Historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Atheist Approaches

I find it funny how agnostics and atheists think they know more about everyone else and then call them arrogant.
Yes i agree and they are very quick to tell you not to judge, NICK333, is a very good example but can't keep themselves from doing it...

It is the old story one set of rules applies to the christians and a different set of rules applies to the non-believers... always uneven ground...
 

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
After reading some of the threads a questions to the non-believers, must a Historian also be an eye-witness?

If that is the case i want some eye-witnesses in this "Theory of Evolution"
Really if you now want to talk forgery in science and biology that is it!
 

icyrus

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
8,609
After reading some of the threads a questions to the non-believers, must a Historian also be an eye-witness?

If that is the case i want some eye-witnesses in this "Theory of Evolution"
Really if you now want to talk forgery in science and biology that is it!
You should probably keep such thoughts to yourself as your ignorance is so overwhelming that you just appear to be a raving lunatic.
 

Nick333

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
34,557
Yes i agree and they are very quick to tell you not to judge, NICK333, is a very good example but can't keep themselves from doing it...

It is the old story one set of rules applies to the christians and a different set of rules applies to the non-believers... always uneven ground...
A different set of rules does apply to believers. In your case these rules include:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Matthew 7
By choosing to believe in Christian teachings you choose to accept the above.

As a non-christian I have not accepted the above rule of conduct for myself.

Anyway I have only ever judged you on the stupidity of the things you say. I've always shown you why I think they are stupid and thus given you the opportunity to defend yourself.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,713
After reading some of the threads a questions to the non-believers, must a Historian also be an eye-witness?

If that is the case i want some eye-witnesses in this "Theory of Evolution"
Really if you now want to talk forgery in science and biology that is it!
Please do not post in this thread and derail it. You are not smart enough to discuss the information we are discussing here.

FYI there are billions of pieces of evidence for evolution that can be verified, there is a handful for JC that can not be verified (would love to find evidence outside the bible of the great JC). You cant compare the two. Now get back under your bridge.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,338
Don't worry, you will meet him sooner than you think. Send him my condolences.
Thanks man, you're quite right. Me and my newfound imaginary friend Satan are getting along like a house on fire! He's a fun guy!
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,713
I managed to get my paws on three books about people mentioned in this thread:

- Josephus - The jewish war
- Suetonius - The twelve caesars
- Tacitus - The Histories

I was discussing the subject with an elderly lady who knows a real lot on the topic, and she went into her library and was able to find these 3 books. Going to be some interesting reading.
 

kilo39

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
5,425
FYI there are billions of pieces of evidence for evolution that can be verified, there is a handful for JC that can not be verified (would love to find evidence outside the bible of the great JC).
This view has not found acceptance by the historical community. Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Je3us' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.


Historicity of Je3us (wikipedia)

Historical Je3us (wikipedia)
 
Last edited:

mancombseepgood

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
9,351
Somehow people think that since bibles are sold in christian bookstores, they are biased and not historical documents...
Of course the bible is a collection of vast documents of different types from different authors and different places... more plausible than most historical literature... as for it being biased... it would take quite something to get the variuos authors from different times and places to agree to be biased when they weren't even in posession of all the manuscripts in the first place.

as they say... 1.3 billion chinese can't be wrong... rice is nice
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
45,713
Somehow people think that since bibles are sold in christian bookstores, they are biased and not historical documents...
Of course the bible is a collection of vast documents of different types from different authors and different places... more plausible than most historical literature...
Um. No its not. That's simply propaganda. In fact, parts of the bible are historically incorrect.
 

nthdimension

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
764
Will they be willing to issue updated versions of the Bible to match the facts? History books are sometimes wrong, but they are amended as we gather more information.
 

Nanfeishen

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
7,475
Will they be willing to issue updated versions of the Bible to match the facts? History books are sometimes wrong, but they are amended as we gather more information.
Very good question, but i dont think the bible would be ammended until the vatican decided that there was enough mainstream belief in a particular area, , and that it would serve the best interests of the church to change, in other words if they were losing people and followers on a large scale due to some new evidence accepted as historical or scientific facts.
History books, may change as we gather more info, but are they changing generally?, as in what is taught in education departments to the masses, or what is taught in higher education?, or are they changing on the periphery only?, i.e. There is mounting evidence , that the pyramids and the sphynx were not built at the dates stated by the authorities, plus that they were not tombs as first thought, but this theory is not taught or mentioned in mainstream historical books as even a possibility.
There are certain area in history , that need to be updated to say "we are not sure" , but in mainstream history , these area's are still being taught as cold hard fact, so if a simple subject like history cannot change , how long do you think it will be before anything biblical changes?
 

Mr TB

Banned
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
5,776
Um. No its not. That's simply propaganda. In fact, parts of the bible are historically incorrect.
As you claim parts of the bible to be incorrect. State the incorrect parts, state what it should be updated with and provide solid evidence not just a feeble argument.

This is the way you and your buddies expect me to do it, and after surfing the net i found the information on it biased and 90% of the time untruthful or just opinions, not facts...

I also found a review on "THE GOD DELUSION", which all of you were devouring...
 

simple_simon

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
1,194
the first problem with this entire thread is that as your proof, you stated clearly in the heading "biblical record"....believing it to be the truth.

the bible is symbolic fiction, not an actual record.
 

GavinMannion

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
5,862
As you claim parts of the bible to be incorrect. State the incorrect parts, state what it should be updated with and provide solid evidence not just a feeble argument.

This is the way you and your buddies expect me to do it, and after surfing the net i found the information on it biased and 90% of the time untruthful or just opinions, not facts...
Well updating a supposed ancient book sounds just wrong to me.

But since most of the stories in the bible cannot be backed up or disproved either way then this is once again an argument into nothing.

Try reading the bible critically without faith and see how much of it makes sense.

Nice answer NewsFlash :D... Well thought out and articulated.
 
Top