Evidence for God from Science

Just wanted to post to say hi

Hi

wow, what happens when I am at school teaching useless and biased things !!

Yadinka, obviously it seems we have reached an impasse....

You have not even read the most fundamental of Christian apologetics. I would encourage you to read through Mere Christianity. Not saying it would change your mind. But someone who came here claiming to want to know how we think (thinking of the movies thread), you would get a lot from the book.

Regards,
zoegirl

Enigma7457 wrote:Just wanted to post to say hi

Greetings and salutations!! As Charlotte would say!!

Enigma, will do some reading tonight and get back to you. this weekend. Sorry for the delay...

YaDinka wrote: not so much immaturity, as much as it is "if you don't have anything to say, don'y bother posting." we can assume if you don't post to refute a point you 'agree'.

but again, thanks for adding nothing new to the discussion, or commenting on my above (most recent) post.


"he who has nothing to say, should keep his mouth shut"

Seeing your last past I think I will make it a more permanent ban. Take care.

Interesting. For a thread named "The Evidence For Jesus", there is not much discussion about the subject. That is logical when you consider that no objection against the so-called evidence is allowed here, but I wonder if at least you shouldn't pretend that you actually discuss, as it used to happen some time ago. Sorry for being ironic, but just dropped by after a million years and couldn't prevent noticing what absence of critical thinking did to this forum so far. Please do not feel offended by my remarks.

atheist wrote:Interesting. For a thread named "The Evidence For Jesus", there is not much discussion about the subject. That is logical when you consider that no objection against the so-called evidence is allowed here, but I wonder if at least you shouldn't pretend that you actually discuss, as it used to happen some time ago. Sorry for being ironic, but just dropped by after a million years and couldn't prevent noticing what absence of critical thinking did to this forum so far. Please do not feel offended by my remarks.

Hi atheist,

I don't think you can state we are pretending to actually discuss the evidence for Jesus. Just starting at page one of this thread will show you it has actually been discussed. If you are referring to the last few posts and the last few posts only then I understand what you are saying. You will also notice closer to the beginning of the thread some actual critical thinking as well. My main question in this thread was to the non believer or skeptic concerning Jesus' existence being regarded as a myth. Many claim there is no historical evidence for such a person until 60 years after his death which leaves room for a myth to be produced. Many professionals in this field say 60 years is too short a time for a myth come about as there would still be people alive that would remember the character in question. Non the less this argument is still used to debunk Jesus Christ as a real human being that walked and talked on this earth.

The trouble I have with this argument and what I consider critical thinking is this; if Jesus were a myth, wouldn't there be a plethora of evidence dating back to within 60 years after Jesus' death stating quite loudly, "JESUS IS A MYTH, WHO IS THIS JESUS YOU SPEAK OF? I NEVER SAW HIM, THIS JESUS IS A MYTH!" ? It's not like after Jesus' death everyone stopped talking about him or associating themselves with his name. In fact it began to grow. His followers didn't just stop mentioning his name for 60 years and then all of a sudden start talking about him again. If Jesus is a myth then I want to see the evidence to back that claim up. I want to see historical manuscripts from the time of Jesus' death to 60 years after of people stating this Jesus character never existed and that it was all made up. If it were true that Jesus was a myth then there should be plenty of evidence for it. The fact is though, there is no evidence for Jesus as a myth. In fact the very silence in historical documents outside the Bible gives more plausibility to the existence of Jesus than it does a myth. The main reason we don't see Jesus' name in historical documents outside the Bible is because like many historical documents from great kings and countries is that only the victories of war and all the great things these countries, tribes and races have done are written down. The Jews of the time were certainly not going to mentioned Jesus if they could help it and neither would the Romans. They couldn't deny him but they could quite easily just not mention him. Also Jesus was against most of what they were doing so if Jesus were just a myth the Jews and the Romans alone would have squished that made up story quick smart and we'd have historical evidence for that; plenty of it too. But we don't, we have none.

Another point I'd like to make is concerning the disregard for the New Testament. It is often thrown out as evidence by the non believer because it is a part of the Bible. The fact is that it wasn't always a part of what we now call the Bible. These books or letters are extremely accurate historical documents. They were accurate before they were attached to the Old Testament and they are still accurate now as a part of the Bible. Nothing has changed in the documents themselves. If you took the writings of say Plato or Aristotle, which are not questioned for authenticity and attached them to the Bible, would they then all of a sudden no longer be considered authentic? Of course not. But this is what people are trying to do with the New Testament and it is absurd. These are authentic historical letters and accounts regardless of whether or not they are a part of the Bible. They mention Jesus, a lot, and give undeniable evidence for the existence of the human being Jesus Christ.

Your objection against the so-called evidence is allowed here too btw. Jesus claimed to be 'The Truth' among other things. If He is Truth then Truth alone will testify Jesus Christ. If you have so-called evidence against the existence of Jesus I say bring it. Lets test it out in all honesty, with our agenda aside as best we can.

when was he born? before 4BCE or after 6CE

.
.
While I don't agree totally with Yadinka...I like his approach and thought he made good points. Too bad he's gone. I think he had some good insight on his beliefs and it would've been nice to chat with him some more. It would've been nice, however if he would've read some of the material put forth instead of "brush stroking" the author's on their children's books...but that can't be challenged now.

It's a shame we don't try and draw out the important thoughts and discourage what we don't want to hear...the "ad hominem" while allowing the person to continue with their thinking as we all can probably gain from their knowledge, broaden our perspectives, or even strengthen our beliefs.
.
.