>>> He fed five thousand people, with five cobs, and two small fish; and
>>> no one wrote about it?
>>
>> actually someone did, except again, the person who wrote about it, and
>> was there, believed in Jesus, and that account happens to be placed in
>> the book we now call the bible,
>
> But it was not a contemporary account.
meaning what? that the people who were there at the time were not the
ones who wrote it? or that they didnt write it that day? cuz ill perhaps
allow you to have the latter but not the former.
>
> The story in the bible, was written many years later.
most things are not written the same day they occur.. are we to say that
some biographies we have today compiled after someones death are
therefor invalid or untrue because they were written years later? thats
ridiculous
>
>> which you do not believe is true.. catch 22.
>
> Belief is irrelevant, only evidence matters.
its completely relevant to what we are talking about here. because if
you discard (ie, dont believe) all the evidence, then what good is the
evidence to you? whether it be factual or not
>
> In this case, contemporary documentary record, and best of all,
> something written by his enemies.
>
>
> But you have nothing like that.
>
>>> None of the temple spies, none of his enemies, wrote about it?
>> when was the last time you saw the chinese government writing in praise
>> of the US government?
>
> Straw man.
>
> No one said anything about it being in praise of him; Fact is, the
> opposite would be far more convincing.
well, id say that saying someone fed thousands with a few loaves and
fish (ie, performing a miracle) is in fact praise.. saying someone
performed a miracle is not exactly an attack.
>
>
>> they would not have written these things if at
>> least one of two things were the case, 1 they werent there to see it..
>
> They didn't see him feeding five thousand people, but they did see him
> shucking wheat on the Sabbath?
ok, i dont see how you are using this as an argument, since his enemies
were not by any means omnipresent.. and could not be there with Him at
every waking moment.. so it is not unthinkable that they might have
missed a few events.. and even if they had been there to see it, it
would still not help their case to say He was performing miracles,
whereas if you wanted to attack Him (which was their point in the first
place) you would say He was breaking the sabbath (though i do not
remember ever hearing He was shucking wheat on a sabbath.. healing
perhaps, but not doing manual labor)
>
> Your answers only serve to point up the improbability of the whole
> story.
>
>
>> 2
>> they didnt want to give this heretical man claiming to be the Son of God
>> any credit or value towards His name.. it makes sense really.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> They could have arrested him there as a trouble maker, and been done
> with him.
someone performing miracles is not a trouble maker.. since you only
focus on attacking religious people, you fail to see how they think.
see, healing someone is actually a GOOD thing (not sure how you might
see it) but saying He is doing these GOOD supernatural things would not
help their argument (ie, they said "here is this guy blaspheming and
saying he is the son of God, when OBVIOUSLY he isnt!!" and anything that
might give any weight to the counter-argument would not be good) you
dont arrest someone for healing others.
>
> But you are only looking at official records.
>
> What about all the letters that soldiers write, home.
what about them?
>
> He healed a Centurion's daughter, and the soldier never told the rest
> of his family?
did the centurion know how to read and write? and who says he didnt tell
anyone? the only thing we know today is that we have not heard of it..
you know, you really are making baseless ridiculous statements to try
and attack my position on this. you are trying to pass off things that
are very possible that they occurred that way (ie, the fact that we have
yet to hear of this letter of a centurion) as evidence that there was no
historical Jesus (or at least that He didnt perform these miracles)
which the fact of the matter is, it only proves one thing: that we have
not heard of the existence of such a letter.. and so what?
>
> Unlikely.
>
> The soldier never told his comrades?
>
> Unlikely.
unlikely or not, you have to remember, if suddenly, as a roman
guard/soldier/whatever you are seen as believing some jew miraculously
healed your daughter (instead of one of the "official, state-endorsed
pagan gods", you might not be looked upon favorably.. and i say that
lightly.. remember, religions other than the state one were prosecuted..
more heavily at some times than others.. but still, you did not want to
go against the state religion
>
> The only witnesses to any of his miracles, who actually wrote about
> them, were his immediate followers?
