesus Claimed to be the way by which we could receive salvation and eternal life (John 14:6; 5:35)
Buddha taught that the way to eliminate suffering was by eliminating desire.
Jesus taught that the solution to suffering is not foundin eliminating desire byt in having a right desire. (matt 5:6)

Jesus answered "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed His seal of approval. Then they asked him "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" John 6:27-29)

Does Jesus only say things like that in the Gospel of John? John is usually dated around 90 A.D. which is about 60 years after Jesus died. It is interesting tho because John might have actually been the apostle John, but he might not have been.

Honestly, I dont agree with God and Jesus only letting believers into heaven. I just can't imagine that God punishes people for things they cant really prove or know. There are what, like 6 billion people on the planet, maybe about a third of them are christian, so automatically, even the best muslims, hindu's, and jews go to hell? Its just a bit of an "I'm better than you because you believe in this" mentality for me to think it actually came out of Jesus' mouth.

 

[Lubaolong]

I don't care about the historicity of Jesus, the years, historians, forgeries, or any of this business.

Even if people did write about Jesus at the time and there were hundreds of written accounts, I would not be impressed or believe. We have people witnessing the miracles of god men TODAY and yet Christians do not believe it. Christers, why are you not impressed by the miracles of Satya Sai Baba? Yet when if placed these "miracles" in a pre-science world with shaky historical accounts they are gospel. :redface:

That's a good point.

 

[SuperMykee**]

What's up with the destruction of the temple?

WIKI: Jesus is also the subject of the writings of Paul of Tarsus, who dictated[17] letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life, though he knew some of Jesus' disciples including Simon Peter, and claimed knowledge of Jesus through visions.

???? I just know that Romans, for instance, dates 50-60. I tend not to pay too much attention to the bible.....Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Jesus is a second rate ethicist.

 

[fitch]

careful randy, the creationist nutbags have fantasy answers for all those questions.

Your right.
If only naturalists did eh?

 

[randyispwn]

Your right.
If only naturalists did eh?

Carbon has a half life. By judging Carbon it is easy to see how long this piece of Carbon has been around for. Also, just digging in the ground enough can show when stuff was around.

Also, LOGICALLY, if there were predators around like dinosaurs in the time of Moses, wouldn't the bible mention that? Yes I have read the passage in Job that talks of dinosaurs, but it sounds like a fire breathing dragon to me, not a dinosaur. Also, don't you think human bones would be in close proximity to dinosaur bones. The argument that the world was made 6000 years ago by God is very illogical. There are too many things that don't connect. God didn't write the Bible, man did. Maybe God let evolution happen. Maybe God got the ball rolling for evolution, knowing where it would end up. If you stop thinking about what the bible says, and start thinking about things logically, then you will see evolution is quite obviously true. And even if it's not somehow, that the world was NOT created 6,000 years ago as it says in the bible.

Just answer me this, if there were dinosaurs around in the time of genesis, why weren't they talked about at all, AND why aren't dinosaur bones found anywhere NEAR human bones. I understand you have your beliefs, but these beliefs can be proven wrong. The belief in God however cannot be proven wrong. It is a matter of opinion, faith, and experience. Stop believing things blindly just because a book says it is true.

 

[xceptionalguysd]

Carbon has a half life. By judging Carbon it is easy to see how long this piece of Carbon has been around for. Also, just digging in the ground enough can show when stuff was around.

Also, LOGICALLY, if there were predators around like dinosaurs in the time of Moses, wouldn't the bible mention that? Yes I have read the passage in Job that talks of dinosaurs, but it sounds like a fire breathing dragon to me, not a dinosaur. Also, don't you think human bones would be in close proximity to dinosaur bones. The argument that the world was made 6000 years ago by God is very illogical. There are too many things that don't connect. God didn't write the Bible, man did. Maybe God let evolution happen. Maybe God got the ball rolling for evolution, knowing where it would end up. If you stop thinking about what the bible says, and start thinking about things logically, then you will see evolution is quite obviously true. And even if it's not somehow, that the world was NOT created 6,000 years ago as it says in the bible.

