06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 ... 3233343536 ...
tools
  1. badbrad17's Avatar
    I did, there was no science to prove anything. So sorry.
    The problem is that you would never take the time to research it. There is a ton of evidence that is documented by theologians and historians that do validate this event. First of all you need to understand how and why something is actually validated in history. I'm not talking about only religious history, but all forms of history. Napolean, Gingus Kahn etc. all have forms of documented information about their lives that are scrutinized. Human eye witness and validation by other documentation all account for proof of an actual event. You can read some of that information here to start with what is documented Biblically The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Infallible Proofs - Answers in Genesis

    Fell free to post anything you don't agree with and I will do my best to source other materials if you care to play tennis. LOL. Cheers.
    07-04-2013 10:16 PM
  2. AngelArs's Avatar
    The place of the POpe was to be the head of the church which came from Peter being named as the head of the church.
    Doesn't matter. Still fits the definition.
    07-04-2013 10:16 PM
  3. Aquila's Avatar
    Well you can start by researching the validity of the ascension of Jesus after he rose from the dead. Massive information on this. Very interesting and eye opening. Google it.
    Apparently the whole city was resurrected, but again that's only a biblical account. Are you suggesting there is empirical evidence?
    07-04-2013 10:21 PM
  4. AngelArs's Avatar
    There is a ton of evidence that is documented by theologians and historians that do validate this event.
    They can't even prove that jesus existed and you're trying to validate that he rose? Wow, a christian website said it was true, so it must be so. Still waiting for this unbiased documented "science" that you were talking about.
    07-04-2013 10:22 PM
  5. badbrad17's Avatar
    Noah didn't write anything down though... his story is alleged to be first authored by Moses, who himself also appears in Sumerian legend under the name Mises. Again, that's 2,000-12,000 years prior to Moses in the chronology.
    And where did the Sumerian legend come from? The thing you may never want to agree to is that Moses wrote the information down under inspiration from God. This is hard to believe I know as it involves a higher powers involvement. This is also the person who was given the ten commandments.

    As I have said before. WE don;t have all the answers for every question yet Evolution doesn't measure up in any way. And sorry but there are lots of respected scientists that also don't believe in it.
    07-04-2013 10:23 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    They can't even prove that jesus existed and you're trying to validate that he rose? Wow, a christian website said it was true, so it must be so. Still waiting for this unbiased documented "science" that you were talking about.
    Most historians do agree that Jesus probably existed, just disagree on exactly who, what and especially when. The entirety of the new testament was written by people who never met him and the external references by non-biblical historians reference things that can be construed as being Jesus. The most compelling account is more or less a verification that John the Baptist probably existed, and therefore, since a century after his death, people taught that he baptized a Jesus, an (Egyptian mysteries high priest), this became part of canon and evidence and is used to set the timeline of Jesus' ministries relative to the baptism.
    07-04-2013 10:26 PM
  7. badbrad17's Avatar
    Apparently the whole city was resurrected, but again that's only a biblical account. Are you suggesting there is empirical evidence?
    Well empirical evidence is always difficult as we are only trying to base our ability to judge what is probable based on percentages. Like I said this is how validating historical documentation is done. We could say Nothing is true, but you already did ;-) I on the other hand have combined my experience in life with my belief in God and measured that with what I learn and understand through science and history. In the end I find validation and a God that I can't deny is real.
    07-04-2013 10:27 PM
  8. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Those that call it that can use whatever terminology that they want. She's not a doctor. Try again.
    You're right but she's a mother

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    07-04-2013 10:29 PM
  9. Aquila's Avatar
    And where did the Sumerian legend come from? The thing you may never want to agree to is that Moses wrote the information down under inspiration from God. This is hard to believe I know as it involves a higher powers involvement. This is also the person who was given the ten commandments.

    As I have said before. WE don;t have all the answers for every question yet Evolution doesn't measure up in any way. And sorry but there are lots of respected scientists that also don't believe in it.
    I think I'm being unclear. I am agreeing that Moses exists in ancient mythology. My argument is that those events are described by civilizations older than 6,000 years that regard it as ancient history themselves, not current events. I'm arguing against the 6,000 year timeline and not the content of the stories. 6,000 years is what is causing the reaction, I don't care if you think Moses was Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian or from Atlantis My assertion is that the common theme in an older story lends credence to the older story being the source of the story. No matter what though, the mere existence of the stone age in history, which ended approximately 6,500 years ago, disproves the earth being 6,000 years old.
    07-04-2013 10:31 PM
  10. badbrad17's Avatar
    Most historians do agree that Jesus probably existed, just disagree on exactly who, what and especially when. The entirety of the new testament was written by people who never met him and the external references by non-biblical historians reference things that can be construed as being Jesus. The most compelling account is more or less a verification that John the Baptist probably existed, and therefore, since a century after his death, people taught that he baptized a Jesus, an (Egyptian mysteries high priest), this became part of canon and evidence and is used to set the timeline of Jesus' ministries relative to the baptism.
    Sorry, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and James all knew Jesus personally. Paul didn't but did meet him on the road to Damascus after he rose from the dead. Take it for what it's worth.
    07-04-2013 10:32 PM
  11. badbrad17's Avatar
    I think I'm being unclear. I am agreeing that Moses exists in ancient mythology. My argument is that those events are described by civilizations older than 6,000 years that regard it as ancient history themselves, not current events. I'm arguing against the 6,000 year timeline and not the content of the stories. 6,000 years is what is causing the reaction, I don't care if you think Moses was Egyptian, Hebrew, Sumerian or from Atlantis My assertion is that the common theme in an older story lends credence to the older story being the source of the story. No matter what though, the mere existence of the stone age in history, which ended approximately 6,500 years ago, disproves the earth being 6,000 years old.
    Okay thanks. I'm actually on the fence on this one. I have discussed it with a few people, but haven't done enough to really be vocal on it. I am not sure that is is actually that important.
    07-04-2013 10:34 PM
  12. badbrad17's Avatar
    Most historians do agree that Jesus probably existed, just disagree on exactly who, what and especially when. The entirety of the new testament was written by people who never met him and the external references by non-biblical historians reference things that can be construed as being Jesus. The most compelling account is more or less a verification that John the Baptist probably existed, and therefore, since a century after his death, people taught that he baptized a Jesus, an (Egyptian mysteries high priest), this became part of canon and evidence and is used to set the timeline of Jesus' ministries relative to the baptism.
    There is a good book called "A case for Christ" that does discuss a lot of these details. It was written by a scpetic who's wife became a Christian. He set out to disprove her faith.
    Aquila likes this.
    07-04-2013 10:35 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    Well empirical evidence is always difficult as we are only trying to base our ability to judge what is probable based on percentages. Like I said this is how validating historical documentation is done. We could say Nothing is true, but you already did ;-) I on the other hand have combined my experience in life with my belief in God and measured that with what I learn and understand through science and history. In the end I find validation and a God that I can't deny is real.
    I'm not going to argue the existence of God. I am going to argue the validity of claims made about God by ignorant bronze age people, as well as those of modified interpretation by contemporary moralists. I hope that distinction is clear. I can't prove that God is real or not real and neither can you on either count. What we can prove is that the bible is not factual in literal interpretation and that its precepts, in that context, are incompatible with societal progression in the 21st century. This doesn't mean that it is void of useful information and/or ideas, but it does mean that we need to augment the teachings of any book with our own critical thinking in light of the facts of the real world. Now that we understand physics, we can use that context to further our understanding of historical comments about it and use those comments to increase our wisdom regarding new discoveries.
    badbrad17 likes this.
    07-04-2013 10:37 PM
  14. primevyl's Avatar


    Whether you personally approve or not is just as irrelevant as a KKK member disapproving of an interracial marriage.
    I mean they REALLY REALLY REALLY hate my marriage to my Irish wife...which is unfair because she's not into white fellas so it's not like they were in the running.


    <<<Sent from my Rooted (soon to be) 64+ gig Rezound!>>>
    07-04-2013 10:44 PM
  15. Aquila's Avatar
    Sorry, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and James all knew Jesus personally. Paul didn't but did meet him on the road to Damascus after he rose from the dead. Take it for what it's worth.
    I need to fact check this: The disciples knew him, but they are not the authors of all of the gospels. I'll look for sourcing on that, it's been a couple years since reading that book but it's probably online.

    He's how I remember it:

    The first Gospel chronologically was thought to be Matthew, but theologians believe Mark was actually first.
    Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but of Peter. Mark was not a witness to any of the events. His book is thought to have been written between 50 and 65 AD.
    Matthew is thought to have been written as early as 60 AD, and no later than 115 AD, as it is quoted by another author in 115. This means it was already popular, and thus we can assume 110 is a max age.
    Luke was not a witness to any events in Jesus' life, but was a companion of Paul (also not a witness), however Paul had spoken with actual disciples and other eyewitnesses. His gospel is thought to have been completed prior to 62 AD, making it 2nd or 3rd chronologically.
    John is thought to be a disciple, but it would have been difficult. His gospel is thought to have been completed in approximately 80-90 AD, meaning that it was 45-55 years after the death of Jesus. Assuming John was 20 or less at that time, he'd still be 65-75 years old, approximately double life expectancy in the time. It is more realistic to expect that he provided the source material for a ghost writer to complete.
    07-04-2013 10:50 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    Okay thanks. I'm actually on the fence on this one. I have discussed it with a few people, but haven't done enough to really be vocal on it. I am not sure that is is actually that important.
    I'm not sure it matters "when" the earth was created to the question of "how". How actually becomes a more interesting question when you think of the logistics rather than, "it was created".
    badbrad17 likes this.
    07-04-2013 11:08 PM
  17. llamabreath's Avatar
    To be fair to the OP (since this doesn't seem to have much to do with the original question anymore) , i have created a thread that can take the brunt of the religious angle, such as creationism, evolution, God, Jesus, Santa etc etc etc.

    Please note -
    http://forums.androidcentral.com/sho...LIGION THREADS

    *Thanks



    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    Aquila, msndrstood and GadgetGator like this.
    07-04-2013 11:42 PM
  18. primevyl's Avatar

    Edit: For the record, I'm more Buddhist than anything else when it comes to personal beliefs. Y'all can feel free to pick on that for a while if you like.
    What's with all the kung fu?! So now I have to be in shape to make it to heaven? I object

    <<<Sent from my Rooted (soon to be) 64+ gig Rezound!>>>
    badbrad17 likes this.
    07-05-2013 12:41 AM
  19. badbrad17's Avatar
    I'm not going to argue the existence of God. I am going to argue the validity of claims made about God by ignorant bronze age people, as well as those of modified interpretation by contemporary moralists. I hope that distinction is clear. I can't prove that God is real or not real and neither can you on either count. What we can prove is that the bible is not factual in literal interpretation and that its precepts, in that context, are incompatible with societal progression in the 21st century. This doesn't mean that it is void of useful information and/or ideas, but it does mean that we need to augment the teachings of any book with our own critical thinking in light of the facts of the real world. Now that we understand physics, we can use that context to further our understanding of historical comments about it and use those comments to increase our wisdom regarding new discoveries.
    Can you give me specific examples of what you mean? To say in light of the facts of the real world but I have no reference to anything here.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-05-2013 01:27 AM
  20. badbrad17's Avatar
    I need to fact check this: The disciples knew him, but they are not the authors of all of the gospels. I'll look for sourcing on that, it's been a couple years since reading that book but it's probably online.

    He's how I remember it:

    The first Gospel chronologically was thought to be Matthew, but theologians believe Mark was actually first.
    Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but of Peter. Mark was not a witness to any of the events. His book is thought to have been written between 50 and 65 AD.
    Matthew is thought to have been written as early as 60 AD, and no later than 115 AD, as it is quoted by another author in 115. This means it was already popular, and thus we can assume 110 is a max age.
    Luke was not a witness to any events in Jesus' life, but was a companion of Paul (also not a witness), however Paul had spoken with actual disciples and other eyewitnesses. His gospel is thought to have been completed prior to 62 AD, making it 2nd or 3rd chronologically.
    John is thought to be a disciple, but it would have been difficult. His gospel is thought to have been completed in approximately 80-90 AD, meaning that it was 45-55 years after the death of Jesus. Assuming John was 20 or less at that time, he'd still be 65-75 years old, approximately double life expectancy in the time. It is more realistic to expect that he provided the source material for a ghost writer to complete.
    I do believe you are correct about Mark and Luke. Matthew was the tax collector. John and James were brothers. John was indeed very old and managed to live through a number of persecutions. He eventually lived on the Isle of Patmos where he also was believed to have received the Revelation which is the final book.

    I will add though that even if some of these people were not with him, the details of what was documented by many different people can add credibility. There were also many other written accounts of Jesus and the impact he was making in and around Jerusalem by people who were not his followers.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-05-2013 01:40 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    Can you give me specific examples of what you mean? To say in light of the facts of the real world but I have no reference to anything here.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    Such as the creation order with Earth being created on day 1, along with "light" and the seperation of light and darkness, which means the earth started spinning - yet the sun, moon, stars (and presumably all the other planets) are not created until day 4. We obviously know that light as we see it is caused by stars, that the earth and everything on it is made out of stardust and that in order for there to be light and/or an earth, the sun and other stars had to already exist in some form. The age of the earth is far younger than the rest of the universe.

    Additionally, water and vegetation both exist prior to there being stars, including the sun - an impossibility unless it just means the chemical composition of what would later become each... either way, the matter wouldn't exist yet, water would be infinitely cold and not water and vegetation could not grow. Day 5 has fish and birds, but 6 has land animals. I'm not sure anyone thinks that flying creatures predated land animals and amphibians.

    The obvious impossibilities and logistical holes of the first six days, which clearly describe billions of years and are out of order, being human centric and not scientifically based, mean that the biblical scholars that describe it as allegorical are the only ones that have a possibility of being relevant to reality. When the words of bronze age mystics contradict the real world, we need to trust the real world. That STILL doesn't mean God did or did not start it all, it just means that it wasn't in 6 days (days, obviously a concept that follow the sun and earth existing, which is only in the last 1/3rd or so of the universe so far), or that if it was, these are not the events that happened on those "days".

    Also, a day at the dawn of earth was not 24 hours, nor was a year 365.25... days. Both the orbit, the tilt and rotation have shifted since then, even since recorded history, and so applying these numbers to bronze age records, without a LOT of calculations, is bound to create some errors.
    07-05-2013 01:49 AM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    damn I forgot to move us to the new religion thread. - put this post in it - without all the context, it's going to seem out of place and rough but oh well.
    07-05-2013 01:50 AM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    I will add though that even if some of these people were not with him, the details of what was documented by many different people can add credibility. There were also many other written accounts of Jesus and the impact he was making in and around Jerusalem by people who were not his followers.
    I agree the consensus is that there was a Jesus, it's just a matter of nailing down dates, places, people, events - what actually happened. As time goes on, the ability to get these facts more correct will likely lessen so scholars will likely spin their wheels forever on it.
    07-05-2013 01:52 AM
  24. badbrad17's Avatar
    It seems like there is a pretty clear misunderstanding of how evolution works in this professor's mind. According to natural selection, there won't be any "missing links". You're not looking for a monkey person or a lizard bird. There are reptiles with feathers and flying reptiles and cold blooded birds and all sorts of variations of things that lived on earth, but natural selection isn't really completed at a species level, that's just how we observe it on a very basic surface level. It's really the natural selection of specific genes, which is why most massive changes take millions and millions of years. The distinction is between natural selection for the survival of successful genes and interbreeding for the survival of successful traits.

    I'm not sure why an evolutionary biologist would be interested in finding anecdotal evidence that "proves" their own profession is a fraudulent one, but apparently they did poorly in studying the actual works involved in their field. Some of it is very theoretical because the fossil record is not complete in the sense of every organism that's ever died has not been fossilized, but if you actually study the science, it is conclusive and I believe it to be compelling. I've never yet met a biologist that believed natural selection was made up.
    But see here is the rub for me. Darwins evolution was the first widely accepted idea. There were many things that were taught as truth yet the logic based on his theory never added up. He himself denounced it before his death. We then continue on this journey to disprove a creator so anytime the path doesn't line up with the theory we change the concept and add in millions and millions of years. This logic is where massive amounts of faith are required and giant holes appear in the entire evolution concept. So much faith is required that I don't believe that it is even mathematically feasible. Evolution can take us from F-H or maybe from P-T, but all of these points are moot if we can't explain the A-B. Causality is required. Matter, the creation of the cell. The reliance of parts of a cell that can't work with other parts until a third part is created are all mathematically scenarios that are far too impossible for me to accept. You are welcome to disguise these missing parts with other things in order to fulfill your belief system if you like but this is no different than any religion or faith-based structure.

    The fossil record is easily explained by a massive flood. This is why we have layers of smaller animals deeper down and very few larger or more intelligent animals near the top. Smart animals swim for a while. Then they die and decay leaving little to no fossils.

    As I said before much was validated by the Mount Saint Helen eruption where these things could be witnessed in real time.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-05-2013 01:56 AM
  25. badbrad17's Avatar
    I agree the consensus is that there was a Jesus, it's just a matter of nailing down dates, places, people, events - what actually happened. As time goes on, the ability to get these facts more correct will likely lessen so scholars will likely spin their wheels forever on it.
    everything I've read doesn't even dispute where he lived and how he died. What have you read that puts this into question?

    Most of the big debates are on what happened to him after he was killed. IE the resurrection part.

    Sent from my Nexus 4
    07-05-2013 02:05 AM
1,813 ... 3233343536 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD