FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is child abuse

Lawrence Krauss: Teaching Creationism is child abuse

(3:33) In a 2012 Gallup Poll, 46% of Americans believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible, that is that God created everything in a blip about 10,000 years ago. Surprisingly, the number of creationists has actually gone up since Gallup began conducting the survey in 1982 (44%).

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1662 days ago)
Isn't it written into the Constitution somewhere that everyone has the right to be willfully stupid, terminally gullible and as dumb as a fence post?
ReplyVote up (202)down (135)
Original comment
Isn't it written into the Constitution somewhere that everyone has the right to be willfully stupid, terminally gullible and as dumb as a fence post?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: There's no god.. stop bitchin' (1661 days ago)
I Believe so... I think cengland0 may be the authority with whom to discuss that particular stanza...
ReplyVote up (113)down (196)
Original comment
I Believe so... I think cengland0 may be the authority with whom to discuss that particular stanza...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: A question... (1662 days ago)
Can somebody show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is 10,000 years old....or 6,000....or whatever it is these people believe?
ReplyVote up (226)down (188)
Original comment
Can somebody show me where in the Bible it says that the earth is 10,000 years old....or 6,000....or whatever it is these people believe?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1662 days ago)
It doesn't say it in that manner; however, it does tell you that the earth and the universe and everything else was created in 6 days. Then, it tell you that Adam was the first human and Eve the second. In Genesis 4, it gives you the Genealogy from Adam to Judah and even tells you how old each person was when they had their children. Then, Matthew 1 has 38 more generations (some overlapping Genesis) that goes all the way to Jesus. We know Jesus was around 2013 years ago. I've written a small blog about this here if you want to read more: LINK
ReplyVote up (260)down (204)
Original comment
It doesn't say it in that manner; however, it does tell you that the earth and the universe and everything else was created in 6 days. Then, it tell you that Adam was the first human and Eve the second. In Genesis 4, it gives you the Genealogy from Adam to Judah and even tells you how old each person was when they had their children. Then, Matthew 1 has 38 more generations (some overlapping Genesis) that goes all the way to Jesus. We know Jesus was around 2013 years ago. I've written a small blog about this here if you want to read more: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question... (1661 days ago)
That still would only give the age of man according to the creation account. Nothing about the age of earth. Also, you state that the earth, the universe and everything else was created in 6 days. Where does it say that it was 6 24 hour days? I can say to you that, "back in my day...." How long ago was that? You wouldn't know unless you knew how old I was, and what time of my life I was talking about. Correct?
ReplyVote up (180)down (172)
Original comment
That still would only give the age of man according to the creation account. Nothing about the age of earth. Also, you state that the earth, the universe and everything else was created in 6 days. Where does it say that it was 6 24 hour days? I can say to you that, "back in my day...." How long ago was that? You wouldn't know unless you knew how old I was, and what time of my life I was talking about. Correct?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
Genesis 1:17 debunks any account that they were different length of days. "God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." This means he created the sun and the moon and when the sun went down and came back up, it was a next day in terms of creation time. Unless you can show where the earth rotated at a different speed when the earth was created, then it was a 24 hour day back then too. There is no scripture anywhere that says the earth's rotation was sped up after the creation events.
ReplyVote up (257)down (179)
Original comment
Genesis 1:17 debunks any account that they were different length of days. "God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day." This means he created the sun and the moon and when the sun went down and came back up, it was a next day in terms of creation time. Unless you can show where the earth rotated at a different speed when the earth was created, then it was a 24 hour day back then too. There is no scripture anywhere that says the earth's rotation was sped up after the creation events.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question... (1661 days ago)
what was the "light" in verses 3-5 then?
ReplyVote up (178)down (188)
Original comment
what was the "light" in verses 3-5 then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1661 days ago)
it probably related to this: "Visible light (commonly referred to simply as light) is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight.[1] Visible light has a wavelength in the range of about 380 nanometres (nm) to about 740 nanometres – between the invisible infrared, with longer wavelengths and the invisible ultraviolet, with shorter wavelengths. Primary properties of visible light are intensity, propagation direction, frequency or wavelength spectrum, and polarisation, while its speed in a vacuum, 299,792,458 meters per second, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. Visible light, as with all types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), is experimentally found to always move at this speed in vacuum. In common with all types of EMR, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics. In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[2][3] This article focuses on visible light. See the electromagnetic radiation article for the general term." LINK
ReplyVote up (155)down (185)
Original comment
it probably related to this: "Visible light (commonly referred to simply as light) is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight.[1] Visible light has a wavelength in the range of about 380 nanometres (nm) to about 740 nanometres – between the invisible infrared, with longer wavelengths and the invisible ultraviolet, with shorter wavelengths. Primary properties of visible light are intensity, propagation direction, frequency or wavelength spectrum, and polarisation, while its speed in a vacuum, 299,792,458 meters per second, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. Visible light, as with all types of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), is experimentally found to always move at this speed in vacuum. In common with all types of EMR, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics. In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[2][3] This article focuses on visible light. See the electromagnetic radiation article for the general term." LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
Genesis 1:3 (day 1) "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." So where did the light come from if the Sun and Moon was not created until Day 4? Good question and I've asked ministers and preachers this without any good answers. There is a contradiction because in Genesis 2:4 it says "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" which means both the heavens and the earth were created on the same day. In either event, it clearly states that a day is defined as cycle from Darkness to Light (morning). That's a 24 hour period today and there is no record of the earth's spin changing drastically in the last 10,000 years so it was probably 24 hours then too.
ReplyVote up (179)down (259)
Original comment
Genesis 1:3 (day 1) "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." So where did the light come from if the Sun and Moon was not created until Day 4? Good question and I've asked ministers and preachers this without any good answers. There is a contradiction because in Genesis 2:4 it says "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" which means both the heavens and the earth were created on the same day. In either event, it clearly states that a day is defined as cycle from Darkness to Light (morning). That's a 24 hour period today and there is no record of the earth's spin changing drastically in the last 10,000 years so it was probably 24 hours then too.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question (1660 days ago)
actually, from darkness to light isn't a 24 hour period....these days, where I live it's less than 10 hours. This is the way one person explained it to me...Gen. 1:1 basically talks about the big bang when God created the universe(s) including earth. The following verses describe his work on the earch as if spoken from the point of view of a human, as if they were on earth watching what was going on. There was no specific time between the creation of everything and His turning His attention to the earth to prepare it for man. Therefore, 13 billion years certainly could have passed in that time....
ReplyVote up (159)down (196)
Original comment
actually, from darkness to light isn't a 24 hour period....these days, where I live it's less than 10 hours. This is the way one person explained it to me...Gen. 1:1 basically talks about the big bang when God created the universe(s) including earth. The following verses describe his work on the earch as if spoken from the point of view of a human, as if they were on earth watching what was going on. There was no specific time between the creation of everything and His turning His attention to the earth to prepare it for man. Therefore, 13 billion years certainly could have passed in that time....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
Also Exodus 20 says, "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 31 says, "It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."
ReplyVote up (167)down (177)
Original comment
Also Exodus 20 says, "For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 31 says, "It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
All the following within quotes happened on the first DAY: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The word "day" was translated from the Hebrew word יום yowm. The full definition of that word is "day, time, year a) day (as opposed to night) b) day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day's journey c) days, lifetime (pl.) d) time, period (general) e) year f) temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow" So I'm not sure where you get that it could possibly be 13 billion years since the definition seems clear to me that it's a regular day that we are observing today.
ReplyVote up (161)down (183)
Original comment
All the following within quotes happened on the first DAY: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The word "day" was translated from the Hebrew word יום yowm. The full definition of that word is "day, time, year a) day (as opposed to night) b) day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day's journey c) days, lifetime (pl.) d) time, period (general) e) year f) temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow" So I'm not sure where you get that it could possibly be 13 billion years since the definition seems clear to me that it's a regular day that we are observing today.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question (1660 days ago)
sorry...didn't realize you wrote it.
ReplyVote up (183)down (258)
Original comment
sorry...didn't realize you wrote it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question (1660 days ago)
so you are saying that the Hebrew word יום used throughout the first chapter in Genesis meaning that it was six literal 24 hour days (despite the fact that you just stated that the d) definition is "period" or unspecified amount of time) and yet in referring to the total amount of those days referred to in Gen. 2:4 are referred to with the same word יום . So you mean all the days in Gen. 1 totalled 1 day? I am even more confused than before...lol
ReplyVote up (170)down (183)
Original comment
so you are saying that the Hebrew word יום used throughout the first chapter in Genesis meaning that it was six literal 24 hour days (despite the fact that you just stated that the d) definition is "period" or unspecified amount of time) and yet in referring to the total amount of those days referred to in Gen. 2:4 are referred to with the same word יום . So you mean all the days in Gen. 1 totalled 1 day? I am even more confused than before...lol
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
Those days are very clear on how long it was by describing that the evening and morning was a day. It is my opinion that means a typical day that we use today and not billions of years.
ReplyVote up (155)down (187)
Original comment
Those days are very clear on how long it was by describing that the evening and morning was a day. It is my opinion that means a typical day that we use today and not billions of years.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question (1660 days ago)
which was a typical day? the ones in the first chapter or the one in chapter 2 verse 4 that includes all 6 of the first?
ReplyVote up (153)down (168)
Original comment
which was a typical day? the ones in the first chapter or the one in chapter 2 verse 4 that includes all 6 of the first?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
mister "a question" , the burden of proof lies with you not with the rest of us. Until you can prove that a "biblical day" is longer than an actual day, we will just have to assume that Cengland0 is correct.
ReplyVote up (157)down (173)
Original comment
mister "a question" , the burden of proof lies with you not with the rest of us. Until you can prove that a "biblical day" is longer than an actual day, we will just have to assume that Cengland0 is correct.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (1661 days ago)
Regardless of whether we interpret the days as literal, single days or not, there is no reason to believe that the writers of the bible intended to set down a scientific text on cosmology, geology and biology: anyone who forces the bible into that role does violence to common sense and the text itself.
ReplyVote up (178)down (189)
Original comment
Regardless of whether we interpret the days as literal, single days or not, there is no reason to believe that the writers of the bible intended to set down a scientific text on cosmology, geology and biology: anyone who forces the bible into that role does violence to common sense and the text itself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Not Abuse (1662 days ago)
The Bible doesn't give a certain date. However, I want to give a possible explanation from the Christian point of view. Let's assume for a minute the Genesis creation story. When Adam was created, how old was he? He was able to talk immediately and very soon was able to have sexual relations with Eve. It is safe to say that Adam was a mature man when he was created. For the sake of argument, let's say he was 20. So, one can rightly say that Adam was 20 years old and one can also say that Adam was one day old. Both are correct. The same with the earth. The earth was also created with a certain age included. The water cycle was put into motion, canyons were already carved, tectonic plates were already moving, all during the creation giving the earth age even though it is younger. I'm sure many will disagree with this, but it presents a reasonable explanation of both theories. Parents sharing their faith with their kids is absolutely not child abuse, any more than parents telling their children that there is no god. That is an extremist view that doesn't help. Why don't we cut out the name calling and come together?
ReplyVote up (184)down (193)
Original comment
The Bible doesn't give a certain date. However, I want to give a possible explanation from the Christian point of view. Let's assume for a minute the Genesis creation story. When Adam was created, how old was he? He was able to talk immediately and very soon was able to have sexual relations with Eve. It is safe to say that Adam was a mature man when he was created. For the sake of argument, let's say he was 20. So, one can rightly say that Adam was 20 years old and one can also say that Adam was one day old. Both are correct. The same with the earth. The earth was also created with a certain age included. The water cycle was put into motion, canyons were already carved, tectonic plates were already moving, all during the creation giving the earth age even though it is younger. I'm sure many will disagree with this, but it presents a reasonable explanation of both theories. Parents sharing their faith with their kids is absolutely not child abuse, any more than parents telling their children that there is no god. That is an extremist view that doesn't help. Why don't we cut out the name calling and come together?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1661 days ago)
Which creation story in Genesis...there are 2 (for Adam and Eve) though most Christians don't actually READ their bible...they just listen to people tell them what is in it. READ the book and you will find contradictions in Genesis.
ReplyVote up (251)down (161)
Original comment
Which creation story in Genesis...there are 2 (for Adam and Eve) though most Christians don't actually READ their bible...they just listen to people tell them what is in it. READ the book and you will find contradictions in Genesis.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1661 days ago)
this sounds a lot like that show on the History channel: Ancient Aliens!
ReplyVote up (161)down (170)
Original comment
this sounds a lot like that show on the History channel: Ancient Aliens!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1662 days ago)
And about 20 years ago, I created a family tree that shows the genealogy graphically. I recently put it in PDF format so I can share it. It's here if you want to view it: LINK
ReplyVote up (176)down (267)
Original comment
And about 20 years ago, I created a family tree that shows the genealogy graphically. I recently put it in PDF format so I can share it. It's here if you want to view it: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Mylo (1662 days ago)
The more entrenched the beliefs/ideals that have been scientifically disproven, the more difficult they are to overcome societally speaking, whether the premise is of a religious, political, racial, economic, national or social bearing. As humans we hate to be proven wrong.
ReplyVote up (175)down (151)
Original comment
The more entrenched the beliefs/ideals that have been scientifically disproven, the more difficult they are to overcome societally speaking, whether the premise is of a religious, political, racial, economic, national or social bearing. As humans we hate to be proven wrong.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Doe (1662 days ago)
Religion was a massively useful tool in less sociologically and morally advanced eras as they allowed the control of enormous numbers of people through ideological sticks and carrots. The problem is that the institutions are not the individuals. The institutions fear the individual's freedom of thought and will and continue to perpetuate the ideology to maintain control in an age where moral, ethical, sociological, legal or emotional choices should be those of the individual only. Allowing any form of tutelage in only one religion in childhood could be deemed abuse and brainwashing. It takes away many choices in later life; fewer find the courage to break away from what was heaped upon them in childhood than stay with it. If a newborn child of one religion were transplanted to a family of a differing religion at birth, they would not grow up in the faith of their biological parents, they'd take on the religion or lack of religion that the new parents brought them up with. Religion is not a natural state, or something that needs to be imparted to our children. We should educate them in all faiths and levels of lack of faith and let them choose when they're old enough if they want any part of it at all. We need the courage to know that our child will choose to believe or not believe and still be our child. It's better to teach them how to be a good person and to think for themselves than it is to fit them into the same shaped box we sit in ourselves just because we were taught from an early age to accept or like the box. We need to stop being scared that not being like us will make them a bad person and accept that knowing that there are choices will make them a strong person.
ReplyVote up (152)down (227)
Original comment
Religion was a massively useful tool in less sociologically and morally advanced eras as they allowed the control of enormous numbers of people through ideological sticks and carrots. The problem is that the institutions are not the individuals. The institutions fear the individual's freedom of thought and will and continue to perpetuate the ideology to maintain control in an age where moral, ethical, sociological, legal or emotional choices should be those of the individual only. Allowing any form of tutelage in only one religion in childhood could be deemed abuse and brainwashing. It takes away many choices in later life; fewer find the courage to break away from what was heaped upon them in childhood than stay with it. If a newborn child of one religion were transplanted to a family of a differing religion at birth, they would not grow up in the faith of their biological parents, they'd take on the religion or lack of religion that the new parents brought them up with. Religion is not a natural state, or something that needs to be imparted to our children. We should educate them in all faiths and levels of lack of faith and let them choose when they're old enough if they want any part of it at all. We need the courage to know that our child will choose to believe or not believe and still be our child. It's better to teach them how to be a good person and to think for themselves than it is to fit them into the same shaped box we sit in ourselves just because we were taught from an early age to accept or like the box. We need to stop being scared that not being like us will make them a bad person and accept that knowing that there are choices will make them a strong person.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (1661 days ago)
cengland0, you really are as bright as a house brick: "We know Jesus was around 2013 years ago". No, we don't. In fact, there is not one scrap of evidence that Jesus existed at all.
ReplyVote up (150)down (162)
Original comment
cengland0, you really are as bright as a house brick: "We know Jesus was around 2013 years ago". No, we don't. In fact, there is not one scrap of evidence that Jesus existed at all.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
I doubt most atheists deny a person named Jesus existed. The question is really if he was the son of god and that's where atheists would disagree with Christians. Even if Jesus never existed, the story of Jesus' death was 2013 years ago (or actually 2014 years because there wasn't a year zero). And my answer was regarding the question of where the Bible says how old the Earth is and Jesus is mentioned in the Bible.
ReplyVote up (154)down (256)
Original comment
I doubt most atheists deny a person named Jesus existed. The question is really if he was the son of god and that's where atheists would disagree with Christians. Even if Jesus never existed, the story of Jesus' death was 2013 years ago (or actually 2014 years because there wasn't a year zero). And my answer was regarding the question of where the Bible says how old the Earth is and Jesus is mentioned in the Bible.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1661 days ago)
Point of order, cengland0. Jesus' alleged BIRTH was 2013/2014 years ago. His death was 33 years later. BTW, wasn't it in Luke where they listed all Jesus' ancestors from Joseph back to Adam? (which rather misses the point that Joseph had no direct *ahem* input into Jesus' creation)
ReplyVote up (223)down (138)
Original comment
Point of order, cengland0. Jesus' alleged BIRTH was 2013/2014 years ago. His death was 33 years later. BTW, wasn't it in Luke where they listed all Jesus' ancestors from Joseph back to Adam? (which rather misses the point that Joseph had no direct *ahem* input into Jesus' creation)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
Beginning Genesis 4 through Genesis 11, it has the genealogy from Adam to Abram's family. Genesis 21 continues with the birth of Isaac.
ReplyVote up (228)down (241)
Original comment
Beginning Genesis 4 through Genesis 11, it has the genealogy from Adam to Abram's family. Genesis 21 continues with the birth of Isaac.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
And you're right about the mixup regarding the BIRTH versus DEATH time frames. My mistake. Still, it's only an approximation because he was supposedly born anywhere from 7 to 2 BC and died around 30 to 36 AD.
ReplyVote up (122)down (137)
Original comment
And you're right about the mixup regarding the BIRTH versus DEATH time frames. My mistake. Still, it's only an approximation because he was supposedly born anywhere from 7 to 2 BC and died around 30 to 36 AD.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:  Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,  Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah,  and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.  After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
ReplyVote up (144)down (201)
Original comment
Matthew 1:1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:  Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,  Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah,  and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.  After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1661 days ago)
Did a historical Jesus exist? LINK . And here you have the conclusion of godlessgeeks LINK """So, let's look at the evidence we have. From the earliest Christian epistle authors such as Paul, we have little to indicate that Jesus was a real person. And, we have strong evidence that to them he was just a spiritual sky god, constructed from earlier myths. From the later (and unknown) writers of the gospels, we have a story that grew over time, with more fantastical events added as the story was told and re-told — just like a myth. None of the gospel authors even claimed to have met Jesus. From the historians of the first century we have nothing. Nothing.""" ; You said: I doubt most atheists deny a person named Jesus existed. Doubt no more :D
ReplyVote up (221)down (235)
Original comment
Did a historical Jesus exist? LINK . And here you have the conclusion of godlessgeeks LINK """So, let's look at the evidence we have. From the earliest Christian epistle authors such as Paul, we have little to indicate that Jesus was a real person. And, we have strong evidence that to them he was just a spiritual sky god, constructed from earlier myths. From the later (and unknown) writers of the gospels, we have a story that grew over time, with more fantastical events added as the story was told and re-told — just like a myth. None of the gospel authors even claimed to have met Jesus. From the historians of the first century we have nothing. Nothing.""" ; You said: I doubt most atheists deny a person named Jesus existed. Doubt no more :D
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
You are dismissing the biggest and most important evidence of his existence and that is hearsay. There were many followers of Jesus and those people handed down the story generation to generation. These Christians were also killed in the Colosseum but there's no official record of that either; however thousands of people witnessed those events. This would be like if a UFO passed through the sky in Russia and it wasn't filmed but thousands of people saw it and came forward and said they saw it, then that's evidence. In 200 years from now, you couldn't prove that the UFO was there because nobody's alive to question them. In any event, regardless if Jesus did exist or did not exist, he is in the Bible and I was answering a question for someone that wanted to know where it said in the Bible that the earth was 6,000 - 10,000 years old. So I used evidence in the Bible. Any atheist that denies outright that Jesus did not exist is ignorant because there's a high probability that he did. Sure there may not be a body or any contemporary writings but there is still hearsay evidence. The name Jesus was very popular back then. It was like Tom or Bob is today. One thing is clear, I shouldn't have said "I doubt most atheists deny a person named Jesus existed" because I did not survey all the atheists to determine that for sure and I only made an assumption based on atheists generally being smart people wouldn't have a problem with his existence but would have a problem with him being called the son of god.
ReplyVote up (219)down (224)
Original comment
You are dismissing the biggest and most important evidence of his existence and that is hearsay. There were many followers of Jesus and those people handed down the story generation to generation. These Christians were also killed in the Colosseum but there's no official record of that either; however thousands of people witnessed those events. This would be like if a UFO passed through the sky in Russia and it wasn't filmed but thousands of people saw it and came forward and said they saw it, then that's evidence. In 200 years from now, you couldn't prove that the UFO was there because nobody's alive to question them. In any event, regardless if Jesus did exist or did not exist, he is in the Bible and I was answering a question for someone that wanted to know where it said in the Bible that the earth was 6,000 - 10,000 years old. So I used evidence in the Bible. Any atheist that denies outright that Jesus did not exist is ignorant because there's a high probability that he did. Sure there may not be a body or any contemporary writings but there is still hearsay evidence. The name Jesus was very popular back then. It was like Tom or Bob is today. One thing is clear, I shouldn't have said "I doubt most atheists deny a person named Jesus existed" because I did not survey all the atheists to determine that for sure and I only made an assumption based on atheists generally being smart people wouldn't have a problem with his existence but would have a problem with him being called the son of god.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1661 days ago)
you said: "You are dismissing the biggest and most important evidence of his existence and that is hearsay." I already linked you to my sources. The first link addresses Hearsay right at the beginning. Here's the paragraph: """No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.""" " You also said: "ny atheist that denies outright that Jesus did not exist is ignorant because there's a high probability that he did." I am starting to have doubts about your Atheism; I think you should start calling yourself an Agnostic. :D
ReplyVote up (130)down (252)
Original comment
you said: "You are dismissing the biggest and most important evidence of his existence and that is hearsay." I already linked you to my sources. The first link addresses Hearsay right at the beginning. Here's the paragraph: """No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.""" " You also said: "ny atheist that denies outright that Jesus did not exist is ignorant because there's a high probability that he did." I am starting to have doubts about your Atheism; I think you should start calling yourself an Agnostic. :D
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
But if it was only one person that said Jesus existed, I would dismiss it; however there were a bunch of followers and those people told their sons and daughters and it carried down from generation to generation until it was written down. Again, it doesn't matter if he existed or not because I was giving information from the Bible to a person asking questions about the Bible. Regarding your comment about me being agnostic instead of atheist, you would be wrong. I do know the difference. I just happen to know about the Bible and was answering someone's question about it -- not that I believe what is in the Bible is fact.
ReplyVote up (202)down (202)
Original comment
But if it was only one person that said Jesus existed, I would dismiss it; however there were a bunch of followers and those people told their sons and daughters and it carried down from generation to generation until it was written down. Again, it doesn't matter if he existed or not because I was giving information from the Bible to a person asking questions about the Bible. Regarding your comment about me being agnostic instead of atheist, you would be wrong. I do know the difference. I just happen to know about the Bible and was answering someone's question about it -- not that I believe what is in the Bible is fact.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1661 days ago)
you said: ""there were a bunch of followers and those people told their sons and daughters and it carried down from generation to generation until it was written down"". This also applies to vampires and werewolves and fairies and santa claus.
ReplyVote up (122)down (107)
Original comment
you said: ""there were a bunch of followers and those people told their sons and daughters and it carried down from generation to generation until it was written down"". This also applies to vampires and werewolves and fairies and santa claus.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1661 days ago)
i must insist on the following ""Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence."" This is the Atheist Consensus on the matter; i can't say the same about Agnostics.
ReplyVote up (130)down (141)
Original comment
i must insist on the following ""Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence."" This is the Atheist Consensus on the matter; i can't say the same about Agnostics.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1661 days ago)
What could you possibly have that's over 2000 years old that would be good enough proof of his existence? If one of his contemporaries wrote it down while Jesus was still alive, that would still not be admissible in court because that witness could not be cross examined. Anyone that wrote it down while he was alive could be lying. If you had his clothing, his DNA, his own writings, etc, you still wouldn't accept that as proof because all that could be faked. Even if someone discovers a bunch of bones, would you believe it then? Of course not because you don't have his DNA markers to prove those are his bones. So what kind of proof would be good enough for you? As for me, it doesn't matter if he existed or not, I still do not believe he was a supreme being and that's what makes me an atheist.
ReplyVote up (122)down (126)
Original comment
What could you possibly have that's over 2000 years old that would be good enough proof of his existence? If one of his contemporaries wrote it down while Jesus was still alive, that would still not be admissible in court because that witness could not be cross examined. Anyone that wrote it down while he was alive could be lying. If you had his clothing, his DNA, his own writings, etc, you still wouldn't accept that as proof because all that could be faked. Even if someone discovers a bunch of bones, would you believe it then? Of course not because you don't have his DNA markers to prove those are his bones. So what kind of proof would be good enough for you? As for me, it doesn't matter if he existed or not, I still do not believe he was a supreme being and that's what makes me an atheist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
So here's an example where guest123456789 is unable to give me what would be acceptable as evidence of Jesus' existence. I get blamed for not responding to all comments addressed to me and now he's doing it too. It's been 16 hours and still no response.
ReplyVote up (157)down (193)
Original comment
So here's an example where guest123456789 is unable to give me what would be acceptable as evidence of Jesus' existence. I get blamed for not responding to all comments addressed to me and now he's doing it too. It's been 16 hours and still no response.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
lool. ok. sorry about that, hold your horses :)) i was a bit busy :)) you get so mad but you don't even read my comments. i linked you to 2 very well documented sources about this issue but you didn't bother to look into them so i'm left only with copy pasting one of my previous comments, since the answer to your question was already posted by me... but you didn't bother to read it . Here it is: ""No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts."" Let me point out the following (i'm afraid i must insist on this) : ""There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus."" (read it in caps-lock). oh and... when you said :""Any atheist that denies outright that Jesus did not exist is ignorant because there's a high probability that he did"" you were being rude. you just called me an ignorant; practice what you preach.. or not... i don't mind, this is how the internet works :D be as rude as you want, i can take it :)
ReplyVote up (221)down (198)
Original comment
lool. ok. sorry about that, hold your horses :)) i was a bit busy :)) you get so mad but you don't even read my comments. i linked you to 2 very well documented sources about this issue but you didn't bother to look into them so i'm left only with copy pasting one of my previous comments, since the answer to your question was already posted by me... but you didn't bother to read it . Here it is: ""No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts."" Let me point out the following (i'm afraid i must insist on this) : ""There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus."" (read it in caps-lock). oh and... when you said :""Any atheist that denies outright that Jesus did not exist is ignorant because there's a high probability that he did"" you were being rude. you just called me an ignorant; practice what you preach.. or not... i don't mind, this is how the internet works :D be as rude as you want, i can take it :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
You just listed what evidence is not there. I was asking what evidence you would accept as proof. So if we take one of those and found a single contemporary writing that mentions a person by the name of Jesus, you would then admit that the Jesus mentioned in the New Testament existed? You'll believe it even though you cannot cross examine the person that wrote the document?
ReplyVote up (123)down (114)
Original comment
You just listed what evidence is not there. I was asking what evidence you would accept as proof. So if we take one of those and found a single contemporary writing that mentions a person by the name of Jesus, you would then admit that the Jesus mentioned in the New Testament existed? You'll believe it even though you cannot cross examine the person that wrote the document?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
you said "You just listed what evidence is not there". you also said "I was asking what evidence you would accept as proof." Since i haven't made myself clear the first second and third time i would have to say that the evidence that can be accepted as proof is exactly the evidence that is not there. In other words, what can be used as evidence for proving the existence of Jesus, Does Not Exist. Evidence For The Existence Of Jesus does NOT Exist. Hearsay is not evidence. If somebody were to find a single contemporary writing of someone name JESUS i will not start to "believe" automatically that Jesus existed because it might refer to someone else entirely and not the biblical character named Jesus. The writing will have to be analyzed by Historians and a proper scientific conclusion has to be made about those writings.... but historians have been trying to do that for quite a while now... so the chances of that happening are quite slim. In conclusion you're an Agnostic.
ReplyVote up (171)down (107)
Original comment
you said "You just listed what evidence is not there". you also said "I was asking what evidence you would accept as proof." Since i haven't made myself clear the first second and third time i would have to say that the evidence that can be accepted as proof is exactly the evidence that is not there. In other words, what can be used as evidence for proving the existence of Jesus, Does Not Exist. Evidence For The Existence Of Jesus does NOT Exist. Hearsay is not evidence. If somebody were to find a single contemporary writing of someone name JESUS i will not start to "believe" automatically that Jesus existed because it might refer to someone else entirely and not the biblical character named Jesus. The writing will have to be analyzed by Historians and a proper scientific conclusion has to be made about those writings.... but historians have been trying to do that for quite a while now... so the chances of that happening are quite slim. In conclusion you're an Agnostic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1660 days ago)
You still don't understand me. I'm an atheist. I do not believe there is a supreme being. Just because I don't care if Jesus existed or not doesn't mean I think he's a son of a god if he did exist. So here's a project for you. Prove to me that Plato existed. I'll claim that everything was faked and you cannot prove otherwise.
ReplyVote up (200)down (181)
Original comment
You still don't understand me. I'm an atheist. I do not believe there is a supreme being. Just because I don't care if Jesus existed or not doesn't mean I think he's a son of a god if he did exist. So here's a project for you. Prove to me that Plato existed. I'll claim that everything was faked and you cannot prove otherwise.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
check the sources in this article if you want proof of the existence of Plato LINK . Seriously?? :))) you're going to believe that Jesus existed without any shred of evidence and you're gonna dismiss all the evidence for Plato's attested existence, just to prove your point? :))) seriously? :))) good luck with that strategy :))) I'm not the only one reading these comments you know :) The most i can give you is that you're an Agnostic Atheist, and this is my final offer :D LINK (this other link is quite funny LINK ) An atheist defines God as a supernatural being capable of supernatural deeds; since a god is supernatural it means that it can never be proven to exist, since proof of god would require scientific evidence within the natural world. The more scientific knowledge is accumulated the more the realm of the supernatural diminishes. A supernatural being can never be proven to exist.
ReplyVote up (115)down (107)
Original comment
check the sources in this article if you want proof of the existence of Plato LINK . Seriously?? :))) you're going to believe that Jesus existed without any shred of evidence and you're gonna dismiss all the evidence for Plato's attested existence, just to prove your point? :))) seriously? :))) good luck with that strategy :))) I'm not the only one reading these comments you know :) The most i can give you is that you're an Agnostic Atheist, and this is my final offer :D LINK (this other link is quite funny LINK ) An atheist defines God as a supernatural being capable of supernatural deeds; since a god is supernatural it means that it can never be proven to exist, since proof of god would require scientific evidence within the natural world. The more scientific knowledge is accumulated the more the realm of the supernatural diminishes. A supernatural being can never be proven to exist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1659 days ago)
A link to Wikipedia is not proof of someone's existence.
ReplyVote up (184)down (107)
Original comment
A link to Wikipedia is not proof of someone's existence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1659 days ago)
i started my comment with "check the sources" and you're an Agnostic :)
ReplyVote up (105)down (119)
Original comment
i started my comment with "check the sources" and you're an Agnostic :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1659 days ago)
I've told you numerous times how to communicate with me properly to get a reaction from me. Posting a link to a site is not the appropriate method. State your claim and then put a link to back up your claim. I was expecting you to tell me something like, "There are several texts written by Plato" and I would respond saying the medieval manuscripts written on vellum (mainly from 9th-13th century AD Byzantium), papyri (mainly from late antiquity in Egypt), and from the independent testimonia of other authors who quote various segments of the works (which come from a variety of sources). None of those were written by Plato directly. Plato is claimed to have lived BC and those manuscripts are written AD. So would you care to give me any proof that he really existed so I can show you how it's not real proof?
ReplyVote up (173)down (104)
Original comment
I've told you numerous times how to communicate with me properly to get a reaction from me. Posting a link to a site is not the appropriate method. State your claim and then put a link to back up your claim. I was expecting you to tell me something like, "There are several texts written by Plato" and I would respond saying the medieval manuscripts written on vellum (mainly from 9th-13th century AD Byzantium), papyri (mainly from late antiquity in Egypt), and from the independent testimonia of other authors who quote various segments of the works (which come from a variety of sources). None of those were written by Plato directly. Plato is claimed to have lived BC and those manuscripts are written AD. So would you care to give me any proof that he really existed so I can show you how it's not real proof?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1659 days ago)
no i would not care because that would be the start of a ridiculous debate in which you hijack the conversation away from the initial topic that was about the fact that there is no acceptable evidence, from a scientific point of view, for the existence of the biblical Jesus, and from the fact that you're more of an Agnostic Atheist than an Atheist. Besides, i don't care that much about Plato (never did) so i wouldn't know where to start with what you ask of me. I do know that Plato never claimed to be the son of GOD and was never the focus of one of the predominant religions on earth. In conclusion... nice try Cary but i'm not falling for it :) you have no case :)
ReplyVote up (173)down (111)
Original comment
no i would not care because that would be the start of a ridiculous debate in which you hijack the conversation away from the initial topic that was about the fact that there is no acceptable evidence, from a scientific point of view, for the existence of the biblical Jesus, and from the fact that you're more of an Agnostic Atheist than an Atheist. Besides, i don't care that much about Plato (never did) so i wouldn't know where to start with what you ask of me. I do know that Plato never claimed to be the son of GOD and was never the focus of one of the predominant religions on earth. In conclusion... nice try Cary but i'm not falling for it :) you have no case :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1657 days ago)
So you believe Plato existed without any proof but you deny Jesus existed with the same kind of proof available (hearsay).
ReplyVote up (112)down (171)
Original comment
So you believe Plato existed without any proof but you deny Jesus existed with the same kind of proof available (hearsay).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1655 days ago)
nope. the fact of the matter is that i couldn't care less about Plato's existence.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
nope. the fact of the matter is that i couldn't care less about Plato's existence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1655 days ago)
Latest comment: Exactly my point on Jesus. So we can finally rest this point.
ReplyVote up (124)down (177)
Original comment
Latest comment: Exactly my point on Jesus. So we can finally rest this point.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a question (1660 days ago)
Josephus, a historian of that time wrote about Jesus. Are you saying we can't trust historians? Why would a historian who was not a Christian lie about his existence?
ReplyVote up (108)down (190)
Original comment
Josephus, a historian of that time wrote about Jesus. Are you saying we can't trust historians? Why would a historian who was not a Christian lie about his existence?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1660 days ago)
"Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37-100) was born to an aristocratic Jewish family, served as a priest, and later became the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee following the revolt against Rome that began A.D. 66. Captured by the Romans, Josephus spent his later life in Rome under the patronage of the Roman emperors where he composed his history of the Jewish people and his account of the Jewish war that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70." There is some debate among scholars over the authenticity of paragraph 3. Most scholars believe that the majority of the paragraph is authentic, with a few crucial sentences inserted later by Christian scribes. Some scholars think that the entire paragraph is a later Christian insertion. A few scholars believe that the entire passage is indeed authentic, and that Josephus himself wrote it down in the form seen here, without later revision. (There is another shorter reference to Jesus in 20.9.1(200).) Why is there so much dispute over this paragraph? I think it is because Christians and non-Christians alike realize that this passage is important. If what Josephus has said here is true, if Jesus was the Messiah and if He rose from the dead, it makes a big difference in our lives today! No other passage in the works of Josephus has provoked as much debate as this one. There's a very good reason for that. Despite the importance of the TF, Christians ought to feel more free to investigate its authenticity. The works of Josephus are not the Holy Bible; "Jewish Antiquities" is not the Word of God in the same sense that the Pentateuch and the Gospels are. Fundamentalist Christians can be more objective when evaluating whether the TF was written originally by the hand of Josephus, or by some later Christian hand. Bear in mind that this debate centers on the authenticity of the passage, not on the fundamental truth of the assertions expressed therein. source LINK and source LINK . Conclusion: Josephus was most definitely not a historian that lived at the same time that Jesus did and the authenticity of his work remains uncertain. Some choose to believe is true, some choose to wait for more evidence. I don't hold his alleged writings as authentic (never mind the fact that he didn't live at the same time that Jesus did).
ReplyVote up (109)down (114)
Original comment
"Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37-100) was born to an aristocratic Jewish family, served as a priest, and later became the commander of Jewish forces in Galilee following the revolt against Rome that began A.D. 66. Captured by the Romans, Josephus spent his later life in Rome under the patronage of the Roman emperors where he composed his history of the Jewish people and his account of the Jewish war that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70." There is some debate among scholars over the authenticity of paragraph 3. Most scholars believe that the majority of the paragraph is authentic, with a few crucial sentences inserted later by Christian scribes. Some scholars think that the entire paragraph is a later Christian insertion. A few scholars believe that the entire passage is indeed authentic, and that Josephus himself wrote it down in the form seen here, without later revision. (There is another shorter reference to Jesus in 20.9.1(200).) Why is there so much dispute over this paragraph? I think it is because Christians and non-Christians alike realize that this passage is important. If what Josephus has said here is true, if Jesus was the Messiah and if He rose from the dead, it makes a big difference in our lives today! No other passage in the works of Josephus has provoked as much debate as this one. There's a very good reason for that. Despite the importance of the TF, Christians ought to feel more free to investigate its authenticity. The works of Josephus are not the Holy Bible; "Jewish Antiquities" is not the Word of God in the same sense that the Pentateuch and the Gospels are. Fundamentalist Christians can be more objective when evaluating whether the TF was written originally by the hand of Josephus, or by some later Christian hand. Bear in mind that this debate centers on the authenticity of the passage, not on the fundamental truth of the assertions expressed therein. source LINK and source LINK . Conclusion: Josephus was most definitely not a historian that lived at the same time that Jesus did and the authenticity of his work remains uncertain. Some choose to believe is true, some choose to wait for more evidence. I don't hold his alleged writings as authentic (never mind the fact that he didn't live at the same time that Jesus did).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Richard Dawkins: AI might run the world better than humans
Richard Dawkins: AI might run the world better than humans
Present facts and win the argument ... really?
Present facts and win the argument ... really?
4 lessons about bias from a pro poker player
4 lessons about bias from a pro poker player
Andrew McAfee - The skill AI will never learn
Andrew McAfee - The skill AI will never learn
Richard Dawkins - Not all opinions are equal
Richard Dawkins - Not all opinions are equal