What? Proof of Creationism You Say?

[saucy]

Oh well, the bible doesn't give any dates to creation. What's so hard to believe? God spoke it and it happened. Much easier to believe than everything started by itself. Besides, the bible has an incredible record (100%) with being right, according to prophecy and facts. Archeologists can confirm that everything, cities, people, kings, kingdoms, graves, the lives of everyone written, mountains mentioned, area, everything has been proven true. Archeology has confirmed it. History can confirm it. Jesus lived. His disciples lived. Jesus lived his life exactly how the prophets a thousand years before his birth wrote he would live. Nobody has been able to scientifically doubt that fact. Everything happened to him according to how scripture said. It wasn't things that Jesus himself read then fulfilled. It was where and how he was born. Jesus couldn't control that if he wasn't the Messiah. Various miracles he performed, things not even science today can do. Walking on water. Explain that Mr. Science! How he would die. Prophets told of his crucifixion before they even knew what crucifixion was! They even wrote about the seven things Jesus said while hanging on the cross. Jesus fulfilled over three hundred prohecies that weren't too vague that anyone can fulfill them. Only Jesus could and did. While all this has been proven right, and many others, carbon dating has been proven as unreliable. Scientist carbon dated newer objects and got the wrong dates from them.

Edited May 6, 2004 by saucy

[Seraphina]

God spoke it and it happened. Much easier to believe than everything started by itself.

I fail to see why the miraculous appearance of God out of nowhere, and him "speaking and it happened", is not frighteningly more "by itself" than the theory of abiogenesis

Besides, the bible has an incredible record (100%) with being right, according to prophecy and facts

I'm sorry, but are you living in a cave? Recent translations from the dead sea scrolls have already established many mistranslations and mistakes that have been made in the bible; even if we're to assume the events in the dead sea scrolls occured, they've been hugely distorted by the bible

Let's not also forget the countless facts the church changed round in the bible to make the religion easier to digest for people they wanted to convert. Mostly dates, the time of year certain things were said to occur...still still fabricating more and more fiction into their little book

Walking on water. Explain that Mr. Science!

Prove it happened, Mr Bible

[saucy]

I like you Seraphina!

In my mind and the mind of many pastors, including mine, we speak out against those scrolls. God wouldn't hide his word from people. It is people who try to rearrange the bible to make more sense because it was translated from a few different languages over the years. As far as I know, only science and history try to put dates with events, but there's no true way of knowing when the events happened. I know Jesus walked on water because people saw it happen. Even Peter himself walked on water

[Seraphina]

I know Jesus walked on water because people saw it happen. Even Peter himself walked on water

You have no proof whatsoever that anyone DID see it You've got the account of somone who wrote it in their book. I could make up eye witnesses too if I wanted...watch:

"Today, a large crowd of people watched in awe as I fought off an alien invasion, armed only with a paper clip. I was hailed as a saviour, and you must all worship me."

Wasn't hard, was it?

[saucy]

Geez, sounds like you're getting frustrated! It wasn't a thing that only one person saw. That's what I've been saying about Jesus the whole time. Jesus picked twelve men to follow him around everywhere he went. They watched everything he did, paid attention to everything he said and took notice of every miracle her performed. There weren't just the twelve men either. He also had hundreds of people following him around because of the miracles he performed and they too wanted a piece of the action. I too once considered the bible as something a drunk man once wrote with no way to prove it happened, but there's more accounts of Jesus' life (not just in the bible) than any other historical figure in history. To say Jesus didn't live or do what he did is the same as saying there was no British empire, that William Wallace never existed (this might hit close to home for you) that Rome never existed, that many of the historical figures never really lived and they are all false. There's less proof of them and their historical and heroic feats than there is of Jesus. The whole new testament of the bible is written by about five or six different people and they all acount the same thing. If you said you were the savior because you fought off aliens and it didn't really happen, we would know because you would have no witnesses and nobody would be willing to believe you. The disciples had everything to lose for telling the stories they did. Most of them were crucified for talking about what Jesus did. Would anyone you told the alien story to be willing to face death to say you killed the aliens and is the true savior? I think not.

[Seraphina]

To say Jesus didn't live or do what he did is the same as saying there was no British empire, that William Wallace never existed (this might hit close to home for you)

William Wallace did not claim to have fantastical powers, that have never once been proven to be real

Would anyone you told the alien story to be willing to face death to say you killed the aliens and is the true savior?

Adolf Hitler told the german people that the Jews were trying to destroy the world, and was so charistmatic and persuading, that millions upon millions of people thought he was a saviour. Does that mean he was?

[Stellar]

Lmfao. And you say you're not biased. Sorry, but the Bible does certainly NOT have an incredible record of 100%. Or, well, maybe it does, but only in your mind. Oh and btw, naming the right kings and cities of the time do not prove that the Bible is right. I can start writing a book and mention the current prime minister of Canada and other governmental figures, and also name a few countries and capitals, but does that mean the rest of my story is correct? Archeologists have not proven the lives of everyone written btw. Jesus hasnt even been proven (but some say it has, but the credible ones with an open mind that believe it say nothing more than that there *might* have been a person by the name of Jesus who did good things, nothing more). Theres also no facts that his disciples lived. Sorry, the Bible doesnt count as a fact. Also, prove to me that prophets thousands of years before Jesus' birth wrote how he would live. Just because the Bible says that prophets from a thousand years before Jesus knew how he would live doesnt mean its true. You havent been able to scientifically prove that fact. And again, prove that everything happened to him according to how scripture said it would? Please... prove to me that it was scientifically proven that Jesus, first of all, existed, and second of all, made miracles. How Jesus was born was easily controlled by the way the author wrote. NONE of this has been proven right. Carbon dating had been proven unreliable ***in certain instances***, not unreliable in the whole. And it is still more reliable than the Bible. Tell me, saucy, do you also believe in talking animals, such as, for instance, a talking snake? Hell, why should you stop at believing the Bible, why not start believing in unicorns and lepricons and majical fairies that come and take your fallen teeth and replace them with money.

[bathory]

Jesus hasnt even been proven (but some say it has, but the credible ones with an open mind that believe it say nothing more than that there *might* have been a person by the name of Jesus who did good things, nothing more).

yay, basically all the major sources of jesus' 'existence', state that the christians believe in christ, none of them as far as i know directly state that there was a jesus, and quotes from Josephus don't count because that was altered by christians:P

[Xenojjin]

this is still argued on this site ? I thought it was brought to the conclusion that its impossible to prove either way . You can make an attempt at using your own reasons as to why you chose what you believe , but with all the lack of knowledge we have ( and the fact that pretty much all of our knowledge comes from fellow humans , who can be stupid ) can god really be proven or disproven with the .00001 % of facts we have either way ?

Unless a debate like this is entirely philosophicall , it will go nowhere .

[trublvr]

basically all the major sources of jesus' 'existence', state that the christians believe in christ, none of them as far as i know directly state that there was a jesus, and quotes from Josephus don't count because that was altered by christians

Hate that this thread has gone this way, but since we're here....

Actually, NO major scholar--Christian or non-christian--doubts whether or not Jesus existed. There are heated disputes about other things, but Jesus' existence is not one of them. In fact, not since the late 19th century/early 20th century has anyone tried to cast doubt on Jesus' existence. As for sources outside the New Testament confirming the very existence of Jesus, there actually ARE some, Bathory.

Tacitus, Roman historian who wrote around AD 120 claimed that Jesus existed and that he was sentenced by Pilate to crucifixion.

Pliny, the Roman governor, also wrote in AD 120 of Jesus. He wrote of Jesus' followers and how they met regularly to share a meal w/ one another (probably referring to communion).

Since you're not down w/ Josephus, we can turn to Rabbi Eliezar, who wrote in AD 70 that Jesus taught that he was God, he would depart, and that he would return. I'm not saying that the rabbi believed this; however, he is accounting for what Jesus taught, wh/ assumes that there was a Jesus to begin with.

No matter what your opinion of Jesus is, the assumption that he didn't exist is a stance frought w/ problems.

First, you've got to deal w/ the fact that not even the detractors/persecutors of Christians questioned whether or not he existed. Obviously, they disagreed vehemently with other points concerning Jesus, but they all at least started with the presupposition that he existed.

Second, you've got to show that the gospels were entirely unreliable in what the writers recorded. Once again, not even the most extreme critics w/ no love for Christianity cast this much doubt on the New Testament record. Among other things, they at least grant that the writers are correct in recording that there was a Jesus who was a moral teacher of some sort.

Moreover, it is a false methodology to say that b/c a document records miraculous events surrounding the life of a certain person that therefore the document's and the person's historicity is automatically discounted. This has nothing to do w/ proper historical methodology and has more to do with philosophical presuppositions.

There has been much archeological evidence that has verified the accuracy of the geography and topography in the gospels. Also, in their mention of incidental things the gospels and other parts of the New Testament have fallen into line with secular history very well. For instance, Luke casually mentions a time when Pilate killed some Galileans and mixed their blood with the sacrificial elements in the Jewish temple (ch 13). We know from secular historians that this happened. Also, John casually mentions a "judgment seat" that Pilate sits on at a place called the Pavement or Gabbatha in Aramaic (ch 19, v 13). Scholars didn't believe in this, but then they found it at an archeological site. Also, Luke mentions a famine that took place during the reign of Claudius (Acts ch 11, v 28). This is confirmed by secular history. These things (among others) are mentioned incidentally, as if they are things that everyone knows, and they are not dwelt on. The fact the writers took the events for granted lends credence to their testimony, b/c it shows that this was common knowledge in their milieu.

I mention these things to show that 1) secular historians do record Jesus' existence, and they write as if he did exist; 2) proper historical methodology doesn't consist of establishing what cannot happen (philosophical) and then summarily throws out any historical account that doesn't fall in accordance of what cannot happen; 3) the gospel writers, at the very least, were attempting to record history, and they managed to do so successfully.

I think we need a separate Jesus thread. Keep your eyes open.

[Stellar]

Greek religion (You know, with Zeus and Herculese and all those) also mentions cities and stuff. Does that make it 100% correct?

The existance of Jesus has *NOT* been proven. You cannot argue otherwise because none of it has been proven.

[Phantom]

I think we need a separate Jesus thread. Keep your eyes open.

Feel free to, as long as you keep it civil.

As for this thread, I urge people to get back on topic.

Thank you.

[trublvr]

Greek religion (You know, with Zeus and Herculese and all those) also mentions cities and stuff. Does that make it 100% correct?

The existance of Jesus has *NOT* been proven. You cannot argue otherwise because none of it has been proven.

Stellar et al,

Why don't we move the Jesus-centered part of this soiree on over to the Jesus thread I started? I'm copying the above quote over there to address it separately from this thread. See ya there. Peace to you all. --trublvr

Edited May 7, 2004 by trublvr

[Omnic]

My theory is that the seven days creationists refer to actually parallel with scientific evidence of what they call mass extinctions.

There have been several on life on land or in water, but only five mass extinctions of both land and water life.

My interpretation is that these five mass extinctions copuld be the "nights" that punctuate the days of creation - which means we are now living in the sixth day - the day God created man - according to the book of Genisis.

Scientists now also believe there is currently a mass extinction taking place on land and water again right now.

If this is true, God rests tomorrow !

[Chauncy]

Omnic thats an interesting rationalization.

But your not taking into consideration that there have been species that have risen and fell to extinction independent of other species. These species are also not likely to make it in the fossil record as well. I'm not talking specifically about humans but species in general.

If what your saying is true then the bible doesn't account for this fact, because your literal interpretation seems to indicate that all life rose and fell together and this is not what the evidence dictates.

[nickma71]

Those that think Jesus did not come to earth really just wish he hadnt. It means your actions are accountable, but forgiven if you just repent. And they are not willing to do so.

[Chauncy]

Actually it seems that believing in Jesus means that you are not accountable of your sins, indeed absolved of them immediately.

Do you not like people that don't believe in Jesus?

[chico del nacho]

omnic that's an amazing idea. i mean it, that is really cool. could be true too.

tommorow comes soon, anyway.

[Chauncy]

hehe

Edited May 16, 2004 by Chauncy

[Venomshocker]

As this thread concerns itself with Creationism, I feel its right to post a link to another thread that may help clear up some confusion about the sceintific validity of creationism in regards to evoloution.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...30entry172340

[Chauncy]

Sounds to me that your saying God created evolution?

[Venomshocker]

Are you talking to me? Where did you get that idea?

[Chauncy]

Oh geez sorry Venom, had a couple windows open.

No that wasn't for you.

Why? ........Do you believe that?

[Venomshocker]

No, that is not my belief.

[Chauncy]

This thread is entitled "Proof of Creationism"

The operative word being PROOF.

As you can see this thread is well under way, the only thing missing is the said PROOF!!

I guess we can then safely say that there isn't any.

Its somewhat reminiscent of Geraldo Rivera's sensationalized opening of Al Capone's vault and the emptiness that filled it upon cracking it open