Jeremiah 31:32-34 (King James Version)

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Answering the thread title.

NO.

Well that was circular logic - use bible quotes to support why the book is not necessary

But it does tend to support what I was saying. There are people who just have to have some physicial evidence supporting their beliefs.

So Shiki and anyone else,
Actually I do understand that - we are a social creature out of necessity, because as Darwin pointed so long ago, survival traits are passed on; inherited. For those who thing evolution is bunk then let me point out more "common sence" from the tribes. "There is safety in numbers" that refers to our innate need to be a social creature. We survive better in numbers not only because there is strenth in numbers but there is diversity of intellect, creativeness, innovativeness and there are those who are innately drawn to careing for others.

We don't need a book to learn how to care, how to be social, although when there are enough of us we need a civil law as some may not see things from the same perspective.

THAT is why a socieity that does not inhibit freedom of religious belief short of preventing believers to infringe on the rights of other, is a good law and good rule. I don't need a bible to tell me that. As long as we don't override our inherited social traits with fanatical indoctination of the young or the fear tactics of a theocracy or a Hitler type dictatorship,that humans will naturally be social and civil and in smaller more cohesive groups few laws would even be necessary. But then I'm an "evolutionist".

So that rules out needing the bible to tell us how to behave, we just need to behave in ways that support the best interest of society/humanity as a whole. One way we do that is by respecting the environment on which we depend for food, water, and resources.

Why didn't the bible ever talk about that? Or maybe it does but it's obvious NO ONE was paying attention to it - so again what good is the book?

oh - and thanks Pan for the references.

The death of Christ on the cross was no imitation death or charade.
It is presented to us by the Gospel writers because they want us to
face death, to confront it - so that we will be prepared for real
Life!

The Hebrews when they were in Egypt were saved from the angel
of death and destruction by marking the door-posts of their houses
with the blood of a lamb,
so we are marked with the life-giving
sign of the cross, stained with the blood of the Lamb of God.

The Cross then is the victory sign of every Christian.
It is the powerful and defiant banner under which we journey
to the safety of our proper homeland,
for death has been conquered –
and Christ has destroyed its fear through the Cross.

David Charlesworth

+ + +

Jesus Christ is Lord!!!

sometimes it seems like a broken record in here...

Death has been conquered?

Where exactly?

Maybe in an emergency room when doctors bring a person back to life...

But people still die.

And no one has proven that any life actually exists after death.

Well, this is actually an interesting thing.

Christianity is truly about people who can have no 'faith' in anything unless they first have miracles "proven" to them.

This is why it's so important for them to believe in a virgin birth, that many people were heals of diseases and risen from the dead, and then ultimately have Jesus rise from dead.

To "PROVE" that these things are indeed possible.

This is why they get all bent out of shape when anyone suggests that these stories might not be true.

They aren't interested in believing in the spiritual teachings of someone like Buddha, because Buddha didn't do anything SUPERNATURAL that they can get excited about.

Reduce Jesus to a mere mortal man, and they are the first to toss him into the trash can as being totally worthless.

It's the whole idea that he supposedly showed people that these supernatural miracles are indeed possible.

So if you believe in Jesus, then you also believe that it's possible to survive DEATH!

So these things go hand-in-hand.

If you believe in the teachings of Buddha, or Confucius, or any of those. So what? They didn't survive DEATH.

Who cares about moral and spiritual teachings if there isn't any PROOF to back it up!

If a person can believe that Jesus survived DEATH, then they are believing that the ability to survive DEATH is no longer a mere 'faith-based' belief, but it's been PROVEN by Jesus!

What they fail to realize is that their faith in the idea that Jesus actually lived in did this is truly NO DIFFERENT from simply placing their faith in someone like Buddha or Confucius, etc.

They FELL for the scam that if they "believe" in Jesus, that means that survival of DEATH has someone been 'established to be true'!

So now they have a STORY they can place their "faith" in, instead of just directly placing their faith in the idea that there is a spiritual essence of life.

Thus this gives them a feeling that they actually have something "tangible" that they can place their faith in. Because they can point to the book that the story is in and say, "See! There's something TANGIBLE there!".

This makes the idea that survival of death is more a "tangible" concept, than to just place your faith in that idea yourself for no particular reason.

