Can science disprove the existence of God?

[OurCreed]

Sorry, but the acceptance of any revelation is based on faith, and on faith alone.

If faith is not a factor in revelation then what you are following is not a religion.

The scriptures are supposed to be a book of revelations, whether it is written by man or it is supposedly written by a deity. (Of course, I don't accept any book was ever written by a god.) And it is faith alone that you accept it is written by God or by a man supposedly speaking for God.

You have a grave misunderstanding. Blind faith =/= faith. Faith means to put your trust into something, to believe in something. Blind faith is to believe in something without any evidence or reason. God knows the state of the human, because He created us. He knows that we humans won't believe in anything without evidence. Which is exactly why God reveals His own signs to those who ask for it. Those who ask for signs will get them. God can easily make any human become a believer, do you think it's hard for Him to do that? He has the power to make every human believe in Him, just like that. But that would ruin the purpose of our existence here.

We're given free will, and not only that, but also a brain, to reason. Something no other creature can do that has evolved on this earth. We humans were created for a different reason, we evolved differently, compared to the rest of the animals. They are here to survive in the world, and they all have their own special characteristics, traits, and abilities to survive in their environments. We humans are created in a state of weakness. The reason we have risen to the top is not because of any of our physical abilities, but because of our brains. This is all intended, we're given this mind to find God, that is why we have reason.

Faith does not equal blind faith. When God reveals His signs to His servants, and does it continuously, a rational person will come to accept the fact that none of these signs and miracles are done by chance, but that there is an actual being that is watching over them and affecting their lives.

 

[OurCreed]

That doesn't answer my question. If God wasn't inside the universe how could he give Moses the ten commandments and even talk directly to Moses and show him his backparts?

When you take these things literally, then you're going to have problems. God isn't inside the universe. When people say God spoke to Moses, it means God decreed certain things for Moses to hear words, words that Moses will respond to. God doesn't have a mouth like we humans do.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Let's see how realistic your criteria for historicity is. Provide me with two extant contemporaneous references for Alexander the Great and for the historian Josephus.

Actually, your challenge could be met. It could be found in many accounts, decrees, poems, sonets, songs, etc. written about Alexander; and these could be cross-confirmed from one nation to the next; starting with, of course, the nations he invaded.

That does not seem to be the point of this thread, however; the point of this thread seems to be that you could provide that evidence, yet you seem to be unable to do so.

All of the references of "verifying" the existence of Jesus is found only within the scriptures of that religion. Even Confucius and Gautama, there are contemporaneous evidences of their existence outside of their homeland. This seems to be completely lacking with ol' "JC And The Boys".

Unless, of course, you have some you'd like to share?

Claiming that someone's existence cannot be proven in the absence of a contemporaneous reference for said person's existence is ludicrous.

No. It is not. In fact, the reason we teach history the way we teach it is because of contemporaneous references (usually multi-national/multi-lingual) to the said individual.

Hahaha, nice sidestep

So, it is a sidestep to request evidence for a claim that has been made? This reminds me of a title of a book: "Religion Reverses Everything". It's sidestepping to request evidence in support of a claim of existent contemporaneous existence of Jesus; but it's not sidestepping to shift the goalpost to Alexander?

Interesting ...

 

[gnostic]

You have a grave misunderstanding. Blind faith =/= faith. Faith means to put your trust into something, to believe in something. Blind faith is to believe in something without any evidence or reason.

I know what faith mean, OurCreed. I nearly joined my sister's church when I was younger, so I am quite familiar with church teachings.

I may not know as much about Islam, as I do with Christianity, but I am all to familiar with belief, faith, doctrine, dogma, creed, etc.

But unlike you, I have read even more religious texts than you have? How many have you read, other than the Qur'an?

I have at least knowledge of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, Hittite, Norse and Celtic religions/myths. My time, I spend on reading and researching on Greek, Norse and Celtic myths for Timeless Myths website, gave me the experiences to understand their cultures, even if I do not follow their beliefs.

Faith, like you said is about "trusting" what one believe in. Nothing in "faith: (definition) say any about believing anything about "evidence" or "logic". You are attempting to twist what faith mean, by adding terms that associate with "faith".

Beside that trying to associate faith with evidence is an oxymoron. They are two unrelated terms.

If you have evidence, then you wouldn't need faith. Faith is believing in thing, despite evidence to the contrary. Why do you think faith is so important.

Take for instance, Muhammad's claim that he is prophet because of an angel named Gabriel said so. How do you know? There were no other eye-witnesses to collaborate his angelic encounter, except for Muhammad's words alone. That's faith, that you believe it is true, not evidence.

