This is when Jesus comes in handy!!!

Again thats Catholic/Constantine Roman doctrine:2c:

 

But what if you dont go with most denominations?What if you try to unblur the lines for yourself by reading whats there and even reading whats not there (ie:Many books that werent included in the bible)

 

And yet you readily believe in philosophers like Plato?What evidence is there for him except written?When it comes to Jesus a different standard of evidence seems to be required:2c:

 

Were they real Lion? What proof do you have of this?You give me proof they were real and by that same standard i will have proven Jesus was real. Only difference is Plato and the like dont challenge your Aetheist beliefs but Jesus does .You'll readily accept one person as real even though all we have is written evidence the same as we have for Jesus. In fact we actually have more to support Jesus. You cant dismiss one historical figure on the basis you dont have cast iron proof but then tell me another historical figure WAS real .Based on what

 

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions.Im not actually saying Lion is wrong to not believe,nor am i saying Plato didnt exist. I am however saying how can you discount one historical figure but then totally believe in another who has just as little evidence.IE: Writings.

 

Your avoiding my point Lion. By what standard of evidence do you accept fully that Plato existed and was a genuine historical person?Cos by the exact same standard i can prove Jesus was also a real historical person. Again,only difference is Jesus challenges your beliefs and Plato does not. This is what i find both intriguing/Interesting and at the same time frustrating. You can say with authority that Jesus wasnt real and you say with the same authority Plato was real when in reality we cant PROVE any of them were real because all we have for BOTH historical persons is written word. How can one set of writings be used AS evidence but in the same case another set of writings is not allowed to be used as evidence?. Im not being argumentative but i just sometimes get fed up hearing the same lines from Aetheists. The Ignorance can go both ways:2c:

 

Lion the 300 years you keep referring to.What is that? The book of acts is a historical reference of the early church,agreed? Now considering Jesus in his lifetime actually prophesised the destruction of the temple and the bondage of Israel (and was mocked by the intellectuals of his day for saying this) then surely whoever compiled the book of acts would make sure they mention the destruction of the temple and the bondage of Israel seeing as it would confirm a prophesy of Jesus? Thats logical right


So using logic we have to assume the book of acts was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem which occured in 70AD. Jesus died in what 32 or 33AD? The book of acts also doesnt record the deaths of Peter and Paul which came around 58-62AD and it makes sense for a historical reference to include the deaths of two of the movements leaders right? The Book of Acts was written by Luke and the book of Luke was in fact written BEFORE the book of acts so using logic again we have to assume the book of acts was written around 50-55AD?If we can use logic to accept this added to the fact the book of Mark was written prior to the book of Luke then we are talking of the book of Mark being written anywhere between 45-50AD. That means there was potentially only a 12 year gap between the death of Jesus and the writings of the first gospels. So 300years later has nothing to do with it and is a red herring


You can pick holes in this but it still holds up more than any proof of Plato. I only keep referring to Plato,Socrates,etc cos so many Atheists i know refer to him and the same standard of evidence they use to deny Jesus existed is the same standard of evidence they use to say with certainty Plato did exist. Personally i dont see the difference between the two (in a historical context) except that Jesus claimed incredible things that challenge the beliefs of Atheists. Both are historical figures.Both only have writings attributed to them to verify they existed. Both have said things which have truths and values. But only one of them is generally accepted worldwide while the other is doubted. The same standard of evidence isnt applied to both. :bong2:

 

But socrates didnt write. Does that mean theres any less value or truth in what is attributed to him?No it doesnt,by the same measure just cos Jesus didnt write it doesnt mean theres any less value or truth in whats attributed to him either. Again though,refer to my last post. This 300 years thing is a red herring. The council of Nicea is NOT when people decided to follow Jesus,he was followed in his lifetime and immediately afterwards. It took 300 years for theRoman Empire to accept and follow him and reject paganism. But Jesus was followed by Jews in his lifetime.Jews whose religious views were set in stone and to be able to convert Jews to a new way of thinking was no mean feat and i dare say took some persuasion.Miracles even?The fact though that the largest empire in the world eventually converted to the belief that a man called Jesus did indeed live suggests that the story of Jesus is more than simply a myth. Again though you can pick holes in their reasons for doing so.


If the world gets EMP'd tomorrow and we lose technology forever,and theres no growkind. But if i pass on the knowledge of growkind to my son or my friends and then it is written down, all of the knowledge contained within. Does it mean Growkind never existed if future generations cannot actually see proof? No cos i know it was here and the people i tell have no reason to doubt me. Furthermore if people actually practise the methods i tell them that were contained within GK then they WILL grow good weed and therefore that backs up my story. If people actually put into practice the knowledge attributed to Jesus that he shared then they can judge whether the fruits are good or not.This explains why so many who do practice what Jesus preached dont doubt Jesus. To say the teachings of Jesus are false means you have to try live them to then be able to say "this isnt true". Plato and socrates preached critical thinking,to question everything but you are only questioning ONE side of the coin.:2c: