The title says it all, was Jesus the right choice? To give a little back ground Jesus was not the only Messiah during the firt century. There were many others claiming to be the child of God, so why was Jesus picked out of the hay stack?

Views: 1219

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Also I didnt say that you have to find Jesus fossils.

I was just telling you that we know dinosaurs exist because of fossils. 




I have seen credible evidence for three different ways the Big Bang could have occurred, but I'm not going to dig them up just to settle this silly little squabble - besides, they would likely be viewed as mere "slabs of information."

I'm not sure what "other topic" you mean, as I'm beginning to lose all track of this meandering conversation.

RE: "Also I didnt say that you have to find Jesus fossils."

No, you didn't, but I was demonstrating, using your own analogy, that general information, such as a single, random fossil, could prove dinosaurs, whereas it would take very specific information to prove Yeshua (upon which you were insisting).

I don't know if he existed or not, I can only use what little evidence there is, mostly third-hand testimony, to determine the statistical likelihood that he did, or did not. Until Steve's comment last night about Bethlehem, I would have said that there was a 90% chance he never lived, but rather was a pure fabrication. Since his comment, I've revised my thinking to the point where it is now about 60% certain that he did not, quite a difference.

That's something atheists can do, that theists can't - accept new evidence, review it, and adjust our opinions accordingly.

Well this isn't evidence for God or anything supernatural, it is evidence for a flesh and blood regular (lying) human being during the 1st century.

@Angela - The brilliant Monty Python showed us exactly how Jesus would have been picked in "The Life of Brian", one of the funniest movies they made.


Yep Suzzanne - I'll echo that,

One of the funniest movies ever made,


Re: William Lane Craig

Ive watched stax of his stuff and I think he's one of the best debaters around.

But Im sorry and I know you wont like this ... good debaters are not evidence for supernature,

They are just good debaters ...

All Ive really done is ask you for evidence about some claims your making and it seems to be upsetting you.  So maybe we'll just cool it for a while because I really hate seeing my words getting twisted around ...

and why cant I reply to some of your posts ... why do they only allow me to message?


I can answer that last question. As you have notices, as threads go on the paragraphs get narrower till at some point they can't continue to get narrower because they'd be absurdly narrow. So, what you do is go back up the thread to the last post that had a "Reply" link, and reply there, using @whomever and/or quoting to make it clear what you are replying to. 

Sometimes, you might as well start a new thread in the topic, quoting the name and passage you are commenting on. Do this especially if it can be a proper subtopic of its own.

Thanks for that Unseen

@Angela - RE: "All Ive really done is ask you for evidence about some claims your making and it seems to be upsetting you." - yes, you are making me a little crazy because I don't know what claims you're talking about.

For example, another member mentioned Craig, not I, and he is not even a good debater, he just uses a strategy - notice, his contract stipulates that he always goes first - that mires his opponents down in the trivialities of trying to refute his ridiculous claims, without being allowed to make any points of their own. Let him go second, and see how well he does.

I'm beginning to think you have me confused with someone else or you're not carefully reading what I've said. So before you decide to "cool it," please tell me what claims you feel I've made, for which you need evidence.

He makes some good points, that I'm a little disappointed that his opponents don't address. I agree with you that some of the things he says are wildly inaccurate. I think he worries too much about having a logical argument rather than being correct based on evidence. "If the evidence points toward pessimism then we must be pessimistic. If we are optimistic when pessimism is justified, then we are irrational." - Michael Martin.
One point I am having some difficulty refuting is this:
Premise 1: if God did not exist, then the applicability of math to the natural world would be a happy coincidence.
Premise 2: the applicability of math to the natural world is not a happy coincidence.
Conclusion: God exists
I started a thread for this but no one replied, anyone got any thoughts?

Sure - it must be the Greek god Apollo who created the universe, as he is the god of mathematics, amongst his disciplines.

It is not the 'applicability of math to the natural world' that is evidence.  It is man, discovering a logical way to measure natural phenomena, who created the constants.  No two trees are the same.  No two snowflakes either.  Nothing in Nature is mathematically geometrical, without there being a natural explanation.

But I kind of like the Apollo idea...  The judeo/christian/islamic god is a bronze age creation of superstition and vengefulness.  I'm so glad he is simply a figment of the baser levels of mankinds emotions, because he appears to be a total shit.  If you absolutely have to have a god, pick a nice one.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service