Jesus Was The Son Of God

» Home » Miscellaneous

First, I want to show you this video: Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9RDHHpfKJw Lee here is a former atheist who set out to prove Jesus did not exist. Look at my post below to see writers who wrote about him within one century of his death, and no longer.

XieXie

05 Aug 2008 16:37

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Jesus is God the Son !

v00v

15 Dec 2008 03:11

1 Comment

yes.He is.

Rapunzel

15 Dec 2008 03:53

Comment

OK, sorry about the wait, 7th grade and summer are priorities before this :)

Anyways, there are 3 steps to proving Jesus' existence.
1. Eyewitness accounts. Josephus and the many other writers ( around 40 ) mentioning him.
2.Miracles. "Don't believe me unless I do miracles of God." - John 10:37
3. Prophecy. Jesus filled 50+ prophecies from the Old Testament.
And Hizashi, I'm copying your layout. :)

Eyewitness accounts
Around 50 eyewitness accounts from out of the Bible record Jesus' existence, death, and resurrection. Other than the others below, I would like to point out Josephus. Josephus wrote, as a Jew, specifically about Jesus' death and Resurrection.

Other Witnesses include people mentioned in the Bible such as the Praetorian guard, Roman soldiers, and multiple other people who hated Jesus. (Please note: The reason they are in the Bible is because people don't normally write their own biography, and even if they did... They weren't mass copied.)
Other prominent writers who wrote about Jesus include:
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
Among others... Unlisted.

Miracles
As I said before, Jesus told people not to believe him if he did not preform miracles... And he did, with eyewitness accounts. Water-Wine, Leperous Healing, et etc. Now, the whole reliability of this is on witnesses... Which I cannot individually name except through non-Christian writers as above.

Prophecy
Prophecy, from a world view, is unreliable. Take, for instance, the Doomsday Prophecy... Until it is either ....
A) Fufilled
-or-
B) Disproven

...no one can really can really say if it is true or not. The Same applies to Jesus. Jesus DID fufill prophecy... Over 50. So, why can't we say he was at least accurate? The reason is denial, wouldn't it be? This is not meant to be an attack... But, wouldn't it be convenient for atheists if Jesus Christ did not exist?

Http://www.consider.org/library/earlyref.htm

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

To be continued.... Sorry about that.

XieXie

11 Oct 2008 01:18

5 Comments

Logically, as a seeker of the truth, I would like to have the answers to such questions raised by this subject. So, in order to receive answers, I will challenge everything you’ve posted as evidence supporting the existence of Jesus from a skeptical point of view. If the evidence can’t stand up to skeptics, it’s not very reliable evidence. I’ll judge, and check, your responses myself and see if what you state is accurate enough for me to be swayed. It seems as though you appear to be trying to validate the existence of Jesus more than the super-naturalistic phenomenon involved with his biblical stories. To be honest, the latter of the two seems much more complicated to rationalize. Either way, I’ll cover the three basic evidences you brought to the table, making statements and/or requests for each.

“1. Eyewitness accounts. Josephus and the many other writers ( around 40 ) mentioning him.”

Note how none of the eyewitness sources of Jesus which refer to him by name come anywhere else but the Bible. Also, I would like for you to name one writer who used Jesus’ actual name in their work, instead of referring to “The Messiah” or a title similar to such. If there are no accounts of any writer referring to Jesus directly, how can anyone be sure they were referring to Jesus at all?

“2. Miracles. "Don't believe me unless I do miracles of God." - John 10:37”

Again, none of these miracles are referred to anywhere but the Bible as far as I’m aware of. One would think that such miraculous events would be recorded elsewhere.

“3. Prophecy. Jesus filled 50+ prophecies from the Old Testament.”

I explained a little bit about “prophecies” in my response to your comment under my post. I’d be happy to discuss more about the topic if you’d like.

Overall, in order to use the Bible as a credible source when debating such subjects, one would first have to demonstrate to me the legitimacy of the book itself. In my viewpoint, the Bible is not automatically the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it does not justify its own claims in my perspective as other believe it does. It’s as Sander stated previously. It’s logically flawed to attempt using a system to prove its own validity. If you expect to have any chance of convincing me, you’re going to have to either demonstrate the Bible’s accuracy, or use non-Christian sources for everything.

Hizashi

13 Oct 2008 05:45

Comment

“1. Eyewitness accounts. Josephus and the many other writers ( around 40 ) mentioning him.”

Note how none of the eyewitness sources of Jesus which refer to him by name come anywhere else but the Bible. Also, I would like for you to name one writer who used Jesus’ actual name in their work, instead of referring to “The Messiah” or a title similar to such. If there are no accounts of any writer referring to Jesus directly, how can anyone be sure they were referring to Jesus at all?

“2. Miracles. "Don't believe me unless I do miracles of God." - John 10:37”

Again, none of these miracles are referred to anywhere but the Bible as far as I’m aware of. One would think that such miraculous events would be recorded elsewhere.

“3. Prophecy. Jesus filled 50+ prophecies from the Old Testament.”

I explained a little bit about “prophecies” in my response to your comment under my post. I’d be happy to discuss more about the topic if you’d like.

Overall, in order to use the Bible as a credible source when debating such subjects, one would first have to demonstrate to me the legitimacy of the book itself. In my viewpoint, the Bible is not automatically the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And it does not justify its own claims in my perspective as other believe it does. It’s as Sander stated previously. It’s logically flawed to attempt using a system to prove its own validity. If you expect to have any chance of convincing me, you’re going to have to either demonstrate the Bible’s accuracy, or use non-Christian sources for everything.

Comment

“1. Eyewitness accounts. Josephus and the many other writers ( around 40 ) mentioning him.”

“2. Miracles. "Don't believe me unless I do miracles of God." - John 10:37”

Again, none of these miracles are referred to anywhere but the Bible as far as I’m aware of. One would think that such miraculous events would be recorded elsewhere.

“3. Prophecy. Jesus filled 50+ prophecies from the Old Testament.”

I explained a little bit about “prophecies” in my response to your comment under my post. I’d be happy to discuss more about the topic if you’d like.

Comment

The Bible's Accuracy 
by XieXie

The only way to make a starting point in Jesus' existence is to prove the accuracy of The Holy Bible, in which I intend to to.

There are three reasons in which the Bible can be proved accurate. One is by prophecy, two by science, and three by history. Now, for the purpose of this argument, lets say we are all totally agnostic... after this, what would you lean towards in terms of accuracy?

History
	The Bible, being a giant historical record (especially towards the Old Testament), recorded many things that we would  not know of today without the Bibles' existence. Take, for instance, the Hittites. The Hittite people were never believed to exist until 1906. Prior to then, no evidence had been found in support of the Hittite people. However, in 1906, archeologists found ruins of an ancient city in northern Turkey by the name of Hattusa, the capital of Hittites. It was excavated in the modern day town of Boğazkale, Turkey. Why was it originally not believed to exist? The Bible was doubted as a good source.

Other theories have arose within Pontius Pilate. In John 19:12, John wrote "you're no friend of Caesar." Many leading Skeptics say this was not true; the Bible portrayed him as perfectly fine with Julius Caesar. However, this is wrong. Pontius Pilate was appointed by a man named "Sejanus". Sajanus was executed with a number of his helpers after being proven to plan to overthrow Caesar. This gave reason of suspicion to Pilate, however he was not arrested. If Pilate messed up on one thing, it would not look good for him. 
   	
 For more info:
http://www.christianadvice.net/the_bible_as_history.htm
http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html

Science
	The Bible is very scientifically accurate, as well. Again, the Bible 'knew' things scientifically that people did not know for millenia... take a look at this chart:
 http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/CheckableBiblicalAccuracy.html
 http://www.carm.org/bible/ms_science.htm

All these things were not 'proven' until the modern century... yet atheists refused to believe it. Why? They regarded the Bible as doubtable. Some of the accuracies in the lists include:
The Earth is suspended in nothing
	1.	"He spreads out the northern[skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing,"(Job. 26:7, NIV).
	2.	The Common belief was that the earth was held up my deities. 
	The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
	1.	"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!...When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,...You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet...the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that **swim the paths of the seas" (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).
	2.	The Hydrologic Cycle
	3.	"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job. 26:8, NIV).
	4.	"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job. 36:27-28, NIV)
	5.	"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV)
	6.	
		These are among many found in the sites above. And, none were believed until proven by modern science.

Prophecy
	The Bible is filled with prophecy, especially in the Old Testament. Having that said, every single one was fulfilled by Jesus Christ... yet why are they not reliable? Predicted hundreds of years before Jesus' name was even known, they set criteria for the authenticity. This proves accuracy in that the Bible know what it is talking about :)

Comment

"There are three reasons in which the Bible can be proved accurate. One is by prophecy, two by science, and three by history. Now, for the purpose of this argument, lets say we are all totally agnostic…”

I am agnostic.

“..after this, what would you lean towards in terms of accuracy?”

I would say anything that is objectively evidential would classify as an accurate point, ruling out any assertions that are clearly subjective or a product of interpretation.

“The Bible, being a giant historical record (especially towards the Old Testament), recorded many things that we would not know of today without the Bibles' existence. Take, for instance, the Hittites. The Hittite people were never believed to exist until 1906. Prior to then, no evidence had been found in support of the Hittite people. However, in 1906, archeologists found ruins of an ancient city in northern Turkey by the name of Hattusa, the capital of Hittites. It was excavated in the modern day town of Boğazkale, Turkey. Why was it originally not believed to exist? The Bible was doubted as a good source.”

To be honest, this is something I did not know. I’ll assume, for the sake of the argument, that what you say about the Hittites is correct. However, I have no reason to believe that a single accurate historical point spoken of by the Bible shows overall historical accuracy of the book itself.

“Other theories have arose within Pontius Pilate. In John 19:12, John wrote "you're no friend of Caesar." Many leading Skeptics say this was not true; the Bible portrayed him as perfectly fine with Julius Caesar. However, this is wrong. Pontius Pilate was appointed by a man named "Sejanus". Sajanus was executed with a number of his helpers after being proven to plan to overthrow Caesar. This gave reason of suspicion to Pilate, however he was not arrested. If Pilate messed up on one thing, it would not look good for him.”

Once again, accuracy on individual points doesn’t prove overall accuracy. If the Bible is not completely accurate on all historical points, then it is not a historical textbook. Meaning, all I would have to do is point out one passage that is not historically accurate in order to refute your claims about the Bible being a historical textbook. Can you honestly tell me that the Bible is accurate on every historical point it speaks of? If not, why are you even assuming that it should be used as a history book?

“The Bible is very scientifically accurate, as well. Again, the Bible 'knew' things scientifically that people did not know for millenia... take a look at this chart:”

The scientific accuracy of the Bible is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures. I’ll demonstrate below.

“1. "He spreads out the northern[skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing,"(Job. 26:7, NIV).”

Job 38:4-6 refers to earth having a foundation and footings, in direct contradiction to the idea that it is unsupported. Job 26:11 says heaven is supported by pillars. Many verses throughout the Bible refer to a solid firmament. I seriously doubt that this verse, like the ones I listed above, were meant to represent Hebrew views of geography. If they were, you have to admit that they contradict one another constantly.

Before continuing, I would like to ask if you plan on playing the “Scripture Game” this entire conversation? If all you’re going to do is pick and choose passages from the Bible to support your points, we’re not really going to get anywhere. I can pick and choose just as many passages that contradict one another as you can ones that are supposedly scientifically and historically accurate. It’s all about interpretation. I’m sure if I picked passages that I claimed contradicted one another, you would assert that I was interpreting them incorrectly and that the verses don’t really mean what I say they do. I can do the exact same thing with the passages you choose. This is the problem I find when it comes to relying on the Bible for accurate points. Anything within the Bible can be interpreted to mean almost anything, as whether or not a verse is literal, metaphorical, or symbolic all depends on who’s reading it. Quoting passages from the Bible to show scientific or historical accuracy isn’t going to get you anywhere with me, as you would first have to demonstrate that the Bible itself is a scientific or historical textbook by proving that all of its scientific and historical points are accurate themselves, which you have not done as of yet.

“The Bible is filled with prophecy, especially in the Old Testament. Having that said, every single one was fulfilled by Jesus Christ... yet why are they not reliable? Predicted hundreds of years before Jesus' name was even known, they set criteria for the authenticity. This proves accuracy in that the Bible know what it is talking about”

I’ve also already stated that these “prophecies” are extremely vague and can be interpreted to mean almost anything depending on who’s reading them. This reason proves nothing in my perspective.

Overall, your reasons for demonstrating the Bible’s validity appear to be entirely subjective (save for the one thing you mentioned about the Hittites). As I stated at the beginning of this post, anything that isn’t objective will not be included as being accurate from my standpoint. You’ll find that while the evidence and reasoning you present may be good enough to sway a believer of the Bible, the same stuff is quite weak when it comes to convincing someone outside of Christianity. Unlike what you stated at the start of your previous post, you don’t appear to be approaching this situation from an agnostic point of view.

Comment

"The Bible, being a giant historical record (especially towards the Old Testament), recorded many things that we would not know of today without the Bibles' existence."

Hi Xie. Bit of trouble with this bit here. Because (as Hizashi pointed out above) if the bible got some things right, that doesn't mean it is right on everything. You mention the old testament. Noah's great flood is a good example of something that was 'proved' by science. Unfortunately all that was proved was that there have been some big floods (usually at the end of ice ages) over the millennia. What was not proved was the wiping out of all animals except a handful of each species , the existence of an Ark, the existence of humans at the times of any world-covering flood, or the existence of any flood covering the whole world in the first place. Here we have a 'fact' that has been proved (large floods in pre-history), and a whole lot of story piled on top of it. The truth of the fact doesn't make any of the rest of it true.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that the Ark is a metaphor, Noah just a tool in the great story-box of God. Unfortunately, in arguing this point, religious people also seem to undermine all faith we can put in the accuracy of the Bible as a historical or scientific document.

A century is the difference between us and President Taft. Are you a reliable eyewitness to the existence of President Taft? And this just goes to proving the man Jesus existed. I can dig up thousands of eyewitness accounts that John Edwards speaks to the dead; I still know he’s just a fast talking conman. There can be no definitive proof as to the nature of the divine in the natural world. That is the cards we have in front of us. We are all left to make our decisions in the midst of conflicting, confusing, and contradictory evidence that can be and is interpreted by many different people in many different ways.
So as to the historic Jesus I keep my mind open but remain doubtful. As to the divine Jesus, I’ve never felt the need to look outside of my own heart to find redemption.

finsch

11 Oct 2008 16:49

Add a Comment

What Mosschops said. Although I am quite surprised that there hasn't been any posts on the other side judging by the other religious debates I've seen so far.

Evileye

06 Oct 2008 14:02

Add a Comment

The bible is really screwy because it makes no sense. Jesus was born fom Mary who was a virgin. NO SHE WASN'T! Ever tried having a baby without sex, it's impossible without IVF (which they didn't have). It wasan immactulate conception: No such thing. God doesn't exist so how he can be the son of god is beyond me.

Tromanator

02 Oct 2008 10:41

Add a Comment

It's all been said already in the posts below. I post to lodge my vote.

Mosschops

06 Aug 2008 10:36

Add a Comment

As of now, I’m still researching and going through serious thought about whether or not a man named Jesus actually existed previously. However, for the sake of the argument, I’ll proceed with the assumption that he did. Since some have asked that Lee Strobel’s points about Jesus be refuted before they doubt them, I intend to do so. I’ll address each one of Strobel’s points individually.

Miracles:
This is a tough claim to refute, because it is also a tough claim to make in front of skeptics while remaining so confident. The answer “miracles prove Jesus’ divinity” may be good enough for a religious person, but you must keep in mind that it is almost useless when speaking to anyone outside the boundaries of a faith that admires Jesus. Now, to my current knowledge, there is no source, outside of religious context that idolized Jesus, where you can find documented evidence for such miracles. The reason you need an outside source is due to the fact that if you attempt to use the Bible or other religious text to act as evidence to prove Jesus’ divinity, you run into the problem of what I call confirmation bias, which is the act of interpreting evidence given to make it fit with whatever theory you’re supporting. Now, the reason I say this is because religious people who idolize Jesus have every reason to believe in him and his divinity, whereas those who don’t will not see the same things you do as being confirmation of anything of the sort. This is why outside sources are so important. It’s like a group of only guys writing a book about how it has been proven that men are obviously better than women. Well, women later read the letter, but notice that only that group of guys said such a thing. So now, they want an outside source to confirm this rather than just believing what that one group claims to be true. This is somewhat the same situation with Jesus and religious text. By any chance you, or anyone else, did find documented evidence outside of religious text concerning the topic of Jesus’ divinity, you would then have to prove the text’s validity. So this is a task that is definitely not an easy one, yet people all too often mistake it for something that is simple to demonstrate.

