God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I don't find anything in your response worthy of another response, but I admit my mistake is that I assume most people here I'm talking with in an anti-Christian topic are atheists. (〃⌒∇⌒)

I've stated numerous times that I'm a deist.

That's why I admit it's always a mistake I am prone to committing.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Do you have any proof that he was "God"? Or is that based on faith?

He was resurrected. There were hundreds of witnesses. He ascended into heaven. Very well documented.

There is one account of there having been hundreds of witnesses. We do not have hundreds of witness statements, we just have the word of whoever wrote Paul's words in that part of the Bible.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Wikipedia says that the gospel Matthew was written by an anonymous author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

When the heck did Wikipedia became a valid and reliable source? And still, no, manuscript evidence universally names Matthew as the author, and there is a significant deposit of Matthean tradition likely edited by Matthew himself. Because you gave a link, here's the link defending his authorship - http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php.

[The Alma Mater]

Ohno, I believe a or more gods exist. I do just not believe that they are good or noble.

I don't find anything in your response worthy of another response

Of course not. You are, after all, not as noble as Jesus - while I am far superior to him. I accept that you must kneel in awe and admit you are unworthy.

(Of course, thousands of people are morally superior to Jesus - so I expect you do a lot of kneeling )

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

He was resurrected. There were hundreds of witnesses. He ascended into heaven. Very well documented.

There is one account of there having been hundreds of witnesses. We do not have hundreds of witness statements, we just have the word of whoever wrote Paul's words in that part of the Bible.

Such hundreds of witness statements are hard to come across at the 1st century AD.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Such hundreds of witness statements are hard to come across at the 1st century AD.

Excuses for why you don't have evidence are not suitable replacements for evidence.

As far as I know, we lack even a single credible source of the existence of Jesus' ministry outside of the Bible. No passing.Roman scholars remark about how.the Jews were claiming that this new religious leader was performing miracles. Nothing.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Such hundreds of witness statements are hard to come across at the 1st century AD.

Excuses for why you don't have evidence are not suitable replacements for evidence.

As far as I know, we lack even a single credible source of the existence of Jesus' ministry outside of the Bible. No passing.Roman scholars remark about how.the Jews were claiming that this new religious leader was performing miracles. Nothing.

That's because you don't understand literature of the time, you obviously showed this when you cannot understand how hard it is to have 100 written statements in a time where the population is illiterate and in such a time period. It's not excuses, but a reality of the time period.

And that, we do not lack secular sources of Jesus Christ's ministry, Josephis Flavius, Lucian, Tacitus, Mara bar-Serapion, Pliny, Seutonius, any of them ring a bell to you? That's too much authors for a supposed nobody preacher and ascetic.

Besides, Alexander the Great also has the problem of lack of written sources, yet why is it that you do not deny Alexander the Great, but deny the historicity of Jesus Christ? Critics of Jesus Christ's history really misunderstand such literature in the classical times.

[The Nuclear Fist]

This.
Now, if one claims that Jesus *is* God; or say "an avatar" of God, or "God becoming Human" then yes, I see the compassion.
But letting someone else being tortured to death ? Not so much.

Because you don't realize that Jesus and God are the same God. It is God Himself who died and sacrificed for humankind, because Jesus Christ is God Himself. Holy Trinity - One God in Three Persons.

That either doesn't make any sense or really ruins the point of the sacrifice at all.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

That's because you don't understand literature of the time, you obviously showed this when you cannot understand how hard it is to have 100 written statements in a time where the population is illiterate and in such a time period. It's not excuses, but a reality of the time period.

"Of course the aliens' advanced technology has allowed them to perfectly erase all credible evidence"

I don't care about your excuses. I care about the fact that you've only got one source for these sightings. There's not even any other sources of anyone who claimed to have talked to these people.

And that, we do not lack secular sources of Jesus Christ's ministry, Josephis Flavius, Lucian, Tacitus, Mara bar-Serapion, Pliny, Seutonius, any of them ring a bell to you? That's too much authors for a supposed nobody preacher and ascetic.

Lucian, Tacitus, Mara, Pliny, and Seutonius all wrote their accounts several generations after Jesus' supposed death, when Christians had gone on to spread various stories about him, and Josephus' account has clearly been altered to make it seem to more clearly support the Jesus narrative.

