The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 04:23 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 11:54 AM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 11:52 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  God doesn't exist.

We know God exists because nature can't start up from nothing.

Already showed you how it can. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
I'd think that someone as much of a Big Shot as god would have something a little better than a white throne. White, really? I'd expect something in more gold tones, perhaps with platinum touches here and there. Just sayin'.

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 04:49 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  I'd think that someone as much of a Big Shot as god would have something a little better than a white throne. White, really? I'd expect something in more gold tones, perhaps with platinum touches here and there. Just sayin'.

Maybe since the highest office in the land is the White House it just looks better than a Gold House. I love how God thinks ahead of you all the time. Just sayin'. Maybe God is not gaudy. And maybe you are gaudy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:15 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 06:29 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:49 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  I'd think that someone as much of a Big Shot as god would have something a little better than a white throne. White, really? I'd expect something in more gold tones, perhaps with platinum touches here and there. Just sayin'.

Maybe since the highest office in the land is the White House it just looks better than a Gold House. I love how God thinks ahead of you all the time. Just sayin'. Maybe God is not gaudy. And maybe you are gaudy.

Didn't you say it was a throne, not a house?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 07:26 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 07:15 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Didn't you say it was a throne, not a house?

The throne is the house.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 08:30 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
You purport to know a lot of what god thinks, and what his vision is, let me help you on that...those voices in your head aren't god. Your childish understanding of christian doctrine is not only laughable, it's pathetic. Please, take some courses.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 08:30 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You purport to know a lot of what god thinks, and what his vision is

In the Scriptures we have the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Unless you can find a naturalistic explanation to account for it then give your life to Christ otherwise, according to the Bible, you are going to Hell. God affords you this free choice.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 08:50 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 08:30 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You purport to know a lot of what god thinks, and what his vision is

In the Scriptures we have the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. Unless you can find a naturalistic explanation to account for it then give your life to Christ otherwise, according to the Bible, you are going to Hell. God affords you this free choice.

unfortunately the alleged eyewitness testimony wasn't written down by the apostles, not a word of jesus was written until much later after his death...based on hearsay, all of it.

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) Galatians - complete third hand heresay.

3) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

4) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

5) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) 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.
- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 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 range as an eyewitness account.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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 in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until 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 or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


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. 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.

getting the picture yet?

Asking “If there is no god, what is the purpose of life?” is like asking, “If there is no master, whose slave will I be?”

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
16-08-2014, 09:12 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 09:19 PM by hbl.)
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
(16-08-2014 08:53 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  unfortunately the alleged eyewitness testimony wasn't written down by the apostles

Of course the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles was recorded by them as they never argued against what was written before they were martyred around 65 AD; nor did John who wrote Revelation 95 AD.

We know of no one else who could have written their eyewitness testimony in the 27 books of the Bible than the Apostles themselves and close associates such as Mark and Luke.

Paul even said if the message is different then many of the Apostles who are still alive they could present their case against it, but none ever did.

All these non-Christian sources about Jesus are still closer to the events they speak of than for any other individuals in antiquity. That's just the nature of the beast. However, Christians don't consider them of that much value. We like historians value writings that are the nearest to their events like we have for the 27 different books of the NT.

But for those interested we have total of 45 sources for Jesus within 150 years of His death, more than any ten figures from antiquity combined. 24 of those 45 sources refer to the resurrection. Of those 45 sources, 17 of them are non-Christian. Interestingly 12 of those 17 sources speak of Jesus death and 12 speak of His resurrection. Even 7 of the 17 speak of His deity. Interesting.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 09:48 PM
RE: The Atheist's Conversation at the Great White Throne
Focus on just the Minimal Facts Approach.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: