Christians don't believe in God!?

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:43 pm

SoaringEagle wrote:Hi again Asimov, you wrote:
40 years of oral tradition and zealous believers aren't reliable.
Please explain why these two claims of yours are true. Thanks buddy! :wink:
No problem.

1. Those passing on the oral tradition and "preaching" have an agenda, first and foremost, to spread the word and get followers.

2. Those passing on the oral tradition will tend to omit or change aspects of the story as it keeps getting told, especially when passed from person to person.

3. People even retelling events that they've seen themselves recollect events differently, or have a bias, or due to faulty observation tend to tell events differently from how they occured.

4. 40 years of this happening before it is even put into writing has a huge effect on the veracity of the telling of an event. Coupled with the fact that there is no way to verify the truth or falsity of this amazing event leads the Gospel accounts to be unreliable information.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:34 am

No, it really isn't. Testimony can be corroborative in the face of facts, but it isn't factual evidence.
like I said before, Please give me an example of the type of that would be acceptable to you.
That is open to debate and interpretation, roblaine.
OK, why don't you share your interpataion?
What overwhelming evidence? Nobody who lived with Jesus recorded it in the Gospels. The Gospels weren't written until at least 40 years after the claimed death of Jesus. 40 years of oral tradition and zealous believers aren't reliable.
What? Lets see, John lived with Jesus, Matthew lived with Jesus, and mark very likley was around Jesus, and would have had knowlagde of his life through common aquaintances (sp?). Only Luke could be said to have not acctually known Jesus. What evidence do you have that the Gospels were past down through orla tradition and authored by people other than those that they bear the name of?
Of course we have. What do you think ex-Christians are? People who accepted the claims of Christianity, believed it and then after further thought rejected those claims due to the same inabilities to provide facts.
Sorry Asimov, but this is a very weak argument. You did not give me evidence, you simply stated that people left the church. Leaving the church is not evidence. People leave the church for many reasons, and I assume that many of those were only members by name and not acctually followers of Christ.
What are you talking about? Where did I say I wasn't created? Claiming something is logical doesn't automatically make it logical, roblaine.
Ok, and I would say to you that claiming that the Bible is not reliable is not evidence that is is not reliable.
Hahaha...all in vain? Really? How does atheism presuppose no afterlife? You really have no idea what I believe, you assume a lot of things, make a few misrepresentations of my stand-point, not only that, but make a few naked assertions.

Do you expect me to admit that I am wrong? I hope not.
I don't want to missrepresent you view point, so please forgive me if I have. I can only make assumptions based on what you give me here. So please clarify yourself and explaine your view of the afterlife and where you came up with it and what evidence you have to back it up.

Thank you
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:00 am

Asimov you wrote:
1. Those passing on the oral tradition and "preaching" have an agenda, first and foremost, to spread the word and get followers.

2. Those passing on the oral tradition will tend to omit or change aspects of the story as it keeps getting told, especially when passed from person to person.

3. People even retelling events that they've seen themselves recollect events differently, or have a bias, or due to faulty observation tend to tell events differently from how they occured.

4. 40 years of this happening before it is even put into writing has a huge effect on the veracity of the telling of an event. Coupled with the fact that there is no way to verify the truth or falsity of this amazing event leads the Gospel accounts to be unreliable information.
I am putting you to work :wink: Those objections seem to be assertions rather than reasons. Knowing you realize this, I am sure you have no problem justifying them before claiming their validity, right?

Thanks guy, (or girl).
Last edited by _jeffreyclong on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:27 pm

roblaine wrote: like I said before, Please give me an example of the type of that would be acceptable to you.
Like I said before, facts.
OK, why don't you share your interpataion?
Why?
Lets see, John lived with Jesus, Matthew lived with Jesus, and mark very likley was around Jesus, and would have had knowlagde of his life through common aquaintances (sp?).
What are you talking about? The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John are anonymous writings, written decades after Jesus died. There is no way to verify your assertion.
Only Luke could be said to have not acctually known Jesus. What evidence do you have that the Gospels were past down through orla tradition and authored by people other than those that they bear the name of?
The scholarship of people who study these things and present them in peer-reviewed studies.
Sorry Asimov, but this is a very weak argument. You did not give me evidence, you simply stated that people left the church. Leaving the church is not evidence. People leave the church for many reasons, and I assume that many of those were only members by name and not acctually followers of Christ.
Dude, you said that atheists "have never been able to give evidence that would require and open minded person to reject it's claims." And I brought up the fact that ex-christians exist and have rejected.

Committing the no true scotsman fallacy doesn't suddenly negate my argument.
Ok, and I would say to you that claiming that the Bible is not reliable is not evidence that is is not reliable.
Completely inconsequential to what I was commenting on.
I don't want to missrepresent you view point, so please forgive me if I have. I can only make assumptions based on what you give me here. So please clarify yourself and explaine your view of the afterlife and where you came up with it and what evidence you have to back it up.