Besides, Alexander the Great also has the problem of lack of written sources, yet why is it that you do not deny Alexander the Great, but deny the historicity of Jesus Christ? Critics of Jesus Christ's history really misunderstand such literature in the classical times.

Some examples of written works about Alexander the Great: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... r_z1b.html
1: Alexander has a lot more going for him in this department, with several written accounts created during his lifetime.
2: The claims about Alexander the Great are less extraordinary than the claims of Jesus. He's claimed to have conquered a lot of places, but history is full of conquerers.
3: Frankly, at the end of the day, the historicity and details of Alexander the Great's life are of extremely limited relevance to me. If new evidence arose that made it seem clear that he was made up for some reason, I wouldn't be resistant to that evidence.

[Risottia]

Wikipedia says that the gospel Matthew was written by an anonymous author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

When the heck did Wikipedia became a valid and reliable source? And still, no, manuscript evidence universally names Matthew as the author, and there is a significant deposit of Matthean tradition likely edited by Matthew himself. Because you gave a link, here's the link defending his authorship - http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php.

Dude, considering "tektonics.org" as a valid source when pissing on Wiki (which, by the way, has a lenghty source reference)? Seriously?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mission.php

Mission Statement
Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible (...)
Statement of Faith
Let me make it easy. Campus Crusade has a Statement of Faith here. I agree with it in whole, though I vary on a couple of points (...)

http://www.cru.org/about/statement-of-faith.html
The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

Those aren't scientific sites. They're sites relying entirely about belief. Hence circular logic is circular logic is circular logic.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#References

[The Rich Port]

Excuses for why you don't have evidence are not suitable replacements for evidence.

As far as I know, we lack even a single credible source of the existence of Jesus' ministry outside of the Bible. No passing.Roman scholars remark about how.the Jews were claiming that this new religious leader was performing miracles. Nothing.

That's because you don't understand literature of the time, you obviously showed this when you cannot understand how hard it is to have 100 written statements in a time where the population is illiterate and in such a time period. It's not excuses, but a reality of the time period.

And that, we do not lack secular sources of Jesus Christ's ministry, Josephis Flavius, Lucian, Tacitus, Mara bar-Serapion, Pliny, Seutonius, any of them ring a bell to you? That's too much authors for a supposed nobody preacher and ascetic.

Besides, Alexander the Great also has the problem of lack of written sources, yet why is it that you do not deny Alexander the Great, but deny the historicity of Jesus Christ? Critics of Jesus Christ's history really misunderstand such literature in the classical times.

Never mind eyewitness accounts can be seriously inaccurate, but that is a clear selection bias: educated, most likely clerical people wrote them, since those were the people who, after the end of the Pagan Roman Empire, were the ones that preserved Latin and literature in general on top of Christianity. Those 100 statements are highly unreliable in two major ways already.

Again, they all heard of the Jesus stories second-hand decades after the guy died.

There are far more sources proving the existence of Alexander than there are of Jesus, ironically enough. Alexander has something Jesus has never had: solid archaeology and anthropology. Countless cultures across the world have evidence and cultural experience of Alexander conquering most of the known world.

Jesus sure as shit didn't build 8 cities and then gave his name to them.

What's more ironic is nobody worships Alexander as a god and yet this Jesus guy, who, need I remind everyone, did NOT conquer most of the known world while he was still alive, gets over-rated to all hell.

[The Archregimancy]

Some examples of written works about Alexander the Great: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... r_z1b.html

Just for quick reference, and without addressing the rest of your points, that's not a good link for your counter-argument. Indeed, that very same link is usually used to demonstrate the lack of contemporary surviving written historical evidence for Alexander's life.

Looking at each source in that link in turn:

Callisthenes: As the source itself states, 'the book of Deeds of Alexander is now lost, but underlies much of what was written later' and 'Callisthenes' book on the Deeds of Alexander and the Royal diary are primary sources. They are now lost, but were used by secondary authors'; so the source doesn't survive, but is assumed to be the underlying original document leaned on by several subsequent authors.

Arrian of Nicomedia: His Anabasis is one of the most important sources for the life of Alexander; however, As Arrian was born in 87 AD, and the Anabasis was written in the 2nd century AD, he's not even remotely a contemporary source. Indeed, he's a less contemporary source by several centuries than many of the ones you object to when cited by Scrin.

Ptolemy: Like Callisthenes, a contemporary of Alexander. However, his memoir of Alexander's campaign doesn't survive, and is only known via Arrian's Anabasis; which, as we've seen, was written some 400 years after the events it describes.

Aristobulus: The same situation with Ptolemy.

Onesicritus of Astypalaea: As your own source says, "he published How Alexander was educated, a primary source that is now lost. It is certain, however, that in this book, he claimed to have been the commander of the fleet, which was not true and caused admiral Nearchus to write an account of his own."

Nearchus: As the source notes, "Nearchus retired to write a book called Indik. The Indik is now lost, but its contents are well-known from several sources, especially the Indik by Arrian" - which, as we've seen, was written some 400 years later.

Plutarch of Chaeronea: Wrote a very influential Life of Alexander - but Plutarch lived from 46-c.120 AD; so as with Arrian, he lived several centuries after the events described, and is not a contemporary source.

Summed up, all of the sources you offer in that link are either lost - we only know they existed via much later second-hand sources - or were written several centuries after the events they describe. Furthermore, all of the lost contemporary sources cited above were written by followers of Alexander, and therefore certainly can't be considered as neutral third party sources since they were written by individuals who accepted (in public, anyway) the divine nature of their leader. And those are the good historical sources for Alexander. It is therefore misleading to state 'Alexander has a lot more going for him in this department, with several written accounts created during his lifetime' since none of those accounts actually survive in their original form.

Some will be tempted to reply with 'but Demosthenes!'; but there are problems with that too.

Again, I'm not tackling the rest of your points; I'm merely noting on the very narrow point quoted above that the link you offer isn't remotely a good counter-argument to Scrin's point - indeed, it actively undermines the counter-argument you're trying to make. On the basis of your use of that link, Scrin's earlier statement that you don't wholly understand the nature of Classical historical evidence is, alas, not wholly unjustified.

You would be on much better ground if you cited the archaeological evidence for Alexander as a counter-argument rather than the historical evidence - though any reasonably committed advocatus diaboli can counter that as well (for rhetorical purposes only, I stress).

What's more ironic is nobody worships Alexander as a god

Well, not anymore, anyway.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

When the heck did Wikipedia became a valid and reliable source? And still, no, manuscript evidence universally names Matthew as the author, and there is a significant deposit of Matthean tradition likely edited by Matthew himself. Because you gave a link, here's the link defending his authorship - http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php.

Dude, considering "tektonics.org" as a valid source when pissing on Wiki (which, by the way, has a lenghty source reference)? Seriously?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mission.php

Mission Statement
Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible (...)
Statement of Faith
Let me make it easy. Campus Crusade has a Statement of Faith here. I agree with it in whole, though I vary on a couple of points (...)

http://www.cru.org/about/statement-of-faith.html
The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

Those aren't scientific sites. They're sites relying entirely about belief. Hence circular logic is circular logic is circular logic.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#References

Have you even cared reading on the content of the link? And that, of course, those aren't scientific sites, we're not talking about a scientific topic here, we're talking about the authorship of Matthew. And that, I don't know the relevance of the Q Source on this one, we're talking about the issue of whether Matthew really authored the Gospel of Matthew regardless of whether he used the Q Document as a source or not. Please don't simply jump on topics you don't even know what's being discussed.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Because you don't realize that Jesus and God are the same God. It is God Himself who died and sacrificed for humankind, because Jesus Christ is God Himself. Holy Trinity - One God in Three Persons.

That either doesn't make any sense or really ruins the point of the sacrifice at all.

It makes sense if you understand the Holy Trinity, though there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, there is a single God.

[The Archregimancy]

Have you even cared reading on the content of the link? And that, of course, those aren't scientific sites, we're not talking about a scientific topic here, we're talking about the authorship of Matthew. And that, I don't know the relevance of the Q Source on this one, we're talking about the issue of whether Matthew really authored the Gospel of Matthew regardless of whether he used the Q Document as a source or not. Please don't simply jump on topics you don't even know what's being discussed.

In balance for the backup I gave you earlier, I'll note that with my professional hat on I disagree with you fairly strongly here.

