facebook religious discussion 2016

7/25/2019 Facebook Religious Discussion 2016

1/25

Conversation started Friday

1/15, 1:30pm

Jake Huber

Josh, so you want to know why the God of Jesus over any other "god". I'd like to preface my answer by

saying, first, I don't know every supposed god that's been in existence so I'm hoping you'll agree that I can

narrow my response to the most prominent religions that claim a deity. If there is a religion in particular

whose god you are curious about as compared to the God of Jesus, let me know and I'll do my best to

address that in particular.

I'll start by saying that religions contradict each other so they can't all be true. Both the Jewish and Islamic

faith recognize Jesus; however, they disagree that he was the messiah (fulfilled prophecies). Unless you

want me to get into Greek Mythology and comparing Zeus and the like, I'll stick primarily to the Jewish

and Islamic faiths. Buddhism doesn't claim a deity, just enlightenment. The only other religion to note, in

my opinion, is Hinduism and it's a more interesting case than even the Jewish or Islamic faith so I'll tackle

that separately.

It's important to note that It's not so much comparing one religion's God over another, but rather which

one has the most supportive evidence and then a comparison between the religions themselves for

compatibility.

As I already mentioned, Christianity is not compatible with the Jewish or Islamic faith because neither one

believes in the resurrection of Jesus, Islam even questions the death on the cross. That's problematic forthose religions because if there's evidence to support the death and resurrection of Jesus, which I

contend there is, that alone places the religion in peril. Some argue that the God of Christianity, Judaism,

and Islam is one in the same. That's not exactly true. Judaism paints the same picture of the God of

Christianity to a point, the Old Testament. But, that's only half the picture. Christianity brings us the rest of

the picture of God through the life of Jesus. The God of Judaism is, therefore, in complete.

Islam is even worse off because it suggests Mohammed was the last prophet. This presents a big

problem if you consider Jesus said not only was he a prophet, he was in fact the messiah, God in the

flesh. Why would God send another prophet after his son to provide contradictory teachings though an

imperfect man who dies and doesn't rise again? To me, the answer is, he wouldn't.

In essence, the three religions implore those seeking answers to decide among them. I can't possibly

present to you all three religions in their entirety, but only one has a messenger that claimed to be God

and that's Christianity. As I stated in the open forum, I find that a belief in the resurrection of Jesus is the

biggest, and sometimes only, hurdle to a belief in God. How could one believe that Jesus lived, died, and

rose again, but not believe in God? I know your question didn't include why I believe in the story of Jesus,

but I was even surprised myself after doing some serious research to try and determine how stable (or

shaky) the foundation is for the Christian faith. And, not based on religious dogma, but rather historical
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


2/25

accuracy and the reliability of the scriptures. If you're interested in my findings there, I'd be happy to share

them with you. They include some atheist favorites like Bart Ehrman tongue emoticon

So, on to Hinduism. I say it's a more interesting case because t's said to predate Christianity (some

scholars claim Judaism as the oldest and Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy) and doesn't

include a Jesus figure at all. I could easily suggest that a belief in Christianity alone would disallow one

from believing in Hinduism, but I was a bit more curious about Hinduism so I won't dismiss it so easily.

The fact that it predates Christianity makes it more interesting to me as well, because this allows for a

more direct God for God comparison if you will. First, Hinduism doesn't ascribe purpose to the creation of

the world as we know it like Christianity does. Nor does Hinduism assign holiness and accountability to

their deity. But, the starkest contrast between the two is in their methods of salvation. Christianity says

salvation through God. Hinduism says salvation through your own efforts. I know the contrast between

these two religions probably doesn't satisfy your question of why one over the other. To that, I refer you

back to Jesus primarily, but there's actually more reason to believe Christianity over Hinduism. One big

reason is the archeological/historical support Christianity enjoys over Hinduism. It's overwhelming when

you really look into it.

I realize my answer isn't all encompassing, but it's in large part why I say Christianity over any other

religion. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. If you don't believe that, you'd have an awful lot to

contend with when it comes to the archeological/historical facts in the New Testament, namely Jesus

himself. Islam asks its followers (and I realize there are many) to believe in the word of a sinful man over a

man that lived a perfect life, claimed to be God, and rose from the dead. That's an extremely succinct way

of putting it. Of course, there's much more to it than that, but I think you get the point.

So, let me know your thoughts when you have the time. Again, if there's an important God or religion I left

out, preferably not something silly like Scientology or the like, I'll do my best to respond to those in

particular. I must admit, if you're in fact an atheist, I find your question odd to begin with because it really

does first require one to accept that a God exists. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you could have an opinion

on anything I've said because your premise would be that no god exists. I'd love to have that discussion

with you if that is your stance. I've had rather lengthy chats with atheists recently that were fairly

interesting, but I have to admit, not very intellectually engaging. I'm hoping you can up the ante. tongue

emoticon

FriYou accepted Jake's request.

1/15, 1:38pm

Josh Gordon

I am an atheist and do not believe there is a God. My question doesn't require me to believe in the

existence. It just requires me to be open minded enough to see other people views.
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256


3/25

With that being said, what archeological or historical evidence is there to support Jesus even existed, let

alone that he was the Messiah?

