Today is Ascension Thursday!

[hrmjustin]

Today we celebrate Jesus ascending to heaven 40 days after his resurrection. Jesus was with his followers giving the the great commission and ascended into the clouds.

Happy Ascension day and Happy Easter!

[cleanhippie]

1. What accounts are there of Jesus interacting with the public post-resurrection?

Seems like a guy who was dead and buried walking around town greeting the passers-by would make the news cycle.

[hrmjustin]

2. The Gospels have accounts of appearances to the Apostles but no mass sightings.

It did make the news cycle for 2000 years. The accounts were strong enough to become a major religion.

[cleanhippie]

3. So nothing extra-biblical then?

And having the bible forced onto generation after generation is hardly "making it into the news cycle."

[hrmjustin]

4. There are no separate accounts other than the bible.

That we know of.

[cleanhippie]

5. It is my understanding that the Romans documented everything.

I would think that a man they killed and buried coming back to life, cruising around the countryside would have been at least noted. Lesser events of the time certainly are.

[hrmjustin]

6. Unless they did not want it on the record.

[cleanhippie]

7. Now THAT would be a leap of faith to accept.

There is also no mention of all the other dead people that arose from the grave mentioned in the gospels.

Events like that make the headlines.... If they actually happen.

[hrmjustin]

8. Maybe they did not see it.

Maybe it was recorded and was lost. Maybe it was destroyed.

[cleanhippie]

9. Maybe it simply didn't happen.

When we really don't know about an event, we have to go on the probability of said event actually occurring, right. To say that an event of such magnitude, not only Jesus, but hundreds of other dead people (there is this account in the bible, right?) leaving the grave and walking amongst the living, was simply not documented, or lost and forgotten, has a probability of happening that must be near zero.

[hrmjustin]

10. There is the possiblity it did happen as well.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

11. Cleanhippie, do you constantly have to sneer at Christianity?

[hrmjustin]

12. I think you meant to link to him not me.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. The religion forum is open to skeptics. If you want to post about zombies and not be challenged

You now have a separate forum for your use where nobody can question the veracity of obvious nonsense.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

19. There is an atheists and agnostics forum for skeptics to use

I promised Renew Deal I would be temperate in my language. However, "obvious nonsense" is certainly a, shall I say, biased term to use to describe Christianity.

Anyway, I was asking Cleanhippie why he (or she) had to continually sneer at Christianity. I have said that I have no difficulty understanding why some people are atheists; what I have difficulty understanding is why so many atheists seem almost compelled to be nasty about it.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. yes, that is the forum where we dont have to put up with religious nonsense

and is the equivalent to the interfaith forum. This forum, however, is where we all get express our opinions. If you do not wish to be annoyed by people questioning the veracity of myths and fables from your religion, don't post them in this forum.

[cleanhippie]

35. At what point did I become "nasty" in my conversation with hrmjustin?

Please, be specific.

[mr blur]

63. Yes, and there is an Interfaith group for believers to use. This isn't it, so

if someone wants to celebrate the "ascension" as if it were a historical supernatural event for which there is no historical (extra-biblical) evisence evidence, then posting about it here does not make them immune to criticism, reason and mockery. "Faith" is not a good enough reason to not be criticised here.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

73. So you believe that one should not celebrate religion in the religion group?

You can certainly criticize. However, what I was complaining about was not actual criticism, but just sneering.

As I have said before, I can understand why someone might be an atheist. What I do not understand is why so many atheists seem compelled to be nasty about it.

[cleanhippie]

33. If you consider questioning dubious claims as sneering, then the problem lies with you.

You also have the option of putting me on ignore.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. because they make it so easy.

Just look at the bishops and their pronouncement about sex and marriage. (While studiously ignoring the thousands of lives they and their child abusing priests damaged)

Or condom use in Africa? Insane.

There are so many examples, too many to list.

[okasha]

13. Suggest you ask him to produce the documents recording the trials and crucifixions

of individuals following the uprising of Judah of Gallilee, Bar Kochba, and the thousands crucified by Titus during the siege of Jerusalem 68-70 CE.

He will refuse, of course, because no such documents exist or ever did.

[hrmjustin]

15. I just asked him to respond so we shall see.

[cleanhippie]

26. And what does this have to do with dead people coming back to life without a single documentation

of it?

That thousands of people were killed with little or no fanfare or documentation? plausible, and likely.

That not just one man, but many...

27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

...came back to life and "appeared unto many" without anyone making mention of it?: Not plausible and unlikely.



And feel free to ask me questions yourself. Being open and honest, like our friend here, will get you the civil conversation we all want.

[hrmjustin]

14. Please read and answer okasha's question, post number 13.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=79337

[trotsky]

18. The comparison isn't valid.

Were any of those other people resurrected for 40 days?

[okasha]

23. Straw man.

Assertion to be proved is that «the Romans documented everything.»

[trotsky]

31. He didn't "assert" that.

He said: "It is my understanding that the Romans documented everything."

And then specifically: "I would think that a man they killed and buried coming back to life, cruising around the countryside would have been at least noted. Lesser events of the time certainly are."

His assertion (that events less notable than a guy who ROSE FROM THE DEAD AFTER BEING EXECUTED are recorded) is undeniably true. The Romans have census records, tax records, etc. You don't disprove or question that assertion by challenging him to find documentation on items that you've plucked out of the air. You'd do it by showing real, significant historical events (on the order of a man rising from the dead) were A) certainly known by the Romans, and B) not documented by them.

Go ahead and do that. Or run away because you're had your ass handed to you yet again. Your choice.

[hrmjustin]

36. "It is my understanding that the Romans documented everything." Post number 5

You can ask him what he meant. It sounded pretty clear to me. I understand his point of view but he did say they documented everything.
As for the Events of Jesus the Bible states he only appeared to his disciples after the resurrection. Now from your point of view that looks like they are making it up. I take the view that he appeared to his apostles and gave them the great commission and ascended 40 days later.

And just because they don't have the evidence now does not mean it does not exist. It also could have been destroyed or just not written down for fear it would give credence to this new movement.

