Christianity...

[knightmare]

I think your assumption of Josephus adding information for the sake of "credibility" is not well-founded. He was a Jewish historian. Not only is he a well-regarded as a historian, he is writing of the history of his own people. Like I said Jews emphasized the importance of history, since it was the only thing they had that kept them together as a people. Also the fact that he was also a Roman citizen does not conflict with his historical writings, since he wrote just historical facts (another way of differentiating between his true writings and the Christian additions).
Also, concerning the Swoon Theory: I disagree. There is no probability of a person surviving the injuries sustained to Him. (look at the evidence im my other post). The human body has certain physical limits that cannot be passed at any time. The body is an intricate system that has to maintain constant equilibrium. The medical evidence I mentioned says that there is no probability of Him surviving His wounds. What you are suggesting is not an anomalie, it's a miracle.
Also your Roman argument is a fairy tale. There is no way, that the Roman guards could be paid off. The Roman guards would have known that the consequence of an escaped prisoner is death, especially since the Romans went through so much trouble to crucify "this false messiah." The Romans feared such an escape, since the news of His resurrection would definitely spread throughout the land, especially by the followers of Jesus. Also, refer to my disciples argument. They suffered and died for their belief in the resurrection. Your argument about motives is invalid; it is not subjective to your perspective. Their motives can be seen through their actions and through their writings. They were willing to suffer for the sake of Christ, and most were eventually martyred. There is not one disciple that gained any prestige or power on earth by serving Christ. Also, the concept of disciples suffering for Christ is seen not only in Mark but in the whole New Testament. Also do you think the followers of Christ and Jews (who see Jesus as a great teacher) would allow some people to rewrite history, especially such a central writing as Scripture? The writings would easily be differentiated as false and not part of Scripture canon, such as the Apocrypha. Again, the Jews' emphasis of their history plays a role. Regarding the "lack of oppression argument," Christianity was in constant conflict with traditional Judaism and polytheism (which was the majority of religions) until the reign of Constantine and his Edict of Milan in 313 C.E. which legalized Christianity in the Empire. Until then Christians were oppressed both as Jews and for believing in a minor religion at that time. Just look at history.

[c130]

Woah. Ok I wouldn't normally say anything, but Omega's got me in a Grammar Nazi mood. Can you please try using paragraphs? I want to read your post but I can't get past a couple of inches down before my eyes go screwy.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by knightmare

I think your assumption of Josephus adding information for the sake of "credibility" is not well-founded. He was a Jewish historian. Not only is he a well-regarded as a historian, he is writing of the history of his own people. Like I said Jews emphasized the importance of history, since it was the only thing they had that kept them together as a people. Also the fact that he was also a Roman citizen does not conflict with his historical writings, since he wrote just historical facts (another way of differentiating between his true writings and the Christian additions).

I already posted something to this effect, even on the current state of the validity of Josephus's teachings. I shall repost.

"Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus"

Provides a bit of backing to your story. Yet, here's the kicker.

"But that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree."

Once again. While there is a possibility he did write something, we can't be sure of what, where he got his sources, or why he wrote it! Also, take into mind what he did write: An obscure verse about a long passed event in law, in which he mentions it once. It only pertains to his family, and to nothing else. At the very, very, very best, it gives credibility that some guy, named Jesus, existed between 0 and 37 CE, and was prosecuted sometime thereafter, and then supposedly rose three days later. At worst, it's a fabrication.

Too add a final touch.

As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 9th century.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, concerning the Swoon Theory: I disagree. There is no probability of a person surviving the injuries sustained to Him. (look at the evidence im my other post). The human body has certain physical limits that cannot be passed at any time. The body is an intricate system that has to maintain constant equilibrium. The medical evidence I mentioned says that there is no probability of Him surviving His wounds. What you are suggesting is not an anomalie, it's a miracle.

Actually, anomaly. Like someone getting up off a coma after several years.
The human body may have to maintain constant equilibrium, but it can survive for sometime. Another theory: He was knocked unconcious, did survive, and lived to walk out and tell the tale, then died from infection. That allows for survival, and allows for your infection theory.

Oh, and,

"Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist at Laurentian University in Sudbury, ON Canada, developed another miracle-free explanation of the resurrection story. While experimenting on rats, he noted that when the animals were physically restrained and injected with reserpine -- or similar drugs -- their body temperature would decrease rapidly and they would be appear to have died. Three days later, they revived on their own. Presumably, a similar reaction would happen in other mammals. Of course, it would be impossible on ethical grounds to conduct a similar experiment on humans. Persinger speculates that Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) may have consumed either reserpine or a similar drug. This might have happened at the Last Supper, or when he was offered a sponge containing a liquid while on the cross. It is generally acknowledged, at least by some mainline and most liberal theologians, that John the Baptist had been a member of the Essene religious group. There is some evidence that the Essenes used psychoactive drugs in their rituals. Perhaps they had found reserpine, a drug which is has a plant origin. Yeshua certainly was restrained on the cross. The soldiers could have believed that he had died, and released the body, only to have Yeshua spontaneously recover a day and a half later in the tomb."

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also your Roman argument is a fairy tale. There is no way, that the Roman guards could be paid off. The Roman guards would have known that the consequence of an escaped prisoner is death, especially since the Romans went through so much trouble to crucify "this false messiah." The Romans feared such an escape, since the news of His resurrection would definitely spread throughout the land, especially by the followers of Jesus.

They were bought off once in the scriptures. Whose to say it didn't happen again?
May I remind you of Matthew 28:12-24?
"...they gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you."

Oh, and not to mention, that just because they might have feared it, didn't mean they didn't let them pass, and then weren't executed either.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, refer to my disciples argument. They suffered and died for their belief in the resurrection. Your argument about motives is invalid; it is not subjective to your perspective. Their motives can be seen through their actions and through their writings. They were willing to suffer for the sake of Christ, and most were eventually martyred. There is not one disciple that gained any prestige or power on earth by serving Christ.

Through their supposed actions, and their supposed writings:
Once again, there was a high reward if they succeeded, giving them good reason to do so.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Also, the concept of disciples suffering for Christ is seen not only in Mark but in the whole New Testament. Also do you think the followers of Christ and Jews (who see Jesus as a great teacher) would allow some people to rewrite history, especially such a central writing as Scripture?

Yes, it's a plausible theory.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

The writings would easily be differentiated as false and not part of Scripture canon, such as the Apocrypha. Again, the Jews' emphasis of their history plays a role. Regarding the "lack of oppression argument," Christianity was in constant conflict with traditional Judaism and polytheism (which was the majority of religions) until the reign of Constantine and his Edict of Milan in 313 C.E. which legalized Christianity in the Empire. Until then Christians were oppressed both as Jews and for believing in a minor religion at that time. Just look at history.

Then why didn't the scriptures just die out then, if they were so oppressed?

Even if they were under oppression, it didn't mean it wasn't changed either.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I don't know if you've noticed that I don't say much in this thread anymore; but it's because I have heard and discussed already about all this (Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the swoon theory) and have come to many more conclusions that assert my belief that Christianity can't be right.
Now, I didn't believe in it from the beginning, but I don't want to keep discussing about a certain religion until I understand religion as a whole.

[knightmare]

Splintered, all you have done is come up with elaborate possibilities. Your scenarios are possibilities, but it does not negate the possibility of the veracity of the Bible. You are arguing against Christianity not by proving that some event in the Bible could not have existed. Rather you are positing other possibilities. If you don't believe in the Bible, there is no way some one can prove these events occurred due to the period of time that has elapsed, and since it is not observable. It practically comes down to whether you believe in the Bible and a few other extraBiblical sources as accurate writings of history (which it seems to be since the Gospels is viewed by several archeologists as feasible due to its corroboration with several texts). Noone can give you concrete evidence that you can observe, thus the concept of faith. But on your argument of Jesus' crucifixion of being published late, it wouldn't need to be published yet since many of Jesus' followers were present to spread the Gospel. Traditions and the Pentateuch, first 5 books of OT, were passed orally from generation to generation, so the acts of Jesus could also be passed down. Also, noone knows whether there was a document written before the Bible concerning the crucifixion. Noone knows, it is pure speculation.
It all comes down to your presuppositions, as seen in Jillian's case. He does not believe in a Deity thus he can interpret certain things to support his case, which Christians also do to prove His existence. He cannot disprove Christianity, he just favors the possibility of it being false over the possibility of being true.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by knightmare

Splintered, all you have done is come up with elaborate possibilities. Your scenarios are possibilities, but it does not negate the possibility of the veracity of the Bible. You are arguing against Christianity not by proving that some event in the Bible could not have existed. Rather you are positing other possibilities. If you don't believe in the Bible, there is no way some one can prove these events occurred due to the period of time that has elapsed, and since it is not observable. It practically comes down to whether you believe in the Bible and a few other extraBiblical sources as accurate writings of history (which it seems to be since the Gospels is viewed by several archeologists as feasible due to its corroboration with several texts).

The Gospels are viewed by other archaeologists to be completely absurd. This especially applies to the Old Testament, which is in some cases, perhaps blatantly incorrect. (I posted the instances earlier, and will gladly provide them upon request.)

My point is this: While the theory is plausible, there are an overwhelming number of extra explanations, that could cause the same effect. While it is true, that with uncertainty I can not provide that it is incorrect through arbitrary observation, I can however, provide reasonable doubt.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Noone can give you concrete evidence that you can observe, thus the concept of faith. But on your argument of Jesus' crucifixion of being published late, it wouldn't need to be published yet since many of Jesus' followers were present to spread the Gospel.

And no one thought to write down, "Hey! By the way, this is the official version of what happened!". No court records? No supporting documentation of the executions? No grand recordings by Rabbis?

Originally Posted by Knightmare

Traditions and the Pentateuch, first 5 books of OT, were passed orally from generation to generation, so the acts of Jesus could also be passed down. Also, noone knows whether there was a document written before the Bible concerning the crucifixion. Noone knows, it is pure speculation.

When we get that, you let me know.

Originally Posted by Knightmare

It all comes down to your presuppositions, as seen in Jillian's case. He does not believe in a Deity thus he can interpret certain things to support his case, which Christians also do to prove His existence. He cannot disprove Christianity, he just favors the possibility of it being false over the possibility of being true.

So do I. The point of this was?

[knightmare]

Actually, the Gospels is humanity's most reliable document, its integrity exceeds Homer's Iliad and Plato's writings. Any archaeologist that views the Gospels as completely absurd is not taken seriously. Not only are there a huge number of manuscripts, about 5,000, they are all in 99.5 percent agreement with each other. Also the ancient texts translated from Greek does not alter the transcript significantly, since in Greek, one word functions as the subject regardless at where it stands. Archaeology has actually supported the Bible. Renowned Jewish archaeologist, Nelson Glueck wrote, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."
Also, regarding your facetious answer in regard to oral transmission in Judaism, the gospel was spread by word of mouth by His disciples. One only needs to study Judaism to know the importance of oral transmission among the Jews. The accounts of Jesus were written later, after the Gospel spread from Jerusalem, since eyewitnesses were not accessible. And actually, most scholars date the writing of the Gospels 17-32 years after Jesus' death. Well, within the lifetime of His disciples.
My point was that atheism requires faith just as Christianity does, arguably more.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by knightmare

Actually, the Gospels is humanity's most reliable document, its integrity exceeds Homer's Iliad and Plato's writings. Any archaeologist that views the Gospels as completely absurd is not taken seriously. Not only are there a huge number of manuscripts, about 5,000, they are all in 99.5 percent agreement with each other. Also the ancient texts translated from Greek does not alter the transcript significantly, since in Greek, one word functions as the subject regardless at where it stands. Archaeology has actually supported the Bible. Renowned Jewish archaeologist, Nelson Glueck wrote, "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

I quote from the Skeptics Annotated Bible:

Exodus

It took the Israelites 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan, yet such a journey, even at that time, would have taken no more than ten days. 16:35

The Israelite population went from 70 (or 75) to several million in a few hundred years. 1:5,7, 12:37, 38:26

God led the Israelites through the land of the Philistines, hundreds of years before the Philistines were established in Canaan. 13:17

Luke

When Jesus was crucified, there was three hours of complete darkness "over all the earth." It is strange that there is no record of this extraordinary event outside of the gospels. 23:44-45

Matthew:

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees." 13:31-32

Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod's life in detail, mentioned this event. 2:16 (Using your own scholar. Great part is, even if I'm right in asserting that he has no historical value, I still stand to gain in the debate.)

When was Jesus born again?
Pre-4th Century BCE?
Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.

Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

OR 6th Century, CE?
Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Chronicles:
According to this verse David's army had 1,100,000 men from Israel and 470,000 men from Judah, Of course, this numbers is ridiculously high for a battle between two tribal armies in 1000 BCE. (The United States had about 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001.) 21:5 David provides Solomon with a fantastically large amount of gold and silver with which to build the temple: 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver. Since a talent was about 60 pounds, this would be about 3,000 tons of gold and 30,000 tons of silver. 22:14

King David collects ten thousand drams (or darics) for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. This is especially interesting since darics were coins named after King Darius I who lived some five hundred years after David. 29:7

Joshua
In Joshua 8 the Israelites destroy Ai and make it a desolate heap. But Ai was an abandoned city by the time of the Israelites and this story is a myth invented to explain the ruins of an ancient city that the Israelites encountered. See Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy by Farrell Till. 8:1-29

Wanna try again?

Also, regarding your facetious answer in regard to oral transmission in Judaism, the gospel was spread by word of mouth by His disciples. One only needs to study Judaism to know the importance of oral transmission among the Jews. The accounts of Jesus were written later, after the Gospel spread from Jerusalem, since eyewitnesses were not accessible. And actually, most scholars date the writing of the Gospels 17-32 years after Jesus' death. Well, within the lifetime of His disciples.

Once again. No one though, "Hmm. Maybe I should write this down. Just a little record somewhere".
Yet, we have records of nothing so far. Not even a single legal document, or someone thinking, "Hey! The Messiah Resurrected himself today!"

My point was that atheism requires faith just as Christianity does, arguably more.

I am reminded of a quote:
We are both atheists, I just go one more God then you do.

[Dead Angel]

Originally Posted by BlackButterfly

What a random number... what is the basis for such a thing, aside from (depending on the act) it would take a lifetime to reach that count...

...and morally, it's not right to wrong someone who has wronged you, it IS rather stupid for you to keep sticking your butt out when you know that person is only going to kick it. I'd still at least tell them about themselves, let them know I see them, and nix them for good (instead of say... blowing up their house, or flattening their tires at the very least...). But what happened to the "eye for an eye" and "do unto others?" If your good deed is not being returned, maybe it's better to follow the example being thrust at you.

IIRC it was 'seven times seven'. Jews could only count to fourty (or so I've heard) so it's supposed to be 'infinite forgiveness'. Bullshit. I'll throw somebody a curve if they start acting like a ass to me. (After three chances).

[Godslayer Jillian]

It's seventy times seven.

[knightmare]

Splintered,
1. The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years as punishment for unbelief. It does not matter if it could take 10 days, God caused them to be lost.
2. Also your verses do not state any statistics such as 70 men to several million. Actually, it states there were several thousand men. Also, how do you know it was only a few hundred years?
3. Actually, they were not the same Philistines you were thinking of. Actually, the Israelites called all the Sea Peoples as Philistines.
"Were these the same Philistines that threatened Judah seven centuries later? Probably not. The settlement of the Philistines in the 12th century B.C. is clearly reflected in the type of pottery and architecture of south-western Canaan and in the historical sources from that period, which indicate that many peoples from the North (the Sea Peoples, and among them the 'Peleset' or Philistines) invaded the region and even reached the very border of Egypt. Egyptian annals do not refer to the Philistines previous to this period. Of course this does not solve the question about the real identity of the people referred to as Philistines. It is possible that trading posts from the Minoic culture existed along the coast of Canaan already in the days of the patriarchs. These posts and their occupants may have become forgotten, and their name may have been replaced by that of the Philistines, who lived in the vicinity in later days. This could also apply to Ex.13:17*18, where it is reported that the Israelites leaving Egypt were not led on the road through the Philistine country..... (but) by the desert road toward the Red Sea"
4. Actually, there were several Herods. Also, Herod was a subject of Caesar Augustus, thus there is no ambiguity regarding the time of Christ's birth.
5. Are you surprised that Josephus didn't mention Herod's slaughter of babies? Bethlehem was a small and insignificant town of approximately 500-600 people. The amount of slaughtered babies under the age of two is miniscule? Twenty or thirty? It wouldn't even reach the hundreds. Also, Herod was infamous for committing horrible crimes. He murdered thousands of Jews and even killed his own sons and wife.
I think historians had more significant events to focus on. This was a very insignificant event.
6. How do you know there weren't any other writings during that time? Also, there were records by His disciples called the Gospels. It could be that only the Gospels survived the vicissitudes of time. Also, remember that Christianity was not prevalent at that time. They were a persecuted people until the reign of Constantine. The rabbis and the majority of the Jews did not view Him as the Messiah, as seen in His relationship with the Pharisees. Also, He is actually mentioned in the Talmud.
7. Still, atheism requires faith, arguably more than Christianity. By the way, I'll get back to you on the other events. I admit I have to do some research on those.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Haha, just when I was about to state the size of Bethlehem, you beat me to it.
I just want to double remark not so much the size of the city, but the reputation of Herod which makes this slaughter not as big a news as we would expect it to be.

[knightmare]

Jillian, my friendly atheist.

Talking about religion, were you serious about the (Unholy) Church of Dada?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Eh, excuse me, but it's the (un)Holy Church of Dada.
Writing it well is almost as important as following it.
And yes, I'm thoroughly serious about it.
Currently, I'm working on the origin of everything; the first book; Genesissy.
Yes, it sounds ridiculous, and that's the point, yet the contents of the book are absolutely earnest.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by knightmare

Splintered,
1. The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty years as punishment for unbelief. It does not matter if it could take 10 days, God caused them to be lost.

Appeal to Authority.
Argument fails right off the bat.

2. Also your verses do not state any statistics such as 70 men to several million. Actually, it states there were several thousand men. Also, how do you know it was only a few hundred years?

They don't eh?
From Exodus:

1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.

12:35 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

38:26 A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

How do we know the date? I'm not sure on this one.
It can only happen within the context of the Exodus though, because Rameses and Succoth are two marking points. According to the Bible, those were the two original stations in the Exodus. The Exodus is generally regarded to have started between two points. First, you have 1446 BCE, from Thutmose III, or Amenhotep II. So, between the time that Joseph was in Egypt, and the beginning of the Exodus, you have to get 70 to multiply into 600,000. Then, you have the generations listed in Exodus 6:18, and Exodus 7:7. So, you have to then get 600,000, into several million.

3. Actually, they were not the same Philistines you were thinking of. Actually, the Israelites called all the Sea Peoples as Philistines.
"Were these the same Philistines that threatened Judah seven centuries later? Probably not. The settlement of the Philistines in the 12th century B.C. is clearly reflected in the type of pottery and architecture of south-western Canaan and in the historical sources from that period, which indicate that many peoples from the North (the Sea Peoples, and among them the 'Peleset' or Philistines) invaded the region and even reached the very border of Egypt. Egyptian annals do not refer to the Philistines previous to this period. Of course this does not solve the question about the real identity of the people referred to as Philistines. It is possible that trading posts from the Minoic culture existed along the coast of Canaan already in the days of the patriarchs. These posts and their occupants may have become forgotten, and their name may have been replaced by that of the Philistines, who lived in the vicinity in later days. This could also apply to Ex.13:17*18, where it is reported that the Israelites leaving Egypt were not led on the road through the Philistine country..... (but) by the desert road toward the Red Sea"

Did you get this from a source? If so, I'd like that source, please. It lays on theories, but doesn't provide any backing evidence. I've never seen this before, so you've sparked my curiousity.

[QUTOE]4. Actually, there were several Herods. Also, Herod was a subject of Caesar Augustus, thus there is no ambiguity regarding the time of Christ's birth.[/quote]

Yes, there were several Herods. I can remember four off hand.
But, there's something special about a certain Herod, that makes this easy to pin down on the time:
The Book of Matthew.
Matthew 2:1-3 states, 1 When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, 2 behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star 3 at its rising and have come to do him homage." When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

That's refering to King Herod the Great. Yet, King Herod the Great is generally accepted to have died in the 5th, 4th, or 1st year of BCE.

Yet, the statement of taxation, occurs many years later. This begins under Caeser Augustus by a man named "Publius Sulpicius Quirinius", who was a govenor agent of Rome, over the lands of Syria. From Wikipedia:

"After the banishment of Herod Archelaus in 6, Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under the direct administration of the Romans. It thus becomes clear why the emperor Augustus should have ordered the ex-consul Quirinius to Syria to levy an assessment. At the same time Coponius was sent as prefect of Iudaea; but Quirinius went there also, as Legate of Syria, since the levying of the tax on the entire province was his special duty."

5. Are you surprised that Josephus didn't mention Herod's slaughter of babies? Bethlehem was a small and insignificant town of approximately 500-600 people. The amount of slaughtered babies under the age of two is miniscule? Twenty or thirty? It wouldn't even reach the hundreds. Also, Herod was infamous for committing horrible crimes. He murdered thousands of Jews and even killed his own sons and wife.
I think historians had more significant events to focus on. This was a very insignificant event.

It would still seem prudent though, that in such a detailed account of King Herod's life, it would come up. Especially since this concerns the birth of the Messiah, which was the intended purpose of the massacre. While they may not have regarded it as such, it would seemingly play an important event, worthy of being noted. Then again, I am not Josephus, and I do not know what he would define as being noteworthy. So, I'd contend that there's no real way to resolve this point.

6. How do you know there weren't any other writings during that time? Also, there were records by His disciples called the Gospels. It could be that only the Gospels survived the vicissitudes of time.

Could be, but since you can't prove that it was, you can't affirm it, until such evidence is presented that there is. Therefore, the question still remains unanswered.

Also, remember that Christianity was not prevalent at that time. They were a persecuted people until the reign of Constantine.

Realize that this was a weather issue, not a religious. Such a period of darkness, would most likely have been written down by someone, somewhere. Once again, absence of evidence, does not inherently prove evidence exists, or the likelyhood that it does. Infact, it goes to the contrary, and destroys the credibility until evidence is brought forth that can make it affirm it.

The rabbis and the majority of the Jews did not view Him as the Messiah, as seen in His relationship with the Pharisees. Also, He is actually mentioned in the Talmud.

Once again, weather issue. Not religious. He may have been mentioned in the Talmud. Sure, but realize that this wouldn't have stopped everyone on Earth from thinking, "Oh! Hey! By the way! We were submerged in total darkness for several hours!"

7. Still, atheism requires faith, arguably more than Christianity.

Arguably, but not affirmative.
It's a difference in personal opinion.
Therefore, moot point to debate.

By the way, I'll get back to you on the other events. I admit I have to do some research on those.

Take your time.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Have we already discussed about the Flood?
That's the single biggest issue in the Bible which I can simply just not believe.
I remember saying that there was indeed a flood, but not the Biblical "drown-it-all" flood.

[Splintered]

We may have.
Yes. We did.
Because I watched a half an hour to hour long video that was posted about the flood, and then posted a bunch of points that I thought was wrong with it.

[knightmare]

Hi Splintered,

I have found evidence in other archeological studies that show some of the Old Testament to be preposterous. Yet, there are numerous prophecies (like the oppression by the Chaldeans or the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem) historical figures (Belteshazzar, whom I would like to add, archeology initially thought to be fictional until evidence was later found) and places (Jericho, etc.) in the Bible that correspond to archeological findings. Also, Biblical events such as the Flood have been mentioned by other civilizations.

There is much controversy regarding the Old Testament's authenticity. Yet, the presence of the controversy regarding the Scriptures seem to validate the point that the Scriptures are not seen as totally absurd by the majority of scholars. You cannot debate a concept that has been proven false by empirical evidence, since there would not be a need for the debate. The findings in archeology have a strong tendency to change, so some "facts" could later be proven false and vice versa.

Also, in Judaism, the Scripture is seen as protohistory, in which fictitious elements are mingled with historical facts. *Maybe* some parts of the Scripture in the OT weren't meant to take literally. I honestly do not know.

However, the NT is the most credible document attested by archeology. All your points in regard to the NT are not based on actualities but potentialities. For example, one of your arguments against the NT was that Josephus SHOULD of written down the insignificant event. It is all based on your expectations.

Also, I think that while God gives enough evidence for those who presuppose His existence, He purposely does not give enough evidence for those who do not have the presupposition of a Divine Being. If God gave all the evidence of His existence, the concept of faith is rendered meaningless.

Also, evidence may have existed but may have been destroyed. You mentioned the possibilities of anomalies. Instead of the anomalies working in the favor of your presuppositions, it could also work in the favor of my presupposition of the Bible as being accurate.

Also, the fact that atheism requires faith is not personal preference. Rather, it is a fact. Presuppositions are instrumental in science and reason also. In fact, the scientific method operates on inductional reasoning. An example is evolution itself. Has it been tested or observed empirically? Where are the missing links? Where is the evidence of the scientific theories we accept? How about the axiom in mathematics?

All induction begins with deduction. There was a starting point based on faith for every belief. For example, scientists, particularly evolutionists, make a tremendous presupposition of the uniformity of cause and effect in the universe.

Thus, rejecting anything that is not empirical evidence destroys science and reason. It undermines science as it is all based on presuppositions (this molecule will act in the same way or an apple will fall because of the law of gravity) Even the claim that metaphysics is not true since it is not empirical refutes itself due to lack of evidence supporting the claim itself.

Also, human beings are limited in our knowledge. How do we know that our perceptions are the final source of all truth? Christianity gains its final truth not through our five fallible senses but from the Gospels.

I am really tired, so please excuse any mistakes I might have made.

[Pyre]

I have a theory, not to disprove Christianity, but it makes one question the existence of an astral place:

To exist, there must be presence of energy, correct? Is it also correct that energy cannot be created or destroyed? If so, then wouldn't one's spirit consist of some amount of energy, be it pure energy or not? And if so, and that energy was focused in a certain astral plane, would this not only mean that energy within the universe is not necessarily being depleted, but is constantly being consumed by such an existence?

What I mean is that if there were to be a Heaven or a Hell, then there would be an amount of energy focused in that one area. Over time, with countless spirits residing in one area or another, this energy would have to grow. This growing amount of energy is not the creation of new energy, but the same energy that has always been present within the universe; over time, the energy elsewhere will begin to deplete, and the balance will fail to be called such. Energy will be stored away in such astral planes, and the utility of it elsewhere will lessen. This will begin to effect the universe, with the death of celestial beings and other worlds in order to make up for the loss, trying to find a balance. Though the amount of energy making up any particular spirit or spiritual element may be minute, small things grow over time when kept constantly in growth, and people die every day.

So, either there is no such astral plane, it defies every law of science (which may make sense to some of you religious and spiritual people, though you must think that God has made laws in this world, and such laws must be abided by, regardless), or the universe is in jeopardy of making up for the consumption of such energies.

I am sure my theory is entirely flawed, but hey, it sounds pretty good to me.

[Rizash]

First... religion and science are one and the same, its just different views of the same thing.... Second the bible is not entirely "fact" ask any real bible scolar this, and they will admit to that (easiest example is the age of the earth). Third the universe as we know it is not concrete nor is it entirely abstract... our understanding of science as of religion and god/gods/powers that be that ALL religions share... are all intertwined. The universe has laws, but there are so many laws that we can find ways to contradict/disprove what was once scientific fact. Religions change... (some of this might sound harsh for some religious people (esp. muslims) but knowing your religion is the most important thing to being a strong follower, remember that) anyway.... religious change IS common. The Jewish faith, the Christian faith and the Muslim faith are all based on the same thing... but over time people for whatever reason (maybe people had true religious experiences maybe people just wanted more control, I dont know, but either way it happened) changed the rules a little... and the old faith broke off. The part that most people reject (yet talk to your religious leaders, they can verify this) is that the bible is simply the old testament plus teachings that many jews didnt believe... Similarly... Islam has many teachings that were once part of the bible - many were controversial and were removed, thats why they're not in the bible now (at least in certain areas) that were removed/reused/rephrased/rewritten for use in that religion. All religions... even those FAR off mainstream follow similar beliefs - just in different ways. Remember there is no truth but knowledge and spirituality.... we all feel the influence of god differently... we all see things differently.... To look back in history and try to find truth in the bible or any religious book is to find many truths, and many stories. It really does as much harm as good. Sad to say but most people this day and age still need an organized religion to form a good/bad line so they can actually be successful parts of society.... Sadly we have yet to evolve to the point that we can actually look out for EVERYONE's better interest... What can I say, life is a big rat race.... The most powerful person is an educated person... know yourself, know your religion, seek the truth, only when you make an effort to find god will you see/feel his influence.

[knightmare]

Interesting view Pyre,
The astral plane, as I conceive it, is a metaphysical world. Thus, the energy of the universe we observe and the laws that govern the universe like the conservation of energy are not applicable.
expanding, and there is evidence suggesting that there are multiple universes.

Rizash, I also believe faith and reason are compatible. And though we have empirical evidence for Christianity such as archeological findings, it is based on faith. Science is based on observation of the empirical, while faith is not. In my opinion, the only things that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have in common is monotheism and their claim of descent from Abraham. While Judaism heavily influenced Islam and Christianity, these religions were different from the very beginning of their religion. Their view of God and Jesus (which is central in Christianity) are radically different as seen in Islam's emphasis on good works as a means for salvation while belief in Christ is the means for salvation in Christianity.

[Pyre]

Even if there are multiple universes, they all share the same truths: Energy is something that cannot be created or destroyed. Period.

And though metaphysical, I believe even the metaphysical has to be made up of some source of energy. What else would it thrive off of?

I believe in systems. Without system, there is chaos. This universe is not in chaos, regardless how it may seem. Things work too perfectly for chaos. I also believe that everything must possess a system. But, of course, this is only a personal thought and observance I have. I already went into extreme detail about it with a friend (who happens to be extremely Christian, so it did not go well at all).

[om3gag0th666]

Too perfectly? You ever hear of a super-massive black-hole? Dark energy, dark matter, quasars, beaming, etc?

I would say those things are hardly perfect objects, and confusing at the best. Also, anti-matter universes may exist, which takes on whole new laws.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Actually, all those things you mentiones might be some of the most perfect celestial objects.
Blackhole: An object with virtually no volume, probably existing in only one dimension, with an almost infinite density.
Dark energy and dark matter are just as perfect as energy and matter.
Quasars: Gargantuan sources of energy that make the rest of the universe seem pathetic in comparison.
By the way, anti-matter wouldn't take up on different laws. Anti-matter follows the same laws in the universe; the only difference between matter and antimatter is the charge of their particles.
Even when they annihilate each other, the byproducts have to have the same amount of energy as the two particles.

But I also have to disagree with pyre. Theories of multiple universes generally state that laws are different in each universe. Laws might be different in corners of one same universe.
And by the second law of thermodynamics, everything works up to advance chaos.

[knightmare]

Actually, order emerges from chaos. For example, according to most evolutionists, the order and uniformity of the universe came about from an extremely chaotic event called the Big Bang. While those who support Intelligent Design because of the apparent order of the universe.
I think that chaos is essential to the order of the universe. Since universal priniples that involves chaos like thermodynamics are required for several laws like the conservation of energy as heat.

I think that you make a valid point regarding a form of energy making up the metaphysical. However, since the soul and consciousness can not be observed, the kind or type of energy is based on speculation and imagination.
This is speculation on my part, but I think that if the soul or consciousness was bound to universal laws such as physical energy, we should of at least have a clue regarding to the composition. Maybe, the soul exists in a different dimension or something. According to the string theory, there are 9 dimensions of space with 1 dimension of time. So maybe the matter from the universe we know is not affected by our souls. I would like to add that all this (like the string theory of physics) is not absolutely supported by evidence, but has support from obscure mathematical formulas (supported by Stephen Hawkings) of which I have very limited understanding.

P.S. I agree that extreme Christians are very hard to negotiate with, since they practically made up their mind despite of your arguments. Good luck and I hope I didn't sound fictional or stupid