Thank you
You have done so a number of times. You keep asserting things that you think I believe without asking for clarification. You weren't making assumptions, you were making presuppositions based on me being an atheist.

I'm an objectivist, I don't believe in an afterlife.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:33 pm

I am putting you to work :wink: Those objections seem to be assertions rather than reasons. Knowing you realize this, I am sure you have no problem justifying them before claiming their validity, right?

Thanks guy, (or girl).
They are reasons. What part of what I said isn't justified?

1) They were told to go and spread the word, therefore they have an agenda.
2) This is a frequent problem with oral tradition, SoaringEagle. The telling of the story changes with the person telling it. This occurs because the person adds his own interpretation and personal flair to the telling.
3) This is observed and tested even today. Not to mention that reading a book 40-90 years after the fact when we can't verify that it is an eyewitness testimony also presents a problem to reliability.
4) 4 isn't an assertion.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:36 pm

I'm an objectivist...
Hi Asimov,

Are you an "objectivist" as is Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Just curious.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_roblaine
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by _roblaine » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:57 pm

Asimov I am going to conclude my conversation with a few remarks and then let you say what you will.
Like I said before, facts.
I cannot imagine any kind of facts that would satisfy you. When people are disscussing whether God exists, Jesus exists, or if Jesus was God the only kind of evidence that would be avialable is wittness testimony which is what we have in the Old and New testiment. If you are going to accuse people of bearing false wittness than please present your case. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the New Testament books are authord by people other than those that claim authorship.
What are you talking about? The Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John are anonymous writings, written decades after Jesus died. There is no way to verify your assertion.
Again, prove your case.
The scholarship of people who study these things and present them in peer-reviewed studies.
And you assume that scholars today would know better than those in the first, and secound century.
Dude, you said that atheists "have never been able to give evidence that would require and open minded person to reject it's claims." And I brought up the fact that ex-christians exist and have rejected.

Committing the no true scotsman fallacy doesn't suddenly negate my
argument.
No, but I could negate your argument by say that athiest have come to accept Christianty based on the historical evidence that is avialable(Lee Strobel).

I'm an objectivist, I don't believe in an afterlife.
Earlier you said:
Hahaha...all in vain? Really? How does atheism presuppose no afterlife?
and you wonder why I am forced to make assumptions. You obviosly have no clear beliefs, you just want to attack Christianity.

Thank you
Robin
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
God Bless

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:21 am

Derek wrote:
I'm an objectivist...
Hi Asimov,

Are you an "objectivist" as is Ayn Rand's philosophy?

Just curious.
Yes.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_SoaringEagle
Posts: 285
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: Louisville, KY

Post by _SoaringEagle » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:26 am

No problem.
1. Those passing on the oral tradition and "preaching" have an agenda, first and foremost, to spread the word and get followers.


Maybe I am just missing it, but I don't see how this affects the reliability of oral tradition.
2. Those passing on the oral tradition will tend to omit or change aspects of the story as it keeps getting told, especially when passed from person to person.
Kind of like me going to church tomorrow and telling a friend a certain sentence, and having them immediately tell their neighbor, and they tell their neighbor, and theirs, and theirs, and as it gets around and back to me it will be different from what I originally said as aspects of the sentence will be changed or omitted, right? :wink:
3. People even retelling events that they've seen themselves recollect events differently, or have a bias, or due to faulty observation tend to tell events differently from how they occured.
People of what century :?:
4. 40 years of this happening before it is even put into writing has a huge effect on the veracity of the telling of an event.
Yes, but I get the impression that you think that all of the things mentioned in the gospels and the book of Acts are fictional or made up.

christiancourier.com wrote:
A Religious Explosion
For some reason – that scarcely can be explained on ordinary bases – the religion of Christ exploded on the landscape of first-century society. Jesus had only a handful of men (the apostles) who functioned as the leaders of his cause. From this tiny seed came the mighty Christian movement.

On the day of its birth the community of believers consisted of a minimum of 3,000 persons (Acts 2:41). If the numeral 3,000 constituted only those immersed that day, and not those disciples previously baptized by John the Baptist (Mt. 3:5-6) and the Lord’s disciples (Jn. 4:1-2), the total was significantly larger. Within a relatively short period of time, the number of saints was computed at 5,000 adult men (Acts 4:4), not to mention the thousands of women who likewise were added to the body of believers.

It has been estimated that by the time Stephen was martyred (Acts 7:60), the Jerusalem church consisted of no fewer than 20,000 souls (Kistemaker, p. 148 ). This represented more than one-third of the estimated 55,000 citizens in Jerusalem at that time (Jeremias, p. 83).

Beyond that, the gospel rapidly spread from Palestine into Africa (Acts 8 ), Syria (Acts 9), Asia Minor (Acts 13ff), and finally into Europe (Acts 16ff). Paul, whose tireless travels spanned some 12,000 miles, evangelized from Jerusalem to Rome – and perhaps as far as Spain (Rom. 15:24,28 ).
Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 95) says that Paul reached “the boundary of the west” (1 Clement 5), which could be an allusion to Spain. Both Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 1.10.2) and Tertullian (Against Jews, 7) confirm the presence of Christians in Spain in the 2nd century A.D.

Christianity swept over the Roman empire like a tidal wave. The New Testament pays tribute to this phenomenal growth. The Christians were charged with having “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). Their “sound went out into all the earth” (Rom. 10:18 ); and was “bearing fruit” everywhere (Col. 1:6).

Historian Will Durant (following the lead of Edward Gibbon) argued that by A.D. 300, a quarter of the eastern segment of the empire was Christian, while about one twentieth of the western division was similarly identified (p. 603). Those figures are now considered to be too conservative.

E.M. Blaiklock has noted that studies of the catacombs beneath the city of Rome (about 600 miles of galleries) contain somewhere between 1,750,000 and 4,000,000 “Christian” graves. He estimates that in the middle Empire at least twenty percent of Rome’s citizenry was made up of Christians – and at times the percentage was greater even. [Note: These tombs reflect an association with the Christian cause, though many of those buried doubtless had digressed from the pristine format.] The catacombs represent ten generations of believers (p. 159). This would suggest that the city of Rome itself had somewhere between 175,000 to 400,000 Christians – each generation spanned! This is staggering.

The testimony of Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-220) is most dramatic: “Men proclaim that the state is beset with us. Every age, condition, and rank is coming over to us. We are only of yesterday, but already we fill the world” (Apology, 37.4).

Moreover, as we shall subsequently observe, this wild-fire growth was achieved under the most adverse circumstances. Again, the question cries out for an answer: What was the cause to which this amazing growth may be attributed? What natural circumstances can account for this?

There is another powerful fact that may be mentioned briefly at this point. The initial impact of the gospel was within the Jewish community. The nucleus of the early church was Hebrew. As indicated above, many thousands of Jews converted to Christianity. It is an indisputable historical fact, however, that the Jews were strict monotheists. To them, there was but one deity. And yet, without controversy is the fact that Jesus made the claim of being divine (cf. Jn. 5:18; 8:58; 10:30). Surely only the strongest sort of evidence would persuade a Jewish mind to acknowledge the humble Nazarene as “God” (cf. Jn. 20:28 ).
Source: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/july99.htm

This information, coupled with extra-biblical documents are very interesting.

SUETONIUS: (69-140 A.D.)
A Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. He refers to Christ and Christians and the "disturbances" caused by them, namely not worshipping idols and loving all, including their tormentors.

"Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome]." Acts 18:2, which took place in 49 A.D.

Life of Claudius, 25:4.

In another work Suetonius wrote about the the fire which devastated Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians and exacted a heavy punishment upon them, among them covering them with pitch and burning them alive in his gardens.

"Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief."

Lives of the Caesars, 26.2

... to be continued...
Last edited by _jeffreyclong on Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:

_Asimov
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:18 am

Post by _Asimov » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:30 am

roblaine wrote: I cannot imagine any kind of facts that would satisfy you. When people are disscussing whether God exists, Jesus exists, or if Jesus was God the only kind of evidence that would be avialable is wittness testimony which is what we have in the Old and New testiment. If you are going to accuse people of bearing false wittness than please present your case. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the New Testament books are authord by people other than those that claim authorship.
I'm not accusing people of bearing false witness. I'm stating that you can't verify that it's eye witness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is presented in a court with the witness there. We have a book that doesn't claim it was written by people who witnessed the event, and we have you who claims it was authored by people who knew Jesus.

If you think that is true, where are the facts then? How can we verify that?
Again, prove your case.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/c ... ian_nt.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_acc ... to_Matthew
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_Luke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_according_to_John

Those are some quick sources that provide as unbiased a review as possible.
And you assume that scholars today would know better than those in the first, and secound century.
Which scholars are those?
No, but I could negate your argument by say that athiest have come to accept Christianty based on the historical evidence that is avialable(Lee Strobel).
You're not negating my argument. You said atheists "have never been able to give evidence that would require and open minded person to reject it's claims." This is clearly false since christians have deconverted on more than one occasion due to argumentation and analyzation.
and you wonder why I am forced to make assumptions. You obviosly have no clear beliefs, you just want to attack Christianity.
I have very clear beliefs, I just don't want you assuming things without asking first.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”