Right now I am reading through Ecclesiastes, and it’s riveting! The author examines the utter futility and folly of living for oneself and hoarding riches. What’s the point in chasing after that which is but for a short time? Naked we came into the world and naked we will leave.
The key word in Ecclesiastes is vanity, which is defined as “the futile emptiness of trying to be happy apart from God.” The author looks at life “under the sun,” and from the human perspective declares it to be empty. Power, popularity, prestige, pleasure—nothing can fill the God-shaped void in human life except God himself, the author of all life!
A word of caution here: you absolutely must read this book in light of the future judgment and eternal life in Christ, and you should read it in one sitting. To read this short book in bits or apart from our assurance in Christ may leave you in despair, for it contains passages written solely from a human point of view, such as, “Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless” (3:19).
You need to keep reading to find out that once God enters a believer’s life, everything you do “under the sun” takes on meaning and purpose, from work, to relationships to play to worship. And when that happens, skepticism and despair melt away.
Listen to the author’s conclusion: “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
94 comments:
Amen! Unfortunately many Christians (the ones who attach Jesus as an accessory to their name and think by so doing they can go on in their current worldly lifestyle [not forsaking the old]. The “Jesus accessory” just gives them a pass to keep on sinning because their already “saved.”) don’t understand what it means to be a follower of Christ. I appreciate your encouragement to challenge Christians to be in the Word and apply it to their lives.
Hank,
My wife gave me the Christianity in Crisis book for Christmas and along with:
1. The Gospel message as recorded in the Bible.
2. Salvation through Jesus Christ my/our Lord along with God's Spirit's convicting Love.
3. The Word of God in it's complete context.
4. Of course, God Himself.
I have journeyed from:
Amway (1992-1998)
False conversion via Amway conference: can you say coveting training.
Rodney Howard Browne (1994)
Brownsville (on my honeymoon)1996
Rick Joyner (here and there)
Along with:
The whole cast of Televangelist that vistited and endorsed each other to the point that I doubted almost nothing.
In fact, I picked up (in a bookstore) Counterfeit Revival 13 years ago or so and scanned it...
I was immediately sure your were wrong.
As you can imagine, your name is not brought up too often (unless as a curse) in the circle I ran in.
There was a paragraph that rang out to me: A quote that Rodney H-B stated about toungues in foreign countries allowing us to preach the Gospel without any language training. (it was a prophesy).
I wondered why this quote hit me as odd...no...really odd.
Well after I finished the Counterfeit Revival book, I looked through the appendix and saw to my utter amazement...that the quote was taken from the "church" body that I was attending at that time (1994) and during a time when I would have been there.
I trusted so many people
I trusted so many books
I trusted so many feelings
Now I trust One person (Christ Jesus)
Now I trust 1 book (The Bible)
Now I trust that I have feelings, as do others but The Word of God says not to trust them but test, examine, and search.
Peter heard Jesus say it was time to get a sword.
Later, Peter was rebuked by Jesus to put the sword away.
God's Word is longer than 1 paragraph for a reason.
I thank God that He reveals Himself to us and that He offers us His Life through the punishment that God has placed on Christ for us. I thank God for speaking to us, about Him and about us in His Word.
I thank God for you.
I thank God.
by the way...when I picked up your book...13 years ago...I made a bid mistake.
I put it down after reading a page or 2.
I bought a copy a month ago and thank God and His truth continues to be understood.
Just wanted to let you know.
I thank you for the time you took to research this infomation.
I still go to the same church in Jacksonville FL...
tonight will be our last night.
to be continued...
“Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.”
A hearty AMEN!!!
-James
Dawkwin,
Your story sounds eerily familiar to mine with many details in common. I'm glad to hear that you were led by God out of that mess.
Grace to you,
John
I am convinced that this book is a description of the world from the eyes of a defeated person, Christian or not. Faith has been allowed to seep away and to be replaced with the things of the world. If one takes an honest look at the worlld, it is futile and pointless, it leads nowhere. But with Christ, it all has meaning and purpose.
I am probably guilty of not really getting the point of the book other than to recognize a really depressed, cynical Solomon. When someone mentions Ecclesiastes I immediately thing of that. Shame on me. I need to delve further in and find the true message. Thanks so much for the spiritual challenge.
The name Solomon does not appear in the book and Qoheleth's claim ti have wisdom "surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me (1:16) does not fit Solomon, whose only predecessor was David. In later chpaaters Qoheleth takes the viewpoint of a subject rather than a king. The language of Ecclesiastes is a late form of Hebrew. The Persian loan words require a date well after 539 BCE.
See, when you take the time to actually read the books of the Bible you can easily see that the claims Bible thumpers make about them are simply not true.
Boris, HAHAHAHA! Hilarious! I agree!
Hank, I called you this past week and was just delighted in being able to speak with you and get your insight. You really helped! That being said, I will try to get through Ecclesiastes soon! I am currently studying Daniel and it is AWESOME!! Way more history then I able to comprehend, but I am trying.
Blessings!
Amanda
Hey Boris, I'm not sure if you're interested, but over at Ray Comfort's blog,(www.raycomfortfood.blogspot.com) he's been making leather jackets for atheists. Not sure if you sent an email to him yet to be included in the drawing. Anyways, just thought I'd let you know. :-)
God Bless,
-James
Ray Comfort is a bigot, a white supremacist, a liar and a moron. He's proof that only the very stupid believe the Bible.
Hank's show yesterday is a great example of how out of touch with reality Hank is and just how intellectually dishonest he is as well. Guess what Hank. The Intelligent Design magic "movement" (creationism poorly disguised in a lab coat) is dead and buried. Intelligent Design magic is not taught in any Christian colleges or universities that have a science department. Rather the entire CHRISTIAN academic community teaches evolution, common descent, Big Bang cosmology and all the rest of the science creationist liars like Hanegraaff hate, fear and constantly lie about. Why? Because evolution produces results. Intelligent Design magic promoters on the other hand produce no results, only anti-science propaganda. If ID Magic is valid where are all the medicines, vaccines, new and better food crops and poisons to protect these crops from insects? Evolutionary scientists produce new products every day. How come the ID magic hoaxers can't produce anything? Because Intelligent Design magic is nothing more than another Christian religious hoax. What are they going to do? Make a woman from a rib? ROFL!
Science isn't done by "movements." My bowels have movements and they produce the exact same thing the Intelligent Design magic movement produces.
Gee Boris, I just made a statement, (you didn't have to get riled up!), have you visited Mr. Comforts blog lately? Yes or No? I suggest you do because with NO STRINGS ATTACHED he's giving away to atheists only $100 worth of food, genuine leather vests and coats! It doesn't hurt to enter your name in the drawing...does it?
-James
I don't need any food or clothing. Let him give it away to someone who does. Have you ever visited any of the sites that mock Comfort and his stupid arguments? They're hilarious. How about U-tube videos of college students refuting Comfort's false claims about science? Those are hilarious too. I mean Ray Comfort is a retard. But then what creationist isn't?
Boris, Yes I've visited some of the sites you mentioned. Ok, I just thought I'd let you know.;-)
-James
Boris (ok, I believe that's your name)said:
"Have you ever visited any of the sites that mock Comfort and his stupid arguments? They're hilarious. How about U-tube videos of college students refuting Comfort's false claims about science? Those are hilarious too."
So you have admitted that his claims are false...
Boris...what is your basis for making this statement and which claim do you claim is false?
Was it the everything was created by nothing--virtually nothing?
The belief that we are NOT designed?: Meaning that our minds/brains are unable to be trusted since they have only themselves to study themselves.
Don't get frustrated working that one out.
dawkin,
As far as Ray Comfort's lies, false claims and misrepresentations of evolutionary theory, atheism and atheists, he's famous for them and you can look them up on the Internet. For one example he still uses the banana proves design argument even though he's been informed that bananas are the result of human artificial selection and that wild bananas are inedible. Ray Comfort just reinforces my opinion about the lack intellectual honesty, morals and ethics in religious people.
Was everything created by nothing? No, the mass energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another.
