[_ Old Earth _] Making up history and calling them facts

[Heidi]

You know there's tons of evidence that the bible is true. But what you do when the evidence is presented is you simply say; "no it isn't." And you think that qualifies as proof for your statements? :o In your dreams. But we have cities, the history of other cultrues, eye-witness testimony, statements in all world history books, and to you, that is not proof, but simply saying "no it isn't" qualifies as evidence. Sorry, but you can't prove the world is round to a blind man. But that doesn't mean at all that it cannot be proven. :wink:

The sources are questionable? Which sources are questionable? Please tell me which of these sources are questionable and how you know they're questionable:

1) Armana letters (Canaanite Akkadian 14th century B.C.
2) Amenemope's Wisomd (Egyptian source 1si millenium)
3) Atraphasis Epic (Akkadian early 2nd millenium B.C.)
4) Babylonian Theodicy (Early 1st millenium B.C.)
5) Cyrus Cylinder ( Akkadian 6th Century B.C.)
6) Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century B.C.)
7) Ebla Tablets ( 3rd millenium B.C.)
8) Elephantine Papyri (5th century B.C.
9) Gilgamesh Epic ( 2nd millenium B.C.)
10) Hammurabi's Code ( 18th century B.C.)
11) Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (6th century B.C.)
12) Mari Tablets ( 18th century B.C.)


These are all sources outside of the bible that document the events in the bible and there are 27 other outside ancient sources that I can list and a myriad of other sources that aren't as old that document the events of the bible. So for you to claim that the bible is untrue, you will have to also claim that these and other sources are also untrue, based on what besides your imagination? :o Nothing. Zip. Therefore, your claims have zero creibility and I'm not going to believe you over all of these other sources and eye-witness testimony. That would be absolute folly.

 

[Wertbag]

But the absolute irony is that God, by definition is supernatural! So why in the world do they not look to the supernatural to find God? That again is looking for a wife in a men's club, then saying there are no women around! So the bible is indeed proof that God exists because of its supernatural events!

Obviously you can't look at supernatural beings, you can't test them and they seem impossible to contact and talk to. What you can test for are the results of their interaction with our physical world. If God appears physically to people, why won't he do so again? If prayer can light fires, why can't we repeat the test today? If there was a global flood way does the world not resemble what we would see from such an event?
The miraculous claims are made about the physical world and as such would leave physical evidence.

And they also then need to tell us what did happen during the time that Jesus lived

Life went on as usual? Remove the supernatural events from the Bible and history still makes perfect sense.

So for you to claim that the bible is untrue, you will have to also claim that these and other sources are also untrue, based on what besides your imagination? Nothing. Zip. Therefore, your claims have zero creibility and I'm not going to believe you over all of these other sources and eye-witness testimony. That would be absolute folly.

Again you are confusing proof of believeable history with proof of supernatural events. Yes the Egyptians knew of many of the kingdoms listed in the Bible, but they seem to have missed the global flood which should have wiped them out.
Proving supernatural claims is a lot harder than saying "Because this book is based on a historical setting therefore it must be true". There are many stories based on historical settings: Saving private ryan, matrix, war of the worlds, king kong etc. The setting isn't proof of alien invasion or giant monkeys.

 

[reznwerks]

evidence

You know there's tons of evidence that the bible is true. But what you do when the evidence is presented is you simply say; "no it isn't." And you think that qualifies as proof for your statements? :o In your dreams. But we have cities, the history of other cultrues, eye-witness testimony, statements in all world history books, and to you, that is not proof, but simply saying "no it isn't" qualifies as evidence. Sorry, but you can't prove the world is round to a blind man. But that doesn't mean at all that it cannot be proven. :wink:

The sources are questionable? Which sources are questionable? Please tell me which of these sources are questionable and how you know they're questionable:

1) Armana letters (Canaanite Akkadian 14th century B.C.
2) Amenemope's Wisomd (Egyptian source 1si millenium)
3) Atraphasis Epic (Akkadian early 2nd millenium B.C.)
4) Babylonian Theodicy (Early 1st millenium B.C.)
5) Cyrus Cylinder ( Akkadian 6th Century B.C.)
6) Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century B.C.)
7) Ebla Tablets ( 3rd millenium B.C.)
8) Elephantine Papyri (5th century B.C.
9) Gilgamesh Epic ( 2nd millenium B.C.)
10) Hammurabi's Code ( 18th century B.C.)
11) Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (6th century B.C.)
12) Mari Tablets ( 18th century B.C.)
How does any of this qualify as evidence of the bible being true? I haven't done any research on any of those topics but even considering that they all exist they certainly don't qualify as proof of the bible. First of all all the references are PRE N/T and none of them appear to claim any fantastic claim. As to using Hammurabis CODE that is EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BIBLE. The bible sets itself up as the source for moral conduct and as I pointed out many times Hammurabies COde existed long before the bible was written and Hammurabi did not recognize the Christian or Hebrew God.The dead ses scrolls often confict with Christianity so that is why Chritians don't reference it too much. It appears to be historical in nature and as I said some things historical are verified and some are not. Here is a link to Herod which discusses problems with dating events in the bible. If you use your own arguements for dismissing evolution then you should also dismiss the bible.
http://www.biblicalchronology.com/herod.htm


These are all sources outside of the bible that document the events in the bible and there are 27 other outside ancient sources that I can list and a myriad of other sources that aren't as old that document the events of the bible. So for you to claim that the bible is untrue, you will have to also claim that these and other sources are also untrue, based on what besides your imagination? :o Nothing. Zip. Therefore, your claims have zero creibility and I'm not going to believe you over all of these other sources and eye-witness testimony. That would be absolute folly.
So Heidi you have not offered anything that validates the whole bible and nothing whatsoever that validates the N/T of which most of the controversy rests. Keep trying.

 

[Heidi]

Re: evidence

You know there's tons of evidence that the bible is true. But what you do when the evidence is presented is you simply say; "no it isn't." And you think that qualifies as proof for your statements? :o In your dreams. But we have cities, the history of other cultrues, eye-witness testimony, statements in all world history books, and to you, that is not proof, but simply saying "no it isn't" qualifies as evidence. Sorry, but you can't prove the world is round to a blind man. But that doesn't mean at all that it cannot be proven. :wink:

The sources are questionable? Which sources are questionable? Please tell me which of these sources are questionable and how you know they're questionable:

1) Armana letters (Canaanite Akkadian 14th century B.C.
2) Amenemope's Wisomd (Egyptian source 1si millenium)
3) Atraphasis Epic (Akkadian early 2nd millenium B.C.)
4) Babylonian Theodicy (Early 1st millenium B.C.)
5) Cyrus Cylinder ( Akkadian 6th Century B.C.)
6) Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century B.C.)
7) Ebla Tablets ( 3rd millenium B.C.)
8) Elephantine Papyri (5th century B.C.
9) Gilgamesh Epic ( 2nd millenium B.C.)
10) Hammurabi's Code ( 18th century B.C.)
11) Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (6th century B.C.)
12) Mari Tablets ( 18th century B.C.)
How does any of this qualify as evidence of the bible being true? I haven't done any research on any of those topics but even considering that they all exist they certainly don't qualify as proof of the bible. First of all all the references are PRE N/T and none of them appear to claim any fantastic claim. As to using Hammurabis CODE that is EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BIBLE. The bible sets itself up as the source for moral conduct and as I pointed out many times Hammurabies COde existed long before the bible was written and Hammurabi did not recognize the Christian or Hebrew God.The dead ses scrolls often confict with Christianity so that is why Chritians don't reference it too much. It appears to be historical in nature and as I said some things historical are verified and some are not. Here is a link to Herod which discusses problems with dating events in the bible. If you use your own arguements for dismissing evolution then you should also dismiss the bible.
http://www.biblicalchronology.com/herod.htm


These are all sources outside of the bible that document the events in the bible and there are 27 other outside ancient sources that I can list and a myriad of other sources that aren't as old that document the events of the bible. So for you to claim that the bible is untrue, you will have to also claim that these and other sources are also untrue, based on what besides your imagination? :o Nothing. Zip. Therefore, your claims have zero creibility and I'm not going to believe you over all of these other sources and eye-witness testimony. That would be absolute folly.
So Heidi you have not offered anything that validates the whole bible and nothing whatsoever that validates the N/T of which most of the controversy rests. Keep trying.

In that case, prove that Julius Caesar lived. :wink: And you can't use anctient texts because according to you, they're not proof, and neither is eye-wtiness testimony because according to you they're not proof either. And you also can't use names of buildings, monuments and streets, because according to you, people can make up names and put them on those buildings. So again, please prove that Caesar existed. And if you can't prove it, then according to you, he didn't exist.

So now we're getting back to my OP. Please tell us what exactly did happen in history since you feel qualified to tell us. But this is the degree of absurdity that you have to go to try to deny Jesus. I've met some blind and scared people in my life but rarely have I met anyone as blind and scared as you are. 8-)

 

[armed2010]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Carico. We have statues of Ceasar, and his name and accomplishments appear in many ancient texts. It also is not an extraordinary claim to say that someone was Emperor of Rome. With Jesus, we have The Bible, and that's about it. Based on archeological evidence we can say that many of the places the Bible talks about exist, but it is a huge jump to then say that the Bible is 100% accurate in its descriptions of a man walking on water.

 

[Heidi]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Carico. We have statues of Ceasar, and his name and accomplishments appear in many ancient texts. It also is not an extraordinary claim to say that someone was Emperor of Rome. With Jesus, we have The Bible, and that's about it. Based on archeological evidence we can say that many of the places the Bible talks about exist, but it is a huge jump to then say that the Bible is 100% accurate in its descriptions of a man walking on water.

No, we're talking about simple evidence here that Rezenwekrs declares is not evidence. Unbelievers ask us for evidence but then when we give it to them, they say it's not evidence. So I'm going to say that the name of those statues is a fictional name and someone made up Caesar's name because they wanted to ake Rome look grand. (That's the kind of argument we get against the existence of Jesus). Those ancient texts are not evidence because unbelievers claim that the secular texts I listed aren't evidence either. By that reasoning, than no ancient text can be trusted, but only the words of people who lived thousands of years later. That's what unbelievers think, is it not? :o

If biographies of Caesar are not 100% accurate, does that mean that Caesar didn't exist? :o Sorry, but your arguments are extremely weak, my friend. :wink:

 

[armed2010]

That's actually a valid line of thinking. All we know about the past is what people chose to write down. There are things we will probably never know either because someone didn't write it down, or wrote down false accounts of what actually happend, or the writings themselves were destroyed. We just think that there is not enough reasonable doubt to say that Ceasar never existed, because we have a variety of writings and statues and historical texts that mention him. But yes, it could very well be that Ceasar never existed and what we think about Roman history is completely wrong. We just conclude beyond a reasonable doubt based on what evidence we have that he did exist.

 

[PeterGriffin]

I think Heidi is a bit confused... I myself think that Jesus prolly existed, and he was prolly a very intelligent dude too. But theres no evidence outside the bible that claims he had SUPERNATURAL powers... (walking on water, etc)

Take out all the supernatural stuff in the bible and what you get? :o you get a real story...

 

[Heidi]

That's actually a valid line of thinking. All we know about the past is what people chose to write down. There are things we will probably never know either because someone didn't write it down, or wrote down false accounts of what actually happend, or the writings themselves were destroyed. We just think that there is not enough reasonable doubt to say that Ceasar never existed, because we have a variety of writings and statues and historical texts that mention him. But yes, it could very well be that Ceasar never existed and what we think about Roman history is completely wrong. We just conclude beyond a reasonable doubt based on what evidence we have that he did exist.

