Question for any Christians here.

[BillyB]

Are you Christian, Billy?

Yes, but not a fanatic.

[DaveNY]

I'm Roman Catholic so I prefer the Popes.

Let me ask you this, if death is the end, how come 80% of people that are born blind can see when they are clinically dead?

http://www.magiscenter.com/visual-perception-of-the-blind-during-clinical-death/

Because there isn't a scientific explanation for the phenomenon your explanation is that an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being exists?

When I was 14 I was in a car accident and was rushed to the hospital. Even though I was supposedly under anesthetic I know how many people were in the operating theater and 2 of their names. For a while, seconds or minutes I don't know, I could hear the medical personnel talking, discussing my case and other things. I couldn't see, just hear. The doctors swore I was under and never in danger of dying. Did God grant me this insight? Maybe it was an arch angel or just a minor angel? The devil just to tease me? Why?

Others in other cultures have reported near death experiences and ascending to meet their gods. Does this mean there are more than the  omnipotent, omniscient supernatural Christian God and there are other pantheons of gods? Are all of these gods omnipotent, omniscient supernatural beings?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117086/

A 30 year postgraduate, Hindu, married woman with a 5 month old baby, with severe head injury was brought to emergency in Glasgow Coma Scale Score of E1 V1 M2. She was operated for acute subdural hematoma of left side. She was on ventilator for 8 days and was unconscious for around two months. After this she made gradual recovery over 1 year. During this period of unconsciousness she described that she was in a brilliant light in which she floated. She then went to ‘heaven’ where there were a pantheon of Gods with ‘hierarchy’. There was the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva but even they were in hierarchy ‘junior’ to ‘Om’ an apparition of light. She could recall what had been earlier discussed between doctors about technical matters regarding ventilator, endotracheal tube and tracheostomy. Though she was reluctant she was then ‘sent back ‘ by ‘Om’. Over the next 7 years she has slowly forgotten most of her description but her belief has persisted.

[krimster2]

"if death is the end, how come 80% of people that are born blind can see when they are clinically dead?"

I have a great deal of experience working with the blind and visually impaired,
the blind can experience vision, because most of visual processing happens in the brain and not the eye
plenty of people with damage to the retina, can experience vision, even though they are completely blind

life on earth began some 3.9 billion years ago
since then, every single organism that has lived in died on this planet
has been governed by the same physical laws relating to physics, chemistry, and biology

to make the assertion, that this arrangement that nature created
was upended roughly 2,000 yr ago by a single man
and replaced by new rules that are physically impossible
for which there is not a shred of evidence
is STUPID!!!!

BTW, new testament was written by people who NEVER MET JESUS
it’s second hand info
in a court setting it would be called “heresay” and would be inadmissible
according to the rules of evidence

so here’s your beliefs
my two children rejected religion when they were 6 yrs old
they called it another Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy story
which it is
and YOU BELIEVE in it
wow!!!!  not in the least surprised....

[PeterWarrick9]

Because there isn't a scientific explanation for the phenomenon your explanation is that an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being exists?

When I was 14 I was in a car accident and was rushed to the hospital. Even though I was supposedly under anesthetic I know how many people were in the operating theater and 2 of their names. For a while, seconds or minutes I don't know, I could hear the medical personnel talking, discussing my case and other things. I couldn't see, just hear. The doctors swore I was under and never in danger of dying. Did God grant me this insight? Maybe it was an arch angel or just a minor angel? The devil just to tease me? Why?

Others in other cultures have reported near death experiences and ascending to meet their gods. Does this mean there are more than the  omnipotent, omniscient supernatural Christian God and there are other pantheons of gods? Are all of these gods omnipotent, omniscient supernatural beings?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4117086/

There's an interesting book called "Imagine Heaven" where many non-christian people had near death experiences and saw Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Imagine-Heaven-Near-Death-Experiences-Exhilarating/dp/080101526X

My point is that our lives are very short when compared to eternity. If we pray and  try to love our neighbor, we will create a better world and we might get to heaven and avoid hell.