People who believe in Intelligent Design magic are simply ignorant of evolution's bottom-up design mechanism. Life isn't designed from the top down but rather is the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution. Don't believe me? Go to the science department at any CHRISTIAN college or university and they'll tell you the exact same thing. You won't do that because you're not interested in learning the truth about things. Your question is meant to try to get me to question what I've learned from scientists about science. FYI I question everything. It's you who is frightened to question certain things.
What makes you think our brains cannot be trusted if they are evolved? It is well established that our minds our fallible. Memory and reasoning are mistaken all the time and pathologies add to the complications. However this fallibility exists no matter what the source of our minds is and this fallibility argues more against creationism. Nobody can be certain of it either and minds as imperfect as our argue against them being divinely created. Doubt exists in all areas of our lives. Nothing can be proved absolutely. many things are certain enough that we call them facts and do not worry that they might be wrong until we see actual evidence that they are wrong. If we didn't, we could never get on with our lives.
Now don't get frustrated. I know all that was probably way over your head. I don't appreciate condescending remarks from someone who couldn't pass an 8th grade science class. That would be you. Like I said if you really wanted to learn anything about the universe and life itself, you know where the library is. You're on the Internet. The bookstore has thousands of fascinating science books written by real scientists. You're not interested because you know very well a small whiff of science or a dose of common sense could have you questioning your faith and right now your cult has you believing that's a one way ticked to eternal damnation. Go ahead take a whiff of the Godless 21rst century. Then you'll no longer be frightened of man-made rumors and threats about hell. I'm not. No person of sense is. Stop being a coward dawkin.
Boris stated: "Don't believe me?"
No...I have my own belief which is not based on fallible man nor evolutionary randomly mutated organization.
Great statement from Boris: "Doubt exists in all areas of our lives. Nothing can be proved absolutely."
Absolute assurance, on your part--I hope.
Lastly, Boris seems to be quite the thinker: "I know all that was probably way over your head."
Yes, you utilize so many complicated phrases it is astounding...
I just wonder how long your attempt at perfect understanding, knowledge, and intellegence will last before you at least take a breather.
Sit back for a moment and just think about what a foundation you have created.
Don't get frustrated that someone whom you believe or hope couldn't go beyond the 8th grade "science" level could read your arguments, understand what you are "getting at" yet, not be persuaded by your "passionate belief".
---Boris---Not that I believe in magic. But I will bet 100% that you have said the sinners prayer at least 1 time in your life.
More that likely, as a real scientific test with 0 results.
Correct?...Or did you only do it when you were a little child.
Suspecting this was some time ago.
dawkin,
Your beliefs are indeed based on what fallible people have told you about the Bible and the fallible men who wrote it. So you don't have your own beliefs. Somebody had to convince you those ridiculous stories were true and they did it by telling you if you didn't believe them you'd be punished for eternity in hell. Your beliefs are not based on facts or evidence but fear. The people who indoctrinated you appealed to your most base emotion: cowardice.
I have never said a prayer because I've never believed there was a God even as a small child. I don't accept the Bible's definition of sin or sinners. The only sin is willful ignorance and all Bible believers are guilty of that sin.
You're the one who needs to think about the foundation you're on buddy. I'm not the least bit frustrated by you. I know that you've been brainwashed by a cult of ignorance and stupidity with childish fear induced superstitions. You're proud facts and evidence cannot penetrate your skull. You've got on the full armor of fear. ROFL!
"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father." 1 John 2:22-23a
Boris,
I am 45 years old and until I was around 40, I was a lot like you. But one difference is I was at least open to the idea that I could be wrong about God. You should start there, with "What if I am wrong?".
Then read Romans 1 verses 18-32.
Boris,
And then later, you could try to step outside yourself - your experiences, education, personal interactions, for just a little while, and pray sincerely to God to reveal Himself to you.
My entire life I loved science and mocked Christian hypocrisy, of which I found much. Then I experienced God. And so that's what I am saying is it is experiential. It is faith. Faith is irrational. Doesn't make it less real. Like love. Don't pay attention to the world, Christians, blog threads. Just you, on your knees, in private, sincerely begging God to bring the light and the peace that transcends all understanding.
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
John 14:16-17
Boris:
Study more than what others tell you. Inside and outside the Bible.
You have an interesting concept of self-knowledge.
I have not met anyone with such great faith as you...no not in all of the evolutionary/theistic mindset.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
You do know that no "true" atheist has not considered all of the truths or "falsehoods" of the Bible.
Praying is one that I would have thought you would have attempted...IF you were a "good" student of science.
Think of the atom, the neutron, or any medical practice which would have been absurd unless someone stepped out in faith that it could work.
So you have never attempted to test prayer?
The Bible says that unless you come as a little child (humble)that you shall by in no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Now scientifically, if you haven't even done that then you will get the results you have.
Bitter, mad, angry and an enemy of God.
So you are proving the Bible.
Boris is proof that the Bible is true.
"Boris is proof that the Bible is true." Amen! Very wisely said dawkwin and Mr. Fury! Blessings
Buck Fury,
Nothing can change the fact that the Bible is full of internal inconsistencies and gross scientific and historical inaccuracies. So there is no question that the God of the Bible doesn't exist and Jesus Christ never existed. No question whatsoever. If there is some other God, who cares? There are no verifiable consequences one way or the other. Don't tell me to read passages in the Bible. Spend four years in college learning Ancient Greek like I did so you can find out what the New Testament really says and then get back to me. I'll match my knowledge of the text of the Bible with anyone on this planet.
By the way you were never anything like me. No one ever taught you the art of critical thinking.
Don,
Truth in the Bible does not refer to facts or sincerity but rather to correct scriptural doctrine. The use of the word "truth" to mean acceptable religious doctrine makes the doctrine more attractive to converts, while the use of the word "lie" serves to alienate believers from the surrounding world. You claim I prove the Bible. These passages you are referring to are nothing more than the Bible's defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. They were written by men to get other men to follow them blindly. Only small minds cannot see that. The Bible proves only that you have a tiny closed mind.
dawkin,
You live in a creationist bubble. You said: " You do know that no "true" atheist has not considered all the truth or "falsehoods" of the Bible." The Bible has nothing to do with atheism. Millions of people are atheists that have never heard of the Bible. Half the people who have lived in the last 2000 years never heard of Christianity or the Bible. Many of them were atheists.
Your statement about science an medical practice is simply retarded. No one steps out in faith to do science or medicine. These things are based on evidence, not faith. I am not bitter and angry nor could I be an enemy of something that is a figment of your imagination. These are things you have to convince yourself of to justify my happiness living as an unbeliever.
Buck Fury,
I cannot accept your personal experiences of God as evidence for God's existence. Personal experiences are notoriously unreliable and cannot be tested. People have all sorts of personal experiences with aliens and UFOs too. People of different religions make the same exact claims that you have. Why should I accept claims from you as proof of your God's existence that you would not accept from people of other religions that supposedly prove their God's existence? You people never realize just how weak your goofy arguments are.
If there is a God that wants me to believe that it exists then it can tell me itself. It isn't going to tell me through an ancient collection of absurd fairy tales and if God expects me to believe other people then it's going to need to get some much better representation on Earth.
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.” 2 Peter 2:1-2 (italics added)
“and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” 1 John 4:3-6
“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John 5:19-20 (italics added)
“But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.” Jude 1:10
Boris, I'm so thankful that I have a "tiny closed mind." To God be the Glory! I was once blind but now I see!
Boris,
I never asked you to accept my personal experiences as proof of God's existence. And I'm not arguing the case for God with you. I'm telling you that the way to God is not through your head because you can neither prove nor disprove His existence, so ultimately it is only by repentance of your sins and FAITH in He who made you that you can come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. There is no other way. No matter your vast wisdom, Greek linguistics skill, or NT scholarship.
And if you don't think there's the slightest possibility you could be wrong about this, then maybe you don't have the critical thinking skills you think you have.
Boris,
Yes, the Bible does say I have a tiny, closed mind. Tiny and closed to the world, false teachings, and anything that contradicts the Bible.
