RGD

So when God murdered 250,000 people in the tsunami, that wasn't evil. Murder is not evil. Killing innocents is not evil (well, duh! We knew that from the OT).

Good to know.

When are you going to provide extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Christ? As has been pointed out, THERE IS NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE FOR CHRIST. None. Not even in the Bible. Certainly not OUTSIDE the Bible.

TomboyMom

It's not a matter of presuppositions. I bring only the usual presuppositions that I, and you, use in ordinary life. That there are true and false propositions, that it is possible to tell the difference, that the physical world exists, 2 + 2 = 4, stuff like that. The reason that every stitch of evidence you bring up seems to be lacking is that it is in fact lacking; that is, the evidence to support your assertion does not exist.

Just as an example, the first clear reference on your list that we have not already established as a forgery is Pliny the Younger. In around 112 C.E., he wrote a letter to the emperor referring to the fact that Christians existed. We know that there were Christians in the first century after Jesus' death, that's not at issue. That tells you nothing about Jesus, which is what you are looking for references to. You can't find them, one allegiance, because there are none.

In short, you've been lied to. Please take a minute and let that sink in. Don't try to convince me, I already know this stuff (because I'm not in fact ignorant.) See for yourself. Check out the references. See if any of them are remotely contemporary, primary sources, that refer to Jesus, not the religion he started. Once you've satisfied yourself, please stop and reflect. Let's stop any argument for a minute and talk frankly about this. What does that mean to you? People you trusted, Christian leaders, writers and preachers, have lied to you about very basic information about the early years of your religion. For a start, will you stop making these false assertions, now that you know the truth, or will you continue the irresponsible chain of falsehood?

Next, what does it mean to you? What other lies have they told you? For example, do you know who did write the bible, when, and how it was transmitted, changed, compiled and distorted over the centuries? How much can you rely on it as history or theology? Don't you think you should find out the truth about that? And if the bible is not reliable, how do you know what to believe about Jesus and God?

What do you think we should conclude from the fact that, to propagate this religion, its leaders regularly disseminate misinformation? Almost everything they've told you is false. There is no evidence for a world-wide flood, and literally floods of evidence against it. The bible has been copied, translated, mis-copied and edited hundred of times. The apostles did not write the gospels. The Jews were never slaves in Egypt. So, what do you think about this religious belief that is based on so many lies? Something to think about, isn't it?

OldYgg

By your admission then, the words in the bible are not accurate. The foundation of your beliefs may not be accurate can you tell me what you believe of god that is completely independent of the bible? Or perhaps you can tell me how you divine what is accurate and inaccurate in the bible and know what they meant in the bible? And if you can determine these things, can you tell me how everyone can do the same thing in a predictable manner so that everyone believes the correct portions of the bible?

Old Ygg

Edited to add:
In other words What is your religion without an inerrant bible - just a bunch of symbolic stories that people can validate whatever they believe in the first place by using biblical support?

funinspace

Christians seam to conflate evidence of Christians existing, for evidence for Christ the Messiah, resurrection, miracles, demigodness et.al. I will have to add a small caveat, that there are a couple shards that hint towards someone named J(Y)eshua that are close to within the lifetime of persons who could have known Jeshua, Josephus comes to mind (no not the full citations). Personally I would consider 93AD close to within a lifetime of 30AD; that being someone who was 20 in 33AD would be 80 in 93AD. However, the people we have writing in that time were NOT the people who ever met this person Jeshua, extra-Biblically of course. Add the reality of several versions of his Antiquities; the obvious Christian forged modifications; other Christian patterns of modifying holy writings (i.e. the 3-4 Mark endings, John 7:53-8:11); and one is left with a whole lot of presumptions, and nary any facts. If we had a second century copy of Antiquities, that was say found entombed in Egypt, with clear Christian references, then that would be very interesting indeed.

aa5874

One allegiance, if a person was absolutely convinced that my son is dead, when he is actually alive, all I would do is physically present my son to that person. Now, I have been waiting patiently for you to physically do the same with your Gods. I would really like to see them.

There is no credible, independently verified evidence in the Christian Bible, from creation to revelation. The creator and his son are depicted as mere sorcerers in the very same Bible. Not a single author is known, all of the biblical characters are questionable. Not even the followers know their own fate, yet the very same followers proclaim Hell and Damnation to those who do not believe them. This is highly unreasonable and illogical. Their belief gives them no advantage over the unbeliever in any aspect of life whether health, education, longevity, finances. However, like their Gods, they think very little of their fellow men, reffering to them as evil and worthy only of eternal torment, now this view is very similar to those who blow up buildings and people to get their message across.

Jedi Mind Trick

There were many many many writings that criticized Christianity and the gospels. The reason so much apologetic writings from the church father exist is testament to the criticism. The problem is, none of those writings, like Celsus or Julian for example, survived the Christian censors.

-John

driver8

What one allegiance is trying to say, though not very clearly, is that the two stories do not descride two different deaths of Judas. He bases this argument on the source of money used to buy the land, and seems to be insinuating that Acts is describing someone else's death. This reasoning seems, however, flawed and/or disingenuous.

Matthew's version clearly says that the priests bought the land, whereas Acts less clearly states that Judas bought the land (Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity). The subject of Acts seems unchanging, i.e. Judas, who (which) bought the land.

There can be little doubt that they are referring to the same field, as both call it "the field of blood." Matthew states "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day."

Acts clearly describes the field and Judas' death as "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take."

Matthew clearly describes Judas' death as "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."

So, not only do the stories differ as to Judas' death, they differ as to who bought the field and the genesis of its name, "field of blood." Matthew bases the name on the source of the money that paid for it, while Acts bases the name on the method of Judas' death.

It's obvious that we have two allegorical stories, rumors, or legends for this "field of blood," which the writers of the bible were unable to reconcile, or which they merely overlooked. Are these two versions of a real and relevant event, or is this evidence of incorporation of pre-existing legend? Any other ideas? Either way, one would assume that such fantastic stories would not be subject to such variation, given that these events were supposedly well known by many persons, and that they would be accurately relayed and preserved, especially if the sources were indeed so contemporary to the events they portray.

Jedi Mind Trick

And God is the source of our alleged free will (the source of eeeeevilll), yes?

And he has all power, yes?

Because he wanted the free will love of the creature, yes?

Can't have robots, can he?

The greatest good is not possible without the possibility of great evil, correct?

Love he wants us to be able to give, yes?
To him?
To others?

God is all-good, yes?


A few more questions:
Is there a hell?
If yes, then who goes there?
If yes, is it forever painful?
How can I avoid hell?


Now Now, just because we don't buy your arguments is no cause for a claim that we are merely closed minded... many of us were once Christians and some of us left Christianity reluctantly.

Patriarch Verlch

He repented that He had made man, because everythought of his mind was wicked, every nano second.

Patriarch Verlch

I think you are using the inconsistencies to your own advantage, unfairly and biased.

In fact, I see you make inconsistencies when none are to be found, perhaps in your translation, etc.

If you want to read the bible in its purest form, I suggest you learn Hebrew.

AS the bible is the only book in 3,000 different languages in the world, had the most copies of it made, as well as being the most quoted book, it has a huge following.

For you to heckle from the bleachers is nothing short of amusing.