questions and answers anyone?

[Drich0150]

There are no contemporary writings about Jesus. 

Well that's BS. The book of luke is by defination a contempory writing of Christ. but because it goes into detail it is brushed off as a religious writting. As is everyother book from the 3rd century on.

Why? a wisman asks..

Because in the 3rd century the church callout to the furthest reaches of the empire and demanded all writing of christ be compiled for review, so that the ultimate end the bible maybe compiled. So all manuscript Religious and otherwise was turned over to the church. where is this stuff now? under the Vatican city under heavy guard and lock and key. yet because the church retains all copies (upon the tens of thousands of manuscripts) none of it counts in the single minded.

His existence is not shown in any records outside the bible.

That is not true the quran and the book of moron both speak of Him, and neither are big fans. not to mention you seem to be counting the bible as a singular text. it's not. there are over 25,000 manuscripts that support the bible. not to mention the vatican has over 50K more manuscripts dealing with tradition roles preists skirmishes daily reports ceremony historical recording from the first and second centry on the day to day of CHRISTIAN activity. No Christ no Christianity no 50K manuscripts of early Christianity. And again before the bible was compiled luke is a shinning example of a non partisan independent historical source.

then in the 1st century tactius irecord "christ suffered and died under pilate." as an offical roman record of the event.
Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

  Everything about him is written long after his alleged existence.

that's not true at all. Luke was written with in 10 years.

Julius Caesar, on the other hand is well-documented by contemporaries, civil records and even enemies.

are you sure???
Manuscript support lies behind these sources. And this is where things get especially interesting. Around 12 manuscripts are essential for determining the wording of Caesar’s account. The oldest manuscript is from the ninth centuryâ€"a full 900 years removed from the actual events. The list extends to manuscripts from the 12th century. Cicero’s speeches have an even older pedigree. They have about 15 manuscripts ranging from AD 400 to 800. Sallust’s account has around 20 manuscripts from the 10th and 11th centuries. Plutarch’s Lives is also mostly divided across six key manuscripts that range from the 10th and 11th centuries. Suetonius’s manuscript is dated AD 820. Classics scholars build much of our understanding of Caesar around these sources, even though their manuscript traditions contain significant gaps of time.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sources-for-caesar-and-jesus-compared

2.  Prove Masada actually happened.

"https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/masada-desert-fortress
Josephus seems to be on board."

Josephus Flavius is known to be a pathological liar. And fictionalist.  PBS Frontline http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/masada.html effectively refuted his false description of the event.  It never happened.

So let me get this straight... you are attempting to use a tertiary source material (A pbs documentry) to refute primary source material and discredit a primary source? sorry not sorry... yur going to have to do better than that. Basically you have a world renoun and recognized 1st century historian. you are trying to take down with a collect 'nut-huh' from people who don't like what he has to say.

3.  Prove the Flood.

"http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533"

Evidence shows that there was an event that connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea.  It occurred about 5000 BC, way before the historical biblical times.  It was a local, not worldwide event.

If that was the know world then it would indeed be a world wide event. Remember the bible at that point is being written to the OT Jew. for the OT jew the whole world was indeed under water.

Evidence suggests that local inhabitants would have had to relocate to higher ground frequently, but not have been overwhelmed by flood waters.   

I saw a documentary that show a sat/map of literally hundreds of potential city sites all on the bottom of the Mediterranean sea. maybe it was on the last link I gave you, but anyway if the Mediterranean bason as described preglacial flood happened it would have been more like the flood depicted in "Evan almighty" where a natural damn held back hundreds if not thousands of years of glacial melt and more or less created the Mediterranean sea. either way you wanted evidence of a world wide flood which fits the parameters of the account of genesis this does fit. It may not fit what russle crowe and hollywood tells you happened, but so what.

The refilling of the Mediterranean Sea has also been suggested as “The Flood”, but that was 5.3 million years ago…

says... carbon dating the water?

Your link does not prove what you think it does.

no you are looking for hollywood and I am showing you what to a single person with no other knoweledge of the world he lives in, than what he himself has experienced, could be an end of the world flood.

4.  Adam and Eve had 3 sons.

"the bible said they eventually had more sons and daughters."