And we have the same evidence, (although much more detailed because we have hundreds of words of Christ, and only a few from Caesar) that Jesus lived. So unbelief has zero to do with a lack of evidence because, as I said, there is tons of evidence that Jesus lived, and more to do with deciding not to believe that evidence.

In addition, there can be nothing false found in Christ's words which is not so with fallible human beings. Therefore, the words in the bible attributed to Christ could only have come from an infallible source. Also, the bible was again the most scrupulously copied book in history. If the monks made even one mistake in transcribing it, they had to completely re-write it. But such care was not taken with secular history books yet they are more believed than the bible. So there is no rational reason not to believe the bible, particularly because the billions of neurons in the our brains that all have to fuction in one way or there will be problems, all had to come from somewhere. So as the bible says, the evidence of God is right in front of our noses but people exchange their acknowledgment of God for perverse theories that we came from the mating of animals. This can not only not be supported by reality, it is reducing the miracle of human life to a species who can still only grunt, groan, eat, sleep and copulate. There can hardly be more disrespect for one's life than that.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

You know there's tons of evidence that the bible is true. But what you do when the evidence is presented is you simply say; "no it isn't." And you think that qualifies as proof for your statements? :o In your dreams. But we have cities, the history of other cultrues, eye-witness testimony, statements in all world history books, and to you, that is not proof, but simply saying "no it isn't" qualifies as evidence. Sorry, but you can't prove the world is round to a blind man. But that doesn't mean at all that it cannot be proven. :wink:

The sources are questionable? Which sources are questionable? Please tell me which of these sources are questionable and how you know they're questionable:

1) Armana letters (Canaanite Akkadian 14th century B.C.
2) Amenemope's Wisomd (Egyptian source 1si millenium)
3) Atraphasis Epic (Akkadian early 2nd millenium B.C.)
4) Babylonian Theodicy (Early 1st millenium B.C.)
5) Cyrus Cylinder ( Akkadian 6th Century B.C.)
6) Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century B.C.)
7) Ebla Tablets ( 3rd millenium B.C.)
8) Elephantine Papyri (5th century B.C.
9) Gilgamesh Epic ( 2nd millenium B.C.)
10) Hammurabi's Code ( 18th century B.C.)
11) Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle (6th century B.C.)
12) Mari Tablets ( 18th century B.C.)
How does any of this qualify as evidence of the bible being true? I haven't done any research on any of those topics but even considering that they all exist they certainly don't qualify as proof of the bible. First of all all the references are PRE N/T and none of them appear to claim any fantastic claim. As to using Hammurabis CODE that is EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BIBLE. The bible sets itself up as the source for moral conduct and as I pointed out many times Hammurabies COde existed long before the bible was written and Hammurabi did not recognize the Christian or Hebrew God.The dead ses scrolls often confict with Christianity so that is why Chritians don't reference it too much. It appears to be historical in nature and as I said some things historical are verified and some are not. Here is a link to Herod which discusses problems with dating events in the bible. If you use your own arguements for dismissing evolution then you should also dismiss the bible.
http://www.biblicalchronology.com/herod.htm


These are all sources outside of the bible that document the events in the bible and there are 27 other outside ancient sources that I can list and a myriad of other sources that aren't as old that document the events of the bible. So for you to claim that the bible is untrue, you will have to also claim that these and other sources are also untrue, based on what besides your imagination? :o Nothing. Zip. Therefore, your claims have zero creibility and I'm not going to believe you over all of these other sources and eye-witness testimony. That would be absolute folly.
So Heidi you have not offered anything that validates the whole bible and nothing whatsoever that validates the N/T of which most of the controversy rests. Keep trying.

In that case, prove that Julius Caesar lived. :wink:
I can't prove Julius Caesar lived anymore than you can. In fact the great majority of things that are believed to be true would be impossible to prove individually. So what do we have left? We have testimonies and documents of varied sources that corroborate each other and these sources also have a history and are documented by more than one source which to make a long story short lends itself to being true. In the bible we have nothing but the bible written by people with one name only are are spoken about nowhere else. That is why Jesus and the N/T is highly suspect at being true. To call something historical fact requires credible , and varied sources. You have none.


And you can't use anctient texts because according to you, they're not proof, and neither is eye-wtiness testimony because according to you they're not proof either.
I never said ancient texts weren't reliable. I said that you need more than one source that is credible. You don't have one.

And you also can't use names of buildings, monuments and streets, because according to you, people can make up names and put them on those buildings.
I wouldn't use names of buildings , monuments, and streets to make a claim making a person real. If I did then Hercules and Zeus would be real too.

So again, please prove that Caesar existed. And if you can't prove it, then according to you, he didn't exist.
I don't have to prove Caesar existed. There is enough independent reference to Caesar to make his existance a certainty. Secondly Caesar never claimed to have the power of life and death and Caesar never said to worship him and recieve eternal life. If Caesar never existed who cares?

So now we're getting back to my OP. Please tell us what exactly did happen in history since you feel qualified to tell us.
If you want to know what happened in history go to a library.

But this is the degree of absurdity that you have to go to try to deny Jesus.
Outside of the bible Jesus has no first hand reference and the fact you can't show any proves my point. Look at any Encyclopedia and it uses the bible as reference only. It does the same with Hercules and any other God or mythical character. It talks about Hercules like he was a real person/ god.

I've met some blind and scared people in my life but rarely have I met anyone as blind and scared as you are. 8-)
Really? Really scared? How can that be? If I was really scared don't you think I would be singing a different tune. You hope I'm scared and you have been told that people like me are scared. The reality is I am not scared . In fact I think it is you that is scared because you can't refute me with evidence.

 

[Heidi]

You're scared because the degree you go to deny evidence that you use to prove the existence of people like Caesar is irrational. The same evidence extists for both men, yet you deny one and not the other. So this has nothing to do with evidence because you use the same evidence that Caesar lived to say that Jesus did not live! That is a contradiction.

If you can't prove that Caesar lived, then you're saying there's no such thing as evidence. Is that correct? :o If so, then why do you ask for evidence? If not, then why do you say that evidence doesn't prove anything? Either way, you contradict yourself, my friend.

I gave you a list of 12 sources that I'm sure you haven't even researched before you said they weren't true. isn't that how you operate? :o I also said there were at least 27 other outside sources that document the bible, but you have also declared them as untrue without reading them. Therefore, since you never research your evidence, you're simply in the business of claiming what's tue and what's false without research. Therefore, since your declarations come without research or evidence, they're based on zero facts, but only your imagination. I don't take people who say things are true or false when they have no documents, sources, or eye-witness testimony to support their beliefs, seriously at all. :wink:

 

[reznwerks]

source

That's actually a valid line of thinking. All we know about the past is what people chose to write down. There are things we will probably never know either because someone didn't write it down, or wrote down false accounts of what actually happend, or the writings themselves were destroyed. We just think that there is not enough reasonable doubt to say that Ceasar never existed, because we have a variety of writings and statues and historical texts that mention him. But yes, it could very well be that Ceasar never existed and what we think about Roman history is completely wrong. We just conclude beyond a reasonable doubt based on what evidence we have that he did exist.

And we have the same evidence, (although much more detailed because we have hundreds of words of Christ, and only a few from Caesar) that Jesus lived.
We have nothing from Christ. Christ wrote nothing down and signed his name. Christs words are assumed because someone with only one name said so. You have nothing more than that.

So unbelief has zero to do with a lack of evidence because, as I said, there is tons of evidence that Jesus lived, and more to do with deciding not to believe that evidence.
If there were tons of evidence that Jesus lived why do historians do jumping jacks when anything even hinting at authentication of Jesus ever turns up. Do you ever see any historians doing jumping jacks at more evidence that the Civil War was real?

In addition, there can be nothing false found in Christ's words which is not so with fallible human beings.
That is your opinion and nothing more.

Therefore, the words in the bible attributed to Christ could only have come from an infallible source.
Why is that ? We don't know that they are Christs words and we don't know the source of the words.

Also, the bible was again the most scrupulously copied book in history.
How do you know that. The oldest complete bible is from the 11 century. Heidi that is 1100 years after the supposed event. Jesus and the apostles if they lived spoke and wrote Aramaic. The earliest fragments of bible are in Greek. You just don't know how accurate the bible because we don't know who copied it, we don't have the originals, and lastly the bible itself complains of the scribes messing things up. So that idea of the most scrupulously copied book in history is made by Guess Who? the people that claim it is the most scrupulously copied book in history. So according to your logic again you have to throw that claim out the window.

If the monks made even one mistake in transcribing it, they had to completely re-write it.
How do you know this? Because you have been told this? Maybe they made a mistake and didn't realize it. Maybe they misunderstood the language it was written in. Maybe some monks were working too hard and skipped some lines to make it quicker. Maybe the overseer didn't understand the words either. Maybe the overseer (boss) said to change this or that. The bottom line is that no one was around, and we know from experience that humans copying documents make mistakes and intentionally change things to suit the reader they wanted to influence.The bottom line is that we don't have the original and again according to your logic need to throw that claim out the window.

But such care was not taken with secular history books yet they are more believed than the bible.
Again history is replete with varied sources that lends itself to validating the historical claims made . The only parts of history that tend to be in doubt are motives for the actions and the consequences of the actions. The actual events are seldom disputed.

So there is no rational reason not to believe the bible, particularly because the billions of neurons in the our brains that all have to fuction in one way or there will be problems, all had to come from somewhere.
You are jumping all over the board. There is a rational reason not to believe all the bible and that is because the fantastic claims are nowhere else discussed.



So as the bible says, the evidence of God is right in front of our noses but people exchange their acknowledgment of God for perverse theories that we came from the mating of animals.
Sooner or later you will understand that different animals did not mate and become human. You are terrified of that fact and that is why you simply cannot or will not come to terms with it.

This can not only not be supported by reality, it is reducing the miracle of human life to a species who can still only grunt, groan, eat, sleep and copulate. There can hardly be more disrespect for one's life than that.
We not only do the above we build hospitals, cure disease, organize and build cities go to the moon etc etc etc.However when all is said and done man dies and his body assumes room temperature and eventually he decays. If man were so special he would not share every identical bodily function of every other mammal.If God made man special he made us work like every other animal. Why would your God do that? According to the bible man was the last thing he made. You would think by then we would surly be different than the other animals in how we work.

 

[pfilmtech]

Some of the books of the Bible like Revelation were likely written 50 years after thier attributed authors were dead.

 

[protos]

Some of the books of the Bible like Revelation were likely written 50 years after thier attributed authors were dead.

All of the books in the New Testament except for Revelations was written before 50 A.D. Revelations was written in 96A.D. at latest.

Christ's words were written by one man? There were 4 genealogies. Why don't you examine the Bible first. And at the part with the resurrection of Christ, the apostle Paul makes the statement, "If you want, go and ask the eyewitnesses themselves, today." That's a very strong statement for a lie, since a few minutes with a supposed eyewitness would undermine the whole Christian faith which was the goal of the local Jewish and Roman authorities. "Had not the empty tomb been an established fact, the Christian faith would not have endured for a single day, for a single hour."

 

[armed2010]

Some of the books of the Bible like Revelation were likely written 50 years after thier attributed authors were dead.

All of the books in the New Testament except for Revelations was written before 50 A.D. Revelations was written in 96A.D. at latest.