Who knows for sure, no one.

[trotsky]

43. He didn't say they documented everything, he said it was his understanding that they did.

And clearly it was meant as a rhetorical device - they obviously didn't document EVERYTHING (rainfall totals, how many times they took a leak during the day, etc.)

But since none of the gospels were actually written by the men whose names they bear, we don't even have any eyewitness accounts of any kind. It was all written down long after the events allegedly occurred.

You can invent conspiracy theories to explain the lack of evidence if you must, but there is a simpler explanation.

[hrmjustin]

48. Sorry but he said "everything".

[trotsky]

49. Well gee yup, he was totally wrong about that since they didn't document their bowel movements.

You are totally correct.

Can we move on now and address the central point, that something so incredibly unusual like an executed prisoner who came back to life for 40 days should have been eventful enough to find its way into some records other than the jottings of unknown people a couple of generations AFTER the event allegedly happened?

[hrmjustin]

51. Sure we can move on. The only evidence to date of any of this to this point is the bible.

Unless something is buried and is yet to be unearthed we will only have the bible.

[trotsky]

52. Yup, your bible is it.

Accounts handed down orally and written down by unknown individuals a generation or two after the fact - individuals who had a vested interest in promoting a certain version of events.

I guess if one first accepts everything in the bible to be literally true, then the gospels are a 100% guaranteed account of what transpired. But if you aren't a biblical literalist, well...

[hrmjustin]

53. We do not know who wrote the Gospels.

It is all a matter of faith.

[JNelson6563]

54. This is a very honest answer.

It really is a matter of faith and I mean all of it, not just the bible. The whole religion/God thing is a matter of faith & cannot be proven. Of course it cannot be dis-proven either so the believer/unbeliever "debates" will rage on forever.

In my experience, as an atheist, it is a rare believer who can recognize the truth of the matter.

Julie

[hrmjustin]

58. It is the only answer I can give.

[cleanhippie]

65. I guess the next question from me would be..

Accepting and recognizing by your own admission that the claim about jesus found in the bible is suspect at best, how do you override your rational side to accept said claim as it flies in the face of reality and the natural laws of the universe as we know it and continue to find it to be?

[hrmjustin]

67. That is a great question.

I believe there is a creator. I believe that the creator/God is a good being. I believe that the creator/God can suspend the laws of nature for any reason. I have faith it happened. I know to someone who does not believe it seems odd, but just because there is no evidence other than the bible that it happened does not mean it did not.

I have faith!

[cleanhippie]

69. Allow me to rephrase.

How do you suspend reality for this particular belief, but find yourself unable to do the same for other beliefs that have stronger evidence to support it?

Examples might include:

The belief that aliens have visited earth and continue to do so.

The belief that 9/11 was an "inside" job.

The belief that homeopathy works.

The belief that ghosts/bigfoot/lochness monster are real.

I must assume that there is something on this list, or something similar, that you do not believe because the rational person can weigh the evidence for and against and decide that the likeliness of such claims are so minuscule that to believe in them would be absurd?
My point is that these claims DO have more evidence to support them than does Jesus rising from the dead for 40 days, yet you believe in the one that is the most unlikely of all while dismissing more credible claims as absurd. How do you reconcile that?

[hrmjustin]

70. Faith in God is not far-fetched. The reality something created us. Why not a God.

As for the ascension if I can accept the resurrection the ascension is not that hard to believe. I have gone through many stages of faith in my life and I am at a point were it s enough for me to say I believe this and not that in the bible. Others think that is weird and picking and choosing. That is their right to believe.

So much of this is hard to explain to a non-believer and I am afraid that I am not doing it justice.

[cleanhippie]

72. Actually you are doing it justice.

It simply makes no sense, to me OR you, yet you choose to believe it while I don't.

[hrmjustin]

75. It does make sense to me but I agree it is not logical.

[cleanhippie]

77. You inability to communicate it to me in a coherent manner tells me

That it doesn't make enough sense to you to be able to communicate it to me coherently.

[hrmjustin]

79. What do you want me to say.

I believe it. I know that there is only the bible that says it. I choose to believe in the new testament because I believe it to be true. I was exposed to the message as a kid and given a choice if I wanted to believe it or not. My parents and siblings do not, but I do.

I believe it, you don't, it is as simple as that.

[cleanhippie]

81. You've said more than I could have hoped for.

It seemed open and honest. And I appreciate that.

[hrmjustin]

88. I am glad.

We will discuss things in the future and will disagree but we can agree to be civil.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. "The reality (is) something created us".

Last edited Sat May 11, 2013, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

What do you mean precisely by "us"?

By the way, regardless of what you mean by "us", your argument is very weak, as admitted by your phrase "why not a god". A better answer is "nothing is unstable".

[hrmjustin]

111. By US I mean all of creation. The Universe.

My idea is just as good as your idea.

[Warren Stupidity]

121. No really it isn't as it explains nothing, it just adds an additional unnecessary step.

There is a theoretical scientific basis for "nothing is unstable". Read Larry Krauss's A Universe from Nothing or Steven Hawking's Grand Design for two popularized essays on where theoretical physics is at with respect to the origins of the universe. There really isn't any need for this Iron Age deity anymore as an explanation for anything. Go ahead and keep on believing all you want if it gives you comfort, but you are mistaken if you think your just so story is equal to other theories of how the universe started.

[Jim__]

122. Krauss has backed off his claim to know how a universe came from nothing.

After David Albert's devastating review of his book ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html ), Krauss backed off. From Albert's review:

The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

After that review appeared in the New York Times, Krauss was interviewed by The Atlantic. An excerpt from that interview:

Krauss: I'm making a deeper claim, but at the same time I think you're overstating what I argued. I don't think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen. I try to be intellectually honest in everything that I write, especially about what we know and what we don't know. If you're writing for the public, the one thing you can't do is overstate your claim, because people are going to believe you. They see I'm a physicist and so if I say that protons are little pink elephants, people might believe me. And so I try to be very careful and responsible. We don't know how something can come from nothing, but we do know some plausible ways that it might.

But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable---that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing anymore.

I guess a book called Particles from No Particles wouldn't have sold too well.

[trotsky]

129. Let me guess - you didn't read Krauss' book, did you?

Doesn't appear that reviewer really did, either. But when one is defending religious belief, one has to grasp at whatever one can, I suppose.

Neither Krauss nor any modern physicist I have heard of considers empty space "nothing." But as Krauss notes, historical and modern theologians DO, and it is central to their argument that something can't come from nothing, thus god. Krauss showed just how false that line of reasoning is.

Jim, you have claimed you are an atheist. Yet all I ever see you do is scoff at atheist arguments and reasoning. Almost to the extent that some longtime yet recently PPRed members did. In fact, I remember you nodding in approval with them as they criticized atheism and atheists.

So i have to ask, why do you consider yourself an atheist, when you seem to spend so much more time defending religious belief and religion? Do you believe that some people - perhaps most people - are unable or unequipped to grasp the universe as it is, and that it is wrong to expose them to reasoning showing their beliefs to be wrong? Do you believe it is wrong to criticize religious beliefs at all? Or if you do feel it's ok to criticize SOME beliefs, how and where do you draw the line?

[rug]

133. The New York Times is in the habit of publishing book reviews by people who didn't read the book.

A fine example of reasoning and logic in your post.

Pardon me if I scoff.

[Jim__]

135. The title of Krauss' book is "A Universe from Nothing."

The subtitle is, Why there is something rather than nothing. You claim:

Neither Krauss nor any modern physicist I have heard of considers empty space "nothing." But as Krauss notes, historical and modern theologians DO, and it is central to their argument that something can't come from nothing, thus god. Krauss showed just how false that line of reasoning is.

And, of course, from Krauss' interview:

The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing ...

So, Krauss didn't actually mean nothing when he used it in the title, and repeated it in the subtitle, of his book? Or, nothing didn't mean what it usually means. Well, it's all rather confusing. I must say, it's sounding a bit like the Humpty Dumpty school of language:

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[trotsky]

136. I notice you addressed none of my questions,

but instead ignored what I pointed out about what theologians believe "nothing" to be and how that ties into the title of the book.

I guess you understand how weak your position really is.

[Jim__]

143. Actually I addressed all of your questions.

I'm just using the same system that Krauss used when he titled his book; and I haven't yet explained to you what my words mean.

[trotsky]

147. OK, you have fun then!

[hrmjustin]

126. I respect your views I just ask the same.

[trotsky]

127. I don't respect Fred Phelps' views that homosexuality is wrong.

I don't respect the pope's views that women shouldn't be allowed to make their own reproductive choices.

I don't respect Muslim views that women should be subservient to men, and be convicted of extramarital sex when they are raped.

The right to hold religious beliefs can be respected without having to respect the beliefs themselves.

[hrmjustin]

128. I understand that but I am not those people nor do I hold those views.

I was asking for respect for my views.

[trotsky]

130. I think you miss the point.

Views don't automatically get respect. If they do, then we should respect all views, including those of Phelps and the RCC leadership.

[hrmjustin]

131. I understand that but I was just asking for respect.

[trotsky]

132. No, you asked that your religious views be given respect.

Religious views don't automatically get respect.

[hrmjustin]

134. I am not asking for automatic respect but I do not think I deserve not to be respected

I do not tell people how to believe. I do not tell people if you don't believe your going to burn in hell. I respect your view as an atheist and I do not tell you that you are wrong. I understand that people don't agree with my views but please show me respect.

[Warren Stupidity]

137. You are not being attacked. Your opinions are being criticized.

Last edited Tue May 14, 2013, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

This is not the forum where religious opinions get an automatic bye. That would be the interfaith forum. If you express your opinion that a dead person came back to life and then ascended into some not quite physical place called heaven in this forum, if you make that sort of fantastical claim, your claim will be objectively examined, you will be asked for evidence, and if no evidence for your claim is forthcoming, the claim will rightly be ridiculed and dismissed.

[hrmjustin]

138. I think it is a good thing to have your faith challenged. This is why I post here.

I love hearing our resident skeptics opinions on things. All I am asking is to be treated with a little more respect from you. You have my respect.

[Warren Stupidity]

139. "have your faith challenged" seems to be not what you want.

You are making claims that to non-believers are simply ludicrous. We are not going to coddle you. You are an adult who, to us, effectively believes in santa claus and the easter bunny and demands that those beliefs be treated with kid gloves.

I am reading the Iliad at the moment. It is chock full of anthropomorphic deities that are continually interfering in the real world. Nobody takes those passages seriously now, but they were not considered un-serious 2300 years ago. It is great literature, foundational to western civilization, despite its archaic religious context.

[hrmjustin]

140. Ok I know where I stand with you. Thank you for being honest with me.

[cleanhippie]

142. Help me understand.

Just what does it mean to you to be respected as a person who allows their beliefs to be criticized? It seems that when your beliefs are criticized, you take that criticism to be a personal attack, which seems to contradict what you say about being open to having your beliefs challenged. I don't understand that. Help me understand just what it is you are saying.

[hrmjustin]

144. My thoughts were directed at the poster I was addressing.

I just feel he can address me with a bit more respect. I do not belittle his views. He can put things more respectfully.

[cleanhippie]

145. "He can put things more respectfully." What does that mean to you?

Can you give an example where he could have been more respectful?

[hrmjustin]

146. He tends to talk down to me.

Just look at his response to me in this thread.

[cleanhippie]

148. I understand that you feel he is talking down to you.

Can you point to any particular posts in your exchange with him that you find to be disrespectful?

[hrmjustin]

149. I think talking down to someone is disrespectful.

But in post 121 he says "Go ahead and keep on believing all you want if it gives you comfort, but you are mistaken if you think your just so story is equal to other theories of how the universe started." Maybe I read it wrong but it seemed demeaning to me that my idea is not equal.

Tan he says"You are making claims that to non-believers are simply ludicrous. We are not going to coddle you. You are an adult who, to us, effectively believes in santa claus and the easter bunny and demands that those beliefs be treated with kid gloves." Like I am a child.

As I said I understand where I stand with him.

[cleanhippie]

150. Are all ideas and beliefs equal?

Is creationism equally as valid as evolution?

[hrmjustin]

151. I understand where you are going and you have a point, but...

... he constantly talks to me like that and I decided to address it. Perhaps it was the wrong post to do that but I did and it is done. I let him know how I feel.

[cleanhippie]

152. I'm trying to understand why you feel that way.

Has it occurred to you that by espousing your opinion about your beliefs, which are contrary to what others believe, they might find you to be disrespectful and feel that you are talking down to them?

[hrmjustin]

153. So I should just shut up about my religious beliefs in the Religion group?

[Warren Stupidity]

157. yes that is exactly what we are saying.

Please provide a link where anyone here has said you should shut up about your religious beliefs.

[hrmjustin]

158. Read his post before and you will know why I said that.

[cleanhippie]

162. To think that anyone has suggested such a thing smacks of persecution complex.

[hrmjustin]

166. I responded to what you said.

"Has it occurred to you that by espousing your opinion about your beliefs, which are contrary to what others believe, they might find you to be disrespectful and feel that you are talking down to them?" Perhaps I overreacted. I am sorry if I did.

[cleanhippie]

168. From that you inferred that I wanted you to shut up?

Really?

[hrmjustin]

170. As I said I overreacted.

But I don't see how anyone can be offe3nded by what I say. This forum is for different beliefs. I share mine you share yours they share their beliefs. Why anyone would. find what I say as offensive I do not know.

But again that is not what you were saying. I am sorry if I implied the wrong thing.

[hrmjustin]

154. Do you think I come off that way?

If so please tell me how?

[cleanhippie]

159. From my POV, it seems you want to have your beliefs treated specially.

For many, the assertion that "god did it" when objective observation demonstrates that to be the least likely explanation over more plausible ones is ludicrous. For people to then demand that the least plausible explanation deserves as much respect as the most plausible (or more plausible) ones makes no sense at all, other than to possibly make the one holding the less plausible explanation feel better about their position.

An example of this is creationism and those that believe it to be the most plausible explanation when objective observation shows that to be almost certainly false.

Yet another example is the belief that a man literally came back to life after being executed, when the objective observation of the natural laws of the universe show this to be impossible.

Do these assertions deserve to be treated as equally valid as their counterparts?

[hrmjustin]

161. No I do not want my beliefs to get special treatment.

I just don't want top be talked down to.

[cleanhippie]

163. Yes, I hear you saying that, but need you to help me understand where that happened.

And an answer to my questions is appreciated.

[hrmjustin]

164. Read every one of Warren Stupidity's responses to me in this thread and you will see it.

He constantly talks down to me.

[cleanhippie]

169. I see frustration, not condescension.

Frustration at having one insist that their beliefs are equally as valid as objective observation. YMMV

[hrmjustin]

171. Well I am sorry but I am not going to say my beliefs are not as good as anyone elses.

I understand you disagree with that but I am not going to back down on my beliefs.

[cleanhippie]

172. Beliefs, however unfounded they may be, are as good as objective observation?

[hrmjustin]

173. No of course not.

But you can not prove the stuff I believe is not true. Than again I can't prove it is true.

[cleanhippie]

174. If unfounded beliefs are inferior to objective reality, what is your point?

Saying "you cannot prove its not true" is not an argument for your position, but it does ask for your position to be treated equally as objective reality.

You appear to want to have it both ways.

[hrmjustin]

175. What I want is not to be talked down to.

You can point out I am wrong, Others will just say things to belittle me.

You can say my views are unfounded on the creation of this universe but still do not yet know what did create it. My guess is as good as yours. If you think I am wrong you can rebut me, but the other one takes pleasure in talking down to me. All I did was call him out on it.

[cleanhippie]

176. Again, help me understand where, specifically, you were talked down to.

You cited all of warrens posts with you and I responded that it appeared to be frustration, not condescension.

Point out specifically where you feel you were talked down to.

[hrmjustin]

177. Here;

Post 137 You are not being attacked. Your opinions are being criticized.
This is not the forum where religious opinions get an automatic bye. That would be the interfaith forum. If you express your opinion that a dead person came back to life and then ascended into some not quite physical place called heaven in this forum, if you make that sort of fantastical claim, your claim will be objectively examined, you will be asked for evidence, and if no evidence for your claim is forthcoming, the claim will rightly be ridiculed and dismissed.

I understands he wants evidence but his tone is condescending. I have said a thousand times I can not prove it. It is a matter of faith.

139. "have your faith challenged" seems to be not what you want.
You are making claims that to non-believers are simply ludicrous. We are not going to coddle you. You are an adult who, to us, effectively believes in santa claus and the easter bunny and demands that those beliefs be treated with kid gloves.

I think that speaks for itself.

[cleanhippie]

180. Ok, I get it. You feel it's his tone.

It would seem that you are unaware at how your "tone" may sound to those that hold objective observation above beliefs, I guess.

For the sake of argument, lets assume warren had conveyed his point in a tone more to your liking. Would that change how you feel about his point at all? If so, how?

[hrmjustin]

183. I understand his point and why he is making it.

If he were more polite I could take his points easier.

[cleanhippie]

185. "If he were more polite I could take his points easier."

So it's not about being right or wrong, it's about being polite?

To me, that seems a bit childish.

[hrmjustin]

186. Ok I made my point to him. That is all I wanted to do.

[hrmjustin]

179. Here;

Post 137 You are not being attacked. Your opinions are being criticized.
This is not the forum where religious opinions get an automatic bye. That would be the interfaith forum. If you express your opinion that a dead person came back to life and then ascended into some not quite physical place called heaven in this forum, if you make that sort of fantastical claim, your claim will be objectively examined, you will be asked for evidence, and if no evidence for your claim is forthcoming, the claim will rightly be ridiculed and dismissed.

I understands he wants evidence but his tone is condescending. I have said a thousand times I can not prove it. It is a matter of faith.

139. "have your faith challenged" seems to be not what you want.
You are making claims that to non-believers are simply ludicrous. We are not going to coddle you. You are an adult who, to us, effectively believes in santa claus and the easter bunny and demands that those beliefs be treated with kid gloves.

I think that speaks for itself.

[Warren Stupidity]

182. But you demand that we accept your "matters of faith" as equally valid

to theoretical physics backed by solid evidence. And when we don't you have an upset.

[hrmjustin]

184. I make no demands on you. All I ask that you treat me with a bit more respect.

[Warren Stupidity]

181. I did indeed dismiss the following claim.

By US I mean all of creation. The Universe.

My idea is just as good as your idea.

No really it isn't. Why has been explained here over and over again.

[Warren Stupidity]

155. That would be me and your response was to the following.

No really it isn't as it explains nothing, it just adds an additional unnecessary step.

There is a theoretical scientific basis for "nothing is unstable". Read Larry Krauss's A Universe from Nothing or Steven Hawking's Grand Design for two popularized essays on where theoretical physics is at with respect to the origins of the universe. There really isn't any need for this Iron Age deity anymore as an explanation for anything. Go ahead and keep on believing all you want if it gives you comfort, but you are mistaken if you think your just so story is equal to other theories of how the universe started.

I disrespected your nonsense that "god did it" is equivalent to current theoretical physics proposals and theories as explanations for how the Planck Epoch starts. Theoretical physics has advanced to the point that our knowledge of what happens after the first small fraction of a second has gone from speculative to predictive. We now know in incredible detail what happened in the first second of the universe. The space for 'god did it' has shrunk down to the first 10^-43 of a second.

[hrmjustin]

156. That is ok Warren I know what you think of me.

[trotsky]

165. He just thinks (as I do) that you are wrong.

It seems like this notion - that telling someone you think they are wrong - is just the worst possible offense one can commit when it comes to religion. You yourself went to great lengths to try and rationalize how rejecting all the other religions out there but embracing yours doesn't amount to saying the other religions are wrong.

I think this roadblock that is put up helps legitimize and empower the true wackos out there like Phelps and Robertson. You (and many other DUers) are helping to reinforce the taboo against criticizing religious beliefs, helping to shield them.

[hrmjustin]

167. No trostky I have no problem when you challenge me, what I have a problem is when someone

talks down to me. If I never wanted to be challenged I would post in interfaith. I accept others disagree with me. What I don't like is being talked down to.

When I offended you and other atheists a few weeks ago I apologized. I make mistakes but I do not tell anyone how to believe or their views are wrong. I am constantly told I am wrong by that poster. I accept that but he does it very rudely.

All I did in this thread was to acknowledge it.

[Lordquinton]

114. "The reality something created us."

Here is where you are wrong. The reality is far from that, there is no proof that we were created, and mountains of evidence that show how we got to be on this planet to begin with.

Of course this will all go round in circles to "Well, something created the universe, therefore God" "Well, if everything has a creator, who created god?" "He has always been here because faith" "Well, maybe the universe has always been here?" "No, because God and Faith."

[hrmjustin]

116. Yes this is a question we really can't answer at this time.

It is just a matter of opinion in the end.

[Lordquinton]

118. Not really opinion

We can trace it back to the big bang, and, in the words of Carl Sagan

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed? "

[Jim__]

120. There are good reasons not to believe the universe has always existed.

The universe must have had a beginning ( http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/?p1=blogs ):

For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.

Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.

So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning.

...

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

And, Leonard Susskind essentially agreed with them ( http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427767/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning-part-ii/?ref=rsssource ):

...

He goes on to discuss various thermodynamic arguments that suggest the universe cannot have existed for ever. The bottom line is that the inevitable increase of entropy over time ensures that a past eternal universe ought to have long since lost any semblance of order. Since we can see order all around us, the universe cannot be eternal in the past.

He finishes with this: "We may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity."

...

His argument is equivalent to saying that the cosmos must have had a beginning even if it looks eternal in the past, which is rather similar to Mithani and Vilenkin's view. The distinction that Susskind does make is that his focus is purely on the practical implications of this--although what he means by 'practical' isn't clear.

That the universe did or did not have a beginning is profoundly important from a philosophical point of view, so much so that a definitive answer may well have practical implications for humanity.

[LTX]

119. You are rather overstating the case

by claiming that there exists "mountains of evidence that show how we got to be on this planet to begin with" (emphasis added). And by stating in your post #118 that "we can trace it back to the big bang." This kind of overstatement is a bit of a pet peeve with me. We have a reasonably solid theory for biological diversification once stable organic replicators took hold. But like baryogenesis, our understanding of abiogenic sources for initial replicators (and the process by which stability itself was achieved) are rather wide open issues (not to mention the process by which consciousness, and the human capacity for universal construction, developed). I think there creeps in to these discussions a kind of scientism that is tossed around as a (somewhat ironic) counterpoint to theism.

[Lordquinton]

113. We have a very good idea of who wrote the gospels

and we certanly know who has been re-writing them, and who choose what went into the bible. Unless you just have to take it on faith that King James existed, or that the Whatever convention that they held back in the day to decide what they would put into it happened.

[hrmjustin]

115. ok who wrote them then?

[Lordquinton]

117. Not up for research right now

But we do have that knowledge, at least on some of them. They were written, and we know they were most likely adapted from earlier texts, like the code of Hammurabi (we know who wrote that) and the Epic of Gilgamesh, and many other ancient tales.

[okasha]

45. More straw.

Pfft.

[trotsky]

50. I see you have chosen option B.

I'm not surprised.

[cleanhippie]

32. Reductio ad absurdum

You can continue to play silly games or you can join the adults in civil conversation.

[okasha]

44. You said,

"the Romans documented everything."

And I didn't even leave any words out.

Let's see your evidence.

