Evidence for God from Science

Now hes switching gears.



""So you're getting your information from journalist and Christian apologist Lee Strobel? That explains a lot. You cannot call The Gospels eyewitness accounts when we don't know who wrote them or the possible document(s) on which they're based. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were assigned at a later date to give those texts authority. If there were as much primary source evidence as you claim, there wouldn't be such a dispute over the validity of the potential secondary/tertiary source, Josephus.

Whar's really laughable is your attempt to include Paul's vision as any kind of evidence for the purpose of establishing Jesus' historicity. No objective historian would take you seriously after that absurd claim. "
"

Swimmy wrote:"So you're getting your information from journalist and Christian apologist Lee Strobel? That explains a lot. You cannot call The Gospels eyewitness accounts when we don't know who wrote them or the possible document(s) on which they're based. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits the names Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were assigned at a later date to give those texts authority. If there were as much primary source evidence as you claim, there wouldn't be such a dispute over the validity of the potential secondary/tertiary source, Josephus.

First off I'm glad we've dropped the Josephus nonsense. But then you go and get yourself all bogged down again. Lee Strobel is certainly no fool. If you have any evidence to counter him or his guest then feel free to produce this. You are failing to see that the manuscript evidence for Jesus is overwhelming. The earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jesus' existence dates back to within 10s of years from his death. Evidence for Plato dates to as "early" as 1,300 years after his death. Do you believe Plato existed? My intention isn't really to point-score. I'm merely trying to show you how irrational your position is. Do you dispute the authorship of Plato, or Caesar or Homer? Here's a link from this site -

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... PHyr6qkeTG

"Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D."

Dispute it if you want. Don't whine about the source: dispute it.

Swimmy wrote:"Whar's really laughable is your attempt to include Paul's vision as any kind of evidence for the purpose of establishing Jesus' historicity. No objective historian would take you seriously after that absurd claim. "

Do you know what an eyewitness is? Do you know what an eyewitness to an eyewitness is? You can put your hands up and dispute these eyetitness accounts all you want, but the simple fact is you reject all the evidence for Jesus' existence and his ministry; I mean, baffling as it seems to the rational mind, you do reject this evidence. Hey he doesn't have to be divine, champ. You're not admitting something outrageous to your 'super-rational' mind. Evidence is evidence, as they say down my way.

Anyway, all you need to do is show me I'm wrong...Sink the evidence for me...

Swimmy, again I would reply that according to the Bible some of the greatest doubters of Christ were his own disciples... Mark 16:11-13. His OWN disciples were running around in fear of the Jews even after Christ performed all of these miracles which were also present at his death. John 20:19

Why? According to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a (AD 70-200) it explicitly states that Jesus was killed for sorcery. In fact, people in Jerusalem even accused Jesus himself of being possessed by a demon, John 7:20; 8:52; 10:20-21

Therefore, Christ was wrongly associated with evil... And evil doers rarely get the recognition like a righteous person would..

Danny M I think you're sending the atheist running for the hills. I'll keep you posted if they ever actually post again. But I'll wait and see if what they say is actually meaningful and not jibber jabber in a different form.

Gman wrote:Skimmy, again I would reply that according to the Bible some of the greatest doubters of Christ were his own disciples... Mark 16:11-13. His OWN disciples were running around in fear of the Jews even after Christ performed all of these miracles which were also present at his death. John 20:19

Why? According to the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a (AD 70-200) it explicitly states that Jesus was killed for sorcery. In fact, people in Jerusalem even accused Jesus himself of being possessed by a demon, John 7:20; 8:52; 10:20-21

Therefore, Christ was associated with evil... And evil doers rarely get the recognition like a righteous person would..

And why, if the Gospels are a fabrication, would authorship for two of them be attributed to Mark and Luke? What purpose would this serve? Mark and Luke are secondary sources, if you like, with living and breathing first-hand sources at their disposal. Mark had the eyewitness accounts of Peter; Luke had the eyewitness accounts of Paul. Why not just name Mark's Gospel the Gospel of "Peter" and Luke's Gospel the Gopel of "Paul"...? Because there was no need to fabricate or deceive; authenticity literally screams out at us.

Luke says, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
Luke 1:1-4

Swimmy wrote:Danny M I think you're sending the atheist running for the hills. I'll keep you posted if they ever actually post again. But I'll wait and see if what they say is actually meaningful and not jibber jabber in a different form.

Okay Swimmy, keep us posted.

The Arch of Titus in Rome

"The Arch of Titus is one of Rome's most famous monuments. It was built to commemorate the victories of Titus and Vespasian in the war against the Jews and their complete destruction in 70 AD. One wall relief inside the arch shows the spoils of the great Temple in Jerusalem before its annihilation. Another relief depicts the apotheosis of Titus who is carried to heaven on the wings of an eagle."



"The wall relief on the Arch of Titus reveals one of the most troubling scenes in all history, Roman soldiers carrying spoils from the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Temple Menorah and the Table of the Shewbread shown here were both of solid gold, and the silver trumpets which called the Jews to the festivals. The Romans are in triumphal procession down the Sacred Way, wearing laurel crowns and the ones carrying the Menorah have pillows on their shoulders. They carry signs commemorating the victories which Titus had won. This group of soldiers is just a few of the hundreds in the actual triumphal procession, who are about to enter the carved arch on the right which reveals the quadriga at the top, Titus on his 4-horsed chariot with soldiers. The Arch of Titus with its Menorah Relief are high on the list of importance in the study of Biblical Archaeology."

As prophesied by Christ, it's coming destruction would come..

"And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things (the temple)? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Matthew 24:2

"If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation." - Luke 19:41-44


Source: //www.bible-history.com/archaeology/rome/ ... us-bb.html

Hey Swimmy, ask the atheists this question about Christ's popularity back then... It came to me in our good Friday service last night. Seriously, do you really think a person with a resume like this would make headline news?

1. Was born in a manger or cave? Luke 2:4-7
2. Hung around prostitutes and tax collectors? Mark 2:16 Matthew 9:10-11
3. Made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant? Philippians 2:7 Matthew 20:28
4. Washed the people's feet? John 13:1-17
5. Taught that in humility to consider others better than yourselves? Philippians 2:3
6. Was the son of a carpenter? Matthew 13:55
7. Touched people with leprosy? Mark 1:40-41
8. Was poor? Luke 9:58
9. Taught peace and not war? Matthew 5:3-11
10. Taught forgiveness? Matthew 18:21-35
11. Rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed colt? Matthew 21:5
12. Refused to be honored? John 5:41 John 8:50
13. Submitted himself to sufferings? Acts 8:32
14. Laid his life down for his followers? John 10:15
15. Didn't even have his own tomb to be buried in? Matthew 27:58-59
16. In his resurrection he first revealed himself to women? Luke 24:10

Does this sound like a king or someone of importance to you?

Frankly, I'm surprised they even wrote about Christ at all.....

Gman wrote:Hey Swimmy, ask the atheists this question about Christ's popularity back then... It came to me in our good Friday service last night. Seriously, do you really think a person with a resume like this would make headline news?

1. Was born in a manger or cave? Luke 2:4-7
2. Hung around prostitutes and tax collectors? Mark 2:16 Matthew 9:10-11
3. Made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant? Philippians 2:7 Matthew 20:28
4. Washed the people's feet? John 13:1-17
5. Taught that in humility to consider others better than yourselves? Philippians 2:3
6. Was the son of a carpenter? Matthew 13:55
7. Touched people with leprosy? Mark 1:40-41
8. Was poor? Luke 9:58
9. Taught peace and not war? Matthew 5:3-11
10. Taught forgiveness? Matthew 18:21-35
11. Rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed colt? Matthew 21:5
12. Refused to be honored? John 5:41 John 8:50
13. Submitted himself to sufferings? Acts 8:32
14. Laid his life down for his followers? John 10:15
15. Didn't even have his own tomb to be buried in? Matthew 27:58-59
16. In his resurrection he first revealed himself to women? Luke 24:10

Does this sound like a king or someone of importance to you?

Frankly, I'm surprised they even wrote about Christ at all.....

Good points Gman... How on earth did Jesus even make it into anybody's writings at all?... Just an average Joe, surely?

DannyM wrote:Good points Gman... How on earth did Jesus even make it into anybody's writings at all?... Just an average Joe, surely?

Too true.. I was going to add..

17. A man who didn't oppose governments? Mark 12:16-17
18. A man who opposed using weapons for his cause? Matthew 26:52-56

I can just see the tabloids like the "National Enquirer" trying to chase down Jesus today with a story... No violence or greed?? Sound's like a barn burner of a story to me...

Gman wrote:

DannyM wrote:Good points Gman... How on earth did Jesus even make it into anybody's writings at all?... Just an average Joe, surely?

Too true.. I was going to add..

17. A man who didn't oppose governments? Mark 12:16-17
18. A man who opposed using weapons for his cause? Matthew 26:52-56

I can just see the tabloids like the "National Enquirer" trying to chase down Jesus today with a story... No violence or greed?? Sound's like a barn burner of a story to me...

Yeah, the paparazzo would have his work cut out for him...

Gman wrote:Hey Swimmy, ask the atheists this question about Christ's popularity back then... It came to me in our good Friday service last night. Seriously, do you really think a person with a resume like this would make headline news?

1. Was born in a manger or cave? Luke 2:4-7
2. Hung around prostitutes and tax collectors? Mark 2:16 Matthew 9:10-11
3. Made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant? Philippians 2:7 Matthew 20:28
4. Washed the people's feet? John 13:1-17
5. Taught that in humility to consider others better than yourselves? Philippians 2:3
6. Was the son of a carpenter? Matthew 13:55
7. Touched people with leprosy? Mark 1:40-41
8. Was poor? Luke 9:58
9. Taught peace and not war? Matthew 5:3-11
10. Taught forgiveness? Matthew 18:21-35
11. Rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed colt? Matthew 21:5
12. Refused to be honored? John 5:41 John 8:50
13. Submitted himself to sufferings? Acts 8:32
14. Laid his life down for his followers? John 10:15
15. Didn't even have his own tomb to be buried in? Matthew 27:58-59
16. In his resurrection he first revealed himself to women? Luke 24:10
Frankly, I'm surprised they even wrote about Christ at all.....

These are all great points. Jesus also called His disciples to act and live in a matter that contradicts man's wisdom. He tells His disciples that they cannot divorce their spouse except for infidelity. He tells His disciples that the world will hate them. He tells His disciples that the first shall be last. He tells His disciples to give up their lives. He tells His disciples that they should become like little children. He tells His disciples to be servants of all. Etc... All this flies in the face of secular worldly logic. No man would make these statements in the hope of starting a new religion or faith, but then Jesus was God. Jesus is radical in every sense of the word.

It seems pretty clear that they were looking for a political leader that would "kick ass" on the Romans to free them from the occupation... Probably a 9 foot tall macho wrestler messiah from the WWF. Now that would have made the news!!



Imagine their disappointment when Christ, a lowly carpenters son, showed up on the scene. A man who taught forgiveness, nonviolence, hope, humility, and most of all love.. He was practically laughed off the planet.. Matthew 27:27-31

Not popular at all..... Not cool, not hip... A donkey rider. Whoop dee dooo...



Interesting at his death, there was just a handful of people too. Mostly women. John 19:25.. No one really cared... Matthew 26:56

I read through the first half of this forum. When I got to the list of people who never wrote about Jesus I had to make some comments. Hopefully I'm not covering old ground too much.

I looked into this years ago, so I'm going on memory. There are two early copies of Josephus. One is in Greek and has been disputed to some degree, but the other is in Aramaic and is phrased in a way that suggests one author and contains the same basic references. This one is not disputed.

I started going through a list, much like, if not the same, years ago. I finally quite when I started seeing a patern. Many did not live during the lifetime of Jesus, wrote about things like agriculture and one of the individuals had hired one of the others in the list to follow him around and write about his own life. Some, like Philo, did not live in the area. Philo lived in Egypt and died about 20 yrs. after Jesus' ministery. Maybe I'm missing something.

dayage wrote:I looked into this years ago, so I'm going on memory. There are two early copies of Josephus. One is in Greek and has been disputed to some degree, but the other is in Aramaic and is phrased in a way that suggests one author and contains the same basic references. This one is not disputed.

There maybe differences in the way it was phrased, but the claim about Jesus still stands.. Not many of your most critical scholars would dispute that..

dayage wrote:I started going through a list, much like, if not the same, years ago. I finally quite when I started seeing a patern. Many did not live during the lifetime of Jesus, wrote about things like agriculture and one of the individuals had hired one of the others in the list to follow him around and write about his own life. Some, like Philo, did not live in the area. Philo lived in Egypt and died about 20 yrs. after Jesus' ministery. Maybe I'm missing something.

True, but apparently Philo had family in Jerusalem that he visited. Why Philo didn't write about Jesus could be anyone's guess, but if we look at the times that Philo and Josephus lived, Philo (20 BCE — 50 CE) lived before Josephus (37 —c. 100 AD) and he certainly died before Christianity became a significant force whereas Josephus lived much longer to record those events. It's not like they had newspapers or the internet back then either. And when rumors spread about Christ being a sorcerer (in the Talmud), well that would have killed it pretty fast.

Also it's funny that certain people would postulate that the claims of Josephus on Christ were completely fabricated while leaving the writings of Philo alone. It just doesn't make sense...