Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

I was hoping we’d get to play this game! I accept the account of one of the most reputable historians from the time (Luke) that people did see Jesus both after and before his resurrection.

Hearsay! Luke never says he saw Jesus. All we have is hearsay from what others supposedly told him. If that is your standard, then you've set the bar pretty low.

Of course we can’t interview these people today…because I hate to break it to you… they have been dead for awhile.

And we couldn't interview these people even if they were still alive because we don't have their names! Funny how whenever a "miracle" occurs hundreds of people supposedly witness it but not one name is ever given.

So your little court case analogy is a bit silly.

Not silly at all. Quite comparable, actually.

Many of these people who saw Jesus were then killed in some of the most vicious mean imaginable (Bartholomew was skinned alive) none of which recanted their beliefs that Christ was indeed real and the son of God. If I had just made him up, I think about the time they touched the knife to my skin I’d be quite willing to say, “I made him up! I made him up! He was a fake!”

And this proves nothing. People have died for their beliefs throughout history. That doesn't make their beliefs real.

The historian Josephus also mentions Jesus’ brother James and his early church followers.

Josephus was born AFTER Jesus supposedly died. Anything he writes (or supposedly wrote, the passages where he mentions Jesus are widely thought to be forgeries inserted at a later date) about Jesus is, at best, hearsay.

As to your little “they were written centuries after” canard, that has been disproven already. We have pieces of a manuscript from Mark that dates back to 53 A.D.;

Go back and read what I wrote again. I said "DECADES (or even centuries) after". Nice attempt at taking what I said out of context and setting it up as a strawman. And 53 CE is a couple of DECADES after Jesus supposedly died.

it’s a copy of the original so the original could have very easily been written just a short while after Christ’s crucifixion.

Oh, boy! We have a COPY written TWO DECADES later. Of course, since there were no Xerox machines back then, we have no way of knowing if this is a true copy or not, do we? Since the original doesn't exist. So who knows what embellishments the copier may have added?

So I guess, without using the words of historians who were around in the day, how can you prove that Nero was a real person? Good luck!

I just love when Creationists play this game! "There's no evidence that Jesus was a real person? Well, you can't prove (fill in the name of an historical figure from antiquity) was a real person! NYAAH! NYAAH! NYAAH!"

Actually, it's rather easy to prove Nero was a real person. He is mentioned in historical accounts of the time and his name appears in historical records of the period. The Colossus of Nero was even made in his image during his lifetime. Ya got anything like that for your godboy?

The mere existence of the universe is not proof that your deity created it. Is that more clear?

Well logically it is actually.

Logically? My Logic 101 professor would have failed you for exhibiting this type of "logic".

So people living in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus had direct knowledge of your particular deity? Is that what you're trying to sell here?

Depends on the tribe, some suppressed this knowledge in their hearts, but yes everyone has it.

What an incredible steaming pile of crap! So the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs all knew about your deity prior to the arrival of Spanish Conquistadors? How can you spew idiocy like this and expect to be taken seriously?

Just proves He is a just God. Not sure why you posted this passage.

Ordering people to stone someone to death shows he's a "just god"? Was he also being "just" when he said you can own slaves?

The passage specifically says that Jesus was shown all the kingdoms of the world from a mountaintop. How else can you interpret this?

It just says he was taken to the top of a mountain and was then shown the kingdoms.

Uh, yeah....

If I say, “I went up to the top of a mountain and listened to the game.” That does not mean I went up there because it was the only place I could listen to the game from, just means I went up there and listened to the game. Pretty simple.

Except Jesus and the devil didn't have a radio.

You just proved my point, if Christ was shown all the kingdoms of the world supernaturally by the Devil (yes this whole conversation between Christ and Satan is a supernatural event since they are both supernatural beings), then he would be seeing all the kingdoms of the world from the mountain top just like I would be actually seeing the game from Brent’s house.

NOWHERE in the Bible does it say he was shown all the kingdoms "supernaturally"! It doesn't say they were conjured up before him, or that the kingdoms appeared on the clouds, or that the devil gave him a pair of amazing glasses that allowed Jesus to see all the kingdoms of the world. The way the passage is written leaves only one possible interpretation. He was taken to the top of a high mountain where he could see all the kingdoms of the world. AN IMPOSSIBILITY!

You guys are reading something into the passage that is not there.

No, we're reading the passage just as it's written. You're the one tying your scrotum in a knot to make it say something it isn't. But, of course you have to do this. Otherwise, you might have to face the reality that what the Bible says could not possibly be true.

Hmmmm... I noticed you didn't try to refute my response to your "Mt. St. Helens proves the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood" bullshit. Maybe you've learned the difference between water quickly creating a canyon in volcanic ash and water very slowly creating a canyon in solid rock?