1/15, 1:41pm

Jake Huber

Just so I can gauge your level of understanding, are you in the camp that doubts the historicity of Jesus all

together?

1/15, 1:43pm

Josh Gordon

Yes. I have done a great deal of research in an attempt to find substantial proof that Jesus did in fact exist

and no historian or archaeologist has yet to be able to provide such evidence. If you have that evidence I

truly would like to see. As would the rest of the world. Because if there were substantial evidence of the

existence of Jesus and that he was the Messiah there would be no room left to not believe. Which you

already stated.

1/15, 1:51pm

Jake Huber

Okay. Don't run into too many that outright doubt Jesus existed all together. If you're looking for bones ...

obviously you won't find those tongue emoticon That would kind of negate the rose again part of the

Christian faith. But, I have to say I'm kind of surprised that you haven't found any evidence that Jesus

even existed. There's more than enough evidence to show he existed. No biblical scholar (to include

skeptics) believe Jesus didn't exist at all. Hell, even Dawkins concedes that. If that alone doesn't convince

you, I'm not sure how I can tongue emoticon What evidence do you have trouble believing? The bestevidence that Jesus existed is in the scriptures. There's some references outside of that, but most

skeptics dismiss them outright so I don't try to argue them any more. My approach these days is in

highlighting the reliability of the scriptures themselves. There's an excellent video on this that I'll send you

on here once I find it. I'm not sure you you generally follow within the atheist circles, but I'm curious now

because even the most prominent don't argue that Jesus never existed. They're content to argue he didn't

rise from the dead because, to them, that's a miracle and the probability of a miracle is too high to fathom.
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


4/25

1/15, 1:55pm

Jake Huber

So, here's a debate between Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman that speaks to the reliability of the Bible. It's a

bit lengthy. Maybe something for you to check out when you have the time. If you're interested in a more

one sided version, you can look up "Dan Wallace" and "reliability of the bible" on YouTube or Google and

find plenty ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA

1/15, 1:56pm

Jake Huber

But again, even Bart Ehrman doesn't deny Jesus existed. You might like him because he was a long time

Christian that turned Atheist.

really smart dude

1/15, 1:58pm

Josh Gordon

Most atheist who has truly done research on different religions will argue that Jesus never existed.

Although I personally don't doubt that someone named Yahweh did exist who was probably fabled I to

something he wasn't, there is no evidence of such a person. Oldest remains we have found are 2.3 million

years old. It's reasonable that remains of Jesus would have been located by now, mainly since so many

people have spent their entire lives to find them.

But since you bring scripture into it as your evidence, which bible do you follow?

1/15, 1:59pm

Jake Huber

Name me one mainstream, respected biblical scholar who denies Jesus existed.
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTAhttps://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTAhttps://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


5/25

There's probably a thousand atheists you could rattle off, but i'm talking about biblical scholars. It's unfair

to say Jesus didn't exist without even having a thorough understanding of what's in the scriptures

1/15, 2:01pm

Josh Gordon

David Fitzgerald

1/15, 2:01pm

Jake Huber

I'm I follow the protestant Bible, but the differences to me between that and the Catholic or any other

denomination are inconsequential because the core tenets are the same

that's an atheist activist

i'd have to research him though

1/15, 2:02pm

Josh Gordon

How does a person who has studied the bible qualify as someone who can prove Jesus existed?

1/15, 2:02pm

Jake Huber

always interested in who folks on the other side are following

how does someone who hasn't studied the bible qualify as someone who can definitively say jesus didn't

exist?
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


6/25

1/15, 2:04pm

Josh Gordon

Because the two aren't connected.

An archaeologist doesn't need to be able to quote scripture to search for fossils of Jesus. Just needs to

know the area.

1/15, 2:05pm

Jake Huber

Sure they are. Inseparably. Would you trust someone who knew nothing of ancient roman antiquity telling

you Ceasar never existed?

Jesus rose from the dead ... ergo, no bones

1/15, 2:05pm

Josh Gordon

And how do you know that?

1/15, 2:06pm

Jake Huber

I believe it based on the preponderance of the evidence supporting it

1/15, 2:06pm
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


7/25

Josh Gordon

What evidence?

1/15, 2:12pm

Jake Huber

Well, I find the explosion of the early Christian church, the eye-witness testimony (to believe this you'd

have to research the reliability of the scriptures), the reliability of the scriptures themselves with respect to

historical accuracies (in other words we're to believe some of the Bible because it has provable facts, but

not others because they don't?), eye-witness accounts of Jesus after dead and buried, the actions of the

disciples after Jesus death and resurrection .... i could go on, but it sounds to me like you're still stuck

discrediting the scriptures themselves so I'm not sure it would do any good tongue emoticon

1/15, 2:13pm

Jake Huber

Honestly, I think if you at least watch the video I shared with you, which gives both sides of the story, you

might have a different perspective

If you discount the Bible entirely, I'm not sure you believe in history at all because there's plenty of things

in our history books for which we have less supporting documentation

What is the Bible if not a collection of writings from antiquity anyway? Folks have such an aversion to it

when you give it the name Bible and assign a religion to it.

1/15, 2:15pm

Josh Gordon

So the scriptures appear to be your only evidence?

Which scriptures have been proven to be true? And in what way have they been proven?

Which version of there bible are you using to obtain these scriptures?

I will watch the video, although not at this moment.
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256


8/25

1/15, 2:19pm

Jake Huber

I prefer the Protestant Bible, but again, the differences among them, to me, and most biblical scholars, is

trivial ... it's not a matter of "proving" particular scriptures true. Believe it or not, the Bible speaks about

historical matters. The cities it references existed (provable). The peoples it references existed (provable).

Unless you also don't believe Jewish people exist tongue emoticon I mean, it is simply a collection of

writings. Some strictly historical. Some parables. There's all kinds of literary usage that throws people off

because some claim it's to be taken literally even though the Bible itself doesn't even say that. There's

hyperbole and the like. Sometimes I think Christians are their own worst enemy because we don't all have

the same knowledge base so when you begin to "proselytize" you can really do some damage if you don't

know what you're talking about.

1/15, 2:21pm

Jake Huber

I'm not sure how I come across to most people, but I'm actually not a deeply spiritual person. I'm just a

very inquisitive person and I found that once I actually dug into Christianity, it made sense. And, so did a

lot of other things.

1/15, 2:26pm

Josh Gordon

You're not actually answering my question. You just keep saying there is this evidence, without providing

any. When I ask what version of the bible I mean which translation? King James, Wycliffe etc...

The translation makes a huge difference. Each translation has different meaning in several books. Some

of scriptures that others don't. So it truly is important.

1/15, 2:27pm
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256


9/25

Josh Gordon

Not to mention the knowledge of each scribe on the language their books were translated from and the

time period for which it was done. Let alone who ordered the translation.

1/15, 2:29pm

Jake Huber

I see. Well, the Catholic Bible actually has more books, that's why i referenced it that way. I suppose I

prefer the NET translation the most. It provides footnotes when variations on words exists. It seems to

give the truest translation, but you're wrong in assuming that the differences in translation have any

impact on the core tenets of Christianity ... or any tents really. The Bible isn't as complicated as you seem

to be making it out to be. When you watch the video, you'll have a clearer understanding of what I'mtalking about. There's no translation that excludes the life, miracles, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

There's no translation in which God says one thing and another translation in which he says the exact

opposite. I'm not sure what examination you've done on this outside of hearing other atheists tell you

these big differences exist and they're a problem. They don't and they're not.

1/15, 2:30pm

Jake Huber

You could always try reading the Bible for yourself wink emoticon

If you go that route, however, I'd absolutely recommend a companion text that provides the context

needed to read a book of antiquity such as the Bible

The problem many folks fall into is thinking the Bible can simply be read by anyone. It certainly can if

you're not trying to scrutinize, but perhaps only glean some meaning for whatever is ailing you at the

moment, but reading it from cover to cover is extremely different.

1/15, 2:34pm

Josh Gordon
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256


10/25

I have read the bible. King James and Wycliffe are my favorite. Mainly Wycliffe because it is one of the

oldest and truest to what historians believe to be the closest translations. My dad is a Reverend. Reading

and knowing the bible was required.

There are several chapters in John that are not in king James but they are in Wycliffe. Which is odd.

There are several rooms of Paul as well.

1/15, 2:35pm

Jake Huber

Well, excellent. Than you at least understand the Bible isn't to be taken literally throughout and you're

familiar with the historical context and literary stylings used in each section

Honestly, I think if you check out more from Dan Wallace besides just the video I shared, you'll see whythat is and how inconsequential it is.

I wonder how your father feels about your new belief system tongue emoticon

One that suggests he peddles fairytales tongue emoticon

1/15, 2:45pm

Jake Huber

Well, brother, I'm going to hit the hay. I'm actually in Germany. Time's about quarter to 11pm. But, I

appreciate the engagement. Maybe next time we can discuss some atheist favorites: God of the gaps,

The moral argument ... skies the limit wink emoticon I would like to hear about some things you do believe

in instead of just things you don't. As I mentioned in the open forum, I believe in Intelligent Design Theory.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. There's a lot to it and, if nothing else, I hope you at least appreciate

the fact that it would be impossible to discuss these things on an open FB page. Anyway, enjoy the day.

Hit me up anytime.

1/15, 2:53pm

Josh Gordon

It's not a new belief. I've been an atheist the majority of my life. My dad is probably the only person who

has come close to making me actually think about the subject. Other people tend to dance in circles,


11/25

which no offense, is what happened here. Although I did enjoy the conversation, more answers would've

been appreciative. And honestly I prefer the open forum. But I have been doing open forum debates for

years on the subject. I honestly find the bible to just be a collection of made up stories. The similarities of

some scriptures to factual events or places are merely a close resemblance. None have actually been

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think a full fledge trial on the topic of God should be made. I know they have done televised scripted

versions, but a true trial would be entertaining. As LEO we should hold everything in life to the same

degree we hold the law to. I strive to at least.

1/15, 3:03pm

Jake Huber

Hey man, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink tongue emoticon I like that fact that

you at least appear curious though. Keep an open mind when you watch that video. I'm nothing if not fair

so I gave you one that ardently argues both sides of the issue. I think you didn't see answers in what I

provided because you don't quite know what you're looking for. You seem to be, like most atheists I've

engaged with, looking for some magic revelation that makes things click for you. That doesn't exist. What

we've got is what we've got. You either believe it or you don't, but hopefully you don't come to a lack of

belief based on ignorance. I find most atheists don't spend as much time trying to understand something

as much as they do trying to dismantle it. So, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's all about

perspective. I hope you keep asking questions though. I grew up in the church, but at one time all it took

was the idea of dinosaurs to shake my belief in God tongue emoticon I like to think I've matured since

then and given Christianity the respect it deserves. I used to be just as dismissive as many atheists Iencounter, although I would never consider myself an atheist. More agnostic I suppose. But, after the

research I've done, I'm firmly in the Christian camp. And, I base that on a number of things outside the

Bible. If you're interested in continuing this discussion, I'd be glad to share those things with you. I agree

with your suggestion that we hold everything in life to a certain standard, beyond a reasonable doubt

perhaps the most apropos for LEOs. By that standard, I think if God were on trial he'd be proven innocent

of a mass hoax wink emoticon By the way, if you would like more answers, ask more questions. You might

not find everything I say satisfactory, but, again, I think it has more to do with your expectations than it

does my responses. Cheers!

1/15, 3:18pm

Josh Gordon

You can believe anything if you're looking to believe in it. But if you show up to a domestic violence case

and you have the woman saying one thing and the man saying another, you need evidence. We don't take
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256


12/25

the word of the "victim" as the truth based solely on their word. The same logic applies here. I asked

several basic questions in which you only provided scripture as the answer. Not a specific scripture, just in

general. As I've said, I have spent most of my life studying both sides. The logic prevails. Once someone

can provide substantial evidence of the existence of a God, I will believe. Until then I won't. Just like I

won't believe a "victim" without evidence. But I'll continue to search for that evidence myself just like I

would for that victim. Being skeptical is actually a good thing believe it or not. It makes you much moreopen minded. Good luck.

Today

3:11am

Jake Huber

I would agree with you that SOME can believe anything if they're looking for it, but it would require

tremendous stretches of the imagination to, say, believe in unicorns, or something of that nature. So, just

because you are looking for something or want to believe in it, doesn't mean you can twist ANYTHING

into proof for that thing. People come to a belief in Christianity in many different ways and I think that

bothers atheists who largely consider themselves "thinkers" or more "open-minded" as you've stated.

What's odd about that is that atheists close the door on the notion of a God (read: close-minded) just as

they think Christians leave that door open. Open-mindedness is highly prized in the atheist community,

but I've always wondered why and what exactly it is they think they're open-minded about that Christians

can't be. I lean towards science for literally everything outside of how it all began. I think science explains

God, not explains away God. It helps us understand his creations better, but I simply don't believe we'll

ever reach a point where we can explain away the need for a creator. The more we have tried, the furtherwe have gotten.

You did ask me several basic questions and I gave you several basic answers. I could tell from the

beginning that your question about why Christianity over any other religion was simply an icebreaker. You

seemed far more interested in proof that Jesus existed. The problem you have is that you, perhaps long

ago, dismissed the scriptures as if they're anything but the collected writings of SEVERAL individuals, all

of whom tell the story of Jesus. I get the feeling you expected me to turn you on to some other ancient text

that's far less reliable as proof. There are other writings about Jesus. Folks often reference Tacitus,

Josephus, and a host of other folks or writings in ancient times, but those are looked upon as less reliable

and certainly less descriptive. What I don't understand is the desire to pursue "proof" outside of the most

reliable and obvious: the Bible.

The Bible, as we know it today, wasn't generated by one person at once. Again, I feel like a broken record,

but it's a collection of writings. What are the odds that several different people would pass along such

similar stories (not identical, which is important because that speaks to a lack of collusion) about the

same man, all of which was fabricated? It's been my experience that atheists who deny Jesus even

existed are simply trying to make their job easier because if he didn't exist then they don't have to tackle

the challenge of arguing away what he's said to have done (miracles, rise from the dead, etc.). From what
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


13/25

you've stated to me so far, I'd have to say you've wasted a good portion of your life if you haven't even

heard of folks like Dan Wallace, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, or a litany of other folks who dedicate

their lives to this topic. I'm certainly familiar with the heavy hitters on the atheist side: Dawkins, Hitchens,

Ehrman, Delahunty, and the list goes on and on. I find it important to hear what both sides have to say

and I've truly done the research and heard the arguments. I find the atheist side lacking in key areas.

They can make strong arguments at times, but none of them injure the core tenants of the Christian faithor explain away God.

I'm not sure your domestic violence case is a fair comparison. This isn't a God said, man said case. Sure,

prominent atheists have made it their mission to discredit the Bible. In other words, they've tried to

discredit the eye-witness accounts there in, but even folks like Ehrman admit they don't have direct access

because it's a historical document. You can't exactly cross-examine someone who has long been

deceased. All you can do is try and understand things from their perspective and that means putting

things in their proper context. I don't know about you, but I don't claim to be nearly smart enough on

writings of antiquity to be able to understand them on my own. That's why I defer to experts. I don't simply

try and use my own brand of "logic" like many atheists do. They believe they can out-think the Bible or

other relevant facts. I know this because I'm constantly told things like "It just doesn't make sense" or"That's not logical to me" by atheists. Do you have any idea how many things science has proven seem

counterintuitive upon first glance or seem at odds with our "common sense"? That's why I rely on the facts

and evidence.

