Welcome Atheists!

[mark kennedy]

It has been impossible to discuss Theology in this forum for quite some time. I am relieved I no longer have to walk on egg shells, it's all about debate now.

You guys go ahead and get settled in and I'm going to go sharpen my favorite debate axe. This should be a lot of fun.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Welcome atheists!

I'll be here completely blind as to what you're talking about regarding evolutionary biology while making the biblical case against creationism.

Oh, and arguing vehemently for the rationality of miracles and the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[mark kennedy]

Welcome atheists!

I'll be here completely blind as to what you're talking about regarding evolutionary biology while making the biblical case against creationism.

Oh, and arguing vehemently for the rationality of miracles and the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Me too, only I am not blind to evolutionary biology, I am actually depending on it. I can hardly wait for these biblical arguments to start.

I got some biblical arguments for you as well. And by the way, you don't have to go into the Creationist sub-forum to flame me, you can do it right in here. It's open season on creationists, bring your pseudo-theological, quasi-Scriptural arguements on!

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mavros]

I'll be here completely blind as to what you're talking about regarding evolutionary biology while making the biblical case against creationism.

Uh what? Dont think i understand your point, evolution is same for cristians and atheists. Apart from that TE replace natural selection with god.

Oh, and arguing vehemently for the rationality of miracles and the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

No need rational miracles or revelation of god in the person of jesus crist since 1 nobody have evidence that miracles happend and 2 we dont have any evidence jesus even exist and finally 3 even if man with that name happend live how we can know that he was son of god and just not another "prophet"

 

[busterdog]

Uh what? Dont think i understand your point, evolution is same for cristians and atheists. Apart from that TE replace natural selection with god.



No need rational miracles or revelation of god in the person of jesus crist since 1 nobody have evidence that miracles happend and 2 we dont have any evidence jesus even exist and finally 3 even if man with that name happend live how we can know that he was son of god and just not another "prophet"

You know, it was hard enough to keep focused as between creationists and TEs. This new distraction is a good reason to look for a Christians only subforum.

 

[Mavros]

You know, it was hard enough to keep focused as between creationists and TEs. This new distraction is a good reason to look for a Christians only subforum.

You have your own rules in your sub forum, for example we cant debate evolution in any form there. So its pretty mutch still creationist only forum

 

[Mallon]

Uh what? Dont think i understand your point, evolution is same for cristians and atheists. Apart from that TE replace natural selection with god.

Mavros, GratiaCorpusChristi is simply saying that he isn't as familiar with evolutionary theory as some others here, but that he rejects young earth creationism on biblical grounds. No need to feel insulted, and no need for the strawman about evolutionary creationists.

No need rational miracles or revelation of god in the person of jesus crist since 1 nobody have evidence that miracles happend and 2 we dont have any evidence jesus even exist and finally 3 even if man with that name happend live how we can know that he was son of god and just not another "prophet"

(1) If you had "evidence" for a miracle, would it be a miracle?
(2) Yes, we have lots of evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
(3) By his teachings. Sorry, but this is one question you can't answer with science.

 

[Nooj]

No need rational miracles or revelation of god in the person of jesus crist since 1 nobody have evidence that miracles happend and 2 we dont have any evidence jesus even exist and finally 3 even if man with that name happend live how we can know that he was son of god and just not another "prophet"

Hi Mavros, lets please keep the discussion of Jesus Christ to the General Apologetics forum.

 

[theIdi0t]

Hi Mavros, lets please keep the discussion of Jesus Christ to the General Apologetics forum.

I'm open to all forms of theological discussions. If unbelievers wanted to talk about evidence for a historical Jesus I'm all for them starting a thread in the TE subforum to discuss such things. But at the same time no one should derail a thread that is not concerned about a historical Jesus with comments of Jesus not being historical etc...

Keep the threads concerned with the matter at hand, but I am all for opening up the TE subforum to discuss other areas such as a historical Jesus, and belief in God, etc.....

I just find the GA forum too congested for my taste, to participate there, and since more often than not creationist have little to say on these forums, I wouldn't mind keeping them lively with other discussions to fill the lull.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Uh what? Dont think i understand your point, evolution is same for cristians and atheists. Apart from that TE replace natural selection with god.

You're right, you don't understanding.

I take the Scriptures as the authoritative rule of Christian belief and practice. But they give me no reason to believe in six-day young earth creationism. There's no biblical impediment to our agreement in the theory of evolution, despite the naive exegesis of many louder Christians.

No need rational miracles or revelation of god in the person of jesus crist since 1 nobody have evidence that miracles happend and 2 we dont have any evidence jesus even exist and finally 3 even if man with that name happend live how we can know that he was son of god and just not another "prophet"

I'm not sure if you're just close-minded or unread, but that certainly isn't the case. We have independent testimony of Jesus of Nazareth from both Josephus and Tacitus, and moreover, lets not forget that apart from any authority as Scripture the New Testament documents themselves provide multiple attestation as primary source documents.

But lets not get into that here.

 

[Mavros]

You're right, you don't understanding.

I take the Scriptures as the authoritative rule of Christian belief and practice. But they give me no reason to believe in six-day young earth creationism. There's no biblical impediment to our agreement in the theory of evolution, despite the naive exegesis of many louder Christians.