Just answer me this, if there were dinosaurs around in the time of genesis, why weren't they talked about at all, AND why aren't dinosaur bones found anywhere NEAR human bones. I understand you have your beliefs, but these beliefs can be proven wrong. The belief in God however cannot be proven wrong. It is a matter of opinion, faith, and experience. Stop believing things blindly just because a book says it is true.

As you are I once was...

These are great concerns and points to bring up. Hardly going to be a short answer if I'm going to be of help to you. My journey from Evo to Cre was from wondering about Cain's wife and those in the land of Nod, and trying to fit neandertals into the picture through this means. Eventually I found that was pretty foolish and it all started to come together for me.

Carbon dating is supposed to only be good for 50k to maybe 100k years for dating. Anything that is in water has leeched out Carbon giving off a much older date than supposed. A live crabshell can be C-14 dated at 30k years. Sounds problematic. What if everything that is in sediments(fossils, etc) which is shown to be deposited by waterflows was carbon dated? Well it would be very skewed based upon the leeching of carbon by water. If that's the case, then why do things that are supposed to be 65mya still have carbon in them if the half life is roughly 5k yrs?
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
This actually offers some good info about carbon dating methods.

As far as finding Human bones near dino bones, well even if that were the case I'm sure it wouldn't make into the public. Humans live in dwellings, dinos live in the lush tropical clime. Why would Humans (who can swim or at least float) be near dinos? They wouldn't. If there was a flood, dino's would be washed away together as they have been shown in a variety of places upon the earth. Humans are found with humans, grazing animals are found together, bears found together, etc... Yeah you read a couple chapters in Job that explain dino's in great detail and dismissed it. We have a great wonderment for dinos today, because they are an important part of our theories. However people of the day didn't have such a great worship of them. They probably just avoided them as best possible. I know I would have.

Now as far as the earth being 6k yrs old as illogical well, here's the issue I have. First, it doesn't matter how old the earth is as compared to my quality of life. It doesn't affect me in the slightest whether it's 6k or 4.5bya. I don't think it does you either. I know that Jesus died for my sins. I know that Jesus is the son of God, and that He led a sinless life fulfilling the sin debt and the law for us. Whether I think the earth is billions of years old or not, I'm still going to heaven because I accepted Him as my savior. However, if Adam did not bring sin into the world along with the curse, and death and suffering, but it was occurring here naturally and millions of bones are in the ground at the time Adam was formed. Then what is sin? If We (man) didn't bring in sin into the world then why would Jesus have to die? Here's the problem. Jesus is either who He says He is or He is a liar. And considering that Jesus died for us sinless, I am going to have to go with Son of God. If this is true, then all of the Bible is also true. Christ mentioned much of the OT when He spoke. Referring to Moses and the prophets as truth. This is not the only reason for believing. I also have the same evidence that evolutionary proponents look at and believe. I just sift it through the word of God. I see 1000's of feet of sediments, trillions of fossils, oil deposits, volcanos, separation of the continents as proof for a global flood. I see the vast amount of languages all developed around the same time with the same amount of complexity as proof for the tower of Babel. I see Isreal being in existence as proof for Jacob and Joseph. I see Palestine and Lebanon being a thorn in the side of Isreal as proof for the mistakes made by Joshua's men. I can continue on and on. Plenty of evidence in the world all pointing to the truth of the Bible and God. There are no flimsy facts and figures anyone can present to me that would show otherwise. Then of course there is the Shroud of Turin, the Ossuary of James, etc... Yes I am familar with the opinion of people that they are forgeries. They need this in order to uphold their theories. I'm also very aware of all the phony things done in science to get grant monies with the fake and forged hominids and various supposed missing links. Arctepteryx (sp).

 

[fitch]

I don't care about the historicity of Jesus, the years, historians, forgeries, or any of this business.