Buck Fury,
Unbelief or disbelief is the natural position to take on anything until something has been proved. As you said the existence of God cannot be proved. So the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief. Why believe something for which there isn't a shred of empirical evidence? Unlike you religious people, what an atheist believes is based on evidence and these beliefs are always subject to change when new evidence is discovered. By your own admission yours aren't.
No God made me, I'm the product of 4 billion years of evolution by natural selection and so are you. There is no God to repent to and I have no sins I feel the need to repent from anyway. If I did I would make my peace with the people I've offended, not some imaginary boogyman. See, being an atheist means I can only be forgiven by kindness and faulty memories. So I have to treat people right the first time around. That's easy for a humanist to do because our morals and ethics are acquired through critical analysis which makes them vastly superior to the morals and ethics of any Bible believer. Just the cultural prejudice alone of Christians makes them inferior human beings to the rest of us.
I'm not wrong about the Bible. In the gospels Jesus is an allegory for the sun passing through the 12 signs of the zodiac. The gospels are not historical narratives nor are they biographies of a historical figure. Historical narratives have NEVER contained word for word dialog of people speaking in complete sentences the way the stories in the Bible do. Only fictive narratives contain this kind or ANY kind of word for word dialog. No such person as Jesus Christ ever existed and Christianity is the worst human tragedy that has ever come upon this planet. None of your religious yammering would ever make me come over to the dark side and join the enemy of all humanity, your evil and false religion.
Don,
Suppose a supernatural Being came to Earth, announced He was God and that it was time for the world to end and said everyone most repent and follow him or be punished in hell for all eternity. God performed many miracles to prove His supernatural powers. He moved mountains, turned the seas into fire and raised people from the dead. God performed any miracle that was asked of Him because He wanted to make sure everyone knew who He was. Then someone asked God which God he was and which holy book was His word. God answered that he was Allah, the God of Islam, the one true God of the universe and that the Koran was His holy word and all other holy books including the Bible we blasphemous.
What would you do Don? Would you repent and follow Allah? I think we know what you and the rest of the Bible believers would do. You would think it was all a trick to test your faith. Of course Allah would know this is how you would react so let's say he sent all the Bible believers to hell for three weeks and then brought them back to Earth to give them one last chance to repent. Would you repent then and follow Allah?
What is the purpose of this little story? This illustrates that no matter how much evidence is presented to a Bible believer that their beliefs are false, Bible believers will reject it in favor of what they have always been preconditioned by OTHER PEOPLE to believe. If Bible believers won't accept proof from a supernatural Being, how can we expect them to accept evidence from other human beings that their beliefs are wrong?
The Greeks invented a word to describe closed minded people like you: idiot.
Boris,
I believe what the Bible says and only what the Bible says. Any amount of torture and words wouldn't change my faith in Christ. And once again you're right, I'm closed minded. Closed minded to the world, false teachings, and anything that contradicts the Bible.
Don,
The Bible says the Midianites were completely annihilated, even woman and children and even their animals by Moses and the Israelites. Just two generations later the Midianites reappeared so numerous they were like locusts on the land and in such great numbers they could oppress millions of Israelites. Would you like to explain how this is possible? Oops, perhaps you should have actually studied the Bible before you accepted what OTHER PEOPLE told you about it.
It doesn't take the world to disprove the Bible. The internal inconsistencies in the Bible alone prove the Bible could not be the Word of any God. Where was Rachel buried? What was Solomon's mother's name an her father's name? Was Jesus crucified before or after the Passover meal was eaten? Who killed Goliath? Did Abram's father die after he left Haran or did he live another 60 years?
Have you noticed many people who used to post on this blog have disappeared? The reason for that is that these people realized they could not answer my questions or solve the problems I presented in the text of their book of magic and fairies. So they took these problems to their pastor. Their pastor looked over these problems and then guess what happened. Rather than attempt to solve these problems the pastors then wrote me an Email explaining that they told their flock member to ignore me from now on and stop reading anything I post. Once that happens I put another notch in my six shooter so to speak. Victory is sweet and eminent. There are no satisfactory answers for atheists or critics of the Bible. Don't believe me. Take the problems I I've presented in the text of the Bible to your pastor and see what happens. Poof, you'll disappear just like the rest of them.
Boris said: "Who killed Goliath?"
Have you read 1 Samuel 17:50-51? "So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when someone's head is cut off, they're dead. Flat dead right?
Boris said: "Where was Rachel buried?"
Genesis 35:19-20, "So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is Bethlehem). Over her tomb Jacob set up a pillar, and to this day that pillar marks Rachel's tomb."
It is as plain-as-day. Boris, just because you don't see the pillar today doesn't mean that is wasn't there. Did you SEE Abraham Lincoln in person? How do you know he existed if you didn't see him?
There is a great word for this kind of dilemma: Faith.
Faith with written historic documents tell us something of the past...right?
Boris,
You said:
"So the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief. Why believe something for which there isn't a shred of empirical evidence?"
Again, it is called FAITH.
You assume everything is able to be proved through empirical evidence. I eventually questioned that assumption and ultimately rejected it. I think we as human beings are limited to what we can perceive through our five senses. I can't detect, measure, or otherwise prove to you that LOVE exists, but I know it does, just as surely as I know I love my children.
You said:
"So I have to treat people right the first time around. That's easy for a humanist to do because our morals and ethics are acquired through critical analysis which makes them vastly superior to the morals and ethics of any Bible believer."
Snarky implications aside, I think you are missing a critical point. What is "right" anyway? I think you and I would agree it's a subjective term and varies from person to person, even among humanists. You don't share the morals of Mao Zedong, hopefully. Then who can decide which set of morals and ethics is superior? You for yourself, I know. Then by definition it is subjective and doesn't apply to me. So then all morals and ethics are subjective and relative to each person. I believe murder is wrong. That belief works well from your point of view - critical analysis - because it preserves the species. It works well for me because of that too, but also and more importantly because God says it is wrong. Just an example.
So I, as a Christian, am inferior to you because of what cultural prejudice? You don't know me. How can you know my cultural prejudice? That's not using your critical thinking and it seems prejudiced to me. Bad judgmental atheist! That's a joke - don't get your knickers in a twist.
God gave you your mind, your soul, and the air you breathe. You can say it's 4 billion years of evolution, but for me, intellectually, that is less than satisfying. Which evolved first, the lungs, the mucous membrane lining them, or the perfect mixture of gases to breathe into them?
Jesus Christ did not even exist? An allegory? Now I question your scholarship. Even the most petulant atheist knows Jesus was a real, historical man. There are more sources outside the Bible to corroborate that historical fact than perhaps any other in ancient history.
You certainly are passionate in your unbelief. Why you spend so much time here I don't understand, unless you just like the conflict. Thank you for capitalizing God and Jesus and the Bible. We sincerely appreciate that small amount of respect.
I and others will continue praying for you, and I don't say that to irritate you though it probably does.
Boris said: "Was Jesus crucified before or after the Passover meal was eaten?"
Matthew 26:18, “He replied, ‘Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’”
It states that Jesus said that His appointed time is NEAR. Boris, it’s saying that BEFORE He suffered he ate the Passover.
Luke 22:15-16, “And he said to them, ‘I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.’”
He says there that He has eagerly desired to eat the Passover with them BEFORE He suffered. I would have to say that hanging on a cross is suffering, wouldn’t you?
So again faith and historic documents prove the Bible infallible. Believe me, there is plenty of loopholes in your belief-evolution.
Buck Fury said: "God gave you your mind, your soul, and the air you breathe. You can say it's 4 billion years of evolution, but for me, intellectually, that is less than satisfying. Which evolved first, the lungs, the mucous membrane lining them, or the perfect mixture of gases to breathe into them?"
AMEN! I never thought of it that way! :-)
Boris,
You call yourself an atheist. But what exactly do you believe? Evolution, etc.?
James,
No, wrong. It's ironic that the only people who are unaware of and completely oblivious to all the internal inconsistencies and discrepancies in the text of the Bible are the people who tell the rest of us we have to believe every word of it or else be punished for all eternity. Have you read 2Samuel 21:19? "Again, war with the Philistines broke out at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jair, of Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." The Bible says Elhanan killed Goliath whose shaft was like that of a weaver's beam. So who was it David or Elhanan? Correct me if I'm wrong but the Bible is the perfect inerrant Word of God then the story about Elhanan must be true right? The few Christian apologists who are even aware of this problem claim it's nothing more than a copyist's error. Well it isn't. I have the Hebrew text right in front of me and anyone who claims this problem is a copyist's error is a liar. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is a copyist error. Christian apologists claim there are other copyist errors and even additions and subtractions too in the text too. If this is the case then none of the text of the Bible can really be trusted because it isn't the perfect inerrant Word of God if it has errors in it.
"When you depart from me today you will meet two men by Rachel's tomb in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah" (1Samuel 10:2). The two separate burial places reflects the political factionalism between Judah and Israel. This is something you would learn in an academic study of the Bible, something you have not done.
Faith cannot tell us anything about the past. The past no longer exists for us and history belongs to those who wrote and write it. Only through the sciences such as archaeology can we learn anything about the past. I'm an historian and this is something that only we historians seem to be aware of.
I don't need to have seen Abraham Lincoln to know he existed. Robert Taylor made this observation about people who make this lame argument in defense of the historicity of their Jesus. "We might, say they, as well affect to deny the existence of such an individual as Alexander the Great, or of Napoleon Bonaparte [or Lincoln], and so set at defiance the evidence of all facts but such as our sense have attested. It being quite forgotten that the existence of Alexander and Napoleon was not miraculous, and that there never was on earth one other real personage whose existence as a real personage was denied and disclaimed even as soon as ever it was asserted, as was the case with respect to the assumed personality of Christ."
Which evolved first lungs or the perfect mixture of gasses? The scientific imbecility on this blog is just off the charts. It seems almost superfluous to rebut this common and failed ID magic argument other than to ask: Which came first: the universe or mankind? If life came first and the universe followed later - displaying the characteristics for human survival - then we might wonder about this incredibly fortunate coincidence and search for a possible Intelligent Designer of the universe. If, however, the universe came first, and life developed afterward, then obviously life was forced, like it or not, to adapt to the environment in which it found itself. Evolution by natural selection provides a completely satisfying and comprehensive explanation to the fine tuning between a life form's needs and the environment in which it lives. Why do certain species only live in one area of the world? It is only when our logic is backward that an Intelligent Designer seems required. If we have a perfect mix of gases in the atmosphere why does most of the life on Earth live in the oceans? Why is most the rest of the universe so inhospitable to human life may I ask?
Once again I must point out that you don't really want your questions answered because if you did you would get them from science literature. Or as I have pointed out many times you could go to any CHRISTIAN college or university that teaches science and they would tell you the exact same thing I am and you KNOW it. Your questions are nothing but your attempt to taunt me and make me think you might know something that I don't. You don't know the first thing about science, how science is done or even why it's done. Your as ignorant of modern science as a person could be and you keep yourself that way on purpose because you know just a whiff of science or a dose of common sense could have you questioning your faith. You're way too much of a chicken hearted coward to do that.
Boris, back in the OT, the noun Goliath was used to describe a giant. Like Pharaoh is a title of the king of Egypt, not a name. Also Achish was a title or a common name for a Philistine ruler.
Did that help?
So you ask "who killed Goliath?" Both David and Elhanan killed [a] Goliath, i.e. giant.
You said that, "I have the Hebrew text right in front of me and anyone who claims this problem is a copyist's error is a liar."
Do you have the ORIGINAL text in front of you? There are MANY different versions of the Bible.
Boris said: "Where is Rachel buried?"
Rachel was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is Bethlehem). So that means that Jacob was on his way TO Bethlehem. 1 Samuel 10:2 states that Rachel’s tomb was in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah(roughly 5 miles north of Bethlehem). Jeremiah 31:15 says that Rachel was buried in Ramah which is 20 miles north of Jerusalem which is 20 miles north of Bethlehem. So when Rachel died Jacob’s caravan must have been between 5 to 55 miles from Bethlehem. So Rachel’s tomb was somewhere between Zelzah and Ramah which are about 35 to 55 miles apart.
So in the OT people referred to Rachel's tomb as the area around it, like a county.
Example: You could say that you are in Los Angels county. It doesn't mean that you are in L.A. it means that you are in the area surrounding it.
Boris,
The thing you keep ignoring is that I came to my faith the other way around. I was a big believer in the scientific method for 90% of my life. My faith came only very recently. Even now I don't ignore intellectual arguments. The difference now is that they are informed by my faith. So you are wrong in your assumption that no Christians question their faith. Quite the contrary, the Bible tells us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling".
My questions aren't meant to taunt you but to help you think, to open your mind. But you prove yourself not able to do so, which is ironic b/c it's the very thing you accuse Christians of - closed mindedness. You are happy with your worldview - as you said w/regard to evolution, its "completely satisfying and comprehensive". Good - it's decided then.
We do know something as Christians that you do not. Again, it is FAITH. That's no judgment on you, just an empirical observation and what this whole thread is about. I think everyone here has been pretty transparent about that.
I feel like I've already spent way too much time responding to you. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything. My whole point originally was to ask you if you ever thought you might be wrong. You still have not answered that.
So how 'bout it? Do you ever have even a second of doubt in your non-belief? Is there any possibility, however slight, that you could be wrong about God?
Buck Fury
You just stepped in a trap and now you're in my sights and you're about to be shot down in flames. If, as you insist, there are reliable sources from outside the Bible that corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ post them right here in your very next post. Post who wrote anything about Jesus Christ, WHEN they wrote it and exactly what they said. You'll do the same thing every lying Christian apologist does. They all trot out the Big Four, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus, the supposed sources of extra biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Hank just dishonestly did this on the radio about a week or two ago. The problem is that none of these people lived during the time Jesus supposedly did. The first three historians I mentioned were second century historians who wrote around the year 112 CE and none of them ever even mention Jesus of Nazareth by name but only the existence of Christians. So there are no CONTEMPORARY mentions of Jesus Christ from his supposed time because if there were Christian apologists wouldn't have to rely on words written 60 and 82 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Philo however, did live in and around Jerusalem during the first half of the fist century and in the reports from him we have not one mention of Jesus, the Jesus movement, the disciples, Pontius Pilate, Herod's supposed slaughter of the innocents or anything else in the gospels. The "Golden Paragraphs" in the works of Josephus are widely accepted even by conservative scholars to be rank forgeries done by Church liar and propagandist Eusebius. Church father Origin reported that there were no mentions of Jesus Christ in the works of Jospehus. It wasn't until the Eusebius magically produced a copy of Josephus that anyone knew of any mentions of Christ in his book.
As far as my scholarship, many scholars have known that Christianity evolved from sun worshiping cults. Thomas Paine wrote in the Origin of Freemasonry: "The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and they pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun." I can provide a long list of scholars from the past and present who have said Jesus Christ never existed. Many famous people too: "As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them." - Napoleon Bonaparte
What is really ludicrous about your claim is that the whole purpose of the brief 2nd Book of John is to admonish followers not to listen to the many people who were telling them the truth, that Jesus never really existed. So soon after Jesus allegedly existed many people were clearly claiming that he didn't exist. And rather than write to these believers in a rational manner and present them with overwhelming evidence that Jesus really has existed just a shot time ago, and all the miraculous things said to have happened really did happen, the writer instead admonishes his readers to stay away from these people. "Do not take him into your house or welcome him." The writer stigmatizes these people as "the deceiver" and "the antichrist" who do "wicked work" and further stigmatizes anyone who should listen to them.
This points up the basic problem in debating Christan Bible believers. They already have assumed that anyone who disagrees with the Bible is automatically evil and being influenced by Satan. So no matter how convincing the evidence against their beliefs might be, believers will always rationalize that Satan is just making this evidence APPEAR to be convincing. Atheists and infidels have no such fall back position. When we unbelievers are presented with evidence that counters what we believe, we are forced to change our beliefs. We can't believe what is evidently false to us.
