What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE! Read This First Post, THEN Q & A Discussion! ASK QUESTIONS HERE! (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Politician Spock said:
:lmao:  at the bold. 

The guys has a doctorate in this field, is paid to continue researching it every day. 

The fact that you so easily try to discredit him says a lot more about you than it does about him. 
Click to expand...
Dr. Price has a doctorate degree in his field as well.  He is the one who put that list together.  You can laugh all you want, I agree with Dr. Nelson Price.  Read them for yourself.  

 
Paddington said:
Politician Spock said:
Paddington said:
Yes Jesus Existed. He's either flat out lying or he obviously doesn't know history. 

 Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ By The Historians Of His Day And Shortly Thereafter:

http://www.nelsonprice.com/early-secular-writings-regarding-christ/
Click to expand...
:lmao:  at the bold. 

The guys has a doctorate in this field, is paid to continue researching it every day. 

The fact that you so easily try to discredit him says a lot more about you than it does about him. 
Click to expand...
Dr. Price has a doctorate degree in his field as well.  He is the one who put that list together.  You can laugh all you want, I agree with Dr. Nelson Price.  Read them for yourself.  
Click to expand...
I laughed at the bolded. I didn't laugh at Dr Nelson Price at all. 

I'll gladly read Dr. Nelson Price's stuff. Will you read Dr. Richard Carrier's stuff? I doubt it. 

 
CowboysFromHell said:
Paddington said:
Yes Jesus Existed. He's either flat out lying or he obviously doesn't know history. 

 Early Secular Writings Regarding Christ By The Historians Of His Day And Shortly Thereafter:

http://www.nelsonprice.com/early-secular-writings-regarding-christ/
Click to expand...


http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12334

No Jewish or Roman historical text contains any reference to Jesus for at least sixty years. That’s more than “a few decades.” And one text, two average lifetimes after the fact, is far from “widespread.” And that reference, in the Antiquities of Josephus, is widely recognized as a forgery. And indeed, quite demonstrably is a forgery, down to every last word (see OHJ, Ch. 8.9). The second reference in Josephus that Gathercole mentions was also not written by Josephus but inserted centuries later (as the latest peer reviewed literature demonstrates: see my Journal of Early Christian Studies article on it, reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, and summarized in OHJ, Ch. 8.10).

We have to wait twenty more years before we get any other reference to Jesus as a historical person, in the Annals of Tacitus (contrary to Gathercole, Pliny, Tacitus’s friend and contemporary, never refers to Jesus as a historical person). And that reference is probably also a forgery (as the latest peer reviewed literature demonstrates: see my Vigiliae Christianae article on it, reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, and summarized in OHJ, Ch. 8.10). But even if it isn’t (indeed even if the reference in Josephus isn’t), neither of those references has any indicated source but Christian hearsay, which by then was just aping the Gospels. Consequently, neither of these sources can corroborate the Gospels. They are not an independent source. It is incompetent (or dishonest) of a historian to cite sources that aren’t independent as if they were multiple or independent sources.

No non-Christian ever noticed Jesus, or ever found any record of him outside the Gospels.

Including Josephus and Tacitus. Even if anything in them about Jesus were authentic.

That’s a problem. Although it’s not a huge problem—if we accept the Gospels all lie about how famous Jesus was, and thus conclude against their wild narratives that Jesus was actually a nobody, then it’s entirely expected no one would notice him in the literature of the era. The real problem for the historicity of Jesus is the absence of any reference to Jesus visiting earth in the earliest Christian documents. Because those “dozens of Christian writings” Gathercole refers to, are just the Gospels, which are wholly mythical and absurd and unsourced and a lifetime too late (OHJ, Chs. 8 & 9), and the Epistles, most of which are forgeries (a fact concealed by Gathercole)—and those that aren’t, never place Jesus on earth. They only describe him as someone seen in visions, and known about from hidden messages in scripture and communications from heaven (OHJ, Ch. 11).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wow, so I finished the Carrier book I was reading ("On the Historicity of Jesus") and have started "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald.  I wanted to come back and go through the Nelson Price list posted above by Paddington, after educating myself on this topic.  I'm nearly finished summarizing my thoughts, but my response above, quoting Carrier, is already a great summary.  I shared that almost 2 months ago, but I still felt the need to research further and to go through Price's list of secular references, one by one, to see if there was anything there to challenge my growing suspicion that Jesus Christ really was just a mythical legend, not a real man.  I guess I like to question things, and dig into the evidence myself.  Shocking from an atheist, right?

