Little willy I told you before, if you don't behave and disturb the grown ups when they are having a discussion, your mommy won't buy the latest special force video game for your Christmas present.
I think your right will. I get 5,000 scholars to say Jesus did exist, Gworld will find 100 that say's no he didn't. The bible alone (thousands of years old) is a historical document in itself, and I would need no further proof. Nothing has ever been proved false. Critics like Gworld will say belshazzar didn’t exist because only the bible had this information. But wrong again they are. Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, a “son†of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown. (Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30) Critics long assailed this point, for Belshazzar’s name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings. Thus, in 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig said that Belshazzar was obviously a figment of the writer’s imagination. But does not Hitzig’s opinion strike you as a bit rash? After all, would the absence of any mention of this king—especially in a period about which historical records were admittedly scanty—really prove that he never existed? At any rate, in 1854 some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient Babylonian city of Ur in what is now southern Iraq. These cuneiform documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for “Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son.†Even critics had to agree: This was the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel. Yet, critics were not satisfied. “This proves nothing,†wrote one named H. F. Talbot. He charged that the son in the inscription might have been a mere child, whereas Daniel presents him as a reigning king. Just a year after Talbot’s remarks were published, though, more cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having secretaries and a household staff. No child, this! Finally, other tablets clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time. These tablets also showed that during these periods, he “entrusted the kingship†of Babylon to his eldest son (Belshazzar). At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king—a coregent with his father. Still unsatisfied, some critics complain that the Bible calls Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Some insist that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus. However, both objections collapse upon examination. Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather†or “grandsonâ€; “son of†can mean “grandson of†or even “descendant of.†(Compare Matthew 1:1.) Further, the Bible account does allow for Belshazzar to be identified as the son of Nabonidus. When terrified by the ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words. (Daniel 5:7) Why third and not second? This offer implies that the first and second places were already occupied. In fact, they were—by Nabonidus and by his son, Belshazzar. So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of “badly garbled†history. On the contrary, Daniel—although not writing a history of Babylon—offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries. You got served Gworld D
Is there ever a day when gworld isn't out bashing Christians and America? I can't help but wonder if he was molested as a child Will, Doug, some great posts in the past few pages. Nice job on serving gworld's hatred to him on a cold plate
Gtech; Not everyone has the same family history as you have. It is understandable that your hatred for humanity is caused by you having to pretend to be daddy's little girlfriend for so many years.
I always wondered what kind of "hatred for humanity" was derived from wanting terrorists to win in Iraq. Thanks for explaining your homelife. Sorry to hear you were molested.
You are always full of such inteligent come backs. Did you think that up all by yourself, or did it take a Google search to arrive at that conclusion? Ok, just one? The Bible. Last time I looked it was a respected piece of historical literature, and I have yet to find it in the Fiction section at the local library. Now you show me one source of proof that states he "did not" exist. See above. Just what do you think Natural Selection as defined by Darwin's theory is? "Natural selection is the process by which biological individuals that are endowed with favorable or deleterious traits end up reproducing more or less than other individuals that do not possess such traits" This is "survival of the fittest." Duh.... Come one man, I thought you proclaimed to be smarter than this.
I don't need 5000 scholars, I only need 1 historical proof that Jesus ever existed. On the rest of your long meaningless post, did I even once mentioned anything about belshazzer in my posting? Your posting is totally irrelevent to what I have posted. The question is still the same, is there any historical proof that Jesus ever existed? "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell Pope Leo X (1513-1521): He is quoted by Barbara Walker in her Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Page 471, as having said "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" Rev. Taylor, in The Diegesis, Page 35, has a slightly different quote from the same Pope: "It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us." Fable: 1- A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans. 2- A story about legendary persons and exploits. 3- A falsehood; a lie.
Long time ago, a man named Walt Disney make books and movies about a character called Mickey Mouse. A lot of children around world believe that Mickey Mouse is real, does this mean that Mickey Mouse is a real person? There is no Bible from the time that Jesus supposedly lived and the Bible is nothing more of a collection of stories that was written many years later and has many problems with accuracy and facts. It is not my job to show that something doesn't exist, it is your responsibility to show that something you claim to exist really exist. It is the same thing with alien, people don't ask you to prove that alien don't exits, they want proof that alien exist. As your own cut and paste shows the Darwin theory is about biological evolution and got noting to do with social science and how society should be. You don't even understand the meaning of what you quoted either since it talks about favorable traits and not strongest. For example if different kind of living organism live in a place that is dark, the one which is more adapted to lack of light will survive while the other will disappear. This is not even a process by choice but is defined by our genetic structure and the environment that we find ourselves in. There are fishes that can survive in the bottom of ocean with no light and cactus can live in desert with very little water while humans can do none of this, do you think humans will disappear and only the cactus and fish will survive?
As an avowed Athiest, I feel I speak for the quiet majority of Athiests when I say that gworld is a nutcase who does not represent us in any way. Athiests, as a group, do not hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, or members of any religious sect. Athiests, as a group, are normal patriotic citizens. Athiests, as a group, are not paranoid irrational psychopaths whose only goal in life is to offend others as much as is humanly possible. In summary -- we don't know this guy. He's not one of us. We don't like him. We don't want him any more than you do.
You think you are Atheist but you are just an ASS, don't flatter yourself. Aren't you suppose to be hiding under your bed and playing your special force game on the xbox? Just keep telling yourself that you are a brave soldier in special force, nobody else is going to believe it but maybe it will help you with your fears.
Proving once again you are nothing more than a child. Since you are so keen on a scientfic fact, lets delve into just what Scientific Theory is. What is a theory? Its little more than a guess or hypothesis to be exact. This theory in academic usage explains all or most of the data one has, and attempts to offer valid predictions that can be tested. However, do understand that in science, a theory is not considered a fact, nor is it infallible since we may not know all there is to know. Now listen closely because this is important. In scientific theory, theories reamin standing until they are DISPROVED. If a theory is disproved, it is thrown out completey or modified to fit into additional data collected during research of the original hypothesis. We tend construct theories in order to explain, predict and master things which we cannot otherwise explain logically. Scientific theories are NEVER PROVEN TO BE TRUE. They must first be disproven. Not proven. I hate to repeat myself here, but for the sake of getting this through your head, I will say it again, you "disprove" theories, you do not prove them. That's science man. So, I have theory, that Jesus existed. I've cited a source, not withstanding historical documention, along with "faith". I have created the hypothesis. Now you go disprove it. If a theory is not dis-proven, eventually it can become accepted, at which point it becomes a law. Theories are NEVER PROVEN. They are however, disproven. Did I repeat myself again? Do go disprove it. You just don't get it do you. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are the same thing. Do some reading man. Get a hold of Herbert Spencer's book "Social Statics". Enjoy.
Can you provide any source for this? Where do you get this from? Do you make up things as you go along? So if we refer to my previous example about Mickey Mouse and claim Mickey is a real person, you have to dis-prove that Mickey is a real person, how are you going to do that? May be you want to accept that Mickey Mouse is as real as Jesus. This might be logical for Bush supporters that believe everybody is a terrorist until proved otherwise but others (the rational part of society) believe that people are innocent until proved guilty. This means that the theory of guilt has to be proved and not the other way around. Do you know anything about logic?
Where do I get what? An understanding of basic Scientific Theory? College, a Science vs. Pseudo-Science class I took. Scientific Theory was the first thing we learned. Its some pretty basic stuff. We probably went over it in high school for all I know. I was not paying much attention in those days. We were too busy making stink bombs and other more interesting things. Make up Scientific Theory? Hmmmm, thanx for the credit, but no. It's pretty easy to disprove that hypothesis. Mickey Mouse most certainly was a animated cartoon born in the mind of one Walt Disney. If memory serves (and this is history) Mickey's origins as an animated character date back to "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" cartoon series. Without going into the historical origins of MM, since I can easily demonstrate that MM is an animated character (years of animated movies and cartoons with Mickey Mouse seem to indicate that), and since I can equally demonstrate that living breathing human (carbon based life forms) beings are not "animated", it is relatively easy to discern from this basic factual information that Mickey Mouse is most certainly not a "real person". Of course to tear a book out of the oral office of history, I guess this really depends on what one would consider a "real person". If you have an IQ of the common tree frog, or are mentally ill in some capacity that causes you to believe that animated characters such as Mickey Mouse are "real persons", then I suppose in this alternate reality, it could be entirely possible that Mickey Mouse, really is a "real person". I'm going with the evidence I have presented above, along with common knowledge that more logical, intelligent, sane and normal everyday people would tend to agree with, which is that Mickey Mouse is not a "real person" but is in fact, a cute little animated cartoon character that most certainly changed the world for all us "real persons". If you want to get all philosophical here we could construe that Mickey Mouse may have been Walt's alter ego, there for a being living through his imagination. Now given that Walt was (I say was, because he is no longer a "real person" given his life force is no longer functioning) a "real person", perhaps then yes, Mickey Mouse in a sense, was indeed a "real person." I'm still going with the evidence I presented though. Any more brain busters there Mickey G? Dude, clean the pipe. That or buy higher quality crack. Go away troll.... I grow increasingly tired of your ignorance. One other thing I should add. Last time I was at Disney World in Orlando, I met Mickey Mouse. Under that costume and heavy mask, you know what I think might have been under there? A "real person". So you know what. Mickey Mouse may just be a real person. Go figure. Actually, now that I think about it. This was a "real person" emulating Mickey Mouse, an animated character. Hmmmm, nope, still not a real person.
This BS is basic scientific theory? Can you give us some reference, name of the book, a quote or something that your crazy notions? I don't think you have learned anything, may be it is time for you to go back to school.
Are you completey devoid of any brain cells? Let me help you out. It is also commonly called the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD". Look it up. I am not here to hold your hand. This is a General Discussion forum, not "Citing Sources for Dummies." Interesting.... The Scientific Method is now a "Crazy notion." Now go away troll.
May be if you weren't a high school drop out, you would have know that in scientific discussions you have to provide a source for your assumptions and not only state what you think or wish to be true. Do you mean because it is general discussion forum all your BS should be accepted without any proof. What you stated in your post, may be is the "scientific method" for morons but no scientist will ever accept your BS.