Part I is mostly a fabricated lie

OK, let's talk about evidence... essentially what you're asking is to prove a negative, that Jesus didn't exist.

Can I disprove that someone doesn’t have a brain? Of course, with a CAT scan! Can I disprove that someone is not married? Yes... find the records, ask people, or observe. If they're not, I won't find any evidence. Can I disprove the notion that fairies live in my garden? Well, not absolutely, but if I never see one, and they have no effects, then I can provisionally conclude that they don’t exist.

God is like those fairies. Not only is he a supernatural being who’s supposed to exist, but, unlike fairies, a theistic God is supposed to have designated effects on the world. In particular, he’s supposed to be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Further to that, there is Jesus, divine son of God, who also performed miracles, was resurrected, and so on...

If this is all true, there should be evidence. But there is none. On the contrary, there is no evidence of divinity or miracles in the present world, and no palpable evidence of God-inspired miracles, or the miracles that his son performed. Just the stories people wrote about them... stories, nothing more, and at a time and place in history so far removed from our own we cannot even imagine.

In the case of God, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence for his absence. We can provisionally but confidently say that there’s no evidence for a God, and therefore reject the notion that he exists. And if there is no God, how can he have had a son?

I am not sure if you're familiar with Bertrand Russel's teapot analogy, which illustrates that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion... which is essentially what you're doing here. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

Further to that, Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (e.g a universe with no God) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex opposing theory.

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING

This response is very lengthy (in several parts) and may bore some of a nervous disposition

To quote one of the contributors here, “I am a man of science, and religion simply doesn't tally up with that. Physics, geology, evolution.....”

I would like to apply that reasoning to all that has been discussed here, if I may.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, please see the following quotes, quotes which the documentary alludes to but does not explicitly refer, for obvious reasons;

“The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” - Cornelius Tacitus, respected first-century Roman historian

How many “Christs” did Pilate (who until recently was denied as being a historical figure) have executed during the reign of Tiberius?

“That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.” - Historian Will Durant – Author of “A History of The World.”

“A man’s greatness can be measured by what he leaves, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigour that persisted after him. By this test Jesus stands first.” - Historian H.G Wells

“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.” - Kenneth Scott Latourette, American historian and author.

“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.

“Shall we be told such a man never lived, the whole story is a lie? Suppose that Plato and Newton never lived. But who did their works, and thought their thoughts? It takes a Newton to forge a Newton. What man could have fabricated a Jesus? None but Jesus.” - American scholar Theodore Parker

The reference work The Historians’ History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognized by the chief civilizations of the world, dates from his birth.”

“If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” - Michael Grant - Historian

The New Encyclopædia Britannica thus concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Regarding the historical integrity of the Bible itself;

“Luke is a historian of the first rank: not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense ... This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” - William Ramsay - Archaeologist

“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever.” - Sir Isaac Newton, British scientist

Others have already established the embellishment of facts in the documentary. Suffice to say that any serious journalistic source that is found manipulating facts should not be given further reporting credibility. But, for the record, referencing the few connections that still remain between Christianity and mythology, the facts once again speak for themselves;

Similarities in accounts are not evidence of forgery or plagiarism. One historical character may share many features of social customs and rituals with another character but, this is not indicative of collusion or imitation. Regarding the implied connections between the gospel accounts and astrology, the Biblical texts themselves dismiss this possibility;


Astrology was a pagan, polytheistic practice which was condemned by the monotheistic (the only ancient singular) God of the Bible. It simply states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” allowing no room for worshipping or interpreting the heavens.

“There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, anyone practising magic, anyone who looks for omens, a sorcerer, anyone binding others with a spell, anyone who consults a spirit medium or a fortune-teller, or anyone who inquires of the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to Jehovah (God).” - Deuteronomy 18.10-12

It would have been bizarre and inconsistent for the son of God to practice and encourage astrology when God himself banned it's use.

The “Three wise men” were, in fact, nothing of the sort but were Astrologers (Magi). There was no celestial phenomenon or divine star that led them to the infant Jesus. The “Star” not only moved but, led them to Herod who was trying to murder the baby Messiah. God would hardly have arranged that.

Had the documentary writers simply read the Bible, instead of setting out to discredit it, they might have saved themselves the trouble of wading thorough irrelevant pagan records.

Regarding the often cited similarities between the Biblical flood and the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” once again the similarities do not mean that the Biblical narrative was copied from the legends. The oldest known non-Biblical Flood account is found in a Sumerian narration. Fragments of that narration on a broken clay tablet were found at Nippur in southern Mesopotamia. Some (and it should be emphasised that it is some), experts believe that it was written between the 21st and 18th centuries B.C.E. Regarding the dates of these two accounts of a global flood, although the Biblical Genesis account was written in the 16th century BCE (despite some historians claiming a much later date of the 2nd century BCE), the events recorded in the book of Genesis are chronologically listed, along with events and time periods, as occurring between, approximately 4,000 BCE (not the creation of the earth) and the departure of the Israelites from Egypt (1657 BCE). That the book of Genesis was not written in the 2nd century BCE is proven by the many references to Moses and Genesis in the other books of the Bible which are known to have been written in the 8th, 7th and 6th centuries BCE (Psalm 29.10, Isaiah 54.9, Ezekiel 14.14).

The universal theme of a flood in almost all civilizations, all around the globe, actually lends much historical validity to it. In almost all cultures around the globe there is a flood legend. This is true even in areas far from water, areas of elevation and isolation. It is an enigma that a society existing in a mountainous region, far from any major body of water, and unaffected by the threat of flooding, should have as it's pivotal legendary event, a worldwide deluge. One would have thought that such people would have opted for a more familiar disaster such as fire or earthquake, but they didn't.

A popular (and fair) criticism aimed at the Bible is that of the “Creationists” claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Unfortunately, this interpretation is erroneous and does not reflect the actual teaching of the Bible. The description of “days” over which creation was done by God has often been cited as an embarrassing error in the Bible, but this is not the case. The Hebrew word for “day” (yohm) is indefinite and can mean any specific period of time, from a period of daylight, to thousands of years. This is shown by the many various uses and contexts that the word “day” is written in the Bible. The first six days of creation are concluded one by one, but when it comes to the the seventh day, it does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. At the end of the creative period Genesis says “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Here the book of Genesis refers to the whole creative period as a “day.”

When God warns Adam not to eat from the tree, He uses an interesting phrase. Genesis records that God says “In the day that you eat from the tree, you will surely die.” Notice that it does not say “on” the day but, “IN”. That word changes the whole context of that statement. When we describe a particular day we always use the preposition “on” (on Monday etc.), yet when it comes to a longer period of time, we change to an adverb (“in January, in 1988”). Adam did not die on the same day that he disobeyed his creator, in fact, he went on to live for hundreds of years and had many children. The Bible was not referring to a 24 hour period, neither were the creative days 24 hour periods. Elsewhere in the Bible it tells us that God uses “a day for a year” when making certain prophecies (Ezekiel 4.6). Finally, Peter tells us that “one day is as a thousand years to God” (2 Peter 3). Sometimes a lifetime is described by the word “day” (“in Noah's day”).


Regarding the comment about religion being "Set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," few could disagree with that assessment. However, religion, particularly Christendom, have done this because they abandoned the original teachings of Jesus and brought in their own philosophies and doctrines. The Bible does not teach hellfire, immortality of the soul, the “Trinity”, ghosts or political domination yet, the churches (and other religions) happily embrace these man-made doctrines and have persecuted and executed all who oppose them. Jesus himself predicted that this would happen after his death. At John 16.2 He warns “The hour is coming when everyone that kills you will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God” yet, Jesus goes on to say of such persecutors and killers; “they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me.”

Jesus further warned of men who “Teach commands of men as doctrines” (Matthew 15.9).

For the record, atrocities and persecutions in history have been perpetrated by religious and non-religious people alike. Hitler himself was a great believer in the literal application of Darwin's philosophies to the human race.

On to the claim that the advent of biological life is “One area where the evidence 100% categorically goes against what is said in the Bible,” once again, the scientific and historical facts do not support this bold claim.

Most reasonable people would agree that there are only two possible explanations for life on earth and that these explanations are opposed to each other, evolution or creation. If the one is impossible, then the other must not only be possible but, it must be the scientific explanation.

“Abiogenesis” – the formation of biological cells from non-organic matter, is, according to the laws of physics, impossible.

Professor of Biology Dean H. Kenyon co-authored “Biochemical Predestination.” But more recently he concluded that it is “Fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”

Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”

Bryant Lecomte du Nouy, the first scientist to apply mathematical formulae successfully to the statement of biological laws, gives mathematical formulae to show that “Inorganic matter acting in accordance with it’s laws could not have created even a single molecule of protein, let alone a living organism with powers of reproduction.”

“One has to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” (Professor Wald of Harvard University)


“The now discredited theory (Abiogenesis) that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.” - “Dictionary,com”

Regarding “Evolution,” the evidence says exactly the same;

An extensive study by the “Geological Society of London” and the “Palaeontological Association of England”. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: "Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. ... Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. ... Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added:“No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”


Zoologist Harold Coffin concluded: "If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”

“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.” (Physicist H.S.Lipson)

Bertrand Russell was neither a scientist nor historian and so is an irrelevant source in this discussion. Occam's razor points to the less complex theory – design, something that is supported by all the sciences.

Despite the unfounded claims of the supporters of evolution, science actually confirms the existence of God. For the record, Newton, Braunn, Einstein and, even Darwin, believed in God, so do the majority of scientists. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Today at least 80% of the scientists who deal with biology would probably admit that biology and life are regulated by some higher power.” Furthermore, according to the science journal “Nature”, “Almost 40% of biologists, physicists and mathematicians surveyed, believe in a God who not only exists, but also listens to and answers prayers.”

The following letter was published in “The Times” of London and signed by a number of scientists, It reads:

“It is not logically valid to use science as an argument against miracles. To believe that miracles cannot happen is as much an act of faith as to believe that they can happen. Miracles are unprecedented events. Whatever the current fashions in philosophy or the revelations of opinion polls may suggest, it is important to affirm that science (based as it is upon the observation of precedents) can have nothing to say on the subject. Its ‘laws’ are only generalizations of our experience. Faith rests on other grounds.”

The letter was signed by 14 professors of science in British universities. They went on to write “We gladly accept the virgin birth, the Gospel miracles, and the resurrection of Christ as historical events.”

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/fellow/readings30.html

Finally, to the Bible itself. One contributor echoed the thoughts of many critics by stating that “If this is all true, there should be evidence. But there is none,” and that “Ultimately, there is no irrefutable evidence to suggest that the Bible is historically accurate.”

There is an abundance of corroborative evidence supporting the Bible and it's claims. Just a few examples are;

The opening statement in the Bible that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” was ridiculed for centuries because scientists believed that the universe was infinite in size and age, with no beginning. Only in the mid 20th century was it finally established as a fact that the universe did in fact have a physical beginning.

It is generally accepted now that the earth was in darkness at the outset and the surface was liquid, just as the Bible says (Genesis 1.2). The Bible then goes on to state that the waters were brought together and land appeared. This is further explained in the 104th Psalm, verse 6 where it says “the waters were standing above the very mountains”. Then in verse 8 it tells us that “mountains proceeded to ascend”. We know from geologic studies that mountains did, in fact “ascend” in the past, due to tectonic plate movements in the earth’s crust. The correct order of life’s various elements requires light, an atmosphere, land, plants, sea life, land animals and, finally, mankind. This is the order that Genesis lists creation. It has been estimated that to simply guess this order, without the scientific knowledge to refer to, would be against odds of 1 in 3,628,080 yet, the Bible writer Moses correctly lists these stages. How?

The Bible states that life is formed from the “dust” (the chemicals found in the soil), this is while contemporary sources tell of mythological gods being split apart, turtles carrying planets on their backs and mankind being made from blood clots.

The laws of physics testify to the existence of a lawmaker, a designer. For example, the 1st law of physics is “matter can be neither created nor destroyed”. We know from Einstein’s formulae (E=MC2) that energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. But matter cannot be created by any known phenomenon. This is, in all reality, a miracle, beyond the ability of science to explain.

Going back to the origin of the universe and Einstein’s formulae, the Bible states at Isaiah 40.26 that God creates things “due to the abundance of dynamic energy” (remember energy = mass times the speed of light squared and, in reverse, energy is the productive agent for the material universe).

The Bible refers to the shape of the earth being a “circle” or “sphere” (Isaiah 40.22). It describes the water cycle in great detail, long before it was known (Ecclesiastes 1.7). The Bible acknowledges that the earth is “hanging upon nothing” (Job 26.7)

Regarding the historical integrity of the Bible;

Professor F. F. Bruce makes the observation: “It can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened. ... The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of wilful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As

CONTINUED

‘As you yourselves also know.”

Sir Frederic Kenyon (Former Director of the British Museum) testified: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

There is so much more evidence, so much, in fact that it would not be practicable to include it here but, if anyone is interested in more information, I would be happy to provide it.

Finally, one contributor accused those who go to great lengths to defend ideas of being desperate to prove themselves right. Can the same not be said for the many scientists, journalists, explorers and others who make it a lifetimes work to produce written accounts? While it may be true of many naive religious readers to sift through evidence to support their ideas, the same can be said of any group of people, atheists, evolutionist etc. One wonders why such groups go to such lengths to prove what they already insist has already been abundantly and indisputably proven? Could it be an insecurity or a lack of perspective? I have read and studied many works including scientific journals, evolution papers, the Bible and many others and have both sides of the story in full. How many of us can make such a claim? Readers here should take the wise advice of the Bible and “Do not put faith in every word” but, “Keep testing, keep digging” and to avoid the “Philosophies and empty deceptions of men.”