Posted on 07/31/2008 12:54:12 PM PDT by AreaMan
There is overwhelming evidence...
***Overwhelming evidence is not proof, which is what you appear to be demanding when it comes to evidence towards Christian faith. Your lopsided requirements for historicity of Christ include that there needs to be “contemporary” sources, and even mention from Roman sources. I gave you contemporary evidence from his ENEMIES and you go into cricket mode. Now that you’ve been delivered such overwhelming evidence, you need to look back at history and ask if there is any other figure in history that can fit such historicity requirements. By your standard, you couldn’t even prove that Julius Caesar existed.
You say on this thread,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2055375/posts?page=175#175
“My disdain is for people who are dishonest debaters, not believers.” Yet you have been shown to be a dishonest debater on this thread.
That's right. So when are you going to supply evidence for your claim? I've made no claim (provide proof that I have - let's see the quote). You've made a robust claim (brazen even), but now you can't make good on your brag. Produce, or recant. It's the only honest course for you to follow.
Yeah, and Dr. Mengele considered himself to be a scientist. So what?
Neither did the Hebrews, so they had to make do with the language they had (3K years ago)
"but that makes no sense whatsoever."
It makes sense just fine. But your own intellectual stance makes it imperative that you deny, deny, deny.
You should read my post #337. Hitler was not a Christian, he merely paid lip service to it to serve his own ends.
And I’ll raise you Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Lenin, and Stalin.
Plunder and power pretty much account for all of it.
BTW, one of the winning arguments in a "gun debate" is to note that in the 20th century the European firearms deathrate is several times that of the American firearms deathrate.
You only win arguments with the "murder" business if your opponent is ignorant of how people get killed ~ and despite the best efforts of TV to educate us, there continue to be people who have no imagination.
Luke 16: 27-31
27”He [the rich man in hell] answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29”Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31”He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “
************************************************************
Rising from the dead would be pretty good evidence but for someone who doesn’t want to believe, nothing would be.
You seem to fancy yourself a Master Inquisitor, but we have left the Inquisition far behind, knowing it to be an abomination in the eyes of God. Therefore, being bereft of authority, why should your theological queries excite my notice?
I respect my Christian brethren. I listen to them in the knowledge that each of them seeks to know God out of the love that is in their hearts and that they have insights that may benefit me. I will not presume to instruct them in what they must believe or not believe. I seldom burden others with my theological thoughts because I know them to be unworthy of anything more than a most brief and occasional mention. I take no note of your theological rants because I understand them to be the product of a heart filled with malice.
I don’t know when it is that you think science first “contradicted” the Bible, so I cannot say when there prevailed such a constricted vision of Scripture as yours. But as early as the Thirteenth Century Thomas Aquinas set the table for a superior understanding of scripture (“Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.”) I cannot recall a time when I held any other view than the above (and that’s going back to the war years, long before I had ever heard of someone named Thomas Aquinas).
I understand. And you, of course, are right not to give up.
Yes. Similarly, we must suspect, as many a politician does today.
Just out of curiosity, since you’re not an atheist, on what evidence do you believe in the existence of whatever “gxd” you may believe in?
But as early as the Thirteenth Century Thomas Aquinas set the table for a superior understanding of scripture (“Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.”)
***Worth repeating.
Yes. Aquinas was one of the sharper knives in the drawer.
Define "God".
Congratulations! I knew you would bring up Aquinas. He was one of the first scientific thinkers. That's why he had to turn himself inside out to reconcile the scriptures with logic and the observable universe. The Church has spent 2000 years covering the intellectual potholes in parts of the Bible. Aquinas was the best at it. I love Tommy.
Jesus didn't see it that way.
You claim that there are truths that the human mind can’t comprehend and ask me to prove you wrong. Supply one example of a truth that cannot by understood or shut up about it. No one can prove a negative.
There is no objective contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazeareth. It does not mean that he didn’t exist. I suspect he did.
Most Christians do not even know this or care.
To the faithful it shouldn’t matter. To a scientist, it HAS to matter.
Scaredy cat!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.