The usual introductions

[downbeatplumb]

I would guess that when he considered himself an atheist he meant that he was apathetic about religion.

Am I right, I'm right aren't I.

[Ace Otana]

Nah, just my canned retort to every dipshit that comes here spewing their "I used to be an atheist like you until I became enlightened" bullshit.

I'm a little suspicious myself.

[Dumac Dwarfking]

By starting with whether Genesis is meant as a scientific treatise and/or an historical account, the culture within which it was written, the time it was written, basically into biblical interpretation/hermeneutics

The same principal can be applied to any part of the bible. If you can accept Genesis as false, or at least metaphorical, the same can be attributed to any and all books in the bible.

[greneknight]

Dumac

Virtually no historian doubts his existence. As Graham Clark and Craig Blomberg put it; the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming. Graham Clark isn't a Christian either

Link to interview with Craig Blomberg as he answers some the questions over the evidence

https://publicchristianity.org/library/c...FMl93ldVo9

The gospel accounts are treated as historical biographies, written unprecedentedly early for documents of the time, containing eye witness accounts or other sources. Pauls letters have been dated earlier than the gospels and contain core elements of the Christian faith. Paul got these from others. There was a core of Christianity within a year or 2 of Jesus's reported death and resurrection. It was born and rose very quickly and for it to do so based on a man who never existed is unheard of in history. As C.F.D Moule puts it;

"The birth and rapid rise of Christianity remains an enigma for any historian not willing to take seriously the only explanation on offer by the church itself.

I'll come to the resurrection later.

I have no problems with the theory of evolution or the big bang theory. Neither of them disprove God in anyway as they are 2 different types of explanation. I'm not a young earth creationist btw.

Hi Grazer,

You seem like a well-read chap. There is going to be a debate in the Formal Debate forum of AF and Lion and Godschild are, I believe, looking for participants to collaborate in a huge debate against me. The motion of the debate is "The Bible contains untruths, falsehoods and even deliberate lies".

I will be proposing the motion and the other Christians are going to oppose it. It depends on what sort of a Christian you are. Are you the sort, like me, who believes that the Bible contains all these untruths and even deliberate lies? Or do you take the Bible to be the word of God and so it's free of untruths and lies? By lies, of course I mean the lies told by the Bible writers. I'm not referring to lies told by the Bible characters.

If you want to see what has been discussed, you may go to this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14793.html

I hope to cross swords with you and the other Christians in a fun debate.

Cheers and see you in the battlefield!

[Phish]

mah an atheist that became an christian i dont believe this.

[jonb]

Many christians and atheists have so much in common
try this thread- 'Maybe I never was a Christian?'

[Minimalist]

The gospel accounts are treated as historical biographies, written unprecedentedly early for documents of the time,

I see. So you make stuff up and call it "evidence." I can't say you are all that different from any of the other extreme theists we have around here.

[Grazer501]

The gospel accounts are treated as historical biographies, written unprecedentedly early for documents of the time,

I see. So you make stuff up and call it "evidence." I can't say you are all that different from any of the other extreme theists we have around here.

If you call what historians and scholars have said as making it up then that's up to you. I've linked to an interview with such a historian in a previous reply if you wish to hear what he has to say. You can also check out the works of NT Wright, Bruce Metzger, F.F Bruce to name a couple more.

---

mah an atheist that became an christian i dont believe this.

Peole here have a hard time believing that people can change their beliefs don't they?

[Minimalist]

Nicholas Thomas Wright (born 1 December 1948) is an Anglican bishop and a leading New Testament scholar.

Metzger was born in Middletown, Pennsylvania, and earned his B.A. (1935) at Lebanon Valley College. Metzger had strong academic training in Greek before enrolling in Princeton Seminary, and in the summer prior to entering the Seminary, he completed reading through the entire Bible consecutively for the twelfth time.[3] He received his Th.B. in (1938) at Princeton Theological Seminary, and in the autumn of 1938 began teaching at Princeton as a Teaching Fellow in New Testament Greek. On April 11, 1939, he was ordained in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.[4] which after mergers is now known as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

Frederick Fyvie Bruce (12 October 1910 – 11 September 1990) was a Biblical scholar and one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible.

So jesus freaks say something and you fall for it hook, line and sinker is that about it?

You are a welcome addition to the stable of theist nut jobs we have around here.

[Simon Moon]

It was a number of things that slowly built up over time

In other words, you succeeded in making yourself gullible enough to believe anything.

Funny how, after being an atheist, the religion you just so happen to start believing is the one that is the dominant one in they culture you were brought up in. What a lucky coincidence that it just so happens to be the 'one true religion', huh?

Inference/evidence of design, historical evidence for Jesus's existence and resurrection, my own experiences at the time and the testimonies of the Christians I had met.

There is no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' historical existence.

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place——when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Seneca, Plutarch, Justus were also contemporaries of Jesus. They also fail to mention him. Early Christians were so surprised that Seneca did not mention Jesus, they forged letters between him and Paul. Looks like 'lying for Jesus' was an early practice.

Even if Jesus existed historically (I believe the Biblical 'Jesus' was likely based on a real person), you can't smuggle in supernatural claims on the back of history.