When is the return of Christ?

[GodlessHeathen]

Oh yes I did read that and we share similar DNA is what I got out of it. The key there I think it similar but not the same. They have more chromosomes then we do and to say that one of ours fused and that's why we have less. It really sounds doubtful. How could one of ours just do that and for what reason. Not to mention what is the proof that that actually happened. Now, if I misunderstood anything in that article please tell me, it was very in depth.

It isn't "proof"; it is evidence, something creationists seem to have a very hard time producing. I suggest reading the book I suggested by Richard Dawkins; it has a wealth of evidence of many different kinds.

[Brakeman]

Oh yes I did read that and we share similar DNA is what I got out of it. The key there I think it similar but not the same. They have more chromosomes then we do and to say that one of ours fused and that's why we have less. It really sounds doubtful. How could one of ours just do that and for what reason. .

I hear ya!  It's just like those people that claim they have "supposed" chromosomal abnormalities, we know that shit ain't real! Those "Tri" kids just don't listen, and I bet if I could get my belt across their hiney they'd learn not to act like they's stupid! They's just like the other perfectly god made children!

[joebbowers]

Do you have any evidence that is not hearsay?

Yes, In a book. Which i'm sure you'll say its a lie. Even when books are the most accurate indicators of history. We got all our history from books and writings.

I'm surprised nobody caught this. Jake, this is false. We learn a lot from reading history books, but the book itself is not the source of that knowledge, it is merely the vessel by which that knowledge is imparted. The knowledge in the book is obtained by study, research, observation, examining artifacts, etc. This is the source of knowledge, not the book itself. If the contents of the book are suspect, others can independently conduct their own research and studies which will either support or disprove it.

We know Julius Caesar existed because there are coins and statues depicting him that were made during his lifetime, which all resemble the same man. We can read his own writings, which accurately describe and correspond to verified events taking place at the same place and time. In addition to works by his own hand, we can read from other prominent authors, philosophers, magistrates, and socialites from the same period discussing Caesar. We can examine Roman military records, as well as the history of the nations he engaged in battle with, describing strategy, victories, and defeats, as well as his rise in power with new coins being minted to commemmorate his new ranks and titles. These coins still exist and can be demonstrated to have been in circulation at the time Caesar lived. We can study the Roman census records which contain the dates of his marriages, deaths of his wives, births of his children. He had a large family with a well-documented lineage.

There is a mountain of evidence to support the existance of Julius Caesar, but there is no such evidence for Jesus. Zero, none at all. Nothing he wrote survives. There are no statues, paintings, or coins bearing his likeness created during his lifetime. There are no government records mentioning him, his parents, or any of his family. He was a carpenter, yet not one table, desk, chair, or bookcase bearing his mark can be found in the world today. Most importantly, nobody living at the same time wrote about him. The gospels were all written long after the time he is claimed to have lived. The son of God, performing so many miracles that, were every one of them to be written, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25), rising others and himself from the dead (John 11:1-46), and yet nobody thought any of this was important enough to write down during his lifetime? Nobody thought to immortalize the likeness of Jesus in stone?

The bible is not based on any evidence, it is simply a work of fiction. The existance of the historical figure of Jesus does not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, and is almost certainly a myth.

[velkyn]

I'm sure somewhere you could find someone who had cancer for example and the tumor disappeared. Also if they did what you suggest and proved that a miracle happened and God healed someone then your right people would believe, but most would call it a fake and say Christians planted the evidence or things were falsified. Even so if they did that and people did believe, what would faith mean? Nothing, people would not believe out of faith, which is what God wants, they would believe out of evidence. And people who believe out of evidence would not do what God wanted out of love but of fear. They would know that God exists so they would think to themselves we have to follow his commands now and ask for forgiveness or we will be thrown into hell. And they would not be sincere but only to save themselves. That is why God will never prove his existence. He will only give enough for you to hold on to and when he comes that is when he will prove himself. If we take Jesus' life for example we see he performed many miracles and wondrous things, but did the Jews believe him, no, they killed him. Same thing would happen today if someone did miracles.

the usual horseshit of a Christian trying to excuse his god but forgetting that his holy book says that his god had no trouble with using miracles to show unbelievers who he was and to get their belief and worship (John 10).  Jakec47,  you seem to have never read your bible or you pick and choose it, hopeing no one else has read it to make up your excuses.   I love to see some Christians claim that there are miracles and some not.  Who are the True Christians here?   It's even funnier when a Christian claims that he knows that there are miracles done but when shown his claims are nonsense, backtracks. 

and Joe has got it right.  Books are only as good as the evidence that supports them.

[Omen]

Oh yes I did read that and we share similar DNA is what I got out of it. The key there I think it similar but not the same. They have more chromosomes then we do and to say that one of ours fused and that's why we have less. How could one of ours just do that and for what reason. Not to mention what is the proof that that actually happened. Now, if I misunderstood anything in that article please tell me, it was very in depth.

Human chromosome 2 is the second largest chromosome consisting of about 8% of the human genome, it also contains about 1500 genes.

A centromere is part of a chromose that links sister chromatids, a chromosome has 1.

A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at the end of a chromosome, a chromosome has 2.

Human chromosome 2 has 2 centromeres as well as 4 telomeres the ones that normally occur on the ends and an extra pair occuring in the middle.

The result is that you can line up chromosomes 2(a) and 2(b) in chimps next to human chromosome 2 and the components match, extra centromere to extra centromere and extra telomeres to extra telomeres.

Abnormalities in chromosomes are well known in biology, its not a question of how could it have happened.. but rather why don't you know what anyone capable of cracking an introduction to biology textbook could know.

It really sounds doubtful.

Your ignorance of basic science is not an argument against science, your personal incredulity is never an acceptable logical rationale.  Your posts are dismissive, filled with blank denials as well as blind assertions in the absence of evidence/reason.  You present nothing to support your claims and don't even have a grasp on the subjects you talk about, like history and science.  You did not deliver a rational argument in any sense.

[GodlessHeathen]

Thanks for explaining that more clearly, Omen! 

I try to hold my own on the biology end of it, but that is not my area of expertise.

[jakec47]

Do you have any evidence that is not hearsay?

Yes, In a book. Which i'm sure you'll say its a lie. Even when books are the most accurate indicators of history. We got all our history from books and writings.

I'm surprised nobody caught this. Jake, this is false. We learn a lot from reading history books, but the book itself is not the source of that knowledge, it is merely the vessel by which that knowledge is imparted. The knowledge in the book is obtained by study, research, observation, examining artifacts, etc. This is the source of knowledge, not the book itself. If the contents of the book are suspect, others can independently conduct their own research and studies which will either support or disprove it.

We know Julius Caesar existed because there are coins and statues depicting him that were made during his lifetime, which all resemble the same man. We can read his own writings, which accurately describe and correspond to verified events taking place at the same place and time. In addition to works by his own hand, we can read from other prominent authors, philosophers, magistrates, and socialites from the same period discussing Caesar. We can examine Roman military records, as well as the history of the nations he engaged in battle with, describing strategy, victories, and defeats, as well as his rise in power with new coins being minted to commemmorate his new ranks and titles. These coins still exist and can be demonstrated to have been in circulation at the time Caesar lived. We can study the Roman census records which contain the dates of his marriages, deaths of his wives, births of his children. He had a large family with a well-documented lineage.

There is a mountain of evidence to support the existance of Julius Caesar, but there is no such evidence for Jesus. Zero, none at all. Nothing he wrote survives. There are no statues, paintings, or coins bearing his likeness created during his lifetime. There are no government records mentioning him, his parents, or any of his family. He was a carpenter, yet not one table, desk, chair, or bookcase bearing his mark can be found in the world today. Most importantly, nobody living at the same time wrote about him. The gospels were all written long after the time he is claimed to have lived. The son of God, performing so many miracles that, were every one of them to be written, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25), rising others and himself from the dead (John 11:1-46), and yet nobody thought any of this was important enough to write down during his lifetime? Nobody thought to immortalize the likeness of Jesus in stone?

The bible is not based on any evidence, it is simply a work of fiction. The existance of the historical figure of Jesus does not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, and is almost certainly a myth.

No evidence for Jesus, how about the New Testament. It would not have been written if Jesus hadn't come, not to mention how many believers in Jesus are there today, BILLIONS. And the New Testament was not written long after Jesus' life but shortly after. And that Old Testament which contains many references to Jesus' coming are much older and proven to have been written before Jesus' coming. They speak of Jesus' coming and narrow it down to the EXACT YEAR. If no one knew about him and he was so obscure then there would not be billions of Christians. And no one made a statue of Jesus probably because Jesus would have condemned doing that, saying it would be idolatrous. You are to worship the living God not a statue of God, which is not living.

[nogodsforme]

And if there had not been a real god Lord Krishna, there would be no sacred texts written about him or a billion Hindus who believe in him..... How is that logically different from what you just wrote? And there are over a billion Muslims, does that mean Islam is also true?

The point that joebowers was making is that we can tell when a figure is documented in history because, well there is documentation. The important writers of the era have recorded the various interesting things going on. If none of the commentators of the time period even noticed the existence of someone who seemed to be so important and miraculous? No speeches by famous orators of the time praising or condemning or even mentioning Jesus?

Just like the ancient Egyptian writers never noticed the enslavement or freeing of the Jews, or of the plagues that befell their society. The Chinese and Indian writers never noticed the great flood that supposedly wiped them out....

Imagine in some future era people decide that Sherlock Holmes was a real person, worthy of worship. They have lots of writings and films of all the great things he did, so of course he was real. Right? How would you show that he was not real, but was only a fictional character?

[joebbowers]

No evidence for Jesus, how about the New Testament. It would not have been written if Jesus hadn't come...

By your logic, Harry Potter must be real too. A book itself is not evidence, I just explained that to you.

...not to mention how many believers in Jesus are there today, BILLIONS.

At most, two billion. Barely plural. But the number is not important. You are just exposing another flaw in your reasoning skills. Just because a large number of people believe something does not make it true.

By your logic, people who believe in Islam must be right too, after all there are just as many Muslims as Christians. There are millions of Mormons. They must be right too. There are millions of scientologists, they can't all be wrong can they? No, they must be right too.

At one point in history Zeus, Odin, Ra and thousands of other gods all had huge numbers of followers. I guess they were all right?

And the New Testament was not written long after Jesus' life but shortly after.

Most of the new testament was written 50-70 years after the supposed events took place. My question to you is why was nothing written about him during his lifetime? If he was really performing miracles left and right, raising people from the dead including himself, would this not cause some attention?

The reason nothing was written about him during his lifetime is that he never existed. He never performed any miracles so there was nothing for anyone to write about him.

And that Old Testament which contains many references to Jesus' coming are much older and proven to have been written before Jesus' coming. They speak of Jesus' coming and narrow it down to the EXACT YEAR.

You do realize that the bible has been re-written and re-translated hundreds of times right? Can you prove that the version of the old testament written before Christ's time has not been modified to include him?

If no one knew about him and he was so obscure then there would not be billions of Christians.

There were not billions of Christians during his lifetime. Not even millions. Not even thousands.

And no one made a statue of Jesus probably because Jesus would have condemned doing that, saying it would be idolatrous.

This is assuming that people actually cared what he wanted. If I saw a guy on the street claiming to be the son of God, I might take a photo of him whether or not he wanted me to. Sure people didn't have cameras back then, but you'd think a bona-fide dead-raising miracle worker would garner the attention of sculpters or painters who would preserve his likelness.

You are to worship the living God not a statue of God, which is not living.

Interesting, considering most Christians today worship a statue depicting the moment of his death in almost every church, or wear a symbol of the method of his execution around their necks.

[joebbowers]

The point that joebowers was making is that we can tell when a figure is documented in history because, well there is documentation. The important writers of the era have recorded the various interesting things going on.

And not only writing, but statues, coins, clothing, jewelry, furniture, armor and weapons, and quite often, bodies!

How do we know King Tut existed? Well, we can see his body! And he lived way before Christ.

Imagine in some future era people decide that Sherlock Holmes was a real person, worthy of worship. They have lots of writings and films of all the great things he did, so of course he was real. Right? How would you show that he was not real, but was only a fictional character?

By examining non-fiction documentation written by people not connected to the subject, such as government records, newspapers, writings of people living in the same place and time. None of them would mention him, because he didn't truly do the things written of him, and he didn't exist.

Jesus is fictional. The only evidence of his existence is from the fictional writings about him. Most of the cities mentioned in the bible never existed. Most of the battles mentioned in the bible never took place. There is no supporting evidence. None at all. It is simply the Harry Potter of it's day.

[velkyn]

No evidence for Jesus, how about the New Testament. It would not have been written if Jesus hadn't come, not to mention how many believers in Jesus are there today, BILLIONS. And the New Testament was not written long after Jesus' life but shortly after. And that Old Testament which contains many references to Jesus' coming are much older and proven to have been written before Jesus' coming. They speak of Jesus' coming and narrow it down to the EXACT YEAR. If no one knew about him and he was so obscure then there would not be billions of Christians. And no one made a statue of Jesus probably because Jesus would have condemned doing that, saying it would be idolatrous. You are to worship the living God not a statue of God, which is not living.

Jakec47, do you realize that your claims above would also make Zeus, Amon-Ra, Aten, the Chinese Heavenly Bureaucracy, etc all just as real as your god?   Do you even think about what you write and how it might apply out side of your presuppositions?  Joe is right, Harry Potter suddenly becomes "real" with your desperate attempts to support your myths.

And as always, Christians always claim that there are “billions” of them but when asked sect by sect if those Christians are True Christianstm, the numbers drop precipitously since the Christian involved always is sure that their sect is the only “right” one. 

There are no prophecies that can be shown to have come true, Jakec47, not a one.  The NT gets so many things wrong about them, and gee, that’s why there are still Jews.  They did not narrow it down to the exact year and making that in caps will not make it true. 

There is no evidence of *any* of the essential events in the bible.  Not the flood, not the exodus, not the events around the cruxifiction, nothing. In the debate thread, you claim that you believe everything the bible says.  I’m guessing that that is qualified with an “as I interpret it”.  However, we can show that the bible is wrong, so therefore, what you believe is wrong.   

Now, if you do think that there is evidence, show it to me and I’ll take it apart to show you how it’s all nonsense.

[Omen]

No evidence for Jesus, how about the New Testament.

Historians reject the passion narrative as being literally true, Jesus as established by historical methods has little to do with the literal evangelical representation of 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth'.  The strongest argument for Jesus or a figure that christianity was based on, historically speaking, is the likelihood that christianity arose based on someone vs not based on anyone.   This case is made because there is an absence of contemporary accounts of Jesus.  The only individuals who claim a literal jesus christ exist on the fringe and are not taken seriously by anyone.

The problem is that you don't seem to have a grasp on historical methodology or what is considered the 'norm' as far as what is historical vs what is not.  The bible is NOT a history book, nor is it used as a history book.  It barely coincides with archaeological studies from the 8th century BCE on, prior to this it is apparently and grossly unaware of the actual historical context that took place in the region it claims events occurred.  The bible doesn't seem to actually know what happened in the 4th - 2nd millennium BCE, it certainly asserts things to have happened, but none of them correlate with what we find archaeologically speaking and in the records of other civilizations. 

Whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant to establishing the authenticity of Christianity, since the vast majority of the OT conclusively never happened.  Theologically speaking, the most important events in the OT simply never happened.

not to mention how many believers in Jesus are there today, BILLIONS.

There are tens of thousands of disparate christian denominations that disagree with each other as much as they splinter and disagree with themselves.  So implying they are a singular representation of an ideological belief is grossly dishonest on your part.  This is true for any religion, Islam also numbers in the billions and is quickly about to surpass christian populations demographically speaking. ( 2 billion christians in the world vs 1.6 billion muslims )

Are you really such an idiot as to believe that the truth hood of a religion is dependent upon how many people believe it?

By that reasoning alone you should prepare to be a Muslim, Christianity has had nearly an 800 year lead on Islam yet Islam is about to over take christianity in the numbers game.

And the New Testament was not written long after Jesus' life but shortly after

It was written and composed several life times afterwards.  The council of nicea cherry picked doctrine that was agreed upon and deemed anything else a heresy, the new testament didn't exist until this period.  ( 325 CE, First Council of Nicea held )

You obviously have never researched anything.

. And that Old Testament which contains many references to Jesus' coming are much older and proven to have been written before Jesus' coming.

Nothing in Jewish eschatology or Jewish Messianic prophecy has anything worth mentioning to do with Jesus.  Christian notions of messianic prophecy actually ignore jewish messianic prophecy and often concentrate on poor translations as well as just literally making it up.  This criticism goes both ways since Jews do it as well, but the point is that the 'prophecy' isn't black and white, it is so vague/nebulous as to invite any absurd rationale.

You obviously have never researched anything.  Your most laughably stupid assertion yet is the notion of having researched the 'second coming', the problem is that the 'second coming' has nothing to do with any claim of prophecy in the OT.  It is totally an abstract concept, like many theological concepts, made up as a further rationale to explain away an earlier problem.  In this case, Jesus doesn't actually fulfill jewish messianic prophecy, how could he possibly be the messiah? Oh wait.. the second coming.. he'll do that later.

Right.  The jews didn't believe it either.

They speak of Jesus' coming and narrow it down to the EXACT YEAR...

Wow.. There are HUGE disagreements on when jesus was born, what he did, when he died.. etc.  You know absolutely NOTHING about higher biblical criticism, science, or historical methodology.  You're just pulling this crap out of your ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups ( Numbers of Christians vs Muslims )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea ( Dating of first uniform christian codex )

[nogodsforme]

People who base their faith on the bible (or any other written text) don't seem to understand that once a book has been edited and translated a few times the original meaning has been changed. Every translation alters meaning, even if only slightly, because dissimilar languages do not have direct corresponding meanings. You can only approproximate.

Was the mother of Jesus a literal virgin who had never had sex, making his brith a miracle? Was she a young woman who had not been married, but who might have had sex, making his birth a scandal to be disguised? Was she a married woman who had sex and had this kid who just happened to be special in retrospect? Depends on how you translate the term for "young woman": muchacha, chica, senorita, joven, esposa, senora, dona, puta?

And a religious text that speaks of supernatural events, uses parables, poetry, dreams, etc to convey meaning is ambiguous to begin with. Add loss of historical and cultural context as time passes, and there is no way that the Christians in Ethiopia c.900CE are getting the same messages from the bible as Christians in Spain c.1300 CE or in the Massachussetts bay colony c.1700 CE. Even if the words were exactly the same, their meanings have changed.

So when a Christian says that their faith was based on the bible, I have to shake my head. They read whatever meaning they need to into the bible. That is why the people who wanted to burn women as witches or  keep people as slaves, or ban birth control could find that the bible supported their actions. And god always supports both sides of every war between two Christian societies.

The was driven home to me when I was living in a rural village near a Haitian town. The people there were very earthy, pious and sincere, although not very literate. When they read about sheep and flocks in the bible, guess what? They think about literal sheep and flocks, smelly animals out pooping and peeing and fornicating in the fields, because that is what they see around them. Jesus has a lot of sheep, and that means he is a wealthy man with people working for him who do the actual animal husbandry. You have to revere and worship a wealthy, powerful guy.

In the big city a few hours drive away, the people see references to sheep and flocks as metaphors for themselves--they are Jesus' sheep. Sheep are cute and obedient and beloved. Jesus pats them on the head and blesses them with good jobs and lots of money.

In the US who knows what people think of when the bible talks about Jesus' sheep? Jesus' return could refer to his 1040 EZ tax form for all we know.

[Graybeard]

We know that Sir Francis Drake^Wiki existed. He is well documented and there are paintings of him and writings by him, and he is written of.

My witnessing to you - Look at what wonderful things he did: http://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/fran_drake.htm

Mrs Bray mentions several of the early Drake legends, the first being how Drake took the much needed water supply to Plymouth, she says:
 
"...the people of Plymouth were so destitute of water in the reign of Queen Elizabeth that they were obliged to send their clothes to, Plympton to be washed in fresh water. Sir Francis Drake resolved to rid them of this inconvenience. So he called for his horse, mounted, rode to Dartmoor, and hunted about till he found, a very fine spring. Having fixed on one that would suit his purpose, he gave a smart lash to his horse's side, pronouncing as he did so some magical words, when off went the animal as fast as he could gallop, and the stream followed his heels all the way into the town."

A Miracle!

he purchased the old abbey from his rival Sir Richard Grenville. Having decided on some alterations he started building work, it was not long before the Devil decided to interfere and so every night he would come along and steal the building materials. Drake could not fathom out who was responsible and so one night he changed himself into a seagull and flew over his new home. Here he saw the evil one taking the building materials and so in a series of dive bombing attacks flew down and chased 'old nick' off.

A Miracle!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake's_Drum

'Drake's Drum' is said to be the very drum that was used on his ships to beat the men to action quarters prior to engagements. Somehow it found its way back to Plymouth where it is said to mysteriously beat itself during times of peril. There have been several occasions when the drum was said to have sounded, both of the world wars included. Today the famous drum can be seen at Drake's former home of Buckland Abbey.

A Miracle!

Now, you have to believe all these things are real and true, don't you? Or do you think that it could be that people just made things up?