(December 1, 2012 at 3:47 am)The truth Wrote: No detective went back in time to refute the five hundred witnesses so this statement is only a theory based on opinions(I get your since of humor). Please atheist show me facts that chrisitanity is false. Its proven that history shows us a empty tomb. Its proven that they never found christ body. Please people make this cite interesting. keep your if's to your self!

Paul didn't just see a vision did you read the story? The men next to him also experienced this visitation. They hurd the voice of Christ. Illusions does not allow three people at the same time to here the same exact vey words. It often effects the eyes not the ears.

Oh my god, he just doesn't get it! You don't have to go back in time to specifically refute ridiculaous claims that are hearsay to begin with! Every time we crush his evidence, he just shifts the burden of proof! /rant

(December 1, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Every time we crush his evidence, he just shifts the burden of proof!

That's just him destroying our debates and an entire forum.

[quote='Gooders1002' pid='368446' dateline='1354354288']
This maybe a late reply but:
Firstly, eye witness testimony is unreliable as details can get warped and mixed up, especially over time and considering in order to get these accounts down it would have take months of a scholars time (as only about 4% (correct me if I am wrong) at that time could read or write) the account could have been warped over time, and eye witness testimony is contested for use in courts even today.

Finally someone with an intelligent conversation. And not goofy remarks.
I agree that over time accounts can be altered. But do you agree that the bible even if it was loss in the second century could be re-written by the mass documents of the early church fathers? That's something to think about. So many documents that the early fathers wrote that agreed with the new testament it would be hard for you to refute it.

I also agree that even eye witness in court is also contested at times. But most of the times its accepted and often more times than none.


Secondly, in order to get a copy of the Bible in those times a scholar would have had to write out the whole book out from scratch from beginning to end (it was a full time job) and was highly susceptible to Chinese whispers effect were the original said 1 thing but the copy may have been slightly different either though miss reading or deliberate change and when translated the change of being miss interpreted is even greater as you have to take into cultural language norms into account and there grammar, is was not a straight copy and even for a text that size there was a high chance of mistakes, misinterpretation and deliberate change to suit the scholar.

Great argument but this is where we can turn to faith. Besides the scholars of those times only wrote what the decsiples told them to write. The gosples was written only decades after the ressurection and the early church fathers actually knew the disciples personally so this could also have easily been refuted as well.

Thirdly, the language were Jesus was supposedly born was (and he spoke) Aramaic and is very difficult even today to translate into ancient Greek (the language of the first bibles) because of the many differences between words and grammar and stricter between the two languages so many things could have been mistranslated when put in Greek.

This could be true but it's still an opinion not fact. Again we know that the church fathers knew not only the written words of the apostles but also the oral words also. So they would have easily known if there were any falsification.

Lastly, It is now contested that the town of Nazareth (were Jesus was supposedly born) did not exist until 4 CE/AD, 400 years after his supposed death. And what might have been there was in fact at most a small sentiment of about 7 farming families at most.

This has recently been refuted let the evidence speak for it self

 It is no wonder that Nazareth was not mentioned by historians:
John 1:46 -- And Nathaniel said to him (Philip): "Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth ?"
This implies that Nazareth is a lowly, poor and backward place where it will never produce any person of significance....

Historians write about kings and emperors; not about people in rat holes...

The evidence that Nazareth DOES existed in Jesus' time came from the finding of a list in Aramaic (Jewish language) describing a number of famlies of priests that were no longer needed in 70 AD.
It is the custom to select priests from every town and city to serve in the temple ,

When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priests were no longer needed....

Archaelogists have discovered a list of 24 families of priests who were relocated after the temple's destruction and one of the family was registered as having moved to .... you guessed it.... Nazareth !

So Nazareth does exist in 70 A.D. !

Recently, a Roman bathhouse from 2,000 years ago - the time of Christ - was found in Nazareth
A first century temple was also found that dated back to the first century

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Ar...intro.html

I'm sorry I had to comeback you were the only one who gave me any type of intellectual argument. Your statements were thought provoking. To bad there aren't many of atheist like you around the truth!!!!

(December 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm)Voltron Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 3:35 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Every time we crush his evidence, he just shifts the burden of proof!

That's just him destroying our debates and an entire forum.

---

@ the Truth
Please learn how to use quote tags. Your posts are hard to read.

Apparently "goofy remarks" = "arguments I can't refute" to this guy.

I kind of had the feeling that in most cases he has no idea what he is writing about.


This statement:

(December 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm)The truth Wrote: Historians write about kings and emperors; not about people in rat holes...

Confirmed that.

Um, Jesus wouldn't have been a "person in a rat hole" if he existed as a magic being like the gospels say he did. If he really was healing people, stoping rocks in mid air, being raised from the dead (not to mention the resurrection of hundreds of others mentioned in one of the accounts) etc, he would have been front page news.

Oh, you come back to check if these stupid deluded atheists can have some form of intelligence that you can, somehow, refute...
But if I show you some facts about other religions.... will you accept them as truth?
When I mentioned the pharaohs as examples of empty tombs, I was hoping you would be intelligent enough to understand the parallel, but all you did was scorn:

(November 30, 2012 at 10:52 pm)The truth Wrote:

(November 30, 2012 at 9:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Archeologists have found many empty tombs in the valley of the kings in Egypt... Did all the mummies rise up, then? Oh my....

Lol that's a funny post. But find me one of those mummy's who said weeks before they died they would rise in three
days, and when they died and placed in a tomb three days later there tombs were empty? Where are thee kings of Egypt?!! notice what you said..... "Archeologists." these Egyptian tombs were here for thousands of years before they Archeologists found them. There is no historical data claiming resurrection. And if it is prove it. The mummies of the past is an entirely different conversation. again that was a funny post lol

Allow me.
First, lol. It seems you like that acronym a lot, so here it is again, lol.
All the mummies were expecting to relive, or else, there would be no point to being preserved.
Where are the kings of Egypt? Where is jesus? in your heart? in Jerusalem? in Moscow? In New York? Where? Oh, that's right, conveniently, back in heaven, that mystical place out of this Universe... whatever that means... and how would anyone know this?...Oh, he said so, before he went... right... Can't you see that it's a fabricated story for gullible people to accept as true because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside? No you can't... you want to feel warm and fuzzy inside in a not entirely conscious way... You probably can't even conceive the possibility of god's non-existence...

There is as much historical evidence for the resurrection of mummies as there is for you jesus.
I've seen mummies running around in scooby doo...
Oh look what you wrote at some point:

(November 30, 2012 at 11:23 pm)The truth Wrote: Obviously there is no way to proove the ressurection of Christ. But there are many facts that support it.

Facts that support it.... hmmm can't wait to hear them out....
ah, here they are:

(December 1, 2012 at 2:29 am)The truth Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 1:40 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Indeed. Who are these eyewitnesses? Where is their testimony?

(crickets)

The new testament, the early church, the thousands of souls who died for his name in the first century. Are you kidding me? Paul who once killed the church but was converted and served it until his death. The eye witness testimony showed evidence by how they over took the entire roman empire in only a small amount of years! And it wasn't with weapons. but with sighns and wonders, love, and the witness of Christ ressurection. There testimony has turned the world upside down for two thousand years. It's the reason why you're talking about it know. Christianity's effect in the first century is a known fact. There effect in anctient rome is also a known historical fact.

yes, yes.... ancient egyptian gods also left some sort of lasting effect on those people. Hindu gods did the same thing in India. The greeks were happy with their faulty gods...
During WWII, the people in an island on the Pacific came to believe the god of the cargo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Just to show you how gullible people can be, particularly ignorant people. And I challenge you to claim that the original followers of jesus were anything but gullible ignorant poor people.


Now, you want evidence that christianity is wrong.
The original god which served as basis for christianity, yahweh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh Wrote:Yahweh, is the name of the national god of Israel in the Hebrew Bible.

