Is there a God?

[Blake]

I believe the God of the Universe over mere man- sounds like common sense to me.

funny, I thought that it was man that picked up the pen and wrote the Bible. Silly me.

I know I know.......divine intervention....

the same divine intervention that gives us about 1000 different versions of the Bible including an "New American" version.

[MiamiHeat]

Sylvester Stallone wrote 'Rocky' in 3 days


Just remember,

-miraculous birth
- son of god come to earth
- miracles
- etc..

all been done before. Not hard to create ANOTHER incarnation of the same myth. it was very popular in those times to do so.

also, you must remember, what you have now as christianity is NOT what we had at the start. in the beginning of all of this christianity, there were DOZENS of different forms of christianity, significantly different from each other.

[Blake]

For the record, I know that Heaven is not full of a bunch of people sitting on clouds with harps. It is a majestic a million times over.

The sitting on a cloud with popcorn picture is just something that helps make me smile from time to time.

a cloud with popcorn sounds as good as streets of gold to me. What use is gold to me if Im dead?

[MiamiHeat]

Read it, and concluded that yours was the bull propaganda post.




Do you not read your own posts? YOU CANNOT POST that Osiris was born of a virgin (which is false, Isis was not a virgin at the time of his conception), that Dionysis turned water into wine (which he did not, he filled empty barrels with wine, not turned water-filled barrels into wine-filled barrels), or that Krishna was the "Shephard of God" (he was the Shepherd-God, because he was a Shepherd by trade) and expect to be treated as someone who provides nothing but facts. Your posts were just as misleading (if not more, considering you made stuff up) as what ES provided in rebuttal.

YOU ARE NITPICKING EVERY MINUTE DETAIL TO FILTER INFORMATION

"Oh, Dionysus filled empty barrels with wine but jesus turned water into wine!!!"

I'm not even going to fact check you here.

I am going to ask you a simple question

Do you or do you not notice the amazing similarities to the Jesus myth told many times before in history? It doesn't matter if they are not a 'carbon copy', they aren't supposed to be. The characters and names change around, but the basic outline is there.

Do you or do you not notice the amazing similarities to the Jesus myth told many times before in history?

There is only -1- right answer to that question. It's painfully obvious that the answer is yes, there are amazing similarities in ancient Sun gods told many times before Christianity.

You deny this?

[angel_luv]

you hear that, b2b? it's gods unique perspective and sense of humor.

you plagiarist.

Not a plagiarist. Rather, he just takes after his Father.

[BacktoBasics]

Myth can cultivated in short periods of time.

Wilt banged 10,000 chics.

SRV played guitar until his finger tips fell off and then he glued them back on

Elvis is still alive

not the best examples but you get the point.

[BacktoBasics]

YOU ARE NITPICKING EVERY MINUTE DETAIL TO FILTER INFORMATION

"Oh, Dionysus filled empty barrels with wine but jesus turned water into wine!!!"

I'm not even going to fact check you here.

I am going to ask you a simple question

Do you or do you not notice the amazing similarities to the Jesus myth told many times before in history? It doesn't matter if they are not a 'carbon copy', they aren't supposed to be. The characters and names change around, but the basic outline is there.

Do you or do you not notice the amazing similarities to the Jesus myth told many times before in history?

There is only -1- right answer to that question. It's painfully obvious that the answer is yes, there are amazing similarities in ancient Sun gods told many times before Christianity.

You deny this?

OH OH I know I know this one teacher.

He doesn't see the similarities.

[smeagol]

THE MOST RECENT Extra Stout posts

1) B2B asked him
"Out of curiousity I'd like to know what ES thinks is the single most compelling piece of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. I'm not talking about God just a mortal man named Jesus who was the son of God....magical powers and all.

I don't want 5, 6 or 10 things. Just the one single most compelling piece of evidence."

2) Extra Stout responded by using P52. He generously and misleadingly said that P52's age was ~125 CE.

3) I came with the facts about P52.

A) It's debated heavily. The -estimation- for P52's age is around 125-170 CE. Much different picture.

