The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

That doesn't really help your case that he's divine.

That is where we start.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We have reliable accounts of Jesus of Nazareth rising from the dead. They are the epistles and various letters that make up the New Testament.

Really, who were the authors, can you show they are reliable sources? Seeing as their various accounts were written decades after the supposed crucifixion, and outside of the average lifespan of a person living in 1st century Israel, how do you even know these people knew Jesus or witnessed anything?

 

[Elioenai26]

Seeing as their various accounts were written decades after the supposed crucifixion

I ask that you demonstrate why this is true....

, and outside of the average lifespan of a person living in 1st century Israel,

I ask you to demonstrate why this is true....

 

[Dave Ellis]

I ask that you demonstrate why this is true....

Check out any source on the history of how the Bible was compiled.... even Christian sites fully accept the gospels were written in the later part of the 1st century

I ask you to demonstrate why this is true....

Because the average lifespan for a person in 1st century Israel was roughly 30-40 years. Assuming the apostles were in their early 20s when they met Jesus, that gives them 10-20 years after his death until they to would have died.

That doesn't leave enough time for an eyewitness of the event to have actually penned the gospels.

 

[Elioenai26]

Check out any source on the history of how the Bible was compiled.... even Christian sites fully accept the gospels were written in the later part of the 1st century

I want you to give me a link to where you gathered the information from that leads you to your conclusions.

Because the average lifespan for a person in 1st century Israel was roughly 30-40 years.

I will need you to substantiate this with a credible reference.

Assuming the apostles were in their early 20s when they met Jesus, that gives them 10-20 years after his death until they to would have died.

I will need you to demonstrate why you think this is true.

That doesn't leave enough time for an eyewitness of the event to have actually penned the gospels.

I will need you to demonstrate why this is true.

 

[bhsmte]

I ask that you demonstrate why this is true....



I ask you to demonstrate why this is true....

Likely, one of the most knowledgable historian and scholar on the new testament is Bart Ehrman. Read his stuff and you will understand just how shaky the new testament is. If you don't like him because he is a non-believer, most legit moderate scholars agree with him on most of his points.

a few facts:

-there are no original texts of the NT, they are lost
-only full copies exist from about 200-300 years after Jesus lived
-We have pieces of copies from earlier times
-all of these copies have significant errors, deletions and additions to the text
-No one knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
-Of the 13 gospels attributed to Paul, scholars agree only 7 were likely written by him
-Resurrection accounts differ in the 4 gospels that discuss it and in Mark, later authors actually added about 12 verses because they didn't like how abruptly it ended. This happened hundreds of years after the events
-There are ZERO eye witness accounts of the crucifixion and or resurrection

You could go on and on about this. If you really want to learn about the history of the bible, it takes work and an open mind to accept the facts.

 

[bhsmte]

I ask that you demonstrate why this is true....





I ask you to demonstrate why this is true....

MUST WATCH. How the bible got changed. Misquoting Jesus Speech at Stanford by Bart Ehrman. - YouTube

 

[Elioenai26]

Likely, one of the most knowledgable historian and scholar on the new testament is Bart Ehrman. Read his stuff and you will understand just how shaky the new testament is. If you don't like him because he is a non-believer, most legit moderate scholars agree with him on most of his points.

a few facts:

-there are no original texts of the NT, they are lost
-only full copies exist from about 200-300 years after Jesus lived
-We have pieces of copies from earlier times
-all of these copies have significant errors, deletions and additions to the text
-No one knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
-Of the 13 gospels attributed to Paul, scholars agree only 7 were likely written by him
-Resurrection accounts differ in the 4 gospels that discuss it and in Mark, later authors actually added about 12 verses because they didn't like how abruptly it ended. This happened hundreds of years after the events
-There are ZERO eye witness accounts of the crucifixion and or resurrection

You could go on and on about this. If you really want to learn about the history of the bible, it takes work and an open mind to accept the facts.

Do you have a source or reference for what you listed above? I will need it.

Also, since you want to use Ehrman, tell me, does Ehrman deny that Jesus existed? Does he deny that Jesus was crucified?

What does Ehrman say we can know about Jesus?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have a source or reference for what you listed above? I will need it.

Also, since you want to use Ehrman, tell me, does Ehrman deny that Jesus existed? Does he deny that Jesus was crucified?

What does Ehrman say we can know about Jesus?

Well, about 2 years ago, he wrote a book that Jesus did in fact exist, yes. He has written numerous books and again, is regarded as one of the most knowledgable historians/scholars of the new testament. He studied under Bruce Metzger at Princeton where he got his PHD and Metzger is considered the top new testament scholar of his time (now passed away). Ehrman went to Moody Bible institute and graduated from Wheaton College before getting his PHD at Princeton theology and was also a Baptist minister for a period of time.

Ehrman creates controversy, because he is now a non-believer (agnostic) and one of the reasons he became agnostic, was his decades of research into the new testament.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, about 2 years ago, he wrote a book that Jesus did in fact exist, yes. He has written numerous books and again, is regarded as one of the most knowledgable historians/scholars of the new testament. He studied under Bruce Metzger at Princeton where he got his PHD and Metzger is considered the top new testament scholar of his time (now passed away). Ehrman went to Moody Bible institute and graduated from Wheaton College before getting his PHD at Princeton theology and was also a Baptist minister for a period of time.

Ehrman creates controversy, because he is now a non-believer (agnostic) and one of the reasons he became agnostic, was his decades of research into the new testament.

So he believes Jesus existed.

What does he say of Jesus' crucifixion?

 

[HitchSlap]

Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube

 

[HitchSlap]

Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind - YouTube

 

[HitchSlap]

That is where we start.

It's where Christians start, and what skeptics question.

 

[Tnmusicman]

You dont even have that "peeking thru my telescope" type of evidence for your god, yet you willingly believe in it. Why do you need "peeking thru my telescope" evidence to believe in the probability of alien life?

The fact that there is life on Earth means it is probable life exists elsewhere too. It would be a reasonable proposition to assume as there are billions of other galaxies.

If we knew for certain one god does exist in the universe then it is probable that other gods exist also.

But there is not one shred of credible evidence that even one of the 3 million gods known to man actually exists.

Why do you keep missing this?? It's not about what I believe. I'm talking about why atheists say that they don't believe in God because there is no evidence BUT have no problem saying they believe in ET life WITHOUT EVIDENCE (the peeking they the telescope evidence) ?? You see, from my pov it's virtually the same thing yet one belief is taunted and another is held in high regard (by some). Yeah yeah , I get the whole life in earth being put forth as evidence but that's not the kind of evidence I'm referring to. I'm talking about the peeking thru the telescope and seeing little green men kinda evidence. Please don't keep repeating there's no evidence for God either as that's abundantly clear to most everyone. What isn't clear is why is the ET argument so powerful when no evidence has been found? I understand people looking. I understand the possibility because of life on earth but, once again possibility isn't actuality.

 

[Davian]

Of course I am.

Is the proposition: "Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead on the Sunday after His crucifixion."

Falsifiable?

Depends. Assuming, for the moment, "Jesus of Nazareth" actually existed, and that there were credible reports of his death and subsequent sitings of him alive in some way, by what mechanism did he "rise from the dead" after all that time? Has this mechanism been replicated in controlled experimentation?

 

[Elioenai26]

Depends. Assuming, for the moment, "Jesus of Nazareth" actually existed, and that there were credible reports of his death and subsequent sitings of him alive in some way, by what mechanism did he "rise from the dead" after all that time? Has this mechanism been replicated in controlled experimentation?

Davian, honestly, I do not need you to assume anything for my sake.

If you want to take the absurd position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, then more power to you.

If you do take that line, I am going to be uninterested in discussing the matter further.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do you keep missing this?? It's not about what I believe. I'm talking about why atheists that they don't believe in God because there is no evidence BUT have no problem saying they believe in ET life WITHOUT EVIDENCE (the peeking they the telescope evidence) ??

What is so hard to understand about life exists? Because we have one example of life existing in this universe, it's therefore probable that conditions exist elsewhere (billions of galaxies and trillions of stars) where life might arise. This doesn't take any faith or credulity, only the knowledge that it's happened once, so wouldn't be surprising if it happened again. Unfortunately, there is no prior example of a god/s existing. Therefore we have no good reason to expect one to exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

Davian, honestly, I do not need you to assume anything for my sake.

If you want to take the absurd position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, then more power to you.

If you do take that line, I am going to be uninterested in discussing the matter further.

Regardless of how you may feel about the matter, there is serious discussion among scholars if Jesus even existed.

 

[Davian]

Davian, honestly, I do not need you to assume anything for my sake.

If you want to take the absurd position that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, then more power to you.

If you do take that line, I am going to be uninterested in discussing the matter further.

You are putting words in my mouth, and you did not address the point of my post.

Shall we take it that you were not sincere when your wrote "Give me good evidence or reasons to maintain that Christ did not rise from the dead and I will admit that my claims are falsified"?

 

[Elioenai26]

Regardless of how you may feel about the matter, there is serious discussion among scholars if Jesus even existed.

I will say the same thing to you that I said to him.

If that is your view then fine, more power to you.

Every day I spend here I realize that some people are just in denial and cannot accept things that are obviously true.

I wish you well.