Anyway, here is a summary of where I'm at after reading these books (my detailed rebuttal of Price's list to follow in a subsequent post):

Bottom line:  we can’t really know for sure either way whether Jesus was an actual historical person or just a mythical creation.  We simply do not have sufficient evidence to prove it either way.  And, why do we have such a lack of evidence?

  1. Some evidence, that should be there, is just flat out missing:

    • Some was destroyed, because it didn't gel with the prevailing theology of the time.  To the victors go the spoils.  Anything else is heresy.
    • Some was lost or forgotten, for much of the same reason.  If it didn't corroborate the popular narrative, why keep it?
    • Christians were indeed persecuted.  That, along with numerous famines from the 60s to the 90s, left a 30+ year dark age in the history of Christianity where we just don't have good historical record of how the church (and it's teachings) evolved.
  2. Forgeries.  There are countless examples of people doctoring the record to suit their needs, both within the Bible itself, and in secular writings.  This should tell you something about how desperate early Christians were to prove their case, given how lacking the evidence already was in their time.  They would hold on to any scrap of evidence they could to support their claims, and often embellish it further, or flat out make #### up (which makes the overall lack of resulting "evidence" all the more damning).
But, what about the evidence we do have?  Basically, it's the Bible and then the stuff in Price's list.  As I said, I'll summarize my thoughts on Price's list later, but for now, David Fitzgerald says it best in his book, “Nailed”:

It bears repeating that the first problem with all the so-called “historical eyewitnesses” to Jesus is that none of them were around during the alleged time of Christ – or even close. Though the Gospels paint a picture of Jesus’ fame spreading far and wide thanks to his miraculous deeds and teachings, the many historians who composed the abundant historical record of the time have absolutely nothing to say about the first century’s allegedly most notable personality.

We do have accounts concerning all manner of false miracle-workers and failed messiahs. How could the historians manage to write detailed accounts about all these much less interesting losers and fail to notice the one man who was the real deal? Could everyone outside his cult have missed everything he did and said?

Decades and decades roll on without Jesus leaving a trace in the historical record of the Jews, neighboring kingdoms and provinces, the Romans, or the Greeks. By the second century there is only a handful of tiny scraps and snippets that are supposed to be testimony to the historical reality of this world-shaking Jesus figure. And even this late, we still aren’t finding comments of Jesus’ life or deeds or teachings - this handful of “historical confirmation” turns out to be simply stray remarks (usually in passing) from pagan commentators about Christians and their beliefs in the second century.

Even the second century (and later!) Church fathers seem to show astounding ignorance about the basic facts of their own savior’s life until after the Gospels begin to circulate. Only after that do we start to hear Christians bragging about their connections to Jesus’ disciples, though these can all be shown to be fabrications. Late second century Christian leaders used claims like these to aggressively assert their own authority over rivals, so their motives are far from pure to begin with.
Click to expand...
Fitzgerald also provides a rough timeline of these so-called eyewitnesses.  I’ve summarized below, and added in the dates of the Biblical sources as well:

  • 0 – 33:  Jesus
  • 0 – 94:  Secular silence – nothing written about Jesus, outside of the Bible.  From the Bible, we get:

    50’s:  Paul’s epistles.  Paul never claims to have met Jesus, only to have seen him in visions
  • 70’s:  Mark
  • 80’s:  Matthew, plagiarized Mark
  • 90’s:  Luke, plagiarized both Mark & Matthew
  • 100’s:  John, plagiarized all three

[*]94:  Josephus

[*]95:  Clement of Rome

[*]110:  Ignatius of Antioch

[*]112:  Pliny the Younger & Suetonius

[*]117:  Tacitus

[*]135:  Polycarp

[*]140’s:  Thallus & Phlegon

[*]150:  Justin Martyr

[*]150’s:  Mara Bar-Serapion?

[*]170:  Lucian

[*]175:  Clement of Alexandria

[*]200:  Tertullian & probably Hippolytus

[*]225:  Origen

[*]250:  Cyprian of Carthage

[*]300:  Eusebius

Not all that impressive.  It's seems possible, if not likely, that it all went down like this:  a sect of Jews, struggling with their occupation by the Romans and subsequent failing of the temple cult, invented a splinter cult that focused on revelation from Old Testament scripture about the coming savior, Christ.  A mythical archangel.  Paul seized on this, and preached it, claiming to have knowledge from hallucinated visions of the savior, Christ.  When the Jewish temple fell (~70 c.e.), Paul's theology became all the more attractive, since the temple was gone and the temple cult with it.  As this new salvation cult grew, the idea of placing the savior Christ in history became a natural device for recruiting more and more followers.  The Gospel narrative has many similarities with other mythologies, and no basis in historical record.  So, in the end, we simply can't say if this is pure mythology or there's some lost history behind it all.