Jesus’ Followers:
This one also kind of falls into the same category as the first one. If you can not demonstrate that people outside of Biblical scripture or other religious text mentioned Jesus or talked about his divinity, you’re in a little bit of trouble when it comes to convincing skeptics. Now, many of Jesus’ followers are not mentioned outside of the Bible that I’m aware of. So, many people turn to other sources such as Josephus, Plenty the Younger, ect. But, there’s also another problem when one turns to those writers for proof. None of these writers, to my knowledge, ever say anything about someone named Jesus of Nazareth, or even give a name at all when mentioning what many people claim to be a sited source of evidence for Jesus. Almost all of the writers who are claimed to mention Jesus in their writing use the word “Messiah”. Now, messiah is a title, not a name. It means “the anointed one”. Using the term “messiah” in my writing is no different from me using the terms “actor” or “teacher”. These terms do not necessarily point to one person. Automatically claiming that the word “messiah” in their writings refers to Jesus is definitely a leap of faith. Until that one word can be directly linked to Jesus, it’s not a valid point to use when attempting to prove anything.

Prophecy:
Now, I usually keep an open mind on almost anything I’m on the topic of. However, prophecy is not something I believe in. There are many ways to create a prophecy and make it seem divinely inspired. So for this portion of the refutation I’ll simply ask to see these prophecies that spoke of Jesus being divine. Now, my “prophecy” for this topic is that no prophecy I’m given will not either be ridiculously vague or be taken out of context.

Resurrection:
This one at this point should be obvious, considering what I’ve stated about Strobel’s other evidences so far. But alas, I’ll go over them one by one since he gave subcategories for this particular “proof”.

Empty Tomb - Now I’m aware that the Bible states the tomb was empty due to the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. But let’s be reasonable here. An empty tomb suggests that there was either never a body within that tomb before at all or that the body was taken from the tomb in some way. The idea that the empty tomb proves Jesus was resurrected is once again a form of confirmation bias in my opinion.

Eyewitnesses - I’m not aware of any of these eyewitnesses that are mentioned outside of Biblical scripture or other religious text, which leads unto what I said earlier in this post.

Nature of Resurrection - I’m not sure how this one differs from the eyewitness claims, but it falls prey to the same reasoning.

Lawyer - I’m surprised this was even counted as an evidence for anything. No one’s opinion, no matter how intelligent there are, is considered objective evidence of anything other than the fact that that’s their personal subjective views on the situation.

Hizashi

05 Aug 2008 20:54

7 Comments

Holy cow how do you follow that act.

finsch

06 Aug 2008 06:13

Comment

Your post demonstrates exactly what I was speaking of when I mentioned confirmation bias.

“Let me disprove your resurection theory, you say that there never was a body in the tomb, firstly, there is documented history that shows that Jesus was a real person, (even if you dont believe he was God's son).”

So, where is this documented history you speak of and is it considered an outside source like I mentioned needed to be shown?

“Secondly we have forensic evidence from the shroud of Turin that points out that the dirt on it and the cloth that its made of is from the middle east or Jerusalem to be more specific.”

Unfortunately for you I’ve already researched the Shroud of Turin previously, so accurate sounded claims like this aren’t going to sway me from the fact that this statement is extremely exaggerated.

“The blood on the shroud also left an imprint of a man and the blood proves to be male and from the area of the cloth and carbon dating also shows that it was from the time of Jesus.”

First of all, the thing you said about “the blood proves to be male” is false. I don’t know where you got that from (maybe confirmation bias). In reality, they don’t know from whom or from where the blood originated. So, for all we know as of now, the blood could be from almost anyone. We also don’t even know when the blood stains came to be on the Shroud of Turin. So not only do we not know where the stains came from, we don’t even know when they got on the shroud to begin with. On another point, your claim about carbon-dating is also inaccurate. The actual research concerning the carbon-dating of the shroud pointed to it originating around the 13th or 14th centuries, long after Jesus was said to have lived and died.