[trotsky]

55. You've really got some nerve.

There's a claim you made in a thread a while back - one that was quite insulting toward cleanhippie.

You never substantiated the claim, despite many demands to do so.

cleanhippie and many others told you it was false.

Yet you have never retracted or apologized for the slanderous claim.

I don't think you have any moral ground on which to demand someone else back up anything. Apologize or retract, and you might just show you can be taken seriously.

[cleanhippie]

66. Never gonna happen. That one lacks any sense of honor or integrity.

And now that she's been called on it, again, she will likely run away and hide, again.

[cleanhippie]

64. I give up. Absurdity wins!

[cleanhippie]

27. Done. Even though there really is no question to be answered.

Her feeble attempt to undermine our conversation has been thwarted, so we can continue if you would like. I was content with where we had left it; both of us open to what could have happened, but accepting what likely happened.

[Leontius]

82. Other than Wow I don't believe things like that (miracles) could ever happen

list, let's say, five, or more if you like, reasons why the Gospels cannot be held to be in any way as a reliable source for the events they tell. Why are they a less reliable source than any other ancient histories?

[cleanhippie]

84. Ill play along.

But lets clear something up first.

My position is not

Wow I don't believe things like that (miracles) could ever happen

It is that miracles are directly contrary to the physical and natural laws of the universe, and as such, can be dismissed outright, especially when such claims lack any objective evidence whatsoever. Got that? Belief has nothing to do with it.


And as for your question, it would be more fruitful for you to give, say five or more, why the gospels can be held to be a reliable historical document of actual events.

I need only one; the authors of the gospels are unknown and thought to have been written at a minimum, decades after the events they describe. That simple fact alone is enough to cast doubt on that source, just as that same standard is applied to other historical documents.

Your turn.

[Leontius]

90. So by that standard alone I must dismiss all of the History of Rome written by Livy

much of it based on unnamed scources and compiled hundreds of years after the events described.

[cleanhippie]

91. Hardly.

You fail to apply the same standard I did. Perhaps yiu should reread my post. Livy as a person is well documented. The authors of the gospels? Who were they again? That's right, no one really knows or are sure at all. So the part about unnamed authors still stands and is enough to cast doubt.

While I must admit I am not well-read in what Livy wrote, I would cast doubt upon his assertions that had nothing to corroborate them. That's skepticism 101.

I see what you are trying, and failing, to do. But please, continue if you must.

I'll wait for your say, five or more, ways that the gospels IS a good source of history. You didn't mention even one in your last post. Why?

[cleanhippie]

123. I guess you abandoned this line of questions?

[cleanhippie]

141. Didn't quite go the way you wanted/expected?

[Leontius]

160. I'm not going to play your game, if you can't respond to my original

question with an answer that has a little critical thinking and study behind it there's no point in continuing.

[cleanhippie]

178. I did respond to your original question. You just didn't get the answer you wanted.

You can choose to hide from that or continue to discuss it. Your absence seems to indicate that you don't wan to discuss it,so...

[Leontius]

187. You are partially right I didn't get an answer. I got some vague talking points

you might have seen on some website, not a serious answer to the question that's always swept aside with no substantial researched backed points to validate the claim made. If you have the facts to do so present them don't just fall back on 'Well everybody knows this is so.'

[cleanhippie]

188. Where is yours?

I asked you to provide the same for your side of the argument and so far have received nothing other than hand waving away of the most compelling reason.

Where are your answers to what you asked me?

[Leontius]

190. Asking the question I await your answers. If you can't provide them just admit it.

your games and evasions and attempts to deflect your obvious failure are not answers.

[cleanhippie]

192. So you will not provide the same that you ask of me?

You asked for 5, I gave you one compelling reason that is more than enough to disprove your assertion, yet you refuse to give any support for your assertion at all?

The games and evasions and failure all belong to you.

Here is your chance, again. You asked...

give me say, five or more, reasons why the Gospels cannot be held to be in any way as a reliable source for the events they tell.

I gave you one, that they are written by unknown authors decades after the events they describe. That one reason alone is enough to show that they "cannot be held to be in any way as a reliable source for the events they tell."


So now it's your turn. Give me, say five or more, reasons why the Gospels CAN be held to be a reliable source for the events they tell.

Go on. I dare you. Or you can look even more ridiculous and evade. Again.

[Leontius]

196. Opinion is not fact, where have I heard that before.

If you want to discuss facts fine, if just your opinion without anything to substantiate it not interested . So if you have something in the way of critical studies put it forward or you can keep running and running and running and running in your circle. Last chance for you to engage in a meaningful discussion on the historicity and reliability of the Gospels.

[cleanhippie]

197. So again you refuse to answer your own question.

It has taken a week, but you drug it out and managed to never once offer anything to support your implied assertion that the gospels ARE a reliable historical record. Not one single thing.

[Leontius]

198. I make the questions you give the answers, that's how it works .

I made no claim implied or otherwise I just asked a question. I have no need to answer it . You however declared that the Gospels are not reliable so you need to back it up.

[Act_of_Reparation]

189. Frankly, your question fallacious, and isn't worth answering

A) It is incumbent upon the believer to qualify his or her claims. Asking about Livy--irrelevant to the conversation--is a feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof and derail the conversation. The Gospels are either reliable historical documents or they are not. If you think they are, then proving that case falls squarely upon your shoulders.

B) What historical sources others choose to believe doesn't speak to the historicity of the Gospels. Your comparison is pointless tu quoque nonsense.

[Leontius]

191. I made no claim so I have no burden of proof all I did was ask the question

are you up to answering it or not or are you just hoping to avoid and bury the question with another pointless post.

[Act_of_Reparation]

193. Your question is irrelevant...

... and since you purport to be making no claim in posing it, it is your posts which are pointless.

Have a nice day.

[Leontius]

194. Okay so you have nothing to add here and you can't get back the time you wasted

with your useless posts, I'm impressed.

[cleanhippie]

195. What have you added? Nothing. Except to toss out asinine questions and refuse to give an answer

to the very question you asked.

Again, I answered your question. Why will you not reciprocate? It would seem the most likely answer is that you do not have one.

[goldent]

16. "It is my understanding that the Romans documented everything"

I hear this claim from time to time, but don't see much evidence of it, particularly with respect to Judaea, Do you have a reference for this?

And of course even in 2013 AD, what does and doesn't get documented is based on the whim of the writer.

So I would think that lack of documentation outside of the Bible doesn't mean too much, just as lack of a known grave for Jesus is little evidence that he ascended into Heaven.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. History of Josephus plus other evidence

for example the arch of titus.

[okasha]

22. Two books and one monument

«document everything» about the thousand year history of the Romans?

Really?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. I was giving two examples. There are more.

The point is that there is both documentation in the form of written histories and archaeological evidence for much of what went on in the Roman Empire. There is basically neither for this Jesus fellow and his alleged extraordinary activities.

[okasha]

25. The assertion made was that

«The Romans documented everything.»
Your statement does not support it.

[cleanhippie]

30. Were the Romans not known for their extensive recordkeeping?

Would they not have noted a major event such as an earthquake and people rising from their graves and milling about smartly?

27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Ok, I admit defeat. You got me. The Romans did not document everything. But they did document extensively. And they didn't document this major event, most likely because it didn't happen.

[okasha]

47. You may now hand your ass to trotsky.

I have no use for it.

[cleanhippie]

68. You may now show you have even a modicum of my integrity by apologizing for slandering me.

Remember that okasha? Remember when you made a slanderous claim against me that was demonstrably false, a claim anyone can go read right now (unless you deleted it) that anyone can easily verify as a lie? Remember that, Okasha? Sure you do. As do we all.

Do you remember apologizing for doing that even after repeated requests from several others to do so? Nether do I. Because you never did it. You ran away and hid. Odds are you'll do the same again.


Pfffft. You may now keep your ass on the floor until the shame wears off.

[cleanhippie]

96. Yep. Just as everyone thought, you took the same course and ran away in shame.

No one is surprised. It was expected.

[Leontius]

83. If you know the history of the Mediterranean region you would also know that

the events of the Gospels, in their time, were not major events. Yes not even the dead rising.

[cleanhippie]

86. Uhm, okay?

I think you are wrong. Feel free to show otherwise.

[goldent]

92. I don't think these are great examples

From what I can tell, Josephus was a Jewish writer of Jewish-Roman history, and wouldn't be good evidence that "the Romans documented everything." Interestingly, Josephus does appear to mention certain Biblical figures including Jesus.

The same goes for arch of titus in Rome - it may be significant in terms of Roman history, but considering the size of the Roman Empire, how much recorded history does this contain.

Of course none of the original writings of even Josephus exist - the earliest copies are apparently 1000 years after he wrote them, so I don't understand why people think there should be so much recorded history around now, even if it did exist then.

[cleanhippie]

29. Are there not actual historical records from that time avaialble?

It is my understanding that there are. I find the claim that people rose from graves and cruised about town without ANY historical documentation to be dubious at best.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

[hrmjustin]

37. Graves opening is not literal. It meant the souls of the dead have risen, nnot their actual

corpses.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. so some of the description is literal, others not, and when cornered you get to declare

the ridiculous parts "allegory".

Shameless.

[hrmjustin]

39. No not shameless, my and most of Christianity's opinion.

I have never seen any doctrine that literally believes their corpses went up to heaven. It is taken that their souls were sleeping and were awakened by his resurrection.
And allegory is not some liberal Christian plot or excuse. Many biblical scholars for centuries have believed some of the bible is allegory. Everything is all a matter of opinion on whether you believe it.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. no it is shameless.

Your OP insists that the biblical account of jesus first coming back from the dead and then ascending into heaven is literal - it actually happened and was witnessed.

You are then presented with another part of the same myth:

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

In which many other dead people did the same zombie thing, were also witnessed by many, including "the centurion" who instantly converted, and you declare that "allegory".

Seriously. At least the fundies have an honest approach.

[hrmjustin]

41. I have never seen any church that literally believe that graves open up.

If you know of a denomination that believes it please tell me. I may be wrong and will admit it if you can show me. But most of the Christian teachings I have encountered believe the graves opened up for the soul, not a corpse.

And I am being honest thank you.

[cleanhippie]

42. 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared u

27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Not literal? If not this, then jesus' resurrection is not literal either.

[hrmjustin]

46. I believe the souls of the dead were resurrected. I believe Jesus was bodily resurrected.

[trotsky]

61. Key phrase: "appeared unto many"

Appeared. Meaning they were seen. Humans can't see souls. The story is clearly saying that people's dead bodies were resurrected and they were walking around.

There are quite a few Christian denominations in the US that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. They undoubtedly believe that corpses were indeed re-animated and interacted with people. It was a sign of god's power.

Do you dispute the existence of Christian literalists?

[hrmjustin]

62. No I don't. I just believe it was the soul not the body. I did not say they did not see it.

I just do not believe it was a body that rose.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Nope. Classic cherry picking going on. This part of the fable is literal, that part isn't.

No explanation required, it is all "just so".

[hrmjustin]

60. I am sorry you feel that way but I take it to mean the souls of the dead. But if it was the bodies

of the dead what is your point? That there was no one who saw it and wrote it down. People are allowed to believe what they please. I believe it meant the souls of the dead, Your body does not go with you when you die today so why would they be different.

[cleanhippie]

71. People are free to believe all manner of absurd things. Why does this belief

Get treated as somehow LESS absurd than other beliefs that are actually more credible?

And why do people who believe in other more credible absurdities get shunned and ostracized while those who believe in this absurdity are given additional credibility?

[hrmjustin]

74. I don't make the rules of society.

I treat everyone's beliefs with respect as long as they don't harm other people. When a belief is unhealthy than it must be challenged.

[cleanhippie]

76. Awesome. I believe that believing in absurdities is unhealthy.

That's why I'm challenging your belief.