Genesis 5:3,4  Yeah, you got me on that.  I must have missed that part.  I’ll do you a kindness, though,  and not explore the “From the monkey people who evolved outside the garden while Adam and eve were safe inside apart from all of the rest of creation” suggesting they mated with monkeys.

they didn't mate with monkeys... they mated with evolved homosapeians who developed outside of the garden. Remember Adam was Day three man and was placed in the garden, Day 6 man was a souless being who developed outside the garden/evolved/monkey man

Unless you WANT to explain that part…

done.

5.  If the Universe CAN occur naturally (and it can), why is a deity required for it?

"and if it can't?"

Then a deity is not required.  And if a step in a process isn’t required, then it probably doesn’t exist.  Occam’s Razor.
[/quote]

Then simply show me an example of a naturally occouring universe.
if said phenomena is indeed naturally occurring then why stop at one? isn't that the definition of naturally occurring.. that these things just pop off? if it is a one off then the universe is not naturally occurring it is an anomaly, which means at the very least we do not know what causes it. or to a wiser man if by examining the sum total of it's complete part you can determine the catylist or cause then it would indicate an outside source/somethig outside of the universe created it. which using occam's same razor puts the universe back into the hands of a creator.

[Baruch]

What these "historical" arguments don't get is ...

Unless you have a direct relationship with G-d, right here, right now ... you have nothing.  Don't rely on clergy or congregations.  Don't rely on scripture.  Arguing about minutae of scripture, or what did or didn't happen 2000/3000 years ago is masturbation by autistic patients.

[Blackleaf]

Well that's BS. The book of luke is by defination a contempory writing of Christ. but because it goes into detail it is brushed off as a religious writting. As is everyother book from the 3rd century on.

Why? a wisman asks..

Because in the 3rd century the church callout to the furthest reaches of the empire and demanded all writing of christ be compiled for review, so that the ultimate end the bible maybe compiled. So all manuscript Religious and otherwise was turned over to the church. where is this stuff now? under the Vatican city under heavy guard and lock and key. yet because the church retains all copies (upon the tens of thousands of manuscripts) none of it counts in the single minded.

No it isn't, dumbass. The author of Luke is unidentified, and the name was added later. The book dates back to the second century, long after Jesus was dead. And why should I give a shit that the church got together and said that it's good enough for the Bible? Do you care what books Muslims say are trustworthy? No. The simpleminded are idiots such as yourself who use the Bible as evidence for itself and lack the mental capacity to see any problem with that.

then in the 1st century tactius irecord "christ suffered and died under pilate." as an offical roman record of the event.

Bullshit. There are no Roman records mentioning Jesus. Show it.

Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Christ isn't a name, you idiot. Christ is a title, and there were many people who claimed that title. Even the name Jesus is conveniently common. Many experts believe that the myths of Jesus were plagiarized from the tales of multiple holy men who came before him. Even virgin birth is something that has been done before in myths.

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

First of all, Josephus was not an unbiased source, neither was he a historian. He was a Christian who wrote what he was taught to believe. He wasn't even born until after Jesus supposedly died, and after the myths of Jesus had plenty of time to grow. Show me ONE person who mentioned Jesus and was actually around to see him.

Julius Africanus

Born 160AD.

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

Born 61AD.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Who's notes are you copying? Because you clearly haven't done your research if you think the Talmud is evidence of Jesus.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Bolded the important part.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Hey. You actually found one source from the same century that Jesus lived in. Congratulations. Too bad it took him a minimum of 37 years to finally mention it. Guess how long the life expectancy was of 1st century people. Thirty-five years. It took longer than the average life expectancy for this letter about an unnamed "wise king" to be crucified, leaving plenty of room for the myths of Jesus to grow.

Still think that's a short enough time frame for it to be reliable? Just read the books of the New Testament in the order that they were written. You'll find that the oldest books make little to no mention of miracles. The oldest Gospel, Mark, has no mention of the virgin birth, it ends without Jesus being resurrected, and Jesus was never mentioned to have performed any miracles. And as you continue to read the books in this order, miracles start to appear and grow more and more impressive over time. You can see the evolution of the myth of Jesus before your very eyes, starting as a wise teacher and ending as the incarnation of God himself, who turns water to wine, walks on water, and even revives the dead. This is how myths always grow, and it doesn't take much time at all for it to happen. Your Jesus myth is nothing special.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

Great. More religious documents to prove the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

Really? This old, tired argument? I can't be bothered to answer such a stupid argument, so here. Educate yourself. This is short and to the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4G7kEhOq2k

that's not true at all. Luke was written with in 10 years.