And, of course, the fact that so many people support this story, also gives it that much more "tangibility".

Look at how many people BELIEVE IN IT! Surely that must count for somthing!

So I'll believe in it too! I'll add to the pool of people who believe in it, and totally IGNORE the significance of that very act!

You're welcome...

Circular logic? I'm not so sure about that...
But if you wanna go "full circle", read Romans 2 also.

What amazes me about evolutionists is their claims to use facts and logic and reason.

One such evolutionists stated there were dozens of books that refuted Christ's resurrection.

I'm gone two days, and yet, I have not seen ONE reference, ONE book, ONE document refuting this.

Is THIS the best evolutionists have to offer?

Freakyshiki nobody is talking about evolution here you must be in the wrong thread.

Oh, I am in the correct thread. Can we prove that Christ's resurrection actually happened.

Many evolutionists claim we cannot. They stated there are, and I quote, DOZENS of books refuting this claim that were written at the time.

I cannot find ONE.

Can you?

Freakyshiki, I haven't read anything about evolution on this thread. I don't even know if there are any "evolutionist" posting in this thread. This thread is not about evolution.

I have also not read anything from any "evolutionist" claiming that there are dozens of books refuting any such claim in this thread.

Then, you are not reading this whole thread. Redy claimed this.

OK, forget the term evolutionist.

I have not found anyone who is able to refute Christ's resurrection. There is plenty of documentation affirming this, but none refuting this. That alone is grounds for proof.

Freakyshiki, have you ever been in a courtroom?

If the prosecution does not prove his case, the defense does not have to say anything.

Your documentation obviously did not prove anything. Hearsay is not grounds for proof. Witnesses who are dead and can't even be proven to have even existed is not grounds for proof.

Even people today who have died and come back to life have a difficult time proving it to people who will not believe it. Doctors claim that even if he was declared dead, put in a cold locker for three days, and then came back to life that he was never really dead in the first place. (There is such a man that this happened to.)

So stories and hearsay is not evidence.

Shiki, I admit I started this thread but its purpose was to get an answer from you regarding your own statment in another thread:



You have given nothing but heresay in support of the resurrection, I have given heresay back and because it's heresay I don't see the need to provide one author's opinion in oposition of the author you choose to believe. That's a futile effort, isn't it?

So when you present some logic that rests on science, I will see if I have the knowledge or can gain the knowledge needed to refute your scientific claims.

You could be a hero, there are a lot of agnostics out there who could be swayed by scientific data.

"So stories and hearsay is not evidence."

What stories? What hearsay? I am providing you with proof. If Christ's resurrection were a hoax, there would be a ton of documentation. There was nothing more important at that time than squashing Christ's followers. If Christ did not rise from the dead, there would be some shred of evidence.

Here you had His disciples publicly claiming He rose from the dead, and NOBODY disputed it. Not a one. There is no documentation disputing it. In fact, even the Jews and Romans could not dispute it, as evidenced by Prius' and Josephus' writings.

This is third-party documentation. This is not hearsay.

So, if you had this in a court of law today, it would be enough for proof. For example, if you had 100 people stating that a person were robbed by PERSON X, and not one person refutes this, a court would find PERSON X guilty, based on the preponderance of the evidence.

freakyshiki said: "I am providing you with proof."


Where is your proof?

Freakyshiki said: "If Christ's resurrection were a hoax, there would be a ton of documentation. "

Is THAT your proof?

You never have been in a courtroom then.

Freakyshiki, I hate to break this to you but the reason there was not a "ton" of documentation of anyone rising from the dead at that time was because the entire New Testament is a complete fabrication and none of that ever happened.

There were no disciples publicly claiming he rose from the dead at that time. The New Testament was written hundreds of years later and it is a fiction. None of those events even happened. That is why there is no "ton of documentation" at that time recorded. It never happened. That is why no one "disputed" it. There was nothing to dispute at that time.

Josephus was a pen name. There was no such real person.


"The New Testament, the Church and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story to a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is fictiotional!) characters."

~~ "The True Authorship Of The New Testament" by Abelard Reuchlin,

that's good logic... it cannot be proven wrong so it must be true? haha, there's that special bible thumper logic again...by your same logic, since you can't prove he was real, then he is not real... god either, since there is no proof... that is proof enough... haha