[hrmjustin]

78. I understand that!

[cleanhippie]

80. That's good to know. Now if you could only get the rest of em to a well.

How about starting with those here at DU that don't seem to understand it?

[hrmjustin]

85. Just be respectful but honest about your thoughts.

[cleanhippie]

87. I give what I get. This conversation is proof of that.

[hrmjustin]

89. My reaction to people who disagree is to get them with kindness.

Does not always work.

[goldent]

93. I'm no expert on this, and as I mentioned in another post, there was a Jewish writer

Josephus who wrote on the conflicts between the Jews and Romans. And his writings are like the Bible in the sense that the original writings are long gone, and they have been copied and translated over the centuries.

I don't think the Jesus story was that big at the time, and would not be surprised if no one thought to write it down (well, actually the authors of the Bible eventually did write it down).

I think it is hard to imagine how much different civilization was then.

As Judas complained to Jesus in Jesus Christ, Superstar, in the 1970s:

Why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?
If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication

Today the story would have went viral on YouTube

[Shadrach]

98. The supposed mentions of Jesus by Josephus

Are forgeries given the literary evidence. There was an attempt or attempts to create a historical Jesus since there is not much evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

[goldent]

100. Hold on there....

The authenticity of these references (not only of Jesus but a few other NT characters) has not been firmly established one way or another. Inconsistencies of the Jesus text with other parts of the texts is taken as evidence for a forgery. Inconsistencies of the same text with Biblical stories is taken as evidence for not a forgery. The arguments are fascinating to read.

Given the nature of religious faith, and given all of the Biblical text, you would think Christians would not need other evidence for Jesus, but some do. Likewise, while evidence of Jesus as a person is not evidence that he was God, some Atheists seem to have need to believe he never existed at all. I think there is insecurity on both sides.

[LiberalAndProud]

101. Without passing judgment on whether Jesus ever existed,

you have to acknowledge that most of the supernatural aspects of the Jesus story were stolen from even more ancient mythologies. Whether he existed is secondary to me, when I consider that his miraculous nature is most likely fabricated.

[Shadrach]

103. I am not saying or trying to prove that Jesus did not exist

All I am saying is that the use of the Josephus text to prove that a historical Jesus existed is BS.

Atheists have no need to prove that a historical Jesus did not exist. But we have to refute those who claimed that a historical Jesus existed when there is no historical proof of such. We can only assume Jesus existed based on what believers say about a mystic figure they worshipped years after he supposedly died.

[Leontius]

104. There are four historical accounts of the latter life of Jesus

The fact that they are included in the New Testament does not add any more of a burden of proof to their historicity than that needed for any other text form that time nor does it lessen the burden of proof. They are exactly what most of the history of the world is a written record of eyewitness accounts of the events they saw.

[LiberalAndProud]

105. They are not a record of eyewitness accounts.

All four were written long after the eyewitnesses had passed from the scene, and most likely the three were based, at least in part, on the first.

[Leontius]

107. Your talking points are outdated. All four written during the time in which those involved

would still be alive early 50's to 90 as latest date. The Q theory while intriguing is not all that conclusive as to source material and sharing of it and John is not even considered in this theory.

[LiberalAndProud]

108. Not discredited or outdated.

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html

[goldent]

109. "But we have to refute those who claimed that a historical Jesus existed"

Let me see if I got this right.

There is an ancient book with a huge history of the Jewish people that makes relatively minor references to Jesus. The authenticity of those words is debated by scholars who study books like this, but there is no way to conclusively prove it one way or the other. But somehow the Atheist scholars know that the arguments in favor of a forgery are true, and the arguments in favor of authenticity are false.

This sounds to me like the Atheists do feel the need to prove that a historical Jesus did not exist. I wonder why?

[rug]

110. Ah, forgeries in an attempt to . . . ? I love conspiracy theoeries even if they're full of woo.

So, who did it, when, how and why?

And did they have anything to do with the fall of 7 WTC?

[BlueToTheBone]

28. the bible really loves that number "40"

40 days
40 years

[johnnypneumatic]

56. Jesus could fly?

Could Jesus fly like Superman?
Could he always do it, or just after he came back from the dead?
Was that "walking on water" thing really just him using his flight powers to hover an inch above the water?
Why come back from the dead if you are just going to fly away a few days later?
Why go up into the clouds? To go to heaven? Where is heaven (a specific location please)?
Did he continue to go up into space?
Did Jesus die again if he went into space?
If he went into space, did he decompress and get freeze dried as the water in his body leeched out in the vacuum of space?
Is heaven somewhere in the universe? Can it be seen by telescopes? Or is it outside the known visible universe? Did Jesus have to travel past the farthest known galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away, to get to heaven? If so did Jesus travel at warp speed?

[hrmjustin]

57. Oh lord!

[dimbear]

94. Miracles prove that Christianity is the one true religion. Amen. Also,

Jewish miracles prove that Judaism is the one true religion, Buddhist miracles prove that Buddhism is the one true religion, Mormon miracles prove that Mormonism is the one true religion, Muslim miracles prove.....I'm getting tired of typing.

[LostOne4Ever]

97. Happy Easter to You

While I have no belief in that event myself, I would like to mirror the sentiment back to you in some way. So Happy Easter and I hope that you have had an enjoyable spring!

[hrmjustin]

112. Thank you and a Happy Spring to you!

[chillfactor]

102. It is always interesting to me as a Christian....

that people who do not believe are so quick to judge and ridicule those of us who do....

if you do not believe in Christianity that is your right....but do not masturbate those of us who do....

[cleanhippie]

124. ".but do not masturbate those of us who do.... " WTF?

Ok, I won't masturbate you. That's the priests job anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. wait, not even a priest can masturbate somebody else.

in fact, god can't even do that.

[johnnypneumatic]

200. 200

you needed 1 more post to get to 200 replies

[hrmjustin]

201. Thanks my friend. I never thought I would get more than 5 on this thread.

Either tonight or tomorrow I will do another pone like this for Pentecost tomorrow.