You can't very well keep asking for "substantial evidence" for the existence of a God and not define what

you consider substantial evidence. With no definition, you have the freedom to shoot down ANYTHING

that someone presents to you as not meeting the criteria. What is that criteria?

I think approach is important too. One atheist who I debated for several weeks was all over the place. He

had similar questions, but once we began scratching the surface of one, he was moving on to another. It

was one of the more manic debates I've been involved with tongue emoticon This one has a similar feel in

that I get the feeling your approach is to cast a wide net and expect someone to answer every question it

gathers. As I stated in the beginning, the biggest hurdle is the story of Jesus. If you can truly research that

and come to a true understanding, then you've got a chance. If you look at ever single argument any

atheist has ever made as one huge argument against Christianity or the existence of a God, you'll get lost

immediately. I try to tackle one issue at a time and there are many convincing arguments if you actually

look into it.

Read, my friend. There are some excellent books out there that aren't incredibly "preachy" ... something

I've noticed atheists have an oddly strong aversion to tongue emoticon One that I enjoy in particular is

William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith. It dispels many of the most common atheist myths, which I find

are largely emotional pleas rather than fact based analysis.

As a side note, I'm not sure exactly what your job is in policing. I'm actually a Special Agent for the U.S.

Army Criminal Investigation Division. I've worked with nearly every other 3-letter Federal Agency and

dozens of local PDs. Your comment about not believing a victim without evidence struck me. You even felt

the need to put victim in quotations. Although I've worked everything from Murder to Drugs to Fraud, the

bulk of my experience is in Sexual Assaults. If you had that attitude working a rape investigation, you'd get

eaten alive by my organization. That's a common attitude I've observed in many local PDs, but it's one

that most experienced in such cases shed long ago. It's not a matter of convicting someone on the word


14/25

of one other person. That I don't believe in. But, we always start by believing unless there are obvious

signs that we should give that a second thought.

Anyway, skeptical can be a good thing. But, as with anything in life, decisions need to be made. I might be

skeptical about what I want for lunch, but eventually I'm going to eat something because I value living.

Same applies with decisions about eternity. You might be skeptical for a time, as was I, but that led me to

earnestly research the matter for the sake of my eternity. I also have a family to raise and I know when I

began questioning things in my teen years, I didn't really get satisfactory answers from my folks who took

a lot more on faith than I do. I hope to be able to answer my son's questions as he gets older. In fact, I

invite them. Blind faith works for some people. Not for me. But, I value convictions over "open-

mindedness". That's simply a clever creation to me, not a mantra worth investing my eternity into. I'm

open-minded about a great number of things, but I don't hope to remain so. That's like saying I hope to

straddle the fence forever. I highly doubt you take the same approach to your job. If you did, you'd never

make a decision and stick with it.

I hope to continue this conversation. There's a lot more out there than you think. Don't let bias and

emotion prevent you from seeking real answers. You know, the last atheist I had a lengthy discussion with

invited me to watch The Atheist Experience, a call in show. It was eye-opening in that it highlighted the

emotional as opposed to fact-based arguments. They pull the same strings that Donald Trump is pulling

now and folks fall for it hook, line, and sinker. To me, it's cheap pandering. I like facts and once you've

started feeding yourself with facts, the cheap emotional pandering doesn't taste as good.

I wish you the same luck in your pursuit of answers. As I said, I hope to continue the conversation.

3:33am

Jake Huber

Here's an excellent video on the resurrection of Jesus that really hits on the reliability of the scriptures as

well ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M

It's one I found very convincing so I hope you'll give it a fair shake

1/16, 3:38am

Jake Huber

It's from 2012, but they're making new discoveries pertaining to the scriptures still today. That's where

folks like Dan Wallace fit in for me. He has a bunch of other videos that discuss new information in great

detail. All, of course, to the point of the reliability of the Bible.
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_Mhttps://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_Mhttps://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


15/25

3:39am

Josh Gordon

The sole reason I specifically stated the entire open minded thing was because you repeatedly made

comments implying I was not. Which is just annoying. You're premise this entire conversation has been

that I am not as educated on the subject as you. That I only listen to mainstream atheist on the subject. As

I have stated, this is untrue. Actually I seldom listen or watch the mainstream atheist. I was raised being

forced to believe. Although it didn't work too well. I have read multiple Dan Wallace books. Craig has

stated that without faith there is no religion, so I don't read much of his work as it is unreliable.

If you do continue the rhetoric of just trying to prove you are smarter than I am on the subject I will just

walk away. That is just an argumentum ad hominem and it is useless.

I originally asked the question because it was an icebreaker. That is exactly right. It provides a startingpoint. I can argue all areas of religion, but it is insane to just throw a net as you suggested. I am not sure

how you feel I threw a net in this instance since we literally were on one subject which led to a second.

The second was specifically connected to the first.

When I say substantial evidence I am referring to any evidence which can be duplicated and proven. For

instance, gravity can be duplicated and proven. Unicorns cannot. I will assert that you have no evidence

which meets this criteria which would prove either Jesus existed or that he was the Messiah.

The reason I don't allow the Bible or the scripture to be used as evidence is because you cannot say just

because this book says it happened it must have happened. Especially when the book is unreliable.

Which I am very well versed in the many many translations of the bible and the dead languages they were

translated from. Which alone is enough for me not to trust it. Feel free to provide any other evidence on

the subject though if you have it. I'd be interested in reading it.

You keep telling me to go watch videos. I am not having a discussion with the people in the videos and I

find it insulting to bring them into it. I am having a discussion with you and the reasons we each believe

the way we do. If we have good reasons for our believes we should be able to defend them our believes

without the help of videos made by other people. With that being said I will watch them.

3:52am

Josh Gordon

I am 15 minutes into that video. I am still listening to it. However I am already skeptical because he is

under the assumption that Jesus did exist to begin with. He then states he can prove the resurrection

without the bible, then he uses the bible. His defense is that if he doesn't use the bible the skeptics will.

That makes no sense.
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256


16/25

1/16, 3:53am

Jake Huber

Brother, I have a great deal of humility. But, I'm also a straight shooter. If I've offended your sensibilities, it

wasn't intentional, but I do believe I've researched this matter more than you. I don't say that to "annoy"

you, but base it simply off of what you've stated. I don't know to what degree the disparity is, but I wouldn't

get upset if someone more educated than myself stated as much. That's why I say atheists tend to be far

too emotional in their arguments. I don't want things to devolve into ad hominem so I'll leave it at that. I

provided the videos and names of relevant experts because that's who I rely upon. If you consider me an

expert, fine. But, I assure you I'm not. I'm just a curious person who has become fairly well-read on the

topic as a result of that curiosity. I could rattle off a number of scientific theory's that one can't duplicate,

but are the prevailing notions in legitimate scientific communities. I think you miss the point of Christianity

if you're looking for solid proof that can be duplicated. This gets into the free-will argument. We can gothere if you'd like. You're arguing that the Bible is unreliable, but you've offered nothing to say why. Do you

make the same arguments for ALL ancient writings? If so, does that shake your belief in all things of

antiquity? There's scholarship for things like this. I'm not a scholar. Neither are you. I find the thoughts and

opinions of those far more educated than myself valuable. I haven't been given any further insight than

they have. Neither have you on the atheist side, unless you're suggesting you have some evidence not

available to Dawkins or the like. You say you're having a discussion with me about why we believe the way

we do, but then you get upset that I offer you those reasons (read: provide you the experts and videos that

convince me). Do you think I just came to the conclusions I've come to on my own simply through my own

thought? Not at all. Again, I'm not trying to offend you in anyway. I'm simply a straight shooter. I realize I

probably do come across as pompous or arrogant at times. That's, perhaps, a flaw of mine. You'll have to

forgive me, but I rarely encounter anyone willing to discuss the topic from the atheist perspective who has

done nearly as much research and argues in logic. It's almost exclusively in emotion. I'm not saying that's

the case here, but you seem to be opening that door. I've given you things to chew on, but I haven't really

received anything in return. That's why I'm left with assumptions. You haven't stated what your beliefs are,

simply what they are not. As I've mentioned previously, that's a common theme I've noticed among

atheists. It's not so much that they believe something other than that they can tear down someone else's

beliefs.

1/16, 3:56am

Jake Huber

LOL, see. Gary Habermas = uneducated speaker of nonsense in your mind already. I assure you he's a

pretty smart dude. Check his credentials. I know that's not everything, but he's no charlatan. It's hard to

address your thoughts without accusing you of being uneducated yourself. I don't mean to do that, but I
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


17/25

would be humble if I were listening to someone talk about advanced calculus or some other topic for

which I have no strong educational background. I wouldn't immediately think they're a quack because I

don't quite yet understand what they're talking about.

1/16, 3:57am

Jake Huber

I know atheists prefer to believe they, the individual, can figure all things out on their own, but there's a

reason folks dedicate their lives to studying certain topics. I defer to their knowledge, not simply my own.

1/16, 4:06am

Jake Huber

You can take everything I've given you thus far with a grain of salt. I'm simply trying to share with you the

other side. If you've never even heard of Gary Habermas or Dan Wallace, I'd have to ask what you've

been doing for all those years of researching the topic.

Aside from seeking answers that confirm your already held beliefs tongue emoticon

That was a joke by the way

4:11am

Josh Gordon

I personally feel I am much more educated on the topic than you are. Mainly because I am working on my

Masters in religious studies. But also because I have spent the majority of my life being forced to defend

my lack of belief. I just did not feel it necessary to bring up because it has no true burden on whether I am

right or you are. I can assure you I do not solely use my own thought process to come to the conclusions Ihave, but I find the in general the true reasons people believe or do not believe has a large part to do with

their ability to process information in a logical manner. If you cannot immediately spot fallacies or

inconsistencies with arguments than I would suggest working on that.

As for Habermas, I did not once state he was uneducated. I did not say he was not intelligent. I simply

stated his manner of proving his belief was instantly flawed. Which it is.


