Does science make belief in God obsolete?

jem · Jun 2, 2008

Your rhetoric, Bernard Richards, is crafty... but it is not logical.

You argued exactly as I predicted. Attempting to take the focus off the message by bringing up nazi's.

If a nazi said 2 plus 2 equals 4... would you say it was a lie because the author is a nazi?

It is truth that matters not the messenger. A historical argument made by a Christian could be biased just as an argument made by a non Christian... the graveman of the issue is truth and accuracy not the messenger.

As much as I would like to read greek and Hebrew, I do not have the time. I have to rely on concordances and the work of scholars.

Luckily, I was familiar enough with the subject that I knew your statements were misleading and specious at best. I challenged you and you added very little to our knowledge. Our loss.

As far as scholarship and quality of citations your Walker might have well have been Paul Walker. (I think he is an actor.) Your Walker's statements about hearsay were juvenile. I did not see him declaring he was a licensed attorney - so by your standards his work is worthless. They were worthless by jurisprudential standards as well.

Just to let you know - there are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule - that a lawyer can almost always find a way to get important statements into a trial record. Frequently the evidence comes in for the truth of the matter asserted. (not just state of mind)

Although in this instance the state of mind of a historian recording history would be quite probative on the issue of the "historicity" of a person. So in my considered legal opinion Joespheus' evidence would be allowed into a trial record as straight evidence, over a hearsay objection, or as an exception to a hearsay objection.

your case has been dismissed for lack of credible evidence in support of your argument.

Quote from BernardRichards:

More...

BernardRichards · Jun 2, 2008

Quote from jem:

Attempting to take the focus off the message by bringing up nazi's.

You know that I didn't bring up Nazis in that post so why do you lie Jem? That post had nothing to do with Nazis.

However, your sources about the Torah are just as good as Nazi sources about the Jews. They are both filled with misinformation in order to achieve a sinister purpose.

Here listen to one of your teachers Jem.

Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

It is truth that matters not the messenger.

You are right, but from the messenger an intelligent person can see whether the messenger has any credibility.

You are an ignoramus in the Bible, and its history as you readily admit. The Torah and the Gospels were written in Hebrew -- not English, and you don't even know the alphabet of Hebrew. You don't know Latin so you can't understand Roman Catholicism which is the foundation of all the Protestant faiths. You don't know Aramaic so you don't know whether Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ was history or pure bologny.

As much as I would like to read greek and Hebrew, I do not have the time. I have to rely on concordances and the work of scholars.

How do you know who is a scholar and who is a fake, and on what works you can rely on and on which you can't ? You don't so you follow your prejudices, and you quote falsehoods and nonsense from your fellow ignorant and off the wall Jesus freaks like the Jews for Jesus.
More...

BernardRichards · Jun 2, 2008

Quote from jem:

Luckily, I was familiar enough with the subject that I knew your statements were misleading and specious at best. I challenged you...

My statements?? And you challenged me??

You mean these statements and others of a similar nature from Jim Walker's site http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm: as to whether a historical Jesus existed.

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Go ahead contradict them Jem.

We are all watching you. Shows us how enlightened and erudite you are. Put forth your sources and contradict them one by one.

The fact is that you can't contradict any of them Jem so instead you have ignored them and engaged in various red herrings (logical fallacy of ignoratio elenchi) and ad hominems attacks against me and now Jim Walker.

You have proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a classical sophist of the Jesus freak variety, and you have an ax to grind so there is no point debating anything with you. A sophist never loses an argument -- only the fool that debates with him.

Hence, I have now placed you on my ignore list, but I will allow myself the pleasure of qouting other material from Jim Walker's site just to get your goat up.

I have this bad habit of bringing light into darkness so you have to forgive me.
More...

jem · Jun 2, 2008

you said I lied? You denied bringing nazi's into the discussion....

here are the quotes... .

I amazingly predicted...

"and elohim -

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish -

Now I expect you will put down the messenger instead of the message. Proving you lack of concern for the truth."

You responded.....

"I'm surprised you didn't bring forth Mein Kampf or the Quran as well in this discussion if you could bring forth the Jews for Jesus teachings as a source.

Am I really putting down the Jews for Jesus?

Let's see. How do you like these statements. Jews for Hitler, and Jews for Mohammed.

All of these statements are oxymorons.

A Jew for Jesus is no longer a Jew, but a Christian.

A Jew for Hitler is no longer a Jew, but a Nazi.

And a Jew for Mohammed, is no longer a Jew, but a Muslim.

By the name itself, Jews for Jesus, that these people have chosen they are showing that they are nothing more than cheap tricksters. There are only Christians for Jesus in the true meaning of the word "for."

How is that for my lack of concern for the truth Jem?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way... I now predict you will will respond with more B.S. even though you claim - you put me on ignore. Your logic is weak, your concern for truth and accuracy weaker.

jem · Jun 2, 2008

regarding your other recycled b.s. arguments.

I granted you that eusebius may have added a quote about jesus divinity.

However, you know by now there are other sources and reasons scholars use - to show that Josepheus did reference Christ and his followers.

Bringing this up quote up again shows how little you care for the truth.

Quoting Walker again shows what a panzi you are. Walker makes a big deal about hearsay. He is wrong about hearsay - he has little understanding of hearsay.

As far as historians recording history 30 years after the fact... thats what historians do... Otherwise they would be newspaper reporters.

And least you forget, many of their accounts come from oral sources.

I am... · Jun 2, 2008

Quote from Jerry030:

No, just picking a "god" at random...how about Isis be praised.
They are all just cultural mythos, including the White guy on the cloud with the long beard.
More...

Not the same as Our Father [patent pending].

P.S. - Any unauthorized use of Our Father strictly prohibited without express written permission.

Jesus

Log in or Sign up

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

jem

BernardRichards

BernardRichards

jem

jem

I am...