Did Jesus Christ Exist?

I have wanted to do this blog for a long time, and since this is my first blog ever posted, I may miss a few things that need to be mentioned, so I will do my best to include as much as I can with few updates. There is so much to include on this subject, it could take novels to cover it all, therefore I will try to keep it short. Nobody likes reading a 455 page blog, so a lot will be left out. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

This blog addresses the historicity of jesus. It is a subject I have been investigated for several years. I even had the pleasure to become acquainted with John Hart, the author of a upcoming book which shines light on the jesus myth. His website, still under construction, can be found here.
I think the story of jesus is both a mix of myth and legend. I invite everyone (both religious and non-religious) to get involved in this, whether you agree or disagree.
 
Before the 1970s, many people thought that archeology was an excellent helping tool for the Bible, however this is no longer true. Scholars are questioning the whole model of “biblical archaeology,” which starts with the assumption that the Bible is a reliable guide for field research. Indeed, there is now so much contrary evidence AGAINST the historical accuracy of the Bible that the term “biblical archaeology” has been discarded by professional archaeologists and Syro-Palestinian archaeology has been suggested by some practicing in the field as a more appropriate term.
 
The Bible contains many stories that never happened. The Bible was wrong about the age of the earth; it was wrong about the Ark; it was wrong about many of the stories in the OT; even the NT contains stories that are historically inaccurate. Many skeptics and moderate religious people are aware that these tales are not true and are not found in history; Genesis; Exodus; the conquest of Cannan; the vast empire of David and Solomon; Nazareth; etc.

(this is a short clip taken from a large lecture by Hector Avalos “How Archaeology Killed Biblical History. You can watch the whole thing on Google Videos, he goes into greater detail of all the things that no longer support biblical history.

I am very thankful to Edward Tabash for introducing me to Prof. Avalos and inviting us all to lunch. I hope we could do this again in the future.)

However, there is one story of the NT that many skeptics do not approach or consider to possibly be historically wrong:
the story of Jesus Christ.
 
I am a History major, particularly ancient history that includes the Sumerians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Hebrews, and Romans. After many years of searching for the truth if jesus was the messiah and savior, I never once verified if his story or historical existence was legitimate. For readers, the point of this blog is not to debate prophecies or his teachings; it is focusing on the history of jesus. As a historian, I examine the evidence for all figures in history under the same criteria to discover the truth. When I researched for the evidence of jesus’ existence, I was astounded what I found — rather what I didn’t find. There is no external historical evidence for the existence of jesus of Nazareth stories. This was puzzling, so I examined the gospels, since they were the only source I could use in my journey. Through my research, I discovered the Bible contains improbabilities, contradictions, discrepancies, forgeries, evident fictions, legendary embellishments, propaganda, interpolations, fabrications, and more and cannot be used as a reliable source.
 
I have asked every Christians I have ever came across to please provide any evidence they could show me for the historicity of jesus. To this day, after many years, not one could meet the challenge.
 
As a historian, when trying to establish what happened in the past, you need evidence of that time. You need contemporary unbiased evidence from many different sources, you want them to be independent, and you want lots of them. Being aware of the stories of jesus, how is it a man like this could exist without ever being mentioned once anywhere? We have no self-written manuscripts, no pieces of wood work crafted by jesus (who was supposed to be a carpenter, but there is evidence that casts doubt that he ever was), we have no sketch arts of him in person, no artifacts, dwelling, nothing. No written Roman, Greek, pagan or Jewish sources from this time know of any historical Jesus or Christ. No mention of him comes until the gospels many years later. Not a single historian, secular or religious, ever mentioned jesus, and we have dozens of great historians during that time. 1st century Palestine was a well recorded era, so how is it that a man like jesus could enter the Temple in Jerusalem on Passover and start a riot, and not be mentioned one time? All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. W. Trilling argues that “not a single date of his life” can be established with certainty, other scholars think the quest for historical jesus is hopeless. Skepticism about the details of his life can generate skepticism about his very existence.
 
When searching for evidence, apologists try to find a non-christian source that confirms the existence of jesus. The problem is none of these exist in the first century. Apologists use a list of names as evidence: Suetonius, Thallus, Mara Ben-Serapion, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian, Phlegon, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Tome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian and others. This may seem appealing, however if you dig deeper into these names you quickly realize that most of these names can be taken off the list. And if you scratch beneath the surface, they ALL have to be discarded. Many of these do not even name Jesus, and many of these are not based on eye-witnesses accounts. Some of these names are church fathers writing in the second to fourth century and are therefore too late to be considered reliable for first-century confirmation. Being church leaders, their objectivity is also questionable. In a desperate but laughable attempt, some apologists present Josephus as the proof demanded by skeptics. What people like this fail to realize is that (ignoring that its not contemporary) these pieces presented in Josephus are forgeries latter inserted by Christians. The act of forgery is not uncommon in Christianity, just look at their holy book the Bible — it is full of forgeries.
 
A common argument put forth to answer the big question why did nobody ever wrote or mention jesus is that “perhaps jesus was not an important person to be mentioned.” This argument is comical. The jesus portrayed in the gospels was huge and well known by great multiples of people as a miracle-worker and a prophet, and surely would have been mentioned by a historian or philosopher. The gospels say that people from multiple cities even beyond Jordan (Matt. 4:25) or his followers were so large they were “innumerable” (Luke 12:1). If the poor, the rich, the high priests, the Romans, travelers and foreigners, and the scribes all knew about jesus, who would not have heard of him? If Herod really took the time to hunt down and try to slay jesus, but instead murdered hundreds of other babies, then this would have gotten the attention of historians all across the land. Some also argue that “perhaps all the records of jesus was lost or destroyed.” This argument is no better than the last objection. Jerusalem was the center of education recordings of the Jewish people, and the Romans kept many records, and even the gospels mention that scribes followed jesus – and some of those scribes had connections with the high priests. We have records of dozens of other named messiah-like figures, but never once is jesus mentioned. Given what I just explained earlier, all kinds of people, local and foreign, low class to high class, etc. all knew about jesus. With all this, we would surely expect there to be evidence about jesus, but we find none. Not one. Anywhere. Often when failure to confirm is to disconfirm.
 
There is not a single piece of evidence for jesus during his life and for several decades after his death. All we have left as a source for jesus is the gospels, and this is not looking good for Christianity. For instance, if you cannot believe the stories from Herodotus, then how can you believe the gospels? Fifty years after the Persian Wars ended in 479 BCE Herodotus the Halicarnassian asked numerous eyewitnesses and their children about the things that happened in those years and then he wrote a book about it. Though he often shows a critical and skeptical mind, sometimes naming his sources or even questioning their reliability when he is suspicious or conflicting accounts, he nevertheless reports without a hint of doubt that the following actually happened: the Temple of Delphi magically defended itself with animated armaments, lightning bolts and collapsing cliffs; the sacred olive tree of Athens, though burned by the Persians, grew an arm’s length in a single day; a miraculous flood-tide wiped an entire Persian contingent after they desecrated an image of Poseidon; a horse gave birth to a rabbit; and a whole town witnessed a mass resurrection of cooked fish!
But that is only addressing the story, but what about the validity of the gospel stories? Many people would believe the gospels are evidence for jesus, since they are supposed to be written by eye-witnesses. The problem with this is, the gospel writers never met jesus. They were written many decades after jesus supposedly died, the earliest gospel (Mark) was written about forty to forty-five years after jesus died. None of the gospels authors claim to be eye-witnesses and each gospel is written in the third-person. We have no idea who wrote the gospels or where they wrote them; we dont know who got to read them prior to the 2nd century or investigated their claims in any useful way; but it is clear none of them met jesus or can agree what jesus did. Some of their writings goes against what jesus taught or did, which Mark seems to know nothing about.
 
“We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.” -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
 
“Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.” -Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
 
“The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.” -Bishop John Shelby Spong
Deeper investigation into the gospels cast doubt that some of them. The gospels were written by Greek-speaking educated rhetorically trained writers who were skilled in Greek composition (but never call themselves disciples), not by uneducated illiterate lower-class Aramaic-speaking disciple peasants who never went to school or knowledge of literature. How did the story reach these authors? Not by the disciples, but from someone who heard the story, who heard about the story. They were telling stories to convert people; they improved and changed the story sometimes. By the time the story reached these authors, the story had already been set in motion through oral traditions for several decades, which casts serious doubt on the validity of their claims.
 
There is proof that Mark may have not been a local living in Palestine or perhaps not even Jewish. Mark may have been written as a fiction. The authors Matthew and Luke got most of their info from Mark, often copying Mark verbatim.The gospels themselves are admittedly propagandist: “And many other signs truly did jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye might believe that jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have through his name.” (John 20:30-31) This not the work of objective historical reporting.
 
We also know that many parts of the gospel have been later added into Scripture, such as the end of Mark 16, and the story of Jesus saying “let he without sin cast the first stone.” There is a whole list of pieces that were later added in, and so many of the books in the NT written by forgers (all this done by early christians). We know they were meddled with, mistranslated, and changed over the decades of oral traditions, and even many of the epistles are the products of forgers. Combined with what we dont know and what we do know about the gospels, there is no sound basis for trusting the gospels as reliable historical documents. Why trust these sources when we would never trust such documents from any other religious text?
 
The earliest writings about jesus come from Paul, a man who never met jesus. The story tells us that Paul never met jesus in person, instead he saw a light and heard a voice. Without any evidence to support this claim, it is very problematic to accept. If Christians accept this by itself as evidence, then why don’t they believe in the story of Joseph Smith or Mohammad? Paul has no knowledge of jesus early life, just his vague tales of his last great actions, and Paul often taught contrary to what jesus preached. The “silence of Paul” is a big problem for Christianity. Paul writes of other people seeing jesus, such as 500 people, but what he does not provide names, where they came from, were they all men, what did they see, what did they say, where did they go, did they see anything, and why is it that these people never spoke of it or wrote about it, or told a nearby scribe about it and record it? Of all the huge things jesus did in front of hundreds of people, surely this would have caught the attention of historians, but not one mentions him anywhere. It is very likely that these 500 people mentioned by Paul are just numbers written on paper; pure propaganda. If Paul’s writings like this are enough to convince christians, then why don’t all christians believe in the Loch Ness Monster or UFO sightings, since you can go and find hundreds of well-documented names, places, and detailed testimonies for stories like this.
 
Were the earliest christians reliable regarding the historicity of jesus? Not one single person, not even the scribes that followed jesus, recorded a single line regarding jesus. What we have learned is the the story has been in circulation by oral traditions for many decades and often changed or improved. What we have learned from the earliest christians is that they were comfortable with doctoring documents and forgeries, proving a pervasive dishonesty among early christians, as well as the gullibility of their peers. There was even massive disagreements among early christians who jesus was. I find it strange that in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century, there were conflicting ideas of who jesus was, some say he did not exist “in the flesh.” One of the earliest church, Marcionism, taught that jesus did not exist in the flesh (there was no nativity, no baptism, nothing). Passages in the Bible attack these groups of people who do not acknowledge jesus came in the flesh, which points to that the idea that jesus was just a spiritual concept or fictional character was popular. However, the concept that jesus was indeed on the flesh and was a suffering messiah won the overall view of who jesus was. The reason for this was that suffering and flesh and blood sacrifice to create a new covenant. Also, it showed that the resurrection of the flesh of jesus proves that resurrection of the flesh is possible.
Paul reveals to us that the earliest christians were hallucinating on a regular bases, entering ecstatic trances, prophesying, relaying the communications of spirits, and speaking in tongues–so much, in fact, that outsiders thought they were lunatics (e.g., 1 Corinthians 14). The whole book of Revelation, for example, is a veritable acid trip, and yet it got into the Bible as an authoritative document· That’s how respectable even the craziest of hallucinations were. Not only were they constantly channeling spirits and speaking in tongues and having visions of angels and strange objects in the sky, they were also putting on faith-healing acts and exorcising demons by laying on hands and shouting words of power. In other words, the first christians behaved a lot more like the crazy cultists than you’d ever be comfortable with. These aren’t the sort of people whose testimony you would ever trust if you met them today. And if you wouldn’t trust what they said now, you shouldn’t trust anything they said.
 
As mentioned above, archeology has failed to prove the Bible, such as the city of Nazareth never existed during the life of jesus. But many people would point to locations mentioned in the bible, such as the city of Jerusalem, and conclude that shows jesus must exist. Ignoring that one or more of the gospels writers got parts of the geography wrong, this argument put forth holds no water. In Homers Odyssey, this epic mentions, in detail, many islands and locations that existed in history, but does that mean that one-eyed giants, Greek gods and magical creatures are literal facts because the story depicts geography accurately? No, of course not.
So how did the myth originate? Many people would find it very unlikely that a religion such as Christianity without a central figure at its core. What they do not understand is that there are many ways it can arise without a central figure, and this is were history and biblical evidence points to. The fusion of apocalyptic and Messianic Judaism with Hellenistic culture gave rise to the “Jesus Christ” mystery religion among Hellenistic Jews. We can identify literary sources and traditions that are not only capable of providing all of the material for the Jesus story, but indeed it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these source materials, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events.
 
 
Here is an excellent blog by TheCodedAtheist
The blog does a wonderful job at explaining there is no evidence for such an event and that history cannot prove a miracle. It is said by Paul if there was no Resurrection, then their entire faith is wrong. I disagree. Without a savior, then you have no resurrection to begin with.
DangerousTalk: History and Religion
I HIGHLY recommend everyone watch this excellent 24 part series by Youtuber TruthSurge
Thank you for reading. Please leave a comment below and share this blog. Much appreciated and have a nice day.

21 comments

  • Pingback: Refutation of “Conquer Your Fear, Share Your Faith Leader’s Guide: An Evangelism Crash Course” by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort | The Godless Wolf

  • FBrennan

    Mr. Wolf you state, “The Bible contains many stories that never happened. The Bible was wrong about the age of the earth; it was wrong about the Ark; it was wrong about many of the stories in the OT; even the NT contains stories that are historically inaccurate. Many skeptics and moderate religious people are aware that these tales are not true and are not found in history; Genesis; Exodus; the conquest of Cannan; the vast empire of David and Solomon; Nazareth; etc.”

    Not sure where you received your information. With all due respect being a history teacher, your quote about Jesus has fallen short. There is more information out there on the accuracy of the Bible than probably any one has time to read. The problem is not the lack of evidence, but a heart that won’t seek Him. “And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.” Granted this verse was talking to a different event, but still holds true for a seeking heart and a humble heart. The statements you give as facts are opinions. There is no way to prove that your information is right. If God can preserve His Word and He promises to do so, you need to look to the Bible for your answers first, not man. The Bible was written by God through man, so we can trust it, we can trust the true God. John 14:6 Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no many comes to the Father but by me.” Can you tell me one OT or NT story that is not true and how you can state that as a fact?? Thanks!