But literal reading of bible is easy to debunk and cristians who believe in evolution believe in pretty mutch same evolution as atheists. Only difference is that TE ppl replace natural selection with god.

I'm not sure if you're just close-minded or unread, but that certainly isn't the case. We have independent testimony of Jesus of Nazareth from both Josephus and Tacitus, and moreover, lets not forget that apart from any authority as Scripture the New Testament documents themselves provide multiple attestation as primary source documents.

But lets not get into that here.

o rly?

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html

I actually do believe he existed, but he wasnt son of god

 

[busterdog]

(1) If you had "evidence" for a miracle, would it be a miracle?
(2) Yes, we have lots of evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
(3) By his teachings. Sorry, but this is one question you can't answer with science.

This ought to make Mark Kennedy feel a little better. I reckon he knew this about you before, but it is always nice to see it posted. can't give you reps again just yet, since I just gave some..

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

But literal reading of bible is easy to debunk and cristians who believe in evolution believe in pretty mutch same evolution as atheists. Only difference is that TE ppl replace natural selection with god.

Mistake #1. I spend most of my time here trying to show that a literal reading of Genesis is a profound blunder, to no avail. If you think my task is an easy one, you're sorely mistaken.

o rly?

No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri...y_nojesus.html

I actually do believe he existed, but he wasnt son of god

Mistake #2. You clearly aren't an expert on Josephus (your analysis of the Testimonium Flavium is just poor)and you didn't even address my point about the gospels as [biased] primary source documents. Moreover, Tacitus was not writing a full century after the events in question. Yes, he probably learned of Jesus through Christian sources, but no, that doesn't mean they're innacurate. Indeed, it actually tells us that there were Christians in the western part of the empire at a very early date. What, did they spring out of nowhere?

Regardless, my response is weak and cut terribly short because this isn't the appropriate forum. Feel free to PM me.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This ought to make Mark Kennedy feel a little better. I reckon he knew this about you before, but it is always nice to see it posted. can't give you reps again just yet, since I just gave some..

Don't count on it.

By the way, love the avatar.

 

[Melethiel]

I encourage all our new non-Christian visitors to please check out the Theology specific rules that have been drafted up.

This is still NOT the place to discuss the existence or historicity of God and/or Jesus Christ.

 

[Mallon]

But literal reading of bible is easy to debunk and cristians who believe in evolution believe in pretty mutch same evolution as atheists. Only difference is that TE ppl replace natural selection with god.

You're wrong here, Mavros. Evolutionary creationists (TE's) don't replace natural selection with God. We believe God 'ordained' natural selection to bring about His will, but that certainly doesn't equate with what you are saying.
Really, you are promoting the same disinformation that you rail against. If you're interested in learning more about evolutionary creationists, this is an excellent place to start:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

I actually do believe he existed, but he wasnt son of god

If you do believe Jesus existed, I'm not quite sure why you seem to be trying to discredit historical references to him. You mention the Roman references to Jesus, but I'll point out that there are a number of rabbinic sources as well. There's a great chapter that discusses these extra-biblical references to Jesus in The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide.
Anyhow, I digress.

 

[busterdog]

Don't count on it.

By the way, love the avatar.

My avatar can['t] whip your avatar.

 

[mark kennedy]

(1) If you had "evidence" for a miracle, would it be a miracle?

A miracle is evidence, Jesus often appealed to his works as authentication for his authority. Moses reviewed the works of God in the sight of the Hebrew children every time they stopped somewhere. They hardened their heart and Jesus makes this chilling indictment:

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matt. 11:21)

A child of perdition will grow increasingly calloused when faced with the wonderful works of God. Anyone who rejects miracles as a part of Christian theism has embraced a social Gospel not New Testament Christianity.

(2) Yes, we have lots of evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Wow! You mean he is not like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny? He really did exist?

Newsflash guys, the New Testament teaches Jesus Christ was God in human flesh. If you don't believe that and still call yourself a Christian your kidding yourself.

(3) By his teachings. Sorry, but this is one question you can't answer with science.

The disciples were told by Jesus that he was going to be rejected, crucified and raised from the dead on the third day. Sitting there and hearing this they did not understand a single word. When it happened and they first heard about it they still thought it was just a fairy story. It was not until they were persuaded by Christ himself that they believed.

That has not changed, it is the Holy Spirit who shows sinners the righteousness of God in Christ. You can hear the Gospel a thousand times and never understand a single word. Miracles have done very little to persuade unbelievers they just end up being judged more severely.

People reject the Gospel because they don't want to repent, not because of some jacked up interpretation of the evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

No historians of the time mention Jesus.

Luke was an historian and the Bible is a primary source document, the bibliographical testing places it as far and away the most reliable historical document from antiquity.

To tell you the truth I appreciate your candor. This is directly tied to Creationism at least for me. It is the New Testament witness that convinced me that Creationism is the only viable explanation for our origins. People who focus on Genesis have no clue what a literal interpretation of Scripture is based on.

 

[Jase]

Not to go off topic (not that it isn't already) but Mele, are you still a mod or is the demod (that sounds painful ) process still pending?