Quote:

about 1000 years before jesus was born this method was used to punish slaves and people who did something "anti-religious".



Excuse me. What I should have said was that the writer of that particular book wouldn't have known about crucifixion as a means of execution. I hadn't looked up information on this that recently. But either way, the writer wouldn't have known.

Even if the writer did now, to predict that specific means of death when there's a multitude of ways to kill a person (perhaps more popular being stoning or beheading), is still pretty astonishing. Especially when you combine it with the multitude of other prophecies that were made about Jesus.

Quote:

2.) even more important is the fact that jesus was just one jesus in a big row of them.



You mean prophets? Yes, the most widely known one would be John 'the Baptist' who was beheaded during Jesus' lifetime. I don't see how that affects anything.

Quote:

here the problems of all prophets and martyrers start: with their death their ideas will die as well

jesus from nazareth though had the brilliant idea to come back from the dead and this made him way more popular then the other ones. allowing to establish a religion on his interpretation of the current religion.




Yes, he decided to rise from the dead, not to claim victory over our sin, but because he wanted to be rememberd. If I had the power to raise myself from the dead, I don't think I would use that power just so that I would be 'famous'.

If you want to imply that this was some kind of 'conspiracy', I would wonder why the followers would risk their lives, and indeed I believe pretty much every one of the disciples was killed (one was thrown off a cliff and then after surviving the fall, beaten to death).

And they would do all of this for a guy who even said that very view people would be His true followers? Matthew 7:13

Quote:

hope you dont take this personal. because its not ment that way. I think its ok to be religious i just dont like the idea that one HAS to eliminate or replace the other.



This is about the only thing really worth responding to. I agree, which is why I disagree with the whole humanist notion of science that anything involving God is immediately trash. According to them, its ok to believe in God, just don't claim He has any influence on anything...

That would be using science to elimanate God.

Quote:

Yes, that might be, but 70 years is a long time and you can't proof wether the originals were 'much younger than Jesus', this is a statement based upon pure faith and faith only. I was looking at what we do can tell for sure, more or less (besides, a copy of what? another copy? or a copy from the original?).




......Seriously.....people devote their lives to studying the history of the bible. They use methods like, corroboration between other ancient (non-biblical) texts, corroboration to actual places and events, comparing the age of the authors, so on and so forth. Its not that difficult to figure out. I highly doubt Jews would go for a religion, where all of the texts were written shortly after Jesus' death. There would need to be a historical background there first.

I'd recommend looking into a few sources before you go making claims without anything to back it up.

http://www.carm.org/seek/Bible.htm
http://www.carm.org/seek/reliable.htm
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/tough/tough5.html

Quote:

It's not about knowing all the evidences at all. It's about making claims that make sense.



Regardless. It doesn't make sense to claim creation has no proof. Besides that it does, you would never be able to know whether or not their are any proofs. Even the best of scientists can't completely know all evidences in existence past and future. Its a 'stupid' claim to make.

Quote:

Invisible or unknown evidence is no evidence. period. Considered the topic it's highly unlikely that there ever will be evidence about a creator, let alone creation.



You guys need to get this fixation out of your head. Number one, the evidence would be for creation, not the Creator. Furthermore, if we could scientifically corroborate everything the bible says, that would be pretty good proof of that specific Creator.

Quote:

Again, it's not about exact amounts at all. The bible also stated 'more stars than sand on the beach', have any idea ho w many sand grains there are on the beach? Which beach? It doesn't say 'all beaches' and doesn't indicate how big the beach is. Eventhough our view is basically 2D when looking at the stars, we can distiquish a gradient and 3D-ish movement of stars when looking at the sky at different times. It's perfectly possible to estimate a enormous amount of stars to be out there by just looking at the sky. Infact the 'more stars than sand on the beach' statement is rather vague compared to what can really be seen!



God gave you a brain, use it.

"sand which is on the seashore"
"As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured"

That implies a greater number than what one understands just by looking up at the sky. It does say what beach; it says a seashore. A seashore is pretty large. That would easily be on the order of thousands of trillions. Easily. I won't even bother calculating the percentages on that one.

Quote:

When it falls down, it's drops, in theory only about a drop is required for a succes. This is more a language issue than something else by the way.



That's why I said I wouldn't dwell on the 'drop' issue.

Quote:

'Between the backbone and the ribs' is said, and yes I expected you to come with those arguments, however just to show you how silly your bible and most of it's socalled literal explanations are, maybe those words were methaphorical for 'from the inside of the body'?



What does the Quran have to do with the bible? Furthermore, between the backbone and the ribs is inside the body, except its between the backbone and the ribs. I'm not going to keep drawing this one out, because anyone who isn't biased towards Islam and against Christianity would see that this is a ridiculous statement. Enough said. You don't agree, I'll let anyone else following this discussion decide for themselves.

Quote:

Besides, this is what the dictionary says about it;




Provide a source. I want to scrutinize it, because I'd like to know why they would add 'between the backbone and the ribcage' when it doesn't even mention any of those things.

Quote:

They have a similar construction of strategy to be able to defend against almost anything. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY HAS, and they are making the same kind of nonsense claims based upon some vague statements.



Christianity doesn't have to defend against anything except for people misinterpreting the bible based on their atheistic worldview. There's nothing scientifically inaccurate or falsified about it.

The only exception I can think of is the 'old age'. But now that RATE (peer reviewed) has thrown a wrench in that one, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

But I really don't want to get into that here. If you want to discuss the age of the earth (and why RATE suggests a mere 6000 years of age), we can do that somewhere else. I will ignore anything you say here.

Quote:

What exactly do you mean with this? Just because you fail to understand the Quran doesn't mean it's indefensible. You see, same pointless argument made that christianity always uses in it's defense.




Christianity doesn't make any scientifically embarrassing claims. At least any testable ones. We can physically test whether or not semen comes from between the spine and the ribs.

Quote:

How could you even know, you are not God. Oww wait, the bible must have said so, right? Now I only wonder why it said these specific things that really can't be known ... not that it would ring any bells for you though.




I'm not specifically aware of any verse on this. But on the other hand, it only takes a little bit of common sense, some mild knowledge of history.

I'm not going to play this game. If you're going to say the bible makes unknowable claims, you need to back it up. Apparently it does make knowable claims. People spend their lives studying these knowable claims. On the other hand, you've spent maybe ten minutes rationalizing in your own mind the reason why no one could possibly know for sure anything about God. Which you either can't share with anyone else, or you won't for some reason (perhaps fear of scrutiny).

Quote:

Yes, I just wanted to point out how illogical your assumption was. You do not need to count up from minus infinity to reach zero.



How does one skip time?

Quote:

In the same way you do not need to wait an infinite amount of time for existing at the present moment, just as you do not weed to walk an infinite long distance for being at your present location. Yet, infinite numbers can exist as well as infinite time and infinite space. You can not reach a point in an infinite distance, but things can very well exist at that point.

I hope the difference is understandable.




I agree with the distance asessment, but not the time asessment. I guess it might be the way I visualize time. I see the 'present' as a point on a line. The only way the rest of the line even exists is if the present 'reaches' it. Give me some think on this, because this is an interesting way of looking at it.

Thanks for the other info too. I only skimmed over it now, but it should make an interesting read tomorrow.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."