>
> Unlikely.
i would go so far as to say "very highly unlikely".. the question is the
likelihood of these letters surviving.. and hence the question of "who
would actually go ahead and make hundreds of copies of these personal
family letters and distribute them?" in the case of the followers (who
were the apostles) this was more likely, and once they were made canon,
they were ensured to survive.. even 2000 years..
>
>
>>> It was enough to get him clandestinely removed, but no one thought it
>>> note worthy?
>>>
>>>
>>> Amazing.
>>
>> oh well, thats just how it goes sometimes.
>
> Is it?
>
> Where?
where? you mean you are sooo sheltered you have no idea what goes on in
pretty much any dictatorship even to this day? people "disappearing" for
no apparent reason.. except, oh yeah, they were "trouble makers".. etc
etc etc.. perhaps you might hear of one of these cases in the news.. but
outside of the persons who cared about that person, nobody really makes
mention of it.. much less the perpetrators.. its not so unheard of
>
>
>
>> again, the people who did
>> find it noteworthy were the ones who were also His followers,
>
> Yes, the only people.
yes.. so? oh, cuz you think the roman empire would make careful records
of every little trouble maker and their entire life's story including
alleged miracles performed and the reason why they were crucified? you
forget that thousands of people were crucified.. some just to be made an
example of.. they werent really highly regarded.. and hence, not really
noteworthy.. how many lifes stories of other crucified people at the
time have you heard of? hmm? unless they had followers who ensured to
chronicle them detailedly, i would venture to say "none"
>
> Of all the people who's lives he affected, only his closest followers
> ever recorded it?
geeze, honestly, how much do you reaaaally want to believe in your
position that you would have to exaggerate things to base it upon???
ugh.. again, its not that it wasnt recorded by these people, only that
we have no knowledge of these, since they would have to be duplicated in
great quantity to have some survive.. geeze..
>
> Doesn't that sound just a little suspicious, to you?
no, man, it would only sound suspicious to someone who reaaaally wants
to base his baseless argument on something that isnt there.. or someone
who doesnt know how things go down in history, quick question, how many
copies do you honestly think exist of great literary works such as, i
dont know, homer's illiad.. or any such pieces.. they survived by
miracle.. things (documents) dont actually have great propensity to
survive the ages unless someone makes sure of it.. and even then its
really hard.. when the great library of alexandria burnt down, hundreds
of literary pieces were forever lost.. doesnt mean they didnt exist. but
we dont have them now. and before you make another senseless argument,
no, i am NOT saying that some of those letters were in that library..
just making note as to the frailty of the life of any document.. no
matter how important or significant it may be..
>
>
>> the ones
>> who wanted Him out of the picture would surely not ensure His posterity
>> by recording His great miracles..
>
> Why not?
because they didnt WANT Him to.. if they had wanted it, they wouldnt
have sent Him to the slaughter.. right? please, man.. just be a little
honest before questioning certain things, at least recognize that at the
very least SOME of what i am saying her is of some value.. if you just
shoot down everything, then it shows you arent even processing what ive
written, and are not giving proper value to the weight of each argument.
its like a kid covering his ears and yelling "LALALALA" to not hear the
other person.
>
> By your own statement, miracles were common place, so why the
> reticence?
He was claiming to be the Son of God for one. thats blasphemy. thats
very serious business. and also the fact that He was being critical of
certain incorrect practices of the religious order of the time.. two big
nono's in their book. its like if Jesus were here walking the earth
today, and went around saying how popoff and benny hinn should repent of
their ways. they are doing wrong, and He was calling them on it, they
were just too proud to recognize it and change their ways (well,
obviously not all.. there was nicodemus for example who came to Him by
night, so nobody would find out.. ) see, Jesus did not tolerate abuse of
the religious system, and those perpetrating those abuses were not about
to let Him change all that.
>
> Besides, once he wad dead, posterity could go take a jump, he would be
> just one more ex- street magician.
yeah, exactly.. that was the point of killing Him off.. (or at least
trying to).. but then they were screwed when He was the real deal and
resurrected..
>
>
>> that would be counter-productive to
>> their cause and would make very little sense
>>
>
> How would it?
because if a blasphemer saying He is the Son of God can perform
miracles, it lends a bit of weight to that argument, so you dont want to
recognize any of the weight, just in case.. much like with what you are
doing to my arguments and valid points, you arent acknowledging any..
just in case..
>
>
>>>
>>>> 4) the events and all related occurrences were smothered and those
>>>> spreading the news of it were arrested and silenced (or at least they
>>>> tried.. tho obviously not effectively enough)
>>> Thousands, arrested and silenced?
>>>
>>> Unlikely.
>> but it occurs to this day, for example in china with the falun gong..
>
> Irrelevant Straw man.
you seem to not know your fallacies.
>
> Also, today, we are a lot more technologically advanced, with much
> more efficient methods of crowd control.
which still for the most part dont do much to "control" the crowds..
unless mass murder could be considered a form of control.. and yes,
thousands do get arrested in china, and other places.. they just dont
publicize it.. (have you heard what they are doing with google and other
search engines? you are right, we are more technologically advanced, and
silencing people is becoming "easier".. i guess.. )
>
>> its not impossible.
>
> Not to day, but way back then? I don't think so.
you dont think so? well, then i guess my argument is invalid, because
you dont think its possible that thousands would be arrested to attempt
to silence them.. or get them to renounce their beliefs..
>
> two thousand years ago, two thousand people would have been a very
> significant portion of the population of Jerusalem.
because back then, the entire population of the world was in the
thousands? come on.. you are making an argument based on scale.. two
thousand people is not really all that much for a city.. even way back
when.. not that i am agreeing that thats the number we are talking
about.. i doubt they wouldve arrested so many.. simply because i doubt
they would have needed to arrest that many.. plus the bible doesnt say
how many were arrested, and i made no claim as to even an approximate
number OR percentage of how many were arrested.
>
> It would have required the intervention of the Roman army of
> occupation, to accomplish it.
>
> Rome was not interested in what the Jews believed, only that they
> obeyed the law.
yeah, ie, that they paid tribute to their pagan gods.. oh wait,
christians were not allowed to do that (nor were jews, either) according
to their beliefs.. so, yeah, they deserved to die.. look up nero and how
he lit up his garden parties.. every christian was persona non grata in
rome.. sometimes they were tolerated.. but it wasnt until constantine
that persecution of christians was ended (sort of)
>
> That was why Pilate handed Jesus back to the priests. He had broken
> none of Rome's laws, and so Rome was not interested.
>
> Do you remember that?
of course i do.. but it was the roman guards who took care of the
beating and execution. so why, if He was soooo innocent did they crucify
Him? the worst punishment possible the romans could give?
>
>
>
>
>> but again, they werent completely silenced (as i
>> mentioned) since obviously we know about it today
>>
>
> As I said, only Rome had the power to do that, and Rome was not
> interested.
>
> Read your bible; It is all in there.
but what exactly is it you are trying to say then?? you are making no
sense, you sound like you are trying to argue against something i wrote
here, but i dont find it! only rome had the power to silence people, and
rome wasnt interested in doing that.. I DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET AT!!! you arent arguing against my point, yet you still
write condescendingly as if i had said something incorrect.. if you dont
disagree with something, then just leave it at that.
>
>
>>> Occam's razor, suggests that the simplest explanation, is usually the
>>> best one.
>> except occams razor is a rule of thumb, and not a law.
>
> That is why I said "suggests"; or did you miss that?
but then why bring up occams razor at all? unless you are backing down
now from using it to support the position you were holding..
>
>
>> if we were to
>> apply it for historical events,
>
> Which we often do.
define "we" then.. if by "we" you mean "revisionists" then, yeah, you
are right. also, the holocaust didnt happen.. right? because hoooley,
how is it possible that you could collect millions of people and
systematically kill them all without any of them fighting back or anyone
doing anything about it.. that HAS to be all made up.. since occams
razor would suggest it so..
>
>> then holey,
>
> Please explain what you mean by that.
by "holey"?
>
>
>> we could conclude at least
>> 3/4ths of history did not occur..
>
> Rubbish!
yeah, all 3/4s of it is rubbish! woo!
>
>> beginning with the holocaust..
>
> So what is the simple explanation for all the evidence, the mass
> graves, the confessions of the guilty, the documentary evidence from
> Berlin, and from the camps them selves, the eye witness accounts of
> the intended victims?
>
> Tell us what the simple explanation is.
dont ask me, ask david irving or ernst zuendel, im not the one denying
history, i DO believe the holocaust happened!! you see, for each person,
different things might seem the simplest explanation.. "its all made up"
sounds easier for some than to explain (or believe) how so many millions
were slaughtered and nobody did anything about it.
>
>
>> or any
>> genocide.. especially modern day ones..
>
> You really haven't got a clue; Have you?
>
> We have documentary evidence, photographic evidence, film evidence, of
> genocide, and you think that Occam's razor, some how negates all of
> that?
you missed the point. i wasnt making that argument, i was saying how
occams razor doesnt apply in cases such as history. why? because
history, as with physical things as well, has a tendency to decay, and
not everything survives, including evidence, books, even buildings and
such.. but not because of it did the events not happen. we have the
evidence of all these things today.. but over time that evidence will
grow thinner and thinner.. but even a complete absence of evidence will
not in any way mean they didnt happen, no matter WHAT occam's razor says
about them.. hence why even bringing it up is devoid of use.
>
> Please tell us how, and what your explanation is.
>
>>>
>>>> remember that for example paul wrote many letters from jail.. he was
>>>> jailed because of talking about Jesus..
>>> Yeeess.
>>>
>>> He just couldn't seem to get the hang of following his own teaching:
>>> Could he?
>> not sure what you mean
>
> Have you ever actually read the bible?
>
> Paul taught that slaves should obey their masters, and citizens should
> obey the laws of the countries they were in.
you know how i said "not sure what you mean".. well thats because i had
no clue what you were talking about (ie, not that i didnt agree with
whatever point im guessing you were trying to make, but that i actually
didnt even know what theme or subject matter you were talking about),
but apparently not understanding what you are talking about means i
havent read the bible.. you said "he couldnt seem to get the hand of
following his own teaching: could he?" which made no sense to mention as
a response to my saying paul was in jail because of talking about Jesus.
even now, answering that paul taught that slaves should obey their
masters is devoid of relevance to the point in question.
>
>>>> sort of like whats going on in
>>>> china with the falun gong, or any muslim country with christianity.. you
>>>> know..
>>> Yep, and like that xtians in America want to do with all none xtians,
>>> especially muslims, and doubly so, atheists.
>>
>> you mean jail and torture them until they renounce their beliefs??
>
> Yes.
wow.. no wonder you are an atheist.. you live in this crazy fantasy land
where things are soo different than in reality. you remind me of me 8
years ago.. "nobody likes me, everybody hates me.. wah wah wah" nobody
is persecuting you, if anything, they dont like you because you
antagonize them so much, and criticize their beliefs, ever thought about
that?? and even if thats not the case, they STILL arent jailing or
torturing you!!! SO GET OFF THAT BOAT ALREADY!!
>
>> i
>> have yet to hear about this going on in the US..
>
> One of their own statesmen, said that atheists could not be considered
> patriots, and should not be considered citizens, that they were just
> criminals waiting for an opportunity, and should all be locked up.
>
wait, did you just use that as an example? because you realize the
statesmen ONLY said "should" be locked up.. he didnt actually send
anyone to jail, nor did he pass a law for it to happen, nor has anyone
been tortured.. if this is the best example you can come up with then
hooooley.. you are lucky to be living in such an amazing free country,
where even if the government (or a single member thereof) doesnt like
you, they still protect your rights, and dont go off and torture or kill
you.. now go and try being a christian in an atheist regime.. tell me
its the same story.. go on.. GO ON!
>
>> but then again, i dont
>> live there, so i wouldnt know.
>>
>
> No, you live in Canada, presumably on the York U. campus.
>
> What do you do there?
computer science, why?
>
>>> It ain't new, and xtians are no less guilty than anyone else.
>> again i have yet to hear of christians jailing and torturing people to
>> renounce their beliefs..
>> atheist or muslim or anything else under the sun.
>
> Your knowledge of history leaves something to be desired.
please then, mention some examples and enlighten me, because obviously
you know history waaaay better than i.. oh, and no fair choosing the
catholic church as an example, since one basic unwaiverable christian
principle is to not commit idolatry..
>
>>>
>>>>> If the events in the gospels were true (ignoring the contradictions between
>>>>> the accounts) then it is beyond belief that noone at that time, Roman or Jew
>>>>> or other, wrote anything about those events, let alone associating them with
>>>>> Jesus.
>>>> Jesus wasnt the only person crucified, not even that day.. He was also
>>>> not the only person to have claimed to be the messiah.. and not the only
>>>> person with a large following. speaking merely in a worldly sense, Jesus
>>>> didnt really stir much more dust than any other.. the significance of it
>>>> all, the groundshattering part of it all, was His resurrection.. thats
>>>> what set Him apart from everybody else.
>>>>
>>> Nooo.
>>>
>>> What set xtianity apart, was Constantine, nothing more, nothing less.
>> um, not really,
>
> Um, Yes, really.
ok this is getting infantile here
>
>> all he did was paganize christian beliefs (therefore
>> giving rise to the catholic church) by forcing people to be "christians"
>> against their wills (which is impossible by the way..
>
> Not exactly.
yeah, it is impossible to force someone to be a christian, since it has
to be a personal decision, the bible says so
>
> You cannot force the parents to believe, but you CAN force them to
> teach their children to believe.
and even then, you still cant force those children to believe what they
are being taught.. right?
>
> But that matters very little: Constantine made xtianity the state
> religion.
> No one had to believe, only worship.
>
> You are talking about an age when god beliefs abounded, so what was
> one god more or less, the average man.
>
>
>> you cannot force
>> someone to be a christian, its a personal decision that you must make
>> yourself and nobody can make for you.. the bible says so itself..)
>
> That is modern, xtian thinking, and it does not apply to the fourth
> century.
its not modern at all, why dont you please do me the favor and read the
NT before you lecture me on christian beliefs. it might make you sound a
little bit less ignorant
>
> In fact, it is probably only in the last hundred and fifty years,
> that, that thinking has changed.
the bible hasnt changed in the last 1700 years.. and thats where it is
stated
>
> But not that much. Xtians, even today, tell us that belief is a
> matter of choice.
>
> If that is true, then a sword to your throat, or your family's
> throats, could be a powerful motivator to make the choice, and
> believe.
um, you can only "say" you believe.. but neither a sword to the throat,
or an atheist calling you an idiot will force you to change your
beliefs, you have to actually be convinced of something to believe it.
and a sword can only convince you to "say" you believe, not to actually
believe it.
>
>
> The fact remains, that you are probably a xtian today, because
> somewhere in the past, someone with a sword, pointed it at some poor
> sucker, and told him, "Worship my god, OR ELSE!".
hahah thats the most ridiculous statement you made in your entire post..
and thats quite a feat. i am a christian today because 5 years ago i
decided to give my life to Christ, nobody forced me, nobody brainwashed
me.. nothing.. there are no christians who were forced to be
christians.. perhaps members of certain religions or denominations,
sure.. but you really cannot force anyone, by sword, lie or humiliation,
to be a christian.. the bible clearly defines how you become one, and
what defines one.. and your statement exudes ignorance of this.. but
then again, this is probably why you are an atheist.. right? cuz you
think those damn dirty christians forced everyone at sword point (wow,
just the image of it is ridiculous..) to accept their god or ELSE~!!
geeze.. well, honestly i cant convince you otherwise, but if this
dishonesty/ignorance is the fuel you need to keep your hatred towards
God and christians ablaze, then, well, what can i do?
>
>
