Don’t Wait Up for Jesus

I believe that if there is any truth to the rapture (which I highly doubt) it already happened long ago and the handful of people that qualified were already beamed up. Sorry Robert. 🙂
You might as well simply work to make the world as it is the best it can be along with the rest of us.

Sadly, it seems that most Christians are completely consumed with sensationalized lives, thoughts and anecdotes about people who may have lived over 2,000 years ago, yet they don’t seem to give this same consideration to anyone who is around them right now.

We have plenty of evidence that Jesus came the first time, left, and promised to come again. We have plenty of evidence that Jesus keeps his promises and, in this case, has the power to do so. We expect his return.

Jesus. Is. Coming. Back.

Years ago my neighbor was a member of the Korean group called Mission For The Coming Days that proclaimed Oct 28, 1992 as the time for the Rapture. She was totally convinced that she was going to “fly up to heaven” on that date. I approached her on Oct 21st and suggested that since she was going to be “leaving” and would no longer have a need for her Lexus that she should sign the pink slip over to me (post-dated, off course). She refused, and them hemmed-and-hawed when I politely asked for her reasons. When Oct 28 came and went and she was still a member of the neighborhood, every time I saw her after that I’d point at her, then up at the sky, and wink. It didn’t take long, and she finally did disappear. She sold her house and moved away the following Spring. I, personally, do not suffer fools lightly.

We have plenty of evidence that Jesus came the first time, left, and promised to come again. We have plenty of evidence that Jesus keeps his promises and, in this case, has the power to do so. We expect his return.

Like when he promised that he would be back within the lifetime of his apostles?

I think J. K. Jones is a poe.

Curses! Fooled by a poe!

Matt wrote:

I think J. K. Jones is a poe.

I don’t think so. Clicking on his/her name in this thread brings you to J.K. Jones’s blog, “Fear and Trembling,” which is a run-of-the-mill apologist site.

If the person posting under that name on this thread is a Poe, (s)he’s using the identity of a perfectly real Christian apologist to support his/her parody. I doubt it.

JK Jones…wouldn’t happen to be Jesse, would it?

From ‘none who see me now will have died before I return’ (paraphrased) to ‘no man shall know the day’; 2 passages that aren’t literally true while ‘stone the women who won’t kiss men’s ass and gays just because they exist’ MUST be adhered to.

We have plenty of evidence that Jesus came the first time,

so you agree with those who say jesus loved his disciples like a non-monogamous gay man would, and satisfied himself and them often? oh, wait…

jokes aside, it’s sort of fascinating to look at all the different cults who have claimed “he” is “coming back.” there have been hundreds if not thousands of cults like this in the overall history of xtianity. the question i always ask is “what is really motivating the cult leaders to make the claim?” i grok that foolish and ignorant cult members may actually believe these firm dates will come true, and that it’s pretty easy for a savvy cult leader to claim, when it doesn’t happen, that cult members’ “weak faith” was the reason, or usually the even more popular alternative explanation, that it was the fault of us godless folk, muddling with the magical energies of the jesus creature’s ability to come down from the astral plane with our sinful, naughty ways.

but the Day After always happens. always has and always will. i believe most cult leaders who make these claims understand that. so why do they do it? what do they get out of it, after they’re proven false prophets? that’s the part i don’t get. why risk a really good paying, potentially never ending scam by exposing yourself as a con artist?

as to ‘moderate’ Christians holding on to a vague belief that Buddy Christ will return… someday, well. it’s not really much different than all the other mental BS they sustain. these are the same people who only selectively use the Bible, you know “the good parts” while ignoring the parts about shrimp, smashing baby heads, giving away all their money, etc. it makes them feel superior to the more blatantly stupid (and socially unacceptable at the country club, etc) types of believers who picket soldiers’ funerals with signs that read “god hates fags.” you know, because “decent” Christians aren’t like those people, oh goodness no.

This is why religion is so uniquely ill suited to governance. They are so focused on the next life that they couldn’t care less about what happens in this one. The fact that so many EAGERLY look forward to the alleged end of the world so that they and a handful of others can enjoy hevenly bliss while the rest of us endure grotesque tribulations and then eternal torment is deranged.

Okay, so I’m a Christian, but I’ve never understood the fixation on this concept at all for a few of reasons:

1. Christ didn’t really say that he’d be back within the lifetime of his apostles in literal, physical form. He spent the majority of his time talking about how we should live our lives and treat other people.

2. Most of these rapture theories come from the book of Revelation, which is obviously (one would hope!) metaphorical.

3. Christ himself said that even HE did not know the day or hour this supposed event would happen. How can Christians claim to know the date? Why would they even try to?

4. I have also never understood the apparent glee some Christians have over the concept of people getting tossed straight into hell at the moment of the return of Christ. If we’re all supposed to love each other, why would that be a good thing? Not to mention the fact that Christ also never said that, either.

As a Christian, I don’t know if Christ will return or not in a literal event. If it does happen, I doubt it will be anywhere near my lifetime. I tend to believe that the “revelation of Christ” is a personal, internal experience. There are other Christians that have also come to this conclusion over the centuries.

It irks me to no end when the church and other believers perpetuate half-baked notions such as this.

Back in my fundie days, practically every new year started with excited proclamations that “this could be the year!” And it was sincere. You sort of have to pity Christians to the extent that they resemble Cubs fans.

KenGurley does as much harm to the public perception of Christianity as the nuts who think he’s coming back next May.

Oh, I disagree on that. The nuts who predict specific dates (usually within their/our own lifetimes and always to no result) do far more harm to the public perception of Christianity (yay)! Moderates can always point to people like Gurley as repairing the harm done by the whackos and stating something closer to what most mainstream Christians believe (i.e. Jesus will come back, but we don’t know when, so keep up those 401(k) contributions).