Buck Fury,
Do you know how many times I've heard the argument that someone USED to be a big believer in science or scientific method or used to be an "evolutionist" or "Darwinist" until someone told them about Jesus? Lee Strobel, Thomas Woodward and countless other Christian apologists have made the same exact claim and it's ludicrous. Woodward was just on Hank's show making this absurd claim. What you and they have written about science clearly shows that you have little or no knowledge of science, scientific method, the Theory of Evolution or any of the other science they and you now hate, fear and constantly lie about. It's quite obvious to me that while you may have loved science you have always been a complete scientific ignoramus. Otherwise there is no way you would ask the stupid questions and make the asinine comments you make about science. You would already be aware of the scientific consensus on these things and would realize how weak and easy to refute you arguments are.
As far as having an open mind I have one. The problem with having an open mind is that people are always trying to put something in it. No one from the scientific community is trying to get me to believe anything. They don't care what I believe, none of them. Religious people on the other hand are very concerned that I believe what they do. I have an open enough mind to find that highly suspicious and an educated enough mind to tell that they don't know what they are talking about.
FYI scientists don't have to "believe" in scientific method or anything else. Scientists use scientific method because it has consistently produced results. They have proof that it works. Let's see your creation "scientists" or ID magic hoaxers produce some results with their "science." Where are all the new medicines, vaccines, food crops and other advances from your Bible based pseudo-science? The proof that ID magic isn't science is in the fact that it doesn't produce anything but literature. The ID magic hoaxers can't even tell us what their "science" could ever be used for - because it isn't science. The fact that you've fallen for this obvious ruse proves you scientific imbecility. Don't feed me anymore of your lies and nonsense about how you USED to love science. You don't know the first thing about it.
I have seen no evidence of your open-mindedness regarding the existence of God.
In all your arguments you seem to think it is an either/or proposition; either you believe in science or you believe the bible. That is a logical fallacy. I believe the bible AND I believe in modern medicine, food crop advances, molecular physics, animal husbandry, and atheists.
As I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact you could be wrong, which you have yet to concede.
Buck Fury,
Uncle John McCarthy, the scientist who coined the term "artificial intelligence" said, "An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." How open-minded are you on the possible existence of werewolves may I ask? I've seen NO evidence of your open-mindedness regarding the non-existence of Jesus Christ so far.
People can and do believe in God and science. However the Bible and its God absolutely cannot be reconciled with science. That is an either or proposition for sure. If it weren't Bible believers wouldn't have waged an almost 2000 year long war on science. Instead Bible believers would be on the forefront of modern scientific discoveries instead of the ones always denying these discoveries and denouncing the scientists who made them, even the ones made by other Christians.
There could be a God. There could be werewolves too.
Yeah but to think werewolves are real is silly. God is as real as life itself. I suggest you research a man by the name of John Lennox. Go to his web site and find you tube videos of him and of his debates with others. Science actually comes from Christianity and it was propelled by men of Faith and if you deny this, you deny history itself. Any open minded person will come to know this with some research and an open mind. I'd hate to break even more news to you but Richard Dawkins actually agrees with that as well.
Anonymous,
God is not real just because other people have frightened you into believing it is. That is the ONLY reason you have for believing in God because you certainly don't have any evidence for the existence of God. Fear is not a good reason to believe something.
Oh please John Lennox? That's the best you can do? I heard him debate Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. Lennox refused to respond to the questions and points his opponents made and instead spouted a bunch of mindless drivel and circular reasoning. Lennox is a good example of poor Christian debate ethics.
Men of faith have tried to block scientific progress ever since the Bible has existed. The lie that Christianity has EVER supported scientific research is as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet. The list of scientists the Christian Church has persecuted and lied about reads like a who's who of science. People were studying nature long before Christianity yet Christians will claim their religion invented science. Democracies existed centuries before Christianity yet Christians will dishonestly claim their religion invented democracy too. There was never a Christian democracy in history. All Christian nations were intolerant and brutal theocracies based on the supposed divine rights of kings.
Your cult leaders have obviously packed your had with all the lies used to support your evil and false religion of Christianity. Christianity has stood in the way of scientific and social progress for 2000 years. It is the worst human tragedy to ever come upon this planet. Look what a shameless liar it's made out of you.
Buck Fury,
Post your best extra-biblical evidence for Jesus Christ. You said this evidence existed and was overwhelming. Well where is it then? The quickest way to shut up a blowhard Christian is to ask them to present evidence for their Jesus. You went looking for it and found there was none didn't you? Just like I said. I have news for you loser. Everything else we've debated is just like I said too. Poof, I just made your Jesus disappear. ROFL!
Boris,
I'm not debating you. No evidence is good enough for you. The best apologists and atheists have covered this ground and still the debate continues. And it will continue until Christ's return.
What I do know is that the message of Jesus, the message of the cross, is offensive. And judging by all of your taunts, mocking, and name calling on this thread alone - I'd say you are offended.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 25
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Galatians 6:7-8
Well Boris, did I clarify your question about Goliath and Rachel?
Christ in me the hope of Glory...
extrabiblical.
Happy Passover Boris.
In the beginning God...til now.
All things are from Him.
nothing is really extrabiblical...
Even you Boris. But we already prove that your existence is proof that the Bible IS true.
May God open your eyes that you might see.
On your own...you are not capable.
remember: humble
James,
Do you think I haven't seen the responses you gave to the problems I raised with the text of the Bible? No, those answers are not good enough. If I thought they were I wouldn't have brought these particular problems up. I explained why Rachel has two burial places. Like all the major figures in the Bible Rachel is a fictional character.
The text I use is the Masoretic text which has very few significant variations. I'm no expert on ancient Hebrew but I get by. I am expert in Ancient Greek however, and I can tell you these problems are in the Septuagint as well.
Buck Fury,
It's not that no evidence is good enough me but that you HAVE no evidence. The point is that there is NO extra-biblical evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed, not a shred. You've had three opportunities now to respond to my challenge. If you had anything good enough to convince even yourself you would have posted by now. See, what you did was repeat the old standard nonsense that you've heard or read from Christian apologists. And like most believers you just swallowed what they said hook, line and sinker without bothering to go behind them and check their sources. Well I did your homework for you and guess what: you've been lied to. You've been lied to about the true origins of the Bible, the true origins of Christianity, the possibility of an afterlife, the historicity of Jesus, the existence of angels, demons, Satan and a lot of other stuff. I'm telling you the truth. I paid my dues, did my homework and I know what I'm talking about.
As far was the message of the cross, you should know that the cross has been the symbol of the Sun God rays in every culture since epigraphy was invented about 40,000 years ago. God men were always place high above ground so they could be worshiped. Horus was crucified between two lesser gods. I'm not offended by it. I am offended when Christians want to put their borrowed and stolen religious symbols on public property though.
Now you know that Jesus is truly an article of faith rather than a figure in history. Your problem is that you are afraid to consider this fact. This is because your entire belief system is based on fear rather than evidence. Be man. Shake it off. There's nothing to fear. There is no God.
dawkin,
Your standards of proof vary according to what you want to believe. Science has proved the Bible is fiction. So has literary criticism. You ignore those proofs and imagine you've proved something about the Bible when you've proved nothing. Those passages in the Bible that describe how the wise won't believe and claim that the wisdom of the world is faulty were written by men in order to get other men to follow them blindly. That's all they are. They are defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. If you could just open your own eyes for a moment you would clearly see that. Belief in a false God has slammed them shut.
"Those passages in the Bible that describe how the wise won't believe and claim that the wisdom of the world is faulty were written by men in order to get other men to follow them blindly. That's all they are."
"...written by men in order to get other men to follow them blindly."
Boris, you may never understand that we all start were you are...critical of our parents rule's, critical of what our teacher's tell us, critical of our government, critical of what our boss tells us.
A Christian wasn't just critical of the claims of Christ but of somebody or anyone telling them that they are sinners (wicked, vial,...whatever you want to name it.)
NO ONE takes that for granted. Especially, for anyone to tell me that sinning at any level will send me to an eternal damnation/everlasting punishment.
NO WAY is that something you believe because you are drawn to believe that and THEN you are to believe that someone 2000 years ago who was here since the creation of the World has now come back to pay a price for "MY" SIN!!??
That is not something that makes a bit of sense to ANYONE nor does it make sense that a simple faith in Jesus will CHANGE EVERYTHING within you!!
THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE ONE SINGLE BIT!
I and everyone who names themselves Christian will tell you the same.
It is not a matter of blind faith.
It is not a matter of foolish faith.
It is not a matter of stupid faith.
You are to work this out with the One who claims it.
And Boris...you are mad and hanging around Christians because you don't get it.
And you try to get everyone to back up and start over again.
And you know what?
We all should go back as often as possible to know what we know and know what we believe.
So Boris...keep up the good work.
Seriously, you are what we were whether you like it or not...possibly not to the extent of bitterness but AT LEAST YOU ARE OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO KEEP ON.
God Bless you and May the atonement and ressurection of Christ Jesus be yours soon.
dawkin,
You're the ones who don't get it. I have challenged you people to give me some solid evidence that the gospel stories are actually true and that Jesus Christ really existed. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your absurd religious claims. There was no atonement or resurrection of Jesus Christ because no such person ever existed. These stories are 100 percent fiction.
There is no way for you to defend this criticism of your retarded belief system. Christian apologetics has to begin with the presumption that Jesus Christ was a real person. If we take away that assumption you people are completely unprepared to make any arguments for your Jaysus. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya loser.
sorry to anger you Boris.
Interesting how much you keep proving the Bible.
Even without believing in it.
Wrong. First of all science has debunked the Bible about a million times over. Evolution isn't going away. What has been proved is that you've fallen for the Bible's defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking.
"They are from the world; therefore what they say is from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error." - 1John 4:5-6
That is nothing but man-made religious dogma meant to make you follow other men blindly. And so you do. What we've proved is that you have been brainwashed by the words of men.
Wrong. First of all science has debunked the Bible about a million times over. Evolution isn't going away. What has been proved is that you've fallen for the Bible's defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking.
"They are from the world; therefore what they say is from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error." - 1John 4:5-6
That is nothing but man-made religious dogma meant to make you follow other men blindly. And so you do. What we've proved is that you have been brainwashed by the words of men.
Have a great weekend Boris.
At least on monday most of the chocolate will be half price.
Something to look forward to.
Congrats on all that science proof.
NO ONE takes that for granted.
Well said, dawkwin. I think your post explains best what I was trying to describe earlier. Most all of us work hard to get where we are now. Some may grow up in a Christian home and never question their beliefs but I'd say that is a pretty small minority.
I wonder if Mr. Hyperbole N' Vitriol spends as much time yelling at the Muslims on their blogs? Now that would be brave...
Buck Fury,
You said there were a lot of sources from outside the Bible that corroborate the claim that Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. I asked you several times to name and date your sources and tell me what they said exactly. You have failed to respond. You are a perfect example of Christian debating ethics. In the name of truth, admit that you don't really have any sources like you thought you did. Admit you were taken in by the lies of Christian apologists or that you fabricated the lie yourself. Either one, I don't care. But at least man up and tell the truth for once in your pathetic life. You made a false claim and I refuted it. Now admit you were wrong. This blog is a playground for lying Christians but we atheists tell and demand the truth.
Boris,
Read my posts carefully again. I think I've made it clear I don't want to engage in debate with you. You are now questioning the debating ethics of someone who is not at all interested in debating you. Life is short, man! Get off these blogs and live a little.
If you are interested in a solid refutation of the Christ-myth position you hold, please read Shattering the Christ Myth. Heck, I'll even send it to you if you want to post your mailing address. If not we could work out another arrangement. Just let me know, nicely please.
Happy Easter, all!
Luke 24:46-47 ESV
(46) and (Jesus) said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, (47) and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Buck Fury,
You made a debatable point and it was refuted. So now, after you've clearly lost the argument you don't want to debate anymore. This is like me saying checkmate in a chess match and then you deciding you don't want to play anymore. Forget the debate, you told a big fat Christian lie and I want you to admit it's a lie because you KNOW it is. Your appeal to the authority of a pathological liar like Robert Turkel, aka James Patrick Holding, who I made cry like a little girl in a debate a few years ago, proves that you still want to make your point but now you need SOMEONE ELSE to make it for you. I've read this stupid book and have already refuted everything in it. Holding could not answer my refutations. What evidence is there in this book that proves Jesus was a historical figure? Again, post the evidence right here. If there's something that proves anything in this book WHAT is it exactly? The book contains the exact same bogus propaganda about second century historians supposedly mentioning Christ when we can all read these accounts for ourselves and see that they did not.
You can stack more lies on the lies you've already told but nothing is going to make your magical Jewish zombie a real historical figure. The fact remains that Jesus Christ never existed and all you can do about that is tells lies. Big fat Christian lies.
HE IS RISEN!!!!
James,
Prove it.
It's actual history. Have you gone out of your way to research several Greek scholars, archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, eye witness accounts, solid scientific evidence. How much more proof do you need. I honestly think you are going out of your way to remain closed minded though bitterness, hate and some type of fear or guilt. Even Richard Dawkin's is more open minded then you are.
Christ was as real as Abraham Lincoln. When something is old does not make it an illusion. Get with some lawyers to help you with circumstantial evidences and get off your butt and research. There are eye witness accounts of his rise. Are you going to say these real men and women were delusional? If you do not cross-reference with various secular sources of course you may say it is not provable but until you do you have no absoluteness, no proof and credibility on your side.
Anonymous,
WHAT secular sources corroborate the existence of Jesus Christ? Just saying some exist proves nothing. Post them right here. Who wrote what, when and what did they say exactly? What secular historian who lived and wrote in the first half of the first century wrote anything about Jesus Christ, anything he supposedly did, any of his disciples, the Jesus movement, ANYTHING? I HAVE looked at what Christian apologists claim is extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ and I discussed it right here on this blog. It's a joke. Obviously you have not or you wouldn't be on here making ridiculous claims you cannot support. Apologists claim that historians who wrote around the year 112 CE, 82 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius, none of who mention Jesus of Nazareth by name but only the existence of Christians, are proof that Jesus actually existed. If they are really dishonest they'll point to the forgeries done in the works of Josephus done by Church propagandist and liar Eusebius that supposedly mention Jesus. Even if these entries were not rank forgeries they are still from 60 years after Jesus supposedly died. There is nothing at all from before 90 CE. You call that evidence? And that's ALL you've got. If you've got something else you better call all the Christian apologists in the world because they don't know a thing about it. If they did why would they be desperately be using references from people who weren't even alive when Jesus supposedly was? There, I cross referenced all your secular sources FOR you. CHECKMATE.
Robert Taylor had a good response for people like you who try to compare historicity of Jesus to people like Abe Lincoln. "We might, say they, as well affect to deny the existence of such an individual as Alexander the Great, or of Napoleon Bonaparte, and so set forth at defiance the evidence of all facts but such as our sense have attested. It being quite forgotten that the existence of Alexander and napoleon was not miraculous, and that there never was on earth on other real personage whose existence as a real personage was denied and disclaimed even as son as ever it was asserted as was the case with the assumed personality of Christ."
The whole purpose of the brief 2nd Book of John is to admonish followers not to listen to the many people who were telling them the truth, that Jesus never really existed. Soon after Jesus allegedly existed many people were clearly claiming he didn't exist. And rather than write to these people in a rational manner and present them with overwhelming evidence that Jesus really had existed just a short time ago, and all the miraculous things said to have happened really did happen, the writer instead admonishes his readers to stay away from these people. "Do not take him into your house or welcome him." The writer stigmatizes these people as deceiver" who do "wicked work," and further stigmatizes anyone who should listen to them.
You didn't cross-reference anything yourself. You took the words of lying Christan propagandists because you're too intellectually lazy to fact check these people. You trust them implicitly. Look where that got you. Cornered like a rat in a debate with an atheist. Post up or admit you were wrong. Buck Fury wasn't man enough to do that and I doubt you are either.
boris, go live a life outside of this blog.....go hunt easter eggs!!!!!
No secular writer wrote a word about any of the events in the gospels. We are expected to believe that Jesus was entirely ignored by all secular writers at the time that he supposedly lived even though:
A Special star appears to signal his birth (Matt 2:2). Massacre of infants in attempt to kill him (Matt 2:16). Goes about 'healing every disease and every infirmity' (Matt 4:23). Fame spreads throughout all Syria so 'all the sick' are brought to him - who are then healed by him (Matt 4:24). Followed by 'crowds' (Matt 5:1).
'Great crowds' follow him (Matt 8:1). Heals leper (Matt 8:3). Heals paralyzed servant (Matt 8:13). Heals Peter's mother-in-law (Matt 8:15). 'Many' afflicted brought to him: he heals 'all who were sick' (Matt 8:16). Great crowds follow him (Matt 8;18). Heals demoniacs and kills some pigs (Matt 8:32). Heals paralytic (Matt 9:7). Crowds witness healing (Matt 9:8). A ruler comes to him for help with daughter (Matt 9:18).
Heals woman with hemorrhage (Matt 9:22). Heals ruler's daughter (Matt 9:25). 'Report of this went through all that district' (Matt 9:26). Heals two blind men (Matt 9:30). They 'spread his fame through all that district' (Matt 9:31). Heals dumb demoniac (Matt 9:33). Crowds marvel (Matt 9:33).
Heals 'every disease and every infirmity' as he travels about cities and villages (Matt 9:35).
Followed by crowds (Matt 9:36).
Preaches in cities (Matt 11:1).
Speaks to crowds (Matt 11:7).
Heals man with withered hand (Matt 12:13). Many follow him and 'he heals them all' (Matt 12:15). Heals blind and dumb demoniac (Matt 12:22). 'Great crowds gather' around him (Matt 13:2).
Speaks to the crowds (Matt 13:34).
Herod hears about Jesus' fame (Matt 14:1). Crowds follow him, he heals the sick, and feeds 5000+ (Matt 14:13). On entering Gennesaret, he is recognized and all the sick are brought to him and all those who touch him are healed (Matt 14:36). Great crowds come to him with the sick and they are healed (Matt 15:30). 'The thong' see 'the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking and the blind seeing' (Matt 15:31). Feeds 4000+. Crowds are sent away (Matt 15:38). Meets crowd and heals epileptic (Matt 17:14,18).
Large crowds follow him in Judea and he heals them (Matt 19:2).
Great crowd follows him on leaving Jericho (Matt 20:29). Heals two blind men (Matt 20:34). Ejects Temple traders (Matt 21:12).
Heals blind and lame (Matt 21:14).
People call for his execution (Matt 27:23). All the people admit responsibility (Matt 27:25). Darkness 'over all the land' (Matt 27:45). Temple curtain torn and earthquake (Matt 27:51). Saints came out of their tombs and appear in Jerusalem (Matt 27:52-53).
Resurrected from dead (Matt 28:1ff).
It is of course too absurd for words for any rational person to suggest that anyone who was involved in all of this (and the above is only from Matthew - John has further miracles), and in just three years (John) or one year (Synoptics), could go unnoticed by all the secular writers of the time, and indeed anyone capable of writing.
Here is another curve ball to throw your way. Most historians and scholars who had done intensive research on the life of Jesus will agree that he was a real man, they may have doubts in his divinity but the point is they will confirm he was real. Also how do you explain Pontius Pilate, a roman who oversaw the death of Jesus. Are we to deny he was putting someone else to death or was he delusional?
It must also bother people that there were no books ever written personally by Christ Himself; how could the fame noise abroad well after His death when He traveled not more than 50km.
It must then bother agnostics that His Everlasting Gospel went to the known world within a generation without email and jet planes?
- Report from the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, to the Roman Caesar Tiberius.(written in Jerusalem, 28.III 4147. year since creation)
- Recollections of the last occurrences from life of The Jesus Christ (Many believe that Pontius Pilate's wife wrote that letter)
Roman Historians:
- Cornelius Tacitus (55-120AD)
- Pliny the Younger (62-114AD)
- Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (75-130AD)
- and others less known living in Rome
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/egerton.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/historical-secular-quotes-about-jesus/main.html
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html
http://sites.google.com/site/meforevidence2/
http://www.google.com/search?q=Jesus+History+from+a+secular+source&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=GDk&sa=G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=zvK6S_2qHYbSsgOssP2bBQ&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=12&ved=0CDMQ5wIwCw
http://www.lordpages.com/proof/secular.htm
http://ezinearticles.com/?Jesus---An-Historical-Fact&id=2338101
http://www.nelsonprice.com/index.php/?p=105
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/suey.html
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity_secular_commentary.html
http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2902063/k.67B8/Did_Jesus_Really_Exist.htm
Cross-reference these and then give it some thought. Lying Christan propagandists? I went out of my way to do all of this myself. Too intellectually lazy to fact check these people? I already have and for many years so i did not do this blindly or as you put it trusted it implicitly. You sir are not intimidating me nor convincing me otherwise. Man enough? This is not a pride contest. I am proud of nothing nor am i putting myself up on a thrown here. You can not corner me and i suggest you have some respect and knock off the vile hate. I am doing this because i care but no emotion in the world, nor any kind of slander will ever stop the truth from moving forward here. I will not admit i am wrong but right but not because i say so but because history and facts already conform this. I really feel sorry for you, honestly. I wish folks like you were not so cold, closed minded and vile in there thoughts and emotions.
I hope God does touch you Boris, i really do. This makes me concerned and sad. It's up to you to look though all of the links and dig deep. No one should do this for you but some of us do anyways. If your heart opens up a bit, then perhaps you may see the truth some day soon. Were here to save you and not control you. God gave us the independence to live our own lives but his simple rules are just and fair. it is us you struggle with our imperfect nature and therefore the rules seem hard because of this. However, his justice makes more sense then any system man could ever hope to achieve.
It is us who struggle with our imperfect nature and therefore the rules seem hard because of this. However, his justice makes more sense then any system man could ever hope to achieve. Even so-called evolution can not perfect these things because as time goes on we continue to abandon God and the world grows more dark and i see this daily. We need him. A secular like James Cameron knows he was real in spite of his own thoughts on his life. Even Eddy Izzard likes Jesus. :)
Also, if you are not going to go out of your way to try and validate all of these sources and confirm if they add up to some factual evidences, then you are the one with the issue and not me. You can corner yourself but no one else. This is not me being mean here but just direct and to the point. I do not have to prove the facts as i already know through many years of testing what the Bible says thought all sources and not the Bible alone.
I think i will leave it here. Either you choose to be open minded to even a slight possibility or remain closed minded and come to an easy conclusion and shun secular history off as nonsensical. Again, Richard Dawkin's seems more open minded.
Anonymous, Amen! I agree with you brother/sister!
-James
p.s. Do you mind putting a name up instead of anonymous? Like my real name isn't James but_________.
How do I explain Pontius Pilate? How do YOU explain that Pontius Pilate is not mentioned in any Roman historical documents? You REALLY haven't done your homework. How come I know that and you don't? The crucifixion of Jesus is a most unlikely event. Are we to believe that the Romans, from who we got our system of laws and justice, would try a man, find him innocent and then turn him over to a hostile mob to be crucified anyway? FYI the Romans never used crucifixion as a mode of punishment and they certainly didn't put thieves to death. The whole story just reeks of religious fiction. It certainly is NOT a historical event. History knows nothing of this supposed event.
Now look at the birth dates of the 3 Roman historians you listed. Tacitus was born 25 years AFTER Jesus was supposedly crucified, Pliny 32 years after, and Suetonius 45 years after Jesus supposedly was crucified. The accounts Christian apologists refer to in these historian's writings were all written around the year 112 CE, 82 years after the year Jesus supposedly died. Also you haven't read what these men wrote either. Well I have. None of these three writers even mention Jesus of Nazareth by name but only the existence of Christians. What does that prove exactly? It proves that there are no contemporary secular sources that mention Jesus Christ or any of his disciples. For real historical personages such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sitting Bull, we have accounts written by people who lived during the time that these people did. We have nothing like that for Jesus Christ. Considering all the dramatic things Jesus supposedly did that I listed above it is simply impossible that had these things actually occurred we would have no secular record of ANY of them.
