Sigh. I knew you were going there but hoping you wouldn't. Do you really think that the massive amounts of evidence about ceaser compare to the slight accounts of Jesus? What ennemy writings are you referring to ? Are there any contemporaneous writings in existence? Any statues commissioned while he was alive? Any drawings while he was alive? Really now...

No.... I was just baiting him.
Enemy writings..... i would have to stretch this but I was going to refer to the Jews as his enemy by him claiming to be the Messiah.... WHICH they do not deny that he did. AND they will contend that this man named Jesus was brought before the council and given a chance to redeem himself but chose to not do so AND they will attest that they did turn this man called Jesus over to Pilate for punishment. (that be enough to claim him as an enemy)
I will answer the rest of your questions with this: No ...their aren't.

I I'll explain the reason as this: For the following 200-300 years.... you were executed, stoned, imprisoned for claiming to be a follower of this man. Who would dare erect a statue of that guy in their lawn? It wasn't until Constantine declared Christianity to be an acceptable faith that people no longer feared to present their writings and statues of that man.

Answer this truthfully: (pretend your atheist followers aren't watching)
Do you honestly believe that there was never a man named Jesus that these stories are talking about? And do go into detail about whether he was the Messiah or did all the miracles....just did this guy exist?

Okay, I took the bait. Now spring the trap. What are some examples of eyewitness accounts written by people who knew him, and what are some examples of unflattering details his enemies wrote about him at the time?

Nobody ever made this argument. In fact, I specifically stated the stories were probably based on a real person. The argument was that an actual, historical figure named Jesus is not as historically verifiable as someone such as Julius Caesar.

I can't give examples of eyewitness accounts because you don't believe in the books of the Bible. I addressed the enemy thing and the last part was for Aro, not you. I just want to hear him say it.

Whether or not I believe they are true is irrelevant. The gospels don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses, nor do they claim to have been written at the time Jesus lived. What else ya got?

But you did not cite anything actually written by his enemies including unflattering details about him at the time of his existence (in fact, you did not cite anything at all). What would be an example of one of his enemies writing something defaming about him at the time?

*sigh*.... I'm being leveled I know but I'll play along cuz you owe me one.
Hostile Jewish Witnesses
He was said to be born of a virgin
(but he was actually fathered by a soldier)
That's unflattering. Jews claim that his mother was raped by a soldier and their was no virgin birth. Now this can't be taken as an eyewitness statement though...remember that the earliest record in the Talmud dates to 500AD and the earliest record in the Toledot Yeshu dates to 1000AD. It's also not 100% certain, and you know how much you like 100% certainty that the Yeshau (probably misspelled that) that they are referring to is actually Jesus of Nazareth but most historical scholars believe it is.

The more that even critical historians study the Bible, the more they are willing to admit the early dating of its authorship. No gospel in the Bible mentions the destruction of the temple in 70AD in Jerusalem (an event that would surely have been mentioned had it occurred prior to the writing of the Gospels), indicating that no gospel was authored later than 70AD. You don't deny the destruction of the temple, do you? Please say you accept this as historical fact. But when you look closely at Luke’s writing of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, we see that the Gospels are far earlier than that. Remember that Luke wrote these two books (later separated in our Bible) as one large document. We also know that the book of acts ends with Paul in captivity in Rome, prior to his execution which historians place at somewhere between 62-64AD. So we know that the Book of Acts is written before 62AD and that the Gospel of Luke is written sometime before that. Many conservative scholars date the Gospel at about 55-60AD. In addition, Biblical scholars and critics alike believe that Mark precedes the other Gospels, meaning that it has to be written prior to 55AD (much of Mark’s Gospel is mentioned in Luke’s account because he was a copy cat). So by dating in reverse in this manner, we can conclude that the Gospels ARE in fact eyewitness accounts (as they claim to be) that are written within 20-40 years of the life of Jesus!
*whew*

Why would these authors lie or make up this story? All of them died horrible deaths and never changed their stories about this man they knew as Jesus:

Peter was crucified head down in Rome in 66AD
Andrew was bound to death in 74AD
James was beheaded in Jerusalem.
John was banished to the Isle of Patmos in 96AD
Phillip was crucified at Heirapole, Phryga in 52AD
Bartholomew was beaten, crucified, then beheaded in 52AD
Thomas was run through by a lance at Corehandal, East Indies in 52AD
Matthew was slain by the sword in the city of Ethiopia in about 60AD
James son of Alphaeus, was thrown from a pinnacle, then beaten to death in 60AD
Thaddeus was shot to death by arrows in 72AD
Simon was crucified in Persia in 74AD

These eyewitnesses had NO positive motive for their story. They gained no wealth, no comfortable lifestyle, and no assurance of a painless death. Witnesses without a positive motive other than truth are THE best witnesses in the world. CAN I GET AN AMEN ! !

And if you say “gotcha” … I will hunt you down.

An Australian Christian (although admittedly one with unusual positions). I wouldnt call myself a christian in America but my impression is that literal and fundamentalist views are much more mainstream there than elsewhere in the world, certainly than here.

I call myself a christian because of my belief in the divine nature of jesus and the value/specialness of the bible.

I dont think a deist God is interested in a personal relationship with his creation. I do feel a personal interaction with God, however it's a private one and I dont believe he answers prayers or acts in my life in such a direct way - more that he gives me strength and comfort.

Here is a nice quote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-just substitute evil for not healing amputees.

one example::: the bible says pi is 3.... its wrong obviously.

According to Ezekiel.... you "will know he is the Lord when" he lays his vengeance upon you.


Ooooooo....you gonna get it.

And I still ask.... who ever said we deserved an answer or fairness?

yep, humans dont deserve answers to prayers or fairness or a loving God (even though he claims to be all loving) because we are born sinners! thats right, we are born sinners because some guy 6000 years ago made God angry (pretty petty if you ask me). So yeah, all those babies and children who get murdered by God's people in the OT, or die to natural disasters today, dont deserve to live a full life, cause you know, they are sinners.

again, if your God is all-loving, which you must believe, then its you who has a problem, not me. I don't believe your God to be all loving, so of course I don't expect him to heal amputees, or to prevent natural disasters from wiping out thousands of people, or to make rape not possible, etc, etc.

I've never heard this one. Where is it thought to say that?

+1 god's the one who said he was all loving and all powerful, then why cant he heal them?

http://www.abarim-publications.com/B...The_Bible.html

i hope this will suffice.

Cheers