Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]

No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:

“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”

Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…

Here is some more:

Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]

You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.

Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]

Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.

Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?

I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]

Geez, it’s even on a T-Shirt…

http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_heroes_professor_stephen_hawking_tshirt-235763651563179960

Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”

And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[/quote]

You fancy yourself intelligent that’s why I’m absolutely mystified by your apparent inability to grasp this. Let me help you and show you the flaw in your perception:

"“there would be no eruptions from the mountain at which the laws of science broke down and one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the conditions for a volcano. . . The volcano would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside the earth. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”

He’s asking a question. He’s exploring the boundries of space and time and wondering why a creator is necessary to explain the properties of the observable universe. He’s not denying God. He’s suggesting that science can possibly explain all there is to know about the observable universe and its origins. He is quite literally standing on the same ground as the man that first openly wondered whether science could explain the lightning and thunder, as opposed to God’s wrath. Or why a volcano exploded and didn’t require a sacrafice to a “God”. Once again, how much clearer can I make the following request: Please send me a credible reference where Hawkings proclaims himself an atheist. I’m not stating you’re incorrect - I am stating that the “references” you have provided thus far are specious at best. A t-shirt? Really?
[/quote]

Uh, that question is rhetorical.
I know what he is saying. A self contained universe that can be neither created nor destroyed is an atheistic proposition. One who believes this, must necessarily believe there is no God. Creating a view of a creation with out a creator is an atheistic core belief. It’s more than an academic exercise. These are the ultimate questions as to why we’re here and how we got here. If the universe, or all creation, in fact has no creator there is no God. It’s more than science, it’s everything.
Based on the things Hawking says about his research he is at worst an agnostic hoping to find and atheist answer to the existence of the universe. We’ll never really know what he actually believes personally because to my knowledge he doesn’t care to share his personal beliefs. So has he declared that he is an atheist, no. As far as I know he claims agnosticism and denies full blown atheism. Yet, he seeks to present a view of the universe that does not require the need for a creator. That is something a theist would begrudgingly be forced to admit, not seek.
As for what he personally believes, what his favorite color is, or what not, I don’t know. I am not a follower of his so I don’t know every thing about him, but what he expresses are atheistic tenets. What his stated goal is an atheist’s dream. He has all the markings of atheist, but just does not want to be called one, I suppose.

What exactely is your goal here? I suspect all you want to do is take me down a notch. You’ve latched on to something I said as a sheer matter of opinion and stated it as such.

Now you’ve stated that there are plenty of theoretical physicists who are theists. Can you point me in the direction of a reputable one? I’d like to hear his or her theories.

282

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And I think the following is a pretty fair and balanced view point on Hawkings, albeit a tad biased but it even further explores the general beliefs of scientists, which pat would have us believe are all part of this subversive atheist movement - using science to deny God.
[/quote]

Where did I say that ^^?
Please cut and paste.

283

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[/quote]
What would prevent water from penetrating air? And how do you vaporize a vapor?

Please don’t talk science anymore. Or at least do some research before you post.[/quote]

LOL at you seriously. Water from space/comet could not penetrate the ATMOSPHERE. Please provide references to support your theory as long as you’re on this “research” slant. I anxiously await your references.[/quote]

284

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[/quote]
What would prevent water from penetrating air? And how do you vaporize a vapor?

Please don’t talk science anymore. Or at least do some research before you post.[/quote]

LOL at you seriously. Water from space/comet could not penetrate the ATMOSPHERE. Please provide references to support your theory as long as you’re on this “research” slant. I anxiously await your references.[/quote]

I"m sorry, I couldn’t go past the first page. And you’re telling me not to talk science? Show me something credible, from a peer reviewed expert. Don’t show me the speculations and “novel” theories of the fringe that are not supported or accepted by the scientific community. And by the way, we all know that water can survive a comet’s ENTRY into our atmosphere or via meteorite. I’m not reading this rubbish. You need to do better.

285

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Zeb… where are you getting this?

Have you read to messianic proficiencies in the Tanakh? Or are you taking some preacher’s world that they’re there, and talking about Jesus?

Can you cite a single prophecy that is clearly about Jesus? Because I can find many about the coming of the messiah, and the messiah being someone or doing things that Jesus clearly wasn’t and didn’t do (so Christians made up the idea of a 2nd coming…).

Yes, Christ is indeed the Messiah, mostly because Christ isn’t Jesus’s last name, but a title, a poor Greek translation of the word Messiah (literally closer to meaning “good”).

Where in the Tanakh does it say that Jews (God’s chosen people) will reject their own Messiah? Refer me to a passage please.

And yes, Muslims aknowledge Jesus OF NAZARETH (because again Christ isn’t his last name) as a prophet.

What’s a historical writer from Jesus of Nazareth’s day you’ve read? And what did they say about Jesus? (Hint, there not even Roman records of the execution).

Also, when did JESUS (not the narrator John) claim he died for our sins?[/quote]

Thank you. You beat me to it. It is he who needs to do his studying. He doesn’t even have a grasp on what he believes beyond evangelical bullshit. Believe what you wish, blindly if you will…but don’t come here and attempt to debate FACTS with faith. Don’t be offended when you are confronted with FACTS. Have your faith. Fine. But if you want to discuss FACTS and history, do your homework first. And to be clear, I don’t believe anyone denied the historical Jesus.

286

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]

No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:

“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”

Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…

Here is some more:

Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]

You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.

Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]

Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.

Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?

I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]

Geez, it’s even on a T-Shirt…

http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_heroes_professor_stephen_hawking_tshirt-235763651563179960

Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”

And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[/quote]

You fancy yourself intelligent that’s why I’m absolutely mystified by your apparent inability to grasp this. Let me help you and show you the flaw in your perception:

"“there would be no eruptions from the mountain at which the laws of science broke down and one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the conditions for a volcano. . . The volcano would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside the earth. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”

He’s asking a question. He’s exploring the boundries of space and time and wondering why a creator is necessary to explain the properties of the observable universe. He’s not denying God. He’s suggesting that science can possibly explain all there is to know about the observable universe and its origins. He is quite literally standing on the same ground as the man that first openly wondered whether science could explain the lightning and thunder, as opposed to God’s wrath. Or why a volcano exploded and didn’t require a sacrafice to a “God”. Once again, how much clearer can I make the following request: Please send me a credible reference where Hawkings proclaims himself an atheist. I’m not stating you’re incorrect - I am stating that the “references” you have provided thus far are specious at best. A t-shirt? Really?
[/quote]

Uh, that question is rhetorical.
I know what he is saying. A self contained universe that can be neither created nor destroyed is an atheistic proposition. One who believes this, must necessarily believe there is no God. Creating a view of a creation with out a creator is an atheistic core belief. It’s more than an academic exercise. These are the ultimate questions as to why we’re here and how we got here. If the universe, or all creation, in fact has no creator there is no God. It’s more than science, it’s everything.
Based on the things Hawking says about his research he is at worst an agnostic hoping to find and atheist answer to the existence of the universe. We’ll never really know what he actually believes personally because to my knowledge he doesn’t care to share his personal beliefs. So has he declared that he is an atheist, no. As far as I know he claims agnosticism and denies full blown atheism. Yet, he seeks to present a view of the universe that does not require the need for a creator. That is something a theist would begrudgingly be forced to admit, not seek.
As for what he personally believes, what his favorite color is, or what not, I don’t know. I am not a follower of his so I don’t know every thing about him, but what he expresses are atheistic tenets. What his stated goal is an atheist’s dream. He has all the markings of atheist, but just does not want to be called one, I suppose.

What exactely is your goal here? I suspect all you want to do is take me down a notch. You’ve latched on to something I said as a sheer matter of opinion and stated it as such.

