[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Please see:
The Arab Table: Recipes and Culinary Traditions
By May Bsisu
and

The Arabian Cookbook: Traditional Arab Cuisine with a Modern Twist

• by Ramzi Choueiry and Bruno Ehrs

No Christian would eat any of that slop, unless they want to spend the next few days on the toilet.


I spent a few years in the Middle East when I was gay, by choice. Between the mud-packing homorectal intercoursing culture that is common among Arabs, and the spicy diet of goats and curry, I was always dehydrated and out of toilet paper.


No thanks.


In Christ.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I assume that you have not responded to my post yet because you are still researching if there are any non-Christian sources confirming the historicity of Jesus.

I think you know already the answer. But for one example, if you would read the Soncino Babylonian Talmud, you will find (a very few) references (although unfavorable) to Jesus and His Blessed Mother. This edition has been redacted and names have been changed, but as the footnotes by the Talmud scholar and Orthodox Rabbi Isidore Epstein indicate, the references are to Jesus. BTW, Rabbi Isidore Epstein is an excellent writer and a brilliant scholar and I found his book: Judaism to be an incredibly interesting history of judaism covering the Talmud and its significance, the middle ages and modern developments as well. And a second book of his Faith of Judaism is a great read as well.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Finally, after 80 posts on this forum, someone finally agrees with me on something.

Well. I would really, really, really love to agree with you on more points but if there is a God then He must be the most despotic, sadistic, and psychopathic being in the entire world, as He seems to either do not care about or actually enjoy human suffering, including countless genocides committed in His name - starting with the ones listed in Old Testament.

And that makes it really hard for me to believe in Him. Honestly, even if He does exist He doesn't seem worthy of my worship. And yes, I know I will burn in Hell forever for having such thoughts, and this thought does terrify me, but I just can't force myself to bow before such a despicable deity.

I think you know already the answer.

No, I don't. Why would I be asking a question to which I already knew the answer to?

But for one example, if you would read the Soncino Babylonian Talmud, you will find (a very few) references (although unfavorable) to Jesus and His Blessed Mother.

I looked that up on archive.org and it's like 10,000 pages. Would you care to be more specific? How am I supposed to fact-check what you just said?

You know what, don't even bother. Talmud was written between AD 200 and 500. Maybe I wasn't too specific but when I asked you for non-Christian sources providing evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but I was looking for sources which would have been written at the time when Jesus was presumably alive. Something that was written down 200 years later simply doesn't cut it.

This edition has been redacted and names have been changed, but as the footnotes by the Talmud scholar and Orthodox Rabbi Isidore Epstein indicate, the references are to Jesus. BTW, Rabbi Isidore Epstein is an excellent writer and a brilliant scholar and I found his book: Judaism to be an incredibly interesting history of judaism covering the Talmud and its significance, the middle ages and modern developments as well. And a second book of his Faith of Judaism is a great read as well.

And here we go again with completely irrelevant information which nobody is interested in, which nobody asked you about, and which has no relation whatsoever to the question which was asked.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

This is very true. You are making a lot of sense here. Modern physics has shown us that it is necessary to refine our ordinary notion of common sense. That is why we need to think a little more deeply about the question of suffering and the omnipotence of an all Merciful and all Loving God. Our ordinary and common sense notions will fail us as we go forward with our study of this question.

What in the world are you talking about?!? How in the world can you the scientific method is accurate and reliable with regard to modern physics, but not with regard to biology? Because if it provides a credible explanation of biology, then there's no way Christ's, or any of the other nine resurrected bodies in the Bible have regenerated living tissue from dead, decomposing, mildew and fungus infested tissue. Either the method is valid, in which case the Gospel is foolishness, or the method is naught but man's folly, in which case the Gospel is the Truth. It's this cherry picking and confirmation bias that makes atheists think the faithful are all fools, picking and choosing whatever helps them sleep at night. And that's why they have no interest in knowing Christ. It's people like you giving Christianity a bad name!

The scientific method can tell us nothing but what sinful mankind wants to hear. It was created to validate Charles Darwin's horrifying notion that evolution explains the biodiversity of the earth so that men could sin without guilt! It was designed to prove Jesus is a mythological character no more real than Thor and we might as well all worship monkeys and have sex with our neighbors, coworkers, children, dogs, toasters, electric toothbrushes!

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Talmud was written between AD 200 and 500.... Something that was written down 200 years later simply doesn't cut it.

Please readavid C. Kraemer, On the Reliability of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989), pp. 175–90


BTW, the last infraction I got has threatened to cut off my posting privileges, unless I apologize. I would like to continue to post here respectfully, but at some point, I have to take a stand for what is right and refuse to make any empty apologies. So it is possible that I will be banned and will not be able to post here on this site any longer. Just to let you know.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

And here we go again with completely irrelevant information which nobody is interested in, which nobody asked you about, and which has no relation whatsoever to the question which was asked.

Not true. It is not irrelevant because it speaks to the credibility of the person making the footnote. Rabbi Isidore Epstein is an outstanding and brilliant Talmudic scholar and Orthodox Jew and so his testimony is especially valuable. Of course, it is not only his testimony, but that of many other scholars that Jesus was a historical person.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Please readavid C. Kraemer, On the Reliability of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989), pp. 175–90

It confirms that the Talmud was written between 3rd and 6th century AD. Which makes it an extremely late source which cannot be used to prove historicity of Jesus. What's your point, exactly?

BTW, the last infraction I got has threatened to cut off my posting privileges, unless I apologize. I would like to continue to post here respectfully, but at some point, I have to take a stand for what is right and refuse to make any empty apologies. So it is possible that I will be banned and will not be able to post here on this site any longer. Just to let you know.

I understand. I certainly enjoy our conversations, and I think we might be getting somewhere. At least you are looking up actual sources now rather than appealing to some vague authorities.

I am still waiting for some actual non-Christian sources confirming historicity of Jesus, written within the 1st century AD.

Not true. It is not irrelevant because it speaks to the credibility of the person making the footnote. Rabbi Isidore Epstein is an outstanding and brilliant Talmudic scholar and Orthodox Jew and so his testimony is especially valuable. Of course, it is not only his testimony, but that of many other scholars that Jesus was a historical person.

All of which is irrelevant because science does not depend on the personal authority nor on personal testimonies, but solely on actual confirmable evidence. Which you'd have already known if you've read any of Dr. White's posts on the preceding pages of this thread.

I see now that I've praised you too early.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Well. I would really, really, really love to agree with you on more points but if there is a God then He must be the most despotic, sadistic, and psychopathic being in the entire world, as He seems to either do not care about or actually enjoy human suffering, including countless genocides committed in His name - starting with the ones listed in Old Testament.

And that makes it really hard for me to believe in Him. Honestly, even if He does exist He doesn't seem worthy of my worship. And yes, I know I will burn in Hell forever for having such thoughts, and this thought does terrify me, but I just can't force myself to bow before such a despicable deity.

Miss de Barriga,

I've always appreciated your honesty and education but this time I find it very hard to follow your musings.

You find it hard to worship a Deity that can and does punish the sinners most severely. Here at the Landover Baptist Church we are not ashamed for our Creator nor for His actions. The things He did that caused lots of Deaths and secular suffering (Genesis 7:23) must have been necessary for the greater good. You may never understand it unless you Repent properly but we'll understand it one day in Heaven (Revelation 7:17).

Let's look at this with some Spiritual insight. If God was all-forgiving and took everyone into Heaven, there would be no point in Worship. It would make no difference. We could do whatever we pleased (including sodomy) with minor consequences. But because God has shown us that He means business, we can make a difference with Worship. It can change our future for Infinity. The cost-benefit of worshiping a God that does not back away from some necessary carnage every now and then makes much more sense and is much more lucrative for the sinner.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

We worship a Jealous God (Exodus 20:5) that is to be Feared (Ecclesiastes 12:13)! That makes sense. Very soon all the alleged carnage of the Old Testament will dwindle into some minor incidents when Jesus starts to prepare the Earth for His Second Coming. Then we'll see some blood and woe unto them who realize too late that God was only fooling around with the Midianites (Numbers 31:7).



I am praying that your comments show Mr. Tomdstone how being indoctrinated into methodological naturalism will bring its proponents further and further away from God!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

What in the world are you talking about?!?

The possible unreliability of applying common sense to certain questions in modern physics and in theological issues.

[Thomas Taylor]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The possible unreliability of applying common sense to certain questions in modern physics and in theological issues.

Mr. Stone,


I have awaited each and every post you have made with bated breath. This just takes the cake. Here's what the Bible (KJV 1611) has to say about "common sense":


Nehemiah 8:8


“So they read in the booke, in the Law of God distinctly, and gaue the sense, and caused them to vnderstand the reading"


Proverbs 9:10


“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”


So as you can see so called common sense is not needed when you have a copy of the KJV 1611 Holy Bible. Unlike yourself that use an NIV revision which has twisted all the sense out of the Bible to suit cherry pickers and Catholics.


I pray that you receive knowledge from the One True Source.


YIC
TT

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

We worship a Jealous God (Exodus 20:5) that is to be Feared (Ecclesiastes 12:13)! That makes sense. Very soon all the alleged carnage of the Old Testament will dwindle into some minor incidents when Jesus starts to prepare the Earth for His Second Coming. Then we'll see some blood and woe unto them who realize too late that God was only fooling around with the Midianites (Numbers 31:7).

I deeply admire your faith, Dr. White. I wish my heart could agree with that!

The possible unreliability of applying common sense to certain questions in modern physics and in theological issues.

That's a step in a good direction, especially if we consider that common sense is relative, and varies both from one culture to another and also in time - what you consider common sense is very different from what your great-grandfather considered it to be.

Therefore, common sense is subjective. Science, on the other hand, is objective - or at least it strives to be, striving to eliminate or at least minimize observer error. Hence, no, of course you cannot apply common sense to science.

The issue of religion is a little bit more tricky, as depending whom you ask, it is either subjective, from an outsider's point of view, or objective, from an insider's point of view. The members of this lovely community will argue that you cannot apply common sense to Christian religion because Christian religion is based on the Bible. This Holy Book is obviously very far removed from modern-day common sense - as you know, it supports slavery, gender inequality, genocide, and other forms of oppression which do not really conform to the modern Western understanding of common sense.


P.S.: I am still waiting for evidence of historicity of Jesus in form of a non-Christian source that was written by someone who was at least partially contemporary with Jesus.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The possible unreliability of applying common sense to certain questions in modern physics and in theological issues.

You have shown very little credibility with regard to recognizing common sense yourself, dear. I should think you would do well to pipe down and read more of the Bible.

Secondly, who cares what modern physics blathers on about? If one can trust the scientific method, then the faith is balderdash. How can you say you trust science to be reliable to tell you one thing but the same exact methods are unreliable with another? Any atheist with half a brain will see that mental gymnastic routine coming from a mile away. What a disappointment you must be to your fellow church-goers. Or are they all equally ignorant and self-appreciating? How many people have you converted, anyway?

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

If one can trust the scientific method, then the faith is balderdash.

Non sequitur.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Non sequitur.

Yeah, that should be your nickname.


I wish you understood what it meant and how ironic it sounds, coming from you.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I am eager to hear you list the early non-Christian sources which support the historicity of Jesus. I am not aware of such sources, but then again, I did history of religions in my undergrad studies, so maybe there are new sources now which were not available then.

The alternate historical sources I know about were available during your lifetime. I have already given you one example, the Talmud.
Here are a few others:
Tacitus, Annals, XV44
Lucian of Samosata, the Death of Peregrine, 11-13
Suetonius, The life of Claudius, 25,4
Pliny the younger Epistles X, 96.
Thallus, as related by Julius Africanus, Chronography 18.1
Phlegon, Chronicles
Mara Bar Serapion
Josephus, Antiquities XX,9.1. (According to Dr. Louis Feldman, professor of classics at Yeshiva university, few have doubted the authenticity of this passage.)Now did you say that you give me a failing grade as a student? But today, students give grades to the effectiveness and knowledge of their teacher. So it is my turn to give you an F, a failing grade as a teacher in the history of religion, if you did not know anything about these sources. OTOH, I give you an A in the study of Middle Eastern cuisine and a B- on the possible beneficial nature of red wine, drank in moderation, in the human diet. I also give a grade of F to most of the other posters here, with the possible exception of Dr. Elmer White who has made some interesting points on various questions. However, I fear he has placed too much emphasis in what some atheists say about the existence of a Jocaxian void and so I would not give him an A.