Tea-Party Candidate: Rape, Incest are Part of God's Plan

[hrmwrm]

Nobody cares what you think, as you've demonstrated a lack of interest in and a lack of respect for anyone else's opinion,

just reciprocating.

 

[MAC1]

if you're going to hide behind the GOD PLAN, then i think you should have to prove the existence of god.
otherwise there is no plan.

Gee! So you think your atheist beliefs are all that and a bag of chips? Let me remind you that scientists are clueless when it comes to the origin of the universe. So, you continue to worship your religion called science, and I'll continue to believe in Jesus Christ. You see, you can have your religion, and I can have mine.

Deal?!

 

[hrmwrm]

Gee! So you think your atheist beliefs are all that and a bag of chips? Let me remind you that scientists are clueless when it comes to the origin of the universe. So, you continue to worship your religion called science, and I'll continue to believe in Jesus Christ. You see, you can have your religion, and I can have mine.

Deal?!

sure. i've never said somebody can't believe what they like.
and, science is not a religion, atheism doesn't need science to validate it, and there is no evidence for the existance of jesus.
but you enjoy.

 

[fossten]

science is not a religion

It is these days, when NASA is in charge of Islamic relations, Gaia is worshiped via Climategate, and evolution requires more faith than Creationism.

And, let's get something straight - you deny that Jesus existed? Really? No evidence? Do you mean no 'scientific' evidence, or no evidence whatsoever? Do you dismiss historical evidence? If so, do you dismiss everything that has no physical evidence? If not, Flavius Josephus would disagree with you.

 

[hrmwrm]

you mean the forged passage that doesn't appear in his works until Eusebius quotes it? no other christian fathers before him use it.
many modern christian scholars agree it is a forged passage.

there are no writings of jesus in his time.

 

[fossten]

you mean the forged passage that doesn't appear in his works until Eusebius quotes it? no other christian fathers before him use it.
many modern christian scholars agree it is a forged passage.

there are no writings of jesus in his time.

Many modern Christian scholars? Really? Okay, I'll bite - give me a list along with their credentials. I want to see CVs.

This is what happens when you spend too much time on atheist websites - you become myopic and start saying absurd things.

By the way, do you believe in evolution? Because there is no evidence of it and no writings about it before the 1800s.

 

[hrmwrm]

i'll quote from a pdf i have, dealing with ancient writers.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: "There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition." Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder." The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, "another sad calamity," refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

which reads as follows

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3).

it doesn't fit, and isn't in Josephus' style.
The early christian fathers were not acquainted with it. justin martyr, terullian, clement of alexandria, and origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time.
it is never used until Eusebius quotes it.

Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

"It interrupts the narrative.

"The language is quite Christian.

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) especially states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: "This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist" (Lardner's Works, vol. I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine" (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i)."

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says: "The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance" (Kneeland's Review, p. 169).

Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his Gibbon's Rome (Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses."

Cannon Farrar, who has written in ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: "The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious" (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe."

"There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious -- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain" (ibid).

Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus says: "The passage cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given cause for it" (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).

Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it "must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour."

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: "Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his 'Jewish Antiquities' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian apologists, says: "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

"Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious" (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

Another passage in Josephus, relating to the younger Ananus, who was high priest of the Jews in 62 A.D., reads as follows:

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent; he was also of the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all of the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" (Antiquities, Book XX, chap. ix, sec. I).

This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, "who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter of secondary importance.

Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

"I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

"Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord's brother.

"It interrupts the narrative.

"The language is quite Christian.

"It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

"It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

"Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) especially states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

"Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

"But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ" (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: "This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist" (Lardner's Works, vol. I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: "If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too" (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

"Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine" (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:

"This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i)."

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says: "The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance" (Kneeland's Review, p. 169).

Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his Gibbon's Rome (Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses."

Cannon Farrar, who has written in ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: "The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious" (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

The following, from Dr. Farrar's pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe."

"There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious -- one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain" (ibid).

Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus says: "The passage cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given cause for it" (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).

Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it "must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour."

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: "Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his 'Jewish Antiquities' that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America's ablest Christian apologists, says: "Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

"Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious" (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

Another passage in Josephus, relating to the younger Ananus, who was high priest of the Jews in 62 A.D., reads as follows:

"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper and very insolent; he was also of the sect of Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all of the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" (Antiquities, Book XX, chap. ix, sec. I).

This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, "who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such. Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note. Some Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter of secondary importance.

The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or later.

Those who affirm the genuineness of this clause argue that the James mentioned by Josephus was a person of less prominence than the Jesus mentioned by him, which would be true of James, the brother of Jesus Christ. Now some of the most prominent Jews living at this time were named Jesus. Jesus, the son of Damneus, succeeded Ananus as high priest that very year; and Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, a little later succeeded to the same office.

To identify the James of Josephus with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is to reject the accepted history of the primitive church which declares that James the Just died in 69 A.D., seven years after the James of Josephus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim.

Whiston himself, the translator of Josephus referring to the event narrated by the Jewish historian, admits that James, the brother of Jesus Christ, "did not die till long afterward."

The brief "Discourse Concerning Hades," appended to the writings of Josephus, is universally conceded to be the product of some other writer -- "obviously of Christian origin" -- says the Encyclopedia Britannica.

josephus wrote pages about petty thieves, yet dismisses jesus with 12 lines?
so, got anybody else who isn't disputed?

 

[fossten]

Let it be noted that you still have not answered my questions, and that you are now moving the goalposts. If you aren't interested in a meaningful discussion, then keep being dismissive. Nobody is forcing you to believe that Jesus existed - but you cannot make a compelling argument that he did not without ignoring quite a bit of logic and historical evidence, despite your efforts to dismiss such writings. Now you're actually deciding the standard length of historical evidence - and you haven't the credibility to do so.

Dennis Marcellino in his book "Why are We here?" points out a strong circumstantial point of logic in his book. “Why would the apostles allow themselves to be martyred in such horrible ways for saying Jesus existed when they knew that was false? Instead they said they were eyewitnesses of Jesus' miracles and resurrection. And they all were martyred separate from each other. It could be said that one of them was crazy and suicidal...but it would be hard to make the case that ALL of them were (except John, who wasn't martyred but was exiled to the island of Patmos instead).”

Marcellino then quotes current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s humorous way of pointing out how absurd it is to conclude that the apostles didn’t really witness the resurrection like they said they did. He said: “We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of ‘the sophisticated world’. The ‘wise’ do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. It is really quite absurd [to them]. The Ascension had to be made up by groveling enthusiasts as part of their plan to get themselves martyred .”


Respected historian Will Durant argued: “That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.”

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, JOSEPHUS, BOOK XX, SEC. 200)

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, THE NEW ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus "(1976), MACROPÆDIA, VOL. 10, P. 145.

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.

As it did with the Hebrew Scriptures, archaeology has brought to light many interesting artifacts in support of the inspired record contained in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

For instance –

Pontius Pilate Inscription. It was in 1961 that the first archaeological find was made with reference to Pontius Pilate. ( the person who put Jesus to death) This was a stone slab located at Caesarea, which bore in Latin the name of Pontius Pilate

Lucian of Samosata
Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.

Suetonius
Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Thallus and Phlegon
Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.

Mara Bar-Serapion
Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!


Martyr
Justin Martyr, born A.D. 100 in Palestine, called himself a Samaritan but was probably of Greek or Roman ancestry. A well-educated philosopher, he studied the doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and the Stoics, but decided Christianity was the only philosophy that was "safe and profitable." When forced to defend his beliefs to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, he referred the emperor to the report written by Pontius Pilate at the time of Jesus' crucifixion for details of the incident--a report which Martyr presumed must have been on file in the imperial archives but which has unfortunately been lost through the centuries. Martyr, of course, was killed for his beliefs.

The four Gospels
The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.

Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously.

 

[hrmwrm]

Cornelius Tacitus
Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He .....

Tacitus

In July, 64 A.D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the "Annals" of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:

"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also: whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified. Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man" (Annals, Book XV, sec. 44). This passage, accepted as authentic by many, must be declared doubtful, if not spurious, for the following reasons:

1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers.

2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.

3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.

4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.

6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century.

7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus.

8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.

9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.

10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.

11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus.

12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century.

13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."

14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium.

Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate, and which I have italicized, is an interpolation. Whatever may be said of the remainder of this passage, this sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence.

finish later.

 

[fossten]

Don't bother, I'm not interested in reading your posts since you don't read mine.

You’re only reading, seeing, and believing what you want to. You’re ignoring many of the facts that have been laid out here. So your argument, or attempts at debate are invalid.

 

[foxpaws]

This is what happens when you spend too much time on atheist websites - you become myopic and start saying absurd things.

By the way, do you believe in evolution? Because there is no evidence of it and no writings about it before the 1800s.

Foss - do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Until Copernicus in the 16th century, the western world pretty much was geocentric in belief.

There were Greeks who seemed to grasp the concept of the Sun being at the center of the solar system, just as there were Greeks that had a philosophical notion that there is descent with modification. The Catholic Church and the Middle Ages certainly took care of squashing any progression along either of those lines of thought.

And there certainly were writings about evolution before the 1800s - Kant, Linnaeus...

The evidence for evolution was there - we just had to get beyond the church to allow science to present its case. Just as the church balked at a heliocentric solar system, it also balks at evolution. Now, over 400 years after Copernicus we sort of snicker when we think of people believing that the earth was the center of the universe. Will the same be true in 2336 regarding evolution? Will our 'future selves' be snickering slightly when they look back at the early 2000s and reading how people still believed in creationism, or I.D.?

 

[04SCTLS]

One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth

Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much

By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: August 30, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html


CHICAGO - When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots - in terms not of money, but of knowledge.

Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it. His findings are not encouraging.

While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.

Over the last three decades, Dr. Miller has regularly surveyed his fellow citizens for clients as diverse as the National Science Foundation, European government agencies and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. People who track Americans' attitudes toward science routinely cite his deep knowledge and long track record.
"I think we should pay attention to him," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, who cites Dr. Miller's work in her efforts to advance the cause of evolution in the classroom. "We ignore public understanding of science at our peril."

Rolf F. Lehming, who directs the science foundation's surveys on understanding of science, calls him "absolutely authoritative."
Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation's public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was enough "if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew where the fence should be built."
"Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty effective citizen."
No more. "Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases - the world is a little different," he said.
It was the nuclear power issue that first got him interested in public knowledge of science, when he was a graduate student in the 1960's. "The issue then was nuclear power," he said. "I used to play tennis with some engineers who were very pro-nuclear, and I was dating a person who was very anti-nuclear. I started doing some reading and discovered that if you don't know a little science it was hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism would not make sense to you."
Devising good tests to measure scientific knowledge is not simple. Questions about values and attitudes can be asked again and again over the years because they will be understood the same way by everyone who hears them; for example, Dr. Miller's surveys regularly ask people whether they agree that science and technology make life change too fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).
But assessing actual knowledge, over time, "is something of an art," he said. He varies his questions, as topics come and go in the news, but devises the surveys so overall results can be compared from survey to survey, just as SAT scores can be compared even though questions on the test change.
For example, he said, in the era of nuclear tests he asked people whether they knew about strontium 90, a component of fallout. Today, he asks about topics like the workings of DNA in the cell because "if you don't know what a cell is, you can't make sense of stem cell research."

More here
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx

Four out of Five Americans Know Earth Revolves Around Sun
Probing a more universal measure of knowledge, Gallup also asked the following basic science question, which has been used to indicate the level of public knowledge in two European countries in recent years: "As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?" In the new poll, about four out of five Americans (79%) correctly respond that the earth revolves around the sun, while 18% say it is the other way around. These results are comparable to those found in Germany when a similar question was asked there in 1996; in response to that poll, 74% of Germans gave the correct answer, while 16% thought the sun revolved around the earth, and 10% said they didn't know. When the question was asked in Great Britain that same year, 67% answered correctly, 19% answered incorrectly, and 14% didn't know.

______________________________________________________________-

You spoke too soon foxy.
Some people still believe the sun revolves around the earth
I wonder who these 20% of clueless americans are.
Probably part of the proudly untutored.

 

[fossten]

Foss - do you believe the earth revolves around the sun? Until Copernicus in the 16th century, the western world pretty much was geocentric in belief.

There were Greeks who seemed to grasp the concept of the Sun being at the center of the solar system, just as there were Greeks that had a philosophical notion that there is descent with modification. The Catholic Church and the Middle Ages certainly took care of squashing any progression along either of those lines of thought.

And there certainly were writings about evolution before the 1800s - Kant, Linnaeus...

The evidence for evolution was there - we just had to get beyond the church to allow science to present its case. Just as the church balked at a heliocentric solar system, it also balks at evolution. Now, over 400 years after Copernicus we sort of snicker when we think of people believing that the earth was the center of the universe. Will the same be true in 2336 regarding evolution? Will our 'future selves' be snickering slightly when they look back at the early 2000s and reading how people still believed in creationism, or I.D.?

No, they'll likely be as discredited as the eugenics crowd is - and probably lumped in with them.

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution - only biased, filtered interpretation of physical remains and computer models that have no basis in reality. Still waiting for that missing link.

 

[foxpaws]

No, they'll likely be as discredited as the eugenics crowd is - and probably lumped in with them.

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution - only biased, filtered interpretation of physical remains and computer models that have no basis in reality. Still waiting for that missing link.

Just as Copernicus' ideas were claimed as heresy... Galileo was convicted of heresy for going against the Bible and following Copernicus - that was the crime he was 'guilty' of - that is why he spent a large part of his latter years under house arrest. He went against the Bible.

Isn't that similar to evolution - it goes against the Bible - against God's word.

I certainly feel that creationism will be likely as discredited as the flat earth crowd is today - and probably lumped in with them.

Foss - God is no less if you follow the path of evolution, ID or creationism - or do you believe that somehow He will be 'less' as evolution becomes more and more accepted as fact? The church certainly tried to hold onto the geocentric ideal - the idea that the earth/man was God's chosen center as their 'fact'. That a heliocentric model would lessen us, and our God. But, that wasn't the case. Truth is what matters... the truth that we aren't the center of the universe was more important than holding onto an archaic religious based ideal. It was the way astronomy was advanced. You seem to be afraid of finding truths, that somehow it will lessen God - it won't. Biology advances as evolution became accepted, with no lessening of God.

 

[fossten]

Just as Copernicus' ideas were claimed as heresy... Galileo was convicted of heresy for going against the Bible and following Copernicus - that was the crime he was 'guilty' of - that is why he spent a large part of his latter years under house arrest. He went against the Bible.

Isn't that similar to evolution - it goes against the Bible - against God's word.

No, he did not. I'd love to hear your argument that the Bible argues geocentrism.

 

[foxpaws]

No, he did not. I'd love to hear your argument that the Bible argues geocentrism.

ohhhh.... dueling Bible verse - I get to go first - Bible supports geocentricism...

Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
-1 Chronicles 16:30

Your turn foss - your verse that shows that the earth revolves around the sun...

Oh, and yes, according to the church, and their priests' interpretation of the Bible, Galileo was a heretic. He was going against the Bible's support of geocentricism - and to keep from going to prison and being threatened with torture he publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the earth moves around the sun.

 

[hrmwrm]

Don't bother, I'm not interested in reading your posts since you don't read mine.

obviously i do, as i'm rebutting it.

You’re only reading, seeing, and believing what you want to. You’re ignoring many of the facts that have been laid out here. So your argument, or attempts at debate are invalid

more of that irony.

you are not trying to debate an arguement with me so much as try to evangelize me.
you're the believer. prove it real.
otherwise, it's only in the thought of the believer as to it's reality.


and my part for flat earth biblical quotes

Matthew 4.8 the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory.

from a high mountain, this is only possible if the earth is flat.

 

[fossten]

ohhhh.... dueling Bible verse - I get to go first - Bible supports geocentricism...

Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
-1 Chronicles 16:30

Your turn foss - your verse that shows that the earth revolves around the sun...

More like 'dueling websites' I'm sure.

1. Your translation is flawed - this is the KJV:

30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

2. You took the verse out of context, as the meaning of the passage is talking about the world's population, not the physical planet. This is a praise from Asaph the psalmist, and he's not making a claim about cosmology, but referring to the stability of mankind when it worships God.

Nice try, fail. What website did you get that out of context reference from, Vapo-rub? I know you didn't know the verse on your own.

26 For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 27 Glory and honour are in his presence; strength and gladness are in his place. 28 Give unto the LORD, ye kindreds of the people, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 29 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness. 30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. 31 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth. 32 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof: let the fields rejoice, and all that is therein. 33 Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth.

As far as my verse - no, it's your claim, so it's your burden of proof.

You haven't met it yet.

Oh, and yes, according to the church, and their priests' interpretation of the Bible, Galileo was a heretic.

You mean according to the CATHOLIC church. You know where I stand regarding the Catholic church. Wouldn't be the first time the priests misinterpreted something.

He did not go against the Bible per your claim. FAIL again. But it's not surprising that your secular mind would equate 'Bible' with 'church' and 'church' with 'Catholic church.'

In the middle ages and well into the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic Church did teach geocentrism, but was that based upon the Bible? The Church’s response to Galileo (1564–1642) was primarily from the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC) and other ancient Greek philosophers. It was Augustine (AD 354–430), Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) and others who ‘baptized’ the work of these pagans and termed them ‘pre-Christian Christians’. This mingling of pagan science and the Bible was a fundamental error for which the Church eventually paid a tremendous price.

Ponder this verse:

Job 26:7 (King James Version)

7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

And this one:

Psalm 103:12 (King James Version)

12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

 

[hrmwrm]

Pontius Pilate Inscription. It was in 1961 that the first archaeological find was made with reference to Pontius Pilate. ( the person who put Jesus to death) This was a stone slab located at Caesarea, which bore in Latin the name of Pontius Pilate

that proves pontius pilate existed.
he was not in dispute.

Josephus
Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!

who's not reading who's posts?
can't put up with something that might upset your limited world view?

Another proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during and immediately following the time he is said to have existed.

That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. A Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed -- have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.

The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:

Josephus
Philo-Judaeus
Seneca
Pliny the Elder
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Hermogones
Valerius Maximus
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Appian
Theon of Smyrna
Phlegon
Pompon Mela
Quintius Curtius
Lucian
Pausanias
Valerius Flaccus
Florus Lucius
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Damis
Aulus Gellius
Columella
Dio Chrysostom
Lysias
Appion of Alexandria


Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He was born in 37 A.D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was, for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian's pen.

Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering the time of Christ's reputed existence. This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: "He [Jesus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did" (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

Judea, where occurred the miraculous beginning and marvelous ending of Christ's earthly career, was a Roman province, and all of Palestine is intimately associated with Roman history. But the Roman records of that age contain no mention of Christ and his works. The Greek writers of Greece and Alexandria who lived not far from Palestine and who were familiar with its events, are silent also.

These and a hundred other miracles make up to a great extent this so-called Gospel History of Christ. To disprove the existence of these miracles is to disprove the existence of this Christ.

Canon Farrar makes this frank admission: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the Gospels are untrustworthy" (Witness of History to Christ, p. 25).

Dean Mansel thus acknowledges the consequences of the successful denial of miracles: "The whole system of Christian belief with its evidences,...all Christianity in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of Christ, is overthrown" (Aids to Faith, p. 3).

Dr. Westcott says: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous" (Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 34).

A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible and incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated truth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by special providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one truth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended, even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles of Christ required a suspension of Nature's laws; and the suspension of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of this supernatural and miracle-performing Christ, except as a creature of the human imagination, is incredible and impossible.

Hume's masterly argument against miracles has never been refuted: "A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable that all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of Nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words, a miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of Nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die suddenly, because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against any miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit the appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle" (Essay on Miracles).

 

[hrmwrm]

Isaiah 40:21 Have you not known? have yet not heard? has it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

40:22 It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants of it are as grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in;

earth's getting flatter.

Daniel 4:10 Thus were the visions of my head on my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and the height of it was great.

4:11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height of it reached to the sky, and the sight of it to the end of all the earth.

you can't see a tree to the END of ALL earth, unless the earth is flat.

 

[shagdrum]

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

I'm sorry, it strikes me as funny when someone who is unable to understand most of what Hume says cites Hume.

 

[fossten]

you can't see a tree to the END of ALL earth, unless the earth is flat.

It's always amusing when an atheist who doesn't understand the difference between a vision and reality tries to quote the Bible.:bowrofl: Not only that, but the view of a pagan in the Bible is not necessarily endorsed by the Bible. FAIL.

 

[fossten]

from a high mountain, this is only possible if the earth is flat.

Weak.

Aside from whatever opinion you have of the Bible, the fact is, it would actually be impossible for the supernatural to be absent during a meeting between Jesus and the devil, as described in Matthew 4:1-8. How else would the devil manage to find Jesus in the desert in Matthew 4:3? How else would the devil bring Jesus to the 'the highest point of the temple' in Matthew 4:5? And how else would he transport Jesus to the 'very high mountain' in Matthew 4:8?

Matthew's portrayal of the meeting between Jesus and the devil involves the supernatural. So how did the devil represent to Jesus 'all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor'? The answer seems obvious: by means of the supernatural.

So why does the devil take Jesus up to a 'very high mountain' when he could have used his supernatural powers in a valley, or in a plain, etc., to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world? Because, a king is elevated. It is the king who has the highest seat in a palace. It is the king who has the highest seat in a coliseum. It is the king to whom others lower themselves by bowing.

So if the devil is going to tempt someone by offering to make him the king of the world, where else would be more appropriate than the top of a 'very high mountain?'

Consider the succession of temptations in Matthew 4:1-11:

• The first takes place in a desert.

• The second involves the highest point on the Temple in Jerusalem.

• And the third takes place on a mountain.

The pattern is clear: As the loftiness of the temptation increases, so does the height from which it is offered.

But, for the sake of argument, what if a person, who lived during the time of Jesus, actually thought that the earth was flat? Would that person really think that if he stood on a high mountain that he would be able to see the entire world - all the kingdoms in their splendor?

That would be easy to doubt. You don't have to be a 21st-century scientist to realize that there are limits as to how far the human eye can perceive detail and color. Anyone standing on a hilltop overlooking a valley, or standing on a shoreline looking out to the sea, would realize that the human eye can see only so far before details are washed out into the horizon.

Even a person living in ancient times would have realized that he could not see far enough, under any normal circumstances, to see all of the kingdoms of the world from any one vantage point.

Remember, the ancients traveled by foot. They often measured their journeys by the number of days that it took to complete the trip. The Bible records many examples of this. A man living in ancient times, taking a journey that lasted a day or more, would have realized that even when there are no trees or mountains or hills to obstruct your view, you still can't see your destination point at the start of your journey.

You really need to stop getting your info from www.atheistpussy.org.

 

[fossten]

you are not trying to debate an arguement with me so much as try to evangelize me.

Don't flatter yourself. I don't even know you.

Besides, you're in so much denial that you wouldn't be worth the effort.

Trust me, you're beyond evangelizing.

 

[hrmwrm]

Alluding to Christ's miracles, M. Renan, a reverential admirer of Jesus of Nazareth, says: "Observation, which has never been once falsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times and countries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable of testing its miraculous character.... It is not, then, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal experience, that we banish miracles from history" (Life of Jesus, p. 29).

Christianity arose in what was preeminently a miracle-working age. Everything was attested by miracles, because nearly everybody believed in miracles and demanded them. Every religious teacher was a worker of miracles; and however trifling the miracle might be when wrought, in this atmosphere of unbounded credulity, the breath of exaggeration soon expanded it into marvelous proportions.

To show more clearly the character of the age which Christ illustrates, let us take another example, the Pythagorean teacher, Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of the Galilean. According to his biographers -- and they are as worthy of credence as the Evangelists -- his career, particularly in the miraculous events attending it, bore a remarkable resemblance to that of Christ. Like Christ, he was a divine incarnation; like Christ his miraculous conception was announced before his birth; like Christ he possessed in childhood the wisdom of a sage; like Christ he is said to have led a blameless life; like Christ his moral teachings were declared to be the best the world had known; like Christ he remained a celibate; like Christ he was averse to riches; like Christ he purified the religious temples; like Christ he predicted future events; like Christ he performed miracles, cast out devils, healed the sick, and restored the dead to life; like Christ he died, rose from the grave, ascended to heaven, and was worshiped as a god.

The Christian rejects the miraculous in Apollonius because it is incredible; the Rationalist rejects the miraculous in Christ for the same reason. In proof of the human character of the religion of Apollonius and the divine character of that of Christ it may be urged that the former has perished, while the latter has survived. But this, if it proves anything, proves too much. If the survival of Christianity proves its divinity, then the survival of the miracle-attested faiths of Buddhism and Mohammedanism, its powerful and flourishing rivals, must prove their divinity also. The religion of Apollonius languished and died because the conditions for its development were unfavorable; while the religions of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed lived and thrived because of the propitious circumstances which favored their development.

With the advancement of knowledge the belief in the supernatural is disappearing. Those freed from Ignorance, and her dark sister, Superstition, know that miracles are myths. In the words of Matthew Arnold, "Miracles are doomed; they will drop out like fairies and witchcraft, from among the matter which serious people believe" (Literature and Dogma).

What proved the strength of Christianity in an age of ignorance is proving its weakness in an age of intelligence. Christian scholars themselves, recognizing the indefensibility and absurdity of miracles, endeavor to explain away the difficulties attending their acceptance by affirming that they are not real, but only apparent, violations of Nature's laws; thus putting the miracles of Christ in the same class with those performed by the jugglers of India and Japan. They resolve the supernatural into the natural, that the incredible may appear credible. With invincible logic and pitiless sarcasm, Colonel Ingersoll exposes the lameness of this attempt to retain the shadow of the supernatural when the substance is gone:

"Believers in miracles should not try to explain them. There is but one way to explain anything, and that is to account for it by natural agencies. The moment you explain a miracle it disappears. You should not depend upon explanation, but assertion. You should not be driven from the field because the miracle is shown to be unreasonable. Neither should you be in the least disheartened if it is shown to be impossible. The possible is not miraculous."

Miracles must be dismissed from the domain of fact and relegated to the realm of fiction. A miracle, I repeat, is impossible. Above all this chief of miracles, The Christ, is impossible, and does not, and never did exist.

still believe in miracles?