To be continued...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that it's questionable that Jesus even really existed. But even if he did exist, much of what is attributed to him is still either made up or simply borrowed (or stolen) from myths that existed before him. The fact that they had to come up with a ridiculous story to explain how a man from Nazareth was born in Bethlehem shows two things: 1) there probably was a guy from Nazareth who's life is at least part of the story; and 2) they were willing to make us bull#### stories to tie him to prophecy. If there was no real man from Nazareth as part of the story, then there's no need to make up the bull#### story to tie him to the Bethlehem birth prophecy. You just say this person you are making up is from Bethlehem. Problem solved without a bull#### story. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems odd to label books that eventually became canonical in the Bible as "secular silence." Those books were deemed worthy to become the Bible later but they were not "Biblical" when they were written. They included letters, some addressed to specific people. Just because they eventually became "non-secular" doesn't mean there was silence during the second half of the first century.

 
pecorino said:
Seems odd to label books that eventually became canonical in the Bible as "secular silence." Those books were deemed worthy to become the Bible later but they were not "Biblical" when they were written. They included letters, some addressed to specific people. Just because they eventually became "non-secular" doesn't mean there was silence during the second half of the first century.
Click to expand...
The secular world isn't just secular to christianity. It's secular to Judaism too. And the secular world wasn't silent about Judaism at that time. In fact it had a lot to say about Judaism at the time. 

ETA, we also don't have the originals of any NT books. The earliest copies we have are dated centuries later and the different versions of them make it easy to see they contain edits, unlike other secular writing at the time that were preserved. No intellectually honest historian takes what the bible says historically without huge grains of salt. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paddington said:
At that moment God regretted making man because man's sin was so great.  The relationship is damaged due to sin.  Hello?  Isn't that what Christians are trying to tell you?
Click to expand...
Did the all knowing, all powerful God lack the foresight or the ability to create man without the resulting disappointment of the missed opportunity?

 
Politician Spock said:
I agree that it's questionable that Jesus even really existed. But even if he did exist, much of what is attributed to him is still either made up or simply borrowed (or stolen) from myths that existed before him. The fact that they had to come up with a ridiculous story to explain how a man from Nazareth was born in Bethlehem shows two things: 1) there probably was a guy from Nazareth who's life is at least part of the story; and 2) they were willing to make us bull#### stories to tie him to prophecy. If there was no real man from Nazareth as part of the story, then there's no need to make up the bull#### story to tie him to the Bethlehem birth prophecy. You just say this person you are making up is from Bethlehem. Problem solved without a bull#### story. 
Click to expand...
I'll admit the Bethlehem/Nazareth thing is interesting. I don't have a good answer, other than to suppose there was something to the legend of Nazareth first, and the link to Bethlehem was added to it in order to fulfill that prophecy.  I hate the fact that this stuff is so convoluted that I have to rely on "scholars" to decode all of the evidence for me.

 
pecorino said:
Seems odd to label books that eventually became canonical in the Bible as "secular silence." Those books were deemed worthy to become the Bible later but they were not "Biblical" when they were written. They included letters, some addressed to specific people. Just because they eventually became "non-secular" doesn't mean there was silence during the second half of the first century.
Click to expand...
I'm not following you. Maybe give me an example?

 
So I have a friend who had this crazy idea, and I'll share here. I'm not saying I buy into this but found it interesting. The short version:

At our essence, we are a mass of vibrating particles. Vibrations make sounds and those sounds have different frequencies, similar to plucking a guitar string. He would argue that the "gates of heaven" work more like a frequency gate in a recording studio. The high and low end get filtered out and the mids go through. Basically the various religions all teach the same basic principles, which get you tuned in. If your vibrating at the right subatomic frequency you move along. 

 
CowboysFromHell said:
I'm not following you. Maybe give me an example?
Click to expand...
Sure, all I am saying is that there are texts that make up the Bible that were not the Bible when they were written. They were letters, exhortations, to peers and often the "Chosen" or "Elect." For example, the Epistle of Jude or 1 Peter, among others. Maybe I misinterpreted the prior post, but it sounded to me that the author was saying--well, all book of the Bible need to be tossed out since they are not secular. Guess it also depends how you define secular, but much of those writings were about how to live your life, and how to interact with others, and they also claimed apostleship (or at least the historical existence) of Jesus. If you cannot tell, I think the historical fact that Jesus existed is close to undisputable, but I'm interested to read differing claims.

 
Dismattle said:
Dude  Guys are banging this part about God creating something?   Lets look at what it accomplished   Devil left w/ his angels!   God successfully cleaned up his own back yard..  Were like a by-product..  He doesn't view us as such, but if ya think?  Yeah we're not much   "OH But God made a mistake?"   Theirs babbling idiots all over the World   Who can find pleasure in that?  Key is being positive   Don't stop to focus on negatives   Block that chit out n move!  
Click to expand...
Did the all powerful, all knowing God also create the devil?  

 
Dismattle said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Did the all powerful, all knowing God also create the devil?  
Click to expand...
I don't dig attempts to get me to read the bible    I don't have every word stored    please use google or something
Click to expand...
In the beginning, before this or any other universe.  Before angels in heaven.  Before anything else, was there anything* other than God?

*For sake of this question let's assume God can be correctly characterized as "a thing".

 
Dismattle said:
I love the question posed..  Its as if asking:  Did previous "things" Die..  
Click to expand...
Not at all!  It is asking if God is uniquely the creator of the universe and everything that interacts with it?   There are, of course logical consequences of either answer. 

 
Snorkelson said:
So I have a friend who had this crazy idea, and I'll share here. I'm not saying I buy into this but found it interesting. The short version:

At our essence, we are a mass of vibrating particles. Vibrations make sounds and those sounds have different frequencies, similar to plucking a guitar string. He would argue that the "gates of heaven" work more like a frequency gate in a recording studio. The high and low end get filtered out and the mids go through. Basically the various religions all teach the same basic principles, which get you tuned in. If your vibrating at the right subatomic frequency you move along. 
Click to expand...
You move along to what?  I could just as easily say that if your good thought to bad thought ratio is greater than 1.5, then we turn into purple unicorns when we die.  Is this any less valid a theory?

 
Captain Cranks said:
You move along to what?  I could just as easily say that if your good thought to bad thought ratio is greater than 1.5, then we turn into purple unicorns when we die.  Is this any less valid a theory?
Click to expand...
I don't know man. Im just passing along what I thought was an interesting theory that reaches enlightenment on a subatomic level. Thread was bumped so I gave it a look. 

 
Dismattle said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So God is not all knowing?   
Click to expand...
safe assumption now eh
Click to expand...
What other attributes commonly used to describe God should be crossed out. All of them?  I think just about everyone would accept "God" defined simply as-

  • the thing (which may be nothing) that created the universe
It is only when the other attributes and characteristics start get adding that belief starts to get challenged by logical impossibilities and inexcusable immorality.  If "God: isn't well defined and merely a "mystery" then where is the point to even consider "God"?

For the deleted "What is my point" post it is simply what I posted - it is impossible for an all knowing, all powerful being to have regrets based on any reasonable definitions of the words.  But since God is not all knowing...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson said:
I don't know man. Im just passing along what I thought was an interesting theory that reaches enlightenment on a subatomic level. Thread was bumped so I gave it a look. 
Click to expand...
I'm not attacking you.  Just chiseling through the apparent lack of logic in your friend's theory.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
What other attributes commonly used to describe God should be crossed out. All of them?  I think just about everyone would accept "God" defined simply as-

  • the thing (which may be nothing) that created the universe
It is only when the other attributes and characteristics start get adding that belief starts to get challenged by logical impossibilities and inexcusable immorality.  If "God: isn't well defined and merely a "mystery" then where is no point to even consider "God"?

For the deleted "What is my point" post it is simply what I posted - it is impossible for an all knowing, all powerful being to have regrets based on any reasonable definitions of the words.  But since God is not all knowing...
Click to expand...
Whats the point

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dismattle said:
No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
Click to expand...
Why are we so confident in God's love and power and wisdom while at the same time so readily willing to admit, "he works in mysterious ways" on things we know we can't prove?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
What other attributes commonly used to describe God should be crossed out. All of them?  I think just about everyone would accept "God" defined simply as-

  • the thing (which may be nothing) that created the universe
It is only when the other attributes and characteristics start get adding that belief starts to get challenged by logical impossibilities and inexcusable immorality.  If "God: isn't well defined and merely a "mystery" then where is the point to even consider "God"?

For the deleted "What is my point" post it is simply what I posted - it is impossible for an all knowing, all powerful being to have regrets based on any reasonable definitions of the words.  But since God is not all knowing...
Click to expand...
If the answer to what created the universe is "God", then what created God?  And if the answer to that question is, "God is eternal," then how do you know this?

 
Dismattle said:
Bile tells most, if not all
Click to expand...
Yet you "don't dig attempts to get me to read the bible " 

The point of the bible is that we are to "Love thy neighbor".  Everything else is supporting commentary.  The problem that we have is that commentary is twisted into all kinds of disgusting ways.  And worst yet it is written such that it all to easy to find deplorable ideas within that commentary.

Now you may want to argue that Jesus (among others) stated "Love thy neighbor" was kind of a "1A" to "1) Love God with all of your heart" when he explained the "greatest commandment", but Jesus also makes it pretty clear that these are all one and the same.   As in how we treat each other, especially the "least of us" is how we treat God.  So the only way to express love for God is to love his children.  If doing one's best with their God given talents and limitations to take care of each other is not good enough for God then :censored:  .

 
Captain Cranks said:
If the answer to what created the universe is "God", then what created God?  And if the answer to that question is, "God is eternal," then how do you know this?
Click to expand...
Think of what I wrote this way

  • Something or nothing created the universe.
  • For sake of discussion lets define the word "God" as this "something or nothing"
At this point the word "God" is pretty meaningless.  It is just a definition.  The problems  don't begin until "we" then start adding other attributes such as ""being" or eternal" or "perfect" or "all knowing" or "good" or whatever to the definition.  Until "God" is some specific thing.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Think of what I wrote this way

  • Something or nothing created the universe.
  • For sake of discussion lets define the word "God" as this "something or nothing"
At this point the word "God" is pretty meaningless.  It is just a definition.  The problems  don't begin until "we" then start adding other attributes such as ""being" or eternal" or "perfect" or "all knowing" or "good" or whatever to the definition.  Until "God" is some specific thing.
Click to expand...
Okay

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dismattle said:
What about folks who choose too allow Evil to bask, and glow?  (But, its just for a time)  Then "it" hears GOD is GREAT..  

Define why exactly GOD may feel regret from Evil?  A Death, severe pain, Evil creating good to commit Evil...  Why regret?  A person can choose to NEVER show the Truth   Think that upsets his little homely behind?
Click to expand...
Why would someone "choose too allow Evil to bask, and glow"?

I can think of 

  1. They lack the information to know that they are choosing evil
  2. The lack the thought process to interpret the information that they have results in evil
  3. They know but lack the ability to care
  4. They know and care but some "other force" causes them to choose evil (such as evil actually being in their best interest)
Which one of these isn't ultimately a result of the creation of the person or the creation of the universe or the creation of the forces interacting with the universe?  

If God is "all knowing" he knew all of this before he created anything, if he is "all powerful" he could have "fixed it" at any point, if he is infallible than a universe were some "choose too allow Evil to bask, and glow" is exactly as intended.  Regrets are when you think back and see opportunities that you could have taken to make things better and are sadden you let the opportunity past.  They are not from things happening exactly as intended.  Now if God wasn't all knowing, all powerful, and/or infallible the God could certainly regret passing on opportunities to make his creation less evil. 

 
Dismattle said:
Why would someone "choose too allow Evil to bask, and glow"?

Self preservation..  Desire to not force others into judgement..  False role model..  Atone for ones Sin..  Do ya need me too list everything?
Click to expand...
No, just something that isn't a weakness from being created an imperfect human being burdened with the inability to avoid sin in a world where another of God's creation going wrong is constantly tempting us..

 
Dismattle said:
Okay, so you suspect that I'm not as wise as I may suspect, biblically speaking..  (My approach seems holier than though)  I'm making huge things sound too basic 
Click to expand...


Dismattle said:
Id agree, if that's the meat of your beef..  Do you think it means: I cant add meaningful words on the subject of God?

Has a Child ever taught you anything?
Click to expand...
Why would I have a beef?   And I'm a big believer in McCarthy's fourth rule -  "Don't Flip The Bozo Bit".   I have the book  even though I have never been in such a  software development environment.

 
Dismattle said:
Love  It may matter to you what I think of ya   But it matters nothing what you think of me

Christ works only through you!  Theres a chance I may need your words to work now, more than anything..  Do you feel showing how superior or acceptance itself can actually help me>?
Click to expand...
Sorry for asking you to read the bible but I think 1 Corinthians 13  rebuts this.  Evil isn't coming from love.  Maybe something mistaken as love, but not love itself,

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2
9 10 11
Replies
528
Views
13K
Paddington
Paddington
Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
2 3
Replies
105
Views
4K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Paddington
A Prayer Of Salvation
16 17 18
Replies
890
Views
17K
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top