    • TheGodlessWolf

      //Not sure where you received your information. With all due respect being a history teacher, your quote about Jesus has fallen short. There is more information out there on the accuracy of the Bible than probably any one has time to read.//

      As a graduate with a BA in History, I stand by every word I said in my blog, and so would many history teachers. My first university professor straight up told us in class, “the Bible is not a historical document.” She provided many demonstrations to settle that claim, such as the Exodus, conflicting accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, no account of any horde of dead men rising from the graves in Jerusalem, and so on.

      //The problem is not the lack of evidence, but a heart that won’t seek Him.//

      Wrong. The problem is the lack of evidence. I was once a believer in Christ, so I sought him out however I could. What I discovered was that as a believer, my beliefs relied more on faith then I could ever imagined. The lack of evidence was so abysmal that essentially Christianity is practically make-believe, all centered around the words and letters by men who never met the Savior.

      //The statements you give as facts are opinions. There is no way to prove that your information is right.//

      If you want to disprove my statements as being mere “opinions” then facts, please provide any contemporary historical evidence of the Jesus character. I won’t hold my breath.

      // If God can preserve His Word and He promises to do so, you need to look to the Bible for your answers first, not man.//

      If you are a history teacher and teaching kids that faith trumps the historical method, then shame on you.

      If a Muslims history teacher did that, he would tell his students that the Qu’ran teaches us that Mohammad flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse. Despite there being no historical proof that he set foot in Jerusalem, teaching students that faith trumps the historical method is essentially lying to the students.

      //Can you tell me one OT or NT story that is not true and how you can state that as a fact?? Thanks!//

      The census story around Jesus’ birth. That did not happen.

      According to the Gospel of Luke, and in contradiction to Matthew, it was the census called by Quirinius that compelled Joseph and the pregnant Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1), rather than (as in Matthew) the other way around (and for a different reason: fear of Herod’s successor, Archelaus). The census is undoubtedly a historical event. But unfortunately, the problems begin to pile up the moment we consider the whole story in more detail.

      1) According to Luke 2:3-4, Joseph had to go to Bethlehem because he was a descendant of David, who was from that town. Apart from being a logistical nightmare, this method of going to one’s ancestral hometown to register for the census is unheard of in other historical sources. Evangelicals refer to a papyrus dated to 104 CE where the prefect from Egypt ordered all “to return to their homes” to register for the census, as supporting evidence for such a requirement. But such an interpretation is incorrect. Many scholars have pointed out that Roman census were done for taxation purposes. This means that the “homes” being referred to in the order above is to where one’s properties are. In other words, the location of registration is at one’s permanent residence not their ancestral hometown.

      2) Luke 2:1 states Caesar Augustus ordered a census for “all the world.” Yet historians know of no such worldwide census. While the Romans did periodically conduct censuses at different times in various locations, there is simply no evidence that there was ever a simultaneous worldwide census under Caesar Augustus.

      3) According to Luke (1:26) Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth. But the area under the jurisdiction of Quirinius covered only Judaea, where Bethlehem was, not Nazareth. Nazareth in Galilee was under the rule of Herod Antipas (d. ca. 40 CE) and would not have been under the control of Quirinius. Given what Luke says, there is no way a census under the supervision of this Roman governor could have applied to Joseph and Mary who supposedly lived in Nazareth.

      4) Finally, the clincher. Both Matthew and Luke said Jesus was born during the time of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5). Herod’s date of death is unassailable—it was 4 BCE. The date of Quirinius’s census is also firmly established—6 CE. In other words, there is a discrepancy of about ten years between the two events—the death of Herod and the Quirinius census.

      The last point has been doggedly attacked by evangelicals. The reason for such determined apologetics is understandable. If the above is unassailable, then the case is settled: the Bible contains fiction, and the biblical inerrancy is confined to the scrap heap of human history. Let us look in detail at some of these apologetic attempts.

      The first step is to claim that there was an earlier census under Quirinius that was done during the reign of Herod the Great. This means that Quirinius was twice governer of Syria, once between 6 CE and 12 CE and another earlier tenure during the reign of Herod the Great. As “evidence” to prop this, the British archaeologist Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939) is normally invoked, together with the inscription Sir Ramsey interpreted to mean that Quirinius was governor of Syria not once, but twice, separated by a few years on both of the occasions mentioned above. This argument is obsolete, as it has been proven false. The reasons as follows:

      1) The inscription found by Ramsay simply mentioned that Quirinius was honored for his role is achieving a military victory. It was Ramsay who guessed that Quirinius’s reward for his rule was an earlier appointment, prior to 6 CE, as governor of Syria. Nothing in the inscription even suggests this. It is not surprising that most historians are of the opinion that the inscription does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that Quirinius was governor of Syria earlier than 6 CE.

      2) From Josephus we know most of the Roman governors of Syria around that time. Table 6.1 below shows the governors of Syria during the last years of Herod’s reign were Gaius Sentius Saturninus, who held the post from 9 to 6 BCe, and Publius Quintilius Varus, who was his successor from 6 to 4 BCE. It was Varus who, as governor, suppressed the uprising that occurred after the death of Herod (Antiquities 17:10:1). There are only two “blanks” in the list of governors between 23 BCE to 7 CE; once between 13-11 BCE and another time between 3-2 BCE. The latter gap is of no consequence, since by then Herod was already dead, and the former gap was probably filled by Marcus Titus, from 12 to 9 BCE, as we know he was governor sometimes in that period, and a three-year term was typical.

      3) Quirinius’s career is relatively well documented in our primary sources. Tacticus’s Annals of Imperial Rome (3:22-23, 3:48), Suetonius’s Tiberius (49), Strabo’s Geography (12:6:5) and Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (17:13:5, 18:1:1) all mention aspects of his career. From these accounts we know that he was born sometime before 50 BCE and that he died in 33 CE. We know that he was consul of Rome by 12 BCE. He was in Asia Minor between 12 and 6 BCE, where he fought the war against the Homonadenses. He was the governor of Pamphylia-Galatia between 6 to 1 BCE. And he was serving as the adviser for Gauis Caesar for several years before 4 CE. Josephus mentioned Quirinius several times when he became governor of Syria in 6 CE (Antiquities 17:13:5, 18:1:1). So we read of Quirinius’s career spanning twenty years from 12 BCE to 6 CE, yet not once was he mentioned as taking over the governorship of Syria at any time during the reign of Herod.

      The conclusion is inescapable—Quirinius could not have been governor of Syria twice.

      • FBrennan

        Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. You have spent much time in searching out these answers. I find it unfortunate that you state you were once a Christian and now you are not. First off let me share the gospel with you. I am sure you have heard all this before, but please here me out. The World at one time was all good, when God created it. Then Adam and Eve chose to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that point Adam and Eve and all who came after were sinners, separated from God. Jesus at the perfect, set time entered our world and took the punishment of all sin upon Himself (past, present and future), when he was nailed to the cross and died. On the third day he rose with power. He defeated death and became the only way to a relationship with God the Father. He paid our fine and we can be legally dismissed from the penalty of death and live forever. If we repent of our sins (turn away from them and are truly sorry – God knows our hearts) and have faith in Him as our Savior (we can’t save ourselves by any means – good works, going to church, giving all our money to the poor, etc… – these are all like filthy rags to God). Not that good works won’t follow a life given over to Christ out of the over flow of being thankful and given a new heart with new desires, but these things can never save us. Only repentance and faith in Jesus. With all that said, this is the first place to start in understanding the Bible. The Bible is only truly understood by those who have the Holy Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). I don’t have time to address all your research – but I will say please read the book by Josh McDowell: “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict”. This should answer a lot of your questions or research. Josh McDowell, you may of heard of him, was a agnostic who set out to disprove Jesus was not real, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then He was a liar and shouldn’t be trusted, the Bible would be just a good fairy tail. However, there is overwhelming evidence – see his book- that Jesus did rise from the dead, He was real and did walk this earth. Also, Lee Strobel was an atheist, and he was seeking out the to see if the claims about Christ and Christianity are real. Took him two years of intense research and He found out that Christ was real. You can watch: The Case for Christ on you tube or order the DVD from the Library. From personal testimony, the Lord has changed me and continues to make me new person. I can say from experience that the Lord is real and will give you understanding when you fully trust and follow Him. The Lord is real, He desires you to be His and all of His created human beings. Do we know why the Lord set things up the way He did, no and probably never will, at least not on this side of life. God is God and knows all things, beginning from end. He can be trusted, we are finite and limited in knowledge. He asks us to trust Him. I had a question not to long ago that was truly keeping me awake and the hardest question that has ever come to me, or I have ever heard. After much prayer, asking the Lord to give me an answer to my question. He woke me with the word to “Lean not on your own understanding”. That was just what I needed. Still not what I wanted, but was the perfect word for me. God has got this, He has everything under control and He can be trusted. I will never understand everything or I would be God. I am so glad I am not Him, I would make a big mess of things. Call on His name, ask Him to reveal Himself to you with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13 – “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”

        I will respond to one part of your reply above: “If you want to disprove my statements as being mere “opinions” then facts, please provide any contemporary historical evidence of the Jesus character. I won’t hold my breath.

        First, “the writers of the New Testament wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information. Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, Acts 2:22, John 19:35, Acts 26:24-26 (from Josh McDowell’s Book – JMB – mentioned above).
        These apostles lived with Jesus, they were eye witnesses to Him.

        “By secular I mean “pagan” – non-Christian, non-Jewish, an generally anti-Christian. Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the movement He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain.” JMB
        Cornelius Tactitus a Roman historian – was writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome.
        Lucian of Samosata – a greek satirist, spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians. Lucian said, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day….was crucified…worship the crucified sage….

        One more good book for you by Josh McDowell: He Walked Among Us: Evidence for the Historical Jesus. Please do some more research and see what you’ll find. He is real, as real as you and me and more so. He is God in the flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16)

        I will be praying for you – for I don’t believe you are a Godless Wolf.

        • TheGodlessWolf

          Do you think repeating something I’ve been raised with in the majority of my life will somehow reveal something that I missed?

          Btw, I left a response to my other blog post where this all started.

          //I don’t have time to address all your research – but I will say please read the book by Josh McDowell: “The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict”.//

          Read it. Deeply disappointed in it.

          https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

          https://infidels.org/library/modern/jerry_borchandt/skeptic.html

          //Josh McDowell, you may of heard of him, was a agnostic//

          What a nice convenient trope.

          Would you read “Godless” by Dan Barker, one of Americas biggest evangelical turned into America’s co-president of the largest Atheist organization?

          //Also, Lee Strobel was an atheist//

          Let me stop you there. This website, this podcast, TWL, started with three friends debunking Lee Strobel years ago. And we’ve learned a lot about Strovel since, and he remains dishonest and clueless as ever. If you read his work and cross-reference it with history, guess what we learn? Strobel never published anything as an atheist (so he probably wasn’t much of an informed atheist). And claiming to have been an atheist before “seeing the light” is a common evangelical trope. Also, the book was published in 1998. His conversion was in 1981. A rather long time to be writing that book on his wife’s suggestion; by the time the book even came out he had been a pastor at her church for over a decade, and had already written three other books promoting Christianity.

          You mentioned his movie. Did you bother to check anything outside the film? Moreover, Strobel himself has said in interviews that the movie is only about 80% accurate, as some characters are composites, some events that happened after 1980 are represented as happening before 1980, things like that, though that’s typical for cinema biopics. Although several key plot points in the film are false. It wasn’t the nurse who saved their daughter’s life who converted Strobel’s wife, nor even that incident that did, but a long process of evangelism by her neighbor and best friend. And Strobel did not discover the evidence that exonerated James Hicks (whose real name was James Dixon), and almost everything else the movie shows in the film about Strobel’s involvement in that case isn’t how it happened (indeed, Dixon was exonerated several years before Strobel began his Jesus investigation in 1980). So I’d take the movie more as fiction than fact.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/filmchat/2017/04/exclusive-case-christ-author-lee-strobel-facts-feelings-seeing-life-turned-movie.html

          Critics have long noted the Case for Christ book is sham journalism. The movie repeats the same sham. It uses movie tropes to make it seem like Strobel is doing a real journalistic investigation (like traveling to get interviews, making phonecalls, reading books, tying strings on a board linking little photographs or pieces of paper with notes on them). But actually what he does in the film would be rated so incompetent by any actual school of journalism they’d boot him from their degree program.

          Strobel says in the film that he interviewed “a dozen historians, philosophers, archaeologists” in his supposedly hard-nosed and critical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus. But not a single one of the people he interviewed was actually a skeptic, or critic of any kind. They all spew fundamentalist apologetics. In fact, all but one of them is a fundamentalist apologist. And even the sole expert he interviews who is claimed to be an agnostic in the movie, just mouths fundamentalist propaganda at him.

          Journalists are supposed to do at least two things in cases like this: tell their readers the biases of each source; and get and report a contrary expert view, if any mainstream example is available. That’s a basic part of fact-checking a source, and making sure to give a balanced report of both sides. Yet Strobel only talks to Christian apologists (and a possibly fictional agnostic who only spouts Christian apologetics). And he never fact-checks anything they ever tell him—as a real reporter would. Thus, the “reporting” that’s done in the film, as in the book, is fake. It’s sham journalism, dressed up to look like journalism, to trick you into thinking he actually did what professional journalists do. He didn’t. What he did was just cull propaganda to repeat in his book.

          An infamous example of this, in the book but not the film, is Strobel’s so easily being duped by John McCray’s false claim that Jerry Vardaman archaeologically proved the Gospels didn’t contradict each other on the year of Jesus’s birth (see Hitler Homer Bible Christ, by Richard Carrier. pp. 155-66). This is significant. Only someone already sold on Christianity would believe such an astonishing thing. Real journalists would check it out. And that fact-check would discover Vardaman was a nutcase, and his claims utterly bogus. Which would then reveal John McCray to be a wholly unreliable source. Because a real archaeologist would know Vardaman’s claims were bogus. See what happens when you apply a sound method to research? And what happens when, like Strobel, you don’t?

          An instructive analogy exists even in the movie itself. Strobel’s journalistic incompetence is on display in the side-story, where his shoddy methods get an innocent man (Hicks, i.e. Dixon) convicted of a crime—and eventually nearly killed in prison (which I’m not sure really happened; it’s never mentioned in Strobel’s subsequent reporting on the case). When the movie-Strobel visits the movie-Hicks in the hospital, Hicks chastises him. Strobel tells him (in the hospital), “I missed the evidence,” “I didn’t see it,” and Hicks says, “You didn’t want to see it.”

          Indeed. Consider what the movie depicted. Strobel gets a key piece of information from a single source (journalistic ethics usually require you to get two sources, which have to be independent of each other). That source had an obvious bias that tainted the reliability of their information, and Strobel not only knows that, his movie character is depicted manipulating that source’s bias to get him to tell Strobel what he wanted to hear! This is among the most unethical, irresponsible, and unreliable method of journalism I’ve ever seen (short of literally just making shit up). And yet, it’s exactly what he does in the entire Jesus investigation!