You’re all crazy if you think Jesus … left in the first place

I disagree there too. He definitely left! Exactly like every single human being who was born more than about 116 years ago, he is most certainly dead and gone. End of story!

@ Everyday Atheist – As a once-and-future Chicagoan, you had me spitting coffee on the screen! I’m going to use that comparison from now on, unless and until the Cubs win it all (and in a mirror image to the original story, I’ll go out on a limb and say it won’t be during my lifetime).

Im trying to find a fundamentalist bookie so that I can bet against the return of jesus, if its written so specifically in the bible as people say then I expect some great odds for being correct when he is a no-show.

I know none of that makes sense, it was just distracting my thoughts so I chose to share

@WishinItWas: I thought gambling was a “no no” for those folks. Seems you have a tough search ahead.

Jesus’ Return = Epicycles.

When it doesn’t happen and you can’t explain it, just add another one.

@ Matt
There are so many denominations, one of them has to be crazy enough to justify it! I mean the whole “Love your neighbor” thing is lost on the westborough people when it comes to homosexuality.

worst case they can repent, confess, be saved right before big J gets here huh? ?

Bob,

You might try http://www.4truth.net/bible or http://www.4truth.net/jesus

JK

Augusta:

Christ didn’t really say that he’d be back within the lifetime of his apostles in literal, physical form.

That’s your interpretation. It is certainly not every Christian’s; the numerous references in the NT to the Second Coming neither require nor contradict a “literal, physical” reincarnation. For example:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

– Jesus, in Matthew 24:30-31

You can read that to involve a “literal, physical” reincarnation. Or not. Nothing in the Bible settles that question.

He spent the majority of his time talking about how we should live our lives and treat other people.

Very debatable. He spent a very large amount of his time (see below) shrieking that people who defied him would burn in Hell. He preached about that much, much more than he did about love or peace or blessing.

Most of these rapture theories come from the book of Revelation, which is obviously (one would hope!) metaphorical.

What do you mean, “obviously”? That’s not self-evident at all; it’s just the spin you have chosen to place on Revelation.

How come you get to blithely dismiss the religious faith of millions of people, but we atheists don’t get to blithely dismiss yours?

Christ himself said that even HE did not know the day or hour this supposed event would happen.

Whaa? What are you talking about?

It certainly appears that this is what you have in mind:

This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

– Jesus, in Matthew 24:34-36

You read that and claim that Jesus was saying he (“He”) didn’t know “that day and hour”—that is, Jesus is a “man” and not God?

You do realize that Trinitarian Christians once murdered thousands upon thousands of folks for expressing the same sort of (Arian) heresy that you just did, right?

How can Christians claim to know the date?

Clearly, because they think Scripture gives them adequate grounds to conclude that the Second Coming will occur on that date.

Their conclusion seems pretty loony to me, too—but no more so than Christianity generally.

Why would they even try to?

You can’t imagine any advantage to figuring out when the Rapture and Tribulation (among other Events that Need Capital Letters) are going to occur? Really?

I have also never understood the apparent glee some Christians have over the concept of people getting tossed straight into hell at the moment of the return of Christ. If we’re all supposed to love each other, why would that be a good thing?

That’s a very good question—but surely it needs to be directed at the hundreds of millions of Christians who believe, with extremely good Scriptural reason, that the unsaved go to Hell.

Do you not believe in Hell? If you do, exactly how is your belief any less ugly than the “apparent glee” you disdain from these folks? Doesn’t a god that sentences people to eternal damnation for finite crimes deserve to be denounced and detested, rather than worshipped and loved?

Not to mention the fact that Christ also never said that, either.

Which part? As noted, the Gospels’ Jesus has considerably more to say (or, perhaps, to scream) about the hellfire and damnation of his enemies than about absolutely any other thing. If you want “apparent glee,” get a load of the delight that hero of yours shows in promising his enemies that they’ll BURN:

[W]hosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

– Jesus, in Matthew 5:22

if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

– Jesus, in Matthew 5:29-30

Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

– Jesus, in Matthew 8:10-12

[F]ear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

– Jesus, in Matthew 10:28

[T]hou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

– Jesus, in Matthew 11:23-24

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

– Jesus, in Matthew 13:41-42

[T]he kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

– Jesus, in Matthew 13:47-50

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

– Jesus, in Matthew 18:7-9

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

– Jesus, in Matthew 23:14-15

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! … Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

– Jesus, in Matthew 23:29, 33

Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

– Jesus, in  Matthew 25:40-46

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

– Jesus, in Mark 3:28-29

if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

– Jesus, in Mark 9:43-49

Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

– Jesus, in Mark 12:38-40

O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

– Jesus, in Luke 3:7-9

[I]nto whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

– Jesus, in Luke 10:10-15

Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

– Jesus, in Luke 12:4-5

[I]t came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

– Jesus, in Luke 16:22-31

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

– Jesus, in Luke 20:46-47

[T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

– Jesus, in John 5:28-29

What a guy, huh?

(If it helps any, Muhammad is even worse.)

I tend to believe that the “revelation of Christ” is a personal, internal experience. There are other Christians that have also come to this conclusion over the centuries.

That’s nice, but that belief of yours is no better-founded than are the beliefs you’re scoffing at here. You don’t have any better reason to believe “that the ‘revelation of Christ’ is a personal, internal experience” than other Christians have to believe in the full Left Behind horror show. It certainly appears that you’re all just picking and choosing the realities you prefer—and in these parts, many of us don’t think that exercise is worthy of respect.

It irks me to no end when the church and other believers perpetuate half-baked notions such as this.