Now you’ve stated that there are plenty of theoretical physicists who are theists. Can you point me in the direction of a reputable one? I’d like to hear his or her theories.
[/quote]

I did not even read past your second sentence. You sir, are beyond hope. You know that which is in a stranger’s heart, even past his sharp denials of the very label you place upon him. There can be no intelligent discourse with someone such as yourself who believes he can know a strangers heart. You have a narrower view than he of what God could be…yours being limited to an anthromorphic God as described in your bible. That is your right.

287

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

let me get this on track. please provide the links/references to the TPs that you conclude are athiests. And by athiests, do you mean a rejection of organized religion (then I too am most certainly an athiest) or, do you mean an outright denial of a Supreme/Divine source? I’ve read works by both Hawking and Susskind and I didn’t perceive any agenda to disprove God. I think you refer more to the athiest using TP and such in their attempt to disprove God.
[/quote]

No the people listed and many more absolutely deny the existence of God. Here is a quote by Hawking himself:

“All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.”

Here is a bunch of quotes along the same line…

Here is some more:

Now interestingly, as he bring his speech to crescendo with his something from nothing thoery, he says that there is energy there. And energy is a something. That’s why I emailed him directly and asked him that very question, to which he responded “No, there is always something there.”
[/quote]

You have a weird agenda, and quite possibly one of the most biased reading comprehensions I’ve come across lately. I read every quote in your link and I cannot appreciate where Hawkings has an agenda or belief against “God”. I don’t have time for an hour video so I did not view your second link.

Again, I challenge you to provide reference/source for your apparent contention that the TP community has an agenda to disprove “God”.
[/quote]

Man, it doesn’t get much more plain than that.
I don’t have any sort of weird agenda and I never said, at all, the TP community at large has an agenda to disprove the existence of God, I never even intimated that. I said that some physicists do, do just that and I just provided two examples. I watched a show where Hawking in his robot voice said, he wants to put forth “a view of the universe that doesn’t need God.” These were his words. Did I misinterpret that? How much more clear do you want it? But I never ever, ever, ever said that the goal of theoretical physics is to disprove the existence of God.

Second, I rendered an opinion, which is all it was, that sometimes TP’s may deliberately avoid a theory or conclusion, that may actually prove the existence of something like a “God”. I have no proof what so ever, of that. It’s just a hunch…I used the example of null theory, where they make a claim of something from nothing, but they themselves admit there is still something there. Last time I looked the definition of nothing, did not include something. Am I wrong?

I am not sure what your agenda is. You want me to say I am not a smart as a hawking or some other theoretical physicist? I 'll grant that happily. I deeply enjoy science and I am fascinated by the work they do. I never made such a claim, at all. Hell I need those folks to be right so I can make my points based on their theories and conclusions. I really don’t know what you are on about.[/quote]

Doesn’t get much more plain than that? lol At least one other person here thought exactly as I and stated as much. I don’t think it’s plain at all. Hawking is attempting to discover what makes the volcanoes of old happen - seeking and discovering cause does not obviate God. Wanting to explain the physical does not deny He who set it in motion. We can discover the exact mechanism of the big bang and still will never explain what occurred or existed just before…ever. There is no end and there is no denying God by that journey. One only needs to apply your logic to the volcanoes of old to expose the weakness in your perception. The earliest vulcanist was no more an atheist than Hawking et al. If you’re going to attribute atheism to someone, at least reference a source where the person proclaims it. You’re insinuating it, with poor reading comprehension. [/quote]

Geez, it’s even on a T-Shirt…

http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_heroes_professor_stephen_hawking_tshirt-235763651563179960

Is this satisfactory for you:
“there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”

And what is my logic and is weakness in perception?
[/quote]

You fancy yourself intelligent that’s why I’m absolutely mystified by your apparent inability to grasp this. Let me help you and show you the flaw in your perception:

"“there would be no eruptions from the mountain at which the laws of science broke down and one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the conditions for a volcano. . . The volcano would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside the earth. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)”

