Here is a chance for an atheist to win a free house.
Dramatic representation, not my actual house
This offer is true and valid. All you have to do is prove Jesus never existed and I will deed my house to you.
By "prove" I mean furnish a verifiable quotation from a First Century source that says Jesus didn't really exist as a man in history.
Free house, peer and beam foundation, real wood floors, no foundation problems at all. (You have one month to produce the results).
Moreover, here are more prizes in exchange for proving other things:
Prove the miracles at Lourdes are a fake, win my car.
Prove JFK was not assasinated, win my dog.
Prove bigfoot doesn't exist, win a free year of posting unmolested by Metacrock
Prove the earth is falt win $10,000 dollars, personally given by me (available only in "blue country" currency).
I have had experinces with the cheap ploy of offering money to prove things before. The alledged amazing Randy offers some large sum of money for proof of any miraculous or supernatural event. Oddly enough, we won't accept the idea that the host is infused with supererogatory merit as a supernatural event. That's dumb, my theology books form Perkins all say it is.
The somewhat amazing Randy has never included any analysis of the miracles at Lourdes. I e-mailed him and asked him why he had not. He did not respond. I told him he should give the Catholic church the money. His answer is not repeatable in this forum. This led to a rather raw and ridiculous exchange of very amazing e-mails. I thought, I am having a "p-ing contest with this famous guy--if I have to have contact with a famous person, why this person and why this way?" It was not at all as fulfilling as my email exchange with Judy Collins. After that I was in love with her. I thought, well, when she see I have all her albums its sure to mean something. That didn't work out either.
It is such a cheap ploy because the one offering the money always structures the argument in such a way that no one can fulfill the requirements. Thus the illusion is created that the test is accurate because no one ever wins. When I lived in New Mexico there was a minister of an extremist fundamentalist church who ran an ongoing advertisement in a little thrift sheet stating that he would give $5,000 to anyone who would prove that the Bible teaches that Jesus is our "personal savior." Well, I argued until I was blue in the face that what it says means that he's our personal savior, but because it doesn't use that exact term, of course he doesn't have to give the money.
Of course, this is all in response to the "Rational Response Squad" and their offer to give money to anyone who can prove jesus did exist. Of course they demand a First Century person saying that Jesus existed", and guess what? This person has to be "objective." So if we show Paul or Clement of Rome or any Christian saying Jesus existed, well they aren't objective. What about Josephus? They will never admit, regardless of what scholars say, that the TF isn't tweeked. Atheists will say anything (at least the "Jesus-myth" kind). To the other passage in Jospheus, the "brother" passage, which is rarely criticiqued as a forgery, they say "can you prove its the same James? the same Jesus?" So even when you produce some evidence they just refuse to see it as evidence.
After all, its not objective because their subjective view point says it's not!
It's easy to prove your viewpoint when nothing ever counts against it. It's easy to make your view immune to evidence, just refuse to recognize anything as evidence except that which supports your claims.
By the way, my house is up for forecosloure, but I will deed it to you for a month if you can prove that someone in the first century said Jesus of Nazereth didn't exist. After that, its up to you to make the mortgage company care.
This contest broght to you by The Hysterical Ninja Christian response squad (Hilarius the Aussie Pope founder).
(edited for spelling 7:41 a.m.)
The members of the CADRE maintain this blog for commenting on various items of interest to apologetics. We welcome input. E-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also take a look at Our Books.
The Religious a priori is an apologetics website covering philosophy of religion (existence of God) religion and science bogus atheist social science, and issues of Biblical Scholarship.
- ► 2016 (162)
- ► 2015 (55)
- ► 2014 (29)
- ► 2013 (58)
- ► 2012 (58)
- ► 2011 (124)
- ► 2010 (151)
- ► 2009 (142)
- ► 2008 (202)
- ► 2007 (289)
- Advancing Human Rights
- The Da Vinci Code : Curse or Blessing?
- The DaVinci Code Cometh
- DNA as information -- a lot of information
- Is Richard Carrier Wrong About The Translation of ...
- WebMD, fetuses and babies.
- New Radio Appearance by Layman
- The limits of rationality when encountering the li...
- Vox Weekly, Edition I -- Why is Jesus' death a Sac...
- The Desposynoi -- the brothers and cousins of Jesu...
- New Additions to the Cadre Site
- The "Begging The Question Fallacy" Fallacy
- Romans 10:11 and general principles regarding quot...
- Soeteriological Drama: My Version of Free Will Def...
- Is Richard Carrier Wrong about the Qumran Communit...
- How can a repentant sinner come to faith without r...
- Breaking News: Jesus Fraud Case Dismissed
- Atheist Lawsuit Claiming Jesus Did Not Exist Throw...
- Were the apostles too old to author the Gospels?
- Win A House Free!
- You take the high road, and I'll take the low Road...
- Listen to Layman on the Radio
- Is Richard Carrier Wrong about the Scribes?
- The circular reasoning behind claims that the apos...
- Demonizing one's opponents
- Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than rec...
- New Radio Show with a Cadre Guest
- Top Five Archeological Finds Confirming Aspects of...
- The Da Vinci Code: The secret child of New Age phi...
- Here Comes Prince Caspian
- ▼ February (30)
- ► 2005 (412)
CADRE Blogs of Interest
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And rememb...
Study: The Miracles: A Doctor says "Yes" by Richard H. Casdorph.(Logos International, 1976) Richard H. Casdroph collected medic...
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that som...
One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21: A certain man from C...
As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, " Pride &quo...
pie charts from Pew study In the late 90s, atheists began making the argument that less than a majority of scientists believe in God. In ...
Today is Good Friday, the day that we commemorate Jesus' death. Why, given the nature of that remembrance, is it called "Good Frida...
The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stabl...
What are your favorites from any tradition, including classical, country, praise & worship, contemporary Christian, Christian rock, gosp...
One of my co-bloggers, J.L. Hinman, author of the very fine Metacrock's Blog recently showed me some data which some atheists are using...
Translate This Blog
Here is a chance for an atheist to win a free house.