Jump to content

purplestarfish

Members
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Unknown

Profile Information

  • Country
    Philippines
  1. Josephus Flavias was a roman historian. In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"): "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, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, 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." (Whitson, 379) This surprisingly brief and simplistic passage constitutes the "best proof" of Jesus's existence in the entire ancient non-Christian library comprising the works of dozens of historians, writers, philosophers, politicians and others who never mentioned the great sage and wonderworker Jesus Christ, even though they lived contemporaneously with or shortly after the Christian savior's purported advent. Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. Is there any other proof other than this and the bible? If this man is supposedly as great as what the bible says, there must be other sources. I always run into this argument and my question is why does the lack of evidence suggest to you that it must be god who made it? do you have any scientific proof that an all knowing omniscient being created the universe? It amazes me that you think the big bang theory is unbelievable and unscientific when you believe that the world was created by some being "magically"- that the whole universe was made by just one person without any help. that sounds more surreal to me. I'm guessing that your referring to Ron Wyatt here who claimed that he saw such items in his excavation. However, we must also consider the source. Ron Wyatt is not credible because hee is not even an archeologist. He has no training nor does he have a professional position in that field. His claims are dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars and most Christian leaders even in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church. He, actually, only continues to be quoted on the Internet. In fact, archaeologist Joe Zias of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has stated that "Ron Wyatt is neither an archaeologist nor has he ever carried out a legally licensed excavation in Israel or Jerusalem. In order to excavate one must have at least a BA in archaeology which he does not possess despite his claims to the contrary. ... [His claims] fall into the category of trash which one finds in tabloids such as the National Enquirer, Sun etc." This can be explained by how the sediments accumulate, the continental shelves and of course, continental drift. I would love to explain to you how this works but i guess you can just google it. This is pretty lengthy. I just wanted to cover everything. so yeah. this is it.
  2. haha. this thread makes me laugh. seriously, if you don't know anything about the topic- just shut up and if you want to learn about it- ask. don't pretend you know everything and concede in the end- its just really stupid. it amazes me how you dragonb111 says: coz yeah. everything that happens to the world is in some way written in the book of revelation. *sarcasm*
  3. On you past post you mentioned the book of revelations and you seem to take literally what it says: but when i asked you regarding the amount of time the world was made you responded with: not taking the bible literally now.. eh? it's obvious your contradicting yourself at this point. you were hte one who proposed the 100+ day thing.
  4. well. i don't have an exact definition of intelligent. i guess being intelligent is more of a perception rather than a tangible thing. i guess i can peg the definition of intelligent as someone who is perceived by other people as intelligent. im not sure if this made sense to you. but yeah.
  5. i don't know. i was just thinking: could it be possible that more intelligent people seem to be unhappy because their measure and standard for happiness is higher than most? and also because they tend to analyse every aspect of everything which tends to make them disappointed if everything is not up to par? just throwing that thought out there.
  6. i've always wanted to be a lawyer but then i realized that i can't give up my love of traveling and since if your a lawyer, you have to stay in one country because the law you studied would only be applicable to that country- i feel that i can't be a nomadic as i would want. i guess, now, i would like to be an ambassador or work at any global organization.
  7. My motivation comes from my desire to learn and be knowledgeable and also from my ambitions. I think about what i want to accomplish and what i CAN be if i work harder and that really makes me motivated.
  8. we ALL know that "god" didn't write the bible. so it wouldn't be god's perspective of day.. it would be one of the more than forty writers who wrote the bible. having said that, the writer's perspective of day would be just like ours proving that the day that the writer mentioned would be 24 hours. say i give in to your argument, i still find it surreal that the world would be created in 7 days- even seven 100+ hour days. let's say one day has 150 hours, 1150x7= 1050 hours. that is still very surreal. i find the way you view the bible very inconsistent. the things you agree with and can defend- you take literally. however, the things you don't agree with and can't defend- you automatically say that it must be taken differently. when i study math or almost any subject for that matter (except when studying figurative speeches in english), i don't pick the parts i understand and take it literally and assume the parts i don't understand should be taken figuratively because that would be stupid. why should a different standard be applied when studying the bible?
  9. we came after we were conceived by our parents and we decompose when we die. its not exactly "*poof*" but you get the picture. although, it is nice to believe that there is something after this life just like it's nice to believe that santa claus exists: the truth is- there's none. you humor me. you make what im saying (that we, according to your words, *poof*) as if it is the most ridiculous thig ever and yet you believe that men are molded from sand and women come from the ribs of men and that the supreme being that you believe in made the world and everything in it in seven days. im sorry but i think that's FAR more ridiculous and surreal than anything in this world.
  10. ooh. this is something i really wish i could try. ill be in i later this year in a new college and im excited. i hope they have MUN. ive heard so much about it.
  11. I'm sorry I didn't explain it well. What I'm trying to say is that when we die- YES we don't exist anymore. Just like before we were conceived- we didn't exist then.
  12. It's always hard to talk about religion especially because everyone is very passionate with what they believe in and a lot of them are very close-minded. I think one of the reasons is also because religion is held in a separate regard compared to the sciences or math. It is considered sacrilegious to question the so-called god and his existence. When people argue about religion- most people choose to respect other people's beliefs. However, if I believe something in science- for instance- that gravity does not exist. Why does everyone gang up on me? Why don't they just respect this "BELIEF" of mine. Why are the standards different when talking about religion and when talking about everything else in the world? Back to the quote: "Religion is a blanket for people that want answers" I think religion is a blanket for people who want excuses, people who want safety nets, people who are too afraid to believe that what happens after death is the same as to what happens before it: completely nothing.
  13. I think Australia is gorgeous- the people are gorgeous. I was an exchange student in the US and there is this mentality that the aussies aren't as smart- however i know this is not entirely true: just a bad stereotype.
  14. This is a real coin toss for me. McCain is a republican which is a huge setback at this time. However, he is a lot more experienced and he knows what he is doing. Obama, on the other hand is still fairly new to the political scene and may be seen as naive and inexperienced. In my point of view, if americans vote for McCain- they know what they are getting and they know ahead of time if their getting what they want or otherwise. If they vote for Obama, they may get what they want and he may liberate the country and end the war in Iraq- however it is also possible that he will not be able to do that and that he will only disappoint the people. With Obama, they do not know what they're getting because they do not have enough history to base what he is going to do when pressed on certain issues.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.