Christian view of Abraham?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, the troll finally figured out how to use jpegs. Took him/her long enough!

You really showed me now, didn't you?

[Anonymous]

We all have a mental image of the more obnoxious atheist troll. That's pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

more evidence of Christ than Darwin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9162459/Mystery-solved-Turin-Shroud-linked-to-Resurrection-of-Christ.html

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem with doing all of this anonymously is that there are different atheists posting. One of the atheists is a total troll, and of that there's no doubt. There's another atheist who is slightly snarky and often disrespectful. It's impossible, of course, to tell where that most recent, merely mildly snarky post came from. So the mildly rude atheist gets confused with the jerky atheist and then the former gets all bent out of shape.

First world problems, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:more evidence of Christ than Darwin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9162459/Mystery-solved-Turin-Shroud-linked-to-Resurrection-of-Christ.html

And one could easily post this - http://mcri.org/v/64/the-shroud-of-turin

And from your article,

De Wesselow dismisses those tests as “fatally flawed”.

He is a

40-year-old Cambridge academic

claiming that scientific carbon dating is flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem with doing all of this anonymously is that there are different atheists posting. One of the atheists is a total troll, and of that there's no doubt. There's another atheist who is slightly snarky and often disrespectful. It's impossible, of course, to tell where that most recent, merely mildly snarky post came from. So the mildly rude atheist gets confused with the jerky atheist and then the former gets all bent out of shape.

First world problems, I guess.

Define atheist troll w/in this context. I'd like to see if the definition fits me. If using historical and scientific evidence defines a troll, then yes, I will PROUDLY own that title on these threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem with doing all of this anonymously is that there are different atheists posting. One of the atheists is a total troll, and of that there's no doubt. There's another atheist who is slightly snarky and often disrespectful. It's impossible, of course, to tell where that most recent, merely mildly snarky post came from. So the mildly rude atheist gets confused with the jerky atheist and then the former gets all bent out of shape.

First world problems, I guess.

Define atheist troll w/in this context. I'd like to see if the definition fits me. If using historical and scientific evidence defines a troll, then yes, I will PROUDLY own that title on these threads.

If you are the person posting jpegs of Paul Bunyon and rambling about Mithras and Big Foot, then you are a troll.

If you are the person who loves "verbal nitpicking," then by your own definition you are here to troll.

If you are the person giving "tips" on the other thread about how to avoid looking like the poster you called childish, immature, and a thread-obsessive--yet meanwhile you're haughtily condemning insults and recapping your own posts--then sorry, you too are a troll.

FWIW, I'm in the camp that thinks that these threads are a complete waste of time. The dictionary definition of "faith" doesn't involve science. So then we get the time-wasters posting about Mithras and Paul Bunyon. Wait, why am I here? Time to go....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:more evidence of Christ than Darwin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9162459/Mystery-solved-Turin-Shroud-linked-to-Resurrection-of-Christ.html

And one could easily post this - http://mcri.org/v/64/the-shroud-of-turin

And from your article,

De Wesselow dismisses those tests as “fatally flawed”.

He is a

40-year-old Cambridge academic

claiming that scientific carbon dating is flawed.

Wheres Darwin? I don't see him . There are only human accounts of him and Photos could be of anybody.

[Anonymous]

Photos are much more easily doctored than the shroud


which NOBODY can reproduce even today they have no idea what the pigment is and how 3d photographic negative was created.

[Anonymous]

"Darwin" sounds a lot like "darling."

This must be some confusion of 19th century English. Might easily be a mistake made by somebody's mother. This "darwin" never existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:more evidence of Christ than Darwin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9162459/Mystery-solved-Turin-Shroud-linked-to-Resurrection-of-Christ.html

And one could easily post this - http://mcri.org/v/64/the-shroud-of-turin

And from your article,

De Wesselow dismisses those tests as “fatally flawed”.

He is a

40-year-old Cambridge academic

claiming that scientific carbon dating is flawed.

It is clear from the context in the article that De Wesselow does not believe carbon dating per se is flawed, jut the carbon dating that was executed on the shroud of Turin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Why didn't you use Tacitus instead? Oh, here's why! From Wikipedia:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

You realize Tacitus is 2nd century - almost 100 years after Jesus death, right? and makes no mention of Jesus resurrection -- which would have been big news.

[Anonymous]

All of this thoroughly discussed in previous atheist OP thread entitled "So what's the answer?" Start at about page 3.

Atheist OP makes the anachronistic of error of assuming that that what was news today was news that would would have made it into the official record two thousand years ago in the Roman Empire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Why didn't you use Tacitus instead? Oh, here's why! From Wikipedia:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

You realize Tacitus is 2nd century - almost 100 years after Jesus death, right? and makes no mention of Jesus resurrection -- which would have been big news.

Math: 70 years after Jesus' death, not 100 years after. Tacitus proves that a guy named Jesus was a big deal in the centuries after his death- which refutes your claim that Jesus "didn't exist." Of course a Roman source isn't going to agree with Christians about the theological points like the resurrection, I'm not sure what you were expecting there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Why didn't you use Tacitus instead? Oh, here's why! From Wikipedia:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

You realize Tacitus is 2nd century - almost 100 years after Jesus death, right? and makes no mention of Jesus resurrection -- which would have been big news.

Math: 70 years after Jesus' death, not 100 years after. Tacitus proves that a guy named Jesus was a big deal in the centuries after his death- which refutes your claim that Jesus "didn't exist." Of course a Roman source isn't going to agree with Christians about the theological points like the resurrection, I'm not sure what you were expecting there.

SO where can we find evidence of Jesus resurrection? It's the resurrection, not his existence that is the foundation of Christianity.