He’s asking a question. He’s exploring the boundries of space and time and wondering why a creator is necessary to explain the properties of the observable universe. He’s not denying God. He’s suggesting that science can possibly explain all there is to know about the observable universe and its origins. He is quite literally standing on the same ground as the man that first openly wondered whether science could explain the lightning and thunder, as opposed to God’s wrath. Or why a volcano exploded and didn’t require a sacrafice to a “God”. Once again, how much clearer can I make the following request: Please send me a credible reference where Hawkings proclaims himself an atheist. I’m not stating you’re incorrect - I am stating that the “references” you have provided thus far are specious at best. A t-shirt? Really?
[/quote]

Uh, that question is rhetorical.
I know what he is saying. A self contained universe that can be neither created nor destroyed is an atheistic proposition. One who believes this, must necessarily believe there is no God. Creating a view of a creation with out a creator is an atheistic core belief. It’s more than an academic exercise. These are the ultimate questions as to why we’re here and how we got here. If the universe, or all creation, in fact has no creator there is no God. It’s more than science, it’s everything.
Based on the things Hawking says about his research he is at worst an agnostic hoping to find and atheist answer to the existence of the universe. We’ll never really know what he actually believes personally because to my knowledge he doesn’t care to share his personal beliefs. So has he declared that he is an atheist, no. As far as I know he claims agnosticism and denies full blown atheism. Yet, he seeks to present a view of the universe that does not require the need for a creator. That is something a theist would begrudgingly be forced to admit, not seek.
As for what he personally believes, what his favorite color is, or what not, I don’t know. I am not a follower of his so I don’t know every thing about him, but what he expresses are atheistic tenets. What his stated goal is an atheist’s dream. He has all the markings of atheist, but just does not want to be called one, I suppose.

What exactely is your goal here? I suspect all you want to do is take me down a notch. You’ve latched on to something I said as a sheer matter of opinion and stated it as such.

Now you’ve stated that there are plenty of theoretical physicists who are theists. Can you point me in the direction of a reputable one? I’d like to hear his or her theories.
[/quote]

I did not even read past your second sentence. You sir, are beyond hope. You know that which is in a stranger’s heart, even past his sharp denials of the very label you place upon him. There can be no intelligent discourse with someone such as yourself who believes he can know a strangers heart. You have a narrower view than he of what God could be…yours being limited to an anthromorphic God as described in your bible. That is your right.[/quote]

Bodyguard, you’ve been putting words in Pat’s mouth from the beginning of this entire frivolous (albeit interesting) argument. You are clearly intelligent and well read, but twisting someone’s intentions, stating their intentions for them, throwing strawmen up all over the place to knock down, these are not helping your case with anyone but the choir. Stating your point is fine, but if you think that you are anything more than the pot calling the kettle black, then you are as delusional as a…religious nut :wink:

Oh, and I’m absolutely certain you read his entire post. I don’t have to be able to “know that which is in a strangers [sic] heart” to know the nature of a kind of person when I see him.

And, btw, I actually think you are one of the MUCH better posters on this site, as is Pat, and I do hope you stick around. I just think you’re fighting dirty right now, and maybe you, even, do not realize it.

288

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[/quote]
What would prevent water from penetrating air? And how do you vaporize a vapor?

Please don’t talk science anymore. Or at least do some research before you post.[/quote]

LOL at you seriously. Water from space/comet could not penetrate the ATMOSPHERE. Please provide references to support your theory as long as you’re on this “research” slant. I anxiously await your references.[/quote]

I"m sorry, I couldn’t go past the first page. And you’re telling me not to talk science? Show me something credible, from a peer reviewed expert. Don’t show me the speculations and “novel” theories of the fringe that are not supported or accepted by the scientific community. And by the way, we all know that water can survive a comet’s ENTRY into our atmosphere or via meteorite. I’m not reading this rubbish. You need to do better. [/quote]

Here’s an abstract. Seems all the meaningful articles are pay-only. Still looking.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSV-4893SYF-127&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1285723457&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5f11b865d46d6eb4f22b9dadf0626a23

289

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Zeb… where are you getting this?

Have you read to messianic proficiencies in the Tanakh? Or are you taking some preacher’s world that they’re there, and talking about Jesus?

Can you cite a single prophecy that is clearly about Jesus? Because I can find many about the coming of the messiah, and the messiah being someone or doing things that Jesus clearly wasn’t and didn’t do (so Christians made up the idea of a 2nd coming…).

Yes, Christ is indeed the Messiah, mostly because Christ isn’t Jesus’s last name, but a title, a poor Greek translation of the word Messiah (literally closer to meaning “good”).

Where in the Tanakh does it say that Jews (God’s chosen people) will reject their own Messiah? Refer me to a passage please.

And yes, Muslims aknowledge Jesus OF NAZARETH (because again Christ isn’t his last name) as a prophet.

What’s a historical writer from Jesus of Nazareth’s day you’ve read? And what did they say about Jesus? (Hint, there not even Roman records of the execution).

Also, when did JESUS (not the narrator John) claim he died for our sins?[/quote]

Thank you. You beat me to it. It is he who needs to do his studying. He doesn’t even have a grasp on what he believes beyond evangelical bullshit. Believe what you wish, blindly if you will…but don’t come here and attempt to debate FACTS with faith. Don’t be offended when you are confronted with FACTS. Have your faith. Fine. But if you want to discuss FACTS and history, do your homework first. And to be clear, I don’t believe anyone denied the historical Jesus.[/quote]

Please tell me where I’m mistaken on anything that I’ve given my opinion on.

Thanks.

290

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is beyond my league, but I would like to ask that since Buddah predates Christianity, and you guys dont beleive Christianity because it is so old and we have been enlighted over the past 2000 years, why do you follow buddhism? Go figure.[/quote]

OK, no seriously. I toyed with the idea of Buddhism once (and rejected it). How am I suddenly a Buddhist?

Someone has to explain this to me.

291

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Zeb… where are you getting this?

Have you read to messianic proficiencies in the Tanakh? Or are you taking some preacher’s world that they’re there, and talking about Jesus?

Can you cite a single prophecy that is clearly about Jesus? Because I can find many about the coming of the messiah, and the messiah being someone or doing things that Jesus clearly wasn’t and didn’t do (so Christians made up the idea of a 2nd coming…).

Yes, Christ is indeed the Messiah, mostly because Christ isn’t Jesus’s last name, but a title, a poor Greek translation of the word Messiah (literally closer to meaning “good”).

Where in the Tanakh does it say that Jews (God’s chosen people) will reject their own Messiah? Refer me to a passage please.

And yes, Muslims aknowledge Jesus OF NAZARETH (because again Christ isn’t his last name) as a prophet.

What’s a historical writer from Jesus of Nazareth’s day you’ve read? And what did they say about Jesus? (Hint, there not even Roman records of the execution).

Also, when did JESUS (not the narrator John) claim he died for our sins?[/quote]

Thank you. You beat me to it. It is he who needs to do his studying. He doesn’t even have a grasp on what he believes beyond evangelical bullshit. Believe what you wish, blindly if you will…but don’t come here and attempt to debate FACTS with faith. Don’t be offended when you are confronted with FACTS. Have your faith. Fine. But if you want to discuss FACTS and history, do your homework first. And to be clear, I don’t believe anyone denied the historical Jesus.[/quote]

Please tell me where I’m mistaken on anything that I’ve given my opinion on.

Thanks.
[/quote]

If you are making the claims, you should easily be able to back them up.

292

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Zeb… where are you getting this?

Have you read to messianic proficiencies in the Tanakh? Or are you taking some preacher’s world that they’re there, and talking about Jesus?[/quote]

Where did I say that I took some preachers word for anything? I think I made it pretty clear that I’ve read the Old Testament.

The problem with that is Jesus Christ is the only person who has ever walked this earth that has fulfilled these prophesies. Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel and he is the Son of David. His geneaology can be found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke chapter 3:23-38.

I suppose they also made up all of the miracles too? And they made up Jesus rising on the third day of his supposed demise? Did they also make up the hundreds of predictions of his coming? Did all of the disciples that knew him best die horrible deaths to fool people? Your premise has no base.

True he was Jesus who was referred to as “the Christ”.

This is in the New as well as the OT: The Messiah is a “stone the builders rejected” who will become the “head cornerstone”. Psalm 118:22,23 and Isaiah 28:16 and Matthew 21:42,43; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8.

Here is where you can find a more complete listing of some of the predictions of Jesus eventual coming, if you are interested:

I’m aware of that and never said anything to the contrary.

Historical writers mentioning Jesus:
Following is a list of extra biblical (outside of the Bible) references of biblical events, places, etc. The list is not exhaustive but is very representative of what is available.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

“Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done.”

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, “And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth.”

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus - Annals 15.44

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/...s/annals.mb.txt

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus’ account of an eclipse of the sun.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.”

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, “And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.”

The oddity is that Jesus’ crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus’ mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus’ crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante?Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food?but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!”

Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.”

Luke 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people.”

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day?the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.”

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11?13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

The historical Jesus is debated by very, very few. You can find people that still believe the world is flat so just because you can find a few in a google search doesn’t mean that they hold much credit, regardless the above listing should answer your question.

“Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die” (John 11:25).

In order to be resurrected one must first die.

He then predicted his own death and it happened as he predicted:

“Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, â??We are going up into Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again” (Luke 18:31-33).

Thank you for reading my long post but I wanted to make sure that I answered everything as it was asked. Keep in mind, as I’ve repeatedly stated, no one can prove the existence of God, that’s where faith comes in. And if someone does not want to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, worked miracles and rose from the dead one Internet post is not going to change his mind. In addition to this, if someone does not even want to believe that Christ lived as an historical figure there are no amount of posts that will change his mind.

My attempt is to simply put forth the things that I have read and believe, and I have done so.

293

[quote]Makavali wrote:

If you are making the claims, you should easily be able to back them up.[/quote]

I have, but keep in mind that none of it will be good enough. As I’ve said you really don’t change peoples minds on a message board. Most post with an agenda to argue and revel in the vitriol. Religion is always a hot topic and I don’t expect that it will cool off anytime soon.

I did my best to steer a young man toward what I believe to be the truth. If it is not your belief or anothers belief then so be it I cannot change a mans heart that is Gods to do.

I helped as best that I could and I feel good about it.

All The Best To You My Friend,

Zeb

295

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is beyond my league, but I would like to ask that since Buddah predates Christianity, and you guys dont beleive Christianity because it is so old and we have been enlighted over the past 2000 years, why do you follow buddhism? Go figure.[/quote]

OK, no seriously. I toyed with the idea of Buddhism once (and rejected it). How am I suddenly a Buddhist?

Someone has to explain this to me.[/quote]

I didn’t realize that. Should I go back to picking on you for being a snarky atheist? Or do you have a preference for some other creed now?[/quote]

How did you not realize?

I made the Buddhism thread some time ago, and in numerous threads since then I’ve made it plenty clear that I am an atheist. Apatheist if you really wanted to argue semantics.

296

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Bodyguard, you’ve been putting words in Pat’s mouth from the beginning of this entire frivolous (albeit interesting) argument. You are clearly intelligent and well read, but twisting someone’s intentions, stating their intentions for them, throwing strawmen up all over the place to knock down, these are not helping your case with anyone but the choir. Stating your point is fine, but if you think that you are anything more than the pot calling the kettle black, then you are as delusional as a…religious nut :wink:

Oh, and I’m absolutely certain you read his entire post. I don’t have to be able to “know that which is in a strangers [sic] heart” to know the nature of a kind of person when I see him.

And, btw, I actually think you are one of the MUCH better posters on this site, as is Pat, and I do hope you stick around. I just think you’re fighting dirty right now, and maybe you, even, do not realize it.
[/quote]

If I truly put words in his mouth, I’m not aware of it and it’s certainly my mistake if I have. I also did not read the rest of his post. Whether or not I put words in his mouth, I do not intend to go back and revisit his prior posts. I can narrow and redefine the issues quite easily, but it’s clear any further discussion would not be fruitful. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t attempting to use illusion or misdirection to debate him. Perhaps I lost something in the translation and multiple threads. Your observation is fair enough.

297

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Hmm, so the water vapor would survive entry into earth’s atmosphere? LOL
[/quote]
What exactly do you think would happen to it?[/quote]
It would not penetrate it. And if it could, it would vaporize. Simple really. Not possible certainly.
[/quote]
What would prevent water from penetrating air? And how do you vaporize a vapor?

Please don’t talk science anymore. Or at least do some research before you post.[/quote]

LOL at you seriously. Water from space/comet could not penetrate the ATMOSPHERE. Please provide references to support your theory as long as you’re on this “research” slant. I anxiously await your references.[/quote]

I"m sorry, I couldn’t go past the first page. And you’re telling me not to talk science? Show me something credible, from a peer reviewed expert. Don’t show me the speculations and “novel” theories of the fringe that are not supported or accepted by the scientific community. And by the way, we all know that water can survive a comet’s ENTRY into our atmosphere or via meteorite. I’m not reading this rubbish. You need to do better. [/quote]

Here’s an abstract. Seems all the meaningful articles are pay-only. Still looking.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSV-4893SYF-127&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1978&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1285723457&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5f11b865d46d6eb4f22b9dadf0626a23[/quote]

You know what? You remind me of a small child with his fingers in his ears screaming LALALALA because someone’s saying something he doesn’t want to hear.

YOU find an article proving to me that water CAN’T enter the atmosphere on its own, and we’ll continue this conversation.

298

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You know what? You remind me of a small child with his fingers in his ears screaming LALALALA because someone’s saying something he doesn’t want to hear.

YOU find an article proving to me that water CAN’T enter the atmosphere on its own, and we’ll continue this conversation.[/quote]

Not sure why you quoted yourself there, but it’s you claim, ergo the burden of proof lies with you.

299

…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…

…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…

…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…

…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…

300

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…use common sense: if a comet, that’s so big to contain enough water to cover the earths surface upto 29.000 feet [Mt. Everest], breaks up outside the earth’s atmosphere due to an explosion or a pass-by of the sun, the temperature in outer space would immediately freeze the water turning it in ice again…

…if the comet does not break-up into pieces but enters the earth’s atmosphere in one piece, much of it’s contents will vaporize upon entry. If the comet is still big enough to contain enough water to cover the earth’s surface after entering the atmosphere, that comet should have obliterated the earth…

…if the comet breaks-up in pieces and those pieces combined have enough water to cover the earth’s surface, the entry into the earth’s atmosphere would vaporize the ice, just as it does countless of times with meteors. Any debris that makes it to the surface will not contain enough water…

…altough what religious belief is concerned: anything is possible no matter how improbable…[/quote]

Sounds like this comet would need to be the size of the moon at least! If both polar caps melted completely, don’t we only get like 200 foot higher sees? Now that is significant of course… Florida would be underwater… etc. That would need to be one BIG mother fucking comet that just blew up and deposited all that water.

I will agree though that like 90% of our water on earth came from commets. But we are talking millions of comets over billions of years.

Of course the ice gets vaporized when it enters our atmosphere. It’s called Rain guys. Bodyguard is being dificult there I think. He must know that. But the comet the size of mars theory is rediculous. Where did all the water go after that? Another comet came by and beamed it up?