And because you are so far remove from this SUPPOSED visit, this is blind faith (as well as superstition).

Muslims are also supposed to believe in the existence of jinns, but have you ever seen ones, other than reading about them in the Qur'an? Again, that's faith and superstition.

Similarly Christian believe that Jesus could exorcise demon, as stated in the gospels. To believe in this miracle, required faith, and faith alone, not evidences.

Now, you could say that " I have faith that the sky will be colored blue, tomorrow", but if you and I, and our friend go out look at cloudless sky and see that it is indeed blue, then that's no longer "faith", but "evidence", because a number of us have seen the sky that day.

This is not the same type of faith as that of religious faith. Religious faith is believing in beings, such as deity, spirits, angels, demons or jinns, as if it real, despite there being no evidences to support their existence.

No, OurCreed. Out of the two of us, you are the one who is misunderstanding what faith really mean, in respect to religion, and personally I don't respect your dishonesty for trying to twist the meaning of faith with the context of evidence or logic. You implied that faith mean evidence and logic, but that's not true.

Please show me official definition of faith that say it require logic or evidence.

 

[gnostic]

When you take these things literally, then you're going to have problems. God isn't inside the universe. When people say God spoke to Moses, it means God decreed certain things for Moses to hear words, words that Moses will respond to. God doesn't have a mouth like we humans do.

But how do you know for certain?

Are you saying that seen God, and see that he has no mouth?

If you haven't seen God, then how can you possibly be so positive what God have or have not?

The Qur'an write a lot of things, making God as if he was like a real person.

For instance, read 2:115:

And to Allah belong the east and the west, so wherever you turn yourselves or your faces there is the Face of Allah (and He is High above, over His Throne). Surely! Allah is All-Sufficient for His creatures' needs, All-Knowing.

Or read 23:86:

Say: "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens, and the Lord of the Throne (of Glory) Supreme?"

Clearly these verses portraying God as if he was a king, and he would require a throne, like a king.

So, if Allah doesn't have a body as you say, then why Qur'an say that Allah require a "throne"?

A throne is supposed to be seat of a king's power, but if Allah is just spirit, then it would mean that God have backside to sit on a throne. Or doesn't he?

As you can see, if God have no body, head or limbs, then having a throne is pointless. And the Qur'an write a lot of pointless things.

 

[Crypto2015]

I have not made a claim. Not about Jesus, Alexander, or Josephus.


I did not claim that someone's existence cannot be proven in the absence of a contemporaneous reference for said person's existence.

You are the one who made a claim.

Your claim was that you had evidence of contemporaneous references to Jesus.

Clearly your claim was a fabrication and now you are unwilling to admit that fact and want to change the topic and cover up your failure to produce what you said you could.

If you want to move on to questions of the historicity of Jesus or Alexander, historical research methods, or anything else, that's fine, but those other topics need to be predicated on a clear understanding that there are no contemporaneous references to Jesus and that your claim of such is, at best, an error and at worst, a premeditated lie.

You claimed that there was no reason to believe that Jesus ever existed. This is absolutely false. There are more than ten independent attestations for Jesus' existence, many of which were made by persons that were contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. None of these attestations was written during the life of Jesus Christ. However, that is not a problem because the attestations were all written less than one hundred years before Jesus' crucifixion and many of them can be traced back to just a couple of years after Jesus' crucifixion, such as the creed in 1 Corinthians 15. This is not my personal opinion, but the opinion of the entire community of New Testament historians, including Bart Erhman who has recently published a book in which he demonstrates how ridiculous it is to claim that Jesus of Nazareth has never existed.

You also seem to believe that for a person's existence to be proven someone needs to have written something about that person during that person's lifetime. This is simply ridiculous. Any historian would laugh at you. For example, the most important person in Jerusalem during Jesus' times was Pontius Pilate. Did someone write something about Pontious Pilate during Pilate's lifetime? Not that we know. However, we know that Pilate existed because the New Testament mentions him and because Tacitus mentions him in the passage in which he talks about Jesus Christ. Also, we have recently found a stone in Israel bearing the name and rank of Pontius Pilate who, according to the inscription on the stone, was a Roman prefect in Judea from 26 to 36 AD. Another very important person in Jesus' time was the High Priest Caiaphas, the man who organized Jesus' crucifixion. Did someone write something about Caiaphas during Caiaphas's lifetime? Not that we know. However, we know that Caiaphas existed because we have recently found his ossary, which is now on display in Jerusalem. Furthermore, although people must have written something about Alexander the Great during Alexander's lifetime, all of these writings have been lost. The independent attestations that we have for Alexander the Great's existence date to more than one hundred years after Alexander's death. So, not even Alexander, who conquered nearly the whole ancient world, can be proven to have existed if we apply your criteria for historicity.

 

[Crypto2015]

Jesus may be historical figure, but being historical doesn't make what the gospels write about Jesus as being true.

What the gospels (Matthew and Luke) have to say about the virgin conception and virgin birth of Jesus is most likely exaggerated and clearly distorted.

And judging by the narration in Luke's gospel, historically inaccurate. There was no census when Herod the great was alive. The census took place 10 years after herod's death, when Augustus banished Archelaus from Judaea and annexed Judaea as a Roman province 6 CE). Qurinius also didn't become governor of Syria till 6 CE; Quirinius was serving as legate in the province of Galatia at the time of Herod's last years, leading army against insurrection mountain tribe in Galatia and Cilicia.

And there was no general census throughout the empire as Luke stated.

Luke have distorted history.

All of the historians of the time, including Tacitus and Herodotus, included miraculous events in their books. As far as I know, historians in the field do not consider the virgin birth to be a historical fact, but interestingly they do consider Jesus' empty tomb to be a historical fact. Regarding Luke's Gospel, the vast majority of his historical references have been proven to be accurate. It seems that we don't have proof of the census mentioned by Luke yet. However, this may change in the next years as more archaeological discoveries are made. For instance, the existence of the High Priest Caiaphas wasn't proven until 1990. It is worth noting that we already have explanations for Luke's claim that make his assertion perfectly accurate. I can post them here if you want to. In general, historians consider Luke to be a highly reliable source.

 

[Michael Thought]

Can someone discuss something without having a bias?

The new version of creation after a long period of science insisting the universe came from nothing is the universe came from something. They also go to the next level that universes spring into life in abundance. So the nothing has become something, which fits better with Cause and Effect when studying anything. What is this something? When Science study Thought as an element different from matter, where thought exists outside matter acting on matter then they will begin the path to understanding the question that discovers the essence of GOD's existence. The Something from which the universe and all other universes spring from. Science is enthralled with the beauty and precision of the universe and insist it is a random movement of things that created all things. Yet they ignore the greatest mystery, what makes things move? And no not gravity. What makes particles move that have no power to move themselves, what makes them form complex arrangements when they have no knowledge of complex arrangements. Science will never prove GOD does not exist simply because existence demands intelligence be a factor and matter cannot create intelligence.

 

[Crypto2015]

There is no sidestep on my part. Crypto made a claim,



I disputed his claim and asked him to support it and all he has done since is bob and weave with extraneous bloviations.

I ask again: CRYPTO, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS?

SONOFASON; DO YOU SUPPORT CRYPTO'S CLAIM, OR WILL YOU DAMN HIM FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE HIS DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR?

Aren't you reading my posts? I posted the evidence several times already. I will post it again because it seems that nobody reads the previous posts.

 

[Crypto2015]

Actually, your challenge could be met. It could be found in many accounts, decrees, poems, sonets, songs, etc. written about Alexander; and these could be cross-confirmed from one nation to the next; starting with, of course, the nations he invaded.

That does not seem to be the point of this thread, however; the point of this thread seems to be that you could provide that evidence, yet you seem to be unable to do so.

All of the references of "verifying" the existence of Jesus is found only within the scriptures of that religion. Even Confucius and Gautama, there are contemporaneous evidences of their existence outside of their homeland. This seems to be completely lacking with ol' "JC And The Boys".

Unless, of course, you have some you'd like to share?



No. It is not. In fact, the reason we teach history the way we teach it is because of contemporaneous references (usually multi-national/multi-lingual) to the said individual.



So, it is a sidestep to request evidence for a claim that has been made? This reminds me of a title of a book: "Religion Reverses Everything". It's sidestepping to request evidence in support of a claim of existent contemporaneous existence of Jesus; but it's not sidestepping to shift the goalpost to Alexander?

Interesting ...

Read my previous posts before commenting on the evidence to support my claims. Also, what you said about Alexander is 100% wrong. What you said about Jesus is also completely wrong. I posted tons of extra-biblical evidence for Jesus' existence in my previous posts.

 

[gnostic]

All of the historians of the time, including Tacitus and Herodotus, included miraculous events in their books.

I have read both Herodotus and Tacitus.

And I have read from other ancient historians too, and know that they can include miraculous events. And that when you know historians are exaggerating.

Also, it is possible that historians could show bias. Some are biased because of sense of patriotic sentiments, while others are political motivated (like propaganda, eg Julius Caesar in his memoirs).

I don't believe everything historians write, especially if there are no verification from other historians or from archaeological evidences.

Should you be really surprise when some people are skeptical of miracles or exaggerated accounts?

