What's Illusory? God or a Magical Universe

[Churchwork]

God is a mythical creation of man to explain what could not at his invention be explained, and has since become out-dated and useless with the advent of scientific knowledge.

Scientific knowledge tells me there is a preponderance of evidence that everything in nature has a cause, so all things in the universe have a cause especially the first event. Therefore, since nature can't cause itself or happen all by itself, logically and scientifically we are left with only one known possibility available to us-the uncreated created. Therefore, denying the existence of the uncreated creator is but a mythical illusory daydream.

It gives me great comfort knowing though people are delusional God is in control of all things and knows every hair on my head and works all things for our good. It would seem based on the evidence God is just as much if not needed more today than ever before, because of increasing complexity.

[DD2014]

Scientific knowledge tells me there is a preponderance of evidence that everything in nature has a cause, so all things in the universe have a cause especially the first event. Therefore, since nature can't cause itself or happen all by itself, logically and scientifically we are left with only one known possibility available to us-the uncreated created. Therefore, denying the existence of the uncreated creator is but a mythical illusory daydream.

Wrong. The properties of the stuff that makes up the universe are not shared with the universe itself. You’re assuming that because everything IN the universe has a cause, the universe must also have a cause. That’s illogical.
It’s the same as saying, My cells are so tiny that they cannot be seen, and my body is made up of those cells, so my body must be so tiny that it can’t be seen.

[Churchwork]

The properties of the stuff that makes up the universe are not shared with the universe itself. You’re assuming that because everything IN the universe has a cause, the universe must also have a cause. That’s illogical.
The properties of the stuff that make up the universe are not shared with the universe itself? The properties that make up my body are shared with my body. I am not assuming because everything in the universe has a cause the universe must have a cause, but that if the universe doesn't have a cause it can't violate heat death and the exponential progression of conscience.


It’s the same as saying, My cells are so tiny that they cannot be seen, and my body is made up of those cells, so my body must be so tiny that it can’t be seen.
It’s the same as saying, My cells [properties] are so tiny that they cannot be seen [shared], and my body is made up of those cells [properties], so my body must be so tiny that it can’t be seen [shared].

Your argument is comparing size with cause and effect!? Seen or not seen has nothing to do with cause and effect. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause. Your argument is silly nonsense.

[DD2014]

Your argument is comparing size with cause and effect!? Seen or not seen has nothing to do with cause and effect. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause.

Your right not the best analogy.

But a magical sky king has nothing to do with cause and effect.


Your argument is silly nonsense.

And exponential progression of conscience is proven science? When did this happen???

[Churchwork]

But a magical sky king has nothing to do with cause and effect. And exponential progression of conscience is proven science? When did this happen?
God is not of nature, say the sky, but He is outside of creation. We know this because nature can't cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. You have been unable to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3228).

We have always known about the exponential progression of conscience, for it is alway happening through the millennia, for which we can cite many examples. Therefore, the universe had to have been created and a magical universe happening all by itself is a delusion. All to reject God!? How elaborate.

[DD2014]

1. Exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since the human race would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, the Uncreated (always existing) created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ.

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?

[DD2014]

2. The preponderance of evidence (trillions+) for cause and effects tell us nothing in the universe is without a cause, otherwise you would have to be God to know if God exists, and obviously, you are not God. It is not necessary to know everything to know if God exists due to overwhelming evidence. Therefore, the Uncreated must exist Who created, the only known available possibility Who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

You're presupposing god to demonstrate god's existence. That's a logical no-no.

[DD2014]

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the nature of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else. (It is necessary to point this out because the problem of misreading the Bible happens so often. Since encountered so profusely, it is necessary to say, to remain topic and stop deflection as much as possible.)

I'm afraid I can't agree to that. If you can present vague or illogical arguments that can apply to other gods from other cultures and religions, you must admit that you believe in them too. That's how it works.

[DD2014]

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural if it exists (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since people would not still be sinning as much as they do now. Therefore, the uncreated Creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ (by comparison).


I put to you that the "conscience" is a construct which can be better explained by psychology and neurology. When put in more scientific terms, the "exponential progression of conscience" actually becomes something more clear: natural evolution.
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon

[Churchwork]

This assumes the existence of the "sin" concept as objective. You can't make such assumptions in such a serious matter. Can you demonstrate that sin is not a human concept, but an objective truth?
There are some universally accepted things we put people in jails for because of their sin, so sin is real and denial of it is sinful. Hence, sin at least on some level is objective which only further points to God because you can't have objective morals without God, otherwise morality is just like the swaying of the wind. At one time human sacrifices and throwing children in the mouth of the Molech god was acceptable and other times or dispensations it is not. We could just as easily bring back such practices. Some things really are sinful.

Our knowledge of sin, therefore, is not invented by man, but we are made aware of it by the law given to us by God and which is imprinted on our own hearts. The more we try to keep the law, even the law unto ourselves, we realize we are utter failures. The law, and what is written on our own hearts objectively and universally agreed, brings out the fact that we are sinners.

For the purposes of the proof, you only need concern yourself with that which we observe and see where it leads...

The exponential progression of conscience and the counterpart reduction of sin on a per capita basis through the millennia proves God, because we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. We would have existed far longer than just six thousand years since the first Adamic man.

In fact, I couldn't even give you a number high enough that even comes close to approximating the existence of the human race in the nearness to the eternity of the past, if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects. What an amazing proof this is! What makes this so special to me is few use this proof technique in Step 1. The most people say usually is "heat death" would be far greater than it is, which is true also.


You're presupposing god to demonstrate god's existence. That's a logical no-no.
On the contrary. What was said was that you claim you need to know everything that is, was or ever will be to determine if God exists or not. You are presupposing you have to be God to know if God exists. That's pride! And an unreasonable demand to say the least. I am not assuming you need to be God or even if God exists to determine if God exists.

If in a court of law and science preponderance of evidence is good enough, then so is it good enough for our determining God exists or not. It's like a roof top putting an egg on tip. It is a very tight balancing act to put the egg there without it rolling down one way or another. That's agnosticism. It's a dishonest balancing act. Sincerity dictates you are either atheist or Christian and nothing in between.


I'm afraid I can't agree to that. If you can present vague or illogical arguments that can apply to other gods from other cultures and religions, you must admit that you believe in them too. That's how it works.
Your logic doesn't follow at all. The fact, which you admit those arguments for their gods are illogical and vague, shows they have no substance and are self-contradictory, or at the very least when put beside Jesus Christ, Jesus wins out easily. God never contradicts Himself and He is always specific as need be. So Step 3 remains necessary to point out because this error is made so often: if you want to disprove J, you don't do so by trying to disprove M. That's illogical. While M must defend itself, so must J, but don't try to disprove J by disproving M. I probably agree with you why M is disproven, but that doesn't disprove J.

See how silly atheists are! So much nonsense who can bear it?


I put to you that the "conscience" is a construct which can be better explained by psychology and neurology. When put in more scientific terms, the "exponential progression of conscience" actually becomes something more clear: natural evolution.
Whether you think conscience can be better explained by psychology and neurology is irrelevant. What matters is we observe it in motion which tells us there can't be an eternity of the past of cause and effects in nature or supernatural, if they exist. Moreover, you don't have a good explanation for psychology and neurology.

The exponential progression of conscience is just natural evolution fails in two ways:

1) Even if you first hypothesize it is explained by nature, it still proves we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural or supernatural.

2) That which does not have conscience or consciousness can't produce that which has conscience and consciousness. Can a bird house create a bird? Can a rock make itself into a human being? Preposterous. Therefore, God can form materials into the body over a long period of time (Gen. 2.7), but they can't do it themselves, nor create a single-celled replicating organism.


"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
Religious superstition does dismount all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men just as atheism does, since God is proven, but not any God, only God of the Bible. Jesus fulfills not on the claim necessary for the uncreated, but He proves it by His resurrection, miracles, prophecies fulfilled, and morality above all else. To these you present no challenge. Therefore, rid yourself of your own religion of self and idolatry of atheism, or whatever your flavor of the day is, which violates the laws of science, philosophy, natural piety, laws reputation.

There is no outward or inward moral virtue in denying the one true religion in Christ, for all things He said were made by Him and nothing that exists exists without Him having created it. He is the first and the last and all things sum up in Christ.

There is no other religion or world-view in which God comes down to us so we may go up to Him. That is love and His love leads to grace. That is light which leads to all truth.

Just know this then. Since you couldn't overturn the 4 Step Proof for God (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3228)and the Minimal Facts Approach (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3228), then you don't have to say it out loud, but you are admitting that God exists and Jesus is God.

Praise the Lord!

[DD2014]

There are some universally accepted things we put people in jails for because of their sin, so sin is real and denial of it is sinful.

Ummm...we put people in jails because of crimes, thats why we call them criminals.

Different governments around the world have different laws and punishments for those laws. According to you if sin was real we would all have the same laws and punishments for breaking those laws.


...you can't have objective morals without God

Prove it


At one time human sacrifices and throwing children in the mouth of the Molech god was acceptable and other times or dispensations it is not. We could just as easily bring back such practices.

Mabey those people figured out that God is not real, so they didn't need to kill their kids anymore.


Our knowledge of sin, therefore, is not invented by man, but we are made aware of it by the law given to us by God and which is imprinted on our own hearts.

Prove it


The law, and what is written on our own hearts objectively and universally agreed, brings out the fact that we are sinners.

Objectively and universally agreed by who?


For the purposes of the proof, you only need concern yourself with that which we observe and see where it leads

I have not observed God, that leads me to conclude that God does not exist.


The exponential progression of conscience and the counterpart reduction of sin on a per capita basis through the millennia proves God, because we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

Ok give me a per capita crime rate for Mongolia in the 3rd century.

[Churchwork]

we put people in jails because of crimes, thats why we call them criminals. Different governments around the world have different laws and punishments for those laws. According to you if sin was real we would all have the same laws and punishments for breaking those laws.
Take for example murder. No nation on earth condones murder. They all punish this crime. Just because the punishments vary, doesn't mean murder is not a sin. Therefore sin exists. I think you should be concerned with your state of mind, because you think rape, murder, stealing is not a sin. It's fair game. Remind me not to be around you when you have a gun in your hand, you could go off at any moment since killing people is not a sin to you. This is where I come and say, you're a bad guy.

You wanted me to prove objective morals don't exist without God. You just proved that if God doesn't exist then objective morality doesn't exist. You think rape, murder and stealing are not sins, whereas others think they are sins. But who is to say which of us is right if there is no God? Anything goes. Relativism rules the day! If God doesn't exist then it doesn't matter. After all, we all meet the same end and cease to exist without consequence for sin after we die.


Mabey those people figured out that God is not real, so they didn't need to kill their kids anymore.
The reason they stopped child sacrifices is because Israel annihilated them. They were annihilated because they refused to stop killing their own children generation after generation. Since a loving God does not condone murder, receiving human sacrifices is not in His nature. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to conclude they rejected the One True God just as atheists do, who also think murder is not a sin? In time, you will like them have to be subjugated to the fiery pits of hell. And your argument will be equally wrong then as it is now claiming murder is not a sin, only that, you won't be able to carry it out anymore, just like the tribes of Canaan can't either.

You wanted me to prove this statement: "Our knowledge of sin, therefore, is not invented by man, but we are made aware of it by the law given to us by God and which is imprinted on our own hearts."

What did I say that preceded the "...therefore"? "You can't have objective morals without God, otherwise morality is" relative, e.g. some people consider murder a sin and others don't such as yourself.


Objectively and universally agreed by who?
By everyone including you. You take exception to being murdered.


I have not observed God, that leads me to conclude that God does not exist.
I didn't ask you to observe God to know if God exists, but rather, observe the evidence of nature always requiring a cause and the exponential progression of conscience leads to the conclusion God exists.


Ok give me a per capita crime rate for Mongolia in the 3rd century.
If you can't find that data after you contact that Mongolian government department of crime, then just observe that human sacrifices were quite prevalent among the nations, but today virtually non-existent, women can vote now just this past century, polygamy is outlawed and there are more democracies than ever before.

[DD2014]

Take for example murder. No nation on earth condones murder. They all punish this crime. Just because the punishments vary, doesn't mean murder is not a sin. Therefore sin exists.

No but the people in EVERY nation are still killing. Someone is condoning it.


I think you should be concerned with your state of mind, because you think rape, murder, stealing is not a sin. It's fair game. Remind me not to be around you when you have a gun in your hand, you could go off at any moment since killing people is not a sin to you. This is where I come and say, you're a bad guy.

"Sins" don't exist. But that does not make rape, murder or stealing right, don't you see? Adding a magical deity adds nothing to why killing, stealing ect. is wrong. It is wrong because it hurts us as a society.

You assume that because I don't get my morals from a magical sky king that I have none, that is ignorant.



You wanted me to prove objective morals don't exist without God. You just proved that if God doesn't exist then objective morality doesn't exist. You think rape, murder and stealing are not sins, whereas others think they are sins.

I'm not saying that they are not sins (well..they aren't) I'm saying that the consept of sin is man made.


But who is to say which of us is right if there is no God? Anything goes. Relativism rules the day!

You have a brain, use it. Don't be stupid, make choises that don't screw people over.


If God doesn't exist then it doesn't matter. After all, we all meet the same end and cease to exist without consequence for sin after we die.

Ya but if you go around killing people chances are you will be killed as well. Is that not a consequence?



The reason they stopped child sacrifices is because Israel annihilated them. They were annihilated because they refused to stop killing their own children generation after generation. Since a loving God does not condone murder, receiving human sacrifices is not in His nature. Therefore, isn't it more reasonable to conclude they rejected the One True God just as atheists do, who also think murder is not a sin?

Really? I didn't know Israel got around to south America?

LOL! Killing to stop the killing. Hypocritical much?


In time, you will like them have to be subjugated to the fiery pits of hell. LOL! Gotta throw the Ol' fiery pit of hell in there.


If you can't find that data after you contact that Mongolian government department of crime, then just observe that human sacrifices were quite prevalent among the nations, but today virtually non-existent, women can vote now just this past century, polygamy is outlawed and there are more democracies than ever before.

It was sarcasm. My point is: You don't know the global crime rate today let alone 10, 20, 500 or 6000 years ago. So don't use incomplete or nonexistant data to prove your consepts.

[Churchwork]

No but the people in EVERY nation are still killing. Someone is condoning it.
Because the person who is committing the crime thinks it is alright, therefore not a sin!? Do you actually believe that? 99+% of people will say murder is wrong, therefore it is a sin. Period. Just because there are some bad apples doesn't mean there are no bad apples.


"Sins" don't exist. But that does not make rape, murder or stealing right, don't you see? Adding a magical deity adds nothing to why killing, stealing ect. is wrong. It is wrong because it hurts us as a society.
The dictionary considers rape, murder and stealing a sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin?r=66) (without any mention of God), so until you can get them to change the definition (since this is the usage commonly used in history, even without mention of God), it stands, whether you like it or not: "any act regarded as a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some moral principle. Any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. To offend against a principle, standard, etc."

No mention of God here exists. All we are first doing is establishing sin exists. Don't assume more than that; don't assume a deity make things better or worse. Whether God gives revelation about these sins or not is not the argument for Step 1 & Step 4 of the 4 Step Proof for God. Try to understand that. Stay on topic. Later if you like we can discern if having a deity makes things better or worse to understand these sins.


You assume that because I don't get my morals from a magical sky king that I have none, that is ignorant.
No I don't believe that. I believe you and other atheists can be moral, e.g. you can help an old lady across the street. Again, that's not what we are discussing. Just stick to the very precise discussion about the very specific 4 step proof for God. In Christianity, moral acts don't save a person, for salvation is not by works. But there is a certain morality of repenting and believing in Christ that does save, the minimum condition for salvation. And atheists don't have this morality, because they prefer their sin nature, selfishness, disobediency and independency to God.


I'm not saying that they are not sins (well..they aren't) I'm saying that the consept of sin is man made.
There really are things that are wrong, that's what a sin is. Did man make it up or God? Who ultimately does it come from? Since God is proven in the 4 Step Proof for God, you know God is ultimately source why these things are wrong. Man didn't create himself.


You have a brain, use it. Don't be stupid, make choises that don't screw people over.
Of course, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the proof for God. Someone thinks rape is acceptable, another person doesn't. In atheism, why is the raper any more wrong than the ones who opposes rape (they both think they have good reasons)? Where is the objective moral values in that? They seem to plead objective moral values only when it is happening to them, so they betray their earlier conviction there is no objective moral values or that objective moral values don't need a God. For objective morals to exist (if you accept this premise), there must be a God who defines those objective moral values, otherwise they are true for some but not others: relativism. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant. God doesn't need you to accept objective moral values for them to be true. What is proven doesn't become unproven by someone who denies objective moral values or objective moral values don't need a God. If most people accept the proof for the reasons given why it is proof then it is proven if it meets the standards of evidentialism, non-contradiction and has the best explanatory scope.


Ya but if you go around killing people chances are you will be killed as well. Is that not a consequence?
Sure, but in a few decades, what does it matter? You meet the same end anyway. Maybe you want to die sooner, so killing people is no problem for you. Nothing really matters all that much in an atheistic world. You can try to think it is has some value, but in the end its all the same. Death and annihilation. No big consequences, not when you compare it to the vastness of what appears to be a never ending universe and a universe that has been around for 13.7 billion years. What's a couple decades?


Really? I didn't know Israel got around to south America?

LOL! Killing to stop the killing. Hypocritical much?
I am only explaining Israel's part. There could be other ways God stopped human sacrifices in other parts of the globe. Since no other method worked generation after generation to stop the murder of children in human sacrifices, that was Israel's responsibility to end those approximately 10 tribes in the land of milk and honey. If a gun is held to your head do you not have a right to defend yourself?


LOL! Gotta throw the Ol' fiery pit of hell in there.
Seems most apt to bring up once and awhile, for you want to be eternally separated from God, so God gives you what you want. Why be upset by it?


It was sarcasm. My point is: You don't know the global crime rate today let alone 10, 20, 500 or 6000 years ago. So don't use incomplete or nonexistant data to prove your consepts.
You don't need to know the exact figures. You can read history to know the crime and murder rate per capita is down significantly. As much as you think these things are happening now, they are much better today than in previous centuries.

To recap:

1) There cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does since we would have approximated into that eternity of the past.

2) Since something can't come from nothing, the universe can't start up all by itself. It requires a cause.

3) Don't bear false witness against God, otherwise you are arguing against something else, not God of the Bible.

4) For the same reason as Step 1, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects outside the natural realm.

Praise the Lord!

[DD2014]

Because the person who is committing the crime thinks it is alright, therefore not a sin!? Do you actually believe that? 99+% of people will say murder is wrong, therefore it is a sin. Period. Just because there are some bad apples doesn't mean there are no bad apples.

If 99% of people say murder is wrong. THEN ITS WRONG! Adding a mystical devine law does nothing. If its wrong, its wrong. If its right, its right.



The dictionary considers rape, murder and stealing a sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin?r=66) (without any mention of God), so until you can get them to change the definition (since this is the usage commonly used in history, even without mention of God), it stands, whether you like it or not: "any act regarded as a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some moral principle. Any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. To offend against a principle, standard, etc."'

I did not see murder, killing, rape or stealing referred to as a sin.


There really are things that are wrong, that's what a sin is

Sin is a word, made by man.


Did man make it up or God? Who ultimately does it come from?

There lies the problem. God won't talk to me (whatever the reason) so I must trust the 6000 year old bronze age towel head that don't know where the rain comes from.


Sure, but in a few decades, what does it matter? You meet the same end anyway. Maybe you want to die sooner, so killing people is no problem for you. Nothing really matters all that much in an atheistic world. You can try to think it is has some value, but in the end its all the same. Death and annihilation. No big consequences, not when you compare it to the vastness of what appears to be a never ending universe and a universe that has been around for 13.7 billion years. What's a couple decades?

Animals have been here longer then we have. They have no morals, they kill, steal and rape. Why don't they go to hell? Why are they not annihilated like you claim would happen to us?


I am only explaining Israel's part. There could be other ways God stopped human sacrifices in other parts of the globe. Since no other method worked generation after generation to stop the murder of children in human sacrifices, that was Israel's responsibility to end those approximately 10 tribes in the land of milk and honey.

So to save the children from being sacrificed, Israel killed the entire tribe, including the children.

Thats stupid. :confused::


Seems most apt to bring up once and awhile, for you want to be eternally separated from God, so God gives you what you want. Why be upset by it?

If upset is the same as Laughing, why not be?


You don't need to know the exact figures. You can read history to know the crime and murder rate per capita is down significantly.

So you should be able to give me a crime rate for the world in a given year.


As much as you think these things are happening now, they are much better today than in previous centuries.

Untill it happens to you. Or your friend (one of my friends got shot 4 times last saterday).

[Churchwork]

If 99% of people say murder is wrong. THEN ITS WRONG! Adding a mystical devine law does nothing. If its wrong, its wrong. If its right, its right.
All we are doing is first establishing objective moral values do exist which I think you agree because you said murder is wrong and you would take offense if someone tried to murder you. Where do objective moral values come from? Did man create them or did God create them? Even if most people changed their minds and accepted murder, would you agree with me in saying murder is still objectively wrong?

Therefore, even if man changed his mind, the objective moral values remain which show us God is the source of them and not man, because there is something intrinsically affecting us that speaks to our conscience that is greater than ourselves even if everyone in our city we lived in accepted murder as acceptable. So objective moral values require the existence of God.

You said: "I did not see murder, killing, rape or stealing referred to as a sin." You would not include the moral principle do not murder, do not rape and do not steal as a transgression, great fault, regrettable action, reprehensible, lapse in judgment? What can one say to you except you are morally decrepit.


Sin is a word, made by man.
It's a word that has meaning in the dictionary definition given. Man couldn't speak words if God didn't give us this ability. A universe without life can't produce that which has life: mind, will emotion, self-consciousness, God-consciousness, conscience, intuition, communion.

The dictionary considers rape, murder and stealing a sin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sin?r=66) (without any mention of God), so until you can get them to change the definition (since this is the usage commonly used in history, even without mention of God), it stands, whether you like it or not: "any act regarded as a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some moral principle. Any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time. To offend against a principle, standard, etc."'


There lies the problem. God won't talk to me (whatever the reason) so I must trust the 6000 year old bronze age towel head that don't know where the rain comes from.
Don't blame people in history because they didn't have as much scientific knowledge as we have today, just as people of the future should not accuse us today for not knowing something we haven't acquired information yet to understand. Don't use this as an excuse to reject God. Just as people from previous millennia knew God exists by observing nature and not needing God to speak to them, we can know God today. Your mistaken assumption is you need God to speak to you in some unbeknownst way. But that's not how God works. Yes, some people receive intuitive revelation or visions, but you can't demand these from God. If God only wants you to realize the objective proof of the resurrection and the universe did not always exist and can't create itself or life, then humbly accept this and if God wants to provide you revelation in a deeper way at some future date, be willing and reading without expectations.

Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data and you can't disprove the 4 Step Proof for God, then accept God exists, was revealed in Christ, and get to know Him by reading His word. If you find the word of God too heavy and need some help, I suggest reading The Spiritual Man (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/SMCFP.htm) which will help you in the dividing of your spirit, soul and body so you are more open to receive revelation in your spirit to walk by your spirit in Christ. This will be your willingness to come to Him with an honest heart instead of complaining all the time. Sense in yourself a selfish impatience. A trillion years is a long time and you want it all now?


Animals have been here longer then we have. They have no morals, they kill, steal and rape. Why are they not annihilated like you claim would happen to us?
I don't claim humans are annihilated. Animals do cease to exist (annihilation) because they don't have God-consciousness. Every soul since the first Adamic man from about six thousand years ago will never cease to exist. They are permanently existing; only a few receive eternal life, the rest eternal damnation. Animals have a certain level of morality, but not made in God's image like man has.

Why do animals kill, steal and rape? It's because of sin that came into the world from the fall of Lucifer. God hated that sin so much He made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. But God wanted man, so He restored creation and in so doing He had to split the firmament, the waters above from below. This was summed up by Day 2 in which was the only day not called a good day, because when this happened unavoidably up came some of those demons that were cast into the deep. So sin still affected the animals in the restoration even before Adam, e.g. one of those demons came into the serpent in the Garden. Animals have had a rough time of it to say the least. There will be no more animals when the New City arrives.

The Bible explains these things as a consequence of sin. You have no explanation other than it is the joy of killing in naturalism and atheism, and there is no sin. You're a bad guy, why God created Hell. If I were you, what I would do is starting reading the Bible very slowly and conscientiously from the beginning, because it is showing you in many various ways you are a sinner. Get the New Living Translation Life Application Study Bible. It is easy to read and the study notes are awesome! It is the number one study study Bible in the world.


So to save the children from being sacrificed, Israel killed the entire tribe, including the children.

Thats stupid.
Nah, it's stupid to let such murder continue for hundreds and thousands of years more. You need a conscience to see this. Just think how corrupted the world would be if it continued. Every week chop chop square in Iran and Saudi Arabia would be extended to anyone as a sacrifice and televised for young children to grow up and hope they get selected one day. Crazy stuff! You really don't see the consequence of sin do you? You have a darkened mind.


If upset is the same as Laughing, why not be?
If that's what you want, you can laugh for eternity burning in Hell. Your choice. Personally, I think you are coo coo for cocoa puffs.


So you should be able to give me a crime rate for the world in a given year.
How can you know that exactly? What you can know is if it was better or worse by the literature you read of historical events. Look at Rome, They crucified people on crosses for miles. A much greater percentage of the population died in wars. you think there is a lot of fighting now with nearly 7 billion souls. War was the status quo in ancient history.


Untill it happens to you. Or your friend (one of my friends got shot 4 times last saterday).
Even if it happens to someone you know, the data doesn't lie. The murder rate per capita was greater then than it is now. Just read ancient literature to see how much killing was going on. There is no comparison to today with nearly 7 billion people.

[DD2014]

All we are doing is first establishing objective moral values do exist which I think you agree because you said murder is wrong and you would take offense if someone tried to murder you. Where do objective moral values come from? Did man create them or did God create them? Even if most people changed their minds and accepted murder, would you agree with me in saying murder is still objectively wrong?

Ok, first let us clear things up a bit. What type of murder are we talking about? Just the act of killing, or premeditated murder?


It's a word that has meaning in the dictionary definition given. Man couldn't speak words if God didn't give us this ability.

Ko ko the gorilla could communicate, she could love, is she also able to be "saved".


Don't blame people in history because they didn't have as much scientific knowledge as we have today, just as people of the future should not accuse us today for not knowing something we haven't acquired information yet to understand.

If they are devinely inspired enough to talk to god, they should know simple science. Instead of superstitiously sacrificing animals for "good luck".


Don't use this as an excuse to reject God. Just as people from previous millennia knew God exists by observing nature and not needing God to speak to them, we can know God today. Your mistaken assumption is you need God to speak to you in some unbeknownst way.

When I said "talk" I didn't mean "speak" more along the lines of, something that cannot be denyed, or a strong pull (if you want to call it that).

The point is, God has not given me anything I would attribute to an all powerful, all loving, all knowing creator (at least not the God of the bible).


Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data

Pick the one you like best.

1.) Highly exaggerated

2.) A story (fictional)


Why do animals kill, steal and rape? It's because of sin that came into the world from the fall of Lucifer. God hated that sin so much He made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1.2. But God wanted man, so He restored creation and in so doing He had to split the firmament, the waters above from below. This was summed up by Day 2 in which was the only day not called a good day, because when this happened unavoidably up came some of those demons that were cast into the deep. So sin still affected the animals in the restoration even before Adam, e.g. one of those demons came into the serpent in the Garden. Animals have had a rough time of it to say the least. There will be no more animals when the New City arrives.

Genesis 1:6-8

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Nope. No Lucifer, demons, or sin mentioned. Try again.


You have no explanation other than it is the joy of killing in naturalism and atheism, and there is no sin.

The joy of killing? Where are you getting this? Personally I am sickened when I read about all the killing in the bible. So please don't assume that I take joy out of something I hope never have to do.


You're a bad guy, why God created Hell.

I'm a bad guy because I don't belive what you belive?


Nah, it's stupid to let such murder continue for hundreds and thousands of years more. You need a conscience to see this. Just think how corrupted the world would be if it continued. Every week chop chop square in Iran and Saudi Arabia would be extended to anyone as a sacrifice and televised for young children to grow up and hope they get selected one day. Crazy stuff! You really don't see the consequence of sin do you? You have a darkened mind.

I just think its funny when you say child sacrifice is bad and in your "Good Book" is says things like this:

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

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)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Killed 42 kids 'cause they called Elisha "baldhead"? Stupid much?
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
(Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Sounds moral, huh? Exactly what a all loving and Just God would do, kill babies.


If that's what you want, you can laugh for eternity burning in Hell. Your choice. Personally, I think you are coo coo for cocoa puffs.
I'm laughing at the thought of burning for eternity in imagination land.


Even if it happens to someone you know, the data doesn't lie. The murder rate per capita was greater then than it is now. Just read ancient literature to see how much killing was going on. There is no comparison to today with nearly 7 billion people. So why don't you tell me what you are reading so I can get incomplete "data" and I can make my own guesses.

[Churchwork]

Ok, first let us clear things up a bit. What type of murder are we talking about? Just the act of killing, or premeditated murder?
Premeditated murder.


Ko ko the gorilla could communicate, she could love, is she also able to be "saved".
She doesn't have God-consciousness so salvation doesn't apply to her.


If they are devinely inspired enough to talk to god, they should know simple science. Instead of superstitiously sacrificing animals for "good luck".
The temporary measure of the animal sacrifice was a symbolic gesture pointing to their coming Messiah who is the once-for-all sacrifice replacing all animal sacrifices. Basic science tells us, sin gets punished and must be atoned for. I thought you said you agreed with science?


When I said "talk" I didn't mean "speak" more along the lines of, something that cannot be denyed, or a strong pull (if you want to call it that).

The point is, God has not given me anything I would attribute to an all powerful, all loving, all knowing creator (at least not the God of the bible).

If you want to be pulled and forced you are shopping in the wrong place. You testify to the proof God of the Bible gave because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection and you still can't bring about a simple replicating life to prove abiogenesis.


Pick the one you like best.

1.) Highly exaggerated

2.) A story (fictional)

Jesus walked the earth, the disciples spent three years with Him, He died on the cross, and they truly believed they saw Him over 40 days after. What's to exaggerate? Paul was a real person, so was Luke, Mark, John and Peter in their written testimonies. The church fathers knew some of them personally and record their martyrdoms, so I am not sure how you get fiction out of it. Enemy attestation from the Jews and Romans don't deny these facts, but report on some of them. You would have to accept all of antiquity as fiction by your claim, but I don't think you do that. You really believe history records certain facts. You're doublestandard betrays you.


Genesis 1:6-8
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Nope. No Lucifer, demons, or sin mentioned. Try again.
Why would you expect Lucifer, demons or sin to be mentioned specifically? The account is focusing on the positive. But you do have to explain why Day 2 was not called a good day like the other days. It's because the demons were cast into the deep and when the split the firmament some came up.


The joy of killing? Where are you getting this? Personally I am sickened when I read about all the killing in the bible. So please don't assume that I take joy out of something I hope never have to do.
God is sick of the killing also, so you agree with God. But try to understand the point. God explains why killing occurs, but in atheism, I am not sure why Hitler is not justified naturalistically for what he did? Why is his acts any better than the allies?


I'm a bad guy because I don't belive what you belive?
You are a bad guy because God proved Himself to you and you still reject Him without just cause.


I just think its funny when you say child sacrifice is bad and in your "Good Book" is says things like this:

If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

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)
These were swift judgments under the law because the evil under the old dispensation was rampant. Without these measures Israel would not have survived as a nation to usher in the Messiah.


Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
This was necessary, because it was a battle zone in Canaan. It was basically kill or be killed. Those idols could have corrupted Israel and extinguished her permanently.


Killed 42 kids 'cause they called Elisha "baldhead"? Stupid much?
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

Isaiah was the most spiritual man alive at the time, the greatest prophet of the OT, so to be attacked like that has grave consequences. It would be comparable to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Again, if Israel let's this kind of attitude run amok, Israel would not have survived. As it was they barely survived as a nation. Hitler almost finally finished them off after being dispersed for 2500 years. It's a miracle they are nation again in 1948 because of those measures take and the law given to them by God. You may say they are wrong, but they remain. You may say Christians are wrong, but God resurrects us and you will be resurrected for Hell. What will you say then?


The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
What other national God speaks against his own people like the Lord of Israel does? You can see why it was a genuine testimony. God hates sin even the sin of of Israel, so they were banished from their land and sent to Babylon. You keep accusing God, but you never see the consequence of sin.


"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
This is God's hatred of sin and idol worshipers.


And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
Egypt enslaved Israel for 430 years and after 9 plagues the Pharaoh still refused to release them. God wanted his people out of Egypt--a type for the world. That's what it took. Otherwise Israel would have been enslaved for hundreds of years more. You're defending this evil? Your problem is you don't think things through because you are clouded by your own immorality and sin nature. The firstborn ate of last remaining grain which was diseased or infected which killed the firstborn.


"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
(Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)

It's conditional. If Israel sins, she won't have victory.


If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
Sin has consequences. Starting to get the picture yet?


Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Children die as a result of sinful nations. These things happen even in your atheist world, but you have no way of explaining it because you deny sin exists. These things are good things as far as an atheist is concerned for what makes them any worse? They are naturally happening according to nature's course.


Sounds moral, huh? Exactly what a all loving and Just God would do, kill babies.

Whose killing babies but at the hands of man? God is just reporting what sin does.


I'm laughing at the thought of burning for eternity in imagination land.
You want to be eternally separated from God, so you will get your wish in the fires of judgment, not natural burning fires that always burn out. You might be confusing the allegory with the physical. What a lame way to reject God.


So why don't you tell me what you are reading so I can get incomplete "data" and I can make my own guesses.
Rome was in a constant state of war, for example. You actully think human sacrifices which was quite prevalent among the nations is a better time than today? I am not sure how I can appeal to your morals if that is what you think.

[DD2014]

Basic science tells us, sin gets punished and must be atoned for.

What type of science are you referring to?


...you still can't bring about a simple replicating life to prove abiogenesis.


And you still can't bring out God.


Enemy attestation from the Jews and Romans don't deny these facts, but report on some of them.

Ok, PM me everything anyone has recorded about Jesus.


Why would you expect Lucifer, demons or sin to be mentioned specifically?

If they are not, how do you know what happened? Is there another book in the bible that I don't know about?


But you do have to explain why Day 2 was not called a good day like the other days.

But why is the first day not good? Did it take God 2 days to get rid of the demons?


You are a bad guy because God proved Himself to you and you still reject Him without just cause.

He has not proved himself to me.


These were swift judgments under the law because the evil under the old dispensation was rampant. Without these measures Israel would not have survived as a nation to usher in the Messiah.


How is a girl that dishonors her father going to compromise Israel's survival?


This was necessary, because it was a battle zone in Canaan. It was basically kill or be killed. Those idols could have corrupted Israel and extinguished her permanently.

So it is ok if innocent people (and babies) get killed as long as your God is the only one being worshiped?


Isaiah was the most spiritual man alive at the time, the greatest prophet of the OT, so to be attacked like that has grave consequences. It would be comparable to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

So Isaiah was better and more important then everyone else? Why? Are people equal, Or are some favored? If I'm not favored would I need to work harder to get the same treatment?


What other national God speaks against his own people like the Lord of Israel does? You can see why it was a genuine testimony. God hates sin even the sin of of Israel, so they were banished from their land and sent to Babylon. You keep accusing God, but you never see the consequence of sin.

With your God someone always ends up dying that had nothing to do with sin. For example, your God kills babies. I think we all know (if sin is real) babies can't sin. So why would God kill children that have not even sinned yet?

The more I read the bible, the less loving and just your God appears.


This is God's hatred of sin and idol worshipers.

How evil could babies and little children be?


Egypt enslaved Israel for 430 years and after 9 plagues the Pharaoh still refused to release them. God wanted his people out of Egypt--a type for the world. That's what it took. Otherwise Israel would have been enslaved for hundreds of years more. You're defending this evil? Your problem is you don't think things through because you are clouded by your own immorality and sin nature. The firstborn ate of last remaining grain which was diseased or infected which killed the firstborn.

So slavery is a worse sin then murder?


It's conditional. If Israel sins, she won't have victory.

But God knows that Israel will sin, why promise something if you know it won't happen? Its called lying.


Sin has consequences. Starting to get the picture yet?

I guess it does, the only problem is that its usually the kids that are killed.


Children die as a result of sinful nations. These things happen even in your atheist world, but you have no way of explaining it because you deny sin exists. These things are good things as far as an atheist is concerned for what makes them any worse? They are naturally happening according to nature's course.

But its ok if it helps out Israel?


Whose killing babies but at the hands of man? God is just reporting what sin does.

Untill God commands the killing.


Rome was in a constant state of war, for example. You actully think human sacrifices which was quite prevalent among the nations is a better time than today? I am not sure how I can appeal to your morals if that is what you think.

So your not going to tell me where you got that "data" from?

[Churchwork]

What type of science are you referring to?
The science that says smoking kills people.


And you still can't bring out God.
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.


Ok, PM me everything anyone has recorded about Jesus.
Why? I don't think I have enough bandwidth.


If they are not, how do you know what happened? Is there another book in the bible that I don't know about?
The Bible talks about what happened. Why do you need more than the 66 books? After 66 books it starts to get cumbersome to carry around.


But why is the first day not good? Did it take God 2 days to get rid of the demons?
The first day is called good. 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.


He has not proved himself to me.
He did prove Himself to you. 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. What else does He have to do? Don't make a selfish request. It will be rejected.


How is a girl that dishonors her father going to compromise Israel's survival?
Just look at Sodom and Gomorrah in rampant fornication.


So it is ok if innocent people (and babies) get killed as long as your God is the only one being worshiped?
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?


So Isaiah was better and more important then everyone else? Why? Are people equal, Or are some favored? If I'm not favored would I need to work harder to get the same treatment?
God values those He can communicate His revelation through. God made us all in His image equal and provides sufficient grace to us all to have the choice to be saved in Christ, but there is also the matter of rewards. Many Christians will lose the reward of reigning with Christ during the 1000 years.


With your God someone always ends up dying that had nothing to do with sin. For example, your God kills babies. I think we all know (if sin is real) babies can't sin. So why would God kill children that have not even sinned yet? The more I read the bible, the less loving and just your God appears.
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. 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? If you prefer this over God getting rid of those 10 tribes, then what does that say about your own morality? You don't think this would be a horrific society that must be done away with? And so those evil tribes if they were allowed to grow by God doing nothing, they would have ultimately destroyed Israel and Jesus would not have been born. Why do you keep defending such evil is the real question?


How evil could babies and little children be?
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 slavery is a worse sin then murder?
They are both an abomination to God, but I would put murder as being worse than slavery.


But God knows that Israel will sin, why promise something if you know it won't happen? Its called lying.
It has happened. Israel is a nation and is getting more land to the Euphrates River day by day. When God gives His warnings, even though it may be rejected (for a time), He still has to do the right thing. 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.


I guess it does, the only problem is that its usually the kids that are killed.
Yes, it is sad so many kids die because of their parents' sin.


But its ok if it helps out Israel?
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?


Untill God commands the killing.
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 you can blow his brains out and save your daughter's mother.

Do you know what you have been doing all this time? Misreading and misunderstand God (Step 3 of the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm)). Lame eh?


So your not going to tell me where you got that "data" from?
Which data specifically? Just curious, did you misspell one word on purpose or was that a genuine mistake in failing to use the spell checker yet again?

[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 (http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/flatlining) 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=veJAnbQdfvA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdOHsG32r1I&feature=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, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-18.htm)3: (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-18.htm)1 (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/josephus/ant-18.htm) "Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war2.html)Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2 (http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war2.html) "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XI (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html)I (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html) 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 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=15.53)XV, 55 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=15.53). 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 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=15.44) 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 (http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html). 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.

[Churchwork]

That is not proof, it is speculation.
Since it is doable, it is a valid explanation. We accept the natural explanation before any supernatural one. You shouldn't first assume some supernatural method especially since you don't even believe in the uncreated creator.


That is in debate.
No, it is not in debate. It's proven.


Please share them.
I would be happy to. Here they are.

What we have concerning Jesus is actually quite impressive (http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3289-Compare-Caesar-Tiberius-and-Jesus-150-Years-After-Their-Deaths). We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider critical thesis that other authors wrote pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. (Clement of Rome's letter to the church in Corinth; 2 Clement whose author is unknown; the seven letters of Igantius; Polycarp's letter to the Philippians; The Martyrdom of Polycarp; Didache; the letter of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Fragments of Papias; the letter of Diognetus; the Apocalypse o Peter (not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi text of similar name); the Gospel of Peter; the Epistula Apostolorum; and the works of Justyn Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, and Melito of Sardis. The four heretical writings are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection-see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 208-15.

Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within 150 years: Joseph, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded in a British Museum). In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death. (see Habermas, Historical Jesus, ch. 9).

A few more fall on the borderline bringing the total non-Christian to 17 non-Christian sources I have in Habermas' Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus. His consummate work is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004).


So none of them saw him, it is all hearsay.
After spending three years with Jesus, Jesus was seen resurrected for 40 days before His ascension. Peter wrote he saw Him resurrected. So did John and Paul. They acknowledge their writing and acknowledge seeing Jesus resurrected. And they mention various others who also saw Jesus resurrected which agrees with the claims of Jude, James, Matthew, Luke and Mark in their writings. Mark even identifies a person in his writings many scholars concede is Mark referring to himself.


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.......

Santa, taking the name of Satan by reworking the letters, is admittedly a fairy tale who was invented by a Roman Catholic as a story he admits. You are missing the point. You are arguing for not enough sources for Jesus, but he is the most documented person in antiquity, so your approach is faulty.

What question did I forget to answer? Nobody in antiquity has an oldest copy dated at its composition or so closely to the time of the vents than for Jesus, so why do single out Jesus? Though Mark and Matthew and John may have started writing when Jesus was still alive, its unreasonable to demand that oldest and original copy to still be preserved. When you have a doublestandard it shows you are wrong.


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.

We know the NT was completed in the first century because the church fathers can reproduce most of it by their quotes in the second century. And several documents like the Didache in the first century also provide many quotes of the NT. So does Clement and Polycarp still in the first century and they personally knew Peter and John.

Since most of the Apostles died in the Neronian persecutions, their books were written before 65 AD and some much earlier than that. The last book written was the book of Revelation which speaks of end-times and was written in 95 AD the last surviving Apostle of the original 12.

The NT books don't even need to refer to each other. If anything that only shows their independency, yet agrees completely to the events the Apostles encountered. For example, Paul's journeys setting up the churches in many towns an many regions agree with the reports by Luke about his travels. I like that the sources are independent of one another and don't mention each other to show they weren't taking from each other you admit. That's a good thing not a bad thing. It shows authenticity not copying. We, therefore, have multiple independent accounts.

Since Luke wrote Acts, a biography about Paul, but did not report his death, Acts would have been completed before 65 AD. His book of Luke he says is his former work. He took from Mark and Mark worked with Peter. So these writings are dated very early. And Paul says these things he received from the Apostles that he is sharing come from his meetings with Peter, James and John. He says so in 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. He was met Peter and James within 5 years after the cross, or even sooner.

You really got nothing. Try again.

[DD2014]

Since it is doable, it is a valid explanation. We accept the natural explanation before any supernatural one.

Yet you accept one supernatural event after another, after another, after another, in your story book.

My naturalistic explanation for Jesus walking on water: See your explanation


No, it is not in debate. It's proven.

It is not proven. The burden of proof is on you, and all you can do is repeat your self. Repeating ones self does not prove anything.


We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider critical thesis that other authors wrote pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we'd have an even larger number.

You can't use the bible to prove its self.

That is like me saying "Conan the Glatiator must be real, because it claims to be true."


A few more fall on the borderline bringing the total non-Christian to 17 non-Christian sources I have in Habermas' Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus. His consummate work is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004).

Its funny, you don't have a non-christian that has actually seen Jesus.


You are arguing for not enough sources for Jesus

No, I am arguing for an eyewitness who is not a christian (and not in the bible).

[Churchwork]

Yet you accept one supernatural event after another, after another, after another, in your story book.
Since you nor I can find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data, the only difference is I given into that fact, and you remain hostile to your Creator.


My naturalistic explanation for Jesus walking on water: See your explanation

That was a sea of water, so you can't put a glass table underneath.


You can't use the bible to prove its self. That is like me saying "Conan the Glatiator must be real, because it claims to be true."

The writers of the Bible are setting out to prove Jesus is God, just like any proof is does to prove something. And it succeeds because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data.


Its funny, you don't have a non-christian that has actually seen Jesus.

Thomas was a non-Christian before seeing Jesus resurrected, so were Paul and James, and I am sure at least some of the 500.


No, I am arguing for an eyewitness who is not a christian (and not in the bible).
The Bible is the contemporary writings of the day about Jesus. You won't find it anywhere else. Those who saw Jesus resurrected could not but turn from doubters to bold proclaimers.

I think what you are asking for is for those who saw Jesus resurrected but still rejected Him and then wrote about Him. But He only appeared to those who would believe. That's brilliant if you think about it. Why give those who would still reject Him the satisfaction. He is seen to His own who would receive Him.

Praise the Lord!

[DD2014]

Since you nor I can find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data, the only difference is I given into that fact, and you remain hostile to your Creator.

I remain hostile to the fact that you can say "you nor I can find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data" and expect that to be your main proof that Jesus is god. Using your logic, everything that cannot be explained must be supernatural. Does that make any sense to you? You are using our LACK OF KNOWLEGE to prove that a magical person is in the sky watching us. Where have we heard this before??? IN EVERY OTHER GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUEMENT!

When did Zeus fall off? When we figured out what makes thunder we didn't need a thunder God anymore.

My point is: Using the LACK of knowege to prove something, is stupid at best. Don't use ignorance to prove a deity.

NEXT!

[DD2014]

The writers of the Bible are setting out to prove Jesus is God, just like any proof is does to prove something.

Or they were bias. Like most people are with the people that they know. If some guy that wasn't Jesus' friend saw him and said "that dude is God" I would consider that an unbias opinion. But that is not the case. You just have a bunch of cult followers that were preaching a bunch of crap.

Do you belive Conan the Glatiator is historical because in Conan the Glatiator it says its historical??? NO! Why? Because a self declaration of truth means nothing!

[DD2014]

Thomas was a non-Christian before seeing Jesus resurrected, so were Paul and James, and I am sure at least some of the 500.

Thomas, Paul and James were christians when they wrote about Jesus. Thus their writings were bias.

Where are the 500's writings?


The Bible is the contemporary writings of the day about Jesus.

They are a complation of bias and exagerated writings from the cult followers of the person they were writing about.


Those who saw Jesus resurrected could not but turn from doubters to bold proclaimers.

So 3 people? That seems quite a small conversion rate for the son of a God.

[Churchwork]

I remain hostile to the fact that you can say "you nor I can find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection data" and expect that to be your main proof that Jesus is god. Using your logic, everything that cannot be explained must be supernatural. Does that make any sense to you? You are using our LACK OF KNOWLEGE to prove that a magical person is in the sky watching us. Where have we heard this before??? IN EVERY OTHER GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUEMENT!
Jesus said the resurrection proof would be the main proof, and I accept it as the proof still holds. This isn't rocket science. If an explanation could have been arrived at, surely someone would have done so by now. The problem you face is you keep holding out for some explanation, but there is such a thing as false humility. Think of it this way. Let's say you were really smart and knew all things had a cause in nature, but there was one last thing you were not sure about. Would you still hold out that maybe this could disprove the existence of the uncreated Creator?


When did Zeus fall off? When we figured out what makes thunder we didn't need a thunder God anymore.
Thunder in ancient Greece had a cause back then as it does now. They only mistake they made was attributing the thunder to a false god. The Creator of the heavens and the rain is uncreated whereas Zeus was not.


My point is: Using the LACK of knowege to prove something, is stupid at best. Don't use ignorance to prove a deity.
There is not a lack of knowledge. We have examined all possibilities, thus we are left with only one possibility. Jesus raised himself from the dead. And the trillions of causes and effects in nature point to the necessity of uncreated creating. Think about that.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, author of Sherlock Homes).

[DD2014]

If I told you that me and 11 friends all witnessed my other friend turn into a bird and fly away. Would you belive me?

[Churchwork]

No, since it is naturalistically impossible.