“The cloth also has historical record to bak up its origin saying that it was in the alleged tomb that Jesus was in. So yes, there was a body.”

The “historical” record you claim backs up the shroud’s authenticity is, I’m pretty sure, the Bible (if not I‘d like to see the records you‘re talking about). As I’ve said before, it’s illogical to use the Bible to try and demonstrate what’s in the Bible is true.

Overall, the evidence and research of the Shroud of Turin are inconclusive. If the shroud is not allowed to be analyzed any further, the research may stay inconclusive. Since the evidence for the Shroud of Turin is indecisive, attempting to draw conclusions from it seem inadequate, unless one has a personal bias towards the situation. Since you seem to enjoy drawing conclusions about the shroud despite the unclear research surrounding it, I can only conclude that you have a personal affiliation with such an issue. You jump to conclusions, exaggerate claims, and add in “confirmation” of things which were never validated to begin with (like you did with the “proves to be male” idea) when concerning the Shroud of Turin. This is a plain and simple example of confirmation bias.

Comment

All of these sites appear to be Christian based webpages. I don’t think viewing an obviously bias site when concerning this topic is going to get me any closer to the truth than I already am now. It would basically be the same as me giving you a list of atheistic webpages that seek to disprove all of the topics discussed on each of the sites you listed for me. You would obviously note the biasness of the refuters from a site like that, as I can obviously note the biasness of the supporters from the sites you gave me. I seek only to read material on topics like this that possess as little biasness as possible. The sites you have listed for me do not fit into that category. I hope you understand.

On another matter, the Old Testament is not a historical record, as it is not completely accurate when concerning such a subject. Also, the problem I find with “prophecies” is that they are always extremely vague and can be interpreted to mean almost anything depending on who is viewing them. If you would like me to demonstrate the vagueness of so called “prophecies”, present to me one from the Old Testament and I’ll reveal the power of interpretation to you.

What's his source? The bible? It is logically flawed to use a system to prove its own validity. Therefore no religious texts can be used to validate Jesus as the son of God.

Also, the probability thing seems kind of silly. Of course that kind of thing doesn't happen on accident. Assuming it did happen. If you can prove that someone is going around manipulating the world as he wishes, not many people are going to say it's not God. But where's the proof?

One of his quotes from the bible: John, 10:37
"Don't believe me unless I do miracles of God." (Apparently it was Jesus speaking.)

Don't know about anyone else here, but I have yet to see one. That's all the evidence I need for not believing. In fact, Jesus himself is telling me not to believe. Unless he was referring to the miracles he performed in his lifetime, but that would be ridiculous. How would we know what he did two thousand years ago? It would be simply illogical to expect a rational person to believe in something so illogical, so against the laws of nature, with the only evidence as word of mouth.

In fact, why does God not perform miracles for the common man to prove his existence? It would convince me. Perhaps he does miracles? Nothing of the sort that he supposedly performed during his lifetime. But what's stopping him? He has no less power; in fact, maybe even more. The only way I can figure is that the only followers God wants are the ones capable of near-blind faith. I'm sorry, I'm not one of those.

sander

05 Aug 2008 19:55

Add a Comment

Still no evidence, no matter how many YouTube goons you get saying otherwise.

Come on, this is getting really annoying, either put up or shut up already.

Cephus

05 Aug 2008 19:21

3 Comments

Funny how you say that the 'YouTube goon' has no evidence, while you yourself seem unable to disprove him. Why not refute his argument, if it's so easy?

He has some good evidence. Complaining about the debate will only fool people like you.

sander

05 Aug 2008 19:44

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

5 minutes ago

Might as well, we bailed out all the other w***ers. read more...

9 minutes ago

They strip away naivety. read more...

3 hours ago

If you mean by "our" country, the United States, (or any other country for that matter; I think nationalism is way over rated.... read more...

3 hours ago

I think for some it is true. Many believe in evolution and don't really know why or the reasons they do, but were told to... read more...

3 hours ago

I dont think hes good for this country. I think hes gonna tear this country apart. People fell all over THe word "change"... read more...