          That’s right. Lee Strobel makes the same mistake repeatedly in his investigation of the resurrection. The writers didn’t notice this. Because it tells exactly against the point they wanted to make, which is that Strobel “didn’t want to see” the evidence of the resurrection in the same way he “didn’t want to see” the evidence of Hicks’s innocence. But though this is supposed to mean he learned his lesson in the Hicks case (do better journalism: get more than one source, and seek unbiased or critical sources), he instead unlearns it, and accepts all the bad journalism he just did on the resurrection, where he committed all the same errors as he did with Hicks: he never gets more than one source for a fact or claim, he never seeks unbiased sources, he never seeks critical comment from a disagreeing expert source, he never considers the strongest alternative theories but only the weakest, and he just believes whatever his biased sources say without questioning it or checking it against actual primary evidence. And he never looks for what they are concealing from him.

          So his methods don’t work. He found Jesus, using the exact same doomed method that got him wrong on Hicks.

          //From personal testimony, the Lord has changed me and continues to make me new person.//

          Anecdotal.

          People have turned their lives around for many number of gods. Until you can prove yours is the real one, then spare me the warmy-cozy stories. I’ve already heard stories like these from Mormons to Scientologists.

          //I had a question not to long ago that was truly keeping me awake and the hardest question that has ever come to me, or I have ever heard. After much prayer, asking the Lord to give me an answer to my question. He woke me with the word to “Lean not on your own understanding”. That was just what I needed.//

          In other words, remain ignorant. The all-knowing god of the universe couldn’t give you an answer, except be lazy and dumb.

          //I will respond to one part of your reply above: “If you want to disprove my statements as being mere “opinions” then facts, please provide any contemporary historical evidence of the Jesus character. I won’t hold my breath.//

          First, “the writers of the New Testament wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information. Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:3, Acts 2:22, John 19:35, Acts 26:24-26 (from Josh McDowell’s Book – JMB – mentioned above).//

          Did you bother to check any of these?

          The author of Luke admits himself as an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness (Luke 1:1-4). If he was an eye-witness, why write in the third person? Why write only what other people saw instead of what he saw?

          2 Peter is a forgery. There is a class of books called by scholars pseudepigraphy (literally “false writing”) characterized by pseudonymity (“false name”) in which the author deliberately tries to present his writing as originating from someone else. 2 Peter is unanimously considered to be pseudonymous, with most scholars also lumping 1 Peter into the same category.

          John 1:3 is not an admission of being an eye-witness to anything, it’s a declaration crediting God for creating everything.

          Acts 2:22 says “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” This doesn’t say “Hey everyone, I saw this happen.” No, it’s a “everyone, listen to what I’ve heard that happened around here.”

          Acts 26:24-26 is about Paul saying that he’s not mad…. but he never saw Jesus. In his own admission, Paul says he saw a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. He didn’t see a flesh-and-blood Jesus, just a vision.

          Paul’s claim in 1 Corinthians that Jesus lastly appeared to him… but Paul doesn’t say exactly what he saw. So some decades after 1 Corinthians, the author of Acts tells us that Paul saw a light that blinded him and heard a voice (Acts 9:3-7, 22:6-9, 26:13-15) whereas in Acts 9:7 the men with Paul are said to hear the voice, but see no one: “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” In Acts 22:9 the claim is made that those accompanying Paul “saw the light, but did not hear the voice.” In Acts 26:13-14 Paul is quoted as saying that all those present saw the light, but mentions that he alone heard a voice. The light, it is claimed, blinds Paul. However, no one else but he is said to have been effected by the light. So what we have here is a contradiction among other witnesses, and a man (Paul) who had a seizure and heard a voice, but saw no form because he was blinded.

          In 1 Corinthians 12:5-8, the verb ophthe simply expresses Paul’s claim that Jesus “appeared” too them. The use of ophthe within the context of Paul’s statement is significant. Paul’s use of ophthe in expressing both his own visionary experience and those allegedly seen by the disciples is significant because his supposed encounters with the risen Jesus are never with a tangible form. In claiming the same experience for himself as experienced by the disciples, Paul is relating that “what was seen” by the disciples is also a visionary experience devoid of any physical component.

          In Acts 22:17-18 it is said that Paul “saw” (idein) Jesus while in a “trance” (ekstasei) in the Temple. The word ekstasei is a combination of stasis, “standing,” and ek, “out.” It suggests the idea of standing out of oneself, that is, the nature of a trance. In this description, Paul uses a different verb for seeing the apparition then he uses when describing the experiences of the disciples.

          For his and the disciples’ experience, Paul used the word ophthe (“appeared to“). Yet, when he described his vision while in a trance in the Temple he used the word idein (“saw“). “Have I not seen [heoraka] Jesus our Lord?” Paul asks rhetorically in 1 Corinthians 9:1.

          //These apostles lived with Jesus, they were eye witnesses to Him. “By secular I mean “pagan” – non-Christian, non-Jewish, an generally anti-Christian. Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the movement He birthed…. Cornelius Tactitus a Roman historian…. Lucian of Samosata//

          Here’s why those examples fail.

          Tacitus, the Roman historian’s birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a “Christus” in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus’ mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

          Lucian (circa 125 – 180 C.E.). A second-century satirist named Lucian wrote that the basis for the Christian sect was a “man who was crucified in Palestine,” but this is equally worthless as historical evidence. He is merely repeating what Christians believed in the second century. Lucian does not mention Jesus by name. This reference is too late to be considered historical evidence, and since Lucian did not consider himself a historian, neither should we.

          //He is real, as real as you and me and more so. He is God in the flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16)//

          Remember those class of books called pseudepigraphy by scholars? 1 Timothy is one of them.

          So when you quote a book that says Jesus is real and is God, you are literally quoting a liar.

          • FBrennan

            I see you have strong thoughts about what I mentioned and what you believe. I won’t get into an intellectual debate for these never produce much good. The bottom line is this, was Jesus a liar, lunatic or the Son of God. This is the real question to be asked. If Jesus is a liar and a lunatic – you need not be so angry – you are right – there is no God and you can just keep on living as you are, proclaiming your Godless Wolf to the world. However, if Jesus is the Son of God and He says “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father but by me.” John 14:6. Then you would be wise to repent (as anyone who truly believes in Christ has done – this takes humility) and put your faith in Him for He can and will save you from an eternity of being separated from Him and His presence forever. You have a lot at stake if you are wrong. I do not want to see you separated from Jesus for eternity, I would love to have you in heaven. I care about you and this is why I am taking time to talk with you.

            There is only one True God. Love this short quote from Ravi Zachariah: “Truth in itself is exclusive” There is only one truth and Jesus claimed to be it. For one to be really intelligent they must start from the best starting point – truth and build from there, otherwise they are on shaky ground. One can’t build a truthful foundation if they are not in Christ. Look at what evolution has done – built on sandy soil and it will come crashing down someday. There is no tangible evidence for this, but it is taught as facts, when is only a theory at best. Since billions of years can’t be observed and there is not one fossil record for a change of kinds – a cat into a dog, a monkey into a human, etc… this is not very scientific. Therefore, evolution shouldn’t be trusted, they are changing things all the time. Where as with God – He is never changing, we can always trust Him, His ways (even when they don’t make sense to us – us humans aren’t too smart, we can’t make a rose from nothing, or a dog from nothing – but God can. When one comes to know the Only true God, it is then their eyes are opened and they can see more clearly. God has His reasons for not giving me the answer I was wanting, and I totally trust Him in this. God is God and He always knows what is best for us. Think of it like this. You have a child that asks you how babies are born – well there is a age to tell them about this, but you don’t tell them when they are too young to process this. There is a time and place and sometimes the answer is not for us to know. I have not told my own children certain things about my past or present, they are just between me and God, or sometimes just between a friend our spouse. Not all things are to be shared with everyone for reasons only we and God know about. So if we on a small scale don’t share all things with everyone, why do we expect God to. He gives to us what we need to know and the rest is for Him to know. Either you will let God be God or you will choose something to be your God – you, your intellect, or someone else. No one is without a god in this world. We either will follow the true God or we will make one that fits our understanding: there are many gods many humans follow: t.v. gods, internet gods, family gods, food gods, work gods, etc….

            Your right in saying that many people have claimed to be changed by their religion – Hindu, Buddhist, the atheist. However, the difference between a true believers change and theirs is the relationship to the only One true God. Not of works. You ask the Hindu, Buddhist and I would be confident in them saying they have to do something to try to be good enough. This may make them feel they have more purpose because of their own goodness in getting to heaven. In Christianity – we can’t be good enough and are only saved and changed through a relationship with Christ, by repentance and faith.

            Blessings to you.

        • Clifford

          There can never exist a world advertised by religions and their holy books,a world where the is only good,love and peace ( a perfect) world,the issue is that while religions or god believers claim god gave us and advocates free will, they contradict themselves,because I’m heaven or New world there claim there will be only goodness and love and that god is only good and that therefore means that there will be no free will and the god himself does not have free will,so they with god will all be ignorant authomatons and no one in their right mind would accept this,so here lies the contradictions!
          JESUS LIED:in the bible it is written that a crowd as Jesus for a miracle and he said the would get none except the signs of noha,talking about is crucifixion and resurrection,sayin just as noha spend three days and three nights in the belly of the fish so would the son of men spend the same in the belly of the earth,the he would rise again,but if one follows from the crucifixion day when died to Sunday early morning,the statment above has not been fulfilled and therefore Jesus lied!

          • Mrs. Brennan

            Are you sure about that statement, “There can never exist a world …. where there is only good, love, and peace (a perfect world)”? You would have to be God to make such a claim, for only God knows all things. Have you ever loved anyone deeply? I hope so, for when you love someone you want to do the things that please them. You would surrender you will to do something that pleases them. All that will be with God in heaven will have surrendered their will to their Him and so our will, will be His will in eternity. Like the angels in heaven, they only do the Fathers will, for this is the love relationship they and we will have with Him. I know the more I know my Jesus, the more I grow in my love towards Him, the more I desire to do His will and do only those things that please Him. Not because I have to, because I desire to because I love Him so much and because how loving and awesome He is. God gives us this life to repent and put our faith in His Son, Jesus Christ and all who believe in them will have everlasting life. John 3:16.

            Jesus never lied – He was and is the perfect sacrifice. If you ever think Jesus lied, then you have to look at what false teachings you have been told, or what wrong thinking you may be entertaining. You can always trust Jesus, God the Holy Spirit, man you can not always trust. So if you are just listening to man and or your own understanding – you will be led astray for sure. We need Jesus living inside of us to understand the things of God. He will come into your life and change your thinking and understanding from earthly things to heavenly things if you ask Him to, He won’t force His way into your life and make you believe. Submission is the key, once you hand over your will to His will, He will give you the peace. love and understanding you long for. Can’t have one without the other. Faith in His Son is the key. Faith is not just believing, for the demons even believe and shudder. Faith is trust, and a turning from the world and a turning to Christ. I do pray that someday you will be turned from the “Godless Wolf” to “Filled with Jesus.”

            Jesus did rise from the dead and there were many witness who saw Jesus after He rose, over 500 witnesses. Jesus was three days in the tomb, after he was crucified and rose again and defeated death. Jonah was in the belly of the great fish (we assume it was a whale), it wasn’t Noah. I am not sure what so called Christians lied to you in your life time, but I hope you can forgive them of this sin and realize we are to follow Christ, not man. Man will fail you and you will fail them. Not that you can never trust humans, you can, but you have to remember that we are not God and do not always live perfectly.

            Praying for you and for your heart to be Christ’s.

            • TheGodlessWolf

              So in heaven you have no will of your own. That’s the secret to living happily in peace?

              If that is true, why give humans “will” in the first place? It logically means that God wanted humans to suffer, which logically means that God is not omnibenevolent.

              //Jesus never lied//

              Says who? Seriously.

              “Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” (Matthew 23:36) Plenty of generations have passed, and he hasn’t come back. And he never will. Mythical characters never do, England’s not expecting King Arthur to appear.

              Who says Jesus never lied? Biased believers who repeated that story via oral tradition, highlighting only the good but never mentioning the bad, until it was written down 45-50 years later by anonymous Greeks who based everything on hearsay. We have no records of Jesus himself or confirmation of what he said or didn’t say. To claim that a person “never lied” without any proof is the height of arrogance and wishful thinking.

              //Jesus did rise from the dead and there were many witness who saw Jesus after He rose, over 500 witnesses.//

              False.

              Ask yourself, who were these 500 people? Doesn’t it seem like an odd number? Why didn’t Paul name them; or tell us where they came from; or record their age; or where they’re from and where they went; or tell us anything of value. Either this is a great example of piss-poor journalism, or – and this is most likely – it’s a fake number used to bolster the mystery cult’s ranks, to give them more credibility on their mission to convert.

              When I was in college working toward my BA in History, I used to volunteer at the Museum of Tolerance twice a week. Half the time I would provide tours for the public, the other half working in the Library and Archives with Holocaust survivors. Before permitting anyone to provide tours, the Museum always dedicates about 3 to 4 months making sure we knew European history as well as how to engage people, essentially prepping us to be sure we knew how to answer as many questions presented to us by the public. During the lectures addressing the commonly asked question on “how did the Nazi party” gain momentum to win control of Germany, there are a lot of reasons on how this happened, but I recall a very interesting story. The Nazis were a fringe group of racist radicals, but they were small and insignificant. So what did the Nazis do to be taken more seriously? They boosted their own membership ranks by 500, and when new recruits signed up to join, they were given a number. Example, if Hanz signed up and was Member #576, in reality he was the 76th guy to join. Why do this? Because a group of at least 500 members is taken more seriously then a small group with a dozen members.

              “We have no evidence anyone said that there were not five hundred eyewitnesses,” first of all, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. No one has to disprove something that hasn’t been proved to begin with. Besides, how can the Corinthians verify Paul’s statement if he didn’t name any of them? Paul didn’t even name the time and place where these 500 witnesses were. Paul must have known it would be virtually impossible to disprove such a claim, considering the primitive means of communication of the age.

              Also consider, why is an incident of this magnitude not mentioned in any Gospel or the book of Acts? And how could there be five hundred men at this appearance when the book of Acts (1:15) tells us that there were only around 120 believers total at the time of Jesus’ ascension? Either Paul or Luke (or both) is wrong about these figures, but they can’t both be right.

              //Jonah was in the belly of the great fish (we assume it was a whale)//

              Another impossibility. There are only 2 types of whales (baleen that eat plankton, and toothed whales). It is impossible for a man to fit into the stomach of a baleen whale, the esophagus is only a few inches wide. Toothed whales have 4 chamber stomachs full of digestive enzymes. Even if a man made it past the teeth, and didn’t die from the enzymes, the fact there is no air in a whales stomach would have killed him. The longest held record for held breath is 24 minutes, yet the Bible’s fantasy story says Jonah lasted 3 days. Impossible and ridiculous.

