There Is No God

[SputNik]

i cant understand why people still believe in a god.
i mean look at it this way. have you seen him? have you seen jesus? NO
the christian church didnt care about being a good example to its disciples. it just cared to have more power, to convert more people. surely not the will of god.
i just dont get it how can so many people believe in a book that has absoulutely not a shred of proof, a shred of anything close to evidence in it...

 

[Green Gaia]

Moved to debates......

 

[No*s]

i cant understand why people still believe in a god.
i mean look at it this way. have you seen him? have you seen jesus? NO
the christian church didnt care about being a good example to its disciples. it just cared to have more power, to convert more people. surely not the will of god.
i just dont get it how can so many people believe in a book that has absoulutely not a shred of proof, a shred of anything close to evidence in it...

Since you obviously do not believe the biblical accounts on the origins of Christianity contain any truth, would you inform me on how the Christianity started using the evidence we do have pertaining to the matter?

Once I know the mindset of the other guy, I can start addressing arguments and building one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

i cant understand why people still believe in a god.
i mean look at it this way. have you seen him? have you seen jesus? NO
the christian church didnt care about being a good example to its disciples
it just cared to have more power, to convert more people. surely not the will of god.
i just dont get it how can so many people believe in a book that has absoulutely not a shred of proof, a shred of anything close to evidence in it...

---
OK, you are denying all testimonies of the divine from every religion, but you are specifically aiming your argument at Christianity. It looks like a specific denial of the Christian witness with two examples: no one has ever seen God (and no living person today has seen Jesus) and the injustice wrought by the followers of Jesus nullify their witness.

"have you seen him? have you seen jesus?" This is a rhetorical question, but it implies that Jesus has never existed, and anyone would be a fool to beleive so without "one shred of proof." Actually, there are plenty of shreds, as the existence of Jesus is recorded by both ancient and modern historians. Only a few scholars deny the existence of the historical Jesus. No one alive today has seen Homer, either. For historical proof of Jesus, see two anceint witnesses Josephus, a Jew in his work Antiquities 3.3.3, Eusebius (Eccesiastical History).

" NO the christian church didnt care about being a good example to its disciples
it just cared to have more power, to convert more people. surely not the will of god."
Here you are either unaware of or are ignoring history, as above. You will see from Eusebius that all of the disciples and most of the early popes were martryered. You are skipping from early history of the church to the middle ages, that is 1400 years of history.

"i just dont get it how can so many people believe in a book" This is without doubt your best point, but again ignoring some important historical facts. The Bible has a wealth of historical validity. I will start with the NT. The NT has a wealth of ancient testimony that assures it is the teaching of the apostles and Jesus (see the early fathers if you are interested). It has the authoritative teachings, but whether or not they are true is entirely another matter. However, you should know that every writer and most of the early witnesses that preserved it gave their lives to ensure that it was passed on. Belief in the OT is completely useless if you are going to presuppose that God doesn't exist. However, rejecting it does have something to do with how humans can discover truth.

Here, there are essentially two views. One can discover truth by philosophy (and in philosophy, by rational or by experience). The other method is by prophesy, of which the OT is a record. It propesies the coming Christ, whom Christians identify as Jesus. If you want a meatier response, see Justin Martyr's Apologies. I can provide links to these sources if you are actually interested in "shreds of proof".

There are plenty of "shreds" and I am not sure why you ignored them here.

Have fun

 

[Pah]

..."have you seen him? have you seen jesus?" This is a rhetorical question, but it implies that Jesus has never existed, and anyone would be a fool to beleive so without "one shred of proof." Actually, there are plenty of shreds, as the existence of Jesus is recorded by both ancient and modern historians. Only a few scholars deny the existence of the historical Jesus. No one alive today has seen Homer, either. For historical proof of Jesus, see Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, and the modern writer Josh McDowell (Evidence that Demands a Verdict).

There is evidence in scholarship of Christianity and absolutely none of Christ. I have McDowell's second revision and he confuses the two as well.

The evidence is entirely personal. If you believe the Bible - if you believe revelation of the Holy Ghost, (and I think that is all that can be presented as evidence) it is still only something within yourself. Archeology does not prove that what happened , according to the Bible, happened in the places it found. There is no evidence except personal faith. History does not confirm the figurehead but only the movement that worshipped the figurehead.

" NO the christian church didnt care about being a good example to its disciples
it just cared to have more power, to convert more people. surely not the will of god."
Here you are either unaware of or are ignoring history, as above. You will see from Eusebius that all of the disciples and most of the early popes were martryered. You are skipping from early history of the church to the middle ages, that is 1400 years of history.

Martyrdom of some of the popes and apostles is scholastically contentious. The church enjoyed a persecution free period much earlier than you stated with annointing of the Church by Constitine(sp?). Since then secular leaders curried favor with Rome (The Holy Roman Empire) and realms were sold to bishops and cardinals of the church - well before the 1400's

"i just dont get it how can so many people believe in a book" This is without doubt your best point, but again ignoring some important historical facts. The Bible has a wealth of historical validity. I will start with the NT. The NT has a wealth of ancient testimony that assures it is the teaching of the apostles and Jesus (see the early fathers if you are interested). It has the authoritative teachings, but whether or not they are true is entirely another matter. However, you should know that every writer and most of the early witnesses that preserved it gave their lives to ensure that it was passed on.

Testimony from the Bible to prove the Bible is falacious

"Every writer" "most of the early witnesses" is crap. You don't even know the names of the authors.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I will provide a quote from the anceint Jewish historian Josephus from the work "The Antiquities of the Jews," book three, chapter three, verse three. It reads, "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the divine prophets had fortold these and ten thousand other woderful things concerning him; and the tribe of the Christians, so named from him, are not extint to this day."

This quote is taken from the English translation by William Whiston.

 

[Pah]

I will provide a quote from the anceint Jewish historian Josephus from the work "The Antiquities of the Jews," book three, chapter three, verse three. It reads, "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, as the divine prophets had fortold these and ten thousand other woderful things concerning him; and the tribe of the Christians, so named from him, are not extint to this day."

This quote is taken from the English translation by William Whiston.

And it is said to be a forgery

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Every writer" "most of the early witnesses" is crap. You don't even know the names of the authors.[/QUOTE]I am not sure what you are talking about here. Eusebius tracked the canonization of the Scriptures. I mentioned him earlier. I am not sure if you will read it, but the testimony is there. It only proves that the teaching of the NT are apostolic teaching and that Jesus in fact lived. The apostles taught that Jesus was God. That is what we cannot prove and must be taken by faith. If I were you, I would center my energies on the true foolishness of Christianity: the belief that a man who died on a cross is the one true God and Savior of the world. I can list the authors from Eusebius, but you can read it for yourself if you like. Eusebius, Church History, 144-148. I am using the 2004 edition of Robert's series of the Nicene and Early Nicene Fathers.

 

[Sunstone]

i cant understand why people still believe in a god.
i mean look at it this way. have you seen him? have you seen jesus? NO
the christian church didnt care about being a good example to its disciples. it just cared to have more power, to convert more people. surely not the will of god.
i just dont get it how can so many people believe in a book that has absoulutely not a shred of proof, a shred of anything close to evidence in it...

I tend to agree with your conclusions, Sputnik, but not with your premisses. Are there other reasons you do not believe there is a god?

 

[Pah]

"Every writer" "most of the early witnesses" is crap. You don't even know the names of the authors.

I am not sure what you are talking about here. Eusebius tracked the canonization of the Scriptures. I mentioned him earlier. I am not sure if you will read it, but the testimony is there. It only proves that the teaching of the NT are apostolic teaching and that Jesus in fact lived. The apostles taught that Jesus was God. That is what we cannot prove and must be taken by faith. If I were you, I would center my energies on the true foolishness of Christianity: the belief that a man who died on a cross is the one true God and Savior of the world. I can list the authors from Eusebius, but you can read it for yourself if you like. Eusebius, Church History, 144-148. I am using the 2004 edition of Robert's series of the Nicene and Early Nicene Fathers.

The books of the bible were given names of Aposles to make then authoritive. I was a practise that developed after the names of the books were taken from the first words of the book. Scholors think that some disciples wrote the books but do not have verification.

As long as you reference "testimony" you are only giving anecdotal evidence. That is so suspect that it is not allowed in courts

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It might help the discussion if we had a definition for "God". Otherwise, we might as well debate the existence of "kwyjibo".

 

[No*s]

There is evidence in scholarship of Christianity and absolutely none of Christ. I have McDowell's second revision and he confuses the two as well.

I don't think I would concur with this. Take I Clement, which has a disputed date of either 90 or 70. It makes arguments from Christ's life and His teachings. Other Early Christian documents from the first and second centuries make such appeals.

That leaves us with two possible conclusions:

1). Somebody made up the man, and all the teachings are false.
2). There really was a Christ and these men hearkened to Him, at least in part.

The early documents do refer to a single man who started Christianity. Most scholars do believe in a historical Christ. So, we have evidence, and we have scholarly testimony to his existence. Now, if you deny that these are evidence, then it is incumbant upon you to construct a scenario to explain these testimonies more concisely and simply than asserting the historical existence of Christ. After that, the scholarly testimony falls.

The evidence is entirely personal. If you believe the Bible - if you believe revelation of the Holy Ghost, (and I think that is all that can be presented as evidence) it is still only something within yourself. Archeology does not prove that what happened , according to the Bible, happened in the places it found. There is no evidence except personal faith. History does not confirm the figurehead but only the movement that worshipped the figurehead.

I largely agree. Even when we can cast some evidence on biblical claims, it doesn't constitute proof of its divine claims. They are indeed two separate issues.

Martyrdom of some of the popes and apostles is scholastically contentious. The church enjoyed a persecution free period much earlier than you stated with annointing of the Church by Constitine(sp?). Since then secular leaders curried favor with Rome (The Holy Roman Empire) and realms were sold to bishops and cardinals of the church - well before the 1400's

I think you've made a few errors in history. First, the Holy Roman Empire was never Roman. It was a Frankish empire in the Middle Ages.

There were no cardinals till the eigth or ninth century. They only exist in the west. They could not have curried favor with Rome since then. They didn't exist.

Even with Constantine, there was no unified rule. After his time, there were mutliple concurrant emperors, all ruling different regions for one empire. For instance, one of Constantine's sons was Trinitarian, while another (Constantius) was Arian. Total unification under one ruler never really happened until after the West fell, which left one Emperor for the Roman Empire (which existed simultaneously with the "Holy Roman Empire").

Some Christian areas were never under the power of Rome, and they never enjoyed control of the society. For instance, the Christians in Iran never had supremacy, but passed from Zoroastrian rule to Muslim rule. Christians existed as far east as India well before the Edict of Milan. How, then, could they rewrite these details by currying favor with Rome? Christianity was bigger than Rome. These churches still exist, by the way.

The above historical errors are pretty severe. They are also common ones, so I understand entirely (For example, I can see how the Roman Empire could be confused with the Holy Roman Empire).

Testimony from the Bible to prove the Bible is falacious

It is to prove the Bible, but biblical testimony to the historocity of Christ is not fallacious. It serves that purpose well, and I believe that is what Nate was trying to do. He could have worded it better, though, I'll admit.

"Every writer" "most of the early witnesses" is crap. You don't even know the names of the authors.

Pah, I don't know how to put this other than bluntly, but with the historical errors you made, I don't think that the insult can carry any weight.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The books of the bible were given names of Aposles to make then authoritive. I was a practise that developed after the names of the books were taken from the first words of the book. Scholors think that some disciples wrote the books but do not have verification.

As long as you reference "testimony" you are only giving anecdotal evidence. That is so suspect that it is not allowed in courts

Thanks very much for the clarification. I knew that I did not use that terminology in the above discussion. The names are quite irrelevant, it is the content that matters. The authorship of the Gospels is well attested and the names were not given lightly. Simply because I did not list the references does not mean that I do not know the early witnesses. I am writing a paper for No*s concerning the early witnesses regarding the authority, nature, and role of the NT. The early witnesses are none other than the apostolic fathers. The fathers give testimony to the authority and use the the NT. If you are interested I can sed you a copy. I should be finished in a few weeks. I am not interested in quoting them as we go along in our discussion. If you are in a hurry you can read the apostolic fathers for yourself. They are available online. I would give you a hyperlink but my computer is too slow to look around for them, No*s can locate them for you if you like. I will provide a list of authors and titles which I have found helpful; in my paper I will provide quotes and critical notes if time permits.

A casual reading of Clement of Alexandria, Mathetes, Polycarp, Barnabas, and Papias will show that they use Pauline writings as Scripture and use the Gospels as authoritative

Listed below are specific areas in which the fathers explain the nature of Scripture

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Chapters IX-X, XXVI, XXXIII-XXXVII
Theophilus to Autolycus, Chapter XVII
Athenogoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter IX
Justin Martyr- love his stuff- his entire plea in both Apologies and his Exhortation of the Heathen is a request is for prudent people to read the Scriptures to understand Christianity. See Exhortation of the Heathen, chapter I, VI-IX

I will provide quotes in my paper.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

It might help the discussion if we had a definition for "God". Otherwise, we might as well debate the existence of "kwyjibo".

An especially good point.

I'm a bit saddened that the person only seems to be questioning the Christian god. *whines rhetorically* Why can't polytheists ever join in these arguments?!

 

[linwood]

For historical proof of Jesus, see two anceint witnesses Josephus, a Jew in his work Antiquities 3.3.3, Eusebius (Eccesiastical History).

Just FYI Majik the Josephus passages are hotly disputed by scholars and Eusebus simply co-opted what Josephus had done before him.

Not to mention that the Josephus writings about Jesus were written well after his crucifiction therefore Josephus was no eye witness.
For all we know he could simply be using Christian writings as a source.

You will see from Eusebius that all of the disciples and most of the early popes were martryered.

Eusebius is the only place I know of that mentions the death of the disciples.

Personally I wouldn`t take the word of a man who claimed to record only those events that would make the church look good and in a manner that would make them look better.

 

[linwood]

If you are interested I can sed you a copy. I should be finished in a few weeks. I am not interested in quoting them as we go along in our discussion. If you are in a hurry you can read the apostolic fathers for yourself. They are available online. I would give you a hyperlink but my computer is too slow to look around for them, No*s can locate them for you if you like.

If there is evidence of a historical Jesus I`m interested.

NO*S do you have a link or two?

 

[SoulTYPE]

What are your beliefs, really "sputnik"?

Although I agree with alot of your statements..the bible had to come from somewhere. Generations have relayed the bible, and it is not some "Novel" like shakespeare.

If the Dead Sea scrolls did not have any bearings, why were they written? Why were they relayed?

More input please..

SPINKS you spelt Qwyjybo wrong, BTW:tsk::biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The testimony to the authority of the New Testament by the apostolic fathers is threee fold: 1) the usage (quotation) of the New Testament before it was canonized in the teaching of the fathers 2) how the Scriptures were used by the fathers and 3) the teachings of the fathers concerning the Scriptures. I have outlined above some places where the fathers taught about the Scriptures. You can find the apostolic fathers online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ . The footnotes are excellent if you can get to them. You will see that the fathers use the New Testament on par with the Old Testament, and consider both as the teachings of God. A casual reading of the works will at least show that the New Testament has authority for the church. It cannot prove the existence of God, as we have stated previously. It has been implied in the discussion above that the NT has little or no authority for the church, which is why this post is even here. Have fun everyone.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just FYI Majik the Josephus passages are hotly disputed by scholars and Eusebus simply co-opted what Josephus had done before him.

Not to mention that the Josephus writings about Jesus were written well after his crucifiction therefore Josephus was no eye witness.
For all we know he could simply be using Christian writings as a source.

Eusebius is the only place I know of that mentions the death of the disciples.

Personally I wouldn`t take the word of a man who claimed to record only those events that would make the church look good and in a manner that would make them look better.

First, Jospehus was a responsible and reliable historian. Furthermore, he was a Jew and not a Christian, and has nothing to gain by giving us faulty information concerning Jesus, particularly because it is favorable to the Christian witness. Second, the desire to throw out Eusebius based on the fact that he is a Christian is very irresponsible. Based on this reasoning, you would have to throw out almost every history in our libraries. Histories are written by people who are generally part of the area to which the history is addressed. For example, American histories are written by Americans, and so on. Histories written by those uninvolved is an entirely new phenomenon. Now we are seeing Americans writing histories of the Nazis and so on, but they are filled with testimony from those who are close to the situation. When we read history we should be aware of bias and expect those who write them to hand down their history to us reliably.

As you read Eusebius, it is evident that there are some errors. Also, scholars have challenged everything under the sun, and philosophers have gone where scientist cannot go in challenging and defining everything else. Just because scholars have challenged it does not mean we should throw it out. We should instead responsibly consider its testimony.

Thanks

 

[linwood]

Very cool link angellous, thank you.
I must apologise for calling you Majik in my previous post as your avatar is the same as another users here and I apparently wasn`t paying very good attention to who I was replying to.

It has been implied in the discussion above that the NT has little or no authority for the church, which is why this post is even here.

I would not be one implying that so again I might have spoken out of turn.