You really have to ask yourself why Christian apologists would claim there are reliable secular sources that corroborate the claim that Jesus was a historical person. Accounts written by people who were not alive during the time Jesus supposedly was and were born decades afterward, if they even did mention Jesus by name, would be nothing but hearsay. Needless to say hearsay is inadmissible evidence in our out of a court of law.
Christian apologists throw up a lot of smoke and mirrors and hope people won't go behind them and check their sources, when their sources lived and wrote and what they really said. It's quite obvious that you STILL have not done this. And again I HAVE. I wouldn't get on a Christian blog and make a statement that destroys the foundation of the Christian faith unless I could prove it.
It's pointless for you to tell me to study this subject. I HAVE studied very carefully. You're the one who hasn't done your homework. Something tells me you are quite afraid to. The truth is always hard for Christians to accept.
Again, you act like I haven't seen all the evidence Christian apologists use to defend their case for a historical Jesus. It's YOU who hasn't looked at this stuff, not me. I have a link for you: Jesusneverexisted.com. That site goes over all the "evidence" for a historical Jesus in great detail. Books that make the case Jesus never existed are the Messiah Myth by Thomas Thompson and the Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur among several others. I suggest you examine these books very carefully. Bruno Bauer, Albert Kaltoff, Arthur Drews, J.C. Stendal, Emil Felden, Jensen, Lublinski, Bolland, Van der berg, Charles Virolleaud, Ryner Couchland, Gerald Massey, Emilio Bossi, Georg Brandes, John M. Robertson, G.R.S. Mead, Whitaker, Edward Carpenter, and W,B. Smith are among many other eminent scholars and critics who have contended that Jesus Christ never existed.
I've discussed the defense of the case for a historical Jesus in depth here now. Christian apologists are obviously lying when they claim there is secular evidence for a historical Jesus. How desperate must they be to claim people who were not even alive when Jesus supposedly was can be reliable sources of information about Jesus? Why would they lie if they have the "truth" on their side? Because there's plenty of willing suckers to believe their lies as you have proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
What's really ludicrous is your claim that I'm not open-minded. I'm the one challenging commonly held beliefs, not you. You think being open minded is challenging long-standing, well-established scientific explanations you know absolutely nothing about. Only closed-minded religious fanatics are under the delusion that they could possibly know something about science that hard working, result producing scientists do not. Your religious superstitions have truly turned your world upside down and inside out.
It's only been in the last few centuries that people could even suggest that Jesus Christ never existed. Before that anyone bold enough to question Jesus' existence publicly wound up imprisoned, tortured or executed, usually all three. That has always been how Christians preserve their "truths," with violence, oppression and lies, not with any evidence. A historical Jesus has therefore been accepted by default for many centuries without any serious inquiry into the question. Now the question is being critically examined and what has been accepted without inquiry for centuries is being shown to be not worth accepting on a scholarly or historical basis.
Your desperation has been duly noted. Christians have no defense against the claim that Jesus Christ never existed. They have no secular sources to back up their claims as I have proved beyond any question now on this blog. Christians must have a historical Jesus because they think presenting C.S. Lewis' retarded false dichotomy is a convincing argument. Lewis said that either Jesus was who he said he was or a fraud and a liar, take your pick. This is a classic logical fallacy. Lewis presents only two options as if there aren't any others. He leaves out a third much more likely choice which is that Jesus Christ never even existed. Lewis' argument is deceptively designed to eliminate that possibility in the minds of potential converts and the already brainwashed, uncritical moronic masses. Pascal's stupid wager presents another false dichotomy that believers can't see through because of their religious brainwashing.
So you see, as I have clearly demonstrated it is YOU who has had their mind closed, slammed shut by the superstitions and lies of an evil and false religion. You can't even consider information that disproves what you've always been conditioned by OTHER PEOPLE to believe. Your fear of hell controls all of your thoughts. Have fun in your cult of ignorance and stupidity. Not for me man, no WAY!
No, you are!
Anonymous,
What's it like to take an intellectual beat down from an atheist? Yep, the quickest way to shut up a blowhard Christian is to demand evidence for their claims. Now go take what I've said to your pastor like the other posters on this blog have done. He'll write me an Email explaining how he told you to never ever contact me or read ANYTHING I write ever again. You know, he's afraid you might start THINKING on your own. ROFL! You people are SO pathetic.
What's the matter? You found out Christian apologists are lying about secular evidence for Jesus Christ didn't you? And if they would lie about something that important what else might they be lying about? Your not just cornered loser. I stomped you out.
Right. Your truth, gentleness, and sacrifice have won us all over.
Oh wait, no, that was JESUS CHRIST.
Look to Him, Bore Us.
We'll keep praying for you.
Anonymous,
You made the claim that there was secular evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person. You accused me of shunning secular history off as nonsensical. My question to you is WHAT secular history are you talking about exactly? What secular historian who lived during the time Jesus supposedly did wrote about Jesus Christ, when did they write and what exactly did they say? This is the age of information. If such evidence exists you should be able to produce it with no problem. I have already discussed the three Roman historians you posted the names of and pointed out that these are not primary sources because they weren't even alive when Jesus supposedly lived and none of them lived in Palestine anyway. All of them wrote almost a century after the year Jesus supposedly was crucified. And this is the best Christian apologists have to offer as evidence for a historical Jesus.
It's almost impossible to get Bible believers to admit they're wrong about something and that they've been misled by their cult leaders. I'd like you to address the issue and not continue to sidestep it with religious yammering. The issue I have is that you made a false claim. Obviously you didn't do it on purpose but rather you were misinformed by Christian propaganda about secular evidence for Jesus as a historical personage. Whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed is beside the point here. You should just be honest enough to admit that there are no reliable secular accounts written about Jesus Christ the person, anything he supposedly did, any of his disciples, miracles, what he might of looked like, his trial, resurrection or anything else mentioned in the gospels. Your cult leaders will continue to repeat the lie that there is secular evidence to support a belief in a historical Jesus and people just like you, wanting very much to believe, will uncritically accept whatever lies the tell. Again, if Christian apologists would lie about something so important, what else might they be lying about?
Luke is the secular historian you seek. He does not claim to be an apostle; he does not claim to have seen the resurrection. He is not even a Jew. He was a trained physician and he took it upon himself to investigate the goings on as concerns this Jesus Christ. This is what you ask for; is it not?
Clearly after investigating these events, he become a convert. But what else would one expect? You investigate the life of a man who claims to be God incarnate and your investigation looks like he probably was. Should you continue to worship the Roman pantheon?
Using your criteria, I don't think you could convincingly argue that mankind has set foot on the moon. After all the eye witnesses are few, two dozen. They cannot be believed, because they are all a part of the conspiracy. All those people on the ground could easily be tricked into thinking they were actually talking to someone in a spacecraft orbiting the moon, or they could have been coconspirators as well. That video they show could be easily faked. In fact for every minute of video in existence of the "so called" moon walks, I am sure there are hours of video that we know are fictional, portraying man and space travel, some of which predates the moon shots. Is there some primitive urge in mankind that he thinks he must travel into outer space?
We live in a post apocalyptic world. Remember the fall of the Roman civilization, remember the Dark Ages? Add to that the order of the Roman emperor Diocletion in February, 303A.D. for the destruction of Christian churches, manuscripts, and books (not to mention the Christians themselves). It seems a wonder that anything survived. In spite of that we have more surviving handcopied manuscripts for the life of Jesus than for any other historical figure.
Now try to imagine what it would be like to try convince someone 2000 years in the future that man actually did walk on the moon in A.D.1969. Especially considering the coming mohammedan destruction of Western Civilization and culture.
Post a Comment