Given that your alternatives are exactly as half-baked, perhaps they irk Tribulationists just as much.

ACN, Kilre,

Google search “partial preterism.”

All I found were heaps of apologetics, which aren’t proof of anything you said, sadly. Mildly entertaining thought experiments if you believe that sort of thing.

Jesus. Is. Coming. Back.

You. Have. No. Clue.

Rieux said:

You read that and claim that Jesus was saying he (“He”) didn’t know “that day and hour”—that is, Jesus is a “man” and not God?

Umm… maybe you should try looking at more than one book before you screech at that guy?

You should be looking at Mark, not Matthew.

Mark 13:32 in the New International Version reads:

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

J.K.:

I did point to other places where that evidence resides….

Yes, well, I for one am not interested in rooting around in a lot of Christian apologist nonsense to find some sorry excuse for evidence of Jesus’ existence.

You asserted it—here. You provide the evidence—here. Or cut it out with the assertions.

Rieux,

I will not hi-jack another person’s blog with long ramblings without the author’s permission anymore. Just doesn’t seem right to me, even though it used to.

The links are not hard to follow.

ACN,

The second century is quite early for a manuscript in view of some of the other things we accept as reliable (Caesar’s Gallic Wars for example). And keep in mind how widely circulated that manuscript must have been. Circulation in that part of the world for widespread use did not take place all at once.

Besides, I though we were discussing the passages for Christ’s teaching on the end times from the gospels. Those are dated by most scholars much earlier.

Thanks for the explanation of what a “poe” is. It’s a very effective insult. Reminds me of something James Patrick Holding might say.

I am quite sincere, for what it is worth.

J.K.:

The links are not hard to follow.

But the material they require one to wade through is ludicrous garbage.

I want to see precisely what you think is this fabulous “evidence.” Coy excuses about “hijacking” a Friendly Atheist thread—on the subject of not waiting up for Jesus, yet—don’t cut it. Put up or shut up.

You assert the links are “ludicrous garbage.”

No, I don’t.

If this is any indication of the care with which you address evidence, the outline you’ve promised ought to be hilarious.

I found some time. Here’s the promised brief outline:

Source: http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952895

The Jewish rabbinical traditions (Talmud) refers to Christ. It’s interesting that he is accused of sorcery, a miracle worker would incite a charge like that one.
The first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, mentions “Jesus who is called the Christ” in his Jewish Antiquities at least once.

Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals mentions: “Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus” (15:44). He also mentions many details of the early Christians and their lives. Tacitus was not a friend to Christianity.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus mentioned Jesus and early Christians in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia, mentions Christ three times.
Theudas and Mara bar Serapion mention Jesus as well.

That’s the outline.

I would also like to mention that the Bible is a first-rate historical document as well. It is not circular reasoning to refer to the Bible as an historical document and then reason from that to the Bible as God’s Word. It should not be ruled out of bounds.

JK

J.K.:

You said, “But the material they require one to wade through is ludicrous garbage.”

Yes, I did. And as soon as you notice the fundamental difference between that statement and your mischaracterization of it—”You assert the links are ‘ludicrous garbage’“—I’ll give you your first Cub Scout merit badge in reading comprehension.

Prove it.

No.

I don’t care about silly apologist websites. You evidently care enough about this website, and that fabulous “plenty of evidence that Jesus came the first time, left, and promised to come again” and “that Jesus keeps his promises” you trumpeted, to waltz in here and shoot your mouth off about it.

I’ll put up or shut up about the stupidity of your favorite apologists when I’m on their sites. That’s not now.

Then: your evidence. Just as we suspected, you’ve swallowed apologist lies hook, line, and sinker.

The Jewish rabbinical traditions (Talmud) refers to Christ.

Fail.

The problem with the Talmud is this – it is not an objective history, but a polemic. It is obvious that the above verse is not a description of something that actually happened; rather, it is a Jewish retort to the New Testament accusation that the trial and execution of Jesus took place secretly and in haste. Theological biases render historical accounts unreliable, and this is just as true for the Jews who were answering Christian accusations as for the Christians who were making them. By the time the Talmud was compiled, centuries after Jesus’ alleged death and after the Jewish War which caused vast destruction in Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people to the winds, third-century rabbis would have been in no position to be able to refute the very existence of Jesus (not to mention that they also lacked the exegetical techniques that would have allowed them to even suspect such a possibility). It would have been much easier to grant his existence and then slant the stories about him to favor their side of the argument rather than the Christians’, and this is exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the Talmud is without value as a historical account because it dramatically contradicts the Christian version of events, and even contradicts itself in numerous places, when speaking about Jesus. Note that the above verse says he was hanged, not crucified. There are others that say he died by stoning, not at Calvary, but at Lydda, and not by the Romans, but by the Jews. Some Talmudic verses say Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, others say he was a magician. One mention of Jesus places his life at the time of the Maccabean kings, around 100 BCE, while another says his parents were contemporaries of a second-century rabbi. Such fragmented and inconsistent accounts show that the Talmud cannot possibly be accurate history; if it were describing true events, it would be impossible for it to contradict itself. This, combined with its late writing date, makes it even weaker than the other accounts as evidence of Jesus’ existence.

The first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus….

Fail.

To anyone unfamiliar with the debates swirling around this passage, it might appear to provide startling corroboration of the Gospel stories in virtually every detail. In fact, it seems too fantastic to be true. And indeed, this is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of critical scholars today. No one argues other than that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at least in part, a forgery, a later interpolation into Josephus’ work. We can be certain of this for several reasons. One is that the enthusiastic endorsement of Jesus’ miracles could only have been written by a Christian, and Josephus was not a Christian. He was an orthodox Jew and remained so his entire life. The church father Origen, who quoted freely from Josephus, wrote that he was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ”. Furthermore, in The Jewish War, Josephus specifically states his belief that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies – which is what got him his job in the first place.

….

[I]f Josephus really had written the “him called Christ” phrase, it is difficult to believe he would have left it at that without further elaboration. After all, to call someone “Christ” is a claim that is presumptuous in the extreme – it makes that person out to be the God-sent messiah, the long-awaited savior the Jews had been promised who would establish God’s kingdom on earth for all time. It seems very likely that Josephus would include at least a brief discussion of the actions of the person who would dare to take such a lofty mantle on himself, even if he did not believe that person’s messianic claims. But no such discussion is to be found anywhere in Josephus, and thus we can confidently conclude that this is because he never wrote this phrase in the first place.

Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals….

Fail.

Tacitus did not write this until almost one hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived. Thus, he cannot provide first-hand evidence for the existence of Jesus, and it therefore makes sense to ask where he did get his information from – what his sources were.

The idea that Tacitus got his information from official Roman records seems highly unlikely. There is no evidence that the Romans kept meticulous records extending back almost a century of every single crucifixion carried out in every corner of the empire, and that possibility is further reduced by the fact that Rome had essentially burned to the ground in the interim (which is what Tacitus was writing about in the quoted paragraph). The most likely scenario is that Tacitus was getting his facts from contemporary Christian sources; he would have had no reason to doubt them. This passage, therefore, is probably based on later Christian hearsay and is weak as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus….

Fail.

As historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, this verse is very weak. A number of anomalies immediately crop up upon reading it. One is that Jesus’ name is seemingly misspelled. But on further examination, this may not be a misspelling at all. “Chrestus” does not mean “Christ” (that would have been “Christus”) – rather, “Chrestus” was a perfectly valid Latin name in its own right, and a very common one as well. It may well be that this passage is referring to some unknown Jewish agitator, perhaps another messianic pretender such as the ones Josephus describes. Furthermore, Claudius was the Roman emperor from 41 to 54 CE. There is no indication historically that Christianity had spread to Rome by this time, or that it was powerful enough to have caused a revolt. Note, too, that the passage says it was not Christians who were causing disturbances, but Jews – and Suetonius does write about Christians elsewhere in his works, so he plainly knew the difference.

Finally, it is worth noting when this passage was written. After Josephus, the chronologically nearest witness to Jesus’ life the apologists have to offer, we now leap to 120 CE. An ambiguous reference to a person who might have been Christianity’s founder, written over seventy years after his supposed death, is hardly compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Mara bar Serapion….

Fail.

First, it should be noted that the dating of this letter is very uncertain. Even the earliest estimates place it around 70 CE, over 40 years after Jesus’ death, while some historians have dated it well into the third century. Secondly, and far more importantly, the letter does not even mention Jesus by name – it only refers to a “wise king”, and does not mention any specific deeds or sayings of this individual. It could be referring to any of the messianic pretenders of the first century, or someone else entirely unknown to us. There is no way to tell. In fact, it seems less likely that Bar-Serapion meant Jesus than any other would-be messiah, since Jesus was killed by the Romans, not by the Jews. The fact that he does not even name this “wise king”, whereas he does name Socrates and Pythagoras, suggests that Bar-Serapion knew almost nothing about him. Therefore, as confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, his testimony is without merit.

Theudas … mention[s] Jesus as well.

Bwahahahahaha!

Does he, now? Theudas, eh?

Well, burst my buttons! Perhaps you can direct us to this fabulous document in which Theudas—Theudas, a First Century Jewish rebel and “charlatan” whom we only know of via passing references in Josephus and (debatably) Acts, who never wrote anything that survives to our era—”mention[s] Jesus”?

You’re simply flatly ignorant about this topic. You’re gullibly repeating the nonsense told to you by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.

Apropos of your Josephus cite, you’re just pulling the same Lying For Jesus trick that your forefather Eusebius did 1,700 years ago. How silly.

But then, the topper:

I would also like to mention that the Bible is a first-rate historical document as well.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

The Bible is a record of fantastic myth. The Gospels in particular were passed down for decades at least by word of mouth; there is no reason to believe that any of it carries the slightest shred of historical fact, any more than tales of Zeus or Odin do. It simply takes incredible ignorance and/or dishonesty to avoid these realities.

Not all of us are as craven as you and your mindless sources are.

(Hey, look—I did “prove” that (one particular piece of) the material at your links is ludicrous garbage!)

The quest for the historical Jesus is an abject failure. After hundreds of years, and probably millions of person-hours, reconstructions of Jesus are no better than the one of Reimarus in the eighteenth century. Reimarus had nearly exhausted the critical search for any historicity, and he found mostly a myth. Even if we do not accept all of Reimarus’s conclusions, we can say that he had a plausible scenario based on verifiable phenomena that we can see exist today (people can steal bodies; people can lie; invention requires only an imagination and a pen; etc.).

Further progress is futile because we simply don’t have any preserved accounts of Jesus from his time or from any proven eyewitnesses. And even if we were to discover lots of new material mentioning Jesus in his supposed lifetime, such material still would not render us surer of anything. After all, we possess an abundance of contemporary material about Mary at Medjugorje but most Protestant apologists easily dismiss it. Contemporaneity means very little after all if we cannot verify the information in any contemporary reports.

– Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies

The Gospels can no longer support a rational belief in anything they allege to have occurred, at least not without external, unbiased corroboration, which we do not have for any of the essential, much less supernatural details of the story. And if Alvar Ellegård is right (Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Overlook, 1999), Mark was almost entirely fiction, written after the sack of Jerusalem to freeze in symbolic prose the metaphorical message of Christianity, a faith which began with a Jesus executed long before the Roman conquest, who then appeared in visions (like that which converted Paul) a century later, in the time of Pilate, to inspire the new creed. What is important is not that this can be decisively proven—nothing can, as our information is too thin, too scarce, too unreliable to decisively prove anything about the origins of Christianity. What is important is that theories like Ellegård’s can’t be disproven, either—it is one among many distinctly possible accounts of what really happened at the dawn of Christianity, which MacDonald’s book now makes even more plausible. And so long as it remains possible, even plausible, that the bulk of Mark is fiction, the contrary belief that it is fact can never be secure.

– Richard Carrier, review of Dennis MacDonald’s The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

ACN and Daryl have already helped debunk the “sources” you came up with J.K.
One would think that a guy who supposedly did all the stuff Jesus is attributed would have been mentioned several other places too. He is not.
Like I said, reputable sources and not just hearsay. Of which you’ve given none. Just some spurious anecdotes, at least one of which is also considered to be a forgery, that just happens to coincide with what you (and other believers) really want them to say. Those that mention some “leader” refer to him as Chrestus (or a similar spelling), which just means “the annointed one” – again giving no indication that this is the Jesus of Nazareth you’d like it to be, but could be any semi-“holy” figure.

daryl,
You’re absolutely correct about the josephus passage. I forgot to mention why we think it is absent from the original, there was an early christian apologist whose name now eludes me who quoted extensively from josephus who would have hammered that passage as an ace in the hole if it wasnt a later interpolation.

Rieux,

“You’re simply flatly ignorant about this topic. You’re gullibly repeating the nonsense told to you by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.”

You make that comment after going to an atheist apologist website and spitting out what was stated there? By the way you do know that Ebon Musings is not the name of a person? The actual essay you quote from doesn’t name its author.

As far as Earl Doherty’s qualifications he has a bachelor’s degree in Ancient history and is an Atheist. Hardly steller qualifications and clearly looking at history from a bias (the same bias you accuse the sites J.K. Jones of having). His work as received no scholarly approval and in fact his book the Jesus Puzzle was roundly criticized as being a hack job. His whole theory of Christianity being build upon a mythical Christ has been rejected.

Hardly a “fail”.

No worries, GentleGiant. It was a silly quibble on my part.

Bobby Dubs:

You make that comment after going to an atheist apologist website and spitting out what was stated there?

I quoted facts and reasoning that directly refute J.K.’s mindless citations. Your equally mindless Arguments from Authority (or alleged lack thereof) are fallacious and irrelevant.

You can prattle on about the fabulous qualifications of your Liars for Jesus all you’d like. Arguments are decided by facts and reasoning, not your cherry-picked appeals to authority. (Funny how you couldn’t figure out reasons to dismiss Avalos’s, Carrier’s, Ellegård’s or MacDonald’s credentials, hm? Nice hypocrisy.)

By the way you do know that Ebon Musings is not the name of a person?

For pity’s sakes, do you guys get together to brag about your refusal to read simple sentences? Here’s what I wrote, genius:

(‘Course, the actual credit for the lion’s share of my comment goes to Ebonmuse and Earl Doherty, but never mind.)

So where, now, did I assert or imply that “Ebon Musings is the name of a person”?

In fact, as you might have discovered if you weren’t so intent on posting ignorant nonsense, the name I actually used—Ebonmuse—does happen to be the pen name of the author of that essay:

Welcome! If you’ve come across this website and want to know more about who’s behind it, then you’re in the right place. My name is Adam Lee, but I usually write under the pen name Ebonmuse (a throwback to my original website). I’m the author and proprietor of Daylight Atheism, and all the posts you’ll find here are written by me, unless noted otherwise.

I’ve met Adam, pal. I know perfectly well who he is and what he has written. Please don’t project your self-satisfied ignorance onto others here.

Most overlooked fact about bibles: They’re just books.

What facts and reasoning? You have presented none.

What a hilarious lie. My December 8th, 2010 10:45 am comment above is crammed with facts and reasoning. You’ve just trucked in a mindless fallacy to justify your pretending that material doesn’t exist, to wit:

Mr. Lee who describes himself as an amateur, who really was just quoting from the Jesus Puzzle by Doherty, who we have already discussed.

Authority fallacy. You lose.

Facts and reasoning, not sheepskin. Pretending the former don’t exist even when they’re staring you in the face doesn’t make them go away.

You call those that say the evidence supports the real Jesus as being “Liars for Christ”, because they are Christians.

False. I call them “Liars for Christ” because they are lying, and because they are doing it for Christ. Plenty of Christians aren’t as dishonest as you are. (Thank goodness.)

Hector Avalos- atheist….

Ad hominem. You lose.

So it looks like your appeal to authority fails.

Wake up. I made no appeal to authority. I just pointed out that your mindless use of the authority fallacy was pure hypocrisy, because you failed to note that several sources I quoted have plenty of sheepskin.

But, for the nth time, that’s actually irrelevant. Lee, Doherty, Avalos, Carrier, Ellegård, and MacDonald are worth listening to because of the strength of the cases they make, not because of their respective degrees. Perhaps if you cared the slightest amount about reason, and indeed about reality, you’d notice that.

Rieux,

What a hilarious lie. My December 8th, 2010 10:45 am comment above is crammed with facts and reasoning. You’ve just trucked in a mindless fallacy to justify your pretending that material doesn’t exist,

So your argument style is- someone disagrees with you so you call them a liar and then ignore what they actually wrote. Not very persuasive.

I was aware of your Dec. 8 post when I said you presented no facts or reasoning. I stand by what I said. Calling something “facts and reasoning” doesn’t make it so. The analysis that you have shown from Mr. Lee are simply quotes from Doherty’s theories which have been discounted by scholars. Including Richard Carrier who says:

Although he is partly a supporter of Doherty, Richard Carrier wrote:
“This is another example of my chief complaints against Doherty: though his theory is plausible, it is not proven. He lacks the kind of evidence he needs to secure his case as probable …
… his theory does not have the kind of direct evidence I (and other professional historians) would need to be convinced …
But the point is: a mythic Jesus could still also be a historic Jesus, i.e. the myth would be layered on top, possibly obscuring most of the truth, just as most scholars today believe to be the case …
Doherty’s case is not strong enough to justify telling the historicists that their claim is incredible or refuted.”

False. I call them “Liars for Christ” because they are lying, and because they are doing it for Christ. Plenty of Christians aren’t as dishonest as you are. (Thank goodness.)

Calling someone a liar without backing it up doesn’t work. If you have no evidence to claim someone is lying then you are saying it solely out of bias because they don’t agree with you. Show where any of these “liars for Christ” are lying and I will be happy to discuss it with you, but if you don’t have any information you are simply slandering without any basis.

As far as Hector Avalos, you are correct. I didn’t post the criticism of his work Here is some of it:

Helmut Koester is a German-born American scholar of the New Testament, and currently Morison Research Professor of Divinity and Winn Research Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School…

, who is currently Morison Research Professor of Divinity and Winn Research Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard Divinity School, argues that Avalos reveals “a deep ignorance” of the realities of American religious life and Biblical scholarship in general. In Koester’s review of Avalos’ book, “The End of Biblical Studies”, he writes:

Perhaps I should not be surprised that a scholar who has advocated a Biblical nihilism and has recommended that Biblical Studies should be ‘tasked with eliminating completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world’ would launch an attack on the discipline of Biblical archaeology and on a magazine that is Biblical archaeology’s most important outlet…What would be required for such an endeavor, however, is knowledge of the realities of American religious life and Biblical scholarship in general, as well as the details of the controversial issues in present debates. Unfortunately Professor Avalos reveals a deep ignorance in both respects.

Then you say

But, for the nth time, that’s actually irrelevant. Lee, Doherty, Avalos, Carrier, Ellegård, and MacDonald are worth listening to because of the strength of the cases they make, not because of their respective degrees. Perhaps if you cared the slightest amount about reason, and indeed about reality, you’d notice that.

Actually I do know that and you have shown us nothing as to why their cases merit consideration. For example, as to Ellegard’s theory Carrier even says “if he is correct” and the theory is nothing more then a possibility.

As far as MacDonald, I posted what Carrier thought about his work. You didn’t comment on that so I guess you didn’t like that reason and reality.

Finally as far as the Josephus text, your argument about them is wrong and you should know it. (Maybe you do and you are lying, but I won’t pretend to know your motive as you do to me)

It is well accepted even by Biblical scholars that some of the phrases within that passage are later additions probably by a Christian scribe. However, the remaining portion which is not in dispute remains as evidence of the real historical Jesus. It is enhanced in a later passage where Josephus refers to James, Jesus’ brother being taken to trial and killed.

Here it is:

We also find from Josephus a reference to James the brother of Jesus. In Antiquities XX 9:1 he describes the actions of the high priest Ananus:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

By the way this is a very accurate description of James death in Acts 12.

Sven,

Tell that to the archeologists and historians.

Sven,

Harry Potter is intended to be a book of fiction based upon a mythical world. The author tells you that at the beginning.

The Bible is not Harry Potter so your silly argument on its face has no merit.

Sven you are not so ignorant to claim that evidence does not exist in archeology or history. That is why it is called archeological evidence and historical evidence. Let’s not play this game. If you want a serious discussion I would be happy to have one.

Sven,

The bible has been proven time and time again to be historically accurate. If you want to write it off as fiction then you are ignoring the evidence that exists.

In my previous posts I have explained the evidence and arguments for a rational basis to believe in God and Christianity. You don’t accept them. That is your choice, but instead of throwing out silly comparisons like Harry Potter or Bigfoot, why don’t you contradict directly the evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Maybe you feel more comfortable throwing up strawmen and continuing in the circular reasoning of atheism (which by its very nature atheism is) but that doesn’t make for a very productive discussion.

Sven,

That is funny.

I will readily admit that God can’t be proven or disproven by science. So what. I accept other reliable, logical and rational evidence and proof of his existence.

You do realize that your argument for atheism based entirely upon science is circular reasoning as just expressed in your last post.

Here is how it works:

1. The natural world is all that exists.
2. God is supernatural.
3. Therefore God doesn’t exist.

To show the circle:

1. God is supernatural
2. There is only the natural world
3. Therefore God doesn’t exist

Stated another way closer to your flawed logic:

1. Science can prove only natural things
2. God is supernatural
3. Thus God doesn’t exist

Begging the question and not very persuasive

I’m not going to get into the argument with you again that your requirement of only scientific evidence is the only rational proof of God. If you want to ignore the other rational, logical and reasonable evidence that is your choice.

Hey robert, sorry to jump in, but….
what exactly is the supernatural? WHY can’t science investigate the supernatural? Does the supernatural have a tangible effect on our world? if it does, wouldn’t that give us observational evidence for it’s existence (i.e, scientific data)? Your logic seems to be that since our current scientific observations and methods haven’t proven the “supernatural” exists, scientific observations and methods are faulty.

So to sum up: before we all start making claims about the “supernatural” can we define exactly what supernatural is and how exactly it differs from the “natural” world?

Robert-
Then how do you define the natural world?
It’s hard to get much out of that definition- like if you asked me what the word irresponsible meant and all I told you was that it was the opposite of responsible. Having a robust definition for the supernatural would really help both sides understand each other.

If you see a “supernatural” event in the natural world, what evidence do you have that it is actually a supernatural event, and not some fantastic aspect of physics, biology, or psychology? Are these miracles what you are citing as non-scientific proof to the supernatural? If confronted with a natural explanation for a miraculous event, how do you decide which explanation is correct?

The natural world would be the physical world.

So if an event happens in the physical world, it’s a natural event? again, how does that give us any metric by which to judge what is supernatural and what is not?

I’m not looking to get into an argument over what did or didn’t happen a few thousand years ago. However, I do want you to understand that I’m not going to immediately give those stories credence- If I go to a vegas show with a bunch of my friends and we all see david coperfeild fly, would you believe me and all my friends when we told you he was clearly blessed by god with the gift of flight?

Miracles would be acts that would violate the natural laws.

Wouldn’t that require complete understanding of all natural laws? Take st elmo’s fire- it’s a fairly simple electrical phenomenon that had all sorts of mythology attached to it until it was properly researched. It used to be considered a miracle, now it’s not.

I could list all sorts of hypothetical situations that would make it appear that the miracles you listed occurred, but I don’t really see the point. I don’t have any evidence to make any claims about what happened. But to make the claim that the supernatural explanation must be true because I don’t have any evidence for a mundane explanation is a little premature in my mind.

@Robert W

If you want to ignore the other rational, logical and reasonable evidence

Again, these are only rational, logical and reasonable to people that are deluted and/or easily impressed.
For rational people, not so much.

You reasoning is basically circular. You assume that whatever happens in the material world is explained by natural laws in order to prove that whatever happens in the physical world must be natural.

No, I’m saying that there is absolutely no reason to think there is anything other than the “natural” world. You and robert are assuming that a supernatural world exists, and that because we havent been able to scientifically prove it, the scientific method is at fault. I think this is foolish because history has shown us that many so-called supernatural events are purely natural.

I am not the one making claims here. I am asking why I should believe the supernatural exists with absolutely no evidence of any kind to back it up. Scientific discovery is quickly killing the god of the gaps and I don’t see that trend stopping any time soon.

As to the first part of your post… you have heard of L. Ron Hubbard, right?

SVen,

If you want to have a serious conversation then let’s have it. I do not get baited by silly and rude comments. If you want to persist with your extreme rationalism (which I am sure is only convenient to justify to yourself your lack of belief in God and not how you live your normal life) then go ahead.

But to consistently say that everyone who has ever believed in God through the centuries is irrational is simply your personal opinion and carries no merit wahtsoever. To write off the millions of people, including some through the ages that were brilliant and recognized today as such, as deluded is your own personal delusion.

Sloth,

I am not the one making claims here. I am asking why I should believe the supernatural exists with absolutely no evidence of any kind to back it up. Scientific discovery is quickly killing the god of the gaps and I don’t see that trend stopping any time soon.

That is your circular argument. And you are making a claim- that there was only natural laws and Therefore the supernatural cannot exist. But of curse you don’t know that, because the natural laws can’t test for the supernatural. And you fill in the lack of knowledge with your belief. Call it the science gap argument that you make.

And by the way, most people don’t believe in God solely because of gaps in our scientific knowledge.

And you are making a claim- that there was only natural laws and Therefore the supernatural cannot exist.

Please tell me where I have made that claim. Where have I said the supernatural cannot exist? All I have said is that I have found the evidence lacking- I have not made a positive knowledge based claim anywhere in my posts. WHY can’t natural laws test for the supernatural? We can observe “miracles” with our very natural senses, and make conclusions on them based on the evidence we observe. And as I said before, there are many miracles that have been uncovered as purely “natural” phenomenon.

And you fill in the lack of knowledge with your belief. Call it the science gap argument that you make.

No, I fill my knowledge gap with “I don’t know yet.” Personally, I think that the scientific method is a good way to fill that gap (that’s my opinion, I don’t claim to know that), but if there is another verifiable and objective option I would love to hear about it.

And by the way, most people don’t believe in God solely because of gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Right, most people I know believe in god because of faith. Faith has nothing to do with knowledge and I’m not arguing against a faith-based premise right now. I am arguing against the “logical evidence” for the supernatural.

Sven,

The alternative would be that everyone who has NOT believed in your god was deluded. And that is a much larger number of people. You do realize that the amount of believers do not make fiction turn into reality? Than the world would indeed have been flat.

No. Two people can view the evidence and proof in different ways and each come up with a rational belief without delusion.

@Robert W

No. Two people can view the evidence and proof in different ways and each come up with a rational belief without delusion.

Even brilliant people? The brilliant people back than did not have the advantage of todays science and religion-free societies. And the brilliant people of today, they don’t fall for religion.
And even more people can think they see evidence, not understand what they see and simply make up an explanation. To keep up that explanation and ignore reality, that is delusional.
Please stop misusing the word evidence, or at least call it ‘supernatural evidence’ so it does not get mistaken for real evidence.
You have still not posted a rational reason, by the way.

@Robert W

That cosmological argument was serious? Well that is a disappointment. How does it explain why a believe in your god would be any more rational than a believe in a yellow sponge creating the world?

Like I said before, in the past the brilliant people did not have the advantages of todays scientific knowledge and the advantages of a religion-free society, so there is a difference. The brilliant people now with access to knowledge and the freedom to investigate and question? Still a lot more atheists than theists.

If even brilliant people can come to different solutions, can they both be right?
And all those people that did not come to the conclusion that it was your god that created the universe, but one or more of many others gods? They came to other conclusions, are they correct and not deluded?

So what historical evidence do you have for the existence of your god?

@Robert W

Yes it is a very serious argument and a solid one in my opinion. Do you have an answer for it beyond what you have posted here?

It might be a argument, but neither proof nor evidence. It is just an elaberate ‘god of the gaps’ opinion, based on circular reasoning. It explains nothing, and proves even less. Is this an example of what you would call philosophical evidence?

As that being evidence of God, God as described in the Bible fits the description of the necessary being as required by that argument. If you have evidence of other gods or even a yellow sponge being that we need to look at it, provide it.

Circular reasoning. Just beacause it is in the bible does not mean it is holds any merit.
As far as evidence for other gods go, please define what constitutes as evidence for you.

Now if you want to limit your population to scientists,

A recent survay showed that most philosophers do not believe in any gods.

No I don’t think they are both right, but I wouldn’t label them as deluded. I view delusion as deception in a derogatory sense.

So all the people in the world, troughout the centuries, who have not believed in your god, were all wrong?
Concerning your opinion on delusion, I understand why you would call it derogatory. So, no, I would not call these people deluded. Delusional would be someone who starts with an opinion and will not change his/her opinion, will make everything fit, and ignore reality, to keep this opinion.

Now I understand that you will say that just because people and places in the Bible are proven to have lived and actually existed that this is not proof of God and I would say if that is all we have then you would have a point. However, it is a strong clue among others as to God’s existence and it is rational to rely upon it.

So in short, there is no historical evidence for the existance of your god.
Also, your value of what is rational is only your opinion. This is the same for the value of what those clues are worth. And let’s face it, your opinion is allready tainted by your beliefs. So this is no more than circular reasoning.

@Rober W

Actually as a philosophical argument it is evidence of God and it isn’t circular. The argument doesn’t start out with the premise that there is a god or even that the God of the bible exists. What it does do is go through logical and philosophical steps which lead you to a being which would necessarily have certain characteristics. If other gods or beings fit those characteristics, then they would have to be looked at as possibilities. The God as described in the Bible does fit those characteristics.

I still see no explanation how this translates to reality. What it does is go through some steps that are assumed needed to fit the characteristics, preassumed so it can fit the bible discription. You don’t know or can prove any of them. So it is no more than an opinion, wrapped up in unverifiable claims.

Now for circular reasoning take the atheists point of view:

1. There is no evidence of God
2 Therefore there is no God.

Classical strawman argument, and inaccurate. You assume your claimed god is real, and all other claimed gods are not.
Here is how it works for me:
1. There are a lot of claims without scientific, testable evidence; your god, the gods of the Vathu people, allah, fairies, vampires, etc etc
2. Have any of these things been proven or explained scientifically?
2 a. All that is proven and scientifically explained = not a mythical claim anymore.
2 b. All that is unproven = equally true until further evidence.
Why I choose the scientific method? Because it works. It is what the pope trusts his life with when he sits behind bulletproof glass. It is what churches trust when they put up lightning rods above their towers and crosses.
It is a verifiable, testable, and objective methode. Fair to all claims. And above all, can not be influenced by personal opinions.
If there is a better methode, please let me know.

If they had the information to make that choice about God, then yes I would believe they were wrong.

So even if the brilliant people among them would still be wrong?

Nice attempt at a sutle insult. Its a good thing I’m not doing that, but I won’t call you delusional based upon your own definition.

This was not intended as an insult, I do realize it is not a complete discription of what I would consider delusional. You have named me delusional earlier, and I would not care much if you did it again 🙂

If you are going to argue that rational, logical arguments or a review of historical evidence is tainted by bias
then that would apply to atheists as well as Christians who review this evidence.

My argument is not about the validation of evidence. My agument is about what you would call a clue, that is a validation of what the evidence means. A delusional value starts out with a preassumption, and will try to fit anything as a clue, even appeal to a supposed supernatural to make it fit.
As an atheist, I have no preassumptions to make, I can be honest and keep myself from giving a meaning to random events. Appeal to a supposed supernatural won’t work for me, because it can never proven that a even higher super-supernatural in the actual cause.

Where are they wrong?

See above and earlier deconstructions by Hoverfrog and bernerbits in : friendlyatheist.com was-dave-silverman-on-fox-news-again/

Other then to say generally that you don’t believe the Bible is reliable, what evidence do you have that it isn’t an accurate historical account of the event described, particularity based upon the standards of ancient writings?

Same as all other ancient and recent ‘inspired scriptures’: lack of evidence.

Robert W

I disagree that it preassumes anything about God or the nature of God. I assume you can call philosophical arguments opinions but they would be opinions based upon sound philosophical premises which give them validity

The pholosophical premises still do not make it reality.

I think that you hold science to a standard that is beyond its capability. To say that science is not influenced by the personal beliefs of the scientist is not reality. That is because not all of science is proven to the point of being a law that can’t be disagreed with. There is alot of room for conjecture and speculation particularly when the scientist goes beyond what has been shown to reach conclusions which happens all the time.

I´m not saying science isn´t influenced by personal opinion. I´m saying that science is a perfect way to get objective results.
Also I have no problem with saying “I do not know”. Until now, it is the best methode we have. I know you’ve been invited to suggest an alternative. Do you have any?

Also If you limit your argument for God, a supernatural being that you know can’t be proven or disproven by science as the sole basis for for your evidence for God, you are presuppossing the result before you begin. you are creating a self fulfilling prophecy

I´m not limiting my argument to any god, so I´m not sure what you are saying here.

Actually you did in this very statement. By saying that there can never be a supernatural being, you are preassuming that you are right.

Clumsy writing from my side. What I mean by my statement is; How can I be sure that I’m witnessing a truely supernatural event, or a super-supernatural event disguised as a supernatural event.