Uhh. No. It is estimated to have been written between 80-100AD. Learn to use Google. The oldest books of the New Testament were not the Gospels. They were the letters of Paul. As for the other three Gospels, Mark was the earliest at around 68-73AD, Matthew was written at around 80-85AD, and John is the newest at about 90-110AD. In all of these examples, the disciples were already dead, assuming they existed at all.

So let me get this straight... you are attempting to use a tertiary source material (A pbs documentry) to refute primary source material and discredit a primary source? sorry not sorry... yur going to have to do better than that. Basically you have a world renoun and recognized 1st century historian. you are trying to take down with a collect 'nut-huh' from people who don't like what he has to say.

I love it when idiots try to talk down to people who are smarter than them.

[Drich0150]

What these "historical" arguments don't get is ...

Unless you have a direct relationship with G-d, right here, right now ... you have nothing.  Don't rely on clergy or congregations.  Don't rely on scripture.  Arguing about minutae of scripture, or what did or didn't happen 2000/3000 years ago is masturbation by autistic patients.

Welcome to the conversation...

Yes mordern Christians including myself have real life interaction with God. Depending on strength of relationship via the holy Spirit dictates how often and strong God communicates and what methods He uses.

[Drich0150]

back to the OP. Drich you just said that god says to test him. Here is a riddle for you. In Malachi the Jews? were irritating god because they hadn't given their tithe in a long time. He told them that if they bring the tithe that they owe to the temple he would give them a blessing so big they would not be able to handle it. So I got myself in that situation, didnt pay any tithe for around 2 1/2 years. Then I put myself on a payment plan guessing it would take 3 years to catch up. somewhere around 2 years I sat down and did the math to see where I was at and found out I had caught up 4 months earlier and I was actually ahead. That was 4 years ago now and in all that time there hasnt been any kind of blessing, not even a little one. I figure that either it only applies to a Jew and I know I'm not Jewish (based on my last name I can probably trace from my father's father back to the second or third son of the crown of england in the 1500-1600s. or I can trace from my mothers father back to 1800s to a pure blooded native American. nope no Jew blood in me) or maybe there's some falsehood in that book of the Bible

If you know you are not jewish.... then why pay the tithe?

Or rather ask yourself what does God require for the Christian concerning money.

What did he tell the rich young ruler?
"sell everything , give it to the poor and come follow me."

Now this pattern is repeated several times in scripture and we have several examples of people doing this.

So then the question becomes if you own god everything and at best have been giving Him 10%, what exactly are you expecting in return?

And yes I have given god everything several different times, and always got back more than 10x what I gave. even so I don't 'expect' or demand anything from God.

What he has shown me should be enough to fill several lives with unshakable belief. if anything I always feel indebted the more He gives me to be responsible for.

The otherside of the coin.
Who says God isn't looking to open the flood gates for you, but let's say your dingy/boat is too small to receive his full blessing and you would be swept away by the good fortune... kinda like the guy who plays leonard on the big bang did a movie a few years back with that insync guy, where everyone is 25 and their life span/money is counting down on their forearms ("in time" or something stupid like that) Anyway insync comes into 100++ years worth of time (which must be like a billion dollars) then he give leonard his best friend like 10 years and leonard drinks himself to death with like 10+ years still left on his clock... Meaning for leonard being given too much too quickly was the cause of his death. just like you standing infront of the blessing gates of heaven asking God to give you your full blessing standing in a dingy, when perhaps God wants you to bring a containership to fill.

Either way you won't know to you stop counting and open your hands and pockets to any needs God puts in front of you till it is all gone. Now you will need to read your bible to navigate what God puts in front of you and what satan might put infront of you and make it look like it is of God. In essence you are giving away your dingy, and allow God room to make you a captain of a larger vessel. if you are faith to what God gives you He will give you more.

This is what happened to me.

Left high school hating God could not read. by 26 found God and he put me incharge of a company, a flock of followers, which ultimatly lead me down a path to where I have written two pattents and have a very sucessful business, and a full time ministry along with the American dream stuff... None of which is truly mine even though my name is all over the place. as it all belongs to God and if need be is his to take all back at any point..

I usally hate telling people this because God usally takes something as a reminder to not be boastful. but you asked and I want to share what God has done for a nobody/someone who hated him with all my might!

[Drich0150]

On the topic of the Flood, there's plenty of evidence against it, but here's a few big examples. The Flood allegedly killed everyone on the earth except for Noah and his family. Yet Egypt predated the Flood. Also, entire civilizations seemed to have sprung up immediately after the Flood, according to Biblical narrative. Much too fast for one man and his family to have populated themselves.

Actually there isn't a time line. only that the sons of moses multiplied. then you have the tower of babble which has nothing to do with egypt.

[Drich0150]

Really?  How do you get to that position????  This is what your fav. dude, Josh McDowell (well, I don't really know if you like the guy--many fundy's do) says about it:
"Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Matthew 15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ (Mark 7:13). He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Matthew 5:18)."

So, the Law was and is to be abided by all.  All the commandments.  Pick out whatever list you wish, Jesus did not limit the commandments to 10--no matter how you pick and choose them.  All were sacred and to be followed.  Don't you believe that, too?  If not, why not?

so what did Jesus say on the cross? I mean his last words? "it is finished.." or in this case "it is accomplished."

So now if it is finished are we now not open for the least little change? better check mat 5 again... Not that the law will disappear as per mat 5, but that the completion of the law take hold. meaning not only does the law automatically persecute, it can now automatically atone... which renders the law (for the save) pointless in determining righteousness before God.

Do you understand be for I go further?

[Drich0150]

Ill work on it, but posting a a list of unchecked resources for me to answer yet then demand I prove each key stroke is a level of hypocritical thinking I dislike... besides I am not speaking to individuals but to posts.. I answer questions or address specific behavior. and in the very next post all is rest.

[Blackleaf]

Actually there isn't a time line. only that the sons of moses multiplied. then you have the tower of babble which has nothing to do with egypt.

Some people have put together a complete family tree from Adam and Eve to Jesus, based on information given in the Bible. Going with the assumption that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God, it is entirely possible to determine around what time Noah's Flood happened. For instance, based on the Bible, we know that the Flood happened when Noah was six-hundred years old. Now, if we keep that information in mind and research ancient middle-eastern societies, it's easy to see how things do not add up.

Even if we assume that God failed to give Noah accurate information when he tasked him with writing his own story, as well as all of the oral traditions passed down up until then, and that the Flood was local and not global, it still doesn't make sense. The Bible says that it rained ceaselessly for 40 days and 40 nights. I find that a big difficult to swallow. But that's not even the most ridiculous part of the story. Many people think that Noah spent 40 days on the Ark, which is ridiculous enough, but that's actually a common misconception, just like the number of Wise Men (unspecified) and the placement of Jesus' nail holes (it was the wrists, not the palms). In actuality, God gathered up all of the animals and shut them in the boat with Noah a full seven days before the rains even started. At the end of the 40 days of rain, the land was nowhere in sight, completely covered by water. At that point, the waters slowly receded, and after 150 days, the Ark rested on the top of a mountain. This mountain, Ararat, is 12,782 feet high. Seventy-four days later, the waters finally receded enough to show the tops of the mountains. Forty days after that, Noah sent out a raven to check if the water was gone. Seven days after that, he sent out a dove for the same purpose, with no luck. Another seven days later, he sent out the dove again, which collected the olive branch from a tree that miraculously survived being completely submerged by water this entire time. For some reason, Noah waited another seven days and sent the dove out again, but it did not return. Twenty-nine days after that, Noah removed the covering from the Ark and saw that the land was dry. But he STILL DIDN'T LEAVE! He waited another 57 days, and finally left the Ark after God told them to leave.

All in all, Noah, his family, and all of the animals (minus the one dove) spent 378 days on the Ark. That is insane. How could any ration person explain--

[Baruch]

Welcome to the conversation...

Yes mordern Christians including myself have real life interaction with God. Depending on strength of relationship via the holy Spirit dictates how often and strong God communicates and what methods He uses.

You don't act like you do ;-)  If you have the Holy Spirit, why bother quoting scripture?

So you claim you are channeling?  About as likely as I am channeling Dr Strange from his HQ in Nepal.

[aitm]

I have said this before quite a few times. If the babble was true, and meaning it came from the hands/mouth/ass of a god, then it would not be this hard for thumpy to proove his point. But look at the fences and gates he has to stumble over or through to make his "point"...one we have heard merely a hundred times prior with little evidence of us changing our mind to stupidity.

When facts and truth are not evident, the gate opens to all kinds of stupidity.

[Mike Cl]

so what did Jesus say on the cross? I mean his last words? "it is finished.." or in this case "it is accomplished."

So now if it is finished are we now not open for the least little change? better check mat 5 again... Not that the law will disappear as per mat 5, but that the completion of the law take hold. meaning not only does the law automatically persecute, it can now automatically atone... which renders the law (for the save) pointless in determining righteousness before God.

Do you understand be for I go further?

I expect nothing better from you.  But you are interpreting stuff as you see fit.  You are giving meaning to words in the way that suits you.  What you don't want to grasp, is that the bible did not drop from heaven straight from god whole and unchangeable. Your bible is a fiction crafted by religious leaders to get to control people with feeble minds so they could become controllers and wealthy.  You bible is a fiction--as is your god.  You have to jump through so many hoops it is amazing you keep the hoops straight.  Your fictional jesus clearly states that the OT is the same as it always was--all the commandments are to be followed.  Even the one about seething a kid in its mothers milk.  Yet you have your hoops ready to jump through to try to demonstrate that that is not what jesus said.  Okay then, facts matter not to you--but then you are a theist so that goes with the territory.  You believe what you believe and you don't let any facts keep you from your belief.  I've heard all this already.  And it still does not make it so.

[Drich0150]

No it isn't, dumbass. The author of Luke is unidentified, and the name was added later.

A rose by anyother name (moron) would smell just the same. Not going to argue the name I am point to content of both luke and acts to identify the writer and the time line from which it was written.

The book dates back to the second century, long after Jesus was dead.

oh, yeah? read the first few paragraphs of acts.. So can we agree same guy? so if you were to continue to read you'd see acts was the second book of whomever luke was. and the book follows Paul, as a freeman no long a slave to Theolopius (as luke was a disciple of Paul/The book of luke being Paul's gospel.) So, the book of acts stop around 63AD. just before paul's last trip to Rome and martyrdom. Therefore the book of luke (written while Luke as a slave to theolopius) was written well before the book of acts ended, maybe withn 10 to 20 years of the death of Christ.

And why should I give a shit that the church got together and said that it's good enough for the Bible?

Because what is in the bible will have you sat before God in this life if that is what needs to happen. If you seek the truth above allegence to club. (like religion or atheism.)

Do you care what books Muslims say are trustworthy?

it completely depends on who I am speaking and where.

No. The simpleminded are idiots such as yourself who use the Bible as evidence for itself and lack the mental capacity to see any problem with that.

Here's the thing sport, not everyone is privy to a sheilded or sheltered life not all are kept from (the supernatural) and your right some are simple minded and seek to support tradition and lore on both sides.. However if you seek God on His terms He will give you insite and wisdom to discern what is and is not of God. so that you can navigate not on the supernatural but the bunk of popscience as well. Which is little more than a modern day religion. Same structure same claims just different words for the named gods...

Bullshit. There are no Roman records mentioning Jesus. Show it.

I did sport, are you too ignorant of the web and how google works to take the names I gave you and look them up for yourself?
Tacitus,  Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, Flavius Josephus, Julius Africanus, Pliny the Younger (who was a prator, well respected lawyer, and head of the military and senate treasury.) not to do you work for you but here this prator/senator/treasure of the empire while killing Christian observes thier behaviors and even identifies Chirst (a man) being worshiped as God.
http://www.vroma.org/~hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html

oh, and there are several more. but I guess you've closed your mind to anything not consistant to the propaganda you have been fooled into accepting.

There isn't much considering the paper trails celebrities leave today... but again there is more on Christ in that time period than any other human from that period. So to call into question the existance of Christ is to call into question the existance of everyone else who lived then.

There is a reason most atheist have abandoned the "Christ never lived/no outside evidence of Christ arguement." simply stated because there is and there is a lot that has been said about Christ. the only real hold outs are faith based atheists, those who want to believe the anti-christ narritive and do not concern themselves with such things as the truth.

Christ isn't a name, you idiot. Christ is a title, and there were many people who claimed that title. Even the name Jesus is conveniently common. Many experts believe that the myths of Jesus were plagiarized from the tales of multiple holy men who came before him. Even virgin birth is something that has been done before in myths.

can you provide an example?

First of all, Josephus was not an unbiased source, neither was he a historian.

He was biased against Christ as He was a jew first. and yes like it or not by his work and the defination of his work he was a historean... you can't just make up wild claims to the contary of what is known about a historical figure. show me some PROOF before you try and dismiss a well know and accepted figure.

He was a Christian who wrote what he was taught to believe.

Man oh man do you ever get tired of being wrong?
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/josephus-flavius/ clearly the jews even today claim Josephus as one of their own.

He wasn't even born until after Jesus supposedly died, and after the myths of Jesus had plenty of time to grow. Show me ONE person who mentioned Jesus and was actually around to see him.

Paul who's gospel account was penned out by luke and Mark who recorded Peter's account.

Born 160AD.

Born 61AD.

Who's notes are you copying? Because you clearly haven't done your research if you think the Talmud is evidence of Jesus.

Bolded the important part.

????

Hey. You actually found one source from the same century that Jesus lived in. Congratulations. Too bad it took him a minimum of 37 years to finally mention it. Guess how long the life expectancy was of 1st century people. Thirty-five years. It took longer than the average life expectancy for this letter about an unnamed "wise king" to be crucified, leaving plenty of room for the myths of Jesus to grow.

how old was peter when He died how old was paul? how old was john who outlived them all? either it seems like you got your numbers wrong or history does.

Still think that's a short enough time frame for it to be reliable? Just read the books of the New Testament in the order that they were written. You'll find that the oldest books make little to no mention of miracles. The oldest Gospel, Mark, has no mention of the virgin birth, it ends without Jesus being resurrected, and Jesus was never mentioned to have performed any miracles. And as you continue to read the books in this order, miracles start to appear and grow more and more impressive over time. You can see the evolution of the myth of Jesus before your very eyes, starting as a wise teacher and ending as the incarnation of God himself, who turns water to wine, walks on water, and even revives the dead. This is how myths always grow, and it doesn't take much time at all for it to happen. Your Jesus myth is nothing special.

Just read mark 1. I counted 10 separate miracles in THE FIRST CHAPTER!!! Holy Crap do you even fact check the crap you try and sell? I mean seriously, healing the sick, calling out demons, calling angels to help him, God calling out from the sky this is my son in whom I'm well pleased.. these are not miracles? Your whole line of reasoning failed because you didnt even check to see if the claim made was true.

Great. More religious documents to prove the legitimacy of religious beliefs.

Really? This old, tired argument? I can't be bothered to answer such a stupid argument, so here. Educate yourself. This is short and to the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4G7kEhOq2k

Uhh. No. It is estimated to have been written between 80-100AD. Learn to use Google. The oldest books of the New Testament were not the Gospels. They were the letters of Paul. As for the other three Gospels, Mark was the earliest at around 68-73AD, Matthew was written at around 80-85AD, and John is the newest at about 90-110AD. In all of these examples, the disciples were already dead, assuming they existed at all.

here's the thing sport I get what atheist think about the order of the bible, but I have actually been to the scriptorums and studied under someone the smartest histroeans concerning orginal manuscripts myself saw and weighed the evidence myself. You guys are wrong. because before there were paulianian letters there was the book of acts in progress, which again is superseded by the book of Luke. Fake facts like fake news will not work here sport.. I've been to the primary source observed and approved the vetting process and agree with the net consensus. Now if you can provide real evidence to the contrary I will be happy to entertain it and show you where it or your interpretation of it is wrong.

Or do you really truly think that you as an atheist has the only correct hypothesis concerning the compilation of scripture? The problem is you guys do not check the internal content to see if it jives with your external observations (when a copy of the manuscript is first used or is confirmed to be in existence) alot if not every single time you guys claim authorship there are internal discrepancies that will not allow your time line to work, but who cares about consistency and truth right? so long as your narritive works in the end.

I love it when idiots try to talk down to people who are smarter than them.

nuff said.

[Drich0150]

Some people have put together a complete family tree from Adam and Eve to Jesus, based on information given in the Bible. Going with the assumption that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant Word of God, it is entirely possible to determine around what time Noah's Flood happened. For instance, based on the Bible, we know that the Flood happened when Noah was six-hundred years old. Now, if we keep that information in mind and research ancient middle-eastern societies, it's easy to see how things do not add up.

Oh my glob...
So lets say for a moment Noah is the one writting his own autobiography now when he says the whole world was flooded past the mountain tops... who's world do you think He is talking about? the world as you know it or maybe just the world as he knew it?

Now ask yourself did that world include egypt? look at where his ship landed compared to egypt... That said there are coastal egyptian cities that were completely lost to the great flood. (google it before you set yourself up)

Even if we assume that God failed to give Noah accurate information when he tasked him with writing his own story, as well as all of the oral traditions passed down up until then, and that the Flood was local and not global, it still doesn't make sense.

Read the passage again God says He will bring desrtuction of the inhabbitants of this "erets" which we translate as earth land ground nation it could mean any of these things. Global flood in this translation possible, regional flood again possible, but the evidence shows a 1/4 hemisperical flood which would probable include all the lands a man like noah would know and then some.

The Bible says that it rained ceaselessly for 40 days and 40 nights.

not just rain sport the ground opened up and water from the deep spewed fourth.

I find that a big difficult to swallow. But that's not even the most ridiculous part of the story. Many people think that Noah spent 40 days on the Ark, which is ridiculous enough, but that's actually a common misconception, just like the number of Wise Men (unspecified) and the placement of Jesus' nail holes (it was the wrists, not the palms). In actuality, God gathered up all of the animals and shut them in the boat with Noah a full seven days before the rains even started. At the end of the 40 days of rain, the land was nowhere in sight, completely covered by water. At that point, the waters slowly receded, and after 150 days, the Ark rested on the top of a mountain. This mountain, Ararat, is 12,782 feet high. Seventy-four days later, the waters finally receded enough to show the tops of the mountains. Forty days after that, Noah sent out a raven to check if the water was gone. Seven days after that, he sent out a dove for the same purpose, with no luck. Another seven days later, he sent out the dove again, which collected the olive branch from a tree that miraculously survived being completely submerged by water this entire time. For some reason, Noah waited another seven days and sent the dove out again, but it did not return. Twenty-nine days after that, Noah removed the covering from the Ark and saw that the land was dry. But he STILL DIDN'T LEAVE! He waited another 57 days, and finally left the Ark after God told them to leave.

awesome, just remember that bit about the ground water and your golden.

All in all, Noah, his family, and all of the animals (minus the one dove) spent 378 days on the Ark. That is insane. How could any ration person explain--

explain what? what did they eat? unicorn, dragon, and mamoth... or if you read the bit in the beginning where God commands noah to stock the ark with every kind of food... maybe they ate that. since animals were appearently off the menu then then it would be pretty easy to fill the stores with tons of grain.

[Drich0150]

You don't act like you do ;-)  If you have the Holy Spirit, why bother quoting scripture?

So you claim you are channeling?  About as likely as I am channeling Dr Strange from his HQ in Nepal.

Bwa, HA HA HA HAHA..

Yeah and Jesus didn't act like the messiah, to the pharrisees (remember he called them fools and blind guides snakes full of poison and all sorts of things... Or did you tear those bits out of your bible?

Do you know why Peter is Peter? because Jesus called him 'little pebble" or unstable ground. Jesus was making fun of peter's instability. He was "Petra" shifting gravel not Petros immovable rock like some tell it.

Here's the thing when one is filled with the Spirit it manifests itself differently. I am no one special, I am a mess most of the time and have problems that would make most of you cry. When the holy Spirit illuminates someone like me, this is what you get. I am and never will be a churchie-mc churcherson. God needs all kinds, not just the stoic.

So just because I am not a hand or a eye, does not make me any less apart of the body. perhaps being a hand or an eye you simply do not know how feet or toes work when kicking the ass of a modern pharisee.