              • Mrs. Brennan

                We will have a will in heaven, but our will, will want to do the will of God in heaven. One can’t understand this until they surrender their will to Him now. Once you do, you will understand this. As I mentioned before – if you have ever really loved some one or if some one really loved you – they would sacrifice their wants to do what you want or visa versa. Well if we who are mere men do that for those we love, imagine a perfect Father in heaven and how much more when He reveals Himself to you that you would want to surrender your will to do His will. For His will is only to do good for us, to love us, to have fellowship with us and to have us live eternally with Him. Where there will be no more pain, death, crying, etc…

                Jesus said he never lied and He can be trusted because He was born of a virgin (as prophesied about Him), died a death on a cross (as prophesied about Him), and rose again on the third day ( as prophesied about Him). Even secular scholars will agree that Jesus was real and that He died by crucifixion. The Bible gives eye witness accounts by above 500 people of Him alive after His crucifixion. So either Jesus is God, a lunatic or a liar. No one ever backed up a claim like Jesus. Any one can say they are the Christ – but only one rose from the dead and full-filled all the prophesies spoken about Him hundred of years earlier. No one in history has the proof in the Bible like Jesus. No book was ever written like the Bible – even some secular scholars know the bible is unique. The Bible was no written by man (their thoughts), it was written by man who was carried along by the Holy Spirit – that is why the Bible is still so powerful today. It is living and active – not some dead book. Hebrews 6:18: “So that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.” If God can not lie, then Christ also can not lie – for Jesus said He only does those things that the Father shows me. There are other places in scripture to about the truth worthiness of Christ. Only one lived in moral perfection – in thought, word and deed and that was Jesus. I will never be able to convince you of this no matter what I say, but if you ever bow your knee to Jesus, you will understand what I have been trying to share with you about this. Is interesting you will put your trust in other history books written, but not the Bible that was also written – there was oral tradition, but also the written word. All history books are based on written information and was initially oral as well until papyrus was invented or other methods of recording. What makes the Bible so special is that is was written by 40 authors over a few continents, in three different languages, 66 books in all. However, they all flow together beautifully and prophecies are still coming true today. There is no other text than even comes close to the Bible.

                Regarding the over 500 who saw Jesus after He rose in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is a different in context than those who were with Peter in Act 1:15. The 500 were those who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead, the ones that were with Peter were 120. This doesn’t mean that that there were not more believers than 120. More saw Jesus after His resurrection – but only 120 were with Peter in the upper room. Bible must be read in context.

                Regarding Jonah – the point is this was a miracle for Jonah to be in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights. Under other circumstances this couldn’t happen – your right – it would be impossible. Don’t forget the God of the Bible is the God of the impossible. What is impossible with man, is possible with God. The Lord was protecting him. People have survived amazing odds in this life and you can bet God had His hand in those peoples stories as well.

                • TheGodlessWolf

                  //We will have a will in heaven, but our will, will want to do the will of God in heaven.//

                  So basically heaven is a celestial North Korea.

                  //they would sacrifice their wants to do what you want or visa versa. Well if we who are mere men do that for those we love, imagine a perfect Father in heaven//

                  Except it doesn’t go both ways, does it. As you’ve already noted, our will be damned, everything is God’s way or the highway. That’s not a relationship, that’s a dictatorship. All hail Yahweh Jong-Un.

                  If there was an “loving entity” with the “divine traits” you credit to God, then God is an immoral monster and “love” has no meaning anymore. If you are a parent, would you leave your toddler alone in a room with a large open canister full of rat poison? Wouldn’t you, as a responsible parent, remove the canister and/or place it elsewhere where your child couldn’t reach it? If you knew something was dangerous to your kids, why place it within reaching distance and leave it so accessible? A parent can easily move the canister into a locked garage. (and if you happen to be a god, why place a cursed tree in the same garden as your creations? Wouldn’t it be smarter to place the cursed tree on a far away island, or on freaking Mars?! Seriously, did I just out-smart God? And it gets worse, God put an angel with a fire sword to guard the Tree of Life, but he didn’t have the smarts to station an angel to guard the other tree? The only logical conclusion from this mess of a fiction story is that God WANTED humans to sin and suffer — that’s not “love” that is malevolence and sadism)

                  //Jesus said he never lied and He can be trusted…//

                  Because you take a anonymous non-eyewitnesses word for it? We have no original words by Jesus, ergo there is no way to say with certainty what Jesus said (assuming he is historical).

                  //…because He was born of a virgin (as prophesied about Him)//

                  There is no prophecy of a virgin birth. Luke and Matthew mistook parts of Isaiah, and inserted that mistake into their faith. Isaiah never claimed that the Messiah would come of a virgin birth. The Greek-speaking authors of the Gospels translating the Hebrew scripture slipped up and translated ‘almah’ (young woman) [המלע] into the Greek ‘parthenos’ (virgin). The Hebrew word for virgin would have been ‘betulah.’

                  This “virgin birth” story clearly indicates that the Greek-speaking authors of the Gospels, while educated, didn’t fully understand Judaism. Why? Because the “virgin birth” is not a criteria for becoming the Messiah. Rather, the “virgin birth” story shoots Jesus’ credibility in the foot (which isn’t so bad considering the bullet would go through the hole in Jesus’ foot. Waka-waka!) The reason why is because the Scriptures make it clear that the Messiah is to be a descendant of King David AND King Solomon, and genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18). So when Jesus claims that he did not have a birth father (Matt. 1:18-20) he admits that he has broken the male-to-son genealogy that could link him to David and Solomon. Christian apologists try to claim that Mary connects Jesus to David, but this approach completely ignores the fact that tribal affiliation is patrilineal. Even if we let that slide, there’s another problem. The genealogy from Luke does not include Solomon. Matthew does mention Solomon, but also says Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah… whose descendants have forever been disqualified as kings of Israel (Jeremiah 22:24). However you want to slice it, Jesus failed the requirements to be the messiah. These are some of the many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the messiah (as they should! As we all should).

                  //died a death on a cross (as prophesied about Him), and rose again on the third day (as prophesied about Him).//

                  Wrong both times. According to the Tanakh, all the criteria must be fulfilled, emphasis on the ALL, to become the Jewish Messiah.

                  1) In Gathering the Jewish Exiles: The Messiah will reign as the Jewish King of Israel and gather all the Jews around the world to Israel. (Duet. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 30:3, 30:27; Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24) But Jesus never reigned as King, nor did he bring all the Jews to Israel.

                  2) Rebuilding the Holy Temple in Jerusalem:(Isaiah 2:2-3, 56:5-7, 60:7, 66:20; Ezekiel 37:26-27; Malachi 3:4; Zechariah 14:20-21) The Temple was sill standing in Jesus’ day, and destroyed 38 years after his alleged) death by crucifixion, and the temple has not yet been rebuilt.

                  3) Worldwide Reign of Peace and end of all war (Micah 4:1-4; Hosea 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18) yet since the creation of Christianity, wars have increased. Some fought in the name of Jesus.

                  4) Embracing of Torah Observance by all Jews: the Messiah will reign as King at a time when all the Jewish people will embrace the Torah and observe God’s commandments. (Ezekiel 37:24; Deuteronomy 30:8, 10; Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26-27) But not all Jews follow the Torah or the Commandments.

                  5) Universal Knowledge of God: The Messiah will rule during a time when all the people of the world will come to knowledge and serve the “one true God” of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Zechariah 3:9, 8:23, 14:9,16; Isaiah 45:23, 66:23; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 38:23; Psalm 86:9; Zephaniah 3:9) This has not taken place.

                  6) From the Tribe of Judah and a Direct Descendant of King David and Solomon: (Genesis 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10). Genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18) and there is no evidence that Jesus had this pedigree. The Christian New Testament actually claims that Jesus did not have a birth father (Matthew 1:18-20) from the Tribe of Judah descending from David and Solomon.

                  All this criteria are found in numerous places in the Jewish Bible. Anyone can claim to be the Messiah, or any group of people can claim that a person is the Messiah. However, if that person fails to meet all the criteria found in the Torah, then he simply cannot be the Messiah. Missionaries and apologists argue that Jesus will fulfill these requirements when Jesus returns during the Second Coming in the future. It is important to understand that this doctrine of a Second Coming is an admission that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic criteria. This rationalization for his failure provides no reason for accepting him as the Messiah today. Furthermore, the Torah does not have a Messianic installment plan where the Messiah comes, fails in his mission, and then returns thousands of years later to finally succeed.

                  Missionaries and apologists will claim that Jesus’ performed miracles which indicate that he was the son of God and therefore the Messiah. However we have no real evidence that Jesus performed any miracle. More significantly, even if Jesus did perform miracles, they would not prove that he was the Messiah. The Torah does not say that the Messiah will be recognized for performing miracles, the Torah actually teaches (Duet. 13:2-6) that false prophets can have the ability to perform supernatural miracles.

                  //So either Jesus is God, a lunatic or a liar.//

                  There is a Fourth option: Legend.

                  //If God can not lie…//

                  2 Thessalonians 2:11 says that even God can deliberately make people believe in delusions. So by your logic, your Jesus can make you believe in a delusion (how would you know if that hasn’t already happened?)

                  And it gets better…..

                  Galatians 1:8 – Even angels can preach a false gospel.

                  2 Corinthians 11:14 claims that even Satan can appear as an angel of light.

                  Paul says even angels can preach another gospel. So even angels can’t tell who the messiah is? How bizarre is that. So who can you believe? A demon can trick you into believing it’s an angel, and even if it’s a genuine angel from upstairs it can still make you believe a lie. Even if you receive a direct signal from the big kahuna himself, it could be a false delusion. He is so powerful, how could you tell if you were being deceived?

                  //Only one lived in moral perfection – in thought, word and deed and that was Jesus.//

                  Luke 12:47,48, Jesus said: “And that servant [Greek doulos = slave] which knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did not commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves! Is this an example of moral superiority?

                  Why, just why is Jesus considered a model to live by? The core of his message is if anyone doesn’t love him and believe in him, they will be tortured forever in a lake of fire? How is anything but insane and cruelest thing imaginable?

                  Jesus is basically the adult version of Anthony Fremont, the creepy kid from the Twilight zone. If you have never seen that show, there was a little boy who had the powers of God. If he didn’t like something you said or THOUGHT, he would either turn you into macabre monstrosity, kill you in some unthinkable fashion, sentence you to a living nightmare that never ends, or banish you to the corn field (an implicitly oblivious place which was never adequately described in the story.

                  // Is interesting you will put your trust in other history books written….What makes the Bible so special is that is was written by 40 authors over a few continents, in three different languages, 66 books in all.//

                  “Special” is not synonymous with accurate or honest. A close inspection of the Bible shows exactly that. Biblical scholar Randel Helms, in his book The Bible Against Itself, argues that “[t]he Bible is a war zone, and its authors are the combatants.” Besides the numerous contradictions, mistranslations, and discrepancies, it gets worse than that. There is a class of books called by scholars pseudepigraphy (literally “false writing”) characterized by pseudonymity (“false name”) in which the author deliberately tries to present his writing as originating from someone else. To answer your question, yes psuedopigraphies are forgeries, and historically psuedopigraphies were not trusted sources. In the NT, the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians) are considered by a vast majority of critical scholars not to have been written by Paul. 2 Peter is unanimously considered to be pseudonymous, with most scholars also lumping 1 Peter into the same category.

                  //The 500 were those who saw Jesus after He rose from the dead, the ones that were with Peter were 120. This doesn’t mean that that there were not more believers than 120. More saw Jesus after His resurrection – but only 120 were with Peter in the upper room. Bible must be read in context.//

                  You’re entirely missing the point: where is the evidence that these 100 – 500 or however many “witnesses” are even real??? Where is the evidence that shows that they are not just numbers on paper?

                  //Regarding Jonah…the God of the Bible is the God of the impossible.//

                  So to account for the impossibility, your answer is MAGIC.

                  Question: is it possible for God to create a being greater than God himself?

                  • Mrs. Brennan

                    In North Korea, they have no choice. In heaven our choice will want to do what He wants because of love, because we will want to – not because we have to. Big difference.

                    1 Corinthians says, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This shows that no one will be able to receive the things of God in the natural man until they come to know Him as Lord and Savior.

                    Love does go both ways – for God is only good and just in everything He does. We all want a good father in our lives on earth, but not everyone got a good father. Our Heavenly Father is always good and does what is right always. Will we always understand His ways, No. No child understands why their parents do the things they do, or don’t want us to do certain things. But any good parent will give their kids freedom to choose and with that freedom the kids will at times walk away from what their parents desire for them and get hurt. Same with God in the garden. He didn’t set up the Garden of Eden for man to sin. He set up the Garden of Eden for us to live and to live in communion with God. God had to give man a choice to sin, God did not want man to sin. To have true love – one has to be able to choose. So Adam and Eve’s choice was to choose to listen to their dad (God) or choose to sin and reap the consequences. God could see what their choice would be, so he made a way to save man kind, but He certainly didn’t create them to sin. We as humans blame God for things He never did or intended, it was our problem, not His. We certainly would move the poison if our child was in the room and any good parent would do so. However, this is different than the choice in the garden. If God did not give Adam and Eve and choice to love Him, then there is really no relationship – it would be a North Korea dictator. Love can only be love when you have a choice. That is what God did in the garden, gave them a choice.

                    Again, I don’t want to get into a long debate. The bottom line is Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

                    I would ask you to cry out to Jesus to reveal Himself to you, He is real, He is God, He is loving and good. I can only tell you from my life this is true. I have known the Lord all my life, but surrendered my will to Him in 10th grade, I am now 50 y.o. and I can say there is NO ONE GREATER than HE is.

                    I was a thief, liar, adulterer at heart, a murderer (hated someone once – God does say hatred is murder in His eyes), disobeyed my parents, had idols, broke every commandment. When I surrendered my will, I was broken, and he changed my heart, gave me eyes to see, ears to hear. Once you do that as well – He promises to make you new and will give you ears to hear and eyes to see. You can’t have one with out the other.

                    Love in Him and prayers

                    • TheGodlessWolf

                      //In North Korea, they have no choice. In heaven our choice will want to do what He wants because of love, because we will want to//

                      And if not, you get kicked out like a fallen angel… that’s not a choice, that’s an ultimatum. Complying with the will of a criminal with a gun pointed to your head is not “love” it’s survival. Kiss ass or burn forever!