It is worth noting that we already have explanations for Luke's claim that make his assertion perfectly accurate. I can post them here if you want to. In general, historians consider Luke to be a highly reliable source.

Wrong.

Dropping names of historical figures don't mean the gospel of Luke is historical accurate or reliable.

Even novelists can include names of real historical figures, that doesn't mean the person is writing true story. Novellists often interwove their stories with real events, and 9-11 terrorist attack is the most often used in novels and TV series.

In bond movie, For Your Eyes Only, with Roger Moore: they got an actress who was Margaret Thatcher's look-alike to play the then British PM, doesn't mean that everything happened in the movie, was historical.

The accuracy is in the details, not name dropping. I have read a lot of fictional books, movies and TV series, which named of presidents, like Clinton, Bush junior, Obama does not in any way prove a story is historically accurate.

So I am not at all impressed high priest in gospel of Luke.

What I mean historically accurate (or reliable) is like the example I have already given you with Quirinius and the census. Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria while Herod the Great was still alive and his census also didn't take place then as well. Both governorship and census occurred 10 years (6 CE) AFTER Herod's death (4 BCE). Quirinius was governor of Galatia at that time, between 12 and 1 BCE.

 

[Crypto2015]

I have read both Herodotus and Tacitus.

And I have read from other ancient historians too, and know that they can include miraculous events. And that when you know historians are exaggerating.

Also, it is possible that historians could show bias. Some are biased because of sense of patriotic sentiments, while others political motivated (eg

I don't believe everything historians write, especially if there are no verification from other historians or from archaeological evidences.

Should you be really surprise when some people are skeptical of miracles or exaggerated accounts?


Wrong.

Dropping names of historical figures don't mean the gospel of Luke is historical accurate or reliable.

Even novelists can include names of real historical figures, that doesn't mean the person is writing true story. Novellists often interwove their stories with real events, and 9-11 terrorist attack is the most often used in novels and TV series.

In bond movie, For Your Eyes Only, with Roger Moore: they got an actress who was Margaret Thatcher's look-alike to play the then British PM, doesn't mean that everything happened in the movie, was historical.

The accuracy is in the details, not name dropping. I have read a lot of fictional books, movies and TV series, which named of presidents, like Clinton, Bush junior, Obama does not in any way prove a story is historically accurate.

So I am not at all impressed high priest in gospel of Luke.

What I mean historically accurate (or reliable) is like the example I have already given you with Quirinius and the census. Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria while Herod the Great was still alive and his census also didn't take place then as well. Both governorship and census occurred 10 years (6 CE) AFTER Herod's death (4 BCE). Quirinius was governor of Galatia at that time, between 12 and 2 BCE.

Do you really think that the Gospels belong to the novel genre? Because all scholars, Christian or nor, know for a fact that the Gospels are ancient biographies and they treat them as such. Luke is a very reliable historical source and this is not my opinion, but the opinion of the academic community in the New Testament field. I have already shown you that the people that Luke mentions in his Gospel really existed (Caiaphas and Pilate). This is not all, in Luke 3:1 we are told that Lysanias is the tetrarch of Abilene in about 27 AD. For a long time scholars thought that Luke was wrong because they knew that Lysanias had not been a tetrarch but the ruler of Chalcis 50 years before the date mentioned by Luke. Then the archaeologists found an inscription from the time of Tiberius, 14 to 37 AD, that says that Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus, just as Luke had written. So, it turns out that there were two Lysanias. Also, in Acts 17:6 Luke mentions that there were city officials called "politarchs" in the city of Thessalonica. For a long time scholars thought that Luke was wrong because there was no evidence of any politarchs. However, once again archaeology came to the rescue. A first-century inscription was found that contains the phrase "In the time of the politarchs...". Now this inscription is in the British Museum. Since that time, archaeologists have found another thirty-five inscriptions that mention the politarchs, several of them in Thessalonica.

Regarding the census carried out by Quirinius, Sir William Ramsay, an archaeologist that was a professor both at Oxford and Cambridge, postulated that Quirinius ruled Syria in two separate occasions, which, once again, would prove Luke right. I don't know how he demonstrated this, but perhaps you can find it for yourself in the internet. Anyhow, although I am sure that Luke will be proven to be right in the future, you must concede that even if Luke was wrong about the census that does not invalidate his entire book. Great historians such as Tacitus have made mistakes (I can even show you a famous one) but we don't throw their books out of the window because of that. Hence, Luke's testimony regarding the existence of a preacher named Jesus who was crucified by Pilate stands even if Luke were wrong about Quirinius' census, especially considering the fact that in general Luke has been proven time and time again to be an extremely accurate historical source.

 

[Crypto2015]

I'll post some of the evidence for Jesus' existence once again, since some people think that I haven't provided any evidence. Here it is.

Regarding the evidence for the historicity of Jesus, you have the Gospel of John (written by an eyewitness, most probably the apostle John), the Gospel of Matthew (most probably written by the apostle Matthew, who was an eyewitness), the Gospel of Mark (written based on the testimony of the apostle Peter, an eyewitness), The Gospel of Luke (who received his knowledge from the members of the early church, including the apostle Paul, who had seen the resurrected Jesus). Then you have the epistles of Paul, James, Jude, and Peter. You also have the acts of the Apostles, written by Luke. It is worth noting that these letters and books would constitute independent attestations for Jesus' existence even if it turned out to be that the authors were not really Peter or John. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of the scholars, including the non-Christian scholar Bart Erhman.

When it comes to extra-biblical attestations for Jesus's existence you have the writings of Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Papias, Tacitus, Julius Africanus, Suetonious, Origen, Lucian of Samosata, and the Jewish Talmud. You also have Gnostic gospels, such as The Gospel of Truth (135-160 AD), the Apocryphon of John (120-130 AD), The Gospel of Thomas (140-200 AD), and the Gospel of Peter. Notably, early Christian sources also quote the "Acts of Herod" that make mention of Jesus' crucifixion and constitute the reports that Herod sent to the emperor Tiberius. This work, however, has been lost.

I have heard a famous Professor of Ancient history (Paul Maier from Western Michigan University) say that Tacitus's testimony alone would be sufficient to prove that there was a preacher named Jesus that was crucified by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius's reign. However, I mention more sources below.

We also have the letter that Clement, a member of the Roman church, sent to the Corinthian church in 95 AD, the letter that the bishop Ignatius sent to the Trallians in 110-115 AD, the letter that Ignatius sent to the Smyrneans in 110-115 AD, the letter that Ignatius sent to the Magnesians in 110-115 AD, the letter that Quadratus sent to the Emperor Hadrian in 125 AD (""The deeds of our Saviour were always before you, for they were true miracles; those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only whilst our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."), and the writings of Justin Martyr (150 AD).

For the sake of comparison, we have only five literary sources for the life of Alexander the Great (356 BC to 323 BC): (1) Diodorus Siculus's 17th book of Universal History, written three centuries after the death of Alexander. (2) Quintus Curtius Rufus's History of Alexander, written three centuries after the death of Alexander. (3) Plutarch's Life of Alexander, written two centuries after the death of Alexander. (4) Flavius Arrianus Xenophon's Campaigns of Alexander, written two centuries after the death of Alexander. (5) M. Junianus Justinus's writings, written one hundred years after the death of Alexander. This last book is plagued with factual errors.

Also, there were only 20 to 80 thousand people living in Jerusalem during Jesus' ministry. Do you think that a movement based on Jesus' ministry and resurrection would have prospered in Jerusalem if Jesus had never existed? All of the leaders of the early church averred that Jesus preached publicly and had thousands of followers that more than once followed him to Jerusalem. Would they have been able to claim such a thing if the inhabitants of Jerusalem had known for a fact that no such person as Jesus Christ had ever existed?

 

[Sonofason]

There is no sidestep on my part. Crypto made a claim,



I disputed his claim and asked him to support it and all he has done since is bob and weave with extraneous bloviations.

I ask again: CRYPTO, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS?

SONOFASON; DO YOU SUPPORT CRYPTO'S CLAIM, OR WILL YOU DAMN HIM FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE HIS DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR?

There is certainly extra Biblical evidence for Jesus' crucifixion and burial. If you do not accept that evidence as evidence, I don't know what to tell you. That's on you. For my sake, perhaps you could tell us exactly the type of evidence that you are looking for. Perhaps the sort of evidence you seek does no longer exist. Are you looking for a photograph of him on the cross? Are you looking for DNA samples of Jesus embedded in the timbers which he was nailed to?

Now I ask you to read the entire article and notes that follow on the thread I am now providing. If this is not the sort of evidence you seek, then I suppose there is no historical evidence for the crucifixion and burial of Jesus for you. But that in no way suggests that the evidence does not exist. Many people accept the now available evidence for the crucifixion and burial of Jesus.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

 

[gnostic]

Regarding the census carried out by Quirinius, Sir William Ramsay, an archaeologist that was a professor both at Oxford and Cambridge, postulated that Quirinius ruled Syria in two separate occasions, which, once again, would prove Luke right. I don't know how he demonstrated this, but perhaps you can find it for yourself in the internet.

Except that Ramsay is wrong about Quirinius never served as legatus (governor) twice in the same province.

