(December 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Voltron Wrote: Don't worry, he never wrote a single line in that reply either. Here's the link that he copied and pasted from.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/intellig...ng-reasons

Indeed - and I'd like to remind our newcomer of some the rules that (s)he agreed to:

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

Quote:2. Pasting From Other Web Sites.
This is a common forum problem and can be quite annoying for other members. By all means copy and paste the odd piece of text or small paragraph if it adds weight to your post, but for anything larger, please provide a link to the material instead by using the url tag

[...]

5. Do Not Plagiarize.
When quoting from a source other than yourself give credit where credit is due. Use citations, links, names, etc. when possible. Academic integrity is important to many of the members here and it's only fair to give credit where it is due. It is also the legal thing to do, in most cases. Adding your opinion alongside cited text will not only improve the quality of your post but is encouraged.

(December 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote:

(December 2, 2012 at 12:14 pm)The truth Wrote:  
"It would hold up in court 2000 years ago but today not so much as were have better more reliable forms of getting evidence for example: DNA testing. the problem with it it could have been a copy cat who removed the body and said he was him. if you had the real body of Jesus and this guy claiming to be him a quick DNA test would see if he was or not but seen we have no body or anything we can test, it remains an unknown. "
 
As you stated "It would hold up in court 2000 years ago" this is why I called the account historic evidence. If it was factual enough to be supported in court in the first century then it's enough for me to say historical evidence in our present time. 

"Well, first 60 years is plenty of time to make up a epic fiary tale, J K Rolling did it in 15 years, J.R.R Tolkein did it in 12 so...."

Unlike the apostles in the first century J k Rolling didn't have hundreds of people on his side as eyewitnesses (followers and enemies), neither did j.r.r Tolkien.

"Also this whole thing is about evidence, we have the dead body of Kennedy and the DNA so any faker would be found out very quickly. Also Other then the bible there are no other verified (so had been written at the time and prove to been from there from the science world) account of Jesus's any were , no born record, no census/ tax info (after all his 'father' had to give information for tax/census which also no record), no historical record, no trace of him any were not even the Roman prison records have him. "

As you already know history doesn't need science to prove historical evidence. Actually, today science is not even needed to prove a case in court. All it requires is a logic, rational testimony that places the witness at the scene of the crime, understanding of the crime and the principles I stated earlier in my post before: 

The stress a witness is under
 
The amount of time a witness had to look at the person 

the lighting present at the time 

how long it's been since someone first witnessed the crime or suggestions of guilt by police is sometimes all it's needed.


 Also, The statement earlier referenced to supposedly if we were dealing with the fact that there were no evidence of d.n.a in our present day. And the only way to verify a fact was based on eyewitnesses accounts. Kennedy's death would still be a known fact because there would be those who'd wittnessed the assassination still living today. As eyewitnesses they can still verify the assassination without any scientific experienments. 

"That's not completely accurate they were voted out because of popularly (a.k.a. which ones were being read to people) not best of the witnesses, also the gospels were written after the death of the apostles thus could not be verified."

You say "also the gospels were written after the death of the apostles thus could not be verified"On the contrary Biblical scholars, historians, and church fathers agree that mark indeed did pen down the gosple that others say his name did not grace(Read the post before this one). Historians agree along with the church fathers that mark was peter's student and writer of peter's own accounts. This is well documented amongst historians and church fathers( those christians of the first century who knew peter and mark personly)and could also be trusted as you yourself stated concerning your source in your statement below "I mean why would he stait an opinion on a matter so important as did Jesus really exist" this was a really important matter to Mark as well and any first century saint at the time. Suppose it was forged as you say, mark couldnt have wrote opinions, and gotten away with it. There was just to many people at the time who knew Peter and the apostles original statements. There were also those who knew about the oral traditions of there parents who'd actualy walked with Christ ,and set under the apostles testimony for years and decades until the thought was branded inside of there memory structure. Obviously there were teenagers who lived at the time and hurd many times about what happened on that early morning. Even before the gosples was written many could have recited the ressurection story orally by memorization. 

"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."

I understand why you think someone has falsified the documents but isn't this only opinions?

"It would be a opinion if he had not quoted were he got his information from which can be traced and the evidence looked at. I mean why would he stait an opinion on a matter so important as did Jesus really exist. This is my opinion on Jesus, I don't care if he did or did not exist, if he did he happen to be the luck founder of a cult that made him into a god. his was one of the many 'prophets' of that time and he happen to get that break."  
 
On what terms do you say that Jesus could have been a lucky founder of a cult? We both know what cults mean. It is something that his hidden. But was Christ ministry hidden away from the masses? We know the answer to that: christ went from village to village preaching openly about his beliefs also did his apostles. And how was he lucky? Name one man who touched so many people in such short years as Jesus have done. Name one lowly man who spoke with such dignity and grace without violence and thousands of years later had almost the entire population of earth following him. The most famous who'd ever lived was jesus christ amd you cannot refute it. You can blame his reputation on his followers or apostles. But The apostles meesege was themed around Jesus the Christ. It was the message that saved the people not the apostles. Justification and eternal life is what made there gosple so attractive and this stemed form jesus christ. Men died for Christ not the apostles. They hurd the messege of the chirst the apostles preached but trusted on Christ with there eternal security not the apostles. You may say your not shure what the true message of Christ was. But history proves otherwise and agian this would only be another opinion not fact or historical evidence. 

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 .

Continue to seek the truth. I believe in the end you will find it. You have a honest heart unlike a lot of bias atheist I come across. Thank' for keeping it on friendly terms. That's the only way we could find some real truth without ripping each other's heads off. Lol

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

"I agree to many debate end up with swords at each other throats."[/quote]
[/quote]
I'm sorry for such a weighty long post. My fingers got the best of me.  I must say you made some great arguments and your knowledge is sufficient. You've stated many facts that wasn't just your opinion and I'm glad for that. Finally a intellectual talk with an atheist without the goofy comments. Ahtiest and christian regardles of beliefs should be able to get along in such a world of dread and darkness. This will be my final post on this subject maybe we can debate some other time. I wish you many blessings keep looking for truth. S.N gotta go the dallas cowboy game is almost on lol.

---

(December 2, 2012 at 6:59 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(December 2, 2012 at 6:45 pm)Voltron Wrote: Don't worry, he never wrote a single line in that reply either. Here's the link that he copied and pasted from.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/intellig...ng-reasons

Indeed - and I'd like to remind our newcomer of some the rules that (s)he agreed to:

https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

Quote:2. Pasting From Other Web Sites.
This is a common forum problem and can be quite annoying for other members. By all means copy and paste the odd piece of text or small paragraph if it adds weight to your post, but for anything larger, please provide a link to the material instead by using the url tag

[...]

5. Do Not Plagiarize.
When quoting from a source other than yourself give credit where credit is due. Use citations, links, names, etc. when possible. Academic integrity is important to many of the members here and it's only fair to give credit where it is due. It is also the legal thing to do, in most cases. Adding your opinion alongside cited text will not only improve the quality of your post but is encouraged.

I'm sorry for that I was in a little bit of a rush so I thought I placed it at the end of the post. But I see you still have no answer to what I posted. Aren't we out for truth. I don't care if comes from me or the mighty voltron refute it. Do not change the text of the conversation based on a few mistakes continue the debate. Just one more excuse of losing a debate mighty voltron. Anyway the Dallas game is coming on!

Is The Truth a bot? That would explain a lot.

Yeah, he might want to look at who he was replying to.

(December 2, 2012 at 7:32 pm)The truth Wrote: I'm sorry for that I was in a little bit of a rush so I thought I placed it at the end of the post. But I see you still have no answer to what I posted. Aren't we out for truth. I don't care if comes from me or the mighty voltron refute it. Do not change the text of the conversation based on a few mistakes continue the debate. Just one more excuse of losing a debate mighty voltron. Anyway the Dallas game is coming on!

You're a funny guy. You duck and dodge most of the questions or replies thrown in your direction. You copy and paste and hope that people are fooled by your "thought provoking" posts. Then you make a pathetic troll attempt towards anyone who opposed you in this thread by repeatedly stating that Gooders1002 is the only one in here worthy of debate with you. How can anyone debate with you when you ignore their questions and replies?! Troll is gonna troll.

(December 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Is The Truth a bot? That would explain a lot.

Lol! This post was the funniest atheist remark yet. Am I bot? Lmbo you were waiting for me to make a mistake wasn't you?Am I that good of a debater that your greatest moment on this subject came on a citation mistake? just one more evidence that I've one. RUN OFF YOU ATHEIST! RUN! LOL. know back to Sunday night in America.

Let's see what Cleverbot has to think about all of this:

(December 2, 2012 at 8:39 pm)The truth Wrote:

(December 2, 2012 at 8:12 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Is The Truth a bot? That would explain a lot.

Lol! This post was the funniest atheist remark yet. Am I bot? Lmbo you were waiting for me to make a mistake wasn't you?Am I that good of a debater that your greatest moment on this subject came on a citation mistake? just one more evidence that I've one. RUN OFF YOU ATHEIST! RUN! LOL. know back to Sunday night in America.

Kids, this is what delusion looks like.

(December 1, 2012 at 12:46 am)The truth Wrote:

(November 30, 2012 at 11:16 pm)Voltron Wrote: If my grams told me a few days before her demise that she was going to rise from the dead...and later her remains came up a miss....I'd organize a posse to hunt down down the bastards that stole them.

That's the point. Christ didn't just say he was going to rise from the dead and later his remains were missing. Other's saw him and beheld him after his resurrection. They touched him. They talked with him. He talked back with them. This was a real life experience. This was face to face communication. And not just between the twelve but an entire five hundred people saw him at the same time. Your grams claim of resurrection would have needed an eye witness. But according to your statement there was no witness. So, sorry your grams lied. Better get the posse ready.

Wasn't the account of Jesus' resurrection written 30 years after the event or have I got confused with something else?

(December 2, 2012 at 7:32 pm)The truth Wrote:

(December 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: "It would be a opinion if he had not quoted were he got his information from which can be traced and the evidence looked at. I mean why would he stait an opinion on a matter so important as did Jesus really exist. This is my opinion on Jesus, I don't care if he did or did not exist, if he did he happen to be the luck founder of a cult that made him into a god. his was one of the many 'prophets' of that time and he happen to get that break."  
 
On what terms do you say that Jesus could have been a lucky founder of a cult? We both know what cults mean. It is something that his hidden. But was Christ ministry hidden away from the masses? We know the answer to that: christ went from village to village preaching openly about his beliefs also did his apostles. And how was he lucky? Name one man who touched so many people in such short years as Jesus have done. Name one lowly man who spoke with such dignity and grace without violence and thousands of years later had almost the entire population of earth following him. The most famous who'd ever lived was jesus christ amd you cannot refute it. You can blame his reputation on his followers or apostles. But The apostles message was themed around Jesus the Christ. It was the message that saved the people not the apostles. Justification and eternal life is what made there gosple so attractive and this stemed form jesus christ. Men died for Christ not the apostles. They hurd the messege of the chirst the apostles preached but trusted on Christ with there eternal security not the apostles. You may say your not shure what the true message of Christ was. But history proves otherwise and agian this would only be another opinion not fact or historical evidence. 

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 .

Continue to seek the truth. I believe in the end you will find it. You have a honest heart unlike a lot of bias atheist I come across. Thank' for keeping it on friendly terms. That's the only way we could find some real truth without ripping each other's heads off. Lol

http://www.comereason.org/cmp_rlgn/cmp005.asp

"I agree to many debate end up with swords at each other throats."

I'm sorry for such a weighty long post. My fingers got the best of me.  I must say you made some great arguments and your knowledge is sufficient. You've stated many facts that wasn't just your opinion and I'm glad for that. Finally a intellectual talk with an atheist without the goofy comments. Ahtiest and christian regardles of beliefs should be able to get along in such a world of dread and darkness. This will be my final post on this subject maybe we can debate some other time. I wish you many blessings keep looking for truth. S.N gotta go the dallas cowboy game is almost on lol.

Firstly cult is defined:
1.
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
b. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Source:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cult

So yes by that definition Christianity is a large cult. Also saying that "the entire population of earth following him" is incorrect there is what roughly 7 billion people on these planet yet (when you group all the christian sects together) you have what 1 billion max, hardly the entire population, and that's only the one that are on the register (less if people are no longer believing but have not had there name removed). And there was never the entire population under Christianity, I am calling bull shit on that.
Also Saying that Jesus Christ was the most famous person is disputable, how about Thor, Zeus, Hercules, all before Jesus and everybody knows who they are.
Also Jesus being peaceful is only if he us except him as not being a part of God (which some do) as if he is god and that he is not septate entity from God, he is the most violent, cruel sadistic being in the universe (and was peaceful only on earth), again this is depends if you count him separate from god or if he is god.

Also I think you will find most of the Atheists on here what had to contend with alot more arrogant, rude and stupid theists over the years, which has 'hardened' their heart and that really have no time or which to deal with the same arguments over and over again and counter again and again. were as I have not had that many so this is a change to improve my debating skills were they heard it all before, that why they 'rude' it because that have had to deal with alot more stupidity over the years and it takes it toll, and I can't be arse to deal with more arguments like yours as there really have heard it all before.