Just like the moon landing deniers will never believe we reached the moon until they themselves walk on it, the atheists are just as conspiratorial. Everytime archeology digs up sometimi that proves sometimi in the bible the atheists weave some fanciful story about how it's only a coincidence or simply fake. Like when they found that there was a mass migration of hebrews from egypt to canaan that was spurred on by persecution, the Atheists say it may have happened but it wasn't Moses. When they found that a group of monoteist people from Egypt actually did come to Israel and proceed to kill EVERYONE and destroyed there pagan idols, the atheists say that was true, but not jews. When they found proof that israel had a king named david, they say it was a different david. When they dug up proof of an Assyrian king fighting an israeli king named Hezekiah and the assyrian king saying himself that his men all died as soon as they entered Jerusalem without seeing a single hebrew, the atheist say...it's fake.....
continued.. When archeology found out that the king of babylon did take over israel, looting there temple and taking them all to babylon, the atheists say it's not good enough. All the way up to jesus there is proof, but Atheist think it's either some MASSIVE conspiracy or a one in a trillion coincidence that all these things happened independantly and just happened to match the bible. That's the torah, which has tons of proof. The NT has some, too. Atheists maintain jesus either didn't exist, or didn't claim to be the messiah or is an amalgam of many diff men. Or that he did claim it but all the miracles and doctrine and the resurrection was made up 30 to 50 years later by Paul. The problem with that is there are many independant sources that confirm near everything about jesus. First the Pharasees' Talmud: The best affirmation. That part of the book was written by jesus' contemporaries. Not only that, but they hated him. if anyone would lie and bash the guy it would have been the Pharasees. Continued....
...But instead they wrote that Jesus indeed performed many the miracles of the bible. They said he was a very powerful prophet that went bad. Instead of doing miracles through the holy spirit, he did them through satanic power(which the bible says they said) as well as by saying god's sacred name(They believed it was the biggest sin to say Yahoveh). They admit he ascended into heaven by saying the name. They speak of his virgin birth and called his motherb whore. They say he was hung on a cross. There's more but let's note on. The second is Josephus book of antiquity. Not a lot is said, but he mentions yakov, or james, was put to death for being a disciple of Jesus. He mentions a young man named jesus claiming to be the christ had a large following and was hung on the cross. Thirdly: We have letters from pontius to ceasre. They mention jesus being innocent as well as his wife having the dream. Those are sketchy, but whatever. But whatever. cont..
So, what have we learned. Once upon a time there were a group of persecuted tribes in Egypt who one day turned from pagans to monotheists. They up and left Egypt to israel, defeating the natives and destroying their idols and temples. They became a large people who had a King and king line called the house of David. These people seemingly defeated their enemies without fighting them, almost supernaturally. They became a corrupt people and where taken over by Iraq and Iran but soon returned. Years later there came a young man claiming to be the christ, performed miracles, had disciples. He was tried and sentenced to death on the cross. I mean, if you think all that can be explained by saying it's a coincedence and not at least a little bit of proof......well, I'd say you don't want to believe.
You do realize that about half of what you quoted is just historical stuff, which I don't think anyone would refute vehemently? I have yet to meet someone with any credibility who's so on the fringe that theyll outright deny the existence of many historical figures, Jesus included. But the evidence required is for the supernatural, for which there is none throughout history even to the present day that isn't rife with hearsay and/or anecdotal inexactness.
Ignoring for a moment the mythological precursors and contemporaries to many Biblical stories, which should cast into some doubt the stories' veracity. But that's not the focus here. I actually made a related thread some time ago:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=466089
...similar idea, similar results in the posts too, though I haven't read all of this thread.
There aren't a lot of precursors. Most of the stuff that is pagan in christianity isn't biblical. As for the few precursors, the bible calls them false prophets. Also anti christs, which doesn't mean Against Christ, but means false or copycat messiah. They are all copy cats. Satan knew of the plan of the messiah since day one and he's been trying to cast doubt ever since by, like you said. Precursors.
Originally posted by long pig
You were asking for supernatural proof? Like what?
Well, that's the crux of it, isn't it? "Like what" exactly! I have no idea, because I have yet to see it in a logical or empirical environment.
And not proof necessarily. Even saying the word can start esoteric semantic debates. Tangible evidence. Something beyond blind faith, which is, to this point, the only thing religion has going for it atm imo.
Feel free to browse my linked thread for inspiration on what I'm talking about.
For the sake of arguement, let's say it's all true and 2000 years ago all those things happened. How exactly could they pass the info to you 2k years later that's any different than the way it is now? Like I said before, they didn't have cameras, they had pens and paper. Basically anything that archeology could do that would prove the bible right, is being done. And proof keeps piling up. The only thing that can't ever be proven is miracles. Even if one happened to you today, you'd be unable to prove it. But, for some reason that's the only thing athests will accept. Do you need proof that black holes will really F you up he you fall in one, or do you take science's word and some evidence as good enough? I don't think it's a coincidence that the only thing atheists want is the only thing they can't have. Just a thought.
When did they find proof of the large migration? I'll go with you on the taking over of Israel as they dated these events as coinciding with the Bible after several revisions. However, they have yet to find any evidence that an exodus ever took place. They say they may have found some trade routes although they do not give a specific age of how long ago this route could have been used and admit that they would have been much better equipped to sustain such a long journey than a bunch of slaves.
Also, I don't know too many Atheists that do not believe in Jesus. I for one believe that he did exist. I don't believe that he performed miracles. I equate him to an ancient Chris Angel with radical new ideas that people accepted.
I don't disagree that the Bible is historically accurate with events. They were capable of recording history and they didn't have to deal with the same level of wear to cities as modern archaeologists have to. i do however, reject the supernatural phenomena that seem to go with these historical events, to which they have no proof. it seems awfully convenient that all there supernatural happenings can never be proven (the slaves survived off Mana which is entirely consumed so it leaves not traces for instance).
Originally posted by TacDavey
👆1)No, God does not require a creator. You really ARE ignoring my points aren't you? God is eternal. That means He has no beginning. Thus, He does not need a creator.
2)I don't think God has a gender. He is referred to in a male fashion because He is known as the "father" of man. It is also likely because males were the head of the house back in the Biblical times.
Furthermore, it simply seems disrespectful to call God an "it".
3) What evidence? You mean the evidence from the Bible? The same book that says He is all just? That's Cherry picking Sadako.
4) This is completely irrelevant. The simple fact that a lot of people have different beliefs has no bearing on any of my points at all.
5) Like I said in my earlier point, the very same document you claim shows God is unjust also labels Him as all just. You can't cherry pick, Sadako.
6) Incorrect. I have already given at least one major argument supporting the existence of God, which you have not refuted as of yet. I'm still waiting on that by the way.
1) You assume that it is eternal.
Actually it does require a creator. Unless you wanna show us in precise detail it's method of self creation. 🙂
You seem to have ignored most of mine, and also the basic point of this thread: PROOF that god exists.
2) Fair enough.
I don't believe in it's existance, and even if I did, I would have room in my mind for the possibility that it could take offence at a reductionist tag like "him". Also that a being that was all powerful could handle some non-malicious "disrespect" from a human being among billions living on one of the billions upon billions upon billions of billions planets in the universe. 🙂
4) Oh, it does.
5) Science and knowledge of history contradicts a lot of the bible.
Still waiting on that proof.
6) Its you who is incorrect in your assuming that any argument is proof. And proof is what this thread is about.