Even if people did write about Jesus at the time and there were hundreds of written accounts, I would not be impressed or believe. We have people witnessing the miracles of god men TODAY and yet Christians do not believe it. Christers, why are you not impressed by the miracles of Satya Sai Baba? Yet when if placed these "miracles" in a pre-science world with shaky historical accounts they are gospel. :redface:

As a skeptic of course you would care to dismiss evidence to support the existence of Jesus and that he really was who he said he was. So your basically saying no matter what proof existed you still wouldn't "impressed or believe"? Well that's consistent with how atheists treat science, keep what fits our naturalist religious belief, ignore the rest.

It a question of where the source of the "miracle" comes from.
Why don't you believe Baba? I don't believe him because of his hand gestures.

 

[fitch]

What's up with the destruction of the temple?

WIKI: Jesus is also the subject of the writings of Paul of Tarsus, who dictated[17] letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48-68. Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life, though he knew some of Jesus' disciples including Simon Peter, and claimed knowledge of Jesus through visions.

LOL. Umm you might want to use a little more authoritive source for your info on Jesus than pro atheist/liberal Wiki.:redface:

 

[Mens Rea**]

You're tied for dumbest guy in here, fitch.

 

[fitch]

The bible is not something that should be taken literally. The gospels were written as historical accounts, and so were the letters of paul. Now the old testament is IMO full of a lot of parables to show how life is and how it should be.

Well your entitled to your opinion but what your suggesting is God did a sloppy job on parts of it which absolutely makes no sense. So if you want to say some of it's erroneous, how do you decide which part is true and which is false.

Was there really a burning bush,

Why not? If God created the world he couldn't create a burning bush?

did jacob really wrestle God,

Genisis 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Many scholars believe this was actually an angel as the incident is referenced in Hosea 12:4 Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us;
So technically it was Jacob over Angel by verbal submission.

was there really a flood where Noah got all the animals on the arc?? None of these things are actually true, although the most likely I guess would be the burning bush, although I'm not too sure of that even. These are just stories that tell people how things are, and how the world is, so as not to confuse people, and they were stories passed down through word of mouth for so long, that even if at one time they were true, how much of it can actually be trusted?

Specifically why aren't they true? They weren't passed by word of mouth. They were written down. Right from Genesis as it is written "This is the book of the generations of Adam"(5:1) and in 6:9 "These are the generations of Noah...".
quote=randyispwn;18392201]It is completely impossible that Noah made an arc that had all the animals on it. First of all it is impossible that he had access to all the animals considering he lived in the middle east and there are a TON of animals that cant live in the middle east, and secondly, there are infinite types of insects and things, and how did he cage them, and feed them, what about animals that ate other animals? I know you can say "well God made it happen" but that isnt a logical answer. A whole lot of the old testament is stories or myths.[/quote]It's as much considered fact by naturalists and creationists that there was one supercontinent 'pangea' in past where all life existed. Second, it's obvious from the observed fossil remains of many dinosaurs and plants that the world was very different at that time as it would be impossible for many of them to survive in today's environment. How did the animals all fit on the ark: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp

 

[icepick]

It's as much considered fact by naturalists and creationists that there was one supercontinent 'pangea' in past where all life existed. Second, it's obvious from the observed fossil remains of many dinosaurs and plants that the world was very different at that time as it would be impossible for many of them to survive in today's environment. How did the animals all fit on the ark: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/arksize13.asp

So scientists can be right if it supports your theory?

Yeah, let's cherry pick the pangaea part, but disregard the millions of years ago part. Because after all, you are certainly qualified to make that call.

 

[RGJJ_matt]

jacob by armbar

 

[fitch]

You're tied for dumbest guy in here, fitch.

Typical. I've yet to see you provide one intelligent arguement on anything. Your petty insults say more about your intelligence than mine.

By ridiculing you seem so confident creation as written in the Bible is false. Why? Do you actually believe that their is conclusive scientific proof that supports molecules to man evolution and refutes creation? If so, cough it up.

 

[fitch]

So scientists can be right if it supports your theory?

Yeah, let's cherry pick the pangaea part, but disregard the millions of years ago part. Because after all, you are certainly qualified to make that call.

I've already addressed the millions of years part a few pages back. Read a detailed arguement here:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove