What's Illusory? God or a Magical Universe

[DD2014]

The science that says smoking kills people.

Again, what type of science are you referring to?

God is brought out because you can't produce abiogenesis and disprove the exponential progression of conscience. Nor can you find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus that fits the data most atheist scholars accept.

The exponential progression of conscience is not proven.

My naturalistic explanation is..... Jesus was not resurrected.

Why? I don't think I have enough bandwidth.

You should have enough for some names.

The first day is called good.

Epic fail! Read your bible, the light is good, not the day.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The demons weren't cast into the deep on day 1 or day 2, but in Genesis 1.2. The days are summary days that sum up the period of restoration after God made desolate in Gen. 1.2.

So where can I read about the Demons and Lucifer getting dunked in the pool? 'Cause its not in Genesis 1:2

He did prove Himself to you.

He did not prove anything to me.

Just look at Sodom and Gomorrah in rampant fornication.

lol! That is a funny example to use.

If you are gay, you get killed. If you trick your dad into getting you pregnant, its ok.

Since those babies were going to grow up as they did generations before to continue child sacrifices unto their own children, God said enough is enough. God thinks this evil is really evil! You not so much?

I think it is evil for God to create them to be destroyed, then burn in hell for something they have not done yet. But your God didn't give them a chance. Now I guess they'll burn for an eternity for no reason at all.

How is this loving? How is this Just? How is this God-like?

Those babies were born from parents who practice child sacrifices and continued to practice this for hundreds of years. God's wrath came in wiping out those 10 tribes.

So it is impossible for God to just kill the sinning parents? What about not allowing them to have children? Your bible claims he has done that before, why not save innocent lives?

How would you feel if you were raised in a society where you could be picked to be thrown into the fiery mouth of the Molech god and have it televised on tv? Or maybe it was your sister? How does that make you feel?

Well, I would not like to be killed at all, especially if I'm a baby. But if you have to choose between a 100% death rate (Israel killing you) and maybe a 1 or 2% death rate (Molech sacrifice). I think me and my family would have a better chance with Molech, wouldn't you?

You don't think this would be a horrific society that must be done away with?

You mean killed? Is that not one of those sin things?

I think if God is all-powerful he would think of a way to abolish the "evil" practice without murdering little kids.

Though babies are born into sin they are not deemed sinners until the age of accountability if they don't give their lives to Christ.

So they were not evil, or even able to sin yet? But they were still killed? Why did they deserve that?

How old is the age of accountability?

They are both an abomination to God, but I would put murder as being worse than slavery.

So its ok to murder if you are enslaved?

Wow sin is starting to sound relative.

He knew Adam and Eve would be disobedient, but He still had to tell them not to eat of the fruit of tree of knowledge of good and evil, because he knew what would happen. You know what happened next.

He could have not made the tree. That would have saved us (and him) a lot of trouble.

Yes, it is sad so many kids die because of their parents' sin.

Does that sound Just to you?

Yes, because Israel was the one nation on the planet who would listen to Him, after being enslaved for 430 years. Should not the spoils go to the righteous?

You can't be "righteous" and kill innocent people. See how that works?

That was a unique situation in Canaan no doubt, just like when a gun is held to your wife's head by an intruder and in a moment you can blow his brains out and save your daughter's mother.

So sin is relative. I get it now.

Why do you keep defending such evil is the real question?

I ask you the same question.

[Churchwork]

Again, what type of science are you referring to?

The type of science that proves smoking kills. You don't think that's a sin to die an early death because of smoking?

The exponential progression of conscience is not proven. My naturalistic explanation is..... Jesus was not resurrected.

Sure it is proven, since you prefer to live in a world without human sacrifices which reflects a better conscience in people. Saying Jesus wasn't resurrected is not a naturalistic explanation for why Jesus was not resurrected. A naturalistic explanation would be Swoon Theory, Hallucination Theory or Conspiracy Theory. However, none of these fit the data for the resurrection, the very data that most atheist scholars concede.

You should have enough for some names.

Of course, but you wanted everyone's name and everything they said.

Epic fail! Read your bible, the light is good, not the day.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

You are a trying to look for a petty loophole. You need to be delivered from your petty self. The light coming in on day 1 was good, yes, but it is also intrinsically part of day 1, hence, it was a good day. Day 2 was not called good because of what happened as a result of splitting the firmament. Don't wast my time with petty stuff. I am going to have to create an Infraction for Petty Self.

So where can I read about the Demons and Lucifer getting dunked in the pool? 'Cause its not in Genesis 1:2

It doesn't say it in Genesis 1.2, but you should ask yourself why make the earth desolate and waste for no reason at all? After you read the proof for why the fall of the spirits took place before Genesis 1.2, let's talk about it, http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/moc12.htm

He did not prove anything to me.

He proved to you that you can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data and through the exponential progression of conscience and your inability to perform abiogenesis.

It's amazing the stars they keep finding are larger and larger. This proves God by His amazing and wondrous design, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I34FNr_peUk

lol! That is a funny example to use. If you are gay, you get killed. If you trick your dad into getting you pregnant, its ok.

It wasn't ok what she did, for the Bible shows the resultant consequences of her sin. God hates homosexuality because it is an abomination to God. Again, if God did not preserve Israel through His responses, Israel would not have survived to usher in the birth of the Messiah.

I think it is evil for God to create them to be destroyed, then burn in hell for something they have not done yet. But your God didn't give them a chance. Now I guess they'll burn for an eternity for no reason at all. How is this loving? How is this Just? How is this God-like?

Who is to say the children are going to burn in Hell? In fact the children would be saved and prevented from being murderers. If God knows you are going to murder someone and He kills you beforehand, it is only because He knows you will waste all your chances. You don't see the justice and love by God removing those evil tribes and preserving Israel as a result?

So it is impossible for God to just kill the sinning parents? What about not allowing them to have children? Your bible claims he has done that before, why not save innocent lives?

Who is to say those children are not saved? The Bible teaches the age of accountability. I think God influencing the womb of many women is too much of an imposition by God...let's say God imposed on China and India and Africa a biological restriction where parents couldn't produce more than one child. That seems to infringe on free will and warps reality itself. I prefer the way God did it. I don't like it if God were to infringe on our free will, because that would be unrighteous and we would not have the full range of free will we have today.

Well, I would not like to be killed at all, especially if I'm a baby. But if you have to choose between a 100% death rate (Israel killing you) and maybe a 1 or 2% death rate (Molech sacrifice). I think me and my family would have a better chance with Molech, wouldn't you?

And to me my conscience finds this utterly evil, because if for the next 10,000 years my lineage had to wonder if they were the ones selected for human and child sacrifices, that would not comfort me; besides it violates the exponential progression we do observe. An exponential progression of conscience is better than flatlining evil you propose of never ending human sacrifices. I can't help think how this would corrupt society further in untold ways. But if a particular tribe of people in Canaan refused to continue this practice generation after generation, then I can see why God had to wipe them all out. He started wiping out the men leaving women and children. But they continued, so God had to kill the women also. Still they continued then all the children had to go. And that's exactly what happened. I think you are under appreciating how degenerated into evil these people were and how they have no future. You really should stop defending them. It certainly doesn't reflect well on you.

You mean killed? Is that not one of those sin things? I think if God is all-powerful he would think of a way to abolish the "evil" practice without murdering little kids.

He tried everything. Nothing worked.

So they were not evil, or even able to sin yet? But they were still killed? Why did they deserve that? How old is the age of accountability?

Because it was proven they would grow up to kill their own children in human sacrifices. We have been through this already. The age of accountability is unique to each person because we are all unique and develop differently, but for most everyone before the age of 20.

So its ok to murder if you are enslaved? Wow sin is starting to sound relative.

I can't comment on this because I need more details about the circumstance. The punishment should fit the crime.

He could have not made the tree. That would have saved us (and him) a lot of trouble.

Then you would be a robot or not made perfectly in God's image. It wouldn't be a perfect world, but an amoral one of robots or something like that. I like the way God did it; makes more sense to me.

Does that sound Just to you?

No, but that is the nature of sin. It's real and has real consequences. This is what God is constantly trying to get you to think about more to realize you are a sinner in need of salvation.

You can't be "righteous" and kill innocent people. See how that works?

Sure you can be if it is done righteously. You don't become unrighteous because you save your daughters life who is about to be killed by a madman.

So sin is relative. I get it now.

I wouldn't use the word relative, but punishment fits the crime. Relativism is the idea that whatever you believe is acceptable relative to you, e.g. Jesus is not God for you, but is God for others and both of you are right.

I ask you the same question.

I don't defend that evil you defend. Child sacrifices are horrific and deserves God's judgment and righteous dealing.

[Churchwork]

Smoking science???

Scientific studies on smoking show it is harmful to you health, thus it is a sin.

No more then it is to die early because of a car accident.

Nobody is forcing you to do it so it is your sin. A car accident is due to sin in another way, by someone being careless.

Until you find a naturalistic explanation for all of David Blain and Chris Angel's performances you must accept that they can fly, disappear, change things into other things and so on and so forth.

You don't mention anything specific, but were just vague. Very specifically, the original Apostles said they saw Jesus resurrected, people don't willingly die for something they know is a lie, and group hallucinations are impossible.

Stop stalling. Are you going to give me those names and dates or what???

One at a time. I have 17 non-Christian sources within 150 years of Jesus' death. Let's start with Tacitus. I don't have any non-Christian sources at the time when Jesus alive or before 70 AD, because the contemporary writings of the day were the NT writings.

I didn't read anything in Genesis 1 about the earth being a desolate waste. What bible are you reading?

“Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else” (Is. 45.18). How clear God’s word is. The word “waste” here is “tohu” in Hebrew, which signifies “desolation” or “that which is desolate.” It says here that the earth which God created was not a waste. Why then does Genesis 1.2 state that “the earth was waste”? This may be easily resolved. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). At that time, the earth which God had created was not a waste; but later on, in passing through a great catastrophe, the earth did become waste and void. So that all which is mentioned from verse 3 onward does not refer to the original creation but to the restoration of the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning; but He subsequently used the Six Days to remake the earth habitable. Genesis 1.1 was the original world; Genesis 1.3 onward is our present world; while Genesis 1.2 describes the desolate condition which was the earth’s during the transitional period following its original creation and before our present world.

Where? I didn't see anything. Chapter and verse please.

Read the chapter.

So homosexuals were going to destroy Israel?

When immorality sets in one thing leads to another: sin begets sin. Adam disobeyed God then Cain killed Abel and Hitler killed millions.

So why not do that with all murderers? Why did God not kill Osama Bin Ladin when he was a baby? He could have saved countless lives. Or instead of killing people that are influenced by satan, God could do away with satan and the demons and not need to kill babies anymore.

In a natural world there are restrictions. If God killed everyone and prevented them from reaching the age of accountability who end up being murderers, then free will is taken out of the picture and we are not free-willed beings then. God wants to be with free-willed beings. So while it is His prerogative to take out some people, He can't wipe everyone out. God wants us to see the consequence of sin, so, for example, some people go to jail, which is a foretaste of eternal damnation in Hell where you are going.

I see the slaughtering of babies, women, children and the elderly.

You don't see them as murderers killing their own children by throwing them into the fiery mouth of the god Molech and how utterly evil this is that it simply can't go on and on and on?

Being dead is the ultimate infringement on free will! You can't do anything if you are dead. How can you think God influencing the womb is worse then murder? Can you hear yourself? You would rather kill, then prevent a situation where killing is necessary.

What makes you think if you were resurrected you would change your mind? I think by the time you are resurrected and didn't give your life to Christ, you really have made your decision for eternity. There is nothing that will convince you at that point otherwise. You eternally separate yourself from God and send yourself to Hell. What would be the point of letting you live in your body of flesh and blood for 10,000 years, for that is just more time for you to mindlessly self-exalt yourself and inflict your corrupted ways on those who are saved. Remember, God is a loving God, so He protects His own. He eventually cuts off our conversation.

You are assuming preventing a situation where killing is necessary doesn't infringe on true authentic free will. Man would not have free will to the extent he does made in God's image if God prevented all sinners from killing or in stopping the womb from producing.

Do you see your doublestandard also? These things happen anyway in your world, so you are not just accusing God but your atheism or agnosticism, but these two are mutually exclusive. They can't both be wrong and can't both be true. One is right and one is wrong. Therefore, you contradict yourself proving your attitude and thought processes are wrong.

What do you prefer, being killed or having the chance to live?

I prefer righteousness, so my selfish desires are irrelevant.

Could I get the Book and chapter for that?

"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD" (Lev. 18.21).

Wouldn't your exponential progression of conscience take care of that over time? I thought we sin less over time?

They weren't going to believe in God anyway, for not even the exponential progression of conscience could convince them. The progression would be severely decreased and the hardening of their hearts would harden so many others. God's grace was to others to end those 10 tribes that practiced child sacrifices.

He didn't try influencing the womb of the women. He didn't try appearing to them and explaining to them that what they were doing was wrong. He didn't try exposing the pagan priests for the frauds they were. He didn't prevent the evil in those tribes before it got out of hand. He didn't try a lot of things.

Think about it. God forcing them takes away their free choice. Realistically Jesus could only enter His creation one time to die on the cross, so appearing again and again infringes on free will. They should have seen God through Israel. Everyone has written on their hearts the law of God and everyone has God-consciousness so nobody is without excuse. What you are proposing violates human free will. Just like Hitler was stopped with force, God eventually has to bring in force to stop those tribes which knew better not to kill their own children and throw them into the fire. You don't need God to come in person to tell them that is wrong. And since they worship other gods, who is to say even if God did come in person that they would accept His judgment?

So it is impossible to adopt the children and raise them right? Is it impossible to teach them not to kill their own children?

You are assuming by adopting they would not grow up to try to teach human sacrifices. So yes, it is impossible to teach them not to continue this practice. God is left with no choice by to annihilate those tribes. He doesn't take such drastic action unless it is necessary.

The killing of every first born in Egypt. Those murders were justified because of enslavement? You said yourself "I would put murder as being worse than slavery."

From God's side yes because nothing else worked and from Egyptian side, they mistakenly fed tainted wheat to their children which killed them. Killing is necessary sometimes, e.g. we had to stop Hitler.

I disagree you can have free will and not have the ability to chose evil. You can be given many good options to choose from.

God considers this not true free will, but more like robots, because you are limiting the full range of choices.

Are you saying God can choose to do evil?

Of course God could never do evil for He is holy, righteous and true, option for Him so He never chooses evil. He always chooses the good.

Why would a God that claims to be just punish the child of the sinner? That is not how justice works, we put the criminal in jail, not the son or daughter. Your God's sense of justice is misguided.

God is not punishing the child of a sinner. What makes you think that?

We are talking about killing innocent people, not someone who is trying to kill your kid. You know, innocents like those babies and kids Israel keeps killing. You can't kill children righteously.

You are assuming they are innocent that they will not grow up to do what their parents did. In the OT there is such a thing as righteous killing, for God knew they would grow up to be murderers. The precedence was set for hundreds if not thousands of years they continued that practice.

Ok let me get this right. Killing is a sin. Israel kills for stupid reasons. If the punishment does not fit the crime, Israel must sin constantly. Unless sin is relative to the Israelites.

Israel killed for just reasons. When Israel killed unrighteously, they were sent to Babylon.

Stupid reasons to kill for:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

In the old dispensation it was a necessary reason to usher in the Messiah, to preserve Israel and overcome the evil tribes around them.

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Same reason.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Same reason. You should have no problem with this because in your naturalistic world it happens anyway as part of nature.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Yes.

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

It was needed to preserve the nation of Israel from falling away like other tribes.

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Same reason.

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Same.

If you do any one of these things you are worthy of death? The punishment does not fit the crime.

All sin leads to death, but note these laws were particular for Israel; they were given to Israel by God. Now we live by the Spirit of the law under the dispensation of grace.

Oh, could you answer my question I asked a few posts ago. How is a girl that dishonors her father going to compromise Israel's survival? You get an infraction for spelling errors! wast flatlining

See definition for flatline. You're being petty. Thanks for helping with the new infraction for Petty Self. Lately it's your favorite selfishness.

Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual immorality.

[DD2014]

You don't mention anything specific, but were just vague. Very specifically, the original Apostles said they saw Jesus resurrected, people don't willingly die for something they know is a lie, and group hallucinations are impossible.

Watch these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C5tS3N0STs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veJAn...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdOHs...eature=related

Can you find naturalistic explanations for everything Chris Angel does?

With all the eye witnesses Chris Angel has, he must be really walking on water. Or could group hallucinations be possible?

I have 17 non-Christian sources within 150 years of Jesus' death. Let's start with Tacitus.

Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.
In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.
Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."
Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.
The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.
It is a peculiar and disturbing fact that the entire Annals attributed to Tacitus never existed until their discovery by Johannes de Spire, at Venice in 1468, and that this sole copy, purportedly made in the 8th century, was in his possession alone. The history of the Annals begins with the Italian calligrapher, Latin scholar and Papal secretary Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), who, writing in 1425, intimated the existence of unknown works by Tacitus supposedly at a Benedictine monastery in Hersfeld, Germany. "The Annals" was subsequently "discovered" in a copy of Tacitus's Histories at the monastery, in the sixteenth century. This text was not named "Annals," however, until 1544, by Beatus Rhenanus.
In 1878, the "excellent Latin scholar" WJ Ross wrote the book Tacitus and Bracciolini, which evinced that the entire Annals were a forgery in very flawed Latin by Bracciolini in the 15th century. Ross's work was assailed by various clergymen, who claimed the main defect in his argument was that "one of the MSS. [manuscripts] of the Annals is at least as early as the XI century." In reality, the critics had not actually read Ross's book, in which Ross does indeed address this purported 11th century manuscript, which he shows was merely pronounced by dictum to be early. Interested readers are referred to Cutner and Ross's books for further discussion of this debate, which includes, in Ross's dissertation, a minute examination of the Latin of the Annals. Suffice it to say that the evidence is on the side of those who maintain the 15th century date, in that the Annals appear nowhere until that time.
In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations." Drews considers the Tacitus passage in its entirety to be one of these forgeries that just suddenly showed up centuries later, and he expresses astonishment that "no one took any notice during the whole of the Middle Ages" of such an important passage. Says he:

No one, in fact, seems to have had the least suspicion of its existence until it was found in the sole copy at that time of Tacitus, the Codex Mediceus II, printed by Johann and his brother Wendelin von Speyer about 1470 at Venice, of which all the other manuscripts are copies.

The reason for this hoax may be the same as the countless others perpetrated over the millennia: The period when the Annals were discovered was one of manuscript-hunting, with huge amounts of money being offered for unearthing such texts, specifically those that bolstered the claims of Christianity. There is no question that poor, desperate and enterprising monks set about to fabricate manuscripts of this type. Bracciolini, a Papal secretary, was in the position to collect the "500 gold sequins" for his composition, which, it has been claimed was reworked by a monk at Hersfeld/Hirschfelde, "in imitation of a very old copy of the History of Tacitus."
Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."
It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed--to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

[Churchwork]

Can you find naturalistic explanations for everything Chris Angel does? With all the eye witnesses Chris Angel has, he must be really walking on water. Or could group hallucinations be possible?

Those tricks are best explained by camera tricks and paying people off. Disappearing, like rapture, is a supernatural act which can't be performed naturalistically. Notice none willingly die for Chris Angel, nor do any feel compelled to kill Chris Angel followers for what tricks Chris performs. "Chris" and "Angel"-Satan never sleeps. He's open 24 hours a day. Jesus is called the Angel of the Lord in the OT and in Revelation. Talk about a God complex!

Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.

You can't ask everyone to write about Jesus. He is already the most documented person within 150 years of His death. The Neronian persecution was 64 AD. Seneca had one year left to live. He died 65 AD. "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11.26). Acts was written before 65 AD because it was a biography of Paul but didn't mention his death so Acts was written before 65 AD.

In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.

I wouldn't treat this "vast multitude" other than a great many. However many that is, he considered it quite a few. The entire NT was written before 100 AD and most of it before 65 AD.

Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers? Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source (assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

History is sparsely documented, so we are lucky to have even this one commentary. Since the persecution of Christians is already well established in the New Testament writings, a persecution by the Nero is not unexpected. Revelation 13.18 records Nero as the most evil man in history. Neron Kaisar in Aramaic equals 666. "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six" (Rev. 13.18)

Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians." Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.

Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator: "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1 "Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2 "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held both positions.

Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources? Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.

Christianity had humble beginnings. Even so, Jesus is the most recorded person in antiquity, eg. 45 ancient sources within 150 years of his death compared to only 9 for Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus. That you want someone to make a comment somewhere that wasn't made is irrelevant since Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity.

It is a peculiar and disturbing fact that the entire Annals attributed to Tacitus never existed until their discovery by Johannes de Spire, at Venice in 1468, and that this sole copy, purportedly made in the 8th century, was in his possession alone. The history of the Annals begins with the Italian calligrapher, Latin scholar and Papal secretary Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), who, writing in 1425, intimated the existence of unknown works by Tacitus supposedly at a Benedictine monastery in Hersfeld, Germany. "The Annals" was subsequently "discovered" in a copy of Tacitus's Histories at the monastery, in the sixteenth century. This text was not named "Annals," however, until 1544, by Beatus Rhenanus.
In 1878, the "excellent Latin scholar" WJ Ross wrote the book Tacitus and Bracciolini, which evinced that the entire Annals were a forgery in very flawed Latin by Bracciolini in the 15th century. Ross's work was assailed by various clergymen, who claimed the main defect in his argument was that "one of the MSS. [manuscripts] of the Annals is at least as early as the XI century." In reality, the critics had not actually read Ross's book, in which Ross does indeed address this purported 11th century manuscript, which he shows was merely pronounced by dictum to be early. Interested readers are referred to Cutner and Ross's books for further discussion of this debate, which includes, in Ross's dissertation, a minute examination of the Latin of the Annals. Suffice it to say that the evidence is on the side of those who maintain the 15th century date, in that the Annals appear nowhere until that time.

This sort of thing is typical of ancient documents. The span of years between composition and oldest copy for the New Testament is a maximum of 50 years. For Homer's Illiad 500 years, for Plato's Tetralogies 1300 years, and for Aristotle (any one work) is 1400 years. So there is no surprise with Tacitus' Annals. It's important to realize that secondary sources are irrelevant anyway. The only sources for consideration are the Old Testament, New Testament, archaeological finds for those time periods an some early church fathers who had personally knew some of the Apostles.

In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations." Drews considers the Tacitus passage in its entirety to be one of these forgeries that just suddenly showed up centuries later, and he expresses astonishment that "no one took any notice during the whole of the Middle Ages" of such an important passage. Says he:

No one, in fact, seems to have had the least suspicion of its existence until it was found in the sole copy at that time of Tacitus, the Codex Mediceus II, printed by Johann and his brother Wendelin von Speyer about 1470 at Venice, of which all the other manuscripts are copies.

The reason for this hoax may be the same as the countless others perpetrated over the millennia: The period when the Annals were discovered was one of manuscript-hunting, with huge amounts of money being offered for unearthing such texts, specifically those that bolstered the claims of Christianity. There is no question that poor, desperate and enterprising monks set about to fabricate manuscripts of this type. Bracciolini, a Papal secretary, was in the position to collect the "500 gold sequins" for his composition, which, it has been claimed was reworked by a monk at Hersfeld/Hirschfelde, "in imitation of a very old copy of the History of Tacitus."

All copies of Annals mention "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44 What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:

• Jesus did exist
• Jesus was the founder of Christianity
• Jesus was put to death by Pilate
• Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
• Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)

Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation? Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."

It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed--to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.

They were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11.26).

I don't think Josephus' writings were fraudulent. My reasons are as follows. And even if the contested portions were, that still leaves the uncontested portions indicating that Jesus existed and that there were Christians. So it is a desperate attempt by skeptics. What these writings show by non-Christians is how non-Christians couldn't resist but had to make some comment about Jesus and Christians.

[DD2014]

Those tricks are best explained by camera tricks and paying people off. Disappearing, like rapture, is a supernatural act which can't be performed naturalistically.

You still can't explain them. You can't tell me or show me how he does what he does.

You are still missing the point. At any magic show, people won't be able to naturistically explain what they have seen. This obviously does not make any of those illusions true. If I can't naturistically explain how an alleged event took place, that alone proves nothing. It does not prove that Jesus performed miracals or was ressurected any more then it proves a magical preformance is real.

Notice none willingly die for Chris Angel, nor do any feel compelled to kill Chris Angel followers for what tricks Chris performs.

Notice Chris Angel does not tell people that he is their true ruler, nor does he promise any type of hell for people that don't belive in him.

You can't ask everyone to write about Jesus.

Why not? If he really came back to life after being dead for 2 and a half days, eveyone would have wrote about him. Why is it that the only people who would claim Jesus was ressurected were his own cult of followers?

He is already the most documented person within 150 years of His death.

What about Alexander the Great?

The entire NT was written before 100 AD and most of it before 65 AD.

As far as I know, there is no certain historical evidence as to the date the gospels creation. None of the other books in the NT acknowledge the writen gospels and the earliest manuscripts date to the second century. I don't know what evidence you are reffering to, please cite.

It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

The only thing Tacitus' writings prove is the existance of christians in the first century. Not the existance of Jesus. Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ". Even Rev. Taylor questions its authenticity because Tertullian (who read and quoted Tacitus extensively) never mentions this reference to "Christus".

What these writings show by non-Christians is how non-Christians couldn't resist but had to make some comment about Jesus and Christians.

What the Annals show is how a non-christian made some comment about a group of Messianic Jews who are blamed for the burning of Rome, and an apparent cult leader that was put to death. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus.

Who is up next, Pliny? Josephus? Someone else that didn't see Jesus?

[Churchwork]

You still can't explain them. You can't tell me or show me how he does what he does.

The camera can do anything like in the movies.

You are still missing the point. At any magic show, people won't be able to naturistically explain what they have seen. This obviously does not make any of those illusions true. If I can't naturistically explain how an alleged event took place, that alone proves nothing. It does not prove that Jesus performed miracals or was ressurected any more then it proves a magical preformance is real.

Magic tricks can be explained.

Notice Chris Angel does not tell people that he is their true ruler, nor does he promise any type of hell for people that don't belive in him.

Exactly, he is not calling upon supernatural power.

Why not? If he really came back to life after being dead for 2 and a half days, eveyone would have wrote about him. Why is it that the only people who would claim Jesus was ressurected were his own cult of followers?

Of the early 17 non-Christian sources I have, 7 of them speak of His resurrection. Most wouldn't believe it. Even Thomas didn't and James didn't until they saw Him resurrected with their own two eyes. Most people wouldn't write out it because they wouldn't want to accept it. It's easier to shut one's mind down rather than do a careful investigation like Luke did. The reason why only His disciples wrote about it in His day is because He only appeared to them. They can't deny what they saw, touched, talked with and ate with the Lord Jesus.

What about Alexander the Great?

What about him? Show me 46 sources on him 150 years after he died, and I will put Jesus as the 2nd most documented person in antiquity.

As far as I know, there is no certain historical evidence as to the date the gospels creation. None of the other books in the NT acknowledge the writen gospels and the earliest manuscripts date to the second century. I don't know what evidence you are reffering to, please cite.

The early church fathers of the late first and second century can reproduce most of the New Testament by their quotes. Most of the NT would have been written before 65 AD when the apostles were martyred in the Neronian persecution. For example, Luke writes a biography of Paul in Acts but makes no mention of his death. Death is sorta important in a biography. That places Acts about 55 AD. Luke said Acts is part 2 of his former work which as Luke at about 45 AD and Luke took from Mark, so that places Mark at about 35 AD, just 2 years after the cross. The NT is composed independent writings of different individuals in different places so they may not have had access to all the other NT books until they were more widely published and able to be put together.

The only thing Tacitus' writings prove is the existance of christians in the first century. Not the existance of Jesus. Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ". Even Rev. Taylor questions its authenticity because Tertullian (who read and quoted Tacitus extensively) never mentions this reference to "Christus".

It's understandable not to mention derogatory remarks by Tacitus. Christ is the name given to Jesus Christians are mentioned after so it is reasonable to use the name Christ.

What the Annals show is how a non-christian made some comment about a group of Messianic Jews who are blamed for the burning of Rome, and an apparent cult leader that was put to death. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus.

Messianic Jews rejected the Christ. They had no leader named Christ. As a good historian for the Roman Empire, Tacitus would make sure his sources were accurate, so it has strong foundation. Tacitus said they are "called Christians" not Messianic Jews. "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of...Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."

Its interesting to note that Christianity had slow beginnings: "thus checked for the moment, again broke out..."

Is it any wonder why Christians consider Nero the most evil man in history (Rev. 13.18)? Tacitus said "they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flame and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

"Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus.... Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they [Christians] were being destroyed."

Who is up next, Pliny? Josephus? Someone else that didn't see Jesus?

Whoever you would like to talk about. You want to talk about people who never saw Jesus and avoid the primary sources, that's your choice.

[DD2014]

The camera can do anything like in the movies.

Magic tricks can be explained.

But you cannot explain them in any detail. All you say is "they can be explained" but you offer no proof.

Exactly, he is not calling upon supernatural power

Because supernatural powers are not real.

Of the early 17 non-Christian sources I have, 7 of them speak of His resurrection.

Are any of them non-christian cult followers?

What about him? Show me 46 sources on him 150 years after he died, and I will put Jesus as the 2nd most documented person in antiquity.

Show any sources for Jesus Christ during his life (other then his cult followers).

[Churchwork]

But you cannot explain them in any detail. All you say is "they can be explained" but you offer no proof.

Sure I have offered proof. I mentioned a glass case could have been under the water for it was not that shallow. Making someone disappear in the movies is done easily by playing with frames. Don't you think you are being ridiculous? Try to be more honest with yourself. You seem to be getting desperate with such arguments in desperation.

Because supernatural powers are not real.

Since the universe can't start up all by itself and the universe can't always have existed, we know the uncreated exists. The uncreated is supernatural, outside of nature, can impact and work in nature.

Are any of them non-christian cult followers?

I am sure there could have been some atheist cult followers in that group. Some are Roman historians, some are Satirists, some are in prison writing a letter, some are are Jewish, some are of other distinct backgrounds. Very mixed early commentaries!

Show any sources for Jesus Christ during his life (other then his cult followers).

Actually, I have no writings specifically of when Jesus was in His ministry for three and a half years. I think they started writing after he died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.

But that is standard in antiquity. Still Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 ancient sources within 150 years of his death. Whereas Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources.

Wow!

[DD2014]

Sure I have offered proof. I mentioned a glass case could have been under the water for it was not that shallow.

That is not proof, it is speculation.

Since the universe can't start up all by itself and the universe can't always have existed, we know the uncreated exists. The uncreated is supernatural, outside of nature, can impact and work in nature.

That is in debate.

I am sure there could have been some atheist cult followers in that group. Some are Roman historians, some are Satirists, some are in prison writing a letter, some are are Jewish, some are of other distinct backgrounds. Very mixed early commentaries!

Please share them.

I think they started writing after he died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.

So none of them saw him, it is all hearsay.

Still Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity with 45 ancient sources within 150 years of his death. Whereas Tiberius who died 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources.

Then good ol' Saint Nick has everyone beat. How many eyewitness testimonies have been offered for the existance of Santa??? A heck of a lot more then Jesus or Tiberius. Does that mean Santa is real?

Oh you forgot to answer my question.......

The entire NT was written before 100 AD and most of it before 65 AD

As far as I know, there is no certain historical evidence as to the date the gospels creation. None of the other books in the NT acknowledge the writen gospels and the earliest manuscripts date to the second century. I don't know what evidence you are reffering to, please cite.