B) The estimation -is based on hand writing-. The style of the script. Papyrologists themselves have said this is not an accurate way to estimate age. Scholars have said, because of this, we have to say that P52 could have been written even around 250 CE.

C) Extra Stout says I am no expert, I don't know anything compared to papyrologists. He goes on to quote a scholar and leaves the rest out.

D) I post the rest of the quote and the papyrologist says exactly what I did.

That is not compelling evidence.


That's just the latest rebuttal to anything Extra Stout posts. He has no leg to stand on.


----

There were other times Extra Stout was proven incorrect, severely. He behaved in an intentionally misleading manner.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

125 - 150 AD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

Before 100 AD to after 150 AD

http://www.historian.net/P52.html

117 - 138 AD

http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/...tjohnfragment/

100 - 150 AD

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro...RylandsPap.htm

Not later than 150 AD


So, choosing 125 AD was not misleading at all.

Again, as with you Jesus - Sun God similarities, you have proven nothing.

Way to go . . .

[BacktoBasics]

So minimum you're a couple of generations away and yet still no first hand accounts on original do entation.

Physical evidence would be nice too.

[smeagol]

Was Christ really the Being he claims he was? Or was he a lunatic, a lier that dupped millions?

I'll entertain that line. I do think its possible that a man Jesus existed. Just not in the capacity that he's thought of in todays times.

Funny, earlier in this thread you completely denied that Jesus-man ever existed.

You seem to change your mind very quickly . . .

[smeagol]

So minimum you're a couple of generations away and yet still no first hand accounts on original do entation.

Physical evidence would be nice too.

There is no physical evidence of any ancient writtings (pre 1000 AD).

There are manuscripts of the Bible that were written, at best, less than 70 years from Jesus' death. It does not get better than this, amigo.

[smeagol]

Myth can cultivated in short periods of time.

Wilt banged 10,000 chics.

SRV played guitar until his finger tips fell off and then he glued them back on

Elvis is still alive

not the best examples but you get the point.

Ok. Try to put some effort on your response:

How do you envision this happened in the case of the Bible?

[BacktoBasics]

Funny, earlier in this thread you completely denied that Jesus-man ever existed.

You seem to change your mind very quickly . . .

I don't believe he existed.

I said I'd entertain the idea of him existing just not in the capacity as he's viewed now.

Thats not me changing my mind. Its exercising my ability to rationally consider something if the evidence arises.

[MiamiHeat]

YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT.

1) 25 years is -significant- when dating P52. You can't leave out the rest

2) The ACTUAL estimation has to be a wider range than that.

"What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century do entary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel." - Brent Nongbri


So it could be even as far back as 250 CE or even early as 50 CE. WE DO NOT KNOW.

So therefore, saying "~125 CE" is MISLEADING. WE DO NOT KNOW.

You proved my point.

[MiamiHeat]

Also...even IF it were written in 33 CE, it DOES NOT PROVE that the Christian God is real


We have all sorts of texts about different gods. It doesn't prove that any of THOSE are real


So what's the point?

[smeagol]

Also...even IF it were written in 33 CE, it DOES NOT PROVE that the Christian God is real


We have all sorts of texts about different gods. It doesn't prove that any of THOSE are real


So what's the point?

Short of Christ himself coming back to Earth and performing a miracle infront of your own very eyes, no evidence will be good enough for you.

That is the bottom line.

Again, theorize about how the Christ myth got propagated.

[baseline bum]

There is no physical evidence of any ancient writtings (pre 1000 AD).

There are manuscripts of the Bible that were written, at best, less than 70 years from Jesus' death. It does not get better than this, amigo.

[smeagol]

YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT.

1) 25 years is -significant- when dating P52. You can't leave out the rest

2) The ACTUAL estimation has to be a wider range than that.

"What emerges from this survey is nothing surprising to papyrologists: paleography is not the most effective method for dating texts, particularly those written in a literary hand. Roberts himself noted this point in his edition of P52. The real problem is the way scholars of the New Testament have used and abused papyrological evidence. I have not radically revised Roberts's work. I have not provided any third-century do entary papyri that are absolute "dead ringers" for the handwriting of P52, and even had I done so, that would not force us to date P52 at some exact point in the third century. Paleographic evidence does not work that way. What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want P52 to do. As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel." - Brent Nongbri


So it could be even as far back as 250 CE or even early as 50 CE. WE DO NOT KNOW.

So therefore, saying "~125 CE" is MISLEADING. WE DO NOT KNOW.

You proved my point.

I guess Mr Nongbri is the ultimate scholar regarding P52.

The truth is even if we found the original Gospel of John, autographed and dated by St John himself, you would not give Christianity a chance.

[BacktoBasics]

I guess Mr Nongbri is the ultimate scholar regarding P52.

The truth is even if we found the original Gospel of John, autographed and dated by St John himself, you would not give Christianity a chance.

That would be exponentially more compelling. I would consider it an enormous find.

[MiamiHeat]

Short of Christ himself coming back to Earth and performing a miracle infront of your own very eyes, no evidence will be good enough for you.

That is the bottom line.

Again, theorize about how the Christ myth got propagated.

Short of finding a smoking gun text led "How we are going to invent Christianity" dated 10 BCE coupled with video evidence of their meetings in front of your own very eyes, no evidence will be good enough for you.

That is the bottom line.

Again, do you deny the amazing similarities of the Jesus story told many times before in older religions?

[MiamiHeat]

I guess Mr Nongbri is the ultimate scholar regarding P52.

The truth is even if we found the original Gospel of John, autographed and dated by St John himself, you would not give Christianity a chance.

You don't seem to understand what he is saying.

The estimation of the age of P52 is based on STYLE OF SCRIPT. HAND WRITING. All papyrologists, even ROBERTS HIMSELF, admit that it's an ineffective way of dating text.

If I sit down and write "Star Wars" in 18th century script , does it mean it's from then?


Lastly, CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN SCANDALOUS FORGERS THROUGHOUT HISTORY You cannot, with ANY SCHOLARLY CERTAINTY, be confident of P52's age.

[smeagol]

Short of finding a smoking gun text led "How we are going to invent Christianity" dated 10 BCE coupled with video evidence of their meetings in front of your own very eyes, no evidence will be good enough for you.

My problem is I cannot figure out how Christianity was created out of the blue by Jesus' followers. I have asked you or B2B to come up with a plausible answer, but I have not read any answer yet.

If you couple that with other things such as personal experiences and the explanation to other questions science has not been able to answer, I concluded some time ago that Christianity must be true.

I was a sceptic for more than 10 years, just like you. I simply accepted what to me is the overwhelming evidence in favor of the Christian God's existence.

Again, do you deny the amazing similarities of the Jesus story told many times before in older religions?

I do. I think you've made lose connections. When I read them, I picture Galileo and NBADAN coming up with reasons why 9/11 was an inside job.

[smeagol]

You don't seem to understand what he is saying.

I understand exactly what he is saying.

The estimation of the age of P52 is based on STYLE OF SCRIPT. HAND WRITING. All papyrologists, even ROBERTS HIMSELF, admit that it's an ineffective way of dating text.

So? You pick to late part of the estimation and I pick the early. In any case, it does not change the point. Even if the Ryland Papirus was writen in 170 AD. It is still good evidence, and close enough to Jesus' life.

If I sit down and write "Star Wars" in 18th century script , does it mean it's from then?


Lastly, CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN SCANDALOUS FORGERS THROUGHOUT HISTORY You cannot, with ANY SCHOLARLY CERTAINTY, be confident of P52's age.

So you are implying that a Christian living in 250 AD wrote P52 with 100AD writting style?

[johnsmith]

I didn't believe in God until Mono's posts.

[MiamiHeat]

So? You pick to late part of the estimation and I pick the early.

No, I don't pick the late part. I pick the ENTIRE ESTIMATION. I don't lie and cherry pick.


I don't hate Christianity. You seem to confuse me with someone with bias.