Is there a God?

[gdenekas]

its funny how all thess non believers have so much knowledge of god!

[BacktoBasics]

I may be alone here, but I find the dates on which the events are celebrated to be irrelevant. It's highly likely (in fact, probable) that the dates we have decided to celebrate Christ's birth and resurrection are right in line with cellestial time pieces. That really does little (or nothing, actually) to produce evidence that they didn't actually happen. Only that they probably didn't happen on the dates we celebrate them.

The dates are important because they're shared with almost all the dieties before him. They also share importance because of how it relates to day vs. night and the personification of key figures in the bible.

I mean, we celebrated Washington's birthday on January 21st this year, and his actual birthday was February 22nd. Does that mean he was never born?

Your government at work here.

led Washington's Birthday, the federal holiday was originally implemented by the United States federal government in 1880 for government offices in the District of Columbia (20 Stat. 277) and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices (23 Stat. 516). As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday, February 22. On January 1, 1971 the federal holiday was shifted to the third Monday in February by the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. A draft of the Uniform Holidays Bill of 1968 would have renamed the holiday to Presidents' Day to honor both Washington and Lincoln, but this proposal failed in committee and the bill as voted on and signed into law on June 28, 1968 kept the name Washington's Birthday.

Why exclude the gospels as historical evidence? What about the epistles of Paul which were written within 10-20 years of the crucifixion? The writers of these accounts say they are eyewitnesses to the facts, and provide abundant geographical and cultural details.

We have no original copies. There is no reference to an actual physical eyewitness.

Great point. Hearsay no historical physical proof. This here is written better than I can say it.

The most "authoritative" accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, "like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-- the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost." [Romer]

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

What evidence has been produced to disprove the accuracy of the gospels or the epistles?

Above.

There is historical evidence of the legend and worship of these gods, but is there historical evidence of their actual existence on earth? (I ask because I don't know)

No. Just like Jesus there is no historical proof of physical existence because they were all personifications of cellestial bodies centered around the Sun.

Whoops reading back I misunderstood the later part. I'm not going to erase it because its relevant but here you go. Great point on bringing up Paul. Strongest argument to date.

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

[Dr. Gonzo]

its funny how all thess non believers have so much knowledge of god!

No . It's like that bag Peewee's Lovechild. He always tries to act like he's too intelligent to believe in God yet he always says about how God hates people and is angry and . He talks about God more than most believers.

That would be like me walking around talking about leprechauns all the time. I don't believe in leprechauns so why the should I talk about them. Except for right now when I'm making a point or when I reference the movie Leprechaun.

[Jesus]

its funny how all thess non believers have so much knowledge of god!

[BacktoBasics]

No . It's like that bag Peewee's Lovechild. He always tries to act like he's too intelligent to believe in God yet he always says about how God hates people and is angry and . He talks about God more than most believers.

That would be like me walking around talking about leprechauns all the time. I don't believe in leprechauns so why the should I talk about them. Except for right now when I'm making a point or when I reference the movie Leprechaun.

I never laid claim to be a god expert. It was never about god. This was about the existence of Jesus. Where and how he originated and the same for organized religion.

I never said that I was out to prove that their was no god just out to prove that the belief structure was a fraud.

A godlike en y or higher power may very well exist. TBD in my opinion.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Whoops reading back I misunderstood the later part. I'm not going to erase it because its relevant but here you go. Great point on bringing up Paul. Strongest argument to date.

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

I think you quote like that on purpose to make it a pain in the ass to respond.



Paul actually does record his interaction with Jesus' principle disciples (Peter and James). And while not stating that he had personal interaction with Jesus, the sources you've cited have still done nothing to disprove the accuracy of the gospels. Just becase a story is not firsthand, doesn't make it inherently untrue.

If fact, there are also non-biblical accounts of Jesus existence, including Tacitus' Annals, recording (historically) that Christ did indeed suffer under Pontius Pilate. You've referenced others already, including Flavius Josephus and the Talmud. What has been do ented about Jesus outside of the Bible includes:

- He was from Nazareth
- He was wise and virtious
- He was crucified under Pontius Pilate
- His enemies called his miracles 'sorcery'
- He had disciples who multiplied rapidly

[BacktoBasics]

I think you quote like that on purpose to make it a pain in the ass to respond.



Paul actually does record his interaction with Jesus' principle disciples (Peter and James). And while not stating that he had personal interaction with Jesus, the sources you've cited have still done nothing to disprove the accuracy of the gospels. Just becase a story is not firsthand, doesn't make it inherently untrue.

If fact, there are also non-biblical accounts of Jesus existence, including Tacitus' Annals, recording (historically) that Christ did indeed suffer under Pontius Pilate. You've referenced others already, including Flavius Josephus and the Talmud. What has been do ented about Jesus outside of the Bible includes:

1. He was from Nazareth
2. He was wise and virtious
3. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate
4. His enemies called his miracles 'sorcery'
5. He had disciples who multiplied rapidly

Well I'm willing to agree that the mere mention of something is of some merit but there is a profound lack of first person interaction. Even when there is a mention it borderlines on hearsay. No origional do entation, no original artifacts and no legitimate proof of phsyical existence. How is something so big so lacking in historical proof? Not one single first hand account referenced in original do entation.

Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which one? James served as a common name in the first centuries. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus.

Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.

Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this deliberation.

As for the existence of original New Testament do ents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield].

So we have a lack of first person reference from copies of copies of many copies.

There is absolutely no original do entation. I'm going to offer an opinion here ok.

B2B thinks: With no tangible proof and a complete lack of original do entation or physical evidence its hard to prove something exists especially when the precedent is set long before its alleged inception. Every date of significance has a precedent in cellestial time and is mathematically accounted for. /end opinion/

We are talking about a lack of original proof from a time thats chalk full of original do entation. A time where a single man was to have had the greatest following ever. How is there no tangible proof?

At this point I'd like you to provide something tangible. Some original do entation citing his authenticity. I've gone to lengths here to show you every source of significant reference is nothing more than a copy of a copy of a piece of something.

I would certainly indulge in anything original that could authenticate his existence.

Remember the old rumor circles we would participate in when we were kids back in the day.

One kid whispers something to another kid and then it goes down the line until the very last kid says the line. Only its completely different than the original kids phrase. This doesn't happen with original do entation.

[mouse]

Just imagine if Miami Heat and the other non believers in this topic were to put 1/2 the energy and time they have used trying to prove there is no GOD to maybe finding a cure for Cancer we would all have a better life.

I think many of you are missing the point. It does not matter if Jesus was real or if the bible is true, it all comes down to one thing. Either you feel you are part of creation or some form of a creator, or you feel we evolved from space dust over billions of years and started out as a tadpole and slowly became humans.

It does not matter if you can prove the story of Jesus was told 6000 years earlier by the Chinese, or that the Virgin Mary was really a Divorced mother of two when she gave birth to Jesus.

What matters is you believe in something. A black man deep in Africa may not even know what a Bible is but his tribe may worship the sun. The point is they feel there is a higher power we cannot comprehend.

So before you load up on all your Goggle facts and quotes from the movie Zeitgeist. Keep in mind it really doesn't matter what you prove, at the end your either going to die and turn to dust or your soul is going to the after life.

Depending on what you believe at the time of death. So with that in mind lets create a scenario.

A:Your a non believer you know there is no GOD so therefore you live your life looking out for #1 you could care less about anyone but yourself. You didn't ask to be here so why should you give a ?

After you die you turn to dust and it's all over.


B: You actually feel there is a creator so you try to live your life in a way that you won't be to ashamed if you ever have to face the GOD (or higher power) when you die. You try and make the best of your life and you treat others with respect and may even show emotions like love from time to time.

Now when you die your spirit can soar to the afterlife where you will meet others who shared your beliefs.

So you have to say to yourself, do I want to take that chance and find out after death there is a place for my soul, or should I just play it safe and maybe believe that we are not here because of some dust particles from a huge explosion.

It's kinda like buying insurance before you get on a plane. Chances are you may not need it but why take that chance?

[BacktoBasics]

Little more on James. Your own people dispute it.

The Greek used in the epistle is fluent, eloquent and polished and is unlikely to have come from that of a son of Galilean carpenter whose mother tongue was Aramaic. Although some scholars have argued that most Jews during that era were bilingual, able to communicate in Aramaic and Greek, it is unlikely that such educated Greek would have come from someone of such a humble background.

James was accepted into the canon of the New Testament very slowly. It was not mentioned in the Muratorian canon, a list dating to about 200CE, which gave a list of inspired books. Indeed down to the fourth century, the church historian Eusebius (c260-c340) noted that James was among the "disputed books" (History of the Church 2:23:24-25). As we have seen elsewhere, one of the criteria for acceptance into the canon was apostolic authorship. Thus it is likely that many of the early church fathers did not think the epistle was written by James.

Now a pseudepigraphal work may be a forgery, the intention being to deceive the readers into accepting views which the person credited the work would never have held. Thus in the New Testament, II Thessalonians, the Pastoral Epistles and I & II Peter are rightly called forgeries for they advocated views which were never held by the persons the writings were attributed to. However a pseudepigraphal do ent may also have been written by a disciple of the person attributed as the writer. The use of the teacher's name is then a way to tell the readers that the writings originate from his school. Indeed some scholars have suggested that the epistle of James could be a collection of traditional teachings attributed to James and the Jerusalem Church. Indeed the disjointed nature of the writings in the epistle may point to this.

More on Peter. We are talking about the Church questioning its authenticity not anti-religious people like myself.

In both content and style this letter is very different from 1 Peter, which immediately precedes it in the canon. Acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think that it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.

The authenticity of this letter was sharply disputed by the early Church, and it is still viewed with su ion by many. This is partly because one section appears to be copied from the letter of Jude, partly because the general character is different from the first letter of Peter, and partly because competent scholars consider there are references in it to events which happened after Peter's death in approximately 64. It is of course, possible that we have here parts of a genuine letter of Peter with considerable later additions.

[BacktoBasics]

I think many of you are missing the point. It does not matter if Jesus was real or if the bible is true, it all comes down to one thing. Either you feel you are part of creation or some form of a creator, or you feel we evolved from space dust over billions of years and started out as a tadpole and slowly became humans.

It does matter. Our governments and how society will evolve from this point forward is influenced by it. 100% relevant. Most religions don't step back and respect the higher power belief unless its within their structure.

If we could live in a world where simply believing in a higher power was enough then it would be a better world. We don't and never will.

It has and always will be about secular religion and its division.

[angel_luv]

Jesus is the one and only Son of God and the only Savior of the world.

I believe with all my heart that Jesus will reveal Himself and His Lordship to you, if you ask Him in faith to do so.

Reading the Gospel of John is an excellent place to start, in my opinion.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I believe with all my heart that Jesus will reveal Himself and His Lordship to you, if you ask Him in faith to do so.

isnt that just like islam with the 72 virgins, i wonder has any of them virgins even been revealed yet or you can only see them when ur dead?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't know.

[mouse]

It does matter. Our governments and how society will evolve from this point forward is influenced by it. 100% relevant. Most religions don't step back and respect the higher power belief unless its within their structure.

If we could live in a world where simply believing in a higher power was enough then it would be a better world. We don't and never will.

It has and always will be about secular religion and its division.

I was talking about people in this topic, and the bottom-line. When you die either you think your going to become dust, or you think your spirit will go somewhere. That is really all that matters. All the political mambo jumbo and religious debates take a back seat when your on your death bed with just minutes left.

You want to go into who said what, and what was written, or what some scientist discovered then have at it I am sure there are many in the club who will satisfy your debate fix you seem to crave. In fact if I was not in extreme pain right now I would maybe grab a beer and partake in this topic and I am sure I can come up with many quotes, and facts that prove there is a creator just as you can come back with the same quotes, and facts that there is none.

We can go at it for hours. But the bottom-line will always be either your feel you have a soul or your just part of some baboon from 500 million BC.

And to be honest after reading many of the replies in this topic I am beginning to think man did evolve from the ape.

[BacktoBasics]

I am sure I can come up with many quotes, and facts that prove there is a creator

Thats the point of the thread. You can't come up with any tangible physical proof or original do ention of his existence.

I however can up with tangible proof and original do entation in many forms lending credence to the existence of gods with identical paths of life.

If you need additional reference for how important religion is just read what Angel Warrior wrote above.

These singular views and narrowminded approaches on life shape how we live in society.

So yeah on my death bed it doesn't mean but I'd like to live a better less influenced life right ing now. I want my world to be shaped by quality decision making not one belief trumping another. How is real time not relevant to you?

[TDMVPDPOY]

And to be honest after reading many of the replies in this topic I am beginning to think man did evolve from the ape.

we still have monkeys today that hasnt evolve to a human,

we need someone, ANYONE go a monkey and see the outcome.....

[mouse]

Thats the point of the thread. You can't come up with any tangible physical proof or original do ention of his existence.

I however can up with tangible proof and original do entation in many forms lending credence to the existence of gods with identical paths of life.

If you need additional reference for how important religion is just read what Angel Warrior wrote above.

These singular views and narrowminded approaches on life shape how we live in society.

So yeah on my death bed it doesn't mean but I'd like to live a better less influenced life right ing now. I want my world to be shaped by quality decision making not one belief trumping another. How is real time not relevant to you?

If your serious about me wasting my time trying to educate you then you must do me a favor. Go get a camcorder and make a short video of you on your knees begging GOD to prove he is real. I want you to say these words....

"Hey asshole!! your nothing but a lie! your not real, and I dare you to give me cancer, or do something to me or my family that will make me believe your real. Give me a stroke! let someone in my family die in the next 30 days. I dare you you piece of GOD!! you!!"

after you made the video put it on youtube or PM it to me and then I will take you serous,.

[mouse]

we still have monkeys today that hasnt evolve to a human,

we need someone, ANYONE go a monkey and see the outcome.....

I take it you never met MannyIsGod?

[I Love Me Some Me]

So we have a lack of first person reference from copies of copies of many copies.

There is absolutely no original do entation. I'm going to offer an opinion here ok.

B2B thinks: With no tangible proof and a complete lack of original do entation or physical evidence its hard to prove something exists especially when the precedent is set long before its alleged inception. Every date of significance has a precedent in cellestial time and is mathematically accounted for. /end opinion/

We are talking about a lack of original proof from a time thats chalk full of original do entation. A time where a single man was to have had the greatest following ever. How is there no tangible proof?

At this point I'd like you to provide something tangible. Some original do entation citing his authenticity. I've gone to lengths here to show you every source of significant reference is nothing more than a copy of a copy of a piece of something.

I would certainly indulge in anything original that could authenticate his existence.

Remember the old rumor circles we would participate in when we were kids back in the day.

One kid whispers something to another kid and then it goes down the line until the very last kid says the line. Only its completely different than the original kids phrase. This doesn't happen with original do entation.

What of Tacitus' historical account in the Annals? Not first person, but certainly historically accurate, no?

Of course, with every answer provided there's going to be a laundry list of skeptics who dispute the authenticity of everything written and provided. Still, none have concluded the inaccuracy of the Gospels. Since the time they were written, there has been nothing discovered to undermine the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. Additionally, since Jesus' home of Galilee was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D, it's very possible that all first hand records of his existence were destroyed as well. Remember, the epistles were written within a decade of Christ's death. Is 10 years enough time to propogate a legend the size of Jesus Christ, and generate a following of such legend? Not likely.

[MiamiHeat]

its funny how all thess non believers have so much knowledge of god!

I was born Roman Catholic. I was baptized and had my Holy Communion.

Around the age of 12, I became very serious about God. I began to read more and more of the Bible and of Roman Catholic approved works for children. I immediately began to notice the contradictions. I was even shocked to see most of the contradictions even IN the Churches.

At 13, and to the anger of my family, I switched from Catholicism to modern Protestant Christianity. I watched TBN everyday and read my bible when I wasn't playing with my friends or going to school.

At around 15 years old, I had read the entire Bible and watched many many hours of TV sermons and been to many hours of Church in person. I believed very seriously in God. Bishop TD Jakes, Rod Parsley, Benny Hinn, uh,,,the overweight guy I can't remember his name right now were my favorite pastors on TBN. I know all about the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray. I STILL know Psalm 91 by heart.

However, I began to realize things were wrong. The more I read the Bible, the more and more su ious I became.

At around 16 years old, I realized it was all bull . I began to read history books and all sorts of literature. I read about 10 books on theology, Christianity in particular.

So don't try and ridicule me. I come from you, but I opened my own eyes.

What's stopping you? Fear?

[TDMVPDPOY]

you know when you read the bible and it says the earth was created by GOD in 7 days,

now today scientists are saying the universe and any planet is made from the big bang or clashes of stars.....

so i guess the guys who wrote the bible is going to change the text from GOD creating the earth in 7 days to creating the universe in 7 days....

[MiamiHeat]

let me ask you this...do you think that when people die there spirit will die too?

There is no spirit.

We are living creatures that are a part of this Earth. We are here for the ride. We are born, live, and die. Try to be happy and love people while you are here and enjoy the ride.

There is no supernatural meaning to us. We are a product of billions of cells that want to reproduce and survive.

[ashbeeigh]

At around 15 years old, I had read the entire Bible and watched many many hours of TV sermons and been to many hours of Church in person. I believed very seriously in God. Bishop TD Jakes, Rod Parsley, Benny Hinn, uh,,,the overweight guy I can't remember his name right now were my favorite pastors on TBN. I know all about the fuzzy feeling you get when you pray. I STILL know Psalm 91 by heart.

That's where you went wrong. That channel is almost cult like.

[mouse]

you know when you read the bible and it says the earth was created by GOD in 7 days,

now today scientists are saying the universe and any planet is made from the big bang or clashes of stars.....

so i guess the guys who wrote the bible is going to change the text from GOD creating the earth in 7 days to creating the universe in 7 days....

How do you know a day to GOD is not 2000 years? And if your a non believer it doesn't matter if GOD made a video of his works and stuck in on youtube your still going to find something to argue about that is why i only debate with people who actually try to see both sides of every issue, not some bitter person who doesn't like his life and is looking for someone to blame it on.

[MiamiHeat]

That's where you went wrong. That channel is almost cult like.

Yeah, I was told not to take God too seriously by my family too.

My aunt told me I was becoming "fanatical"


My question was always the same :

If God exists, and he is the Lord of Lords and wants us to live a certain way, then why the aren't you listening to him? He WANTS you to do x and live x way. Your whole existence is owed to him and he really is the most important thing to worry about. If God exists, he is not an extracurricular activity. You don't just go to church on Sundays and pray when you want something. That's hypocritical and completely illogical.


Yeah, they never had an answer for me. I suspected it was because they didn't really believe deep down in their hearts.


Anyway, it's all forms of Sun worship. It's bull .