<p>to add to kyledavid's post:
<a href="http://www.venganza.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.venganza.org/</a></p>
<p>why not become a pastafarian?!</p>
<p>Regarding when the New Testament was written, it was indeed written decades after Jesus' death.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various unknown authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament</a></p>
<p>Well, if the Bible is your only proof that's very, very problematic. What makes the Koran wrong? What makes Buddhist scriptures wrong? Or Hindu texts?</p>
<p>btw rockermcr, I'm only referring to the new testament and I'm looking for the source: I'm going to go get my old textbook</p>
<p>Nvm, thanks for source kyledavid</p>
<p>
[quote]
This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies.
You may improve the article or discuss this issue on its talk page. Help on using footnotes is available.
This article has been tagged since June 2007.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm ....</p>
<p>
[quote]
But there is proof; there's all kinds of evidence: oral testimony, written testimony, and physical testimony.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's just it. That's all testimony. There is no empirical evidence. And in the case of Abraham Lincoln, there is evidence: we have pictures of him, we have things written by him, etc. beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't help your argument to question the existence of a well-known figure. To our knowledge, God has never shown himself, and all accounts supporting it are extremely old, thousands of years. One big difference is that thousands of people saw Lincoln at the same time; there have been thousands of "citings" of Jesus/God but on an individual basis. Very striking differences, these are.</p>
<p>check it out. your statement about spotted hippos is very intriguing, but i have a rebuttal. now lets say that we cannot prove or disprove the existance of spotted hippos. thats fine. similarly, we cannot prove or disprove that Alexander conquered much of europe and the east, or that Byron ever actually existed, or even that mt. vesuvious exploded off of Greece. All we have is written text and a few pieces of evidence to proclaim these findings true. We were not there, we have not experienced it, so we must TRUST that these pieces of evidence are true. Similarly, there are accounts in the bible that relate to accounts in the Quran, the Torah, and even the Epic of Gilgamesh! We even have some scattered peices of evidence that these claims are true- there is a huge ship ontop of a huge mountain that only appears at certain times of the summer! Therefore, any literary scripture is only as relevant as any peice of "history" that we must trust to be true. we cannot experience everything, but there are people who have experienced certain things, so we MUST TRUST them. If we trust them, then we find that we must also believe in God, due to their evidence and text. There is no other proof than that of the past, as there is no other history than that of the past.</p>
<p>Rockermcr... you could use the warning on the top of wiki to say that we're wrong, but I promise, we're not</p>
<p>I meant my post above to reflect that we should start off believing in God until proved wrong, instead of starting off athiest, because of the history that is given to us.</p>
<p>
[quote]
all accounts supporting it are extremely old
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So something is untrue or unbelievable merely because it is old?</p>
<p>
[quote]
there have been thousands of "citings" of Jesus/God but on an individual basis
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jesus preached to crowds! Not just individuals.</p>
<p>maaaaaaaaaaaan, im always late. someone always posts a similar thing before me!!! sorry for the repeat.</p>
<p>rockermcr: I referenced Wikipedia because it was fast. The different books were written at various times years after Jesus' death; that alone hurts the credence of the books.</p>
<p>How do we know that someone didn't go on Wikipedia and make up what's written in that article? There aren't any citations. If you don't have trouble believing what it says there, why do you have trouble believing the Bible?</p>
<p>Because wikipedia makes sure its legit or else it wouldn't be posted on wiki</p>
<p>.... we theists have to bind together to prove GOD!! not just the Bible!! the bible is the written word from many people who were not the prophet/savior himself, therefore is very possibly flawed. so lets just prove God, not a certain religion.</p>
<p>Now how will you go about proving the existence of God? Not a small undertaking, is it? ;) A million brilliant minds have contemplated the same issue for thousands of years.</p>
<p>By the way, Paul wrote his testament nearly a hundred years after Jesus "died." He also is the only apostle to say that Jesus is God, so...</p>
<p>hahah ChaosTheory. you are correct. i really have to watch my words around you guys. we will never come to a consensus of the correct religion, therefore our proofs for God based on the Bible or the Quran or whatever path we choose will be incomplete. i just have to say though, we cannot prove God based on the Bible. there are too many possible flaws to the Bible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Christianity is not at all like Buddhism or Islam or Confucianism. The founders of those religions said (in effect), "Here is what I teach. Believe my teachings. Follow my philosophy." Jesus said, "Follow me" (Matthew 9:9).</p>
<p>Leaders of the world's religions said, "What do you think about what I teach?" Jesus said, "Who do you think I am?" (Luke 9:20, emphasis added).</p>
<p>The question that most religious devotees must ask is, "What theology do I profess?" The question the would-be Christian must ask is, "What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" (Matthew 27:22).</p>
<p>Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship.</p>
<p>Christianity is not a system of beliefs or doctrines. It is a person.</p>
<p>That is precisely why the trial of Jesus is unique. In most trials, the accused is tried for something he or she did. Jesus, however, was tried for who He was.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source: Don't Check Your Brains at the Door by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So something is untrue or unbelievable merely because it is old?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I'm saying that time clouds sight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jesus preached to crowds! Not just individuals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, and that was thousands of years ago. Additionally, I'm talking about God's existence; I should have said simply "God" and not "God/Jesus," though I was attempting to maintain the nonsense that is the Holy Trinity.</p>
<p>getup01: There are many, many striking differences between what you cite and Christianity. Those people and events have much more evidence going for them; less so for Christianity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
thats fine. similarly, we cannot prove or disprove that Alexander conquered much of europe and the east, or that Byron ever actually existed, or even that mt. vesuvious exploded off of Greece.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the same logic, you can't prove that I'm sitting here in a little town in southern California, typing what I am. Really, you're reaching quite a bit here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Similarly, there are accounts in the bible that relate to accounts in the Quran, the Torah, and even the Epic of Gilgamesh! We even have some scattered peices of evidence that these claims are true- there is a huge ship ontop of a huge mountain that only appears at certain times of the summer!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh honestly, those "citings" aren't true. Do you believe in citings of UFOs? Or of ghosts? How about of all the people who claim to have seen Elvis walking down the street?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I meant my post above to reflect that we should start off believing in God until proved wrong, instead of starting off athiest, because of the history that is given to us.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're missing the point of the argument, which is that the default -- at its basic state -- is to not believe. Now, once you bring in history, then it's no longer in its default state -- the person then has to weigh whether that "history" is enough to persuade him/her. This is true in every instance when Christians convert others.</p>