It seems like a "no brainer" to me.

[PeterWarrick9]

"if death is the end, how come 80% of people that are born blind can see when they are clinically dead?"

I have a great deal of experience working with the blind and visually impaired,
the blind can experience vision, because most of visual processing happens in the brain and not the eye
plenty of people with damage to the retina, can experience vision, even though they are completely blind

life on earth began some 3.9 billion years ago
since then, every single organism that has lived in died on this planet
has been governed by the same physical laws relating to physics, chemistry, and biology

to make the assertion, that this arrangement that nature created
was upended roughly 2,000 yr ago by a single man
and replaced by new rules that are physically impossible
for which there is not a shred of evidence
is STUPID!!!!

BTW, new testament was written by people who NEVER MET JESUS
it’s second hand info
in a court setting it would be called “heresay” and would be inadmissible
according to the rules of evidence

so here’s your beliefs
my two children rejected religion when they were 6 yrs old
they called it another Santa Claus/Tooth Fairy story
which it is
and YOU BELIEVE in it
wow!!!!  not in the least surprised....

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus existed and that dozens of people claim they saw him alive after he was crucified. If they testified in court by the dozens, they would be believed. People get put to death based on less evidence.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-evidence-is-on-our-side

You can either choose to believe in the most important human of all time or you can reject him.

If you accept him, you might get to heaven. The choice is yours.

[DaveNY]

Almost all scholars agree that Jesus existed and that dozens of people claim they saw him alive after he was crucified. If they testified in court by the dozens, they would be believed. People get put to death based on less evidence.

You can either choose to believe in the most important human of all time or you can reject him.

If you accept him, you might get to heaven. The choice is yours.

Problem is no one wrote about Jesus while he was supposedly alive. IOW after he was reported to have risen from the dead there wasn't a story in the local media of the time of a crucified, dead person named Jesus up and walking around 3 days after his death. Surely Pontius Pilate would want to track down and kill Jesus if Jesus was restored to life?

When Jesus turned water to wine that didn't make the local news at the time. When Jesus healed the sick on a regular basis one would think that would make news, at least locally. Yet there were no reports at the time of the the sick being healed. Only decades later. Why?   

The writing of stories Jesus' life happens decades after his death by people who never met him.

There very well might have been a local figure named Jesus in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Jesus was a common name and the Jewish religion had predicted the arrival of a savior/prophet/Messiah, son of God. There were others who claimed the title. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
http://www.quora.com/Who-were-some-of-the-others-who-claimed-to-be-Messiah-during-the-time-of-Jesus-Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

[PeterWarrick9]

Problem is no one wrote about Jesus while he was supposedly alive. IOW after he was reported to have risen from the dead there wasn't a story in the local media of the time of a crucified, dead person named Jesus up and walking around 3 days after his death. Surely Pontius Pilate would want to track down and kill Jesus if Jesus was restored to life?

When Jesus turned water to wine that didn't make the local news at the time. When Jesus healed the sick on a regular basis one would think that would make news, at least locally. Yet there were no reports at the time of the the sick being healed. Only decades later. Why?   

The writing of stories Jesus' life happens decades after his death by people who never met him.

There very well might have been a local figure named Jesus in Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Jesus was a common name and the Jewish religion had predicted the arrival of a savior/prophet/Messiah, son of God. There were others who claimed the title. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died
http://www.quora.com/Who-were-some-of-the-others-who-claimed-to-be-Messiah-during-the-time-of-Jesus-Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

The Gospels are based on eye witness testimonies.

The first biography of Alexander the Great was written hundreds of years after he died. Yet, we don't claim they are inaccurate, do we?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/establishing-the-gospels-reliability/

Jesus performed miracles. How do we know? Because they were historically attested to.

http://www.magiscenter.com/how-historians-know-that-jesus-really-did-perform-miracles/

No offense, but your sources are not scholarly.