                      //Love does go both ways – for God is only good and just in everything He does.//

                      Tell that to the child being raped by a priest in God’s House. Either God sent the rapist as part of his “Plan”, or he didn’t but does nothing and watches it happen. (Oh and that rapist will be forgiven by God later on when asked for forgiveness)

                      Tell that to the child that God tortured for 7 days before killing it. (2 Samuel 7)

                      Tell that to the 50,000 God killed for the crimes of 5 people. In I Samuel 6, the ark of the Lord was being transported across country and five farmers of Bethshemesh “rejoiced to see it.” They opened the box and made a burnt offering to the Lord, and for this terrible sin God “smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the Lord had smitten many of the people with great slaughter.” Is it moral to kill 50,000 people for a petty offense? Is it moral to punish 50,000 people (who weren’t even there or had any idea what was going on) for the crimes of 5 farmers? Is that justice? (And exactly what was the crime? These men were trying to worship this very god, in their own way. Wouldn’t a God of mercy understand their innocent mistake? What if one of your children gave you a birthday card with the words “Daddy/Mommy, I luv you” and you punish them for spelling the word wrong?)

                      //But any good parent will give their kids freedom to choose and with that freedom the kids will at times walk away from what their parents desire for them and get hurt.//

                      But any good “loving” parent steps in to save their child. Every. Singe. Time. If you want kids to have free will, do you as a parent bear responsibility protecting your children? Or is a parent completely absolved the moment they are born? When is it acceptable for a parent to say “when my child reaches the age of X, they are no longer my problem therefore I bear no responsibility of protecting them”? Or does a good parent never stop protecting their child regardless how old they are?

                      If a child “freely chooses” to wonder off toward the edge of a cliff, do you as a parent (who has the ability to help them) run over and save them, or do you do nothing and let them fall off the deep end? If a parent fails to act to save their children from a easily preventable death, wouldn’t that make them a terrible failure of a parent?

                      //so he made a way to save man kind, but He certainly didn’t create them to sin. We as humans blame God for things He never did or intended//

                      If he wanted to save humankind, why not have Jesus appear right after Adam and Eve sinned? When a scorpion poisons a child, does a good parent wait for the poison to spread and spread and spread before taking action, or do they try to save their child right there and now?

                      As for intention of the God character, think it through!

                      Given the option of “free choice + suffering” or “no free choice + no suffering,” when I was a Christian I could see the appeal of option 1. I later realized that I had fallen for a false dichotomy. The presentation of two alternatives as the only alternatives when in fact other exist. The clue that this was a false dichotomy was staring me in the face, all be it in a non-physical way. It was Yahweh!!! (And this demonstrates another parallel with abusive human relationships, in that we spend so much time absolutely focused on these celestial dictators, and yet not seeing them at all.) Here was supposedly a being that enjoyed the option “total free choice + no suffering.” Totally free choice with full knowledge of good and evil, but experienced no suffering. It was impossible to harm this being, in so doing would diminish it’s greatness in some way, violating it’s divine incorruptibility. So free choice and suffering were never inevitably paired. You didn’t have to either accept both or reject both, not if you were incorruptible. So why weren’t we created in this incorruptible image? Why are we down here in these bizarre fragile bodies being infected, beaten, starved, raped, tortured and murdered while this supposed Creator enjoyed free choice devoid of all suffering?

                      Circling back to the fiction story Genesis, this “perfect” being creates an imperfect world. He puts a cursed tree in the midst of his favorite creations, and he does not install a sense of “right or wrong” in humans to be aware of their actions and consequences. (It’s like leaving a open canister of rat poison in a toddlers room. It’s completely irresponsible). The lack of sense of “right and wrong” is evident in Biblical theology, considering that Adam and Eve finally obtained this knowledge after eating from the Tree of Knowledge. If you are a parent, do you at least protect your child from predators? (like the type that tempts your child to disobey your rules or trick them into eating poison? God made an angel guard the Tree of Life, why not the Tree of Knowledge?) And if you do have the responsibility to protect your child and but do nothing, what does that say about you?

                      If you are a parent, wouldn’t it be wise to at least give your child the tools to protect themselves from harm and evil before it strikes? (and if you are all-knowing and know what form evil takes, then you ought to know what to tell your child to guard themselves from, how to identify it, familiarize them with evil’s tactics so they will know how to protect themselves) For example, if you know snakes are dangerous, you can tell your kids what they are, what they look like and how to avoid them. Parents warn their children to avoid suspicious strangers who offer them rides or candy, and to contact the authorities. How easy would it be to tell your children how to identify and avoid a suspicious stranger when you yourself created the suspicious stranger in the form of a talking snake?

                      Then God deliberately creates the serpent in Gen. 3, and being an omnipresent God he knew where the snake was and what it was doing, and that whole time did not step in to interfere. A good parent does not sit back and watch a predator approach their child. A good judge does not punish people for falling prey to Entrapment (being tricked into a crime).

                      I’ve heard Christians claim that in the Garden of Eden that there was no bad things like disease because Eden was proclaimed to be “good”….. so why then where humans created with immune systems? The only reason is that there were diseases in Eden, OR God knew well in advance that his creations would fall. So either “good” means sickness and suffering, or God intended humans to suffer from the beginning.

                      Face it, graded on a curve, most humans are far morally superior than God. We can spot a bad parent when we see one (that’s why Child Services is a thing), and those who can’t see the awful “parent” the God-character of the Bible is has been completely hoodwinked.

                      //I was a thief, liar, adulterer at heart, a murderer (hated someone once – God does say hatred is murder in His eyes)//

                      That last one right there is an example of THOUGHT CRIME. Congratulations, you are living in North Korea without realizing it.

                      And for the record, Mary was married to Joseph… but she had God’s child while married to another man. That literally makes the holy mother a adulterer and Jesus a bastard. Yet adultery is a bad thing? Is up down and down up in God’s world?

                      Up must be down in God-Land, considering that if lying is bad, why does God do it? (re-read those examples I provided earlier). The biblical prostitute Rahab was considered virtuous because she lied to protect Israelite spies. While she directly and consciously lied to the authorities, James says she was “righteous” (James 2:25) In Gen. 12 Abraham lied to the Pharaoh about his sister Sara, yet God punishes Pharaoh and rewards Abraham the Liar by making him rich.

                      As for stealing, once again up is down in God-Land. Jesus himself is fine with stealing. In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village (perhaps Bethany) and locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it. Otherwise, they were simply to steal the colt without paying for it or obtaining permission. Thus, Jesus would be guilty of thievery.

                      //…had idols, broke every commandment.//

                      So you admit the Old Testament Mosaic law still applies? Well, considering in Acts 15 the apostles tell a town of Gentiles in order to be a Christian, they are commanded to stop eating meat of strangled as wall as sacrificial animals. Those are not “Moral laws” those are Dietary laws of Mosaic law. So if you are concerned with the Moral laws but not with the Dietary laws (esp. since Acts 15 says you should be), that’s hypocritical.

  • TheGodlessWolf

    //I won’t get into an intellectual debate for these never produce much good.//

    Only the willfully ignorant would say such a thing. Reading this one line you wrote sickens me.

    //The bottom line is this, was Jesus a liar, lunatic or the Son of God.//

    If you lifted your head out of C.S. Lewis books, you’d be aware there is a fourth option: Legend.

    The options “Liar, Lunatic or Lord” all assume there was a Jesus to begin with, but if you have been paying any attention to our exchanges so far, I doubt there was a Jesus. So approaching me with three options that only make sense if he was a real person reveals that you’re not bothering to address square one of the issue: proving the historicity of Jesus. Do that, then we can move on to discuss the three or more other options.

    //I care about you and this is why I am taking time to talk with you.//

    Opting out of having an intellectual debate with me isn’t a sign of caring or respect. Rather, it’s a great offense. I’m still here, still steaming forward with the goal of continuing an intellectual debate, but when you say you won’t anymore, you basically only want to preach at me. If you cannot provide proof and reason for your beliefs, then what good is it?

    //There is only one truth and Jesus claimed to be it….One can’t build a truthful foundation if they are not in Christ.//

    1) Given the lack of any historical proof of Jesus, building a foundation of “truth” on a legend is just as nonsensical as building a foundation of truth on Santa Claus.

    2 Claiming to be the “truth” doesn’t make it true. Mohammad claimed to be the last true prophet, but that doesn’t mean that he is. Just because a book says that God brought Jesus back from the dead doesn’t mean Jesus is “truth,” otherwise we would be worshiping Lazarus when God rose him from the dead.

    Jesus certainly wasn’t “truth” considering he failed as the Messiah. There is a reason Jews don’t accept Jesus, and they are all good reasons. The Scriptures make it clear that the Messiah is to be a descendant of King David AND King Solomon, and genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18). So when Jesus claims that he did not have a birth father (Matt. 1:18-20) he admits that he has broken the male-to-son genealogy that could link him to David and Solomon. Christian apologists try to claim that Mary connects Jesus to David, but this approach completely ignores the fact that tribal affiliation is patrilineal. Even if we let that slide, there’s another problem. The genealogy from Luke does not include Solomon. Matthew does mention Solomon, but also says Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah… whose descendants have forever been disqualified as kings of Israel (Jeremiah 22:24). However you want to slice it, Jesus failed the requirements to be the messiah. These are some of the many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the messiah (as they should! As we all should).

    //Look at what evolution has done – built on sandy soil and it will come crashing down someday. There is no tangible evidence for this, but it is taught as facts, when is only a theory at best.//

    It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity does increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics.

    It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

    It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in the scientific literature and in practical application.

    It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backwards over many generations.

    It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

    It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development as well a chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geological column.

    It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to it’s strictest definition of that term.

    It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and document dozens of time both in the lab and in national controlled conditions in the field, and that instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review.

    It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidential support or scientific validity and no would be alternative notion has ever met even one of the criteria of being a theory.

    Evolution is a fact!

    Despite the fact that creationists will lie about everything in this list, these are the FACTS of evolution, meaning of each of these points are demonstrably true and measurably accurate, thus it is a matter of knowledge rather than mere belief.

    //Since billions of years can’t be observed//

    I seriously doubt that you are a teacher. At best, you’re more likely a parent teaching your kid(s) at home, or a kindergarten teacher.

    Did you know that it takes Pluto 280 years to make a complete orbit around the sun? Given the length of time, no human has ever seen a complete orbit of Pluto, ever since Pluto’s discovery. So how do we know that Pluto makes a complete orbit in 280 years? Astrophysics and planetary motion laws dictate the speed and orbit of all the planets in the solar system, and we use this to predict and prove where the planets will be in the sky on any given day. This is how NASA is able to accurately send satellites to other planets with high precision instead of just shooting them off randomly into space.

    How do we know that the Earth is billions of years old? In my experience, Christians who doubt the age of the Earth and the theory of evolution typically are young-earth creationists. So, let me show you why the Earth cannot be young and must be old, very very old.

    In SI units, we measure radioactivity in Becquerels (Bq), named after the guy who discovered radioactivity. One Bq is equal to one release of radioactive nucleon per second.

    According to the Physics Department of the University of Idaho, the kilogram of Uranium 238 releases on average 25 B1. And the fifth edition of the McGraw Hills Science and Technology Encyclopedia calculates that the Earth’s crust contains ~1.0001 x 10^17 kgs of Uranium 238. That means that the total amount of radioactive nucleotide output on Earth is accounted for Uranium 238 is about 1.2 x 10^18 Bq.

    Now, the decay rate of an isotope is linearly related to both it’s age and parent-daughter parameter. The parent-daughter parameter is will vary with each individual sample, but the average decay rate will not. So the age of the Earth should correspond to the decay rate of Radiometric Decay Constant.

    Since Creationists Model stipulates that the age of the Earth is 760,000 less than it’s measured age (4,560,000,000 years divided by 6,000 years = ~760,000), therefore the decay rate for the Creationists Model must average 760,000 times it’s ACTUAL decay rate, or about 9.1 x 10^6 Bq/kg. That means that the flux of Earth’s radioactivity due to Uranium 238 alone (when you add in the total amount of Ur on Earth’s crust) should be a total of 9.1 x 10^23 Bq, or an average of about 4.6 x 10^15 Bq PER SQUARE MILE everywhere on the planet!

    To put that into perspective, the Fukashima nuclear disaster is estimated to have released a total of about 5.4 x 10^14 Bq. That means in order for the Creationists Model to work, the planet must have released a total of 8.6 times more radiation than Fukashima did in total, EVERY square mile on the planet, EVERY second for the past 6,000 years.

    AND THAT IS BEING GENEROUS.

    We haven’t even calculated the radioactivity of every other isotope and added them all up, nor did I take into account that there was more Uranium 238 (and therefore more radioactivity) in the past.

    So, since we do not and have never experience such a overwhelmingly vast amount of radioactive decay rate, we can be confident that the Earth is definitely not 6,000 years old.

    // and there is not one fossil record for a change of kinds – a cat into a dog, a monkey into a human, etc… this is not very scientific.//

    We have fossils for all of these. Even if we didn’t have any fossils, we can still prove common descent with phylogenetics and taxonomy. If the bodies of your great-grandparents were never discovered, does that mean that you never had great-grandparents? Of course not. You can still trace your ancestry back in many other ways. For instance, you mentioned cats and dogs. Want to see the common ancestry of cats and dogs, look here:

    https://watermark.silverchair.com/54-2-317.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAa4wggGqBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggGbMIIBlwIBADCCAZAGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMLMdc_XWFOf-zg417AgEQgIIBYU-wAmJHwM_AkBxMPKelWnYXgVIcKKzeWOCtgc1zTRd_Hhpzk5Db_y0aT_rQu0mqMWKxNYjwOmsqF3gKzjgwvnz7aW7zKvrrYkG37CuYopqRoVDBOlSeFDVGOmIed-WEsvzStMAnEZRSwL6AD_O_kLfNCKsMz2Zk_oqct_H-iGKVKGwufHGy1ucKxYUFGIhsvwyV0y5ryYsM6tmPUCvAfBxZimO3fNnFY35Qyk8dmE5vAllPIaHsi0-7yJNJ7SyqpStfDT3lq000v7OXRBu-SrGdZ62Xc-O3w1er83BhB4O9DSMJMQpEaUvCfk0PwOd-OhFdxhcccv5klDXxEkvnbZdtM_EAHaz6B4RAKJffsGDga_RDi7kbEA0F8np2IEtpqMRYCgCDwQ6oHGG8g9SD1U_XEUtRoDH4X8ucLLIuZy_nh9ntBQ4ZHRCNOFSdYkwZwWo2MXBwOpXS2cqucbY9glXL

    As for fossils between humans and apes, there are no more gaps. First, it was never supposed that we evolved from any ape species still alive today. Instead the theory held that chimpanzees and humans were sibling species, daughters of the same mother. So the first link we needed to find was an ancient ape apparently basal to either of us –to prove there was a potential progenitor of both groups. We had already found that link in Europe five years before Darwin went public. So we already had an evident “chain” of transitional species from which only one more “link” was needed.

    The theory then required that another extinct hominid be found in strata chronologically between the Miocene Dryopithecus fontana and the earliest known human species, which from 1891 to 1961, was Homo erectus. We’ve found lots of candidates, as many as fifty species of apes which are now all extinct. But more than that, the theory also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.

    But worse than that, we didn’t just find that one. In 1977, three years after we discovered the no-longer-missing link in the human evolutionary lineage, Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould mentioned an “extreme rarity” of other clear transitions persistent in the fossil record ‘til that time, and his comment, -taken out of context- remains a favorite of creationist quote-miners to this day. But in the more than 30 years since then, there has been a paleontological boon such that we now have way more transitional species in many more lineages than we ever needed or hoped for.

    Now the problem for evolution is that there are too many contenders, while a compounding problem for creationists is that not even one of them should exist if their story was true. And yet they do –by the bushelful! Despite their complaints to the contrary, the intermediate gradations in the human evolutionary line are now so fine that paleoanthropologists can’t agree whether they’re all different species or merely mildly modified varieties of the same ones, such that there are no more links needed for human evolution anymore.

    But creationists still say we’ve never found anything that was “half-ape and half-human”. Adhering always to black or white absolutes, and being thus unwilling to admit any degree of variance other than 100% or zero, they make sure to divide every find into one of two boxes even when they can’t make up their minds which side of that imaginary partition each one belongs to.

    Demanding an “ape-man” is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. How about a half dachshund, half dog? It’s the same thing. One may as well insist on seeing a town half way between Los Angeles and California. Because the problem with bridging the gap between humans and apes is that there is no gap because humans ARE apes –definitely and definitively. The word, “ape” doesn’t refer to a species, but to a parent category of collective species, and we’re included. This is no arbitrary classification like the creationists use. It was first determined via meticulous physical analysis by Christian scientists a century before Darwin, and has been confirmed in recent years with new revelations in genetics. Furthermore, it is impossible to define all the characters exclusively indicative of every known member of the family of apes without describing our own genera as one among them. Consequently, we can and have proven that humans are apes in exactly the same way that lions are cats, and iguanas are lizards, and whales are mammals. So where is the proof that humans descend from apes? How about the fact that we’re still apes right now!

    //Therefore, evolution shouldn’t be trusted, they are changing things all the time.//

    Evolution is a fact. The only thing that “changes” is basic updates to gaps in our knowledge. Nothing since Darwin’s time has shown anything that discredits his work. Instead, all new discoveries make it stronger. For instance, Darwin did not know anything about genetics, but when Gregor Menndel did it strengthened Darwin’s theory then ever before. So in a sense, Darwin’s theory “changed” only in the sense that it grows stronger. All the discoveries in all relevant fields from biogeography to zoology point to the theory of evolution. There are even biological laws of evolution: Mayr’s Law of Monophyly. Evo Devo. Principle of Gradualism. Gould’s Law of Evolutionary Economics. Punctuated Equilibrium. Natural Selection. Darwin’s 3rd Law of Biodiversity. Dollo’s Law of Irreversibility.

    //we can’t make a rose from nothing, or a dog from nothing – but God can. //

    We’ve seen Speciation (macroevolution) occur in nature and in the lab.

    Name one instance we’re we’ve seen, let alone proven, that a dog was created from nothing by a god.

    Because without any instances of the later, Darwin is winning in the arena of truth.

    //When one comes to know the Only true God, it is then their eyes are opened and they can see more clearly.//

    If that was true, why are you so blind to scientific proven facts? While claiming to “see more clearly” yet remain so willfully ignorant only demonstrates even more reason to reject theism. Creationists like you just don’t get it: you are pushing people away from the faith every time you lie. If you have t

    • FBrennan

      I don’t join into these intellectual debates for mainly one reason, no matter what I could prove to you, you would just keep finding new things and there just would never be an end. I have had these same kinds of debates with a brother of mine who is a lot like you (he gives me dates, people, events, eloquent words), except he believes in God, but has twisted scriptures to basically start his own new theology. So, it may not be the one true God he is following, but he knows there is a God. Good place to start. I have talked with my brother for over two years doing exactly what you claim you want to do and it has gotten us no where. Though I have grown closer to the Lord and understand scripture more now than before, so that is the only good thing that seems to have come from that. I do care about you and yes am a home school mom, teacher, office manager at our office, and I love Jesus – have since a little child. Though is wasn’t until 10th grade that I surrender my will to follow His will. He has changed my life and can change yours as well. He is as real as me and you and He desires to have a relationship with you. I don’t know what sent you down this road, but hope you’ll be open enough to consider your wrong here in denying there is no God and evolution is fact. There is so much more to prove God’s existence than in evolution. For one when you see a painting you know there is a painter, if you see a building you know there was a builder, for intelligent designs don’t make themselves, when you see Creation you know there must be a Creator, for there is perfect order in everything. Big Bang would have caused chaos, like every big bang does, never would that cause perfect order or everything we see today. God created us unique and special from any other creature He created. We have brains to think, reason, feel, design and so much more. No other creature comes close. We can teach animals to do things, but they wouldn’t go outside the bounds that they were created for naturally with out humans intervention. They are only instinctual, we are so much more than that!

      Jesus was a real person and if you study the life of Christ you can find that, it would be too much for me to go into, but the evidence is out there. “Thomas Paine, who held Christianity in utter contempt, did not question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.” Josh McDowell. The New Testament books – 27 of them verify and often assume the historicity of Jesus Christ. These books are historically reliable. John Montgomery unequivocally states that the historian can know first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Jesus. I can personally attest that Jesus is real, but I know you don’t just want to take my word for it. I personally know Him and you can too, but you’ll have to humble yourself and say “Lord if you are real, show yourself to me, help me with my unbelief.” If you seek Him with a humble, seeking heart, He promises to show Himself to you. This certainly would be a great place to start. God resists the proud, but is close to the humble.

      Could you please watch this for me regarding evolution (is about 38:26 minutes long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

      Check this out too. Some of the prophecies fulfilled in the Bible – No other book in History compares to the accuracy in the Scriptures. Some 40 different different authors, from different area’s, yet the Bible is beautifully woven together – if one has eyes to see. Us humans can’t get many things right, so a book of this amazing quality could only be inspired by God (and it was) and can be trusted: https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v6/n2/fulfilled-messianic-prophecies.pdf

      Sorry if you have some how been injured by some so called Christian, or some church that just took your money. These give true Christianity a bad name. There are too many false “Christians” in the world, basically every calls themself a Christian it seems, when many times they are not and don’t know what it means to be a follower of Christ.

      Thank you and I am praying for you that you would no longer be the Godless Wolf, but a follower of Jesus!

      • TheGodlessWolf

        //I don’t join into these intellectual debates for mainly one reason, no matter what I could prove to you, you would just keep finding new things and there just would never be an end.//

        You’re obviously not a reader of my blogs. Perhaps you would have seen my blog and references when I did change my mind of at least 5 crucial issues – I even wrote a blog about the times I changed my mind, including why and how it was done. And spoiler alert, each time my mind was changed it was done so with reason and proofs. So if you think you can’t change my mind on this topic or any topic, you’re simply mistaken. (Perhaps that is because you are projecting your own faults unto me.)

        //I have had these same kinds of debates with a brother of mine who is a lot like you (he gives me dates, people, events, eloquent words), except he believes in God, but has twisted scriptures to basically start his own new theology.//

        Spoiler alert: that’s what all Christians do. There is no one Christianity, only Christianities, made by people’s religious preferences. Even Christianity itself is a religion formed from twisting Scriptures (the Torah) to start a new theology.

        //I do care about you and yes am a home school mom, teacher//

        Someone pick up that telephone, because I called it! Honestly, how does one live in the Age of Information and be totally clueless on how the human body forms?

        A home-schooled kid in Arkansas once reached out to me online specifically for a decent education, because the dark side of homeschooling is keeping kids in a bubble. The whole point of an education is to learn, but if you are constricted by the limited knowledge of your parents, then you’ll never grow or see past horizons. The kid and I managed to convince his grandfather to enroll him in a public high school after we showed him the abysmal material the kids “tutor” was showing him. We’ve been friends ever since, and thanks me for saving his education.

        //He is as real as me and you//

        If he is as real as me, then it shouldn’t be hard to prove his existence then, shouldn’t it?

        //I don’t know what sent you down this road//

        I already told you: critical thought. In other words, THINKING. It’s part of the perks of “growing up” when you reach adulthood.

        //but hope you’ll be open enough to consider your wrong here in denying there is no God and evolution is fact.//

        Evolution is a fact, just as Heliocentrism Theory is a fact. A sure sign that a religious believer is wrong in their beliefs is when they display any denial of reality, especially one as observable and demonstrable as evolution.

        //There is so much more to prove God’s existence than in evolution. For one when you see a painting you know there is a painter, if you see a building you know there was a builder, for intelligent designs don’t make themselves, when you see Creation you know there must be a Creator//

        There are bridges without a bridge-maker. (Go to Google Images and put in “Utah Natural Bridges.”)

        We’ve seen motors form naturally without an engineer. (The Matzke Model demonstrates how biological motors evolve on their own. This has been proven in science AND in US Federal Court of law)

        Forget paintings, we’ve seen artworks of lines and patterns form naturally. (Google search to see designs in sand dunes). Snowflakes very geometrically shaped objects humans are aware of, and we know they form naturally. We know how snowflakes form naturally, we don’t think there are legions of Ice Dwarves living in the clouds crafting and chipping each individual snowflake then dumping them off the clouds to fall from the sky. Bottom line is this: Just because something looks designed does not mean that it was designed.

        Mountains have made sculptors without human involvement. Look at the rock formation in Maui’s Iao Valley State Park that bears a striking resemblance to President John F. Kennedy in profile. Humans have seen portraits of Jesus appear on cheese sandwiches.

        The issue you’re poor “creation means creator” argument is that it does not distinguished between naturally made objects versus artificially made objects, rather you seems to insert they are all the same thing. This is why apologists compares man-made things with naturally living things that does not need a designer. This is going way beyond comparing apples and oranges.

        If you want to argue that the world was created… demonstrate that it was created. After you’ve done that, then demonstrate that the creator is the one you praise and not any other type of creator or creators.

        Once you’ve covered both of those, THEN you can make your faith more credible. Until then, it holds no more weight then the scenario that the world was made by Krishna.

        //Big Bang would have caused chaos, like every big bang does, never would that cause perfect order or everything we see today.//

        The Big Bang created order, the expansion of space-time creates chaos within order. The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang. Explosions do produce some order amidst their other effects:

        1) Large surface explosions, such as nuclear bombs, produce the familiar mushroom clouds. There are not very highly ordered, but they are not purely random, either.

        2) Supernovae produce heavy elements, and the shock waves from them compress interstellar gases, which begins the formation of new stars. (In other words, order creates explosions, explosions create more order, and the cycle repeats itself)

        3) Powerful explosions can compress carbon into diamond crystals, the most ordered arrangement.

        4) Explosions of atomized gasoline produce compressed gas, which is harnessed in internal combustion engines to power automobiles and other equipment.

        //God created us unique and special from any other creature He created. We have brains to think, reason, feel, design and so much more. No other creature comes close.//

        Are you for real? We are unique from any other creature because we have brains? Do you think that dogs don’t have brains? Or do you think that animals can’t think? Crows have the ability to create tools, which means they possess cognitive thinking and motor skills similar to our own. As do wolverines. Even recently, scientists have documented wild primates crafting and using stone tools (yep, they primates have officially entered the Stone Age). Can apes feel emotions? The answer is of course they can. Ever seen an angry dog? Anger is an emotion, and emotions are felt. We’ve seen and documented animals expressing all kinds of emotions. Even elephants display emotion when they mourn their dead.

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200910/grief-in-animals-its-arrogant-think-were-the-only-animals-who-mourn

        Are humans the only animals that can “design” anything? The answer is No. Ever seen a spider weave a web and admire the web’s geometric shapes and patterns? Ever watched a video of an elephant painting a portrait? Or beavers creating dams? The caddis fly makes materials that we humans use in jewelry. Bowerbirds are one of nature’s most creative decorators, their way of attracting mates.

        Watch a puffer fish create fabulous geometric underwater “crop circles.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaPmYYWsixU)

        As our knowledge of biology and physics increased, we’ve come to appreciate that the physical form of a being is intimately connected to the specific environmental conditions it inhabits. Wings come in many shapes and sizes, but we’ve learned that those shapes and sizes are constrained by factors like drag, thrust, lift and weight. And we’ve realized that some of the mythical winged characters that humans have dreamt up over the centuries, from Icarus with his wings and wax to the Biblical six-winged Seraphim (Isaiah 6:2) would simply never get off the ground. Likewise, we now appreciate the absurdity of a vast naturally humanoid god possessing depth perceiving two forward facing eyes with nothing external to see. Stereo perceiving ears with nothing external to hear. Agile limbs with no external space through which to move. And so on. The most common view I’ve encountered from folks in posing a mythical Creator is that “it has no physical form at all”… so why do we? Expanding on those four words, why do we have a physical form that can be damaged or destroyed by other humans, predators, microbes, poisonous materials and natural disasters? The body frequently attacks itself with debilitating and deadly cancers. And the body quickly perishes without inadequate food, water and oxygen, or if it’s core temperature rises or falls by just a few degrees Fahrenheit. A form that, if it survives these hazards, can look forward to incapacitation and decay before it’s inevitable death. Why are we subjected to these sufferings by a Creator that is immune to them? When I was a Christian, I was told that human suffering was a result of being endowed with the most precious gift from Yahweh: the gift of free choice.

        The reasoning went like this: Yahweh created us with free choice to do bad or good. That meant people had to be allowed to bad things, even if they ended up hurting or killing countless others. Preventing them from doing bad things would take away their free choice. In effect, they would be forced to be good against their will. So Yahweh couldn’t interfere. Either by restraining an abuser, or protecting the abusers target, the meager consolation offered to us was that all abuse would eventually be punished. N regard to the other hardships we endured (diseases, predators, natural disasters) these were all presented as extensions of the same principle. The first humans had been given a paradise to live in, but because they had disobeyed their Creator, they were expelled to the world we now live in with all of it’s dangers. So, even these forms of suffering, were all ultimately down to human free choice.

        When I was a Christian, I found this reasoning persuasive for a time. It didn’t stop me from resenting the suffering we endured, but I could appreciate that the alternative of forcing everyone to be good was also extremely undesirable. In fact, the lack of freedom entailed by forcing people to be good could itself be seen as a form of suffering. Given the option of “free choice + suffering” or “no free choice + no suffering,” I could see the appeal of option 1. I later realized that I had fallen for a false dichotomy. The presentation of two alternatives as the only alternatives when in fact other exist. The clue that this was a false dichotomy was staring me in the face, all be it in a non-physical way. It was Yahweh. And this demonstrates another parallel with abusive human relationships, in that we spend so much time absolutely focused on these celestial dictators, and yet not seeing them at all. Here was supposedly a being that enjoyed the option “total free choice + no suffering.” Totally free choice with full knowledge of good and evil, but experienced no suffering. It was impossible to harm this being, in so doing would diminish it’s greatness in some way, violating it’s divine incorruptibility. So free choice and suffering were never inevitably paired. You didn’t have to either accept both or reject both, not if you were incorruptible. So why weren’t we created in this incorruptible image? Why are we down here in these bizarre fragile bodies being infected, beaten, starved, raped, tortured and murdered while this supposed Creator enjoyed free choice devoid of all suffering?

        It has been put to me that the Creator could not create beings like itself. One reason offered was that it’s creation might overpower it. First, how could it overpower it’s Creator? They would be like two perfect Chess players, able to anticipate every one of their opponents next move. The only possible outcome would be stalemate. Second, wouldn’t a desire to overpower it’s Creator indicate some form of deficiency? If the creation was a copy of the creator, this deficiency would have to exist in the original. If you are arguing that a copy of the creator could go rogue, you are arguing that the original could go rogue. A Christian undergraduate student I once knew suggested that a god-like creation might abuse it’s power in other ways. For example, by creating less powerful beings, and subjecting them to torture. She didn’t realize that she was describing her own God. We have to look at things from the perspective of a all-knowing all-powerful Creator: vulnerability, hardship, abuse, pain, distress, fear. It has NO experience of these things. It would have to create things utterly unlike itself in order for them to be capable of feeling and experiencing suffering. In designing those beings, it would bring these previously non-existent phenomenon into existence. The theological implications are clear: God created suffering. It created torment. It created sickness.

        //“Thomas Paine, who held Christianity in utter contempt, did not question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.” Josh McDowell.//

        So what? The credibility of the case examining the history of Jesus does not rise or fall with one man like Paine.

        //The New Testament books – 27 of them verify and often assume the historicity of Jesus Christ. These books are historically reliable. John Montgomery unequivocally states that the historian can know first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Jesus.//

        Then what year was Jesus born?
        When did he die?

        27 of the NT books don’t verify anything, because not a single one of them was written by an eye-witness. Even the gospels Matthew, Luke, and John all copied from Mark, who admitted he didn’t see any of what was written down. When you have 4 people who copy from someone else, you don’t have 4 sources, you have 1 source. Most of the rest of the books were written by Paul (a man who admits he never met Jesus, only had a vague “vision”) and mostly forgers. Ex. did you know that the story of Jesus and the adulteress (“let he without sin cast the first stone”) does not appear anywhere in the earliest manuscripts we have nor mentioned by any followers at the time? It doesn’t even appear in the two earliest completed Bibles in history (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). The story was added in almost 400 years later, made up and inserted by a anonymous forger. This begs the question, how do we know if more, or all, of the stories about Jesus were made up by non-eyewitnesses?

        //I can personally attest that Jesus is real… I personally know Him//

        Do you? Then what color are his eyes?

        Surely if you know someone “personally,” you could answer such an easy question.
        I asked the same question to a lady I encountered at Town Hall who made the exact same bold claim… yet she couldn’t answer and stormed away. You can read all about it on my blog post, “God, Tron and the Wizard of Oz.”
        http://trollingwithlogic.com/godless-wolf/2012/05/29/following-are-two-thoughts-i-oncehad/

      • TheGodlessWolf

        //Could you please watch this for me regarding evolution (is about 38:26 minutes long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ//

        On this blog, I’ve critically analyzed 13 books by Ray “the Banana-Man” Comfort, several of his videos, and his top favorite go-to arguments such as the old “are you a good person?” test. The TWL podcast has reviewed Comfort’s material and videos. And what I’ve learned over the years, Ray Comfort is not only a shameless liar, he’s a lazy one. Why? Because he rarely ever comes out with new material, and always recycle his old and debunked arguments over and over in his books and movies. This film “Evolution vs. God” is no exception, it’s just him repeating the old debunked arguments and back to his old tactics of copy-and-editing soundbites from various people while molding the entire narrative to his favor. I’ve even talked to the professors face-to-face (except for Myers) who were featured in Ray Comfort’s video, and the level of dishonesty Ray sinks to is disgusting.

        It’s no wonder considering Ray is the same guy who wrote in the Introduction of one his books targeting Evolution that he thinks he is justified in quote mining whoever he wants. (You can read a full rebuttal to the book I wrote here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Fairy_Tale_for_Grownups) This is what he said in the second paragraph of the Introduction: “This book will no doubt be seen by some as “quote mining.” This is the practice of taking a quote (often out of its context), and using it in a way that was never intended by the author. However, every gold nugget is legitimately mined out of its context. No one seriously values the earth that encases the gold. So, when I uncover an evolutionary expert quietly admitting that he has no evidence to back up his theory, I don’t see any value in the soil of his surrounding words. I merely extract what I believe is of value for those who want to discover the truth about the theory of evolution.

        Basically, Ray Comfort just openly admitted that he knows he is quote-mining on purpose and is deliberately misleading and lying to the reader. Comfort knows what he is doing and now we all know: Ray Comfort is a lying hypocrite. Ray is known to straight up call strangers, lay people, or anybody in general liars and tell them lying is wrong since it violates God’s Law. Ray claims that the Ninth Commandment demands that “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. God is a God of truth and His Law demands absolute honesty from the heart.”(The School of Biblical Evangelism, Lesson 13: The Ten Commandments Part 9, by Ray Comfort) And yet here is Ray lying shamelessly for Jesus. If Ray firmly believes that Christianity makes you a moral person, an honest person, then under no circumstances are you to knowingly lie. But here in the Introduction, Ray announced he knew full well that he was being deceitful, so obviously that he had to make an excuse ahead of time (the analogy of dirt and gold) to counter the immense criticism that would inevitably follow after the publication of this book calling him the fraud that he is.

        Since I did the courtesy of watching a 38 minute video, I encourage you to watch a 37:51 minute video by a friend of mine, KC. KC and I have encountered Ray Comfort a couple of times the past, and while our approaches, views and styles may differ, it is without a shred of doubt that Ray Comfort is willfully-ignorant and a con man.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrZYecJ8QA&t=571s

        //Check this out too. Some of the prophecies fulfilled in the Bible – No other book in History compares to the accuracy in the Scriptures. Some 40 different different authors, from different area’s, yet the Bible is beautifully woven together – if one has eyes to see. Us humans can’t get many things right, so a book of this amazing quality could only be inspired by God (and it was) and can be trusted: https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/am/v6/n2/fulfilled-messianic-prophecies.pdf//

        If you want to be sure you’re beliefs are correct concerning translating and understanding the Torah… perhaps you should ask those who believe in and study the Torah. Do that, you will see how each and every one of these prophecies fail.

        For instance, the “virgin birth” story is a fabrication. Luke and Matthew mistook parts of Isaiah, and inserted that mistake into their faith. Isaiah never claimed that the Messiah would come of a virgin birth. The Greek-speaking authors of the Gospels translating the Hebrew scripture slipped up and translated ‘almah’ (young woman) [המלע] into the Greek ‘parthenos’ (virgin). The Hebrew word for virgin would have been ‘betulah.’

        This “virgin birth” story clearly indicates that the Greek-speaking authors of the Gospels, while educated, didn’t fully understand Judaism. Why? Because the “virgin birth” is not a criteria for becoming the Messiah. Rather, the “virgin birth” story shoots Jesus’ credibility in the foot (which isn’t so bad considering the bullet would go through the hole in Jesus’ foot. Waka-waka!) The reason why is because the Scriptures make it clear that the Messiah is to be a descendant of King David AND King Solomon, and genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from father to son (Numbers 1:1-18). So when Jesus claims that he did not have a birth father (Matt. 1:18-20) he admits that he has broken the male-to-son genealogy that could link him to David and Solomon. Christian apologists try to claim that Mary connects Jesus to David, but this approach completely ignores the fact that tribal affiliation is patrilineal. Even if we let that slide, there’s another problem. The genealogy from Luke does not include Solomon. Matthew does mention Solomon, but also says Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah… whose descendants have forever been disqualified as kings of Israel (Jeremiah 22:24). However you want to slice it, Jesus failed the requirements to be the messiah. These are some of the many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the messiah (as they should! As we all should). When Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, not only does he get the “virgin birth” wrong, he [and all Christian apologists] also misunderstands the name Immanuel. The word “Immanuel” does not mean “God has become a man and walks among us” nor does it mean “God has become flesh and is with us as a man“. Such assertions contradict Scripture. According to God, he isn’t a man, as we find in (Numbers 23:19) “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

        Here are the requirements to become the Messiah according to the Torah:

        He must be Jewish – “…you may appoint a king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)

        He must be a member of the tribe of Judah – “The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet…” (Genesis 49:10)

        He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son – “And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever…” (2 Samuel 7:12 – 13)

        He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -“And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:12)

        He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem – “…and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them..” (Ezekiel 37:26 – 27)

        He will rule at a time of world-wide peace – “…they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (Micah 4:3)

        He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G0d’s commandments – “My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes.” (Ezekiel 37:24)

        He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God – “And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord” (Isaiah 66:23)

        All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37 verses 24-28. If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be “The Messiah.” A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.

        Jesus didn’t ever rule Israel. He didn’t rebuild the Temple. He did not drive out the Romans. He was not a descendant of David and Solomon. He did not bring world-peace or bring all the Jews to Israel. And there is no prophecy anywhere in the Torah that says the Messiah will get a second-chance to fulfill these, they all specify that all this will be done within the Messiah’s lifetime on Earth.

        //Sorry if you have some how been injured by some so called Christian//

        For the third time, I’ve never been injured. How many times do I have to repeat that? You’ve already speculated, I’ve settled that speculation, yet you continue to get it wrong. I suspected you’re were home schooled and a home school teacher, and you’ve admitted that you were. Great, moving on. If you corrected me and told me you weren’t, I would do the polite thing and stop. Why can’t you?

        I’ve made it clear I’m not the victim of physical violence. The only type of victim that I am is being lied to by Christians.

        //These give true Christianity a bad name.//

        YOU give Christianity a bad name, especially every time you flat-out deny scientific facts. You are giving more reasons to people to abandon the church then I can manage. Why? Because if your faith was true, you wouldn’t have to lie to defend it, and lying is what drives people away from the faith.

        • FBrennan

          This is the reason I don’t care for long debates, for no matter what I would say, or what evidence I could give you, you are determined to not believe in a loving God who gave Himself for you so you could have eternal life. This is what I desire for you. You seem to be a very angry person, this comes across in everything you have written so far. That is why I ask what happen to you – now I know it is because of Christian’s that have lied to you. Sorry for that – that is wrong. From Christians especially, but for anyone. That is not how a born again believer live their life. Can a born again believer lie, yes, but will seek forgiveness for their wrong and try not to do it again, not live a lifestyle of lying. Being born again, doesn’t make one perfect. In fact it is at this point the Lord will help you deal with the sins in your life, so you can be more like Him. This process is call sanctification. Your fighting a battle you can not win. Jesus already won, He is the only way to eternal life and I do pray you will lay down the pride that is keeping you from the one who can help you most. Funny thing – you want to understand everything before you would even consider believing in God. But in order to understand God it first takes belief in Him. Your eyes will be open to understanding, not everything, for we are not God, but life will make sense, you will have a purpose and a direction. 1 John 5:10-11 “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” One needs the Spirit of God to know about the things of God.

          I will respond to some of what you said. Regarding Ray Comforts Evolution vs. God – I don’t know what these professors said to you, but why do you trust them over Ray Comfort? Also, just because someone uses the same material – why would that make them a shameless liar?? If someone uses the same material – that would make them honest in my book. He’s not out there to out smart the next guy and keep changing up material to trick someone – he sticks to his guns. Truth is truth and doesn’t change. Like Ravi said “Truth in itself is exclusive”.

          I would have to say that sounds a bit arrogant (no disrespect – just not sure how to say it differently) to say: ” I merely extract what I believe is of value for those who want to discover the truth about the theory of evolution.” Sounds like you have made yourself the god of evolution? However, Evolution does not hold water. To say all of life came from pond life is intellectual suicide. You’d be saying from one form of life, we get birds, cats, dogs, insects, trees, fruits, vegetables, man etc…. How then did we get the sun, moon, billions of stars – who made them?? Nothing can’t create everything – that is scientifically impossible (truth Ray speaks) – doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that. To say there were rocks that Banged into each other and cause this perfect order takes way more faith to believe in than God created. You must ask who made the rocks, the energy for them to bang, and never in history has perfect order came from an explosion. Scientist don’t have the answers for the very beginning – but the Bible does. Also if evolution was true, what came first the heart, the veins, the arteries, the valves – how can a heart evolve, or eyes, or lungs – no they can’t – this all had to be working all together or we would not have any man, pond scum, animals, insects, fruits, etc… Logically you know this has to make sense, to say otherwise would be foolishness. Plus there is never in the fossil record of a half evolved heart, lung, man, cat, dog, etc… They are whole organs, creatures, etc…

          The virgin birth is not a lie as you mentioned. What ever God says is true, is true, regardless of what you or I THINK. Not sure where you get your information from, but to get truth you must go to more reliable sources than the ones you have been using. If you are taking ideas off sites on the internet, then you should be giving credit to those to whom you are borrowing their information. I see one site, which it looks like you got your information from regarding the virgin birth: http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html. Interesting that your so quick to believe all that man has written on the internet, but you won’t believe the written Word of God – the inspired Word from God Himself, written by man, but as they were led by the Holy Spirit. There are some bad translations out there and some bad bibles – ie. Catholic – they added the apocrypha, the Jehovah Witness bible, the Mormon bible, etc. Though there are some great Bibles out there: ESV, NASB, NJKV, KJV. Please read one of these. There is no a lot of Christianese out there. There are many who say they are Christians, but don’t know Jesus as Savior – big difference. Catholicism is said to be a Christian faith. Well that is not true. Catholicism believes in good works salvation, they believe the priest can forgive sins, and infant baptism saves, good works can save, etc… These are false teachings and not Biblical. Now there can be some Catholics that are Christians, but as a denomination – it is not Christian. True Born again believers all believe the same as far as being saved. There may be different ways we do things – and that is ok, but belief in the coming Christ, he died for our sins, He rose again on the third day and whoever repents and puts their faith in Him will live forever.

          Jesus had an earthly father – by adoption. So yes, He can and is from the line of David. He came from the male lineage – just so you know. Also, in Numbers 23:19 – God is not saying he is not a man – He is saying He cannot lie is the point or He has no need to repent like man. Jesus fulfilled everything to be the Messiah perfectly and completely – reliable resources are important. Jesus did rebuild HIS temple. Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.” He was talking about His body – and He did rise from the dead, fulling all that was said about Him in the OT and what He was telling his disciples.