18/25

I do not believe in a God. The bible is unreliable because it was translated from a dialect no one spoke for

over 1000 years. Scribes who were partially versed in Greek were able to assume the text meant one

thing while it could have easily meant another. I do question ancient books as you should as well. As you

mentioned they are now questioning if Caesar existed. That should be questioned. Everything should be.

if you blindly follow something just because it comes from an old book, you are a fool. Without the bible

there is no christianity. Therefore no reason to believe. This is only one reason I do not believe.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. It has been said a million times. If you claim

something to be true, you must be able to explain why it is and prove it.

I am not getting emotional in any way. I just do not appreciate the constant belittling when you do not

know me at all. If you want to have a real discussion without attacking the intelligence of each other than I

welcome that. If you do not know how to do that than I suggest you go find someone else who is not

educated on the topic and belittle them.

4:18am

Jake Huber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQ

Richard Dawkins admits Jesus existed

Oxford Museum of Natural History hosts a lively debate between two Oxford professors, namely Richard Dawkins and

John Lennox. John Lennox was able to straigh...

youtube.com

1/16, 4:18am

Jake Huber
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQhttps://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ant5HS01tBQhttps://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DAnt5HS01tBQ&h=FAQF73rKM&s=1https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


19/25

Just listen to that quack tongue emoticon

And, I'm sorry, you lose me when you actually start suggesting all of antiquity needs to be re-evaluated. I

assure you Ceaser also existed.

Not sure where you're getting your Masters, but hopefully they aren't teaching you he didn't.

And, by the way, religious studies isn't biblical scholarship ... I'm certain you know the difference

Without the Bible, you're right, Christianity may not exist, but I'm not sure what your point is. That's like

saying if Obama didn't have an autobiography, a thousand years from now we could question if he existed

tongue emoticon

4:24am

Josh Gordon

Dude.... they aren't it is specifically a point where I have come to a conclusion where there is very little

proof of his existence. However I will freely move past that and concede that sure he existed.

Now explain how you know he is the Messiah.

Once again you are acting as if I am unintelligent in an attempt too make you appear smarter. It is a poor

excuse for a discussion. Do you or do you not want to actually have this discussion?

4:25am

Josh Gordon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90OpRs1PQU

I can post videos too it makes no difference.

Christopher Hitchens - jesus is a Myth
https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90OpRs1PQUhttps://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90OpRs1PQUhttps://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1


20/25

Christopher Hitchens explains the fact that jesus was only a fabricated Myth at the 2008 Freedom Fest.

mccainisthrough

youtube.com

1/16, 4:26am

Jake Huber

Oh God, don't feed me Hitchens. I've watched this and other debates of his ad nauseam. William Lane

Craig tears him apart in one of my favs. If you'd like, I'll re-watch this and give you my thoughts.

4:26am

Josh Gordon

I want to know how you know jesus was the Messiah. That is all

1/16, 4:29am

Jake Huber

I've already given you that evidence. The resurrection story. You might not find it satisfying. No atheist

ever has tongue emoticon I think another large hurdle for atheists is understanding what free-will really is.

As I've told countless atheists, if God were to come down and prove his existence to you personally, that

would affect your free-will. And, it would do nothing for the billions of others on the planet. One atheist

suggested God come down and do a video taped miracle tongue emoticon Can you imagine a thousand

years later folks simply claiming movie magic like the David Blaine's of today? There is no real way to

satisfy that kind of demand nor should there be.

1/16, 4:29am
https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Ds90OpRs1PQU&h=dAQEg1_Fe&s=1https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


21/25

Jake Huber

But, I think your focus would be best placed in further research on the resurrection story

Perhaps you could do your dissertation on it wink emoticon

If the resurrection story is demonstrably false, your job should be quite easy

4:38am

Josh Gordon

I should add my masters is actually in the theological studies in history of christianity. I have done a lot of

research on the Resurrection. You have not provided ANY evidence for jesus being the Messiah. All you

have said is that the bible says so. that is all you have said, you just used more words. You continue towant to change the topic. I am assuming it is because you are better versed on free will. We can get to

that. However, I would like to actually finish this topic. rather than just throwing a ton of things out in no

apparent order.

No one has ever been dead for three days and then suddenly rose from the dead. That is how we can say

it is not plausible. An extraordinary claim such as that must be able to be proven with extraordinary

evidence.

I do not need you to tell me where I should research. I am doing just fine in that department. I am asking

you for your answers. Not where I can find answers.

1/16, 4:41am

Jake Huber

Wow, well then all I can say is you have a lot of catching up to do tongue emoticon The reason I respect

folks like Ehrman (in one of the videos I shared) is that they are at least honest on the facts. They might

disagree with the interpretation of some evidence and I find some of his premises flawed (highlighted by

folks much smarter than myself), but I don't think he's a fool or lacking in depth.

1/16, 4:41am

Jake Huber
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


22/25

You're asking me for answers, not where you can find answers? What does that mean? You want me to

tell you why I believe something, but not cite my work?

What research on the resurrection have you done? You may want to share it with the biblical scholarship

community because there's still heated debate. And, most that are against the resurrection don't even

deny Jesus' existence as you do.

I'm not better versed on the topic of free-will, but I suspect that hasn't even been part of your

consideration. It should be.

And, I'm not changing the topic. It's germane to the topic.

The only thing you've offered in response to my belief in the resurrection story is "Not it's not" tongue

emoticon

That's not an argument, that's a denial

1/16, 4:46am

Jake Huber

I believe the eye-witness accounts in the Bible are reliable. I believe portions of the Bible are

demonstrably true. I believe the actions of the disciples after seeing Jesus rose from the dead are telling. I

believe the growth of the early church is telling. Are these smoking guns? No. But, again, a smoking gun

would affect free-will. That's why it's germane.

1/16, 4:47am

Jake Huber

I may not be pursuing a Master's Degree on this topic, but I'm no idiot either.

4:48am

Josh Gordon

You can cite your work, but you should at the very least provide your answers. Again, all you have said is I

believe because the bible says so. You haven't stated why you feel the bible is reliable or how you know it

is true.


23/25

I have done some research into free will, although not as much as I have into the actual history of where

christianity came from. Because it is absurd to quote a book as the reason for why we have free will or

don't based solely on a book that is unreliable.

as for my response to the resurrection story. You are asking me to disprove something that is not plausible

and has no evidence to support it. This is like me telling you to prove that flying unicorns do not exist.

1/16, 4:49am

Jake Huber

If I'm not allowed to believe in the Bible, what am I allowed to believe in according to you?

You keep saying I can't cite the Bible. Why not? I find it reliable as do most who study it.

Why do you insist on an outside source as if the Bible is some tainted document. It's a collection of

writings, not a book from start to finish.

4:50am

Josh Gordon

You can believe int he bible all you want. You can believe in whatever you want. You cannot cite it

because it is not reliable. UNLESS you can provide evidence for it to be considered reliable. I stated this

earlier and even asked how you know it is reliable. you stated basically because you do.

1/16, 4:50am

Jake Huber

I'm troubled by the fact that, like most atheist, you seek less reliable proof to inform your beliefs.

Tell me something you do believe in. Then, I'll ask you why. You'll cite some person or writing. I'll tell you

that person or writing is unreliable with absolutely nothing to show that. Then where are we? ... Here.

That's where we are tongue emoticon

The work of Biblical scholars is the evidence for the reliability of the Bible. It's the methodical work they do

an ALL texts of antiquity that allows us to rely upon them. If not for that, yes, I'd agree we could question

everything that's ever been in our history books.
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13


24/25

1/16, 4:54am

Jake Huber

Come on, man. You're not honestly trying to tell me that nearly every theologian that's ever lived got it all

wrong about Jesus are you? I know you've sort of already conceded Jesus existed. If you really have had

a change of heart on that, then why do you keep attacking the Bible as unreliable?

1/16, 4:56am

Jake Huber

I get you have problems believing in miracles, which the resurrection would be, but do you really believe

the folks that say they witnessed it simply made it up? For what purpose? Is that the only thing they made

up? What evidence do you have that they fabricated the story? We have an offense called False Official

Statement under UCMJ, but we have to prove it in order to charge someone with it. We can't simply say

they're lying because their story doesn't make sense.

4:57am

Josh Gordon

This conversation has gone exactly like every discussion does with theist who think they have done all this

research on the topic when in retrospect they only read the bible and listened to what other people said

about the bible being true. It doesn't make for a good discussion. it just shows lack of education on the

subject. which is disappointing. I recommend you do more research on the earlier translations of the bible.

you might be surprised at how they were translated and why.

I do not know if Jesus existed. I never stated he didn't. I simply stated there is lack of evidence that he did.

It is plausible that he did. However it is not plausible he is the Messiah. The likelyhood of the bible being a

collection of fables created to teach people something. Just as greek mythology is.

1/16, 4:58am


25/25

Jake Huber

You might ask yourself why the conversations always go the same way. And, do so with some humility.

What education on the subject have you provided here?

Go back and read our entire conversation. You've offered a big goose egg, my friend.

And, while you're re-reading our conversation, notice the several times you denied Jesus existed outright.

I worry for our education system if at your level you still look at the Bible as a collection of fables. It

highlights a deep lack of understanding about the writings within the Bible.

It's as if you believe the writers of the books all got together and said, "Hey, let's make up a religion that

will be scrutinized for thousands of years."

I hope you at least realize the impossibility of that.

5:04am

Josh Gordon

Eye witness testimony is useless and as an investigator you should know that. It is unreliable. ask 10

people at a crime scene what happened and you will get 10 stories.

Now if you get called somewhere and are told that a crime has been committed, do you not look for

evidence that a crime was committed? if no evidence existed do you take the word of the RP?

I stated there is a lack of evidence to say jesus did exist. that is not the same as saying he did not.

You once again have provided nothing short of faith as to why you believe. I seriously doubt you have

done any real research into any religious studies and have probably gathered the majority of your

information from church and youtube. I am finished with this conversation now, mainly because it is not

going anywhere because you only have faith and nothing else. If you do actual research and come to the

realization of actual evidence to support any claim you have made, feel free to contact me again.

Otherwise good luck and stay safe.

Jake is typing...
https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256https://www.facebook.com/jake.huber13https://www.facebook.com/josh.gordon.9210256

facebook religious discussion 2016

Documents