Epic Debate Over God's Existance

[cuchulain]

So then some guys wrote down that particular piece as a fulfillment of prophecy that they had previously studied?  Yeah that's called confirmation bias.  They wrote in support of a specific agenda.  But if you have evidence of someone without any agenda confirming this as history then we'll talk.

[Dan56]

18 hours ago, cuchulain said:

So then some guys wrote down that particular piece as a fulfillment of prophecy that they had previously studied?  Yeah that's called confirmation bias.  They wrote in support of a specific agenda.  But if you have evidence of someone without any agenda confirming this as history then we'll talk.

 

If they accurately reported what happened, then there's no bias about it.... It was unbiased confirmation of a 1000 year old prophecy. What was their agenda? To prove Roman soldiers gambled?

[cuchulain]

Prove it was accurately reported.

[Dan56]

19 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Prove it was accurately reported.

 

For one, more than one person recorded the same thing. Can you prove that the story of Julius Caesar being stabbed to death by the senate was accurately reported? I personally trust the source, but nearly every historical event is accepted by faith. We really cant even trust that anything on CNN is accurately reported. 

[cuchulain]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

For one, more than one person recorded the same thing. Can you prove that the story of Julius Caesar being stabbed to death by the senate was accurately reported? I personally trust the source, but nearly every historical event is accepted by faith. We really cant even trust that anything on CNN is accurately reported. 

How many people reported it?  What is your source?  When were these reports written?  That about caesar is diversionary.  I dont believe you can prove the sources youve stated exist and are authentic.

[Dan56]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

How many people reported it?  What is your source?  When were these reports written?  That about caesar is diversionary.  I dont believe you can prove the sources youve stated exist and are authentic.

 

5 people mentioned it. King David (Psalms 22:18), Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:24... That's multiple sources... The 4 gospels were written between 40 and 70 AD.

My Caesar comparison was not diversionary, its very relevant in proving ancient history. For example; Very little hard evidence about Cleopatra exists. Most of what know about her today is based on a biography written by Plutarch 200 years after her death. Early accounts of her life were given the anti-Cleopatra, pro-Roman slant promoted by Octavian. So with regards to the details of the crucifixion, I doubt that 500 written reports would meet with your satisfaction? It boils down to whether a person chooses to believe in the accuracy of what people of any time period recorded. Would you believe that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address if there were no pictures? Did Lincoln write it or was it the work of Edward Everett? 

 

 

[cuchulain]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

5 people mentioned it. King David (Psalms 22:18), Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:24... That's multiple sources... The 4 gospels were written between 40 and 70 AD.

My Caesar comparison was not diversionary, its very relevant in proving ancient history. For example; Very little hard evidence about Cleopatra exists. Most of what know about her today is based on a biography written by Plutarch 200 years after her death. Early accounts of her life were given the anti-Cleopatra, pro-Roman slant promoted by Octavian. So with regards to the details of the crucifixion, I doubt that 500 written reports would meet with your satisfaction? It boils down to whether a person chooses to believe in the accuracy of what people of any time period recorded. Would you believe that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address if there were no pictures? Did Lincoln write it or was it the work of Edward Everett? 

 

 

So...you have the originals of the gospels available as proof of when they were written?  Astonishing.  See, i know you think they were written in contemporary timing to christ.  But you take that on faith and dress it as fact.  You can argue as you wish about the gospels, but there isnt evidence that they were written by who they claim, let alone when.  So no, you dont have multiple witnesses.

 

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

So...you have the originals of the gospels available as proof of when they were written?  Astonishing.  See, i know you think they were written in contemporary timing to christ.  But you take that on faith and dress it as fact.  You can argue as you wish about the gospels, but there isnt evidence that they were written by who they claim, let alone when.  So no, you dont have multiple witnesses.

 

 

By your logic, its also safe to presume that Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address either... You can't trust any historical records. There's no solid evidence that Cleopatra ever existed or that Pontius Pilate ever ordered anyone to be executed, etc. The 4 witnesses who recorded the crucifixion were persecuted or killed for their testimony, but none reneged on what they recorded. The fact is, people who lie are generally not willing to die in order to maintain a falsehood. That in itself gives credibility to the truth.

[Key]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

By your logic, its also safe to presume that Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address either... You can't trust any historical records. There's no solid evidence that Cleopatra ever existed or that Pontius Pilate ever ordered anyone to be executed, etc. The 4 witnesses who recorded the crucifixion were persecuted or killed for their testimony, but none reneged on what they recorded. The fact is, people who lie are generally not willing to die in order to maintain a falsehood. That in itself gives credibility to the truth.

Your use of Lincoln does not support your argument. The address was handwritten on his way to the location the speech would be delivered. That draft was saved. Handwriting analysis could, and has, confirm he wrote it. As for the other historical figures, we'll never know, maybe.

[cuchulain]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

By your logic, its also safe to presume that Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address either... You can't trust any historical records. There's no solid evidence that Cleopatra ever existed or that Pontius Pilate ever ordered anyone to be executed, etc. The 4 witnesses who recorded the crucifixion were persecuted or killed for their testimony, but none reneged on what they recorded. The fact is, people who lie are generally not willing to die in order to maintain a falsehood. That in itself gives credibility to the truth.

No.  I simply have a higher standard for proof than 'it was written down long ago after the facr as prophecy, so it must have been true'.

[Pete]

On 8/9/2020 at 5:29 AM, Dan56 said:

 

By your logic, its also safe to presume that Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address either... You can't trust any historical records. There's no solid evidence that Cleopatra ever existed or that Pontius Pilate ever ordered anyone to be executed, etc. The 4 witnesses who recorded the crucifixion were persecuted or killed for their testimony, but none reneged on what they recorded. The fact is, people who lie are generally not willing to die in order to maintain a falsehood. That in itself gives credibility to the truth.

Pontius Pilate is recorded in Roman history for being a cruel man who loved causing outrage among Jews just so he could kill a few more. He is the only leader Caesar ordered back to Rome because of his cruelty. Now you say 4 witnesses. There is no evidence any of Jesus' followers witnessed Pilate judging Jesus. Hey, one gospel said he said nothing and another says he had a full conversation with Pilate.  We are also asked to accept that this thug of a Roman leader did not want to crucify Jesus and yet Roman records show he delighted in killing Jews.

I put this down to the fifth gospel of Dan. After all I am sure you witnessed it if you can say who else was a witness. None of the gospels writers declared they were there with Jesus and Pilate.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Pontius Pilate is recorded in Roman history for being a cruel man who loved causing outrage among Jews just so he could kill a few more. He is the only leader Caesar ordered back to Rome because of his cruelty. Now you say 4 witnesses. There is no evidence any of Jesus' followers witnessed Pilate judging Jesus. Hey, one gospel said he said nothing and another says he had a full conversation with Pilate.  We are also asked to accept that this thug of a Roman leader did not want to crucify Jesus and yet Roman records show he delighted in killing Jews.

I put this down to the fifth gospel of Dan. After all I am sure you witnessed it if you can say who else was a witness. None of the gospels writers declared they were there with Jesus and Pilate.

 

 

You want plausibility and facts.  From the Gospels.     

 

"The Bible is equal parts history, science and pizza."     

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pete]

I was just hoping for some from Dan. Sllly me.He makes so many sweeping statements that don't add up without the gospel of Dan.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 minutes ago, Pete said:

I was just hoping for some from Dan. Sllly me.He makes so many sweeping statements that don't add up without the gospel of Dan.

 

 

You ask too much of Dan.  His world view is seamless.  For Dan to yield on anything, would kill him.  All or nothing.  He can't be wrong about the Gospels.  Seriously, it would destroy him.  It's like asking a man with arthritis to become a contortionist.  He can't do it.  It's not fair to ask.

 

It's Dan.  Do you care what he believes?

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

Pontius Pilate is recorded in Roman history for being a cruel man who loved causing outrage among Jews just so he could kill a few more. He is the only leader Caesar ordered back to Rome because of his cruelty. Now you say 4 witnesses. There is no evidence any of Jesus' followers witnessed Pilate judging Jesus. Hey, one gospel said he said nothing and another says he had a full conversation with Pilate.  We are also asked to accept that this thug of a Roman leader did not want to crucify Jesus and yet Roman records show he delighted in killing Jews.

I put this down to the fifth gospel of Dan. After all I am sure you witnessed it if you can say who else was a witness. None of the gospels writers declared they were there with Jesus and Pilate.

 

 

Despite his biblical fame, little is known about Pilate. Only a small number of historical accounts that date close to his lifetime survive today. With limited information, we cannot understand his psychological makeup or assign an accurate biography of Pilate.

 

When he went before Pilate, Jesus answered some questions but did not defend himself. There is no contradiction here.. When Jesus refuses to speak, it is because the law does not require him to testify against himself. Jesus would not interact with Herod because he was merely hoping to see some miracle. If Jesus had defended himself by speaking or performing miracles, it could have prevented his death. When Jesus refused to speak, it was when he was in the presence of the Jews. When Jesus did speak with Pilate, it was inside his residence, where the Jews would not enter. The conversation was not of his guilt or innocence, but about his identity and his mission.

 

The gospel writers wrote by inspiration ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17), they weren't with Jesus when he met the Samaritan woman at the well, his trial, or crucifixion (accept John). People who choose to believe the biblical account of these things trust what God revealed by revelation more than a persons recollection. The "Word" was and is too important to rely on human memory.

[cuchulain]

Revelation would be a miracle.  This is after the time of Christ.  You have previously said there have been no miracles after the time of Christ.  Also wouldn't the compilation of the modern Bible be a revelation as well?  Well after the time of Christ?

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Despite his biblical fame, little is known about Pilate. Only a small number of historical accounts that date close to his lifetime survive today. With limited information, we cannot understand his psychological makeup or assign an accurate biography of Pilate.

 

When he went before Pilate, Jesus answered some questions but did not defend himself. There is no contradiction here.. When Jesus refuses to speak, it is because the law does not require him to testify against himself. Jesus would not interact with Herod because he was merely hoping to see some miracle. If Jesus had defended himself by speaking or performing miracles, it could have prevented his death. When Jesus refused to speak, it was when he was in the presence of the Jews. When Jesus did speak with Pilate, it was inside his residence, where the Jews would not enter. The conversation was not of his guilt or innocence, but about his identity and his mission.

 

The gospel writers wrote by inspiration ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17), they weren't with Jesus when he met the Samaritan woman at the well, his trial, or crucifixion (accept John). People who choose to believe the biblical account of these things trust what God revealed by revelation more than a persons recollection. The "Word" was and is too important to rely on human memory.

Outside of the bible no historical documents exist that have not been forged that Jesus existed. Jews being there or not there does not mean any of the gospel writers were there. Outside of the bible more is known about Pilate than Jesus. Again we come to the gospel of Dan.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Despite his biblical fame, little is known about Pilate. Only a small number of historical accounts that date close to his lifetime survive today. With limited information, we cannot understand his psychological makeup or assign an accurate biography of Pilate.

 

When he went before Pilate, Jesus answered some questions but did not defend himself. There is no contradiction here.. When Jesus refuses to speak, it is because the law does not require him to testify against himself. Jesus would not interact with Herod because he was merely hoping to see some miracle. If Jesus had defended himself by speaking or performing miracles, it could have prevented his death. When Jesus refused to speak, it was when he was in the presence of the Jews. When Jesus did speak with Pilate, it was inside his residence, where the Jews would not enter. The conversation was not of his guilt or innocence, but about his identity and his mission.

 

The gospel writers wrote by inspiration ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17), they weren't with Jesus when he met the Samaritan woman at the well, his trial, or crucifixion (accept John). People who choose to believe the biblical account of these things trust what God revealed by revelation more than a persons recollection. The "Word" was and is too important to rely on human memory.

 

Uh-huh.     

 

 

 

[Dan56]

16 hours ago, Pete said:

Outside of the bible no historical documents exist that have not been forged that Jesus existed. Jews being there or not there does not mean any of the gospel writers were there. Outside of the bible more is known about Pilate than Jesus. Again we come to the gospel of Dan.

 

Its the gospel according to Luke, Mark, Matthew,  & John....... Not Dan.

 

Why would there be any historical records of a peasant from Nazareth? There's no historical records outside of the Koran about Mohammad, or for that matter, not much about William Shakespeare either. There were at list 70 apostles sent out who testified about Christ, all of Rome eventually accepted his story as gospel. I doubt an imaginary figure could have changed the world.

 

But nothing would convince a person who chooses not to believe, they will deny it all happened no matter the documentation. I simply choose to roll with it and accept by faith that its true. Note that there's no evidence of anyone from the time saying it wasn't true, no disciple who walked with Christ said, "I didn't see any miracles". No one said, "He has not risen from his tomb, here's his body over here".  It should be easy to prove an untruth, but no one from that time period did because they couldn't.

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Its the gospel according to Luke, Mark, Matthew,  & John....... Not Dan.

 

Why would there be any historical records of a peasant from Nazareth? There's no historical records outside of the Koran about Mohammad, or for that matter, not much about William Shakespeare either. There were at list 70 apostles sent out who testified about Christ, all of Rome eventually accepted his story as gospel. I doubt an imaginary figure could have changed the world.

 

But nothing would convince a person who chooses not to believe, they will deny it all happened no matter the documentation. I simply choose to roll with it and accept by faith that its true. Note that there's no evidence of anyone from the time saying it wasn't true, no disciple who walked with Christ said, "I didn't see any miracles". No one said, "He has not risen from his tomb, here's his body over here".  It should be easy to prove an untruth, but no one from that time period did because they couldn't.

Alright.  If it's easy to prove an untruth...prove to me that there aren't little green men on the moon who are really good at hiding.