Despite the bible's story, according to which the Israelites originated from Mespotamia via slavery in Egypt, the evidence indicates that they were native to Canaan.[1] Yahweh, however, was not a Canaanite god, and modern scholars see him originating in Edom, the region south of Judah.[2][3] The goddess Asherah may have been Yahweh's consort in the earliest period. Originally the main god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, worship of Yahweh alone (monotheism) became entrenched in Judaism in the exilic and Persian periods.[4]

Well, it seems this god was preceded in someway by other gods. Let's just look at this Asherah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah Wrote:Asherah, in Semitic mythology, is a Semitic mother goddess, who appears in a number of ancient sources including Akkadian writings by the name of Ashratum/Ashratu and in Hittite as Asherdu(s) or Ashertu(s) or Aserdu(s) or Asertu(s). Asherah is generally considered identical with the Ugaritic goddess Athirat (more accurately transcribed as ʼAṯirat).

She is identified as the wife or consort of the Sumerian Anu or Ugaritic El, the oldest deities of their pantheons.[1][2] This role gave her a similarly high rank in the Ugaritic pantheon.[3]

The plot thickens.... who was this Anu?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu Wrote:In Sumerian mythology, Anu was a sky-god, the god of heaven, lord of constellations, king of gods, spirits and demons, and dwelt in the highest heavenly regions. It was believed that he had the power to judge those who had committed crimes, and that he had created the stars as soldiers to destroy the wicked.

EDIT: Bloody hell!, I had written a bunch of stuff after this quote but it didn't get stored!! GRRRR!

Oh well, Yahweh is just a copycat of Anu, a god which has lost it's supporter base and has been cast to the myth from whence it came. Just because no one believes in him anymore.
If the god which is claimed to originally have interacted with humans turned out to be forgotten and disbelieved, why would anyone assume that the new guy on the block is real? Makes no sense, but somehow people went with it and then managed to build on top and come up with the jesus myth. If a man existed or not which preached peace and love with some background of the yahweh myth, I don't care... might as well have. But I cannot accept any of the supernatural stuff believers credit him with.
But, as I showed above, people are gullible, specially when poor or just plain ignorant. And gullible people will accept whatever is told to them. And you appear to be one such individual. Good luck with that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonabl...ter-story/

There are literally dozens of historical figures that have common tales to those of Christ. So many, and yet christians still feel as though they are so unique and that their bible stories are the product of Christianity. This is outrageous!

In history, humanity "found" the answers it needed to "find" which for a long time equated to mere imagination. We are paying the price today for the folly of the past. Humans don't have to "work" as much as we used to so we have more time to find actual answers. But past follies are engrained into so many people that even though we no longer need religion, the infected people think they do.

It's easy to see how Christianity is just a mirror image of older fairy tales which were "necessary" to keep order.

(December 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm)The truth Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 5:31 am)Gooders1002 Wrote:

Quote:This maybe a late reply but:
Firstly, eye witness testimony is unreliable as details can get warped and mixed up, especially over time and considering in order to get these accounts down it would have take months of a scholars time (as only about 4% (correct me if I am wrong) at that time could read or write) the account could have been warped over time, and eye witness testimony is contested for use in courts even today.

Finally someone with an intelligent conversation. And not goofy remarks.
I agree that over time accounts can be altered. But do you agree that the bible even if it was loss in the second century could be re-written by the mass documents of the early church fathers? That's something to think about. So many documents that the early fathers wrote that agreed with the new testament it would be hard for you to refute it.

I also agree that even eye witness in court is also contested at times. But most of the times its accepted and often more times than none.

Not really, it all comes down to A. the reliability of the witness B. were there judge well except the testimony and even then they need more evidence to back the claim

Quote:

Quote:Secondly, in order to get a copy of the Bible in those times a scholar would have had to write out the whole book out from scratch from beginning to end (it was a full time job) and was highly susceptible to Chinese whispers effect were the original said 1 thing but the copy may have been slightly different either though miss reading or deliberate change and when translated the change of being miss interpreted is even greater as you have to take into cultural language norms into account and there grammar, is was not a straight copy and even for a text that size there was a high chance of mistakes, misinterpretation and deliberate change to suit the scholar.

Great argument but this is where we can turn to faith. Besides the scholars of those times only wrote what the disciples told them to write. The gospels was written only decades after the resurrection and the early church fathers actually knew the disciples personally so this could also have easily been refuted as well.

I am sorry to say faith has no academic merit or can it be used as evidence, but I will let it slip this once. the accounts of Jesus even if the disciples had given accounts directly they would have been old ad memories warp over time (this is why back in the first point about reliability of the witness, time of a key factor) and thus may not be what really happened. Also again the original text my have been closer to the true but time and scholar error/ deliberate change over 2000 years can greatly chance the story.

Quote:

Quote:Thirdly, the language were Jesus was supposedly born was (and he spoke) Aramaic and is very difficult even today to translate into ancient Greek (the language of the first bibles) because of the many differences between words and grammar and stricter between the two languages so many things could have been mistranslated when put in Greek.

This could be true but it's still an opinion not fact. Again we know that the church fathers knew not only the written words of the apostles but also the oral words also. So they would have easily known if there were any falsification.

The church fathers were Aramaic, is was only later when the different texts were made and the change from Aramaic to Greek became a problem. also the Bible in total is missing 13 books because they were voted out of canon (can somebody help me reference this) and some books total a more interesting twist on the Jesus/Yahweh story.

Quote:Lastly, It is now contested that the town of Nazareth (were Jesus was supposedly born) did not exist until 4 CE/AD, 400 years after his supposed death. And what might have been there was in fact at most a small sentiment of about 7 farming families at most.

This has recently been refuted let the evidence speak for it self

 It is no wonder that Nazareth was not mentioned by historians:
John 1:46 -- And Nathaniel said to him (Philip): "Can there be any good thing come out of Nazareth ?"
This implies that Nazareth is a lowly, poor and backward place where it will never produce any person of significance....

Historians write about kings and emperors; not about people in rat holes...

The evidence that Nazareth DOES existed in Jesus' time came from the finding of a list in Aramaic (Jewish language) describing a number of famlies of priests that were no longer needed in 70 AD.
It is the custom to select priests from every town and city to serve in the temple ,

When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the priests were no longer needed....

Archaeologists have discovered a list of 24 families of priests who were relocated after the temple's destruction and one of the family was registered as having moved to .... you guessed it.... Nazareth !

So Nazareth does exist in 70 A.D. !

Recently, a Roman bathhouse from 2,000 years ago - the time of Christ - was found in Nazareth
A first century temple was also found that dated back to the first century

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Ar...intro.html

Firstly is was Catholic Archaeologists that did the digging. Why is this important?
Well Christianity would be complete destroyed if Jesus's home town did not exist, so they could 'edit' what they found to keep there faith in tacked and since (ironical) this place is mostly Arabic if Jesus did not exist they loss a profit and what does that say for the rest of the Quran. so both had a big steak in it.
And because its sacred no Non-religious Scientist will ever get a look.
Also The bible says the town of Nazareth not the hamlet of Nazareth which it is more likely to be. Also if there was a settlement there it was not renamed Nazareth until 135 CE/AD. Also not in the gospel of Philip (one that got voted out of the bible) Jesus is not Jesus of Nazareth but Jesus of Nazarene (or Nezer) or Truth (or even Branch/flower derived from the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'))
You can look deeper for yourself @ http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
Sources are at the bottom of the page.

Quote:I'm sorry I had to comeback you were the only one who gave me any type of intellectual argument. Your statements were thought provoking. To bad there aren't many of atheist like you around the truth!!!!

I try to be fair as work debatable on friendly terms, like you I seek the true, no matter what it really is and as long as its accurate with evidence then I will support it. I hope it keeps being thought provoking .