There are libraries full of scholarly books on Jesus. A great scholar to start reading is N.T. Wright.

[krimster2]

"Problem is no one wrote about Jesus while he was supposedly alive. "

the Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest gospel and was clearly quoted in other gospels
it came first
the two oldest known copies of the new testament the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus  both end at Mark 16:8
and omit the last part of the Gospel of Mark, Mark 16:9 through  Mark 16:20
the part where the angels of the lord are announcing the resurrection of Jesus
these new verses were added years later in other copies, and then they were copied
original version of the new testament DID NOT HAVE resurrection

and even this version, the oldest intact new testament, was created centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus
allowing plenty of time for hand drawn revisionism

there is absolutely NO written record of Jesus written at the time he actually lived
not a single word
first published reference is decades after his death
and he gets a sentence or two in the footnotes, all based on secondary sources regarding activities of his followers

[PeterWarrick9]

"Problem is no one wrote about Jesus while he was supposedly alive. "

the Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest gospel and was clearly quoted in other gospels
it came first
the two oldest known copies of the new testament the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus  both end at Mark 16:8
and omit the last part of the Gospel of Mark, Mark 16:9 through  Mark 16:20
the part where the angels of the lord are announcing the resurrection of Jesus
these new verses were added years later in other copies, and then they were copied
original version of the new testament DID NOT HAVE resurrection

Wow, you really blew the whole lid off Christianity.

You should tell all the New Testament scholars that it's all a myth

[krimster2]

"You should tell all the New Testament scholars that it's all a myth"

I have this knowledge because I used to work for a group of biblical scholars when I was in college
I was paid minimum wage to write programs on an IBM 370 Mainframe that analyzed ancient texts and looked for patterns in the language
what was called "longest common expression", and also word frequency
had to this in Koine Greek, which was my first challenge, to invent a coding for this language
so that it could be entered on punch cards

similar sorts of techniques are used to analyze for plagiarism in college papers

with that research we were able to trace the borrowing from one gospel to the next

all but a few of the biblical scholars I worked with were atheists!
they were academic scholars

there are actually quite a few factual errors in the bible as well
here are some for you to consider

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/bible/geographical-errors-new-testament/


do you think God doesn't do well at geography
or that a human who never went to the middle east wrote the gospel of Mark

[PeterWarrick9]

"You should tell all the New Testament scholars that it's all a myth"

I have this knowledge because I used to work for a group of biblical scholars when I was in college
I was paid minimum wage to write programs on an IBM 370 Mainframe that analyzed ancient texts and looked for patterns in the language
what was called "longest common expression", and also word frequency
had to this in Koine Greek, which was my first challenge, to invent a coding for this language
so that it could be entered on punch cards

similar sorts of techniques are used to analyze for plagiarism in college papers

with that research we were able to trace the borrowing from one gospel to the next

all but a few of the biblical scholars I worked with were atheists!
they were academic scholars

there are actually quite a few factual errors in the bible as well
here are some for you to consider

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/bible/geographical-errors-new-testament/


do you think God doesn't do well at geography
or that a human who never went to the middle east wrote the gospel of Mark

The Bible isn't a science book. It doesn't surprise me there are some scientific errors.

[DaveNY]

The Gospels are based on eye witness testimonies.

The first biography of Alexander the Great was written hundreds of years after he died. Yet, we don't claim they are inaccurate, do we?

Alexander the Great is believed to be real because he was written about by many different people across different parts of the world at the time the events occurred. I don't know where you get the idea that Alexander wasn't written about until hundreds of years after his death since you list no references.

Jesus performed miracles. How do we know? Because they were historically attested to.

http://www.magiscenter.com/how-historians-know-that-jesus-really-did-perform-miracles/

No offense, but your sources are not scholarly.

There are libraries full of scholarly books on Jesus. A great scholar to start reading is N.T. Wright.

