Hi, I'm another one of those annoying born again Christians :P

If there are any Atheists, who want to ask me some questions about Christianity or God then I'd be more then happy to answer them.

You can post them here, but to be sure I'll answer them email me the questions at

timpil@email.com

I'll answer every question as best I can. If you're bothered sending me a question, I'll be bothered answering it.

CyA :)

1) Is evolution supported by facts?

2) Is Creationism supported by facts? What facts?

3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts? What facts?

4) Are organic molecules common throughout the universe?

5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on Earth?

6) Is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator?

7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution?

8) Are there any transitional fossils?

What is the experience of "God", for you, like?

Why do you believe?

If god loves all of his creatures, than why does he send some to hell?

What religion was Jesus?

How could Jesus be the son of God if he had brothers and sister?

How can you argue against proof that Jesus moved off to France?

How could Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't fulfill his prophecies as predicted in the Bible? And please don't give me the go around on this one, its a rhetoric question.

Thankyou. I await your benevolent answers...


-Elbaz

Can you prove that a god exists?

Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?

If God is universally infinite how can any other aspect of him be defined?

~Raithere

It's a simple question with broad implications: Will the Devil be redeemed?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Section one ANSWER FOR Adam

QUESTION: 1) Is evolution supported by facts?
ANSWER: Yes. In part everything is supported by facts. I could say my shoe evolved from an ape. And that is partially supported by the facts that apes exist, and my shoe also exists. Yet just because there are some facts, it does not mean that it supports the theory.
QUESTION: 2) Is Creationism supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: Yes. There are many facts. One of the major supporting factors is that in no way can it be disproved, even atheists admit that. The Bible supports Creationism, and many facts support the Bible. There is evidence of a great flood, from sea shells on mountains. Some of the facts that supposedly support evolution in fact ƒº support the Creation account. I recommend reading the book ¡§In the minds of men¡¨. There are apparent facts like the time it would take for the river, which leads into Niagara Falls, to recede to its present state, from the state that it once was in ¡V was once used as a fact to support the many millions of years needed by the theory of evolution. Yet recent evidence and factors show that it really only took 7000 years for the river to recede. So it really supports Creationism. There are hundreds of facts like this, but you¡¦ve just got to have the faith needed to believe that they all point to one thing, God created the universe.
QUESTION: 3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: I guess this is answered by my above answer. If you ask a more specific question in relation to God¡¦s existence I¡¦ll answer it. But there is just so many facts it would take 500 000 words to just see the tip of the ice berg.
QUESTION: 4) Are organic molecules common throughout the universe?
ANSWER: Sorry I¡¦m not a scientist, but there are books out there written by scientists, that go bit by bit into scientific proof for the creation account. There is one written by a nuclear engineer, who goes into in-depth scientific proof on the topic, but I don¡¦t remember the name of it, sorry.
QUESTION: 5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on Earth?
ANSWER: Yes, if everything the theory said was true. But the only problem with its explanation; is that in reality it is a lie.
QUESTION: 6) Is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator?
ANSWER: I think there is something like a 17000000000000000000000000000000 in 1 chance of this happening. Don¡¦t quote me on the figure, but there is no doubt that it takes more faith to believe something so unlikely like this happening, then it does for believing that a Creator created it.
QUESTION: 7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution?
ANSWER: No. Evolution has made up a lot of other factors as well. Even the most basic aspect of evolution is faulty. They don¡¦t even know what a species is. Take for example a certain bird (sorry forget the name), it is classed as one species, yet there is another bird who is exactly the same in every way except that it has a different bird song, and that bird is classed as a different species. Now you¡¦ve got to think, what is a mutation by evolutions standard? If it involves something changing so much that it turns into a different species, then by the definition of a different species, it wouldn¡¦t be too hard at all to mutate. In fact by the definition of species that evolution uses, those who speak French and those who speak English would be a different species. But I could go on about this forever; I¡¦ll go on to the next question.
QUESTION: 8) Are there any transitional fossils?
ANSWER: No. A good example of this is the horse display. It is a display in a museum (sorry forget name againƒº) and it is the apparent transition of a horse. It was taken from lower to higher sediments in the ground. And it is neatly arrange from the smallest looking horse to the biggest looking horse. The only problem with this transition is that the small horse like animal was taken from recent times, the bigger one from older times, and everything was just rearranged to prove the transitional theory. If you look into any apparent transitional animal then you will find a fault. There is without a doubt that there are animals that look ¡§less evolved as others¡¨ but that doesn¡¦t mean that they are transitional. There is a much greater chance that they are a different species all together, which didn¡¦t evolve at all.

Section two ANSWERS FOR Elbaz

QUESTION: If god loves all of his creatures, than why does he send some to hell?
ANSWER: God sends those who still have sin (those who haven¡¦t accept Jesus¡¦ payment) to hell, because they are still with sin. If you reject Jesus¡¦ offer of forgiveness, then you have no other way of getting rid of your sin. And God rejects sin, so therefore he rejects those with sin. All hell is, is a place where God is not. Think of a world where only bad things happen, that is hell, for only with God come good things. But if you need a demonstration of God¡¦s love, look at what He sacrificed for you so you could be without sin, and be with Him. He gave His only son for crying out loud!
QUESTION: What religion was Jesus?
ANSWER: Jesus was a Jew, so I guess He was Jewish. :) But He introduced a new covenant, which He commanded us all to follow. And that new covenant is the basis for Christianity. So you could say that: He was from a Jewish background, but in Himself was Christianity.
QUESTION: How could Jesus be the son of God if he had brothers and sister?
ANSWER: Jesus is the son of God, because He is part God. He is also the son of man because He is part man. God created Him in a human (Marry) but God still created Him. So therefore He is both part deity and part human. And it is for this reason that He was able to live like a human, yet still be God. And it was for this reason that He could associate with sinful humans, because He was part human, and felt mercy for them. Whereas God is all deity and cannot associate with sin - So that is why He sends the sinful away from Him (to hell ¡V which is a place without God). But it was because of Jesus¡¦ human aspect that gave Him the ability to demonstrate His mercy on the cross. And because of His obvious difference from all other humans, it shows that He would indeed have brothers and sisters, but because of how He was created, He also is the son of God ¡V This took many books of the Bible to explain, so it won¡¦t be surprising if you don¡¦t understand.
QUESTION: How can you argue against proof that Jesus moved off to France?
ANSWER: Is this something to do with Mormons? I¡¦ve never heard about this, so I¡¦m not going to waste your time by making up an answer. :)
QUESTION: How could Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't fulfill his prophecies as predicted in the Bible? And please don't give me the go around on this one, it¡¦s a rhetoric question.
ANSWER: I¡¦m not a qualified theologian, so I¡¦m not even going to speculate the answers to that question. But you¡¦ve got to put prophecies into context. Not all are messianic, and I wouldn¡¦t be surprised if the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies weren¡¦t all recorded in the New Testament.
:)

Section 3: ANSWERS FOR Xev

QUESTION: What is the experience of "God", for you, like?
ANSWER: My expeience with God is love, joy, peace and security. Even though I'm a sinner God loves me. And for that I love Him. Even though my life can become anything but joyful, I still have joy in knowing that I have a loving God which I will spend eternity with. Although much of my life is not peacful, I still find peace in my fellowship with God. And although my life is not secure, my salvation is.
QUESTION: Why do you believe?
ANSWER: I believe because I know that I fall short of God's law. I have sinned, and I believe in Jesus because I need help to get to God. I by myself am worthless, sinful, and nothing. But with my belief I am so much more. God says that when one believer is converted, all heaven rejoices. So that makes me feel worth something. I am no longer sinful, because my sins have been taken away by Christ, because I believe in Him. And in God's eyes, I am not nothing, but I am His child.


__________________
"Love has been and is still the great act of subversion in the West"
--Octavio Paz

Part Two
Section one: ANSWERS FOR Cris

QUESTION: Can you prove that a god exists?
ANSWER: The author of "How to make an atheist backslide" says that he can prove God's existence, without taking faith and belief into the equation. But I'm no author and the amount of evidence some atheists require to believe in God is huge. But I find it interesting to ask; can you prove God does not exist? Every single knowlegable atheist believes that they cannot. So really this question and answer proves nothing much at all.
QUESTION: Can you prove that Jesus actually existed?
ANSWER: Yes. The most recent evidence of this was found on a tablet. It mentioned Jesus' name, with the names of two of His deciples. And it was the right age as well. It is rare for a Historian to believe that Jesus did not exist. But many still don't believe that He was who He said He was. If you look into it, there is tons of evidence to prove that Jesus existed.


__________________
STATEMENT: People should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.
ANSWER: I kind of agree. People should be free to do anything they wish, as long as it doesn't break God's law. And you'll find that this kind of freedom is a lot more satisfying then the freedom you talk about.

Is it possible for freewill to exist with an omniscient god?

Ahem...Could you have been more........trite

Why don't you quote the onion like Green World for heaven sakes. Your response, though really long and *explanatory* was very ambiguous in answering many of the questions. Including those that were meant to debunk your argument.


I by myself am worthless, sinful, and nothing. But with my belief I am so much more. God says that when one believer is converted, all heaven rejoices. So that makes me feel worth something.

Wait, so your telling me that you accept the fact that you as a christian are worthless sinful and nothing? And the only way you can get satisfaction is by rejoicing in the heavens? Sorry man, it just doesnt tweedle my dum. I believe in God. I also believe that I'm worth something cause I place value on my efforts to understand the world better. To lead a meaningful life in which I which learn and grow. Whereas the only way you can feel worth anything is by submitting to a fear that without Christianity, you will end up some place bad. By sticking to the same dirty routine and filth day in and day out. I'll tell you what; the only way you can end some place bad is by submitting to your fears. That's what hell is, IMO. And whether you like to believe it or not, any person that lives in fear and shame (which includes countless christians) is destined for hell. THat is to say that they'll never truly be happy no matter how much they try to convince themselves anything otherwise.

-Elbaz

PART 2 SECTION 2: ANSWERS FOR Raithere

QUESTION: If God is universally infinite how can any other aspect of him be defined?
ANSWER: By that same logic, how can you define infinite to start with? If infinite means having no boundaries, then what is the boundary for the definition of the word infinite? No boundaries, then infinite could also mean dog, head, and speaker. There are obvious boundaries to the word, so there are obvious boundaries in the context that it is used. To try and use words to describe something as amazing as God, is to try and apply something worldly to something unworldly. You cannot understand every aspect of God, because He is exactly that, GOD. Yet He has shown us enough to understand the basics, and to understand enough to accept His salvation.

~Raithere


__________________
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

Elbaz
716 posts
Ahem...Could you have been more........trite

Why don't you quote the onion like Green World for heaven sakes. Your response, though really long and *explanatory* was very ambiguous in answering many of the questions. Including those that were meant to debunk your argument.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I by myself am worthless, sinful, and nothing. But with my belief I am so much more. God says that when one believer is converted, all heaven rejoices. So that makes me feel worth something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wait, so your telling me that you accept the fact that you as a christian are worthless sinful and nothing? And the only way you can get satisfaction is by rejoicing in the heavens? Sorry man, it just doesnt tweedle my dum. I believe in God. I also believe that I'm worth something cause I place value on my efforts to understand the world better. To lead a meaningful life in which I which learn and grow. Whereas the only way you can feel worth anything is by submitting to a fear that without Christianity, you will end up some place bad. By sticking to the same dirty routine and filth day in and day out. I'll tell you what; the only way you can end some place bad is by submitting to your fears. That's what hell is, IMO. And whether you like to believe it or not, any person that lives in fear and shame (which includes countless christians) is destined for hell. THat is to say that they'll never truly be happy no matter how much they try to convince themselves anything otherwise.

-Elbaz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER: YOU really did misunderstand something that I thought was obvious. I wrote "BY MYSELF", as in without Christ in me, "I am worthless". And by saying "but with my belief I am so much more" I am saying that with my belief I have Christ, and with Christ in me I am so much more. Now applying that to what you said, it makes perfect sense.

tiassa
4891 posts

QUESTION: Will the Devil be redeemed?
It's a simple question with broad implications: Will the Devil be redeemed?
ANSWER: Thats up to God. It's not mentioned in the Bible, so I would not be able to honestly tell you. But I believe the chance of the devil accepting Christ as his savior is about as likely as evolution being true. :)

PART THREE SECTION ONE ANSWERS FOR Neutrino_Albatross
671 posts

QUESTION: Is it possible for freewill to exist with an omniscient god?

ANSWER: This is a good question. And I've heard many people stuff up the answer to it. Considering I'm responding to this question with my own opinion, I'll probably be another who stuffs up the answer. But I'll give it a try. The free will question is "If God knows the future, but still lets you follow the path of damnation that you are on, isn't he either, evil, or doesn't know everything, because if He did He would make you choose rightly?

Yes it is possible for free will to exist. - Even though God knows what you're going to do is wrong, it doesn't mean that he will stop you doing it. - And in the same way, just because God knows that what you will do is right, it doesn't mean His going to stop you. Because you have free will. Yet it is true that God moulds us, to His desire. I believe that He does not do this by making you do something, therefore cutting out free will. But He does this by moulding you with circumstances, and choices. He lays out circumstances and choices which mould you, but there is no point where these circumstances make you do anything. I believe God never crosses that line. But He does influence you through circumstances and choices. Just like Satan influences you. But neither makes you do anything, it is ultimately up to your decision. And every circumstance God uses to mould someone, whether good circumstances or bad, they are ultimately moulded in such a way that God will recieve Glory. In everyting God does, it is for His Glory.

all we can know is that we know nothing....

If Jesus got in a fight with Mohammad then who would win?

QUESTION: 1) Is evolution supported by facts?
ANSWER: Yes. In part everything is supported by facts. I could say my shoe evolved from an ape. And that is partially supported by the facts that apes exist, and my shoe also exists. Yet just because there are some facts, it does not mean that it supports the theory.

You seem to be missing the point of the term "theory". Events and conditions must be connected by some experimentally observable process, chain of cause and effect, or other phenomenon. So no, you can't say your shoe evolved from an ape.



QUESTION: 2) Is Creationism supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: Yes. There are many facts. One of the major supporting factors is that in no way can it be disproved, even atheists admit that. The Bible supports Creationism, and many facts support the Bible. There is evidence of a great flood, from sea shells on mountains. Some of the facts that supposedly support evolution in fact ƒº support the Creation account. I recommend reading the book ¡§In the minds of men¡¨. There are apparent facts like the time it would take for the river, which leads into Niagara Falls, to recede to its present state, from the state that it once was in ¡V was once used as a fact to support the many millions of years needed by the theory of evolution. Yet recent evidence and factors show that it really only took 7000 years for the river to recede. So it really supports Creationism. There are hundreds of facts like this, but you¡¦ve just got to have the faith needed to believe that they all point to one thing, God created the universe.

You are correct in saying that the god(s) can not be disproven now. However, that does not prove Creationism. It merely proves a lack of evidence one way or the other.

Archaeological evidence of floods provide proof only that there were floods. Stories about those floods prove only that people made up stories about floods.

Niagara Falls and the age of Earth:
http://www4.vc-net.ne.jp/~klivo/gen/geology.htm
http://www.und.edu/instruct/eng/fkarner/pages/wfall.htm
http://www.lockport-ny.com/Museum/geology.htm
http://6.1911encyclopedia.org/N/NI/NIAGARA.htm
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/rock.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000804075444.htm

As you seem to be unaware of it, I would like to point out that the oldest man-made stone structures are actually more than 6,000 years old:
http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/malta/malta.html
http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/malta_mega_temples/
http://archaeology.about.com/library/atlas/blmalta.htm
http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/projects/gozo/

And for some laughs:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/webstuff/bible/begats.html



QUESTION: 3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts? What facts?
ANSWER: I guess this is answered by my above answer. If you ask a more specific question in relation to God¡¦s existence I¡¦ll answer it. But there is just so many facts it would take 500 000 words to just see the tip of the ice berg.

So... no answer? Okay.



QUESTION: 4) Are organic molecules common throughout the universe?
ANSWER: Sorry I¡¦m not a scientist, but there are books out there written by scientists, that go bit by bit into scientific proof for the creation account. There is one written by a nuclear engineer, who goes into in-depth scientific proof on the topic, but I don¡¦t remember the name of it, sorry.

No answer.



QUESTION: 5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on Earth?
ANSWER: Yes, if everything the theory said was true. But the only problem with its explanation; is that in reality it is a lie.

Can you support your claim that evolution theory is a lie?



QUESTION: 6) Is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator?
ANSWER: I think there is something like a 17000000000000000000000000000000 in 1 chance of this happening. Don¡¦t quote me on the figure, but there is no doubt that it takes more faith to believe something so unlikely like this happening, then it does for believing that a Creator created it.

17000000000000000000000000000000 in 1 huh? So there is a 17000000000000000000000000000000% chance of it happening? Cool. So you support the idea. Good.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2



QUESTION: 7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution?
ANSWER: No. Evolution has made up a lot of other factors as well. Even the most basic aspect of evolution is faulty. They don¡¦t even know what a species is. Take for example a certain bird (sorry forget the name), it is classed as one species, yet there is another bird who is exactly the same in every way except that it has a different bird song, and that bird is classed as a different species. Now you¡¦ve got to think, what is a mutation by evolutions standard? If it involves something changing so much that it turns into a different species, then by the definition of a different species, it wouldn¡¦t be too hard at all to mutate. In fact by the definition of species that evolution uses, those who speak French and those who speak English would be a different species. But I could go on about this forever; I¡¦ll go on to the next question.

You are correct that we have changing definitions for some things as we learn more and more. Unlike fanatics, scientists are capable of accepting new knowledge and learning, as new facts arise. But thanks for answering, mutation is not the only facet of evolution.



QUESTION: 8) Are there any transitional fossils?
ANSWER: No. A good example of this is the horse display. It is a display in a museum (sorry forget name againƒº) and it is the apparent transition of a horse. It was taken from lower to higher sediments in the ground. And it is neatly arrange from the smallest looking horse to the biggest looking horse. The only problem with this transition is that the small horse like animal was taken from recent times, the bigger one from older times, and everything was just rearranged to prove the transitional theory. If you look into any apparent transitional animal then you will find a fault. There is without a doubt that there are animals that look ¡§less evolved as others¡¨ but that doesn¡¦t mean that they are transitional. There is a much greater chance that they are a different species all together, which didn¡¦t evolve at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://cns-web.bu.edu/pub/dorman/trans_faq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/horse_series.html
http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/pubserv/hos/dino/owe1863.htm
http://www.netpets.com/birds/reference/fun/fossil1.html
http://www.netpets.com/birds/reference/fun/archaeopteryx.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

Note that the existence of any fossils is also an answer to that stuff about geology and the age of Earth.

Voodoo Child
445 posts
QUESTION: If Jesus got in a fight with Mohammad then who would win?
ANSWER: FINALLY SOMETHING EASY TO ANSWER :) Its pretty obvious isn't it. Jesus would turn the other cheek, and then Mohammad would be sent to hell. lol

So Jesus would get his ass kicked?

1. Who defines 'sin,' as society make the rules, and we have many different societies on this planet?
2. Is it a 'sin' to have bad thoughts, and if so, how can one tell a person with a serious mental illness they are sinners for the thoughts they have??
3. Can clergy abuse young children, repent, and be forgiven?
4. Can Jeffery Dahmer be 'forgiven'?
5. Could a blind deaf and mute person understand the concept of christainity and would they go to 'heaven'. What about some pygmy tribes who have never seen a christian?
6. Why do some Christians believe that the concept of 'ET's" are evil?

That'll do for now :)

I hope my answers have been at least a little bit helpful. You have to remember that I'm only 16 years old so it's no surprise if I've left something out. I will no longer be answering any questions, basically because it’s taken me 7 straight hours to answer what I have answered so far. And school starts tomorrow so I won't have time (sorry)

I find it encouraging that many of you became so defensive with your Atheist beliefs. It shows me that I was at least getting somewhere with you all.

I'm not going to leave you without any more answers, it just wouldn't be me. So here is a site that goes through all the main questions atheists have:

http://www.evidence.info/

If you've still got questions that you want to ask, go to the chat site

http://www.worthychat.com/

There are many people there that will be able to help you, and answer your questions.

If you believe that God exists but don't know the why and how to be saved then go to this site:

http://www.livingwaters.com/good/001.shtml

I pray that I've helped you all today.

Bye

Thanks you for your answers answers. Yes, you've got to get a good night's sleep for school tomorrow.
I'm 35 and a mother, so feel very enlightened by such a worldly young man as yourself.

Of course nothing comes easy, so it makes sense that the link I posted for answer to athesits questions has stopped working.

So hopefully this link will work better :)

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/answers_for_atheists/default.htm

You'll find a lot of answer here, hope you have a look

Bye

answers:

Ambitious task for a young man. My respect.

Xev, anything is possible :)

question:

why do you think you can answer these questions meaningfully?

Question: "Ask any question you want about Christianity"

At what point in the Bible are the 7 billion years of Dinosaur evolution explained?

If the words are divine why is such a huge factor over looked. Christianity and religion in general were created when man evolved to a point where such things could be understood. Therefore Christianity and religion are creations of man alone!

jusmeig
17 posts
Question: "Ask any question you want about Christianity"

At what point in the Bible are the 7 billion years of Dinosaur evolution explained?

If the words are divine why is such a huge factor over looked. Christianity and religion in general were created when man evolved to a point where such things could be understood. Therefore Christianity and religion are creations of man alone!

I JUST HAVE TO ANSWER THIS ONE :)

Answer: your very reasoning is faulty. It is totally circular. You basically say, evolution proves that evolution is proof. Like come on! I could say, God is real, because in reality is God.

The fact is, there was no 7 billion years for the Bible to explain. So why explain something that isn't true?

And since the dawn of time (7 thousand years ago) men have been enlightened by God. Through prophets, through devine influence, and by the ultimate informer, Jesus Christ. To say that man evolved, and then God and everything was created is stupid. God created everything, including man, and since then He has communicated with man. There was no evolutionary gap.

You are trying to put evolution into the Bible, but it's never been there for a good reason. Because it is a waste of paper.

Have you ever attended any institution of formal education?

Originally posted by answers
And since the dawn of time (7 thousand years ago) men have been enlightened by God. The Septuagint timeline instead of the Massoretic. How quaint. :D

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: your very reasoning is faulty. It is totally circular. You basically say, evolution proves that evolution is proof. Like come on! I could say, God is real, because in reality is God.

The fact is, there was no 7 billion years for the Bible to explain. So why explain something that isn't true?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answers I have said a prayer to the gOd of every religion for you. In fact I nearly cryed when I read you response. You are an idiot to deny the history of earth........and I will be praying to your version of Satan that you go straight to hell. People like you are holding this planet back from much greater things. Stop taking up the air that the rest of us need!!!!

Jus

spuriousmonkey
493 posts
question:

QUESTION: why do you think you can answer these questions meaningfully?

Answer: Define meaningfully. By your standards it's probably only meaningful if it changes your point of view. In that case no I don't think I can answer them meaningfully.

But if meaningfully is defined in regards to everyone who sees the answers, and if at least a few of them are a little bit changed, then yes I think I can answer them meaningfully.

I doubt anyone can look at every single answer that I've written and say that it didn't at least make them think. JUST WAIT. Who am I talking to? Of course it's possible for Atheists to look at evidence against their beliefs and to not think about it. BUT that is why even what you think is meaningful may not be right. Because some may think the answers are meaningful, because they take the time to think about them, while others are not bothered, and just think they are rubbish. IT IS UP TO THE PERSON READING MY ANSWERS, TO THINK THEY ARE MEANINGFUL OR NOT.

I just try my best, and let God do the rest. I never said that these answers would be meaningful, and especially not to everyone.

So don't waste everyone's time, and ask a question that is meaninful.

This is great. You have all now resorted to the classic "you are an idiot defence" that so many Atheists use.

LOL pray to Satan that I go to Hell. Thats a classic. Man I'm gonna tell everyone at Church about that one. Pray to Satan all you want, I'm pretty sure God is just a little bit more powerful then Satan, so I think I'm safe with that one :)

LOL have I ever had any formal education. Whats the point in regards to this argument. Many Atheists have had great education, yet they are still too blind to see the reality of God.

You say that I am stupid, that I should go to hell, that I should get an education.

I say you are stupid for not seeing God, that you are in fact going to hell, and even though you've recieved an education, you've failed to implement it.

Like come on! Get over yourselves!

Now you go pray to natural selection, and ask him to evolve me into an toad like good Atheists.

Answers - I feel very sorry for you. You should really consider questioning some of the sources of your information?

You are subsituteing scientific fact for what was written in bible. Let's put that another way - you blindly believe what men (who most likily believed the world was flat!!!) from 2000 years ago wrote down rather than what the what the great minds of today wrote down. Why don't you open you mind just a tiny little bit and think for yourself?

I want to believe in God, I do. I think the idea of an all powerful being controlling the entire universe and the idea that, if we're good people, when we die when we go to heaven is fantastic. I'd love to believe that!!!! And I envy you that you can believe without questioning. I think everyone would love to believe that and I think that man needs to believe that. We can't just die and turn into dust and worm food. But unfortunately, thats all that happens.

The FACTS (or the real answers) are that you can't prove that God exists anymore that you can't prove that Buda, Allah or the Celtic god of the Sun doesn't exist. God is just the most modern version of a fairy tale that men has been telling themselves to make sense of the World, life and death.

Originally posted by answers
IT IS UP TO THE PERSON READING MY ANSWERS, TO THINK THEY ARE MEANINGFUL OR NOT.



shit...don't start using caps, its like Whatsup has returned.


i asked the question about meningful answers, because I assume that you can answer question in such a manner that the answers actually have some significance. This implies that you know something I don't know. And I am wondering why you think you know this something I fail to see. And I am not even going into the religious shit here, since i am not interested in that. I want to know why you think you have answers. Why you have the 'authority' to answer questions and why your answers are more meaningful than, lets say, mine.
You seem put the responsibility at the reader. He has to decide if it is meaningful, but that wouldn't answer my question why you think your answers are meaningful. And you suggest in one sentence that your answers might not be meaningful, but why answer questions like this.
Why not come forward with a position or an essay about a topic. Why answering questions? To me answering questions suggest a certain mindset and I am curious to find out if my thoughts on this are right.


don't mind the atheist and theist debate....it is fruitless.

okay, you obviously don't believe what I say, so I'll give you some reliable sources concerning the proof of Christ. This is going to be fun :)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus.html


First Proof of Jesus Found?
By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News

Click to See the Inscription

In Depth: Jesus: The Full Story

On TV: Watch "Unsolved History"



Oct. 21 — The first archaeological evidence of Jesus' existence has come to light, literally written in stone, according to one of the top world experts in deciphering ancient Near East inscriptions.

"Amazing as it may sound, a limestone bone box, called an ossuary, has surfaced in Israel that may once have contained the bones of James, the brother of Jesus," André Lemaire, professor of Hebrew and Aramaic philology and epigraphy at the Sorbonne University in Paris, wrote in the upcoming issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

"We know this because an extraordinary inscription incised on one side of the ossuary reads in clear Aramaic letters: 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,'" he wrote.








Kept in a private collection in Israel, the 20-inch long box is unfortunately empty. Nothing is known of its history prior to the current ownership, but experts believe it was probably one of hundreds uncovered in the Holy City.
In the first century, ossuaries were used in the second of a two- stage burial process, when bones of the deceased were transferred from burial caves.

Largely abandoned in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, the practice offers a rare period of self documentation, with hundreds of names carved in stone.

The 20 Aramaic letters etched on a side of the newly revealed ossuary read "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yoshua," or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

But is this the same James who, according to biblical accounts, was the brother of Jesus of Nazareth and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem? Or is he just another James whose father's name happened to be Joseph and whose brother was called Jesus?

Jesus, Joseph and James were common names in biblical times, but according to experts, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim.

In addition, said Lemaire, the mention of a brother is unusual, and indicates that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.

According to the scholar, the cursive shape of three engraved letters would date the ossuary to the last decades of 70 A.D. Further laboratory tests by the Geological Survey of Israel concluded that the ossuary has no modern elements, was worked with no modern tools, and appears to be genuine.

"If its authenticity is proven beyond doubt, this will be an outstanding discovery in modern scholarship," Paul Shalom, Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told Discovery News.

Until now, the most significant finds related to New Testament figures have been the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who handed Jesus over the Romans for crucifixion, and a dedication tablet on a monument. It mentions Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who passed the death sentence against Jesus.

The new find would be the first archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.

"This ossuary could be compared to the Turin Shroud: a big key artifact for believers. I would be thrilled if it were true, but I believe it is a forgery. Several things cast suspicion: the line of custody is insecure, and the inscription is too perfect. They would have never written 'brother of Jesus' in the first century," Robert Eisenman, professor of biblical archaeology at California State University, Long Beach, and author of "James, Brother of Jesus," told Discovery News.

Like the Shroud, the ossuary is set to become one of the most controversial relics in Christendom. World famous biblical scholar Rev. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, professor of the New Testament at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, found "no reason to object" to Lemaire's conclusions and called for it to be restored to the Christian church.

"Since it seems very likely that the inscription is authentic, then I find it intolerable that the ossuary should remain in a secret private collection in Israel," he told Discovery News.

Discovery Channel is producing a documentary about the find, which is scheduled to air in spring 2003.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/beyondstars/proof.htm


PROOF THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH!
[ Home ]


Hundreds and even thousands of years BEFORE Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the Old Testament Prophets predicted His coming. Their predictions were not just general ones that "a Messiah, a Saviour, will come" etc., but SPECIFIC prophecies about places, times and events that have been fulfilled in only ONE person who has ever lived--JESUS of Nazareth! In this brief lesson we have chronologically arranged several of the most outstanding Old Testament Messianic prophecies in the actual verbatim text of the Scriptures and followed them with their New Testament fulfillments.

HIS BIRTH

PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.


FULFILLMENT: In exact FULFILLMENT of this prophecy, Mary was a young VIRGIN engaged to be married to Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth, when the Angel Gabriel appeared to her saying that she would bear a child. "Then Mary said to the Angel, `How shall this be, seeing I have not laid with a man?' And the Angel answered, `The HOLY GHOST shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you! Therefore that holy One which shall be born of you shall be called the SON of GOD."--Luke 1:26-35. (Immanuel means "God with us", and for those of us who have received Jesus into our hearts, that's Who He IS: God is WITH us!)


PROPHECY: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: And the government shall be upon His shoulder: And His NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the MIGHTY GOD, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace!"--Isaiah 9:6. (Prophecy given 740 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: This shows that the ancient Jews, unlike most modern ones, believed that God had a SON--Who was to be born in the flesh and Whom the prophecy said was to be called "The Mighty GOD".


PROPHECY: Micah, prophesying in the eighth century B.C., predicted the exact village where the Messiah would be born: "You, BETHLEHEM, though you are small among the clans of Judah, yet out of you shall He come forth unto Me that is to be RULER over ISRAEL; Whose existence has been of old, from EVERLASTING."--Micah 5:2. (Prophecy given 710 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: The Gospel says "Jesus was born in BETHLEHEM of JUDEA."--Matthew 2:1. Although the Jews knew that their Messiah was to be born there (Matthew 2:4-6), they didn't, as a nation, accept Jesus as their ruler. Nonetheless, the prophecy says that He "IS to BE ruler". This takes place spiritually now for those who voluntarily accept His Messiahship, and will SOON take place LITERALLY by FORCE at His Second Coming!


Jesus' existence, as the prophecy says, "has been of OLD, from EVERLASTING". Jesus said, "Before Abraham was (around 2,000 B.C.), I AM."--John 8:58. He was here referring to Himself as the eternal God Who revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush as: "I AM THAT I AM"(Exodus 3:14), the eternal Son of God! (See also John 1:13,14.)

TRIUMPHAL ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM

PROPHECY: The Prophet Zechariah commanded the people by the Spirit of the Lord to: "REJOICE GREATLY, O daughter of Zion! SHOUT, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your KING comes unto you: RIGHTEOUS, and having SALVATION; meek, and riding upon a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."--Zechariah 9:9. (Prophecy given 487 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: Five days before His crucifixion, as Jesus neared Jerusalem, He told His disciples, "Go into the village ahead of you, and at once you shall find a donkey tied there, and her colt with her: Untie them, and bring them to Me. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the donkey and the colt...and Jesus sat on them...and the multitudes that went ahead, and those that followed, SHOUTED, saying, `Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord!'"--Matthew 21:2-10.


Imagine!--The King of kings, God in the flesh, came riding into Jerusalem, meekly sitting on the lowly colt of a donkey, just as God's Prophet, Zechariah, had predicted over 500 years earlier!--And not only did JESUS fulfil this part of the prophecy, but the MULTITUDES of Jerusalem who "REJOICED GREATLY" and "SHOUTED" praises to Him as He entered the city were further proof that indeed, Jesus of Nazareth was "the KING" of whom Zechariah had prophesied!

HIS BETRAYAL

PROPHECY: Again Zechariah predicts: "And I said unto them, If you think good, give me my PRICE; and if not, keep it. So they paid me THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER."--Zechariah 11:12. (Prophecy given 487 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests, and said to them, 'What will you give me, if I deliver Him to you?' And they counted out for him THIRTY pieces of SILVER."--Matthew 26:14, 15.
15. PROPHECY: "And the Lord said unto me, `Cast it unto the POTTER!--The handsome price at which they priced Me!' And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and CAST them to the POTTER in the HOUSE of the LORD."--Zechariah 11:13. (Prophecy given 487 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: "Then Judas, which had betrayed Him (Jesus), when he saw that He was condemned, repented, and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders...And he CAST DOWN the pieces of silver in the TEMPLE, and went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests picked up the silver pieces, and said, It is against the law to put this into the treasury, because it is the price paid for blood. So they decided to use the money to buy the POTTER'S Field, to bury foreigners in."--Matthew 27:3-6. The thirty pieces of silver WERE literally "CAST to the POTTER...IN the house of the Lord"!

HIS TRIAL

PROPHECY: "By arrest and judgement He was taken away: And who shall speak of His descendants? For He was cut off from the land of the living: For the transgression of my people was He stricken."--Isaiah 53:8. (Prophecy given 712 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: Jesus was ARRESTED by the soldiers of the High Priest.--Matthew 26:57. After judging Him in their religious court and condemning Him to death, they bound Him and handed Him over to Pilate, the Roman Governor.--Matthew 27:1-2. "While Pilate was sitting in judgement...the chief priests and elders persuaded the crowd...to have Jesus executed."--Matthew 27:19-20. "Finally Pilate handed Him over to them to be crucified."--John 19:16.


Pilate himself knew that Jesus was INNOCENT and had done nothing worthy of death, and that the Jewish religious leaders only wanted Jesus executed because of their religious jealousy, yet the religious leaders used their political leverage to force Pilate to have Him crucified anyway.--John 18:28-40;19:1-16; Luke 23:13-25; Matthew 27:18.

HIS CRUCIFIXION

PROPHECY: Around 1,000 B.C., King David prophesied: "Dogs have surrounded Me: A band of wicked men have encircled Me: They PIERCED My HANDS and My FEET. I can count all My bones. People stare and gloat over Me. They DIVIDE MY GARMENTS among them, and CAST LOTS upon My CLOTHING."--Psalm 22:16-18. (Prophecy given around 1,000 B.C.) (See also Zechariah 12:10;13:6.)


FULFILLMENT: That was written by King David, who died a natural death (recorded in 1Kings Chapter 1), so he wasn't talking about himself. But being a Prophet, he predicted the type of death that CHRIST would die! As it says in the New Testament, "then the soldiers, when they had CRUCIFIED Jesus (pierced hands AND feet), took His GARMENTS, and divided them into four parts, a part to every soldier; His undergarment remained. Now this garment was without seam, woven in one piece from top to bottom. They said therefore to one another, Let us not tear it, but let us cast LOTS for it, to see whose it shall be."--John 19:23,24.


Crucifixion, incidentally, was not practiced by the Jews of David's time. (They killed criminals by STONING!)--But David PREDICTED this type of death for the MESSIAH--a method of execution that was to become one of the principal means of execution by the Roman Empire ten centuries later!


PROPHECY: Here is another prophecy by David regarding "The Righteous", or the Messiah: "Many are the afflictions of The Righteous, but...He (God) keeps ALL His BONES: Not one of them is broken."--Psalm 34:19-20. (Prophecy given about 1,000 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: MANY of God's righteous servants have had their bones broken, especially in their martyrdom--But Jesus was "THE righteous", "My righteous Servant", as God called Him, Who through His death would "justify many" or make them righteous.--Isaiah 53:11-12. And to PROVE that He was "THE Righteous" Who would "justify many", God didn't let ANY of His bones be broken!


Jesus was crucified on the eve of the feastday of the Passover. To ensure that the bodies of the two thieves and Jesus wouldn't be hanging there on the cross during the Jews' holy day (death by crucifixion sometimes took days), they BROKE the LEGS of the thieves, causing their bodies to sag, cutting off their respiration and bringing a quick death. "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they did NOT break His legs."--John 19:31-33.


Jesus was "the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the World" (John 1:29), and was crucified at the time of the Jewish Passover, a religious festival when all the Jewish households killed a lamb as a sacrificial sin offering. Right at that SAME time, Jesus, "THE Lamb of God", died for the sins of Mankind. The Lord had commanded that NONE of the Passover lamb's BONES were to be BROKEN (Exodus 12:46), and Jesus' death fulfilled this specific point also!

HIS BURIAL

PROPHECY: "And He was given a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death."--Isaiah 53:9.
28. FULFILLMENT: In the eyes of His bitter religious enemies, Jesus was a criminal, a WICKED man, and as He died, there were "two ROBBERS crucified WITH Him".--Matthew 27:38. After His death, "a RICH man...named Joseph...went to Pilate and pleaded for the body of Jesus. And when Joseph had taken the body, he...laid it in his own new tomb"--A GRAVE with the RICH!!!--Matthew 27:57-60.

HIS RESURRECTION

PROPHECY: "For You will not leave My soul in hell (the grave, death); neither will You allow Your Holy One to see CORRUPTION (decay)."--Psalm 16:10. (Prophecy given around 1,000 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: King David, who gave the prophecy, died and was buried in a grave and his flesh saw corruption and decay. But Jesus was RAISED from the grave and hell THREE days AFTER His death, and "His soul was not LEFT in hell (or in the grave), neither (did) His flesh see corruption (decay)."--Acts 2:27-31. As the Angel said to the mourners who came to Jesus' tomb, "He is not here, but is RISEN! Why do you seek the LIVING among the DEAD?"--Luke 24:6,5.


Jesus is ALIVE! The Scriptures show that He walked the Earth for 40 days after His Resurrection and was seen by HUNDREDS of followers!--Acts 1:3; 1Corinthians 15:4-6. He then ascended up to Heaven where He sits at the right hand of the throne of God.-Mark 16:19.

EXACT YEAR OF HIS CRUCIFIXION

PROPHECY: "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince shall be seven sevens, and 62 sevens (or a TOTAL of 69): The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times. And after 62 sevens shall the MESSIAH be CUT OFF, but not for Himself."-Daniel 9:25,26. (Prophecy given 538 B.C.)


The city of Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the armies of Babylon when the Jews went into captivity and exile in 586 B.C. But 133 years later, in 453 B.C., Artaxerxes Longimanus, King of the Persian Empire, gave the Jews the commandment to go forth (from captivity into the land of Israel), "to restore and to build Jerusalem".
34. We know his decree was issued in 453 B.C., and that Jesus was "cut off" in 30 A.D. Therefore, if we add the 453 years B.C. to the 30 years A.D., it equals 483 YEARS. Let's see now if Daniel's specific time prophecy coincides with this:


The prophecy predicted that from the time of this decree until the death of the Messiah the Prince would be--HOW long?--"7 sevens plus 62 sevens"--or 69 SEVENS. 69 sevens would be 69 x 7, which equals 483. So Daniel predicted that 69 sevens of YEARS, or 483 YEARS, would pass between the issuing of the decree to build Jerusalem and the "cutting off" of the Messiah.--And that's EXACTLY how many years DID pass between 453 B.C. and Jesus' death in 30 A.D.!--What an amazing EXACT FULFILLMENT of prophecy! And this astonishing prophecy was given in the year 538 B.C.--almost 600 years BEFORE Jesus the Messiah was crucified! It's also interesting to note that this 483-year period was divided into two periods: First a period of 7 sevens (49 years), then a period of 62 sevens (434 years). History reveals that it did take the Jews 49 YEARS from the time the decree was issued to "rebuild the walls and streets of Jerusalem". Once Jerusalem was rebuilt, it was exactly 434 years (62 sevens) later that Jesus the Messiah was crucified!


Daniel's prophecy continues with undeniable PROOF that this MESSIAH had to be JESUS:

DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AFTER HIS COMING

PROPHECY: "At the end of 62 sevens shall the Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: AND the people of the RULER that SHALL COME shall DESTROY the CITY (of Jerusalem) and the SANCTUARY (the Jewish Temple)."--Daniel 9:26. In other words, ac cording to this prophecy, AFTER the Messiah's death, the city of Jerusalem AND the Jews' Temple would be DESTROYED! Was it? YES! Only 40 years later!


FULFILLMENT: After Jesus was cut off (or crucified in 30 A.D.), "not for Himself", but for the sins of the WORLD, do you know what happened to Jerusalem and to the Jews' Temple? In 70 A.D., the Roman legions of the Emperor Vespasian ("the people of the ruler"), under his son, General Titus, marched in and burnt Jerusalem to the ground and so utterly destroyed their Sanctuary that not one stone was left upon another!


Jesus Himself, in a set of amazingly detailed prophecies given 40 years before these catastrophic events, predicted EXACTLY what would happen! (See Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 19:42-44;21:20-24.)

SHUTTING OF EAST GATE AFTER HIS COMING

PROPHECY: "Then he brought me back to the outer GATE of the SANCTUARY, the one facing toward the EAST; and it was SHUT. Then the Lord said unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and NO MAN shall enter in by it; because THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED IN BY IT, therefore it shall be SHUT."--Ezekiel 44:1,2. (Prophecy given 572 B.C.)


FULFILLMENT: When Jesus ("the Lord, the God of Israel") made His TRIUMPHAL ENTRY into Jerusalem on the back of the colt of an ass, He came from the Mt. of Olives and entered into Jerusalem's EAST Gate (Matthew 21:9-12), the gate which led into the TEMPLE COURTS, as it says here, "the OUTER gate of the SANCTUARY which faces toward the EAST."


In 70 A.D., the city of Jerusalem was utterly destroyed and it remained in ruins for centuries after. But in 542, the Moslem Sultan Sulieman rebuilt the walls of the city. Because the Jews who had rejected Jesus believed their Messiah was STILL to come and was YET to make His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Sulieman (who wanted to avoid the Jews rallying around a "Messiah" and rebelling) WALLED the "East Gate" completely SHUT, and thus unwittingly fulfilled the ancient prophecy of Ezekiel, "It shall be shut...because the Lord (Jesus), the God of Israel, HAS ENTERED in by it." And the East Gate REMAINS sealed shut until this very day!


Most Jews believe that the Messiah has not yet come, but according to these two FULFILLED HISTORICAL FACTS: 1) The destruction of Jerusalem, and 2) The walling up of the East Gate, the Messiah has ALREADY come!--And if it wasn't JESUS of NAZARETH, who WAS it?


WHO ELSE was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, was called God, rode triumphantly into Jerusalem on an ass, was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, was proclaimed innocent yet condemned unjustly to be crucified while soldiers parted His garments, was associated with the wicked in his death, was buried in a rich man's tomb and rose from the dead--all in FULFILLMENT of Messianic PROPHECY! The answer, of course, is NO one else but JESUS CHRIST!--And the prophecies that we have quoted here are only a FEW out of nearly 300 specific Old Testament proph ecies which Jesus fulfilled!

WHY (did Jesus die on the cross)?

WHY did Jesus die on that cross?--Because He LOVED you! He loved you enough to take your punishment, to die and be separated from His Father for a while so that He could bring YOU the LOVE of God and ETERNAL LIFE! As another prophecy says, "All we like sheep have gone astray; each of us have turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on HIM the iniquity of us all. There was no deceit in His mouth, yet it was the Lord's will to crush Him and cause Him to suffer. HIS soul (Jesus') shall be made an offering for SIN, and by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant JUSTIFY (make righteous) many; and HE shall bear THEIR INIQUITIES!"--Isaiah 53:6,9-11. (Prophecy given 750 B.C.)


Jesus died for YOU!--And God gave all these prophecies and had them written down and preserved down through the centuries and millenniums so that your faith might be strengthened by them enough to BELIEVE that "God so LOVED the World, that He gave His only begotten SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life."--John 3:16. Do YOU?


God LOVES you and Jesus is just WAITING at your heart's door for you to open to Him. He says, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: If ANY man hear My voice, and OPEN the door, I WILL come in to him and WILL sup with him, and he with Me."--Revelation 3:20. Would YOU like to receive Jesus into your heart? If you would, sincerely pray from your heart this simple prayer: Dear Jesus, I know that I've done wrong things and I'm sorry. I believe that You died for my sins and I ask You to please come into my heart and forgive me.-And please help me to live for You and others by reading Your Word and telling others about Your Love!--In Jesus' name, amen.

Copyright (c) 1998 by The Family

Extra-Biblical Proofs of Jesus and the Bible


JEWISH SOURCES

Josephus on John the Baptist

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 5, Section 2

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.



Josephus on Jesus Christ

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 3

"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."


The Babylonian Talmud on Jesus

Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)

"On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"


The Babylonian Talmud on Jesus

Sanhedrin 107b (200-500 C.E.)

"One day he (Rabbi Joshua) was reciting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick and worshiped it.....And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray.'"


ROMAN SOURCES

Pliny the Younger on Christians

Letter to Trajan 10.96 - (c.111-117 C.E.)

"I have never been present at an examination of Christians. Consequently, I do not know the nature of the extent of the punishments usually meted out to them, nor the grounds for starting an investigation and how far it should be pressed....I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished.....they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."


Suetonius on Christians

Vita Nero (De Vita Caesarum - Nero)16.11-13 (c.110 C.E.)

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."


Tacitus on Jesus and Christianity

The Roman Annals 15.44 (c.115-117 C.E.)

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."


MISCELLANEOUS AND CATHOLIC SOURCES

Eusebius

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 27

"They observed the Sabbath and the rest of the disciples of the Jews just like them, but on Sundays they performed ceremonies like ours in commemoration of the Lord's Resurrection. Therefore, because of such practices they received their name, since the name of Ebionites signifies the poverty of their understanding, for the poor man is called by this name among the Hebrews."


Justin Martyr

The First Apology to Caesar, Chapter 67 (c. 140-165 A.D.)

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the fist day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead."


Ignatius of Antioch

Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 9 (c. 98-117)

"How, then, shall we be able to live apart from Him, seeing that the prophets were His disciples in the Spirit and expected Him as their Master, and that many who were brought up in the old order have come to the newness of hope? They no longer observe the Jewish Sabbaths, but keep holy the Lord's day, on which, through Him and through His death, our life arose."


Barnabas

The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 15

"This is why we also observe the eighth day with rejoicing, on which Jesus also rose from the dead, and having shown himself ascended to heaven."


The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (c. 65-69 A.D.)

The Didache 14:1

"And on the Lord's Day, after you have come together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, having first confessed your offences, so that your sacrifice may be pure."


The Dead Sea Scrolls

(c. 50-100 C.E.)

Messianic Prophecies - 4QTestimonia (or Messianic Anthology, 4Q175 [4QTest])

Fragments of Ecclesiastes - 4Q109 Qohelet a

The Book of Isaiah - 4Q Isaiah Pesher b (4Q162 [4QpIs b])


The Gospel of Thomas

114 (Alleged) Sayings of Jesus

This "gospel" is not accepted by Protestant Christians. Nonetheless, it is a historical document that was written near the time of Jesus Christ. For the purposes of this web site, I won't quote from it.



RESOURCES

Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger

Jesus Under Fire, J.P. Moreland, Michael Wilkins and Edwin M. Yamauchi

The Letters, Pliny the Younger

Nero, the End of a Dynasty, M.T. Griffin

The Roman Annals, Tacitus

The Works of Josephus, Flavius Josephus

http://www.bohne.com/jesus.html

Is There Proof That Jesus Existed?
On a recent television survey, people were asked if they thought Jesus was real. Amazingly, many people said they doubted His existence!
“Well, there aren't any photographs of Him, obviously . . . I'm not sure if He isn't just a myth,”, said one subject.

“I believe only what I can see . . . and I've never seen Jesus,” said a young lady in her twenties.

Hmmm . . . evidently these people don't believe in the existence of:

Christopher Columbus
Caesar Augustus of Rome
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
And scores of other figures in history.
In fact, based on the flawed logic of the people quoted above, we would have to throw out over 90% of all information contained in the world's libraries and archives today! It may surprise you to know that there is more documentation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ then there is of many of history's most famous figures that people take for granted. Not myth or legend, but actual documentation that existed in archives of the Roman Empire!

Want more proof? No problem: the information that was recorded in Rome was based on eyewitness accounts. And the Bible's recording of the resurrection was written less than thirty years after the death of Jesus, also taken from eyewitnesses!

Look, I've never seen Louis XIV, but I believe he existed. I've never seen Jesus, but I believe HE existed. If someone wants to convince me that Jesus didn't exist, they're going to have to do better than the lame premise, “Well, no one I know has ever seen Him!”, or “I only believe what I can see.” Get real!

What About ABC-TV's The Search For Jesus?
I always thought Peter Jennings was a fairly good journalist . . . he's dropped a notch in credibility from where I stand. While the show (which aired in July of 2000) stated to present an unbiased view with commentary from several sources, it was definitely misleading and slanted. Three of the six sources most often quoted were all presenters of “The Jesus Seminar.” In a nutshell, these guys are “out there.” They took things that Jesus said in the Bible, and if He didn't say it more than once, He didn't say it at all, in their opinion.

Gee, does that mean Patrick Henry never said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”, since he only said it once? Oh, and throw away the Gettysburg Address, because Lincoln only read that in public once, too.

Another guideline these Jesus Seminar presenters use is comparison to myth. For example, they doubt the virgin birth of Jesus. They claim that it is very similar to Caesar's claim of divinity (for those of you a little rusty in the Roman myth department, Caesar's family claimed a Roman god, embodied as a snake, came to earth and impregnated his mother while she was praying to him in the temple, therefore making Caesar divine). The Jesus seminar folks say, "If you believe one, you have to believe the other. If you don't believe one, you can't believe the other."

Says who? The birth of Jesus was based on historical fact. None of the disciples questioned the Virgin Birth concept.

On the other hand, most Roman citizens of the time smirked privately at the concept of Caesar's mother being impregnated by a god that came to earth as a snake. Of course, they'd never take issue with Caesar in public, unless they had a penchant for battling lions in the coliseum . . .

Another faux paus: one commentator said that crucifixion was “Devised by the Romans and used only by the Romans.” WRONG! It was devised by a pagan civilization that the Romans conquered. This society believed that their god lived in the center of the earth, and if they killed a blasphemer while he was standing on the ground, his sin would pollute the earth and anger this god--ergo crucifixion. The Roman Legions brought this punishment back to Rome.

The Search for Jesus would have been better titled The Search for Ratings While Offending As Few People As Possible. While it had some truth, it was definitely biased. In fact, Jennings own Religion Coordinator was vociferously opposed to the presentation--does that tell you anything?

PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?

spuriousmonkey
496 posts
PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?

Answer: Immanuel is Jesus in a different language, i'm pretty sure it was Jewish, but it might have been greek.

spuriousmonkey, I'm not too sure on the naming thing. It might have been a different language, but I'm not certain. Maybe this will put it all in perspective:

Names and Titles Of
A number of titles applied to Jesus Christ are related to his person and ministry. In his Messianic titles, he is the Aforepromised; the Anointed One; the Messiah (Christ); the Son (Only Begotten; seed) of God; King of the Jews; the Lion of Judah; the Comforter; the Counsellor; the Prophet (prophesy); the Suffering Servant; the Lamb of God; the High Priest (great); the Dayspring (east) and Day-star.
In terms of his preeminence and authority, he is Lord; Head; Prince; Chief Shepherd; Chief Cornerstone; the Word of God; the firstborn; the firstfruits; the forerunner.
In his act of salvation, he is Jesus; Savior; the surety and Mediator of the new covenant; the rock and the Author of life.
In the “I am” sayings of John’s Gospel, he is the bread of life; the door; the light (clear); the true vine; the way and the truth (Amen), and his disciples frequently called him their Master (Rabbi; Rabboni) and Teacher, and after his resurrection, Maran-atha.

W.E. Vine, Vine’s complete expository dictionary topic finder [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996 by W.E. Vine Copyright Ltd. of Bath, England.

NOW KEEPING WITH MY NAME I WILL POST A SERIES OF ANSWERS. Someone said that question and answer doesn't prove anything. Maybe you won't think that after you see these.

1. Does anything other than matter and energy exist, and if so, do we know anything about it?
You want me to believe that God exists. But everyone knows only matter and energy are real.
On the contrary. I think I can prove that things other than matter and energy are real.


Matter and energy have no ordering or organizing principle within themselves. Left to themselves, they would never have produced the order around us, and left to themselves even now they would eventually reach the point of absolute disorder. Scientists refer to this tendency toward randomness as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Whatever enforces order on matter and energy cannot itself be matter and energy. For no matter or energy is exempted from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This should lead us to two realizations: First, without something other than matter and energy to enforce order on matter and energy, there could be no order or design in the universe. Everything would be absolutely random. There would be no thinking and nothing to think about. You and I wouldn't be talking here.

But that's not so. Some matter does impose order on other matter, like genes causing life to form in one way and not in another.

Genes do cause order in some matter and energy but they do so only because they are already ordered themselves. They didn't cause their own order, but got it from something else. Whatever little bits of order and of order‑causing matter there may be in the universe, still the universe as a whole cannot have brought about that order, and there must be a cause for it outside matter.

The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.


We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.

Okay, something other than matter and energy exists. But you can't really know anything about it. After all, statements only have meaning if they can be investigated for truth or falsehood by empirical means. I take the scientific approach: nothing is meaningful that can't be tested empirically.

Think for a moment about that statement. Can it be tested empirically? Definitely not. It is an overarching principle about empirical investigation, and cannot itself be tested by empirical means. If it is true, then it calls itself meaningless. Whatever is meaningless cannot be true, since truth depends on meaning. So, that principle cannot be true.

Nothing prevents our talking sensibly about non‑material things.


Fine. In principle I have to agree-it isn't meaningless to talk about non-material things. But you can't know anything about them.

Do you know that you can't know anything about them?

Yes.


Then you do know something about them! You know that you cannot know anything about them. But if that's true, then it's something you know about them. Your own statement condemns itself, you can and do know something about non-material things.


Fine. But you can't know anything more about them.

Except that, you can't know anything more about them? Every time you limit what may be known about non‑material things, you add something else you know about them. The only logical approach is to admit that you can know about non‑material things, and then see where the evidence leads to determine what you know about them.

Well, all right. Where does the evidence lead? What do you think we can know about non‑material things?

First, we know that they exist‑or that at least one non‑material thing exists. At least one non‑material thing must have made matter and energy. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


2. Did the universe have a beginning?
You're talking about creation, but didn't evolution disprove that?
Let's leave evolution for later, if you don't mind. We're not talking about how all things got to their present form; we're only talking about how the material universe came into existence in the first place. In that sense, yes, we're talking about creation.

This isn't contrary to the idea of evolution, and it isn't contrary to science. One of the leading astronomers of our age, for instance, Robert Jastrow, says that scientific research about the universe has led to one extremely important conclusion: "... I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy‑partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues.


"The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time ... for the astronomical evidence proves that the Universe was created ... in a fiery explosion...


"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly, a very objective mind-when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist or we paper it over with meaningless phrases. " (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York: Warner Books, 1984, pp. 11-16.)

3. Is there a creator? Is there a God? What can be known about a creator? How do we know things?
Okay, so we know the universe had a beginning. And we know there must be at least one non-material thing that created it. What else do we know about non-material things?

We know for instance that whatever created the universe has more power than all the power in the universe and that it is intelligent, capable of thinking on levels infinitely beyond our own abilities.

How do we know those things?

It's not difficult. We know that whatever force produces an effect must be sufficient to account for all the force within the effect; an effect cannot be greater than its cause. If an effect were greater than its cause, then there would be some part of the effect that was uncaused‑that would have come from nothing. But since nothing comes from nothing, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

Now for intelligence. Matter and energy are not capable of ordering themselves. Left to themselves they tend toward maximum disorder. It takes intelligence to bring about order in our material world. When you see a powerful computer, you don't suppose it just happened by accident, you ask who designed it, who built all its parts, who put those parts together. When that computer functions, you don't assume it does that by accident, either; you ask who wrote the program that guides it.


The universe has much more design than any computer in it (the computer is, after all, part of the universe, and the part cannot be greater than the whole). Human brains are thousands of times more complex than any computer. The scientific mind will ask the same questions about the order in the universe that it asks about the computer: who designed It, who gave it the program by which it processes so much information, who built its parts? If it didn't design itself, then its designer must be non‑material and must have intelligence greater than that in the universe.


Okay, but that doesn't prove that God exists.

You're right. We Christians believe much more about God than that He is more powerful and has more intelligence than the universe. But tell me-what would God have to do to prove to you that He exists?

I don't really know what it would take to convince me that God exists. But I'm willing to listen to any reasons you have.

That's great. Now, one more question: If God proved to you that He exists, would you trust Him?

I'm not sure I'd be willing to trust God, but perhaps I would. You'd have to give me some good reasons to do it. How can we know that God exists?
There are three basic ways we know things: reason, experience, and authority-and we Christians add a fourth, revelation, which is really another kind of authority.

Pure reason-logic and mathematics-affords absolute or 100% proof of things. Experience and authority only afford approximate proof. But we don't denigrate experience and authority simply because they don't give absolute proofs. We still trust them a great deal-sometimes we trust them 100% even though they don't give us 100% proof.


For instance, experience might tell you it's safe to cross the street. But you don't have absolute proof. Still when you cross the street you take 100% of yourself across; you trust yourself 100% to the answer experience gives to the question, "Is it safe for me to cross the street now?” Every day we make decisions like that trusting ourselves 100% to things we cannot know with 100% certitude but that we can know with varying degrees of certitude.


Sometimes we trust ourselves completely to something even when there is a fairly high degree of certitude that the thing will turn out to fail us. If we can only see two options, and one of them will almost certainly bring us disaster and the other has even a very low degree of certainty of saving us, we might well trust ourselves—100%—to that highly uncertain option that could mean deliverance.


Imagine, for instance, that you are standing in a sixth floor room of a burning building. You're convinced that if you stay there you will burn to death. You're also pretty sure that if you jump, you'll break your leg or kill yourself, or at least knock yourself out and die when the building collapses on top of you and burns you. What will you do? Quite probably you w1l1jump despite the danger, because you consider the slight chance of your survival by that means to be more attractive than the high chance of death if you stay in the building.


You would never have jumped had the building not been burning and had there been no other life-threatening situation leading you to make that decision. The stakes involved in a decision, then, can justify our trusting some things on little evidence that we would not ordinarily trust even on much greater evidence.


When we approach the question, "How can you prove that God exists?" we're dealing with a question that cannot be answered by pure reason alone-mathematics and logic. It must be answered by some combination of reason, experience, and authority. The evidence given must always fall short of absolute proof, but it is not insufficient for commitment. As with any other question of this sort, we must make our decisions based on degrees of probability. Naturally our decisions will be affected in part by the stakes in the matter.

All this is fine, and I can go along with it. But you still haven't given me any reasons to believe God exists. Are there any?

Yes, I think so. First, experience and reason have led us to believe that the universe was created/Christianity says that the Creator is God. Second, experience and reason have led man to believe that the universe must have been designed by some intelligent being; Christianity says that the Designer is God. Third, Christians say we believe God exists because He has told us so‑that's "revelation," that special kind of authority I mentioned. Fourth, Christians believe God exists because we believe He appeared in human flesh, He became a man in Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute! Why should I believe all these things?!

You've already agreed to the first two. I'm just telling you that from the Christian point of view, when we say "God" we're referring to that non‑material Creator/Designer. After all, we might as well use some term to designate the Creator/Designer, and throughout history philosophers have used the term "God."

Suppose the universe does have a creator. Where did that creator come from?

In any chain of cause and effect, there either is or is not a first cause‑a cause uncaused by any other cause. The chain of cause and effect cannot be circular, because then each effect would have to be both before and after its cause.

Nothing tells us that the universe's cause cannot itself be an effect-nothing in reason and experience alone, that is, though Christians believe God tells us so by revelation. But something does tell us that there must be some cause that is not an effect at all.


We're talking about the principle of contingency, i.e., that effects do not explain themselves, do not give the reasons for their own existence. If everything were contingent then nothing would be explained at all. But we know there must be a reason for the existence of the universe, since once it did not exist and later it did. If there is a reason for anything to exist, then something must not be contingent. Something must be uncaused.


No matter how many links we might think are in the chain of cause and effect, there either is a beginning to the chain, or there is no chain at all. But we believe there is a chain, so we must believe there is a beginning to it. This beginning is what the great philosophers, like Aristotle and Plato, called the "uncaused Cause." When we Christians speak of God, we mean the "uncaused Cause"‑though we mean much more than that: that the uncaused Cause is persona intelligent, loving, good, just, and other such things.

Okay, so there's an uncaused Cause that's powerful and intelligent. But what about your two other reasons for believing God exists?

At this point we're really asking not whether God exists, but what God is like. Fair enough?

Yes.

We know what God is like because He has told us by revelation and because He became a man in Jesus Christ to demonstrate to us what He is like. So if we really want to know what God is like, the best way is to meet Jesus. The Bible tells us about Him.
RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


4. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and absolutely good, why is there evil?

Wait a minute. Before we get to Jesus, I just realized a problem with the whole idea of God Himself. You tell me that God is all-powerful and I know you believe He's good. But then, what about evil? An all-powerful and all‑good God wouldn't permit evil to exist, and even if it did exist temporarily, He would destroy it. If God exists—the God you believe in-then why is there evil?
That's a good question. Actually, Jesus has a lot to do with our answer to this problem. But for the moment, let's handle it just on the logical level.

What we Christians must show is that the proposition "God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good" is logically compatible with the proposition "There is evil in the world." One way to do this is to show that there is some third proposition that is compatible with the first and that implies the second. In other words, we can show that A is compatible with B, no matter how incompatible they at first appear, if we can show that C is compatible with A and implies B.

What I'd like to suggest as that third statement is, "It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them."


I don't see how that ties the first two together at all.

I don't blame you. It isn't immediately apparent how this works. Let's look into this proposition, "It would be morally better for God to create a world containing morally free beings than for Him to create a world without them," and see just what is implied in it.

The key question is, 'What is a morally free being?" The answer is that a morally free being is a being that is free to do either good or evil at any given time—nothing forces him to do one thing or the other. This means it is always possible for a morally free being to do evil.


So, if it is truly better for God to create a world with morally free beings, then it is better for God to create a world with the possibility of evil than a world without that possibility.


Okay, but why is it better to be morally free than not?


You tell me. You're morally free. That means people can praise you for doing good and blame you for doing evil. A hammer isn't morally free. If someone uses it to do something evil, no one condemns the hammer; if someone uses it to do something good, no one praises the hammer, either. Now, which would you prefer: to be yourself, capable of right and wrong and so susceptible to praise or blame, or to be the hammer, capable of neither right nor wrong, and so susceptible to neither praise nor blame?


Okay, I’d rather be myself than a hammer. I’ll grant it's better to be morally free than not.

Good. Now, if God is morally good, and if it is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them, then if God creates anything He should create a world with morally free beings. But such a world is a world in which evil is possible. That means that our first proposition (Gods exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good) is compatible with a third (It is better to create a world with morally free beings than without them) which entails at least the possibility of our second proposition (There is evil in the world). This means God's existence and the reality of evil are not logically contradictory to each other. They are compatible.

But why doesn't God destroy all evil and prevent its returning?

He could, of course, but in so doing He would be destroying morally free creatures. And God could have created a world in which evil was impossible; but then He would have to have created a world without morally free creatures. The only alternative to a morally good world that contains evil is not a morally good world that contains no evil but a morally neutral world that contains neither good nor evil. Such a world, of course, wouldn't contain us. So which do you prefer: a world that contains you, or a world that doesn't?

A world that contains me. I see your point. I guess God and evil are compatible. But just why would God have permitted evil? What purpose is there in it?

First of course it was the only way to create a morally good world. But what was His purpose for evil? Christians believe evil serves a number of purposes, all consistent with God's plan for the world and, especially, for individual people.

One purpose is to occasion certain moral goods that could never come about without evil. One can never forgive someone without someone's doing something evil, right? Forgiveness is one of the highest moral goods, but it is a moral good that could never come about without evil. One could not have mercy without someone's doing something evil that deserved punishment. One cannot have compassion for those who suffer without someone's suffering, and compassion is also a very high virtue. These and other goods all depend for their existence and expression on the existence of evil. So God permits evil in part so that greater goods can occur than could ever occur without it.


Christianity says there is one even higher good that could never have occurred without evil: God's voluntary sacrifice of Himself to bear punishment for us. Think what kind of act gets the highest praise among men. Isn't it when someone voluntarily sacrifices his life in order to save the lives of others? Such self‑sacrifice is a tremendous good. The greatest such sacrifice was when God sacrificed His life in the Person of Jesus Christ to save the lives of all who believe in Jesus.


This doesn't make sense to me. Why was such a sacrifice necessary? What do you mean by God's having saved the lives of those who believe in Jesus? What did they need to be saved from?

They needed to be saved from two kinds of evil: sin and suffering. Christianity says all men are sinners-we all do evil. The possibility of our doing evil is entailed in our being morally free. The reality of it we see in our own lives and in the lives of others.

Justice requires that evil be punished. Punishment involves suffering. But suffering is a kind of evil—an evil of one kind brought on by another. So the problem for God was how to satisfy the demands of His justice and, at the same time, to deliver people from suffering His punishment upon evil. This He did by becoming man in Jesus and then suffering for our sins in our place.

5. Is man basically good?

But I think man is basically good, not sinful.

The question is simply whether man sins at all. Do you do everything you know you ought, and nothing you know you ought not? Have you never done anything wrong in all your life? Have you never lied, cheated, stolen, coveted what belonged to someone else, or hated someone?


Okay, I sin.

This is where we go back to the importance of Jesus in how God is dealing with evil. You see, God is dealing with evil by saving men from it, using it to make them better (by giving them opportunities to develop virtues that could not exist without evil), and making them triumph over it through Jesus. By Jesus' death and resurrection from the dead, God conquered evil, even though He did not annihilate it. This is how, as the early Christian writer Paul of Tarsus put it, God was able to "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). God was just, in that He punished evil, thus satisfying the demands of justice against sin; and He justified those who had faith in Jesus. How? By putting the punishment on Jesus, who voluntarily took our place, and by crediting Jesus' goodness to our accounts. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE



6. What about atheism, agnosticism, and humanism?

I'm following you I guess, but all of this is getting pretty confusing just now. What about those who are agnostics, atheists, or humanists?
You already know atheism is wrong, since we've proved the universe must have a Creator and Designer. Besides, someone can only be an atheist who says that in all existence, there is no such thing as God. Only someone omniscient‑like God‑could know that. So an atheist, if he realized what he was claiming, would be claiming to be God!

We've already seen that atheism and agnosticism are false. For those who have gone through the reasoning you and I have gone through together, neither is an option. You've already acknowledged God's existence, and so you're neither an agnostic nor an atheist. For you to declare yourself one now would be for you to ignore everything you just discovered, and that wouldn't be intellectually honest.


Fine. But what about those who haven't gone through that reasoning? What's wrong with their being agnostics?

Nothing. It's how they respond to claims about God that's important. You see, there are two kinds of agnostics: those who simply say they don't know if God exists, and those who say no one can know. The second kind is really saying he knows the minds of all other people and knows what is and is not possible for them to know. I've never yet met anyone who could support such a claim. The first kind, to act consistently with his claim not to know whether God exists, should be open to and interested in arguments others can give him for the existence of God. Surely one who claims not to know something is wise to listen to those who claim to know it.

That sounds reasonable. And humanism?

Originally "humanism" referred to the belief that man and the works of man‑literature, art, science, music, drama, etc.‑were legitimate subjects of study. That may seem obvious to us today, but there was a period in the history of the western world, at least, when most people thought the only proper subjects of study were those connected with God and His works‑religion, essentially. Originally "humanism" simply reminded us that it was okay to study things outside religion, and for that we are thankful.

But there is another sense in which people call themselves humanists. They claim that man is totally self‑sufficient, that he can solve all his problems without God or God's help. Of course man can solve many problems himself. But Christianity says he cannot solve the problems of sin and of deserving God's punishment for sin without God's help.


Christianity welcomes the first kind of humanism, but rejects the second because it leaves the most important Being In all existence out of the picture and falsely exalts man, claiming he is better than he really is.

7. Isn't Christianity just wish—fulfillment?



So we really need God if we're going to solve all our problems. But that doesn't mean God actually exists, or that Christianity is true. Aren't you just wishing this stuff were true, and then claiming that it is?

Oh no! The mere fact that one wishes for something to be true doesn't make it untrue, any more than it makes it true. Haven't you ever wished for something and it ended up happening? We have to answer the truth or falsehood question independently of whether we wish for it or not. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


8. Did Jesus claim to be God, or was He really just a good moral teacher, or might his disciples have made up the story of his claims to be God?


Okay, then, what are the evidences for Christianity? Some say, for instance, that Jesus never existed, that he's just a fictional character.

The most important evidence for His existence is the New Testament, a collection of twenty‑seven writings (the first four devoted entirely to telling about His life and teachings‑two of these written by eyewitnesses), all of which tell of Jesus, of His life, of His teachings, and of the movement He started, which we know today as Christianity. These documents are strong evidence for the existence of Jesus.


But the New Testament isn't the only document attesting Jesus' existence. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, not a Christian, wrote of Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews. In describing the period of Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of the area where Jesus lived, Josephus said:



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. (Antiquities, Bk. XVIII, Ch. iii)



Josephus wrote his Antiquities in the late first century, completing it in the thirteenth year of the Roman emperor Domitian (A.D. 93‑94). It is one of the primary sources of historical information about late Jewish history.



The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, writing around A.D. 112 about the reign of Nero, refers to Jesus and the existence of Christians in Rome (Annals, XV,44). Roman historian Seutonius wrote around A.D. 120 mentioned Jesus and His followers Life of Claudius, 25.4); and the Roman historian Pliny the Younger wrote of Jesus around A.D. 112 (Epistles X.96)



The Apostle Luke, one of the writers of the first four books of the New Testament the "Gospel of Luke," was a careful historian (he also wrote the New Testament Book of Acts). At the beginning of his writing about the life of Jesus, Luke assured his friend that he intended to convey the most carefully‑researched historical facts:



Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1‑4)



When Luke began writing about the public works of Jesus, he put it in a historical setting:



Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas.... (Luke 3:1‑2)



The other three Gospels, or stories of the life and teachings of Jesus. also contain clear historical references. They were written by people who respected historical fact. Two of these men, Matthew and John, were followers of Jesus during His ministry; one, Mark, was the close friend of another follower, Peter (who himself wrote two short letters in the New Testament), and Luke was a close companion of Peter and several others of Jesus' followers, and recorded not only the life and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, but also the lives and works of His closest followers and their first followers in the Book of Acts.



So there's very good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. In fact, we know more about the life and teachings, and even the birth and death of Jesus than about almost any other figure in the ancient world.



All right, Jesus existed. But why should I believe you when you say he's God in the flesh? I think of Him simply as a good moral teacher.



Good moral teachers don't knowingly teach falsehoods, do they? And they don't lead people to trust them to do things they can't do, do they? They also don't make grandiose claims about themselves, like claiming to be God, do they?



No, I suppose not But did Jesus make any such claims?



Yes, He did,



One of the ways Jews referred to God in Jesus' day was the "the Father," and Jews and Christians to this day refer to Him as such. At one point in His teaching, one of his followers, Philip, asked Him to show him and others of His followers the Father. Jesus responded, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father Is in Me? ... Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me..." (John 14:8‑11)



At another time, Jesus was assuring His followers that the Father would take care of them; he concluded by saying, “I and the Father are one." The response of the Jewish leaders to this made it clear they had understood Him to be claiming to be God: "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him" (stoning was a way of killing people believed to have dishonored God by blasphemy). "Jesus answered them, 'I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?“ The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30‑33)



In the Old Testament, the most commonly‑used name for God is Jehovah or Jahweh. This name is a rough transliteration of YHWH, Hebrew meaning "I AM." It is a name for God that expresses His eternal existence, or, in terms borrowed from our earlier conversation, His noncontingency. I AM" as a name for God indicates that He owes His existence to nothing else, that He is in fact the first Cause, not an effect (Exodus 3:13‑15).



The Jews of Jesus' day were thoroughly familiar with this designation for God, and so was Jesus. But Jesus applied this designation to Himself when He said, for instance, "... unless you believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24), and "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM..." (John 8:28). Later Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews puzzled over this and responded, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM" (John 8:56‑58). Notice the distinction Jesus makes between Himself and Abraham here? He claims that Abraham came into existence, but claims eternal, non‑contingent existence for Himself. What was the Jews' response? "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him" (John 8:59). They believed He had dishonored God by calling Himself God.



Not only did Jesus claim to be God, His followers believed that claim. The Apostle John, one of His closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his Gospel; John also quoted Thomas, another of Jesus' followers, calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Peter, another of Jesus' closest followers, called Jesus God in the first verse of his second letter (2 Peter 1: 1). The Apostle Paul called Jesus God in his letter to another Christian named Titus (Titus 2:13).


But that doesn't mean it's true. Just because someone claims to be God doesn't mean he is.


You're right. But what are the alternatives? We know Jesus claimed to be God. If He isn't God, then how else might we explain that claim?



I suppose he could have been lying, or he could have been insane.


Those are the only options if he is not God. But each option fails to stand careful questioning.



Was He a liar? Jesus always condemned lying. It seems psychologically pretty unlikely that Jesus was such a liar if He also condemned lying so thoroughly and consistently. Besides this, the idea that He purposely deceived people just doesn't fit with His whole character. Jesus loved people. He went out of His way time after time to help them. He healed them, got them out of trouble, fed them when they were hungry, urged them to love each other, and told them how. That someone like this could have been a liar of the magnitude of a man who would claim to be God when he wasn't is pretty hard to imagine.



Was He insane? Again, the idea just doesn't fit with what we know about Jesus. His teachings about human psychology, contentment, fulfillment, service to others, and the path to happiness are clear, compelling, and enormously convincing to many psychologists. Indeed, if people would live consistently in accord with His teachings in the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5‑7) their lives would be enormously more fulfilled and their mental health much greater than it is when they live contrary to those teachings.



One great Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, became a Christian after years as an atheist and, later, an agnostic, and was a professor of medieval literature and philosophy at Cambridge and Oxford universities in England. In his book Mere Christianity Lewis stated this dilemma forcefully,



... even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less to unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.



I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be alunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg‑or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronzing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, London, England: Collins Fontana Books, 1960, pp. 52‑53.)



Of course, in the long run, this must be your decision. The only good way for you to decide whether you think Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic, or really who He said He was, God in human flesh, is to get to know Him, to read thoroughly about Him in the four Gospels of the New Testament. Read those, or at least one of them, and you'll have a clear picture of Jesus' character‑then decide for yourself whether you think He was lying, insane, or God.

Perhaps Jesus never really made these claims. Maybe the writers of the New Testament just made those things up. Maybe their histories of the life and teachings of Jesus aren't really accurate.

That's a logicial possibility, of course, but the evidence is entirely against it.


First, historians and archeologists, Christians and non‑Christians alike, who specialize in studying the region and times of the New Testament are coming to realize increasingly how accurate and reliable the New Testament is as a collection of historical documents. They are finding again and again that if the New Testament says something happened, it happened.



There's another reason, too, for believing those claims weren't made up by Jesus' followers. Of the twelve foremost followers of Jesus (called "Apostles"), eleven suffered horrible, painful deaths at the hand of persecutors because they refused to renounce their faith in and preaching of Jesus, His resurrection, and His deity. The twelfth, John, died in extreme old age, exiled from his homeland by anti‑Christian authorities. He, too, refused to renounce his faith in Jesus. And before their deaths these men all repeatedly underwent terrible persecutions for their faith and never once wavered from it.



People do not die for what they know is false‑but they willingly die if need be, for what they firmly believe is true. The apostles claimed to be eye‑witnesses of the risen Jesus and to have heard His teachings with their own ears and so have come to the belief that He was God come to save them and all who believe in Him. It just doesn't make sense to think the apostles lied about Jesus.



Finally, there's one more evidence that Jesus was who He said He was. He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead, and that that miracle would be the chief sign that His claims about Himself were true. The resurrection of Jesus is the greatest proof of His diety and of the truth of the whole Christian faith.

Now you're talking about a miracle as the greatest proof for Christianity. But miracles are impossible. They're contrary to the laws of nature, and the laws of nature can't be broken.

The laws of nature don't tell us what can happen; they only tell us what nature can do unassisted by anything outside itself. If there's nothing outside nature, then nothing can ever happen that nature cannot cause by itself. If there is something outside nature that can affect nature, then things can happen that nature by itself could not cause.


You and I agreed earlier that there is something outside nature‑that is intelligent and powerful‑God. We know God can affect nature, because He created it. If God could create nature, then He can also affect it in other ways.



A miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature. It is simply the effect of a cause outside nature reaching into nature and producing what nature by itself could not have produced.



The laws of nature simply tell us that effects are appropriate to their causes. Natural causes produce natural effects. Unnatural causes would, if they acted on nature, produce unnatural effects.

9. Did Jesus really rise from the dead?

Okay, I'l1 grant that miracles are possible. But how do you know Jesus rose from the dead? Just because it's possible doesn't mean it happened.
We know it from historical evidence, just as we know anything else about historical events.

Let's set a little background to the kind of evidence we'll look at. This should help us assess the evidence more reasonably.

Numerous times during the last three years of His life, Jesus predicted that He would be crucified (He said it would be to pay for the sins of the world) and that, following the crucifixion, He would rise again from the dead. A little over a week before His death, for instance, He told His closest followers. "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man (this was a special title Jesus gave Himself) will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up" (Matthew 20:18‑19; similar predictions by Jesus are recorded in Matthew 12:40; 16:4; 17:22,23; Luke 9:22,31; 24:6,7; Mark 10:34, Matthew 26:32; Mark 9:9).

One curious thing is that His disciples did not understand these predictions. After one extraordinary event, Jesus instructed His disciples "not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. And they seized upon that statement, discussing with one another what rising from the dead might mean" (Mark 9:9‑10).

Though they had trusted Him completely before His death, after He died they were completely discouraged. They did not expect Him to rise from the dead.


Once, while two of His followers were walking together along a road after His death, they were approached by a fellow traveler, who noted their discouragement. They explained that they were discouraged because of Jesus' death. "Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" asked one of the disciples of the stranger. The stranger asked. "What things?" And the disciples explained to him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him up to the sentence of death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel" (Luke 24:17‑2 1). They “were hoping"-their hope was gone by now, but before they had hoped. Jesus' death had destroyed all their hopes in Him.


THEN something happened. The stranger responded, "... foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory'?" Then the stranger explained to them that throughout the Jewish Scriptures‑the Old Testament‑there had been predictions concerning the Savior's death and resurrection. Finally, the stranger disclosed Himself to them: it was Jesus Himself, though they had been kept from recognizing Him (Luke 24:31).


Were they just seeing a vision? No, because before the stranger revealed who He was, they watched Him break bread and give it to them.


Shortly after that when these two rejoined the other disciples in Jerusalem, they heard that Jesus had appeared to another of them Peter (Luke 24:34). While they were all together, Jesus Himself "stood in their midst. But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself, touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.'... And while they still could not believe (See, the disciples were skeptics, too! Just like you, they weren't about to believe in Jesus' having risen from the dead without solid evidence!) it for joy and were marveling, He said to them, 'Have you anything here to eat?' And they gave Him a piece of broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them" (Luke 24:36‑43).


One of the disciples, Thomas, was particularly skeptical. Even after the living Jesus had appeared to many of His followers, and they had all told that to him, Thomas refused to believe, since he hadn't been there with them to see and touch Jesus for himself. Even though the other disciples said, 'We have seen the Lord!" he responded, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the places of the nails, and put my hand into His side (Jesus had been pierced through the side with a spear by a Roman soldier to make sure He was dead), I will not believe" John 20:25). Eight days later the disciples were all gathered together again, and Jesus appeared among them. He walked up to Thomas and said, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Finally the skeptic was won over, and Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:26‑28).


When Luke began the second of his two books in which he described, first the life and teachings of Jesus, and then, the lives and teachings of the disciples after His death and resurrection, he impressed on his reader, a man named Theophilus, how strong were the reasons to believe in Jesus:


"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom he had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:1‑3).


The disciples of Jesus were not gullible! They required "many convincing proofs" before they would believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. And once they had seen those proofs, they committed themselves to telling the whole world about Him.

This all sounds good. but all these people were his best friends. I don't see any reason to believe they didn't just dream up the story.

That's always possible. But remember, we're talking about good reasons here, not just possibilities. The truly scientific mind goes in directions pointed to by strongest evidences, by probabilites, not mere possibilities,

Actually, while the disciples could have made all this up, it's highly unlikely that they did. First, they themselves tell us that they were merely confused by Jesus' predictions of His resurrection. They didn't expect to see Him alive again, so why should they have made up stories that He did? Second, as we discussed earlier, no one dies a martyr's death for what he knows to be a lie.


There's a third reason to believe the disciples didn't make up the story. The Jewish religious leaders rejected Jesus. If the disciples had made up a story about His rising from the dead, and then had begun to preach that story around Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders could have ended the whole thing quickly by exhuming the body of Jesus and bringing it out in public.


Then there's a fourth reason to believe they didn't make up the story. One of the apostles, named Paul, was not among the first followers of Jesus. In fact, during the first few years after Jesus' death and resurrection. Paul (who was then called Saul) actively persecuted the followers of Jesus, casting some in prison, having others beaten, and sending some to their deaths. He was the most bitter and dangerous enemy Christians had.


One day something changed Saul completely. While he was on his way to Damascus to persecute more Christians, "suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? And he said, ‘Who are You, Lord’ And He said,' I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do...”’ (Acts 9:3‑6). Saul was blinded by the experience, and three days later Ananias, one of the Christian believers there, came and restored his sight to him. From that day forward, Paul became one of the strongest of the apostles, preaching the gospel all over the Roman empire, withstanding tremendous persecutions and hardships for the sake of Jesus, and finally dying a martyr's death, all because he insisted that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to him.


In one of his letters, Paul summed up the evidence for Christ's resurrection this way: "... I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not 1, but the grace of God with me" (1 Corinthians 15:3‑ 10).


So you see, I don't think it makes much sense to say the disciples just made up the story of the resurrection of Jesus. It's possible, but it's so unlikely that I'd hate to stake my life on it.

You said the Jewish leaders didn't find the body in the tomb. Couldn't they have gone to the wrong tomb?

It wouldn't have been only the Jewish leaders, then, who had gone to the wrong tomb. Jesus' disciples must have made the same mistake, because several of them were so skeptical of the reports of others that they, too, went to the tomb to check whether the body was there. The first among Jesus' followers to go there were the women who had been involved in putting Him in the tomb in the first place just 36 hours earlier. I think it stretches credulity for us to think they made such a silly mistake that quickly afterward.

Besides, the Jewish rulers had made arrangements with the Roman governor Pontius Pilate to have a group of Roman soldiers stationed at the tomb, since they knew of rumors that Jesus might rise from the dead, and they wanted to be sure no one stole the body to fake a resurrection. The guards, the Roman authorities, and the Jewish leaders certainly knew the right tomb. And even if they hadn't known it, it wouldn't have taken long to check the other tombs in the area, find the body, and end the preaching of the resurrection.


Of course, too, the idea that these people were thinking of the wrong tomb doesn't explain the actual appearances of Jesus after His death and burial.


Well, maybe he never really died on the cross. Maybe he just became unconscious, and woke up in the tomb.

Again, that's a possibility, but highly unlikely. When he was reported dead, the Roman authorities instructed a soldier to run a spear through His side, directly under His heart, to make sure it was true. The Roman soldiers who performed crucifixions, were professional executioners the likelihood they would have been fooled is pretty slim.

Even if He had merely lost consciousness and later revived, that wouldn't explain the stories of resurrection. Because He was Himself a Person of absolute honesty. He would have corrected the disciples for teaching that He had died and risen again. And sooner or later He would really have died, and that would have crushed the disciples' hopes again.


Resuscitation doesn't really explain the nature of His appearances to the disciples, either. David Friedrich Strauss, a nineteenth‑century skeptical historian and philosopher who never believed in the resurrection of Jesus: wrote of the impossibility of the resuscitation idea:


It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship. (David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People, second edition, London: Williams and Norgate, 1879, volume 1, page 412.)

Maybe someone stole the body, and the disciples just thought it was a resurrection when they found the tomb empty.

Again, this doesn't explain the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. And they gave their lives because they refused to deny the truth of their testimonies of those appearances.

Besides, who would have stolen the body‑or could have, for that matter? The Romans had no motive to steal it; when the disciples began preaching the resurrection, they would have had plenty of motive to bring the body out into the open if they had stolen it. So the Romans didn't steal it.


The Jewish leaders also would not have had a motive to steal it. Their best motive was to see that it stayed in the same tomb‑that's why they asked the Romans to guard the tomb. Even if they had stolen the body, they, too, could have brought it out later to end the preaching of the resurrection.


In that polarized society, there was really only one other major faction‑the followers of Jesus. They had no motive to steal the body. Their own writings tell us they were disheartened after Jesus' death, not determined to find some way to perpetuate their movement. They hadn't even understood His predictions that He would rise from the dead. And then, of course, we're stuck with the paradox of people dying for what they would have known to be a lie. Besides, the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb were tough, well‑trained fighting men, hardly likely to be overcome by untrained fishermen and others without proper fighting weapons.


You see, there are possible explanations for the empty tomb other than the resurrection of Jesus. But they're all highly unlikely. As intelligent people, we make decisions based on probability. And the highest probability is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. The easiest way for you to know that is to meet Him yourself‑to pray to Him and ask Him to reveal Himself to you, to become your Lord, to forgive you for your sins, and to restore you to friendship with God.


I suppose I can believe the historical probabilities are strong that Jesus rose from the dead and is who he said he was. But I still just can't believe it. After all, this isn't absolute proof. Since you can't prove scientifically the resurrection of Jesus or that he is God, I don't think it's intelligent to believe in him. After all, you're asking me to commit my life to him‑for that I want absolute proof.

Then you're asking more proof about this than you do about pretty much anything else in your life. Every day you commit yourself totally to something that you don't have absolute proof will be worthy of that commitment. When you ride in a car, do you have absolute proof it won't develop a gas leak, catch fire, and explode? When you go up an elevator in a building, do you have absolute proof it won't come crashing down because the cable has broken, and leave you dead? Of course not. You only have varying degrees of probability.

Remember what I said earlier about our making decisions based on probability? Sometimes the stakes in the matter are pretty high, and those high stakes can lead us to trust ourselves to something even if the evidence for it isn't very strong. I'm not saying the evidences for Christianity aren't very strong; I think they're quite strong indeed. But even if those evidences weren’t that strong, I think you'd have good reason to trust yourself to it, because the stakes are so high. Jesus says if you don't believe in Him, you will be lost forever, consciously suffering separation from God because of your sins. RETURN TO QUESTION PAGE


10. Why do I have to believe in Jesus to become God's friend? Why couldn't God just accept us as we are?

Why do I have to believe in Jesus to become God's friend? Why couldn't I achieve that some other way?
If Jesus is who He said He is‑God‑then whatever He says is true. I've already given you what I think are very strong arguments that Jesus is who He said He is‑His resurrection being the strongest. So I think it makes sense to believe what Jesus tells us. And He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6).

Our sins put us under God's judgment. God is perfect, and He demands perfection of us. But none of us is perfect, so we cannot meet those demands. Because God is just He requires punishment on those who disobey Him. But Jesus said He had come to give His life to ransom us from God's just penalty against sin (Matthew 20:28).

I don't understand why all that was necessary. Why couldn't God just accept us as we are?

God made us to be His friends, but our sins make us repugnant to Him. The old Jewish prophet Habakkuk prayed once to God, "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor" (Habakkuk 1:13). So mankind's sinfulness separates him from God. Yet God's love for us is so strong that He promised He would send someone‑His only Son, in fact,‑to bear punishment as our substitute, so that we could be set free from sin and its punishment and become His friends again. Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God's promise to send the Savior.

The price God paid to deliver us from punishment for sin was infinitely precious‑His own Son. If there had been any other way for us to reach God, Jesus would not have had to die. That He did die indicates that there was no other way to make salvation possible. His resurrection proved He was who He said He was and that His death did what He said It did, namely, paid the penalty for our sins.

You know, I started compiling a file of all the idiotic things this person has said, but it's become too big a task.

You didn't believe me that there was tons of proof. You didn't think there was answers for those hard questions.

Do you still believe there is no God?

Do you still have more questions, then follow the answers:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/answers_for_atheists/default.htm

Do you still want more proof, then go to a Christian book shop and buy one of the hundreds of books that have the proof you're looking for.

Still don't care, then that is fine. It's your salvation.

Adam
§Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥
7041 posts
Whatsupyall - The Sequel
You know, I started compiling a file of all the idiotic things this person has said, but it's become too big a task.

OKAY YOU'VE SPENT YOUR TIME SAYING WHAT YOU THINK OF ME, NOW IT'S TIME FOR WHAT I THINK:

LOL, the funny thing is this was all just a test. I'm a 16 year old who is being called by God to preach His word, and I wanted to see what I was up against. So far I haven't read one book on atheism, and I've read half a book on evolution, yet I was still able to make you defensive and resort to name calling in your responses.

Like seriously, look at yourselves, you spend all your time thinking about how stupid Christians are. While Christians spend all their time in fellowship with God, serving Him and receiving great joy.

It's not all that different once you think about it; you serve the great God Atheis, while I serve Jesus and the Christian God.

To the Greeks the gospel was foolishness. And to our modern day Atheists, they think it is stupid. NO DIFFERENCE!

Religion has followed this trend for thousands of years. I don't see how you could become so defensive against something that is so obviously going to happen.

You think I'm stupid, well considering I haven't read one book on Atheism I can see your reasoning. But the way you reached this conclusion is quite funny. You saw that I wasn't going to budge in my beliefs so therefore I was stupid. Yet that reaction is so predictable. I don't need 10 diplomas to see that Atheists only have one argument when it boils down to it. YOUR WRONG AND I'M RIGHT, BECAUSE I'M SMART AND YOU’RE DUMB!

Now I can see the next argument, NO I DIDN'T SAY THAT - YES YOU DID, NO I DIDN'T - YES YOU DID, NO I DIDN'T.

Come on, when you stop hiding behind your scientific theories, all you can say is childish dribble.

I hope God blesses your lives, and especially the person who prayed that I would go to hell. I hope you all find the blessings I've found in Jesus Christ. And I hope you all live a great life, and have an after life with God.

In all things God be glorified, bye

I'm a 16 year old who is being called by God to preach His word...

Wow, aren't you special! God called you, personally, to go on a job for him? Kick arse!



yet I was still able to make you defensive and resort to name calling in your responses.

It is not defensive to call a stone a stone, a fish a fish, or an idiot an idiot.

You know an awful lot about christianity considering you say your still at school. I'll be honest with you, you don't sound or write like a 16 year old schoolkid to me

Answers, you should take a long look at yourself in the mirror? You're 16!!!! That might explain a few things. Life is very confusing at your age.

One day, you may actually open your mind and question what you're being told.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by answers
Hi, I'm another one of those annoying born again Christians :P

If there are any Atheists, who want to ask me some questions about Christianity or God then I'd be more then happy to answer them.

You can post them here, but to be sure I'll answer them email me the questions at

timpil@email.com

I'll answer every question as best I can. If you're bothered sending me a question, I'll be bothered answering it.
=================================

49 Questions About Christianity !


1.If Jesus's mission was to the lost sheep of
Israel,why was it confined to Palestine where only
two of the original tribes had settled? Did that
mean that Jesus had failed in his mission?

2.Why should Jesus specifically forbid, on the one
hand, preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles Matthew
7:6,15:24,26) and yet on the other, tell the
disciples to teach all the nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost? (Matthew 28:19)

3.Why did Jesus prohibit the Gospel from being preached
to the Gentiles during his ministry (Matthew 10:5,
7:6,15:24-26) but after his 'resurrection' tell them
to preach the Gospel to the whole world? (Mark
16:15)
If Jesus really had made the latter statement, why
was there such a fierce debate within the early
Church (and particularly between Peter and Paul) as
to whether the Gospel should be preached to the
Gentiles? (Acts 15:6-30)

4.Out of all the signs that Jesus could have given
about himself, he chose to give the sign of Jonah:
This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a
sign but no sign shall be given to it except the
sign of Jonah. (Luke 11:29, Matthew 12:39, Matthew
16) Jonah was swallowed alive by a whale and
remained in its belly alive for three days. For
Jesus to have properly fulfilled the prophecy, he
would need to enter the tomb alive and come out
alive. Why should Jesus give this, of all signs, if
he was to die and be resurrected?

5.If Jesus's message was for the whole of mankind,
why did he forbid his disciples to preach to the
Gentiles? (Matthew 10:5-6)

6.When Jesus was asked what the only way was to true
salvation,he replied: keep the Commandments (Matthew
19:17).
The first of the Commandments was to believe in the
Oneness of God (Exodus 20:3). Why did Jesus answer
so if he believed in and was part of the Trinity?
Why did he not refer to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost?
7.Jesus said that he had not come to change the Law of
Moses (Matthew 5:17). The Law of Moses teaches that
there is one God (Exodus 20:3). If Jesus was
introducing the concept of Trinity, why did he not
say that he was changing the Law of Moses or
introducing a different
8.Jesus prophesied that men of his generation would not
pass away without witnessing his second coming and
the falling of stars (Mark 9:1, 13:30). Why was this
prophecy unfulfilled? Why was it that Jesus did not
return within the lifetime of his generation?

9.Why did Jesus forbid the disciples from calling
people fools yet called the Jewish leaders with
names like vipers and children of adultery? Is it
conceivable that a Divine Being would behave in this
way?

10.According to Luke, when the Jews tried Jesus they
asked him Are you the son of God? Jesus replied you
say that I am (Luke 22:70) which could mean: you say
that I am but I do not. If his divinity was
something he came to tell the world, why did he not
plainly say yes instead of couching his answer in
ambiguous terms?

11.In the Old Testament, the term Son of God was
applied to David (Psalms 89:27), the nation of
Israel (Exodus 4:22), the children of Israel
(Psalms 82:6), and Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:10).
Jesus also used it for the peacemakers (Matthew
5:9). If Jesus was referring to himself as the Son
of God in the literal sense, why did he not make it
clear that he was differentiating between a
symbolic reference and a literal meaning of the
term?

12.Jesus was the Messiah, the fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecies. He frequently made reference
to himself as the suffering servant foretold in the
Book of Isaiah (Matthew 8:17 & Isaiah 53:4; Luke
2:30 & Isaiah 52:10; Luke 22:37 & Isaiah 53:12). The
Messiah of the Old Testament was, however, promised
by God that he would not be killed (Psalms 34:19,
Isaiah 53:10). How was it, therefore, that the Jews
had succeeded in killing the Messiah if Jesus died
on the cross?

13.If Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him,
why did he continue to permit him as a disciple? Why
did he not tell the other disciples so that Judas
could be excluded from his closest circle of
followers?

14.If Jesus knew that one of his disciples would betray
him, why should he say that all twelve disciples
would sit upon twelve thrones? (Matthew 19:28)
15.If Jesus knew that he was to die on the cross, why
did he spend all night praying in the Garden of
Gethsemane seeking deliverance: Father if it is
possible may this cup be taken from me? (Matthew
26:39)

16.Jesus had taught that man's prayers are answered
the Garden of Gethsemane? What effect would this
incident have on the faith of his disciples and
followers to see that a prayer had not been answered
contrary to what Jesus had taught?

17.If Jesus believed that his prayer in the Garden of
Gethsemane would not be heard, why did he tell his
disciples earlier that prayers are answered?: Would
any of you who are fathers give your son a stone
when he asked for bread (Matthew 7:9-10) which means
that God hears the prayers of man more than a
father answers the wishes of his children and Ask
and it will be given to you; seek and you will find;
knock and it will be openedtoyou. And whatever you
ask in your prayers, you will receive, if you have
faith. (Matthew 21:22; John 11:41,42)

18.If Jesus's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane was
not to be heard, why was it something that he wanted
the disciples to witness? If the prayer was not to
be heard, what useful purpose does this story serve?

19.Why should Matthew, Mark and Luke all report
(Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42) that Jesus
asked for the cup of suffering to be passed if
possible yet John (John 18:11) reports that Jesus
hastened for the crucifixion saying shall I not
drink the cup the Father hath given me?

20.Why did Pontius Pilate just simply ignore his wife's
plea to have nothing to do with Jesus on account of
her bad dream? (Matthew 27:19) If the very mission
of Jesus was to suffer death, why should God
Almighty show a dream to Pilate's wife which would
cause her to try and persuade her husband to release
Jesus? Would not that appear to counter God's own
plan?

21.If Pilate really wanted Jesus to die on the cross,
why would he fix the crucifixion on a Friday evening
knowing that the Jews would have to take him down
before Sabbath and that such a little time on the
cross was insufficient for him to die?

22.If Jesus knew all along that he was destined to be
crucified to death (indeed if that was his purpose
in life), why did he exclaim on the cross Eli, Eli
Lama Sabachthani meaning my God my God why hast thou
forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
23.If Jesus was about to die, how was he able to say in
a clear loud and audible voice that he was thirsty?
(John 19:28)
Sabachthani (Matthew 27:46) reported in their
original Aramaic form? Could it be that Jesus's
helpless cry left such a vivid impression of a man
seemingly bereft of hope that anyone who heard them
would remember the exact words?

25.Vinegar is often considered to have a stimulating
effect,rather similar to smelling salts. Why, in
Jesus's case, did it suddenly lead to his death?
(John 19:29,

26.How could an onlooker tell the difference between a
man on the cross who had died and a man who had
fainted (Mark 15:39) particularly when it is
reported that it was dark at that time? (Mark 15:33,
Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44)

27.If Jesus was dead when he was removed from the
cross, why did his body release blood and water,
since blood does not flow at all from a dead body?
(John 19:34)

28.Why did Jesus die before the other two who were
crucified with him even though the legs of the other
two were broken to hasten death? (John 19:32)

29.It is reported that dead saints came out of their
graves and made themselves known to many (Matthew
27:52). When the Jews saw this, why did they not
immediately profess faith in Jesus? Where did these
saints go? Who did they see? Why is there no account
of this story elsewhere other than in Matthew's
Gospel?

30.If the above story of saints rising from the dead is
not based on an actual historical event, what other
statements there in the Gospels which are not baon
actual historical facts?

31.Jesus said that the killing of prophets ended with
the killing of Zacharias (Matthew 23:35-36). How was
it, therefore, that the Jews had succeeded in
killing another prophet?

32.Crucifixion was meant to be an accursed death
(Deuteronomy 21:23). If Jesus was crucified, did
that mean he also suffered an accursed death?
33.Why was it that a Roman soldier was so readily
prepared to allow Joseph (a subjected citizen) to
take down Jesus's body from the cross without
checking and without Joseph having any apparent
lawful authority?

34.Why is there is no direct account by Joseph of
Arimathea or Nicodemus that Jesus was dead when he
was account would have settled the matter beyond
dispute?

35.Why should Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus take so
much trouble to recover the body of Jesus when this
would have been the duty of the nearest relative?
36.Why did Pilate agree to release the 'body' to Joseph
of Arimathea (a known Jew and follower of Jesus) if
he was not sympathetic to Jesus?

37.Crucifixion was a slow death. It usually lasted
several days. Death followed from exhaustion,
inability to respire property as a result of being
in an upright position or attacks by wild animals.
Why did Jesus, who was a fit and healthy man used to
walking the countryside for long distances, die so
quickly in only a matter of a few hours?

38.If Jesus really was expected to die in such a short
time, why did Pilate express surprise at Jesus's
death? (Mark 15:42-44)

39.Why would the Jews bribe the soldiers to say that
Jesus's disciples had stolen the corpse whilst they
(the soldiers) were asleep? If the soldiers had
truly related this story, they might have been asked
how they knew that the disciples had stolen the
corpse if they were asleep?

40.Why did the Jews not go and check the tomb
themselves? They had put much effort into getting
Jesus crucified. A friend of Jesus had been allowed
to take the body away. Why did they not visit the
tomb before Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of
Jesus did?

41.Why did Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus not stay
with Jesus in the tomb after taking down his body
from the cross to witness the resurrection? Jesus
had apparently told his followers that he would die
and rise after three days. (Matthew 16:21, 17:23,
20:17-19) This report had even reached the Jews
(Matthew 27:63). Why did not Joseph and Nicodemus
remain with Jesus to witness the event?

42.Did the Jews really believe that Jesus had died? If
so, why did they ask the Romans for a guard to be
placed outside the sepulcher? Matthew says the Jews
explained this by saying that Jesus's disciples
could spread false rumors about him rising from the
dead. However, if the Jews really believed this to
be the reason for the request, why could they not
have asked the disciples to produce the risen Christ
as proof? If the disciples had then done so, the
Jews could then presumably rearrest Jesus.

43.Why were the Roman authorities so disinterested
about the apparent removal of the body if this is
what the Jews were claiming?

44.Why was the stone moved from the tomb (Matthew28:2)
if it was a supernatural rising?

45.When Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of Jesus saw
him, he was wearing gardener's clothing (John
20:15). Where did Jesus get these clothes from? His
own clothes had been taken by the soldiers who had
divided them drawing lots (John 19:23). It was not
through Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus because
they are only reported of having taken in herbs,
aloes and a linen shroud (John 19:39, 40). What was
the significance of Jesus wearing gardener's
clothing (as opposed to normal clothing)? Was it
meant to be a disguise? If so, for what purpose?

46.Why were the women who visited the tomb terrified if
Jesus was dead (Mark 16:8)? What did they have to be
terrified of if the Jews had succeeded in killing
Jesus?

47.If Jesus could conquer death and rise from thedead,
why did he fear seeing the Jews afterthe
crucifixion? particularly as death had no more power
over him? (Romans 6:9)

48.Why did Jesus disguise himself afterthe
resurrection and appear only to the disciples?
Surely, this was the great manifestation of his
power and the fulfillment of the purpose of his
creation. What was the purpose in keeping it all a
secret now?

49.If Jesus was the risen Christ, why did he meet his
disciples behind closed doors and not in the open as
he used to? (John 20:19)

Note: All quotations are from the Revised Standard
Version.

****The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.


We're really left with only two options. We can believe that nothing exists, or we can believe that matter and energy and something else exist. But to believe that only matter and energy exist is to deny a basic law of physics.****

i think you are a bit confused here. Your claims might be valid if they were applied to a closed system, but the earth isn't. Evolution, genes do not have to adhere to the second law. Therefore: 3rd option. the earth is not a closed system, second law doesn't apply here.

edit: and congratulations to me for 500 posts in about 3 days, and condolences to you all for the same reason.

Originally posted by answers

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
PROPHECY: Nearly 750 years before Christ's birth, the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah prophesied: "The Lord Himself
3. shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall CONCEIVE, and bear a SON, and shall call His name Immanuel."--Isaiah 7:14.

wasn't his name jesus?

Answer: Immanuel is Jesus in a different language, i'm pretty sure it was Jewish, but it might have been greek. [/B] Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with virgins and Immanuel does not mean Jesus in any language.

Answers,

I have two small questions that can easily debunk Christianity.

1) Do you know or did you overlook the part in the Bible where Jesus told his worshippers not to praise him but to only praise "God"?

2) Why do you think the character of Jesus is so similar to the character of Horus, who proceeded Jesus by many years?

When I first read "answer's" post, I just put my face in my hands and shook my head, no... no... no...
But then I read the questions that Adam, Xev, Elbaz, Chris, Raithere, tiasa, and Neutrino_Albatross asked - and I was very impressed.

Then I read answer's answers, and I just put my face in my hands and shook my head, no... no... no...

But I think the questions deserve better answers, so I'm going to put my 2 cents in. These are not the answers I would have given 5 years ago, and they may not be the answers I would give 5 years from now. But they are my answers, given after praying to my God for guidance. I offer them to you 7 humbly and with respect.

Adam 1) Is evolution supported by facts? Yes, but the facts are physical, and speak of physical truths, but they are truths nonetheless

Adam 2) I Creationism supported by facts? What facts? No, Creationism is not supported by physical facts and should not be treated as scientific theory. However, the story of creation in the Bible speaks to spiritual truths about the nature of man, and they are truths even if they have no one for one correspondence with physical events.

Adam 3) Is the existence of a Creator supported by facts. What facts? I'll have to dance, sorry. In the physical world, the fact is that the Creator cannot be seen directly, so the answer is no. And if you believe that the physical world is the only one, then that is the only answer you can have. But if you believe, as I do, that there is a spiritual dimension to the world, then spirit can speak to you and show you the tracks that the Creator has left in his creation. The world of spirit is intrinsically coherent in the same way that a good science fiction story is coherent, exept that in spirit, you can have subjective experiences that cannot be explained physically, but only within the framework of spirit. Can it be proven physically? Not yet. Maybe never. But why should I wait for proof to validate what I know though experience.

Adam 4) Are organic molecules common throught the universe? Yes, it certainly appears so through scientific observation.

Adam 5) Can evolution theory explain how life first appeared on the Earth? Yes, but only physically. And if I can jump ahead to what I think your getting at: Each of my answers to you is predicated on my unwavering belief that there is an unseen and eternal world of spirit that exists outside of the physical senses and the 4 observable dimensions, connected to this realm but veiled. Plato's analogy of the cave comes to mind but it is an incomplete analogy.

What the spirit world is about has everything to do with will. This is a simplistic answer with broad ramifications.

Adam 6) is it possible for something as complex as a protein or a cell to develop without the existence of a Creator. No direct answer, but again, there is a will outside of the physical world that is motivating things to work to an end. Cells, determined to reproduce, require energy and therefore the need to sense their environment to acquire that energy. They sense light and move toward the light. They sense molecules and absorb the molecules etc etc through the ages. The pressure of natural selection seems to be pushing the physical world in only one direction: Ever greater awareness of self and environment. Why? Because that 'will' that exists in 'spirit' motivating the 'flesh' to become self aware wants to exists in the flesh, bridge the gap between the purely physical and the purely spiritual. Each living thing, looking though its own eyes, is a living manifestation of that 'will'... trying to see itself, to understand what it means to be physical, to be, to exist as it is.

Adam 7) Is mutation the only factor in evolution? Mutations are just the buzz, like sunlight striking the planet creates a buzz that allows molecules to react. It is the 'will' of 'God' that provides the direction. (Or you can try to explain how love evolved within a biological/thermodynamic paradigm. I'm sure you will have as much trouble as I am having right now :)

Adam 8) Are there any transitional fossils? I don't know - it's not my area of expertise. Has anyone claimed to find any yet?

Xev 1) What is the experience of "God", for you, like? The first encounter was pretty much like expanding into an infinite space. It scared the living shit out of me and I immediately snapped back. Since then, sometimes it comes to me as a profound sense of awe. Sometimes it is an unspeakably profound peace and centeredness. Lately, it has been a deep joy. For more decades then I'd like to admit, if anyone asked me who I was doing. I'd reply 'Not bad'. In the last year, since I was baptised, I have been able to answer honestly, "Great". Most times, I'm happier than I ever have been in my life. I'm still bothered sometimes by just how bad things are and how bad people treat each other. But I try not to own anyone else's behavior anymore except my own. My experience with the Holy Spirit is usually like spirit shoving it's hand up my butt and moving my mouth. I'm thinking to myself, "where is this shit coming from," and the person I'm talking to is flabergasted at what I'm saying because it's striking them to the core and I don't even know them. It's spine tingling when it happens.

Xev 2) Why do you believe? Because of subjective experience - things that I could tell you about but that cannot be proven and are easily dismissed by the logical mind. I couldn't have become a Christian though, if I had not taken classes in wilderness survival from a guy named Tom Brown (http://www.trackerschool.com). At his school, I began to learn about the reality of gut feeling, intuition, and eventually of spirit, not through the bible or because he was some kind of guru - but through the Earth and because he could create experiences that were reproducible, even if they were subjective. (Christians believe that the Earth reveals God, but don't spend enough time studying it, I think) Having once had the experiences, I had a choice. I could discount them, or try to absorb them and understand them. For me it was a matter of intellectual honesty - it would have been dishonest to dismiss something simply because my logical mind could not explain it. Have you ever asked yourself how primitive cultures figured out what plants were edible, medicinal or poisonous? And if they were medicinal, how were they prepared, how could they be used in combinations etc. If you relied solely on deductive reasoning and the scientific method you'd have a lot of dead experimenters who never left notes behind.

Elbaz 1) If God loves all of his creatures, than why does he send some to hell? (I'm getting tired so I'll give you the short answer and you can come back at me if you want.) I love my children - but if some of them rebel against me and wish not to have a relationship with me, what am I do do? Force myself on them? It's am overused metephor, but it works.

Elbaz 2) What religion was Jesus? A Jew. What's your point?

Elbaz 3) How could Jesus be the son of God if he had brothers and sister? No answer that I understand. It's a mystery to me. In John's Gospel, John sounds like he's trying to use mere words to describe something that can't be described in mere words. "John 14:20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." John 17:21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." This language resonates with me because I have experienced a feeling of oneness with all things. So if the spirit of God can come inside you and you can surrender and be taken in to the spirit of God, then no wonder everyone is having trouble telling the difference between Jesus and God!

How could Jesus be the Messiah if he didn't fulfill his prophecies as predicted in the Bible? And please don't give me the go around on this one, it's a retoric question. Umm. OK.

Cris 1) Can you prove that a god exists? Prove in the sense of formal logic? no. I might be able to lead you to an experiences that might make you suspend your skepticism long enough to take another look, but probably not. Not me, anyway. :)

Chris 2) Can you prove that Jesus actually existed? No.

Raithere - If God is universally infinite, how can any other aspect of him be defined? Good question. The only answer I can come up with is of the 'blind men around the elephant" type. We cannot hold the concept of infinite in our 4 dimensional meat brains. All we can do is assign variables to different aspects of it and examine those aspects. Are the reductions of the thing the thing itself? No. Can they tell us something about the thing? Yes, in a limited way. (Do you think thats a good answer, or just bullshit?

Tiassa - Will the Devil be redeemed?All I can give you is the Christian paradigm on this one. I never really thought about the question before. The Devil wants to be worshipped as God, but he is not God. He is ego, he is belief in self-sufficiency, he is manipulation, he is lies. He is that which hates the idea that he must worship something other than himself. It doesn't sound like he would choose redemption. I'd be interested hearing you talk about the implications.

Neutrino_Albatross - is it possible for freewil to exist with an omniscient god? Yes. Since God exists beyond the limitation of time he's already seen the movie of my life, even though I am still in the act of producing it and don't know the ending myself.

Let me end my part in this thread by just saying that all you Atheists would make great Christians. You spend so much time trying to get answers, trying to find the truth. Yet your only problem is that you are on the wrong side. You come at Christianity with the desire to disprove it, when you could come at Christianity with the desire to believe in it. Until you approach Christianity differently, you will never see the truth that it holds.

To put this in practical terms: you read books that disprove Christianity, while I read books that prove it. Of course this will change our approach. Many of the Biblical questions that people have sent can be answered in any Bible commentary. You all seem to like taking things out of context. Maybe you should try reading the whole thing. Then reading a commentary, or Bible study, to find your answers, instead of looking in your Atheist books to just find more questions.

It's sad that I chose to look for answers in God's word, while you chose to look for the same answers in the words of scientists.

But what has really confused me with Atheists is why they think Christianity is bad? Christianity preaches peace, love, joy, equality, and security, yet you all treat it as if it holds back all those good things. Is it because Christians are against cloning, or weird scientific experiments? Is it because they are simply different? Is it because they don't believe what you believe?

What is your problem with Christianity?

It's obvious many of you hate it, but why? Lets take your point of view and say that it is false. Now doesn't Christianity still stop wars, it stopped a revolution when John Wesley lead an English revival, that’s a historical fact! Doesn't it bring families together? Doesn't it stop adultery, crime, and racial hatred? Doesn't it sit in the back of people’s minds when they are down in the dumps? Doesn't it help the people on the earth no one else wants to help? There are many Christian charities, and they are only there because of God and Christ! Doesn't Christianity make our streets safer? Doesn't it at least give non-Christians something to judge their own goodness by?

What would the world do without Christianity? All Atheism does is promote debate, hatred, and fights. You want it to promote peace, love, joy, and a better world. But look at the results! It has brought division, slander, and animosity. Atheism is just a religion for scientists. Nothing more, nothing less. But it is a religion that defies Christianity, yet still tries to steal its values.

Even Atheists would be nowhere today without the message which Christ brought into the world. You would have needed to make up your own system of unspoken laws. Which scientist would you have trusted as God? Does any mortal man have the abilities to know what is right, and what is wrong, without God and His value system to judge right and wrong by?

If Atheists ruled the world, there would be utter chaos. Lets put all religion and science aside. And lets look at the facts: Whether you like it or not, your own values are based on those of God Himself. Whether you like it or not, you need God, or you would have no values. Society needs Him, or there would be no order. And in the same way, we all need His son, or we would have no salvation!

Is it really that hard to have faith in something that you already practice? You say Christianity is a lie, but even if that was so, it is still worth believing in. I know through my own experiences with God, that He does exist. I have had too many answered prayers to believe that it is all just coincidence.

Someone said to take a long hard look at myself, I tell you to take a brief look at yourselves. Maybe you'll see the lie you have made yourselves believe is truth!

Whether you like it or not, you need God, or you would have no values.

Oh man, I hope you have your asbestos underwear on.

When do you think the judgement day will be? In your life time? Your son's? Your grandson's? Another 6000 years? Or you don't want to think about it?

Hmm, You didn't answer my simple questions Answer.
I'm not a theist but after going to a Catholic school (years ago) I have spent years looking into other religions, and at the end of the day I don't think 'Religion' matters that much.
Spirituality is far more important don't you think?
I think the reason why people are against Christianity, are not the teachings themselves, but charismatic types.
People don't like to be told how or 'what' to believe - it's rude for a start to try and convert someone when you don't know or care for them.
Answer, You mentioned I think, that the bible is full of joy, love etc. I have to disagree there. I find it reads like a horror book, it's frightening, sexist, chauvanist and revelations makes me freak with all the graphic details - hell, fire and brimstone.

I love to read uplifting books - there is a wonderful book by Dr Wayne Dyer - very simple but beautifully written with poetry from the masters, and that is MY bible.
Has anyone read this book?

Yeah, I'm still wating for an "answer" to my questions. They are tough ones aren't they ;)

Originally posted by answers
... Now doesn't Christianity still stop wars, it stopped a revolution when John Wesley lead an English revival, that’s a historical fact! Doesn't it bring families together? Doesn't it stop adultery, crime, and racial hatred? Doesn't it sit in the back of people’s minds when they are down in the dumps? Doesn't it help the people on the earth no one else wants to help? There are many Christian charities, and they are only there because of God and Christ! Doesn't Christianity make our streets safer? Doesn't it at least give non-Christians something to judge their own goodness by? No.

Originally posted by answers
QUESTION: If God is universally infinite how can any other aspect of him be defined?
ANSWER: By that same logic, how can you define infinite to start with?You're really exploring semantics here rather than the concepts. Just because the word or our conception of it is limited does not mean that which is being referenced is limited. Still, I have a problem with God being expressly defined. Quite simply, it seems terribly assumptive to draw conclusions regarding something so vast.


Originally posted by answers
Let me end my part in this thread by just saying that all you Atheists would make great Christians.Many of us were at some point.


You spend so much time trying to get answers, trying to find the truth. Yet your only problem is that you are on the wrong side.But honestly, is it appropriate to take sides when attempting to discern the truth? Such an approach almost always leads to an inappropriate bias.


To put this in practical terms: you read books that disprove Christianity, while I read books that prove it. Many of us are rather well read on both sides of the argument.


Maybe you should try reading the whole thing.I have, many times. In fact, I find that I am generally better versed in it than most Christians I meet.


Then reading a commentary, or Bible study, to find your answers, instead of looking in your Atheist books to just find more questions. The problem that many of us have with "Bible commentary" is that the "truth" is entirely open to interpretation at which point the whole concept of determining an absolute truth becomes impossible.


It's sad that I chose to look for answers in God's word, while you chose to look for the same answers in the words of scientists.We feel the same way about you. :) At least we have each other's best interests at heart... even if we disagree as to what would serve them best.


But what has really confused me with Atheists is why they think Christianity is bad? Christianity preaches peace, love, joy, equality, and security, yet you all treat it as if it holds back all those good things.The main problem that I have with Christianity is that it is so open to interpretation. Primarily, I feel that this is because its ethics are unexamined and unexplained. While I agree with many of the moral values within the Christian paradigm I feel that it is important for us to understand the reasoning that supports our ethical values rather than relying solely upon authority. Authority is far too open to abuse and, quite frankly, is logically invalid.


Doesn't it at least give non-Christians something to judge their own goodness by?Atheists do not judge their own "goodness" through Christianity... this is really a rather ignorant assumption. Where do you get the idea that all ethical values are provided though Christianity? Ethics existed long before Jesus did.


What would the world do without Christianity?One might ask where we might be if Christianity had not suppressed science and independent thought for millennia. I'm not against Christianity, per se, but when faith in authority replaces thought problems occur.


All Atheism does is promote debate, hatred, and fights.You're on seriously shaky ground here. Historically, Christianity has done anything but promote love and understanding between people.


It has brought division, slander, and animosity.Yea, right. None of this existed before atheists. :rolleyes:


Atheism is just a religion for scientists. Nothing more, nothing less. But it is a religion that defies Christianity, yet still tries to steal its values.You're getting farther and farther from the truth.


Even Atheists would be nowhere today without the message which Christ brought into the world. You would have needed to make up your own system of unspoken laws.You need to research atheism and secular humanism a bit before you continue. You are terribly misinformed.


Does any mortal man have the abilities to know what is right, and what is wrong, without God and His value system to judge right and wrong by?Of course, first you would have to prove that these things have indeed come from God. But man certainly has the ability to develop ethics through reason.


And lets look at the facts: Whether you like it or not, your own values are based on those of God Himself. Whether you like it or not, you need God, or you would have no values. Society needs Him, or there would be no order.You'll need more than your assertion to prove this.

Start here:
1. Prove God.
2. Prove that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of God.
3. Prove that man's interpretation of the Bible is infallibly correct.


You say Christianity is a lie, but even if that was so, it is still worth believing in.One should never believe in lies... only truth. Ask yourself; if the Bible was proven to be fiction would you still value the notions of love, honor, and kindness? If so, why, what is it that gives them value? If there are inherently valuable then what additional benefit do we derive from God's authorization of them?


Maybe you'll see the lie you have made yourselves believe is truth!Back at you. ;)

~Raithere

Turduckin:

Excellent Post! The one thing I would like to add is to Raithere's question.

Defining God is one of the largest follies that Chrisitans like Answers get caught up in. Once we can come up with a proper definition for even the simplest things then maybe God will be ready for us to stand in front of her and tell her exactly what she is.

The really unfortunate thing for both the Bible thumping Christian and those who would argue with him is that there is no proof and there are no absolute facts. We have to navigate through life with faith.

mshark

"Answers," I would like you, for a moment, to get rid of your multitude of presuppositions that have obviously been bored into your skull somewhere along the line (Drug rehab? Early brainwashing?), and consider the following argument.

Average person: Prove that god exists.
Conservative philosopher: Oh...we can't do that...
AP: Oh, so god doesn't exist.
CP:....WAIT, presupposition! Your previous notions of "proof" can't be applied in this debate because the subject matter is supernatural!
AP: So you eliminate the empirical evidence so I can't even ask the question anymore?
CP: ZING!
AP: So I'm sure now you feel secure, and others that feel the same way you do feel secure because basically you've tried as hard as you can to try to eliminate all scientific analysis from this debate.
CP: ZING!
AP: Don't you realize that your entire arguement still doesn't hold any water? Let's be hypothetical and say you've removed empirical evidence from the equation, you still don't have any other form of justification to say that he does exist.
CP: We don't have to prove anything, we just have to try and refute your assertions!
AP: Oh...so you feel that simply by poorly refuting our ideas, that you are actually right?
CP: ZING!

Notice that it is impossible to prove the existance of any kind of god. So I'm going to turn the tables, so you can more easily see where your presuppositions lie.

I propose the existance of an omnipotent, omnipowerful Monkey. Your belief in 'god' is laughable, and offensive to my religion. The Monkey is true, not god! Moreover, there was no Jesus - there was only MonkeyMan, the son of Monkey and the son of Man, who ate bananas for your sins.

Can you disprove The Monkey, or MonkeyMan? I'd LOVE to see your answer - presuppositions aside, of course.

Let it be known that I take no offense to your arguments as I've heard them all before. Dumping volumes of information about a topic when you know no one will read it shows you are becoming frustrated that you can't prove your point and are trying to confuse us until we agree with you. Guess what? Doesn't always work, get a new approach.

It deeply saddens me that your formerly freethinking mind seems to have been locked into a theistic worldview. Give me a chance and maybe I can help you free it. There are more flaws in your worldview than you would care to admit, but admitting they are there is the first step.

Originally posted by MShark
We have to navigate through life with faith. Actually, the sextant works better.

ConsequentAtheist:

Unfortunatly a sextant only tells you where you are. It doesn't tell you where you are going or why you would want to go there.

Originally posted by MShark
Unfortunatly a sextant only tells you where you are. It doesn't tell you where you are going or why you would want to go there. To be honest: it's a fairly clever reply. Good job. :)

QUESTION: Will the Devil be redeemed?
It's a simple question with broad implications: Will the Devil be redeemed?
ANSWER: Thats up to God. It's not mentioned in the Bible, so I would not be able to honestly tell you. But I believe the chance of the devil accepting Christ as his savior is about as likely as evolution being true. Given the amount of balbutive cut & pasted into the answers section of this topic, I suppose I ought to be thankful at a short dose of originally-composed balbutive.

Primarily, I'm targeting evangelism; quite frankly, I could care less what any one person believes as long as it brings them some illusion of happiness and prevents them from harming others. But among the evangelized message of Christians is the idea that Jesus' forgiveness in infinite. Or, in the politically-brilliant turn of phrase, God's forgiveness is ongoing and limitless, and available to all who truly accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior (Christian Reunion.org, "God's Infinite Mercy" (http://christianreunion.org/hismercy.htm)).

Within its context, it makes sense, but the phrase--quite common in variation around the Christian evangelical body--is deceptive. God's forgiveness is not limitless, as the Acceptance Clause indicates. Thus, it lends an air of dishonesty to simple evangelism. Forgiveness is forgiveness, and is not conditional. If, for instance, I waited for everyone who sins against me to repent before I undertook forgiveness, I would have gone on a shooting spree by now. Furthermore, the Bible itself draws limits to God's forgiveness, as W.B. McCartney notes: The Bible would not tell us that there is an unpardonable sin without telling us what that sin is. Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28,29 and Luke 12:10 definitely tell us (and these are the words of the Son of God) that blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God will not be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come. (reference (http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/unpardonable.htm))

One can delineate all they want in modern society: Muslim extremists, homosexuals, single mothers, ad nauseam. These people's souls are, apparently endangered by the state they are in. And yet the evangelical litany of forgiveness goes on.

McCartney explains: Man being created a "free moral agent" is wholly responsible for what he believes and what he refuses to believe; therefore, the sacrifice of Christ does not provide pardon for "unbelief", and unbelief becomes the unpardonable sin.

Left to the common perspective of reward and punishment, the issue of God's Will becomes as cloudy as the issue of His Forgiveness. Yet even a practical assertion that one cannot save one who does not wish to be saved falls short. A condition comes about, then, by which it is suggested that what man perceives determines actual reality, when in fact, if God is what is asserted, such a condition is nonsense.

And thus, with sectarian disagreements, Catholic pedophilia, and a host of condemnations of this or that brand of people, the whole thing becomes a convoluted heap of contextual deceptions--I've known evangelical Christians, for instance, to assert a Lucan passage about crushing the enemy to justify their belligerence toward other people while simultaneously mocking very specific calls to compassion and forgiveness in Matthew 5 and 25. Admittedly, this becomes a question of whether one has truly accepted Christ, or merely claimed such acceptance, but that perspective paints the Christian mission as a failure when we compare the number of claimed Christians to the number of true Christians.

So we can cut through all of the sins and get to the actual heart of the issue: Will the Devil be redeemed? For the Devil, chief among all sinners, is condemned to eternal fires (Matthew 25.41).

It seems then, that the same limit is applied to God's "infinite" forgiveness and mercy, that the Devil must repent in order to deserve forgiveness. We might call it "conditional infinity", or term the forgiveness as "conditionally infinite".

And the condition is acceptance of the Word of God as expressed through a politically-conventional Bible; could not Irenaeus have come up with a better reason for limiting the Bible to four gospels than he did?
Irenaeus embellished the point by arguing that just as there are four regions of the world and four directions of the wind, so there are four pillars of the gospel God had given the world. The number four Irenaeus took to be direct evidence of the authenticity of the gospels: the world-wide church could possess neither more nor less than a four-fold gospel. ("How the Canon was Formed" (http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Canon/canon.html))So the problem becomes the fact that unless the Devil is redeemed at the very end, the evangelizations, at least, of infinite mercy and forgiveness, are deceptive and meant to con people into faith with petty appeals to greed. (Should "salvation" be the only reason for accepting Jesus? Does one who converts out of fear of condemnation truly accept Christ?)

So people are left with a deceptive evangelization, a politically-assembled "revelation" of God unto mankind, and a body faithful that doesn't actually know what it is their consciences are subscribing to.

It becomes vital, on the one hand, that the Devil be redeemed, else God's mercy is not infinite, especially in light of God's alleged omniscience and omnipotence. For the Devil was created by God, who is, as the Supreme Authority of the Universe, aware prior to Satan's creation what this combination of angelic attributes would bring, and chose to go forward anyway. Add to that an ongoing debate about whether or not angels can learn, and Satan quickly becomes the victim of an empty and pointless scheme by God, who knew of man's impending fall before it happened, and chose this route as well. But if God is not responsible for the condition of His Creations, and the Devil will not be redeemed, then Christianity is in a sorry state because of the number of people who assert infinite mercy and forgiveness.

However, if the Devil is, in the end, redeemed, all is still not well. Does it not seem pointless, then, to invent evil, subject Creation to evil, and then demand Creation begs forgiveness for its immersion in evil which, as we see, is by God's Will?

From that standpoint, evangelism is still problematic.

A good deal of it lies in how the faithful view their God, but often the dichotomy between Biblical reality and perceived faith is massive to the point of defying reconciliation.

And I think the issue strikes after the heart of the failure of Christianity to function harmoniously with the rest of human society. The supremacist bent inherent to the religion has been taming itself in the public expressions as people become more educated--a hopeful sign--but also reinvests itself with great vigor in the undereducated. However, the United States--my home--is currently embroiled in a holy war led by a President who claims Christianity (I'm reading an interesting article on that subject as we go along, but it's not quite relevant without doubling the length of this post.)

It seems to me that if the question of the Devil's redemption can be resolved, the myriad mistaken faiths alleged to be Christian will become more apparent to everyone. It will be harder for aggressive and condemning people alleging Christian faith to continue treating the world in such a manner, which will have the effect of alleviating the growing tension between Christianity and the rest of the world, and thus offer a more open road to God and Christ, resulting in a greater number of genuine converts.

But I patently reject that (A) it's up to God, and (B) the probability is low because the Devil will not repent. If it's left to the Devil's repentence, it is not up to God. Except that God, without whom nothing in this Universe happens, created the Devil specifically for this role. Furthermore, forgiveness is not nearly infinite if it comes with such a condition.

And that's the importance, as I see it, of the Devil's redemption. There are versions of Christian faith which can avoid such difficulties, but I've found such ideas are not popular among the faithful. I always wonder what their excuse will be come Judgment Day; after all, God won't be conned by mere declarations of faith, for the Lord knows what is written in each man's heart; after all, the Lord hath written it.

"The best thing in Heaven is supposed to be the sun; it shines on green mountains, and melts the Devil's gun." (Rheostatics, "Dope Fiends and Boozehounds")

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

As long as you're answering questions, go ahead and answer these:

1. Where is the justice in punishing us for Adam's sin? The Bible itself says that children will not be punished for the parents' sins (Deuteronomy 24:16). Furthermore, if God really created Adam not knowing either good or evil (Genesis 3:22), how could such a harsh and enduring punishment as death for Adam and all his descendants possibly be just? Our secular courts are more just than God when they show mercy on people who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, such as children and the mentally handicapped. And why isn't this doctrine of original sin found anywhere in the Bible except in Paul's writings?

2. Where is the justice in punishing Jesus for our sins? If our courts of law were to accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal, we would not say that justice has been done, but that injustice has been added to injustice. Would the church have me believe that two wrongs make a right?

3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for another's sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbor's child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why can't God do this? Does he simply want blood?

4. Why pray? If it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind then it is superfluous.

5. How can the doctrine of the Trinity possibly be true? Any attempt to make sense of it leads to contradictions. If it is so important, why isn't it clearly taught in the Bible? Why shouldn't an objective student of the doctrine conclude that it was created by the church to hide biblical inconsistencies about the nature of Christ behind a shroud of mystery?

6. Why is God concerned about humans at all? We are less than a speck in the universe. Christianity has the hallmarks of being a religion made by humans for humans.

7. Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God been successfully refuted? If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?

8. Why haven't the existing proofs of God's non-existence been refuted? Surely believers, who have the advantage of an indwelling Holy Spirit with an "infinite mind," cannot be stumped by "finite minds" of unbelievers working within the confining limitations of reason, can they?

9. Why is it that some teachings are conveniently tautological (i.e., circular)? For example, you must pray the will of God in order for prayer to be answered; you must believe the Bible in order to understand the Bible; and the is the Word of God, therefore it is true.

10. How exactly does "loving God and enjoying him forever" give meaning to life? Any satisfying secular activity can give meaning to life. Why does the Christian assume that a metaphysical meaning for life is necessary? Isn't it the Christian who imposes meaninglessness on this present life, declaring that meaning depends for its existence on the life to come? And if Christians did not believe they will live forever, would they continue to love and serve God? Isn't it really eternal life that the Christian loves, and not God? If purpose in this present life is really derived from loving and serving God, then what sense does it make for Christians to make meaning dependent upon a future life?

11. Where is objective, verifiable evidence that a soul or spirit exists and survives the body after death? Why does the Old Testament deny such an idea until the later writings, which show the influence of Greek ideas? The idea of "progressive revelation" does not explain this.

Don’t want to step on any toes here, but I would like to answer a few questions. If Answers objects I will back away from the table.

Prove that god exists:

Well this one IMO is a little self explanatory. From a scientific standpoint there CANNOT BE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE Causes. The easiest way to describe this would be the example of dominoes. You could not have an infinite number of dominoes (Chain reaction) falling steadily for ever. There would have to be something to push the first domino.

How this applies to science. Lets say the big bang is fact. Both Christian and secular scientists for the most part agree on the idea. At one point everything came from nothing (Christian) or everything came from a pinpoint of condensed matter (Secular)

According to science we have no way of knowing what happened before the big bang because that is when time started. Any laws of nature, or physics would have come into existence in that instant and we can not explain what happened in the instant nor the infinity before that. Science theorizes that matter has been contracting (gravity) and exploding (Explosion) for ever before that. But, science tells us that this could not have gone on for ever. There would have to be something to start it into beginning. The only other theory could be something along the lines of an area of space that spontaneously spews out matter. And this as science tells us is impossible. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Only changed. Therefore there can not be an INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE CAUSES! There would have to be something INFINITE to start the whole process off. This is how we know with certainty that there is a god (or infinite being). This tells us nothing about what kind of god he is though, and I do not use this argument to support that.

Another way that we know that god exists is this....

If you happened upon a pocket watch in the middle of nowhere. Space, the dessert whatever. Would you suddenly assume that it came there by chance? More specifically that it evolved out of its surrounding? No of course not. And why? Because something with intelligence would have had to make it! I mean look at the complexity of the watch. it has moving parts, and everything!

How can you look at a human being (Or a single celled organism for that matter) and think anything different? Intelligent design through reverse engineering implies an intelligent designer. Look at the complexities of the human respiratory system, or the way your body is controlled by your brain, and nervous system. These things are more complex than any machine ever created by man. (Except Clonaid of course) The idea of Evolution is unsupportable by fact and is nothing more than another religion out there that is accepted by left wingers and public education. There is a prominent world scientist (So prominent that I don’t remember his name) who travels the world and debates with evolutionists out there. He has never been proven wrong by any of them. In fact he offers a $250,000.00 reward to anyone that can prove the theory of evolution at all.

Why does god send people to hell?

Well quite simply he doesn’t Because you asked a question based on the bible, I will answer based on the bible.

God does not 'Send' anyone to hell. Originally there was no concept of hell. There was no death. God gave man free will, but no concept of sin. Therefore man could live forever. When Man disobeyed God he learned the concept of Sin and could no longer live in the world for free. he had to make his own way. God could have removed any memory of the event from man but instead he gave man a free will. Something that he has upheld to this day. As you can see by turning on the TV or looking out the window. or picking up a gun and killing someone...or committing genocide...

God Knowing that man was not going to make it in the world gave him laws. Laws that though they may seem hard (Such as not covet) are made simply for mans best interest. Everything god ever said was for you. Man was not made for the Law, the law was made for man. God said take Sunday off, relax (Observe the Sabbath) Don’t steal, or kill. Duh. Don’t commit adultery. These things will make you unhappy. he said lots of things for you not to do. But man does them anyway. Quite simply because you are man and you cant help it. At least not alone, and not ALL THE TIME!!! SO god had a plan. In the beginning the word was with him. The word became flesh and lived a perfect life. Fulfilling a whole heap of prophesy from earlier books and then dying fulfilling several more. Then over 500 witnesses saw him after his death (And I can tell you the science behind this is you want) and witnessed him rise to heaven. The apostles also saw him and recorded there experience.

Now... When Jesus (The word who was with god and who was god) died on the cross he in effect took all of your sin, crossed your name out and wrote his name over it in blood. When the day of judgment comes you will not have to stand testimony for yourself. He will claim your sin as his own.

All he requires in return. Is for you to believe that he can do this. Not only with your head but with your heart. Repent, which means in the bible to change your mind about who god is and who Jesus is. And that is it. That is all there is to this perfect one way relationship. The bible says that Jesus is able to save to the utmost depths of hell. And he is able to save every single human being that ever lived.

The argument that people have is... well what about people who don’t know. Well the bible says that Jesus will not return until every nation has heard the gospel and that it is better to have no knowledge of sin, because once you know you are accountable. And now you know. So you will be accountable. Also the bible says that no one goes to hell by accident. That means that everyone will have the opportunity to hear the word, and reject it WILLINGLY before they decide to go to hell.

So god does not send you to hell. The price for sin is death. We all sin. It is a fact of life. God knew this so had a plan in place. The word became flesh and took your place.

This is the only religion where salvation is given freely with nothing required but you accepting it. No other religion has this wonderful God who loves you for you. A god who Offers you a GUARANTEED SALVATION and requires nothing from you. Not only does he offer nothing from you, he is very clear that there is nothing YOU could ever do to be saved. All you have to do is let him save you. Just another instance of gods grace and love. To us disobedient rebellious children =O)

He could very easily save you even though you don’t believe. He could take everyone to heaven regardless of belief or past deeds, but instead he gave you the choice. You can live and die with God, or you can live and die without him. You get to make the decision. So don’t look at God as a judge. Look at him as offering you a very simple choice. I love you, let me take care of you. All you have to do is say yes. That is all that is required of you for salvation.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you mind me answering some questions...

I am going to try and answer what I can... though I am not the Christian genius I would like to be.


Originally posted by TBD
As long as you're answering questions, go ahead and answer these:

1. Where is the justice in punishing us for Adam's sin? The Bible itself says that children will not be punished for the parents' sins (Deuteronomy 24:16). Furthermore, if God really created Adam not knowing either good or evil (Genesis 3:22), how could such a harsh and enduring punishment as death for Adam and all his descendants possibly be just? Our secular courts are more just than God when they show mercy on people who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, such as children and the mentally handicapped. And why isn't this doctrine of original sin found anywhere in the Bible except in Paul's writings?

God did not punish Adam. God gave Adam free will. He gave Adam one instruction. DO not eat from the tree of knowledge. God knew that when Adam knew what sin was his life would be hard. He gave Adam paradise. No sickness, death or want. When Adam was lonely he gave him a wife. All they had to do was be happy. They CHOSE to learn of sin. At this point god could have taken these memories away, but was forced through his own gifts of free will to let Adam live the life he had chose. The bible says that when a child asks for fish will he give him a snake? Of course not... then how much more will your heavenly father bestow good gifts upon you. If you ask for salvation. God will give it to you freely. No court on earth can offer you this type of justice. Period!



2. Where is the justice in punishing Jesus for our sins? If our courts of law were to accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal, we would not say that justice has been done, but that injustice has been added to injustice. Would the church have me believe that two wrongs make a right?


In the beginning there was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god. God did not punish Jesus. Jesus dies out of love. God knew that man could never do anything to gain salvation so the word became flesh to pay that price for you. Willingly and with no reservation. This was an act of love, stepping in to prevent you from EVER experiencing the justice of god that we so rightly deserve. Due to the knowledge you gained above, you learned of sin. The penalty for sin has and always will be DEATH!



3. How can sacrificing Jesus on behalf of the sinner atone for another's sin? This would be like killing my child to reconcile for the misbehavior of my neighbor's child. I have the capacity simply to forgive and forget without demanding compensation for small offenses. Why can't God do this? Does he simply want blood?

God does simply forgive and forget. In fact god says that he will forgive you as you forgive. God says in fact to forgive something along the lines of 7 *700 times. God does forgive you. Not of only minor offenses, but of even the most heinous! All you have to do is ask for salvation. There is no need to constantly beg for it. Once you have it you are covered. See above for why death was required.



4. Why pray? If it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind then it is superfluous.


This is something I wrestle with all of the time. I mean if you pray and god changes something that is not only non scientific it doesn’t make sense. The bible does make sense of it though. Let me give you an example...

My wife (before she was my wife) could not pay an upcoming bill. She prayed and prayed. and the next day got a check in the mail. Now was this a result of prayer? God says he knows your needs, and more than that he moves to meet your needs before you even ask. SO technically god would have known you were going to ask and moved this check (Which was a refund check for some products my life had written off more than six months earlier) into play before she even knew she would need it. I literally have a life full of these types of answered prayers. The bible says to take your worries to the lord. This serves practical purposes. It gets things off of your chest and helps you put your thoughts into form. But make no mistake god is working all the time. Before you know you need it!!!

I have to go to lunch now, but will attempt to answer the rest of your questions after lunch

Once again I'd like to thank everyone here for their involvment in this thread. There is just way too many questions for me to answer right now, and considering I've only been learning about God for a year, I think I've done pretty well in answering what I have.

Right now I'm studying atheisim, so I'll have lots more stuff to post in the future. But next time I'll be asking the questions...so I suggest that you go out and study your atheisim books as well.

So far in my life I've been used to convert one atheist to Christ. I pray that in the years to come, that number will be in the thousands.

God willing, I hope that you see what so many others have seen. Right now you are blind and in sin, but you feel free. It's one of the biggest lies atheists have believed, that Christianity is slavery and death to freedom. The bible says that you are slaves to sin. And I'd like to know of anyone here that can honestly say they can stop sinning whenever they want to. Because you simply cannot. Therefore you are slaves to it. What kind of freedom is that? Once Christ enters your life, you are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to God. I think I'd rather be a slave/servant to light, rather then a slave/servant to darkness.

But thats just me!

I hope in the future that becomes you as well.

Until then...CyA

... They CHOSE to learn of sin. ...

They CHOSE to learn of sin? So you're telling me they knew, before eating from the tree, that they knew it would mean eternal punishment and horrifying sickness and death? Of course not. They chose to attain KNOWLEDGE, and since they did not know of sin yet, they did not know that the two were connected. Your assumptions are flawed, and god therefore did mislead them.



... God knew that man could never do anything to gain salvation so the word became flesh to pay that price for you. ...

So you're still saying that all of mankind continues to be punished for the sins of the few? That remains unjust, since all of us have 'free will,' that would also mean we would be born with a morally clean slate since we have the choice to make the same mistakes again - and many of us do not.


God does simply forgive and forget. In fact god says that he will forgive you as you forgive. God says in fact to forgive something along the lines of 7 *700 times. God does forgive you. Not of only minor offenses, but of even the most heinous! All you have to do is ask for salvation. There is no need to constantly beg for it. Once you have it you are covered. See above for why death was required.

Why would god limit himself to the acts of his creations? If he is all-powerful he could choose to forgive any time he wanted to, especially with the knowledge that humans are fallible and do not easily forgive.


My wife (before she was my wife) could not pay an upcoming bill. She prayed and prayed. and the next day got a check in the mail. Now was this a result of prayer? God says he knows your needs, and more than that he moves to meet your needs before you even ask. ...

That is coincidence, not the result of prayer. When you consider how many coincidences are possible and how many actually happen, it isn't really that astounding. Consider the possibility that someone who doesn't believe in a god could have just as many of these situations as you have, and many have. I suppose this is where 'faith' enters the issue - belief in something without proof - but isn't that also called gullibility?


SO technically god would have known you were going to ask and moved this check (Which was a refund check for some products my life had written off more than six months earlier) into play before she even knew she would need it. I literally have a life full of these types of answered prayers.

If god never makes mistakes, why interfere in the everyday happenings of the universe when he would have had to have created it as he wanted to begin with? Moreover, you are basically admitting that god has a direct influence on physical matter, and should be generating empirical evidence. Wouldn't a postal worker notice a letter disappearing, and another notice it reapprear closer to your home? Why aren't these odd happenings commonplace?



The bible says to take your worries to the lord. This serves practical purposes. It gets things off of your chest and helps you put your thoughts into form. But make no mistake god is working all the time. Before you know you need it!!!

So you're likening an all-powerful being to a stress relief doll? If you think god is required to so such things then it is your business, but do not force your habits onto the lives of others. That's basically my beef with christianity.

Originally posted by answers
Right now I'm studying atheisim, so I'll have lots more stuff to post in the future. But next time I'll be asking the questions...so I suggest that you go out and study your atheisim books as well.

As far as I know, atheists don't have books - in fact they consider the need for a book to explain life a repugnant idea. Why can't 95% of the population seem to be able to disprove the other 5%? Why are they considered equal if the numbers are on YOUR side? I'm not sure how agnostics fit in, but since you seem to have evidence of god's existance I'll assume I'm on the other side of the argument for now.


So far in my life I've been used to convert one atheist to Christ. I pray that in the years to come, that number will be in the thousands.

Keep dreaming. True atheists and agnostics will never convert to theism, the people you are converting are probably adolescents who hate their lives and have done no rational thinking on the topic. You may consider them very small victories.

This also generates another fuming question I must ask - who are you to force your beliefs on others? It is people like you trying to preach your theistic worldview to the public that causes religious wars and evil to surface where there was only contentment.


God willing, I hope that you see what so many others have seen.

You cannot use your numbers as an argument as long as you continue to force your children to believe what you believe. You dont even give them a choice. I was never given a choice. I broke out anyway. I consider myself a better person because of it. I am never turning back to the Christian cult, because I can now see it for what it is, and nothing more.


Right now you are blind and in sin, but you feel free. It's one of the biggest lies atheists have believed, that Christianity is slavery and death to freedom.

Christianity will always bring evil into the world because its main doctrines force its followers to recruit others. The whole process seems like an ego trip anyway - competing to see how many people you can convert. It's a disgusting habit. A majority of Christians go through life without ever questioning their religion. How can you be sure something is right unless you question it yourself? What if a majority of these people decided to convert? You don't like that idea, do you? No, better get them before they get us. Animals. I suppose it's easier to preach peace and love instead of doing something to make it happen - like shut your mouth and let people be happy on their own.


The bible says that you are slaves to sin. And I'd like to know of anyone here that can honestly say they can stop sinning whenever they want to. Because you simply cannot. Therefore you are slaves to it.

You get your ideas of 'sin' from the bible. The weakness of your argument therefore lies in the bible. Now, since I don't have 95% of the world behind me and I don't have volumes of texts of excuses for my behavior, I won't win in a debate over the bible. But the fact that I can even come close really has to say something about the people who wrote it. (Note: PEOPLE, not god.) How can we be sure that the bible is the uncorrupted word of god? Actually, how can we prove it isn't completely corrupted by human vices? How can we prove a damn thing about it? Don't bother dumping another 100 pages of useless references, I want to see you argue this one yourself.


What kind of freedom is that? Once Christ enters your life, you are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to God. I think I'd rather be a slave/servant to light, rather then a slave/servant to darkness.

But thats just me!

Then you are beyond reason, and I am obviously wasting my time arguing with you. You're too deep into the Christian cult to realize what it's doing to your mind. What is the driving factor to 'sin'? Natural ambition, natural guiding forces. You are in no way a slave to forces that come naturally, you are obeying your own reasoning to see that it is the right thing to do, if only at that time. And what does a slavery to god teach us? To restain, hold back, refrain from anything that we might have considered a good thing. That sounds more like a slavery to me.

As an agnostic, I am admitting that I do not have proof either way. However, from an objective standpoint, it appears to be more practical - if only for those few logical people in the population - to not be theist. Following any religion that can generate so much evil in the name of good and light is a ticking timebomb to society. You'll have to forgive me if I don't want to be a part of it.

Answers,

You have to prove the Bible first before you make all these extraordinary claims. And the fact reamins, that nobody can. Your Faith and religion is based on a book left up for interpretation. Faith is subjective. You have provided a lot of information in your post but most of it is from your own experience and perception. How do you try to argue this? Why do you try to argue this?

Here are my two questions that you have yet to answer:

Did you know that the Bible quotes Jesus telling his worshippers not to praise him but to worship God alone?

Why do you think the Jesus character and Horus were so similar?


The simple fact remains, unless you can prove the Bible then the rest is insignificant.

LIGHTBEING Answers,

You have to prove the Bible first before you make all these extraordinary claims. And the fact reamins, that nobody can. Your Faith and religion is based on a book left up for interpretation. Faith is subjective. You have provided a lot of information in your post but most of it is from your own experience and perception. How do you try to argue this? Why do you try to argue this?

Here are my two questions that you have yet to answer:

Did you know that the Bible quotes Jesus telling his worshippers not to praise him but to worship God alone?

ANSWER: I haven't read about this yet, but I'll just try my best, theres a pretty big possiblity that I will not be totally correct, so I encourage you to look for answers from other people as well. Now...Jesus is the son of God. I don't know whether He did actaully say don't praise Me! I would like the verse for that one. But even if He did, it would still make sense. Because all things are for the Glory of God, and in everything a Christian does, he is doing for the glory of God. So it would make sense that God's son is trying to bring glory to His fathers name. And while doing this, He is bringing glory to His name, because He and His Father are one in that regard. It just shows you the amount of love that Jesus had for His Father. To be able to do miracles, and still give the credit to His Father, is great.

Now this is explaining the relationship between a supernatural God and His son, so it also makes sense if you are confused. :)


Why do you think the Jesus character and Horus were so similar?
ANSWER: Could you please post all the similarities, and context, and evidence in regards to this. I have not seen anything about it. Thanks


The simple fact remains, unless you can prove the Bible then the rest is insignificant.
ANSWER: I can prove that there is a bigger chance that God is real, and what the bible says is true, then evolution and what scientists say is true. I'll leave the decision up to you, but as I said before, I will start posting this evidence soon, just be patient, it takes time to do all this. But I promise you that the evidence will come soon :)

TBD you have some great points. Some of which I can debate with you, come I cannot. But right now I am studying everyday to be able to fully debate them. I think it is clear that you have a very strong view of Christianity. Your view includes the thought of Christians forcing there views on others. I cannot argue that this has not happened in the past. What I equate it to is this... Think of the Roman Empire. Under one emperor you can see piece and prosperity. Under another Emperor you see personal freedom revoked and persecution of anyone with different beliefs. This has been shown in variations of almost every form of government and every religion. It is hard not to judge the entire religion on the actions of few, or even masses. But every day we are flooded with encouragement to do just that regarding Muslim extremists and fundamentalists. We are taught to ignore them and relies Islam for the peaceful religion that it is. This is done nowhere in the world towards Christianity. In fact the Leftist media would have you embrace Islam and bury Christianity.

The perspective of persecution and pressure does not have roots in true Christianity. Christianity is the life quest of being Christ like and having true Agape love for everybody. This is the heart of Christianity. At this moment I am not fully equipped to argue the science of god (At least not all of it) there are people out there who can though. I will try and discuss some things with your further though. In these discussions I try not to use the Bible as my reference because without the belief in its truth it has no value. Some things I can argue such as how we know there is a god.. How we know that the death and resurrection is true. But over the next year maybe you and I can have some more personnel and serious debate. My goal in life is to know the Science behind Christianity. It has to be there. If it is true than scientifically it should make sense. The Bible says that you should question everything. To include your teachers. Jesus was our teacher. So even his word should be questioned. The bible also says to be prepared to answer all questions that are asked of you. And sadly today almost all Christians have only there faith as proof. This is unacceptable. So I am doing my part to question and learn. Now about this...


Originally posted by LIGHTBEING

Here are my two questions that you have yet to answer:

Did you know that the Bible quotes Jesus telling his worshippers not to praise him but to worship God alone?

IO believe that what you are refereeing to is when Jesus said Why do you call me good? Only the father is Good.

Jesus took this approach with many of the Jews that approached him. He Told them from there perspective the answer to the question they asked. For instance the woman at the well approached him as god. She asked him what she needed to do to be saved and he told her to ask and it would be hers. That is because she approached him as god.

The Rich man approached him and said Rabbi you are good. I have kept the law (which he did not) tell me how am I to get salvation. This man believed he was already justified through the law. Though he obviously could not have been. He could not have gone his whole life without coveting, or being obedient to his parents All of the time. If nothing else he was guilty of not loving his neighbor as he loved himself. If you truly love someone you give them what is important to you.

Because this man viewed Jesus as Good by human standards he could not be answered from the god aspect. Jesus asked him Why do you call me good? (A good teacher) Only the father is good. (God) this is something he tried to tell people they needed to repent (change there mind) about who god was. SO Jesus answered this man according to his belief. He told him to sell all of his belongings and give them to the poor. Then he would have treasure in heaven.

This is presented in the bible several times. Anytime someone went to praise Jesus from the perspective of Man, he would tell them to praise only god. But when people praised him as god he did not offer this same advice.

I haven't read about this yet, but I'll just try my best, theres a pretty big possiblity that I will not be totally correct, so I encourage you to look for answers from other people as well. Now...Jesus is the son of God. I don't know whether He did actaully say don't praise Me! I would like the verse for that one. But even if He did, it would still make sense.

Ofcoarse it would make sense....to satisfy you presupposition.


Because all things are for the Glory of God, and in everything a Christian does, he is doing for the glory of God. So it would make sense that God's son is trying to bring glory to His fathers name. And while doing this, He is bringing glory to His name, because He and His Father are one in that regard. It just shows you the amount of love that Jesus had for His Father. To be able to do miracles, and still give the credit to His Father, is great.

If all things are for the glory of God(the Father) then why do Christians worship their Messiah? I suppose your answer will have something to do with the Trinity. And how does the Bible support the Trinity exactly?


Now this is explaining the relationship between a supernatural God and His son, so it also makes sense if you are confused.

Oh, you must have been so enlightened that you can actually grasp the supernatural? :rolleyes:

That is one of my main problems with Christians. They attempt to understand and qualify themselves to explain the Supernatural when infact the Supernatural(if there is one) is the Unexplained.


ANSWER: Could you please post all the similarities, and context, and evidence in regards to this. I have not seen anything about it. Thanks

Haru “Horus” is symbolic of the Rising Son. Jesus is also symbolic of the rising son. Jesus was the son (sun) who died (set) on the cross by crucifixion and he will resurrect (rise) according to the Christians. When the son came down and apparently sets or dies into the darkness and he raises or resurrects back to life. It is the story of the Christian’s God Jesus.

What religious fanatics don’t realize is that if the sun shuts down that would be the end of life as you know it. This is what Egipt teaches about the sun: If I say I worship the sun, people say oh that’s sun worship. I know that. The reason why I say worship the sun, s-u-n and laugh at you who worship the son, s-o-n is because my sun is an obvious provider. If my sun doesn’t come up in the morning, we can chalk it. Jesus (the son) went to sleep 2,000 years ago, has not gotten up yet, and you all are still doing fine. Yet you are still waiting for your son to rise. If my sun doesn’t rise each day, it’s over for Jesus and you. Now with this reasoning, I can live without your son. Can you live without your son? Can you live without my sun? The answer is simply NO.

If you look throughout Egyptian history, you see that many of the characteristics of Horus existed long before 2,000 years ago, and parallels that of Jesus of 2,000 years ago. For instance it is said:


Jesus performed the miracle of turning five loaves of bread in one case and seven in another to feed the many multitudes of people.
to
This ties in with Horus who makes seven loaves of bread for Osiris to live by.

Yashua is in the desert and being tempted by the Devil, who said to him, “If he was the son of God, turn a stone into bread.”
to
The stone of the desert is symbolic of Set.

As the child Horus comes to the Earth, then enters matter or becomes flesh. He is born as the word of his father who becomes Seb, who consort is Nu whose other name is Meri.
to
Which is the same as Jesus coming down to Earth as the word of God in the flesh having and adopted father of Joseph (Seb) and Mary his mother.

Jesus said “I and the father are one. He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me.”
to
Horus is the father seen in the son.

Jesus claims to be the son in whom the father is revealed.
to
Horus was the light of the world. The light that is represented by the symbolic eye. The son of salvation.

Yashua is called the ‘Good Sheperd’ with the lamb or kid on his shoulder.
to
Horus was the good shepherd who carries the crook upon his shoulder.

Jesus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.
to
Horus is called the Lamb of God, the bread of life, the truth and the light.

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
to
Horus is was baptized by Anupp the Baptizer.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the ‘House of Bread.’
to
Horus was born in Annu, the ‘Place of Bread.’

Jesus the Christ.
to
Horus the Krist.

The star in the east that indicated the birthplace of Jesus.
to
The star, as announcer of the child Horus.

The blind man given sight by Jesus.
to
The blind mummy made to see by Horus.

Jesus walking on water.
to
Horus walking on water.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. This is just to give you clear overstanding that the Jesus of your bible came from the Egyptian diety of Horus, and Christianity came from the various stories from Egypt. The story was just reiterated as most stories in your bible are. They are stories from old tablets such as the Enuma Elish, and the Giglamesh Epic. The names were just changed, in different cultures. In fact, the names of the bible aren’t even names, they are titles. For example the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the bible is just the story of ANU, Antum, and Iyd in the Enuma Elish. The story of Cain and Abel in the bible is just the story of Osiris and Set in the Egyptian records.

source: The Body Parts Of God
by Kayti - Sent Hotep known as Shandra Stubbs
student of Egipt


The name Horus is mentioned in the Bible. If you look in Matthew 4:3 where you find the statement “the Son [huios] of God [theos]” referring to Jesus, in the Greek language, you will see Huios Theos. It is not that it is not there. It is just for those who will take the time to research and find it because they want the facts. The Greek word Huios is from the Egyptian word Horus or Haru.

Source: Jesus Found In Egipt


Probably the most obvious is the story of Osiris, Isis, Horus and Set, or at least their final positions, along with some of the surrounding icons. I will not repeat the story itself, but in the end, Osiris becomes the god of the heavens while Set is outcast as the evil lord of the underworld. Isis is the mother of Horus, who in tern becomes a living god in the form of the pharaoh. The associations of Osiris and the Christian supreme being, Isis as the Mother Mary Horus as Jesus and Set as the devil are obvious, and ancient icons depict Isis suckling Horus almost exactly as Mary would later be shown suckling the baby Jesus.


One of the main reasons why I don't believe in Christianity is because they stole ideas and stories from earlier religions and civilizations.


ANSWER: I can prove that there is a bigger chance that God is real, and what the bible says is true, then evolution and what scientists say is true. I'll leave the decision up to you, but as I said before, I will start posting this evidence soon, just be patient, it takes time to do all this. But I promise you that the evidence will come soon

Don't get me wrong. I'm not out to try to prove that God does not exist. But I do disagree with Christianity. And the evidence will never come. Unfortunately all your evidence will be bias and subjective. And please stop acting like you are the next prophet:D

if god does exist then why did i and a lot of others go through so much shit in northern ireland.

Question:

From the Christian perspective. Why did God create man?

Originally posted by moonman
Question:

From the Christian perspective. Why did God create man?
Just watch the movie "Cast Away". You will see some similarities between the flat basketball named "Wilson" and the God's creation-- man. Too bad Tom Hanks is not god. :D

Ok, I read EVERY FUCKING POST....


Welcome, Answers-

Stop making claims that Atheists are immoral people. I was Christian until about one year ago. Christianity is the gate to immorality in my eyes. I was a horrid disgusting piece of slime because i knew that God loved and would forgive me.

When I finally realized that Christianity is pure mythology, I became the most well-rounded person that I can think of. I no longer have any friends because I gave up on debauchery. God teaches us that we are granted this paradise of earth because he is so "good." Well, that is a terrible notion.

Yes, there are many coincidences in the Bible, and they seem very true, but most stories in the Old Testament have been disproven. Anyway, dont say that Atheists are bad people. When was the last time that an Atheist started a war or dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan?

I'm saying that Christians have a path of good or evil, and the seemingly good ones are often the worst ones.

My biggest greivance with this thread: Yes, you are 16, and I respect your goal, but you need to questoin your own beliefs when answering these questions. Do NOT become a "Whatsupyall" because you will burn in the Atheist inferno. Always take time to back up your claims with supportable evidence and do not answer with vague statements.

Thanks, dude

Slacker47-
Just to add a perspective, I'm affraid Stalin was atheist and I'm sure have been agnostics who have been no better, and the evil of countless theists goes without saying.

Just to add a perspective, I'm affraid Stalin was atheist and I'm sure have been agnostics who have been no better, and the evil of countless theists goes without saying.

Very true, but dont make me list how many Holy Wars Christians have created. You have a point, but I think mine is more relevant.

I cannot stress how silly this Idea is. For some reason people take this and direct it only towards Christianity. In case you don’t know there is a Jihad right now against Americans, Jews and Christians from Muslim extremists. Does this mean that Islam is evil and wrong? Not due to these facts no.

You cannot judge something on the acts of corrupted Kings who worked with Corrupt churches who went as far as refusing to allow members of the clergy to marry due to financial strain!!!

You cannot judge Christianity due to the acts of Madmen and an easily swayed populace just as you cannot judge Islam on the Fundamentalist and extremists.

The War was over land, and selfish rulers who used their power to sway the church and confuse the populace. Not over religion. These are Holy Wars in name only!

Raistlin
I agree with your sentiment entirely, but not the reason for the holy wars. According to Barbara Tuchman (A Distant Mirror), the motivation for the holy wars was to rid Europe of marauding mercenaries left unemployed by periodic lulls in the 100 years war. Apparently, in their off time they would ride in huge arcs around the French countryside, threatening local lords with seige if they didn't get paid off. The French 'nobility' would pressure the pope into releasing enough money to hire the mercs and send them off to the middle east in order to get some peace and quiet - to build up resources for the next round of warfare with Britain. At that time, everyone was corrupt. Tuchman's description of this period of western history reads like hell on earth. I'm not a historian, but I was very impressed with this rather dense book and recommend it to anyone interested in this period, especially if you're down on current events.

Making generalizations about whether people of this or that belief system are moral, immoral or amoral is equivalent to racism and doesn't make for cogent discussionl.

Originally posted by Turduckin
Raistlin
I agree with your sentiment entirely, but not the reason for the holy wars. According to Barbara Tuchman (A Distant Mirror), the motivation for the holy wars was to rid Europe of marauding mercenaries left unemployed by periodic lulls in the 100 years war. Apparently, in their off time they would ride in huge arcs around the French countryside, threatening local lords with seige if they didn't get paid off. The French 'nobility' would pressure the pope into releasing enough money to hire the mercs and send them off to the middle east in order to get some peace and quiet - to build up resources for the next round of warfare with Britain. At that time, everyone was corrupt. Tuchman's description of this period of western history reads like hell on earth. I'm not a historian, but I was very impressed with this rather dense book and recommend it to anyone interested in this period, especially if you're down on current events.

Making generalizations about whether people of this or that belief system are moral, immoral or amoral is equivalent to racism and doesn't make for cogent discussionl.

I have never heard that before. But it makes sense. At this time EVERYONE was corrupt. The Pope and his church were one of the biggest problems at the time. Soo many wrong things have been commited in the name of the church that it is very understandable why people would be weary. Combine that with the fact that Most christians either do not understand the theology, or try and force someoen to feel horrible about who they are in order to trigger a conversion, and you have a bnearly lethal combination.

Christians need to realize that god is going to set things up. You need to be available to do gods work and things will fall into place. When someone is ready to hear that is when the spirit will work and bring things into their life. There is no need to have another inquisition in order to save souls. No one goes to hell by accident.

Why is it always in my face?

Originally posted by Walker
Why is it always in my face?

Why is what always in your face? I dont think I understand the question. :confused:

The topic is "ask any question about Christianity". So mine is why, every time I visit this board, people are flinging it in my general direction?

My first post here. Wee.


Originally posted by answers
Let me end my part in this thread by just saying that all you Atheists would make great Christians. You spend so much time trying to get answers, trying to find the truth. Yet your only problem is that you are on the wrong side. You come at Christianity with the desire to disprove it, when you could come at Christianity with the desire to believe in it. Until you approach Christianity differently, you will never see the truth that it holds.

To put this in practical terms: you read books that disprove Christianity, while I read books that prove it. Of course this will change our approach. Many of the Biblical questions that people have sent can be answered in any Bible commentary. You all seem to like taking things out of context. Maybe you should try reading the whole thing. Then reading a commentary, or Bible study, to find your answers, instead of looking in your Atheist books to just find more questions.

It's sad that I chose to look for answers in God's word, while you chose to look for the same answers in the words of scientists.


How does this apply to people (like me) who were Christians for most of their lives then de-converted?


But what has really confused me with Atheists is why they think Christianity is bad? Christianity preaches peace, love, joy, equality, and security, yet you all treat it as if it holds back all those good things. Is it because Christians are against cloning, or weird scientific experiments? Is it because they are simply different? Is it because they don't believe what you believe?

What is your problem with Christianity?

I used to have wonderful discussions of all aspects of my life with my family - not anymore. They think I am going to hell, and I can no longer discuss any religious topics with them because of that. That pisses me off.

I see my grandparents give money to "god", AKA "Pastor Bob" or some televangelist... money they can't afford to give. That pisses me off.

I see a dear friend of mine going through the horrible realization that their entire life was built around a lie... the same realization I had. That pisses me off.

No, Christianity isn't the worst dogmatic superstition to have, but it's still a dogmatic superstition.

So mine is why, every time I visit this board, people are flinging it in my general direction?Your omnipresence makes it very difficult for them to miss. ;)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

How come the churhes of more recent years have become ritual in their practises, more than actualizing God in Man? How come Christianity makes a sphere of discrimination against people in Islam or Hinduism? How come James the Just was murdered and replaced (in popularity) by the one person who witnessed his death, Saul? How come James the Just is not given as much attention in the Bible despite being the one and only person in the time of the gospels that people should have refered to, by command of God, through Jesus. How come the name Nazarenes was dropped after the 6th century, when the name was the original name of the Christians, when so many joined Islam? How come there is enthasis on the Trinity and making Jesus the Almighty when he was his son and God in Man?

Answer these, intrested in your opnion. My address given. :p

why didn't jesus have brothers or sisters?

I'd hate to be Jesus's younger brother... lol
It would be kind of hard to live up to him.

'Now little Steve, can't you try be alittle more like Jesus, he turned water into wine you know, why can't you do that?'

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
why didn't jesus have brothers or sisters? James?

is james a brother of jesus?

Matthew 13:55
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
Galatians 1:19
I saw none of the other apostles–only James, the Lord's brother.
not to be confused with the disciples:

Matt.10:2
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

so what happened to his brothers?

They only appear a few times in the New Testament, where it is clear they had no more or less importance than any of Jesus' followers. There are probably a few stories as to what happened to them, maybe in the apocrypha.

Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

They were probably very close, and they seem to have supported Jesus, but did not believe in him while he was with them.

John 7
3Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."
5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
6Therefore Jesus told them, "The right time for me has not yet come; for you any time is right. 7The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil.

it is good to know that maria was not a barren desert. Maybe his brothers didn't believe jesus because they had some inside family knowledge...such as certain rumours about maria having a fling with the stable lad 9 months before jesus was born. ;)