Yes, Quirinius was legatus twice, but from 12 BCE to 1 BCE at Galatia, and then again in 6 CE to 12 CE in Syria. Quirinius was responsible for campaigning against the mountain tribe Homonadenses in Galatia and Cilicia, so Quirinius couldn't have been governor of Syria, let alone hold a census that didn't happen in Herod's time.

So Ramsay is simply fishing.

Luke, or whoever the real author of this gospel was, got it wrong.

The people who was serving as legate in Syria during the time of Herod the Great were:

Gaius Sentius Saturninus, 9 – 7/6 BCE
Publius Quinctilius Varus, 7/6 – 4 BCE​

Second, Ramsay didn't double check his sources (or did he have any source, he such a bloody moron). According to Tertullian (c 160 - 225 CE), a Christian law scholar, (Against Marcion, 4, 19) wrote that Jesus was born in the time of Saturninus, see the above list.

Archelaus ruled Judaea for 10 years after Herod's death in 4 BCE. Augustus replaced Archelaus with a Roman perfect, at the same time, Quirinius was appointed legatus in 6 CE, the time of the census.

There were no census in Judaea, while there were kings in Judaea. The only reason why a census would take place, is because Judaea changed from a client kingdom of Rome, a tetarch, to a Roman province.

And another thing, before the gospel even mentioned Quirinius (Luke 2:2), the gospel state that Augustus ordered the census to take place in the entire "world"

2 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered.

The world meaning all the provinces in the Empire. Well, guess what, no such census occurred at that time, and there were no reason for one, unless Augustus want to rearrange every single provinces.

Clearly, this didn't happen, so this gospel author (Luke?) was exaggerating again.

Let's face, Ramsay is wrong about Quirinius being governor twice in Syria; yes, Quirinius was legatus twice, but never in the same province. And Luke is wrong about everything in verses 1 & 2.

This Ramsay is an idiot.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually, your challenge could be met. It could be found in many accounts, decrees, poems, sonets, songs, etc. written about Alexander; and these could be cross-confirmed from one nation to the next; starting with, of course, the nations he invaded.

That does not seem to be the point of this thread, however; the point of this thread seems to be that you could provide that evidence, yet you seem to be unable to do so.

All of the references of "verifying" the existence of Jesus is found only within the scriptures of that religion. Even Confucius and Gautama, there are contemporaneous evidences of their existence outside of their homeland. This seems to be completely lacking with ol' "JC And The Boys".

Unless, of course, you have some you'd like to share?



No. It is not. In fact, the reason we teach history the way we teach it is because of contemporaneous references (usually multi-national/multi-lingual) to the said individual.



So, it is a sidestep to request evidence for a claim that has been made? This reminds me of a title of a book: "Religion Reverses Everything". It's sidestepping to request evidence in support of a claim of existent contemporaneous existence of Jesus; but it's not sidestepping to shift the goalpost to Alexander?

Interesting ...

No, it is a sidestep to deny existing evidence, and then ask for more.

 

[Crypto2015]

Except that Ramsay is wrong about Quirinius never served as legatus (governor) twice in the same province.

Yes, Quirinius was legatus twice, but from 12 BCE to 1 BCE at Galatia, and then again in 6 CE to 12 CE in Syria. Quirinius was responsible for campaigning against the mountain tribe Homonadenses in Galatia and Cilicia, so Quirinius couldn't have been governor of Syria, let alone hold a census that didn't happen in Herod's time.

So Ramsay is simply fishing.

Luke, or whoever the real author of this gospel was, got it wrong.

The people who was serving as legate in Syria during the time of Herod the Great were:

Gaius Sentius Saturninus, 9 – 7/6 BCE
Publius Quinctilius Varus, 7/6 – 4 BCE​

Second, Ramsay didn't double check his sources (or did he have any source, he such a bloody moron). According to Tertullian (c 160 - 225 CE), a Christian law scholar, (Against Marcion, 4, 19) wrote that Jesus was born in the time of Saturninus, see the above list.

Archelaus ruled Judaea for 10 years after Herod's death in 4 BCE. Augustus replaced Archelaus with a Roman perfect, at the same time, Quirinius was appointed legatus in 6 CE, the time of the census.

There were no census in Judaea, while there were kings in Judaea. The only reason why a census would take place, is because Judaea changed from a client kingdom of Rome, a tetarch, to a Roman province.

And another thing, before the gospel even mentioned Quirinius (Luke 2:2), the gospel state that Augustus ordered the census to take place in the entire "world"

The world meaning all the provinces in the Empire. Well, guess what, no such census occurred at that time, and there were no reason for one, unless Augustus want to rearrange every single provinces.

Clearly, this didn't happen, so this gospel author (Luke?) was exaggerating again.

Let's face, Ramsay is wrong about Quirinius being governor twice in Syria; yes, Quirinius was legatus twice, but never in the same province. And Luke is wrong about everything in verses 1 & 2.

This Ramsay is an idiot.

Excuse me but if I have to choose between an anonymous poster's analysis and a Cambridge professor's analysis, I'll go with the Cambridge professor's analysis. No offense intended.

 

[Sapiens]

You claimed that there was no reason to believe that Jesus ever existed.

No, you claimed that you have contemporaneous references to Jesus, I called you on it and your claim came up short.

This is absolutely false. There are more than ten independent attestations for Jesus' existence, many of which were made by persons that were contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul. None of these attestations was written during the life of Jesus Christ.

Exactly. It has taken a week to beat that admission out of you.

However, that is not a problem because the attestations were all written less than one hundred years before Jesus' crucifixion and many of them can be traced back to just a couple of years after Jesus' crucifixion, such as the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.

No, this is a problem, permit me to illustrate. If there were a number of contemporaneous references, we would not be having the conversation ... right? So, once again you prevaricate (seems to be a pattern here) when you claim there is, "not a problem."

You now admit that there are no contemporaneous references (welcome to the dark side), now another admission is required: that this lack of contemporaneous references is, in fact, a problem.

The gold standard of historians, the existence of two contemporaneous references is not met. Therefore we need to discuss the historicity of Jesus at a level of probability that is below that of the gold standard. That entails an examination of other, lesser evidences, that do not rise to the surety of the gold standard. Surely that is obvious ... no?

 

[Crypto2015]

No, you claimed that you have contemporaneous references to Jesus, I called you on it and your claim came up short.
Exactly. It has taken a week to beat that admission out of you.
No, this is a problem, permit me to illustrate. If there were a number of contemporaneous references, we would not be having the conversation ... right? So, once again you prevaricate (seems to be a pattern here) when you claim there is, "not a problem."

You now admit that there are no contemporaneous references (welcome to the dark side), now another admission is required: that this lack of contemporaneous references is, in fact, problem.

The gold standard of historians, the existence of two contemporaneous references is not met. Therefore we need to discuss the historicity of Jesus at a level of probability that is below that of the gold standard. That entails an examination of other, lesser evidences, that do not rise to the surety of the gold standard. Surely that is obvious ... no?

You didn't beat any admission out of me. Your criteria of historicity (to prove that person A has existed someone needs to have written something about person A during person A's lifetime) is so ridiculous that at first I thought that you were talking about independent attestations from people that were contemporaries of Jesus. We certainly have the latter, since we have attestations from Peter, Paul, Matthew, and James, all of whom were alive during Jesus' ministry. Then I realized how unreasonable your criteria of historicity is and I finally understood what you were talking about.

Your criteria of historicity is simply wrong. It's so wrong that I can't even believe that you actually take it seriously. If you had listened to Paul Maier's video you would know that the criteria of historicity for any person or event depends on the existence of multiple independent attestations and on the criteria of embarrassment. Since Jesus more than fulfills both of these criteria, Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and Jesus crucifixion are universally accepted as historical facts by the community of New Testament scholars. By the way, Alexander the Great does not fulfill your criteria of historicity. Neither does the Emperor Tiberius, who was the ruler of the whole known world when Jesus was crucified. Our best sources for Tiberius are Tacitus and Suetonius, both composed eighty or so years after the emperor's death in AD 37. By the way, Tacitus also mentions Jesus in his writings and identifies him as the founder of the Christian movement, and describes him as a preacher that was crucified by Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius.

I challenge to show me at least a single book saying that to demonstrate a person's existence we must have two written passages about said person dating to the period in which the person lived. Do not ignore this challenge and do not post any lousy website or book written by an atheist charlatan. I want a book by a renowned historian. If you cannot provide this, you are a charlatan and an ignorant.

 

[OurCreed]

I know what faith mean, OurCreed. I nearly joined my sister's church when I was younger, so I am quite familiar with church teachings.

I may not know as much about Islam, as I do with Christianity, but I am all to familiar with belief, faith, doctrine, dogma, creed, etc.

But unlike you, I have read even more religious texts than you have? How many have you read, other than the Qur'an?

I have at least knowledge of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Ugaritic, Hittite, Norse and Celtic religions/myths. My time, I spend on reading and researching on Greek, Norse and Celtic myths for Timeless Myths website, gave me the experiences to understand their cultures, even if I do not follow their beliefs.

Faith, like you said is about "trusting" what one believe in. Nothing in "faith: (definition) say any about believing anything about "evidence" or "logic". You are attempting to twist what faith mean, by adding terms that associate with "faith".

Beside that trying to associate faith with evidence is an oxymoron. They are two unrelated terms.

If you have evidence, then you wouldn't need faith. Faith is believing in thing, despite evidence to the contrary. Why do you think faith is so important.

Take for instance, Muhammad's claim that he is prophet because of an angel named Gabriel said so. How do you know? There were no other eye-witnesses to collaborate his angelic encounter, except for Muhammad's words alone. That's faith, that you believe it is true, not evidence.

And because you are so far remove from this SUPPOSED visit, this is blind faith (as well as superstition).

Muslims are also supposed to believe in the existence of jinns, but have you ever seen ones, other than reading about them in the Qur'an? Again, that's faith and superstition.

Similarly Christian believe that Jesus could exorcise demon, as stated in the gospels. To believe in this miracle, required faith, and faith alone, not evidences.

Now, you could say that " I have faith that the sky will be colored blue, tomorrow", but if you and I, and our friend go out look at cloudless sky and see that it is indeed blue, then that's no longer "faith", but "evidence", because a number of us have seen the sky that day.

This is not the same type of faith as that of religious faith. Religious faith is believing in beings, such as deity, spirits, angels, demons or jinns, as if it real, despite there being no evidences to support their existence.

No, OurCreed. Out of the two of us, you are the one who is misunderstanding what faith really mean, in respect to religion, and personally I don't respect your dishonesty for trying to twist the meaning of faith with the context of evidence or logic. You implied that faith mean evidence and logic, but that's not true.

Please show me official definition of faith that say it require logic or evidence.

Faith, like you said is about "trusting" what one believe in. Nothing in "faith: (definition) say any about believing anything about "evidence" or "logic". You are attempting to twist what faith mean, by adding terms that associate with "faith".

Yes, faith is trusting. You can trust in something blindly, or you can trust in something after you have evidence, or if you have reasons to trust. I trust my mother to hold onto my personal items. Why? Because I've known her my whole life, she has taken care of me and never did anything that would put me to harm. So if I had an important object that I needed to keep safe, I would be able to put my faith on my mother to keep it safe with her and not give it away or steal it. That is called faith with reason. Blind faith is where you see a random person on the street and blindly trust them for your things. The thing is, you can never be sure what type of person they are and what they will do with your things.

Faith is a neutral word, and is applied depending on context.

When we talk about faith in God, it's the same deal. A person will either have faith in God without any reasons, or with reasons. There's nothing wrong with both, but the person who has faith in God with reason will be the stronger believer, because they had experienced what the blind faith one did not, and that is a fulfillment of trust.

Take for instance, Muhammad's claim that he is prophet because of an angel named Gabriel said so. How do you know? There were no other eye-witnesses to collaborate his angelic encounter, except for Muhammad's words alone. That's faith, that you believe it is true, not evidence.

People believed in Muhammad not because he just told them, "Oh look at me, an angel spoke to me and I'm a prophet." People believed in Muhammad because they knew him his whole life, and that he was a sane person whom was also honest and trustworthy, never would he tell a lie. Just like I trust my mother to hold onto my things. Muhammad's friend, Abu Bakr, was on an expedition when Muhammad claimed prophethood, and upon his arrival back home, he heard that Muhammad claimed prophethood. He went up to his house and Muhammad began to speak and start giving his friend reasons and evidence for his claim of prophethood, and Abu Bakr told him to stop, and that he believed in him without needing any evidence.

Why? Because his friend knew him his whole life, that Muhammad would never lie, nor was he insane or had mental instability. And that is how the first believers were those of Muhammad's close family and friends, and nobody else, for the first three years. Muhammad's close ones knew him and his personality, so they trusted him, just like I trust my mother whom I knew my whole life.

If Muhammad was a random stranger who appeared in Mecca and told everyone to follow him since he's a prophet, that would be a different story. In the other case, his family and friends had good reason to believe him. In this new case, if Muhammad was a random stranger, there are no good reasons to follow or accept him, since anyone can easily claim prophethood, and many did after Muhammad's death.

When we talk about God, God guides those people who search for Him and investigate Him. The Qur'an already talks about revealing signs and miracles (in Arabic, ayat), which are evidences for His existence. God reveals His ayat to those who already have open hearts, those who are searching for truth. He doesn't guide those who think they know everything, and many atheists act this way, as if they know for sure there isn't a creator. The arrogant will never be guided.

I don't respect your dishonesty for trying to twist the meaning of faith with the context of evidence or logic. You implied that faith mean evidence and logic, but that's not true.

And where exactly did I say that? I don't respect your strawman argument.