All the sources that you mention and that your sources mention are religious in nature. Where are the sources that aren't religious in nature? Surely if Jesus was healing people, curing the lame and blind, on a regular basis this fact would appear in reputable non religious sources from the time of Jesus' life?

This is what I mean by the fact that Alexander the Great was referenced by many, different sources.

[DaveNY]

The Bible isn't a science book. It doesn't surprise me there are some scientific errors.

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, an omnipotent and omniscient being? How could there be errors?   

[krimster2]

"It doesn't surprise me there are some scientific errors.

scientific errors, the correct order of names from point A to point B
how would you get it exactly backwards from the real order?
because you recited it from memory and just got it backwards
so, I think we can verify that the bible IS NOT the word of an omnipotent God
but instead of a man who lived in Rome and never ventured to the middle East
if you want to base your beliefs on what this person wrote
go right ahead
 

[krimster2]

"It seems like a "no brainer" to me."

yes, this is EXACTLY my point...

[PeterWarrick9]

Alexander the Great is believed to be real because he was written about by many different people across different parts of the world at the time the events occurred. I don't know where you get the idea that Alexander wasn't written about until hundreds of years after his death since you list no references.

All the sources that you mention and that your sources mention are religious in nature. Where are the sources that aren't religious in nature? Surely if Jesus was healing people, curing the lame and blind, on a regular basis this fact would appear in reputable non religious sources from the time of Jesus' life?

This is what I mean by the fact that Alexander the Great was referenced by many, different sources.

There are many non-Christian historical sources that mention Jesus. Here is a list:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

If you don't trust any religious scholars, then you can cross check their information.

[PeterWarrick9]

"It seems like a "no brainer" to me."

yes, this is EXACTLY my point...

There are religious scholars and theologians at great Universities like Georgetown, Notre Dame and Oxford that are much smarter and better educated than you are.

The ego of you atheists never ceases to amaze me...

[PeterWarrick9]

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God, an omnipotent and omniscient being? How could there be errors?   

The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

For example, Jesus taught through parables which were metaphors.

[DaveNY]

There are many non-Christian historical sources that mention Jesus. Here is a list:

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

If you don't trust any religious scholars, then you can cross check their information.

I'm talking about writings that appear days or weeks or months following a healing or some other big event Jesus did, not decades or centuries later.

From one of your sources:

They knew the original eyewitnesses had vanished from the scene

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/how-ancient-eyewitness-testimony-became-the-new-testament-gospel-record/


The source below doesn't mention Jesus by name. The authors listed use euphemisms such as "wise king" Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD). Other authors hundred(s) of years after Jesus' supposed death mention earlier authors who mention Jesus but the works of the earlier authors can't be found.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

If God and/or the son of God existed why not make their presence and power unambiguous? Reappear every so often to let the world know you exist. Do something that unambiguously says you're God.

For instance, when Moses descended from Mount Sinai with the ten commandments instead of stone tablets God could have given him the commandments of papyrus, one for everyone present and the papyrus was indestructible and could be 'read' even by the blind and illiterate. If something like this happened, today the most popular religion would probably still be Judaism.

[krimster2]

"There are religious scholars and theologians at great Universities like Georgetown, Notre Dame and Oxford that are much smarter and better educated than you are."

I freely confess this, as I worked for a team of them
and as I said almost all were atheists
however, they weren't good at writing software to do
frequency analysis of the text
so they hired me for this menial task

rather than relying on someone else's conclusions
I like to look at the data and make my own
it's called "science"
it's this new thing that came along in the 17th century

[DaveNY]

The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

For example, Jesus taught through parables which were metaphors.

Then God should have made that explicitly clear to future generations because there are many religious people alive today who say the Bible should be taken as literally true. This includes, Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Shouldn't God use plain language to get his points across? Why use parables that could be misunderstood centuries and millennia in the future?

If God was omnipotent and omniscient then he would have known that future generations would be confused as to whether or not to take the Bible as literally true. Surely he would have provided guidance on this issue if he existed?

http://news.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

[PeterWarrick9]

I'm talking about writings that appear days or weeks or months following a healing or some other big event Jesus did, not decades or centuries later.

From one of your sources:
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/how-ancient-eyewitness-testimony-became-the-new-testament-gospel-record/


The source below doesn't mention Jesus by name. The authors listed use euphemisms such as "wise king" Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD). Other authors hundred(s) of years after Jesus' supposed death mention earlier authors who mention Jesus but the works of the earlier authors can't be found.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2017/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/

If God and/or the son of God existed why not make their presence and power unambiguous? Reappear every so often to let the world know you exist. Do something that unambiguously says you're God.

For instance, when Moses descended from Mount Sinai with the ten commandments instead of stone tablets God could have given him the commandments of papyrus, one for everyone present and the papyrus was indestructible and could be 'read' even by the blind and illiterate. If something like this happened, today the most popular religion would probably still be Judaism.

There weren't newspapers or television back then.

Think about this: If Jesus wasn't performing miracles, how did he gain such a following? Moral teaching only went so far at the time. His miracles are so well documented it would be odd if they never happened.

The question of why God doesn't reveal himself has puzzled theologians for centuries. Here's a great article that attempts to answer the question:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-doesnt-god-reveal-himself

Also, most historians don't believe Moses actually existed or that he was a real person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

[PeterWarrick9]

"There are religious scholars and theologians at great Universities like Georgetown, Notre Dame and Oxford that are much smarter and better educated than you are."

I freely confess this, as I worked for a team of them
and as I said almost all were atheists
however, they weren't good at writing software to do
frequency analysis of the text
so they hired me for this menial task

rather than relying on someone else's conclusions
I like to look at the data and make my own
it's called "science"
it's this new thing that came along in the 17th century

There's lots of evidence from science for God.

Here's an article by a genius Jesuit Priest named Father Spitzer who was President of Gonzaga University.

http://www.magiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Contemporary-Evidence-for-God-from-Science-Philosophy.pdf

You do know that many of the world's greatest scientists were religious, right? Have you heard about my boy Sir Isaac Newton?

Do you know that the scientist that invented the Big Bang theory was a Catholic Priest?

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

There is a false conflict between science and God.

Did you know that 40% of scientists are religious?

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Don't believe in the propaganda that sciences disproves God or religion. It doesn't.

[PeterWarrick9]

Then God should have made that explicitly clear to future generations because there are many religious people alive today who say the Bible should be taken as literally true. This includes, Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Shouldn't God use plain language to get his points across? Why use parables that could be misunderstood centuries and millennia in the future?

If God was omnipotent and omniscient then he would have known that future generations would be confused as to whether or not to take the Bible as literally true. Surely he would have provided guidance on this issue if he existed?

http://news.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

God does use plain language.

The basic message of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are to love God and love your neighbor.

It doesn't have to be so complicated.

Would you consider praying?

http://www.xavier.edu/jesuitresource/online-resources/prayer-index/catholic-prayers

Best case scenario is you might get to Heaven.

Worst case scenario is that prayer is still really good for your brain, according to neuroscience.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443

[DaveNY]

God does use plain language.

You said just a few posts ago that Jesus uses parables.

The Bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

For example, Jesus taught through parables which were metaphors.

The basic message of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is to love God and love your neighbor.

It doesn't have to be so complicated.

Yet theologians today often differ on interpretations of the same Bible verse. If experts on the Bible differ
then how is the ordinary American supposed to understand the Bible?

Would you consider praying?

http://www.xavier.edu/jesuitresource/online-resources/prayer-index/catholic-prayers

Best case scenario is you might get to Heaven.

Worst case scenario is that prayer is still really good for your brain, according to neuroscience.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104310443

Not a believer. I have my own forms of stress reduction. Exercise and my own version of meditation.