Christ's words were written by one man? There were 4 genealogies. Why don't you examine the Bible first. And at the part with the resurrection of Christ, the apostle Paul makes the statement, "If you want, go and ask the eyewitnesses themselves, today." That's a very strong statement for a lie, since a few minutes with a supposed eyewitness would undermine the whole Christian faith which was the goal of the local Jewish and Roman authorities. "Had not the empty tomb been an established fact, the Christian faith would not have endured for a single day, for a single hour."

If other religions can sprout up from false claims without evidence, then I don't see why Christianity couldn't have also risen up with an empty tomb and witnesses saying the opposite of Pauls claims.

 

[AHIMSA]

Actually, thats innacurate.

The writings of Paul are relatively around 50 CE

Mark was likely 70CE, possibly 65 CE

Matthew and Luke were between 80-90 CE

John was written likely around 100, give or take, the earliest fragment we have 120 CE

This is general concensus reached by scholars, of course you always have the few that will dissent.

 

[Heidi]

And what other religions tell time by before Rhama Krishna and after Rhama Krishn like the world tells time from B.C. and A.D."? Jesus had the biggest impact on the world on both believers and unbelievers alike than any other religious figure in history. Pretty good for being imaginary. :wink: Most sane people leave others alone for believing in imaginary gods like zeus. And they certainly wouldn't get all riled up about zeus like anti-Christians do about Christ! Sorry, but atheists don't fool anyone but themselves and they certainly don't fool God. :wink:

 

[AHIMSA]

LoL

Heidi,

Only the Christian West divided the world into AD and BC, this was by no means a world wide division. For example, the Muslim Empire began its calender according the night when Muhammad fled Mecca to Medina. Hinduism defines this age as the Kali Yuga age, which commenced with the arrival of Lord Krishna as depicted in the Gita. There are countless other nations that have had different calanders. Ever heard of the Chinese New? However, since the Western world has been the dominant economic power for hundreds of years, it has been benefical for the rest of the world to adopt our calender.

 

[armed2010]

And what other religions tell time by before Rhama Krishna and after Rhama Krishn like the world tells time from B.C. and A.D."? Jesus had the biggest impact on the world on both believers and unbelievers alike than any other religious figure in history. Pretty good for being imaginary. :wink: Most sane people leave others alone for believing in imaginary gods like zeus. And they certainly wouldn't get all riled up about zeus like anti-Christians do about Christ! Sorry, but atheists don't fool anyone but themselves and they certainly don't fool God. :wink:

B.C. and A.D. were implemented centuries after Jesus died. Also, I don't think that you understand exactly why Christianity had the impact that it did. Constantine prettymuch laid the groundwork for Christianities rise after obtaining power in Rome and making it the official religion. With this foundation laid right before the Dark Ages in Europe, Christianity was able to spread fast amongst many of the poor and hopeless citizenry. This gave Christianity a strong hold in Europe. Thus, once the Imperial Age in Europe came about, Christianity gained a headstart in influencing the globe. However, had it not been for Constantine, Christianity would have most likely remained as a simple cult offspring of Judaism, similar to the Mormons and Christianity.

 

[Heidi]

LoL

Heidi,

Only the Christian West divided the world into AD and BC, this was by no means a world wide division. For example, the Muslim Empire began its calender according the night when Muhammad fled Mecca to Medina. Hinduism defines this age as the Kali Yuga age, which commenced with the arrival of Lord Krishna as depicted in the Gita. There are countless other nations that have had different calanders. Ever heard of the Chinese New? However, since the Western world has been the dominant economic power for hundreds of years, it has been benefical for the rest of the world to adopt our calender.

I'm not talking about yearly calendars. I'm talking about history. B.C. and A.D. are universal ways of dating ancient history, which most of the world does, even Muslims. Genesis prophesied that time will be marked by the sun, moon, stars, and spiritual landmarks which it is to this day in all cultures.