          As far a scientific facts – of course there there some when it comes to what they have learned about cells, blood, and some things like that, but not regarding the beginning of the world – there are no facts only speculation. There are no facts in science about how humans got here, how they were formed or how animals got here or how old the earth is or how all this water got to be on the earth, etc… They can only speculate with their theories, no facts. I have not told you any untruth’s and if I have it would have been in ignorance. I never try to lie to anyone, have I ever lied yes -but I do seek forgiveness and don’t live a lifestyle of this. I seek after the truth and love my Jesus. If you knew Him like I do, you wouldn’t be in doubt. Thing is you can know Him like I do if you have a relationship with Him. Please give your life to Him.

          • TheGodlessWolf

            //This is the reason I don’t care for long debates, for no matter what I would say, or what evidence I could give you, you are determined to not believe//

            And that is where you are wrong. Even after telling you that I wrote a blog listing at least 5 times when I did change my mind after long discussions and much thought, you still insist that reality is false. You insist that reality is somehow twisted because to you I must be just another closed-minded person. (The proof in the pudding that you deny reality, you insisted at least 3 times that a Christian “injured” me even after I explained again and again that I was never injured.)

            Newsflash: being hard to persuade is not the same as being close-minded. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unless I am given a reason to believe in something, lacking a reason in-of-itself is a damn good reason not to believe.

            //Your fighting a battle you can not win. Jesus already won//

            Did you not read the blog you are commenting on???? How can a mythical person win anything? The historical proof to substantiate there was a Jesus is close to zero, with the sole exception of a bunch of questionable anonymous sources who received all their “stories” from hearsay sources (not to mention we do not have the original gospels, and we know they have been forged, altered, mistranslated, etc.)

            Seriously, based on the scales of evidence, King Arthur will come back from Avalon to rule England before Jesus does anything.

            //Funny thing – you want to understand everything before you would even consider believing in God. But in order to understand God it first takes belief in Him.//

            Incorrect. In order to first consider believing in God, first there has to be evidence that a God even exists. I don’t believe in Big Foot, but if there was evidence of Big Foot I would believe it – I don’t have to “understand Big Foot” in the sense of his behavior or habits in order to believe him. I just need validation that he exists. And it’s the same with any god or goddess, first present evidence to fulfill the burden of proof, then I can believe.

            //I will respond to some of what you said. Regarding Ray Comforts Evolution vs. God – I don’t know what these professors said to you, but why do you trust them over Ray Comfort?//

            Because Ray Comfort has a long list of dishonesty. Half of my blogs are about reviewing Ray Comfort’s books, our podcast reviews his videos, and I have encountered Ray Comfort in person. And we are not the only ones keeping an eye on Ray Comfort. Countless people have correct him in-person, corrected him on social media, corrected him in videos, corrected him in books and in presentations for many many years. We know that he has been corrected, esp. to his face, on many things. Yet he continues to spew the very same falsehoods he was corrected on, because Ray Comfort is a shameless liar and a con artist. He doesn’t give a damn about his public image, he only cares about making money.

            Think about it: if his intentions was to spread the word of God to those who didn’t believe, why did he leave his home country (New Zealand) with a size-able portion of it’s population as non-believers, just to come to America – home of the most religious 1st world country in the world dominated by Christians? The only reason he would do so is because he saw an opportunity to evangelize to the huge crowd of already-believers for the highest chance to make a profit. His ministries earnings are public, you can look for yourself how many millions of dollars he makes every year. (I remember in 2006 he made 120K – that’s double the national average earnings of a family of 4 – and he still lives in a house worth a quarter million dollars in Bellflower)

            //Also, just because someone uses the same material – why would that make them a shameless liar?? If someone uses the same material – that would make them honest in my book.//

            The Key Difference: using the same material, then quote-mining it and/or manipulating it to match your agenda makes you a shameless liar.

            Look again at what Ray Comfort said: “This book will no doubt be seen by some as “quote mining.” This is the practice of taking a quote (often out of its context), and using it in a way that was never intended by the author. However, every gold nugget is legitimately mined out of its context. No one seriously values the earth that encases the gold. So, when I uncover an evolutionary expert quietly admitting that he has no evidence to back up his theory, I don’t see any value in the soil of his surrounding words. I merely extract what I believe is of value for those who want to discover the truth about the theory of evolution.”

            Right there, Ray Comfort just openly admitted that he knows he is quote-mining on purpose and is deliberately misleading and lying to the reader. That is what makes Ray a shameless liar.

            You can see for yourself how often Ray Comfort manipulated the data to confuse and mislead his audience here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Fairy_Tale_for_Grownups

            //He’s not out there …changing up material to trick someone//

            That is exactly what he does!

            //I would have to say that sounds a bit arrogant (no disrespect – just not sure how to say it differently) to say: ” I merely extract what I believe is of value for those who want to discover the truth about the theory of evolution.” Sounds like you have made yourself the god of evolution?//

            You’re raving.

            Calling out a manipulating liar, especially when it can be demonstrated that they deliberately changed the material and/or quote-mined it, does not make a person a “god” it just makes them a fact-checking and honest person.

            If I quoted the Bible where Jesus said “I am the door,” then argued that Jesus was not a man but an actual door, how sensible would it be to accuse those correcting me as “self-appointed gods of Christianity”? If that sounds asinine, that is exactly how YOU sound.

            //However, Evolution does not hold water. To say all of life came from pond life is intellectual suicide.//

            Evolution says nothing about life “coming from a pond,” evolution only concerns itself with the origin of species, not the origin of life. Evolution explains how life diversifies, not how it began. Since evolution at every level is -by definition- limited to the variation of allele frequencies inherited over generations of living organisms, then it obviously can’t operate where no genomes yet exist. The evolutionary process starts with genetics and can’t start before it. So how the first genes came about may seem similar to evolution, and may even involve a form of natural selection in some way, but it is in fact a very different chemical process called ‘abiogenesis’.

            Abiogenesis outlines possible physical mechanisms for the production of the first self-replicating polymers, their assembly and sequestration within membrane bound compartments and the development of the chemical interfaces between different biopolymeric systems.

            //You’d be saying from one form of life, we get birds, cats, dogs, insects, trees, fruits, vegetables, man etc…. How then did we get the sun, moon, billions of stars – who made them??//

            1) Evolution is based in biology. Saying that biology (the study of living things) cannot account for astrophysics is ridiculous. To think that evolution must be false because it cannot account for the origin of the sun, why don’t you also through Germ Theory out of the window too? After all, Germ Theory is based only in biology, yet Germ Theory cannot account for the origin of the sun.

            Are you not grasping how scientifically illiterate you are right now?

            2) Your question “who made them” betrays your bias. Your question presumes the answer is a “who” (an entity). The flaw in your thinking is that you are asking for a “who” when the “what” hasn’t been established yet.

            //Nothing can’t create everything – that is scientifically impossible (truth Ray speaks) – doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that.//

            Then why do photons appear in a empty vacuum of nothingness?

            You know, once upon a time it might have seemed obvious to many that the Earth was flat… that is until science challenged that and debunked it. It may seem obvious to many in recent times that things just do not appear, until quantum mechanics challenged that mindset.

            Also, why must the default of reality be “nothing”? Who says that there must have been nothing at one point before everything?

            To theists who think nothing is the default and ask “why is there something rather than nothing,” I have a simple question for them: why is there God instead of nothing?

            //To say there were rocks that Banged into each other and cause this perfect order takes way more faith to believe in than God created.//

            Perfect order? What makes the “order” we occupy perfect?

            Let’s assume that the earth is a perfect place to support life. Lets for a moment wrap ourselves in a blanket of ignorance and arrogance and assume that the earth, and the universe, were designed clearly just for us. Unfortunately, most of the earth is off-limits to allow human life. Take us above 8,000 meters above sea level and we will slowly die from a lack of oxygen. Going below 2,000 meters below sea level, and we will slowly cook from the heat of the earth’s interior. It turns out that less than one-half of 1 percent (0.46%) of the earth’s total volume is capable of sustaining human life. Meaning, even if we manage to imagine that the earth is the Eden, we know it is not. More than 99.54% of it would kill us rather quickly. (And on that 0.46% of habitable zones on Earth, there are a myriad of things that can still kill us. Lions, bears, tigers, and sharks that would eat us. All the bacteria and viruses that want to infect us. All the poisonous snakes, fish, plants and mushrooms that would kill us. Forest fires, blizzards, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, avalanches, earthquakes, landslides, and volcanoes that can also kill us. How about the fact that a fall from a height greater than 10 meters, or submerged underwater for over 10 minutes we would surely die.)

            But this is just earth; perhaps the solar system around us would be more suitable for us. Actually, the answer is no. Go out outside of the earth’s atmosphere and you would quickly die in a vacuum of space. And if the zero pressure did not get you, the scorching heat in the sun, the freezing cold in the shade, or the cosmic radiation would kill you quickly.

            What about all those other planers. Well, you would burn on Mercury. You would freeze on Pluto. You would suffocate, and then freeze on Mars. There is no place to stand on Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune or Uranus. On Venus, you would be cooked and crushed to death in short order.

            So no, nowhere else in the solar system is hospital for sustaining human life. And it gets worse. Let’s assume everything for a moment despite everything modern science has been able to tell us about extra solar planets, that every single star in every single galaxy has an earth-like planet orbiting it. Also, ignore the giant cosmic voids that found between clusters of galaxies, even with these gross assumptions, it turns out that less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000073% is habitable for human life. Or to put it in another way 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999937% of the universe is not habitable for life.

            //Scientist don’t have the answers for the very beginning – but the Bible does.//

            No the Bible offers an answer, but that does not make it THEE answer. Other holy books such as the Vedas also provides an answer, but that doesn’t make it THEE answer either.

            What makes an answer THEE answer is the answer based on EVIDENCE. Where is the evidence that the God of Abraham created the universe, or so much as a blade of grass?

            //Also if evolution was true, what came first the heart, the veins, the arteries, the valves – how can a heart evolve, or eyes, or lungs – no they can’t//

            Yes, they can.

            It’s simple, especially when you consider that life in it’s earliest stages were very simple lifeforms. Kinda like how jellyfish today do not need a heart or veins or blood to stay alive.

            Blood’s function is to push oxygen and nutrients around, but jellyfish’s muscles can push those around without blood. So later when life forms became larger and more complex, diffusion would not be enough anymore so blood would help carry oxygen and nutrients around the body. Fluids would help dramatically, hence the formation of blood. Then over time, veins would help direct blood to specific parts of the body. Then to conserve energy, organisms can form a heart instead of having too move their whole body just to push oxygen and nutrient-carrying fluids around their body.

            //Logically you know this has to make sense, to say otherwise would be foolishness.//

            The only foolishness are those who don’t take the time to investigate but rather believe in the simple answers provided by shameless liars.

            //Plus there is never in the fossil record of a half evolved heart, lung, man, cat, dog, etc… They are whole organs, creatures, etc…//

            What is a “half-evolved” heart? What is a half-evolved man? What is a half-evolved cat?

            Anything that is preserved in the fossil record is fully what it is meant to be. A fossilized Ambulocetus is not a half-evolved whale, it is a evolved creature suitable for living on land and water.

            Keep in mind, evolution has no end goal in mind. So whatever creatures that have existed or exist now, all creatures are transitional creatures. In some hundreds or thousands of years, many creatures will be evolved from their transitional ancestors.

            //The virgin birth is not a lie as you mentioned. What ever God says is true, is true, regardless of what you or I THINK.//

            And right there is your problem: you are asserting your faith as fact, instead of providing fact as fact.

            Where are the facts that the virgin birth happened? A holy book says that Mohammad flew on a winged horse, so if we just “believed the holy book because it says it’s true” then Mohammad did fly and was the last prophet.

            That might be enough for the simple minded, but not me. Instead of being gullible, I rather would like to see the evidence before believing stories from any holy book.

            //Not sure where you get your information from, but to get truth you must go to more reliable sources than the ones you have been using.//

            Ironic projection.

            //If you are taking ideas off sites on the internet, then you should be giving credit to those to whom you are borrowing their information. I see one site, which it looks like you got your information from regarding the virgin birth: http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_d.html. Interesting that your so quick to believe all that man has written on the internet, but you won’t believe the written Word of God – the inspired Word from God Himself, written by man, but as they were led by the Holy Spirit.//

            I’ve never visited that website, thanks for sharing more intel.

            Interesting that I am willing to believe Rabbi’s instead of men like Ray Comfort who have no theological education (Fact: Ray highest form of education was high school). I would believe a qualified dentist over the ramblings of a high school graduate over how to properly remove teeth.

          • TheGodlessWolf

            //Catholicism is said to be a Christian faith. Well that is not true.//

            You do realize that the moment you say that Catholics are not Christian, suddenly Christianity no longer becomes the world’s largest religion.

            If that’s the case, Islam suddenly becomes the worlds #1 religion.

            //Jesus had an earthly father – by adoption. So yes, He can and is from the line of David.//

            Wrong.

            Numbers 1:1-18 makes it clear that genealogy in the Bible is only passed down from biological father to son, not through adoption.

            //Jesus fulfilled everything to be the Messiah perfectly and completely – reliable resources are important. Jesus did rebuild HIS temple. Mark 14:58 “We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.” He was talking about His body//

            Ezekiel 37:26 – 28 and Micah 4:1 describe an actual physical tabernacle, not a body.

            In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah’s identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):
            “If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.
            If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah.”

            // – and He did rise from the dead, fulling all that was said about Him in the OT and what He was telling his disciples.//

            Where if your proof that he rose from the dead, do you have any first-hand eyewitness accounts?

            As far a scientific facts – of course there there some when it comes to what they have learned about cells, blood, and some things like that, but not regarding the beginning of the world – there are no facts only speculation.

            //There are no facts in science about how humans got here, how they were formed or how animals got here or how old the earth is or how all this water got to be on the earth, etc… They can only speculate with their theories, no facts.//

            Once again, your scientific illiteracy is showing: Theories are made of facts, theories are the highest forms of scientific certainty that is obtainable.

            //I have not told you any untruth’s and if I have it would have been in ignorance.//

            You’ve presented multiple untruths, and I acknowledge that is all the fault of your ignorance. What separates you from shameless liars like Ray Comfort is that Ray Comfort has been corrected thousand of times by scientists, and yet repeats the same falsehoods again and again and again.

            • Mrs. Brennan

              To sum up all talks with all people who don’t want to bow their knee to the only one who truely loves them – even when they spit on Him, curse His name, crucify Him, His name is Jesus – Yahwey – the Name above all names. These talks can go on forever – trust me my brother and I have had these same kinds of talks for over three years. The bottom line is – do you really want the truth and if someone could show you the truth would you want to change your current ways? Until we become like little children – meaning to trust in the Savior – like a child does their parent(s). Then one will never see the God who loves them in the light He desires for you to live in. We as humans try to complicate the message of the Bible – the message to the world is not that complicated. 11 Corinthians 11:13 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

              Praying for you to know the One who truly does love you like no other.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *