@Oliver131313 said in #90:
>
@Oliver131313 said in #90:
> Good luck on your journey. It's unfortunately quite rare for a healthy argument to occur in these circumstances, but I genuinely hope something positive can come out of this. Also, a friendly reminder to EVERYONE in this thread that you shouldn't judge someone because of their religion, and they can still be wonderful people regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc.
Very true
@theodorecalexico said in #88:
> umm wow this blew up lol
> can i have a volunteer who is well versed in the bible but is a HARD core atheist and someone who TRULY believes in GOD our lord and savour (Christian)
> i am looking into Christianity first :)
>
> and when i get my 2 ppl we can have a healthy argument XD plssss
I'm up for it, though I've seen some very well versed Christians here too. Not saying I'm not well versed, but there are better picks than me.
As to say, the creator of this post seems very closed to any religious influences... so what's the point of creating this post if you won't respond and act?
@Jisu101 said in #93:
> As to say, the creator of this post seems very closed to any religious influences... so what's the point of creating this post if you won't respond and act?
me? im sorry this thing blew up theres like 100 comments it takes awhile to read mateXD and i responded didnt i?
@Jisu101 said in #93:
> As to say, the creator of this post seems very closed to any religious influences... so what's the point of creating this post if you won't respond and act?
Because if so, well get him to be a budhaist or Hinduist or 1 of the 3 monotheist religions or anything, seem a valid question and he responded many times before even in reply. You in fact, are the one that posted only once in a negative way.
budism and hinduism are the most clearly made up religions out there :/
@ALucasM said in #96:
> budism and hinduism are the most clearly made up religions out there :/
While that may be true, remember that they probably think the same about you.
@Oliver131313 said in #97:
> While that may be true, remember that they probably think the same about you.
that is true. but i mean there is historical evidence that the first Budda sat under a tree until he was enlightened.
here is my evidence that the bible and Jesus is real
The figure of Jesus of Nazareth stands at the center of Christian faith and has also been the subject of intense historical scrutiny for centuries. The quest for the historical Jesus aims to uncover the life and teachings of Jesus by critically examining historical evidence. This endeavor is not only fascinating but also crucial for understanding the roots of Christianity and its impact on world history. The existence of Jesus is supported by a variety of historical sources. Within a few decades of his lifetime, both Jewish and Roman historians referenced him. Notably, Jewish rabbis, who were in opposition to Jesus' teachings, never denied his existence, which adds a layer of credibility to the historical record. Archaeological evidence, while not directly pointing to Jesus, has corroborated elements of the New Testament narrative. Excavations in Nazareth, believed to be Jesus' childhood home, and findings consistent with Roman crucifixion practices provide indirect support for the biblical accounts. The Bible itself is a significant historical document, composed of 66 books written over a span of 1,500 years by more than 40 authors. Its historical accuracy is often debated, but many events, places, and figures described in the Bible have been confirmed by later writings and archaeological discoveries. Like the great flood. The Great Flood is a narrative found not only in the Bible but in various cultures around the world, often serving as a point of convergence for discussions on its historical authenticity. In the context of the Bible, the story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is a foundational tale of faith and obedience, and for many, it is a true account of historical events. Scientifically, there have been intriguing findings that suggest large-scale flooding events in ancient times. For instance, geologists have proposed a significant flood in the Black Sea region around 7,500 years ago, which could correlate with flood narratives from various cultures. Additionally, underwater explorations have revealed submerged settlements and landscapes that hint at past flood events with substantial geographical impacts. These scientific explorations provide a fascinating backdrop to the biblical narrative. While the New Testament offers the most detailed account of Jesus' life and teachings, there are limited but notable references to Jesus in non-biblical historical documents. Works by historians such as Josephus and Tacitus provide external attestations to Jesus' existence, further contributing to the historical evidence. Another thing is that proves Jesus died on the cross. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ are central tenets of Christian faith, and they have been subjects of historical scrutiny for centuries. The historical evidence for these events comes from a variety of sources, including Roman and Jewish historians, the New Testament, and archaeological findings. Historical records from non-Christian sources provide evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure who lived during the first century and was crucified. Tacitus, a Roman historian, confirms that Jesus was executed during the reign of Pontius Pilate. Additionally, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus and refers to his crucifixion by Pilate. The Roman method of crucifixion was designed to be a slow and painful execution. Victims were typically scourged before being crucified, which alone could be fatal due to severe blood loss. Once crucified, death would occur through a combination of factors including asphyxiation, blood loss, and multiple organ failure. Archaeological evidence, such as the remains of a crucified individual found in Jerusalem, provides insight into the brutal nature of this execution method. The resurrection is documented in the New Testament, with all four Gospels providing accounts of women finding the tomb empty and Jesus appearing to his disciples after his death. Critical scholars and historians often refer to the "embarrassment criterion," which suggests that certain details are likely to be authentic if they would have been embarrassing or difficult for the authors to invent. The fact that women, whose testimony was not highly regarded in the society of the time, were the first to witness the empty tomb and the risen Jesus, supports the authenticity of these accounts.
Historical Jesus is real. Resurrection is not.