Matthew is probably the least likely of the Gospels to have been written by its purported author or individuals in close contact with the purported author.

The best we can say is that the author of Matthew was an anonymous Hellenised Christian Jew from the first generation of the Christian community. The tradition ascribing authorship to Matthew - and incorrectly stating that the existing version is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original - seems to date to Papias' Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (now lost) as subsequently recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church. No reliable academic textual criticism would make a confident attribution of the manuscript to the former tax collector known as Matthew the Apostle.

I'm not sure, incidentally, whether this is necessarily the best thread to be discussing this since the present topic seems to now be fairly narrowly on issues of Christian history rather than the broader topic of the existence or otherwise of a deity; but I'll leave it to others to make the decision there.

[Nordengrund]

All of the poll answers require faith. After all, the universe is so vast and our minds are so feeble, we cannot know everything about the Universe.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

"Of course the aliens' advanced technology has allowed them to perfectly erase all credible evidence"

I don't care about your excuses. I care about the fact that you've only got one source for these sightings. There's not even any other sources of anyone who claimed to have talked to these people.

Please don't misrepresent me by somehow implying I'm an ancient astronaut theorist. That is a very insulting one if one considers of the intelligence of the said group.

You simply don't get witnesses or sources of anyone talking to nobodies, nobody cares about some peasants or farmers seeing Him. However, what is interesting is Christianity is distinct as the witnesses in the NT are not narrowed to nobodies, we see famous and notable personalities in the NT everywhere such as Pontius Pilate and the high priest, simply more than nobodies.

And that, the Bible is a pretty much reliable document evidence, you do not have basis on why it should be rejected. The events in the Bible are also attested to by several secular such as Josephus Flavius mentioning several figures and events in the NT, such as the assassination of John the Baptist.

Lucian, Tacitus, Mara, Pliny, and Seutonius all wrote their accounts several generations after Jesus' supposed death, when Christians had gone on to spread various stories about him, and Josephus' account has clearly been altered to make it seem to more clearly support the Jesus narrative.

Lateness does not apply to Lucian regarding his critical capabilities. Tacitus's literature is also often praised for accuracy, reliability and trustworthiness, so there's no valid reason to discard his writings by calling it too late by several gens. There's also no reason to discredit Mara's writing by lateness, the four Gospels, written no later than 70-100 AD all put partial blame on the Jews and call Christ King of the Jews, so these two factors permit a late first-century date for Mara Bar Serapion. Pliny also wrote his correspondence in 106 AD and had certain unique qualifications, making him reliable. Suetonius also was a reliable source in the 1st-2nd century AD.

Regarding the forging of Josephus Flavius, the textual evidence argues against it, and use of non-Christian terminology argues against a pious Christian editor. However, if Josephus Flavius's writing was indeed forged, it would be minor indeed and only forged by some interpolators to give more lipservice and praise to Christ, comparison with other versions proves that Josephus Flavius indeed wrote about Jesus, that he taught, that many followed him, that he was crucified, and he made miracles.

You know, in the world of classical history, calling writers too late or "by several generations after" will not give you a free pass.

Besides, Alexander the Great also has the problem of lack of written sources, yet why is it that you do not deny Alexander the Great, but deny the historicity of Jesus Christ? Critics of Jesus Christ's history really misunderstand such literature in the classical times.

Some examples of written works about Alexander the Great: http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/a ... r_z1b.html
1: Alexander has a lot more going for him in this department, with several written accounts created during his lifetime.
2: The claims about Alexander the Great are less extraordinary than the claims of Jesus. He's claimed to have conquered a lot of places, but history is full of conquerers.
3: Frankly, at the end of the day, the historicity and details of Alexander the Great's life are of extremely limited relevance to me. If new evidence arose that made it seem clear that he was made up for some reason, I wouldn't be resistant to that evidence.

I believe Arch has already made a sufficient rebuttal on this one.

[The Nuclear Fist]

That either doesn't make any sense or really ruins the point of the sacrifice at all.

It makes sense if you understand the Holy Trinity, though there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, there is a single God.

If god sent itself down to earth to fake die for a crime of evil that it is ultimately responsible for doesn't really carry much weight in terms of sacrifice.

That's why I said Jesus not being human ruins the point of the sacrifice: God by definition cannot die, so sending itself down is not real sacrifice, it's a matter of pointless theatrics.

And the idea of the Trinity is preposterous. It's theologically just handwaving issues with scripture and saying it makes sense because god.

[Dyakovo]

I hope this isn't considered spamming, cause I'm sharing something that means something to me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OTz-lpDjw
This is all I have to contribute to this thread: just gotta have faith people, just gotta have faith.

No, I don't.

[Dyakovo]

Do you have any proof that he was "God"? Or is that based on faith?

He was resurrected. There were hundreds of witnesses. He ascended into heaven. Very well documented.

Wrong.

[Dyakovo]

All of the poll answers require faith. After all, the universe is so vast and our minds are so feeble, we cannot know everything about the Universe.

No, they don't. Lacking belief in a deity or deities requires no faith.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It makes sense if you understand the Holy Trinity, though there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, there is a single God.

If god sent itself down to earth to fake die for a crime of evil that it is ultimately responsible for doesn't really carry much weight in terms of sacrifice.

That's why I said Jesus not being human ruins the point of the sacrifice: God by definition cannot die, so sending itself down is not real sacrifice, it's a matter of pointless theatrics.

And the idea of the Trinity is preposterous. It's theologically just handwaving issues with scripture and saying it makes sense because god.

It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

If god sent itself down to earth to fake die for a crime of evil that it is ultimately responsible for doesn't really carry much weight in terms of sacrifice.

That's why I said Jesus not being human ruins the point of the sacrifice: God by definition cannot die, so sending itself down is not real sacrifice, it's a matter of pointless theatrics.

And the idea of the Trinity is preposterous. It's theologically just handwaving issues with scripture and saying it makes sense because god.

First, God, Jesus in this case did not "fake die". He actually died and became dead, but was resurrected, got it? Second, what the heck is that crime of evil? God is not ultimately responsible for the presence of sin in the world, humanity (through Adam and Eve) freely chose to disobey God and through Adam (yes, Adam), sin entered the world. In the end, if you search through all the facts, it indeed is a very venerable sacrifice, God sacrificed Himself to save humanity because of a reason humanity made which gives you the image of a very loving and merciful God.

Then second second, Jesus is actually being human, and also God. This is what non-Christians tend to understand, when we say Jesus is God, it does not mean it is not human. Doctrine of hypostatic union says Jesus is both fully human, and fully divine at the same time. Humanity and divinity are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, it's a non-issue as Jesus still remains human. Jesus being God, can totally die because he also is fully human and cooperates with the limitations of the human form. God the Father Himself cannot die, but Jesus can.

Third, your first and second paragraphs prove you do not understand Holy Trinity.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

God is not ultimately responsible for the presence of sin in the world, humanity (through Adam and Eve) freely chose to disobey God and through Adam (yes, Adam), sin entered the world.

Are Christians still spouting this doublethink bullshit?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Have you even cared reading on the content of the link? And that, of course, those aren't scientific sites, we're not talking about a scientific topic here, we're talking about the authorship of Matthew. And that, I don't know the relevance of the Q Source on this one, we're talking about the issue of whether Matthew really authored the Gospel of Matthew regardless of whether he used the Q Document as a source or not. Please don't simply jump on topics you don't even know what's being discussed.

In balance for the backup I gave you earlier, I'll note that with my professional hat on I disagree with you fairly strongly here.

Matthew is probably the least likely of the Gospels to have been written by its purported author or individuals in close contact with the purported author.

The best we can say is that the author of Matthew was an anonymous Hellenised Christian Jew from the first generation of the Christian community. The tradition ascribing authorship to Matthew - and incorrectly stating that the existing version is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original - seems to date to Papias' Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (now lost) as subsequently recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church. No reliable academic textual criticism would make a confident attribution of the manuscript to the former tax collector known as Matthew the Apostle.

I'm not sure, incidentally, whether this is necessarily the best thread to be discussing this since the present topic seems to now be fairly narrowly on issues of Christian history rather than the broader topic of the existence or otherwise of a deity; but I'll leave it to others to make the decision there.

With due respect, I don't know, when you as both an Eastern Orthodox Christian and an archaeologist put the boundary on whether to consider the Church Fathers' statements as factual or not.