A few questions for fellow atheists

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I think you misunderstood what I said. My main thrust was not about the numerical value of pi per se, but the existence of a being that can change these constants at will is going to throw science out the window. I thought I was clear when I went on with two different values of pi.

I disagree that it would "throw science out the window". Read my other post (the long one replying to St Leo) to see what I mean.

Hm, atheism is not "without beliefs," but "without theistic beliefs." There is a very significant difference.

I never said that I was talking about atheism - you did. But incidentaly it makes no difference what you are believing in (as to the validity of belief), only whether you do or not.

Physicists are dreadful, they are always so literal

I might take that personally! ( )

What I was saying wasn't what we know about physics is etched in stone. Rather, what we don't know about nature is not something that cannot be known.

I would disagree - I 'believe' that there are things that cannot be known (in a scientific sense at least). (And I think that is a fairly strong statement considering who I am and where I work - I hope there is no-one monitoring my web activity )

Again, I am an atheist, that means I have no theistic beliefs. Of course I have other beliefs, such as what I sense about this world is a close approximation of the objective reality.

Don't you think it is a bit inconsistent (or even hypocritical) to complain about other people having beliefs in unprovable ideas when you have them yourself?

[Ben Kenobi]

Kontiki:

If you accept current scientific theories (and you seem to do so), then the only part of the creation story that isn't almost totally disproven is that there was some spiritual act that started all of it.

I'll agree with the starting point, but not with the rest.

The time frame and the sequencing of events simply could not have occurred in the manner described in Genesis.

Timeframe? I assume that you refer to the six days. One can interpret day to mean eon since the hebrew word is the same and has similar contexts.

Eon is simply an indefinite, very long, period of time. 13 billion years is entirely possible with this definition.

Sequencing?
That's a big can of worms you've opened.
Can you be more specific? There are many many points regarding the sequencing and whether or not they fit current scientific theories.

As for the flood, we have an even bigger problem here. First, you stated above that there was indeed a flood that wiped out a substantial portion of the world's population. The only evidence of this at all comes from the Bible. There may be (and indeed are) other historical references to catastrophic floods in localized areas, but there is no indication outside the Bible that anything approaching a significant proportion of humanity was affected.

I'm not sure those localised floods are the same as the flood in the Bible, especially if one takes the worldwide flood position. In this case, the Bible may be the only written record of these times.

Also, be aware that a localised flood can kill many people in that particular area.

Well, that's a rather enormous "if", since there is geological evidence of major seismic activity which ultimately led to, for example, the creation of the Black Sea. If you want to attribute it to the end of the last major ice age, then you have evidence of glacial melting and deposits. Either way, you're dealing with common occurences that no one today (well, maybe a few fringe people) would ever attribute to an act of God.

Is it in the control of people? Suppose God wanted a flood at a particular time. There is nothing stopping him from using natural means to accomplish his goals. If you can come up with a natural mechanism for the flood, what's to stop God from provoking the needed preconditions?

What this demonstrates is that creation, the flood and many other biblical events (some posted by others on this forum, others not) have been routinely proven to have not occurred as described in the Bible.

We are a ways from here yet. Lots more to discuss before you can validate this assertion.

One final way of putting it: Let's assume that some entity did create the universe in some manner, and/or that there is some measure of life beyond our earthly exitance. Give me one example, other than the Bible, that suggests that it has to be the Christian God instead of the multiple gods of Hinduism or some other entity yet completely unidentified and unexplained?

Interesting. Why must the world speak of a God who is Christian? Without the Bible one cannot know what Christianity even means, even though you can know God.

I can show a God exists from the evidence in the world, or I can show you that this God is the Christian God from biblical citations. I cannot show that the God which exists is Christian without biblical references.

[Kontiki]

Obiwan,

I'll try to address some of your post on point because I think there's some important stuff there, but in general we seem to be going around in circles. I'll post as concise a summary of my argument as I can at the end and I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Kontiki:

Timeframe? I assume that you refer to the six days. One can interpret day to mean eon since the hebrew word is the same and has similar contexts.

Eon is simply an indefinite, very long, period of time. 13 billion years is entirely possible with this definition.

Sequencing?
That's a big can of worms you've opened.
Can you be more specific? There are many many points regarding the sequencing and whether or not they fit current scientific theories.

I was indeed referring to the six days in regards to timeframe. As I pointed out earlier, current debate over what the "days" actually may have been doesn't ignore the facts that A) they are days, not any other measure of time, in the Bible and B) any debate as to whether or not the "days" were perhaps eons or anything else is quite recent in the context of the life of import of the Bible and/or parts of it, and is a result of the fact that scientific discovery has led us to believe that the six days cannot be taken literally.

As for the sequencing, the biggest problem that jumps out is that plant life was created on the third day, while the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth. This certainly flies in the face of current scientific thinking.

I'm not sure those localised floods are the same as the flood in the Bible, especially if one takes the worldwide flood position. In this case, the Bible may be the only written record of these times.

Also, be aware that a localised flood can kill many people in that particular area.

Is it in the control of people? Suppose God wanted a flood at a particular time. There is nothing stopping him from using natural means to accomplish his goals. If you can come up with a natural mechanism for the flood, what's to stop God from provoking the needed preconditions?

The discussion of the flood is turning into a large flip-flop for you. The Bible clearly states that God made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, covering the entire earth with water at least 20 feet deep, for the express (and presumably successful) purpose of killing off all human, plant and animal life, save for what was on the ark. Now, you have already postulated that there may not have been a global flood but rather a more localized one, and now you mention that if some other natural event (ie: seismic activity) caused a major flood, it could still be God that caused it. Fine. I'll grant you that God could have. However, that's not what was stated in the Bible, and I don't see how the description of 40 days and nights of rain and killing off everything that God created can be reinterpreted as localized events caused by other means. And as for the Bible being the only record of events at that time, there is a whole host of scientific and archeological evidence that humanity was not wiped completely wiped out at this time, or at any other time.

So, which is it? Was there a global flood, as per the Bible that wiped everything out but left no evidence at all of occuring, or was there a more localized event that killed a significant number of people but was incorrectly reported as being caused by God to wipe out all living things around the world (and caused by a deluge to boot)?

Interesting. Why must the world speak of a God who is Christian? Without the Bible one cannot know what Christianity even means, even though you can know God.

I can show a God exists from the evidence in the world, or I can show you that this God is the Christian God from biblical citations. I cannot show that the God which exists is Christian without biblical references.

Well, here we're getting down the meat of the argument again, and this is where I will make as concise a summary as possible and leave it to others to debate:

- "God" as accepted in Christianity is the God of the Bible.

- If you accept current scientific findings, you realize that the world was not created in six days, there is no evidence of a global flood (and, in fact, loads of evidence to the contrary), by the time first musings of the Bible were being developed, mankind was largely spread throughout the world, etc.

- Assuming the acceptance of these findings, significant part and events in the Bible could not have happened* as described. For that matter, why hasn't every culture always believed in the same God?

- If the Bible cannot give an accurate account of events in which God is said to have acted or caused, I find it incredibly difficult to conclude that the Christian God in fact exists.

As I have said before, none of this precludes the existence of a God or gods or some sort of higher power. What it does for me is seriously call into question the Christian notion of God. As to your statement that you can show a God exists from evidence in the world, that's a complete lie. What you can do is believe that a God exists, and that's a perfectly valid position. Equally valid is a belief that this God is responsible for certain things. But I don't see how its any more valid in a belief that there is no God and that everything is a matter of chance. Basically, I don't know either way, but I fail to see that the Christian manifestation of God is accurate.

* Obviously, you can believe that since God is all-powerful, he did in fact do everything ascribed to him in the Bible exactly as it is stated in the Bible and purposely left no evidence. No one can prove this to be false, but there are obvious problems in trying to prove it to be true.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Archaic


They don't need to. Burden of Proof rests on the theists.

As for dictionary definitions, dictionaries give the most common definitions a lay person will see to the words. These definitions are not always the correct definitions, and indeed are frequently influenced by the biases of whichever editor was in charge of the dictionary at the time. Remember, to say that Atheists "deny the existance of a deity figure is presupposing that a deity figure exists.

Instead of rambling on more, I'm just going to be lazy and post this link. Surprised no one's posted it in here yet actually.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Ok, that answers the atheist definition for me. Its a little more encompassing than I thought. I think Master Zen is an atheist. I am agnostic. While I follow a religious tradition, I believe that God is unknowable and unprovable. God is the elephant, we are the blind men and what we are calling God, may in fact just be an elephant.

Kontiki, well said.

[Elok]

I know I said I was gone, and I'm certainly not wading into this mess, but it occurs to me to wonder how science would in theory determine the existence or nonexistence of the Christian god. We are talking about a theoretically omnipresent and "omnitemporal" being, if the latter word exists; if not, I'm coining it. How do you find evidence of the omnipresent? You can't find what is everywhere(how do you get a positive result to a test when it's impossible to get a negative one?), what does not move through space cannot leave traces behind as such, and so on. Put it another way; how do you calibrate the instrument? Find a room where you know god is not present and test the instrument there? Except, according to a Christian perspective, you cannot find such a room. The judeo-christian understanding of God places him at such a fundamental level of our reality that it's hard to imagine our testing it as true or false. It's kind of like defining the word "is."
This isn't a challenge; heaven knows I don't want to reenter this argument. I'm just curious.

[Frogman]

Elok,

The question is how sure are you that anyone, or any one religion has figured out what God is. The agnostic position is that God is indeed unknowable and unproveable.

The judeo-christian God is not even agreed to. Christians hold a Trinity, jews do not. The Trinity itself is declared to be a mystery so it would seem that Christians themselves admit that the nature of God is unknowable.

People can experience God, but even that is elusive. We have been able to duplicate the white light near death experiences by stimulating certain areas of the brain. People come out of these experiments with a feeling of a real spiritual encounter, but what was spiritual and what was physically induced? Some religions used drugs to "see" God.

Science doesn't use drugs to see God. Its possible though that we may learn more about spritual energy, other possible dimensions, the nature of time and space that will lead us to a model of the universe that allows for God to exist or even predicts his existance. In the mean time, all you can do is experience God for yourself or trust others who claim to. Recognize though, that even your own experience would fall short of defining God.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kontiki:

I'm sorry you feel that we're going in circles... I think we are making progress.

A) they are days, not any other measure of time, in the Bible

Do remember, that 'day' comes from the translation from Hebrew into English. In Hebrew the word used for day can have two meanings, day or eon. The word is generally clear in the context, except for this passage. Both interpretations have their basis in biblical scholarship.

B) any debate as to whether or not the "days" were perhaps eons or anything else is quite recent in the context of the life of import of the Bible and/or parts of it, and is a result of the fact that scientific discovery has led us to believe that the six days cannot be taken literally.

True. Unless one has a reason, why challenge the accepted definition? The Hebrew has not changed, just our interpretation of the passage.

Quite recent also has to be recognised as somewhat relative, I think that it's been 350 years since this passage started to be interpreted as an indefinite length of time. I may be wrong on this, so if someone can correct me, please do so.

As for the sequencing, the biggest problem that jumps out is that plant life was created on the third day, while the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth.

Agreed, the Third day does say that plants were created on the Earth.

However, what about the Fourth day?

Gen 1:14-18

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.


The standard way to deal with this problem is to refer back to Genesis 1:3

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."

God here could create the stars, and all the sources of light providing light in the Universe.

All of day 4 refers to the stars from an earthly perspective. There would be no visible points of light before day 4 because of the opaque atmosphere surrounding the Earth. You could see diffused light, but hardly the sun, moon, and stars seperately. This comes on the fourth day, when God clears the atmosphere, and you can percieve seperate lights to govern the day and the night.

And as for the Bible being the only record of events at that time, there is a whole host of scientific and archeological evidence that humanity was not wiped completely wiped out at this time, or at any other time.

The bible does not say that everything was wiped out.

The discussion of the flood is turning into a large flip-flop for you.

I admitted that before we started, that there are good arguments for both sides, and I was not sure which was better.

The Bible clearly states that God made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, covering the entire earth with water at least 20 feet deep, for the express (and presumably successful) purpose of killing off all human, plant and animal life, save for what was on the ark.

This is how you read these sections? Fair enough, I will limit my future discussion to this particular interpretation.

there is no evidence of a global flood (and, in fact, loads of evidence to the contrary),

Then present please.

For that matter, why hasn't every culture always believed in the same God?

Why are they atheists at all? God allows men to choose to reject him if that is their wish.

If the Bible cannot give an accurate account of events in which God is said to have acted or caused, I find it incredibly difficult to conclude that the Christian God in fact exists.

If your only argument is the flood, which has two different interpretations within Christianity than you need to do better than this. You need to disprove the resurrection to prove this point.

As to your statement that you can show a God exists from evidence in the world, that's a complete lie.

Now now. No need for this. Just ask for the evidence behind my claim.

A good analogy, that I have heard before is a card game. Suppose your rival draws a royal flush half-way through your session. Stunned, you ask to see the cards, and the cards bear witness to the royal flush.
Now you think to yourself, that's pretty rare for someone to get a royal flush, but entirely possible. On the very next hand, you draw your cards, and off the deal, your rival draws another royal flush. Suppose he does so five times in a row? How many times does the royal flush need to come up before you suspect someone cheating? Not playing according to the rules of the game?

First argument, do you have a conscience, Kontiki? How do you know what is right and what is wrong?

Second argument, what are the odds according to mere chance, for the creation of a world such as Earth, that can bear life? The odds are drastically against such a planet, when we consider all the necessary requirements for life to form.

Third argument, from the weak anthroscopic principle, there are very narrow ranges of constants governing the way the universe behaves. Again, from random chance, what is the possibility for all of these numbers to line up? Very slim.

Fourth argument, according to evolution, man evolved the way he has by chance mutations, all the way from a simple protein soup in 4.5 billion years. This is extremely unlikely, if random mutations are the only sources for the changes. Evolutionary theory is still substantially unformed regarding the early stages of life, how life can arise from the protein soup, and what needs to occur.

Punctuated equilibrium, supports theistic evolution, if we presuppose that these mutations are not random, yet are directed towards a specific purpose.

Fifth argument:
Formation of eyes, from scratch. There is no good evolutionary explanation showing how eyes can form.

There are others, but this is a good start.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frogman:

The judeo-christian God is not even agreed to. Christians hold a Trinity, jews do not. The Trinity itself is declared to be a mystery so it would seem that Christians themselves admit that the nature of God is unknowable.

God the Father is still YHWH of the Jews. They do not accept Christ, so this is the primary source of the difference between Jews and Christians.

The Trinity is not a mystery in the sense that we cannot understand part of it, in fact the very existence of a doctrine of the Trinity shows that people have come to some understanding of the nature of God. Will we ever completely grasp the nature of God? I do not think so, but this does not preclude gaining greater understanding.

[Frogman]

Obiwan, if you do some study on the Trinity, you will find it was in fact declared a mystery. The teaching that Jesus was fully human and fully devine is an incomprehensible concept. The Trinity was also a defense for those who accused Christians of polytheism who claimed one God, but identified three personhoods.

The Trinity is not directly Biblical and has to be inferred from Bible texts that didn't directly deal with the issue. To say it is accurate, or paints a clear picture of the nature of God is grossly misleading. There was no understanding that was reached, they only reached for something they could stand behind.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Presupposes the point at hand, that the reference to Lex Talionis is not in the original text. There is no evidence for this position.

I ignored it for this reason.

Which position? If the reference to this Lex Talionis is not in the original text, how could anybody claim otherwise?

Originally posted by obiwan18
What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and all of Quantum Physics?

What about those? How do they relate to a god that can change cosmological constants at will?

Originally posted by obiwan18
Actually, you have science like it is now. One science for one realm of Physics, and another for a different realm. Not hard.

How does it work when we can't be certain of anything we meaure will stay the same?

Originally posted by obiwan18
No, but lacking evidence to the contrary, we have to examine the evidence we have, in the Gospels.

There are a number of problems here. First of all, even the Synoptic Gospels are not first hand accounts. Most biblical scholars agree that they are based on earlier works that are now lost, with unknown authors. Each of these authors added their own embellishments, that's how there are all sorts of conflicting accounts. Another important point is much of the Gospels, particularly the accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, contradict Paul's writings.

With this in mind, I cannot see how the Gospels can be held literally true.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Well, come up with a scientific explanation for Christ's death and resurrection, then you might have a point.

You are assuming that said event did occur. Show me evidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Trinity is not directly Biblical and has to be inferred from Bible texts that didn't directly deal with the issue.

Frogman:

You are correct to say that there is no explicit reference to the Trinity within the Bible, however, there is lots of evidence supporting this explanation of God. The evidence for the Holy Spirit comes not only from Christ's prediction, but in the performances of the Apostles, particularly Peter at Pentecost.

As for the evidence that Christ is God as well, we have to look at his own claims and the resurrection. If both are true, then we have to regard Christ as the Son of God.

As for God the Father, well, again we have indirect evidence, especially the testimony of Christ, that he speaks for God. A good example is the testimony of the Centurion. Just as men follow the commands of the Centurion, Christ follows the commands of God to do his will.

To say it is accurate, or paints a clear picture of the nature of God is grossly misleading. There was no understanding that was reached, they only reached for something they could stand behind.

Now, since I have defended the Trinity, you have to provide evidence that supports your theory, that God does not exist in a Trinity.

Obiwan, if you do some study on the Trinity, you will find it was in fact declared a mystery. The teaching that Jesus was fully human and fully devine is an incomprehensible concept. The Trinity was also a defense for those who accused Christians of polytheism who claimed one God, but identified three personhoods.

There is a big difference between fully comprehend and partially comprehend. The Trinity pierces some of the mystery surrounding the Trinity, but there is much we do not know or understand, such as how something could be both man and God. We see the evidence before us, yet we cannot explain how this comes about.

BTW, this specific problem is referred to as the mystery of the incarnation, not of the Trinity. The mystery of the Trinity is how they can be three persons within one substance of God.

Indeed, this is a defense from accusations of polytheism, only viable because it explains the evidence better than anything else.

[Ben Kenobi]

UR:

Which position? If the reference to this Lex Talionis is not in the original text, how could anybody claim otherwise?

AFAIK the reference to Lex Talionis is not added onto the original account. Unless you provide evidence for the contrary, this is the last time I will address this point.

What about those? How do they relate to a god that can change cosmological constants at will?

How can we relate to a God who is omnipotent and omniscient? Only because he allows himself to be percieved in ways we can understand.

Secondly, we have the person of Jesus Christ who took the form of a man with all the inherent limitations, who is still seated by God and still incarnate. We can relate to God through Jesus Christ.

How does it work when we can't be certain of anything we meaure will stay the same?

Quantum Physics teaches us that the very act of measuring changes the object's properties. The question is of scale. For the most part, our measurements change the object insufficiently to affect the answer at hand.

If we can deal with Quantum Physics, then I see no problem with the existence of a spiritual realm.

There are a number of problems here. First of all, even the Synoptic Gospels are not first hand accounts.

John is an eyewitness, as is Matthew. Second hand accounts have nothing to do with whether the author is reliable or not. You can have first hand sources grossly unreliable, and secondary sources extremely precise.

Most biblical scholars agree that they are based on earlier works that are now lost, with unknown authors.

All we have lost are the purported source documents. Just because we don't have the original sources, does not make the Gospels unreliable.

Each of these authors added their own embellishments, that's how there are all sorts of conflicting accounts.

Embellishments? Like what? Where are the conflicts within the Gospels?

Another important point is much of the Gospels, particularly the accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, contradict Paul's writings.

How so? Where do they conflict?

[Ben Kenobi]

You are assuming that said event did occur. Show me evidence.

This question deserves a thread of it's own.

Starting with the oldest historical evidence we have, Paul's testimony in 1 Cor 15 3:8, written in 55 AD, a mere 25 years after the death of Christ. Astonishing early for any historical records of the time.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[1] : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter,[2] and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.


Just a little farther, please take note of what Paul admits:

1 Cor 15:13-15

"If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God,"

This is what is at stake with the resurrection. If I can adequately demonstrate that Christ rose from the dead, I expect you to follow this to the logical conclusion.

Starting with the first clause: "Christ died for our sins according for our scriptures."

Death:

John 19:31-34, 36-37

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"[2] and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."[3]

Which passages?

2: 19:36 Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12; Psalm 34:20

"It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones."

"They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. When they celebrate the Passover, they must follow all the regulations."

"he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken."


3: Zech. 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [1] of grace and supplication. They will look on [2] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

That covers the first clause. Christ as the Passover Lamb has to follow the Passover regulations regarding sacrifice. This is why his bones cannot be broken.

The pierced side pouring blood and water is substantial physical evidence that Christ died on the cross.

Moving on to the second passage:

"that he was buried"

John 19:38-42

"Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[4] Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

If he's buried under 75 pounds of spice, he is not going anywhere anytime soon.

From Matthew we get additional details, the rock on the tomb and the guards posted outside the tomb.

Matt 27:60

"and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."

Matt 27:62-66


The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.' So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."

"Take a guard," Pilate answered. "Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how." So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Thus, the soldiers secured the tomb from graverobbers.

Onto the third clause:

"that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

We have the resurrection account from John describing the empty tomb.

John 20:1-2

"Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, 'They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!' "

John 20:5-8

"He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed."

Which scriptures were fulfilled?

Matthew 12:38-39

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

What is the sign of Jonah? Jonah sat for three days in the belly of the whale before coming out from the whale. Just as Jonah took three days, so will Jesus take 3 days to rise from the dead.

Moving on to the next clause:

"and that he appeared to Peter,[2]"

Luke 24:15-16

As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

Luke 24:33-34

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon."

Simon is the name of the disciple Peter, Simon Peter.

"and then to the twelve"

John 20:19-23

"On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, 'Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.' And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.' "

To the next clause:

"After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."

Not recorded in the Gospels, but recorded here. Paul challenges those who did not believe at the time to ask any of the five hundred still alive who had seen the risen Christ.

"Then he appeared to James,"

Again, not recorded in the Gospels. James, the brother of Jesus goes from being a skeptic, to the leader of the Jerusalem Church, as seen in Acts.

"then to all the apostles,"

Group including the Twelve and some others. Also not recorded in the Gospels, but listed here.

"and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

Who is Paul?

Acts 9:1-9

"Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything."

Afterwards:

Acts 9:20-22

"Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
AFAIK the reference to Lex Talionis is not added onto the original account. Unless you provide evidence for the contrary, this is the last time I will address this point.

If it wasn't added, how come all these other various translations do not have such a passage?

Originally posted by obiwan18
How can we relate to a God who is omnipotent and omniscient? Only because he allows himself to be percieved in ways we can understand.

Where does it say in the bible that this god is omnipotent, if he couldn't overcome iron chariots?

Originally posted by obiwan18
Secondly, we have the person of Jesus Christ who took the form of a man with all the inherent limitations, who is still seated by God and still incarnate. We can relate to God through Jesus Christ.

Again, you are assuming that there was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Quantum Physics teaches us that the very act of measuring changes the object's properties.

No. Heisenberg's Uncertainly principle simply states that an observer cannot measure pairs of related characteristics of elementary particles at the same time with arbitrary precision.

Originally posted by obiwan18
The question is of scale. For the most part, our measurements change the object insufficiently to affect the answer at hand.

What does this have anything to do with my original query? I'll list it below:

"How could science exist if pi is one value when you are measuring it but another if you aren't?"

Originally posted by obiwan18
If we can deal with Quantum Physics, then I see no problem with the existence of a spiritual realm.

Do you believe in Zeus, Odin, Ra, Brahma, the Celestial Emperor, the Giant Banana, Umguf the Invisible Purple with Pink Polka Dots Unicorn, and Tiamat? If not, why not?

Originally posted by obiwan18
John is an eyewitness, as is Matthew.

Neither of these assertions are supported by biblical scolars.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Second hand accounts have nothing to do with whether the author is reliable or not. You can have first hand sources grossly unreliable, and secondary sources extremely precise.

Are you admitting that the Gospels were written with second hand accounts?

Originally posted by obiwan18
Embellishments? Like what? Where are the conflicts within the Gospels?

Where was Jesus born? When? Were there these Magis?

Originally posted by obiwan18
How so? Where do they conflict?

Did Jesus perform miracles? Was he bothered by demons? Was he famous before his death? How exactly did he die?

If you want a complete list, here is the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Enjoy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
This question deserves a thread of it's own.

Only the bible? No external evidence?