Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

There are 1635 comments on the Q-Notes story from Feb 13, 2013, titled Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?. In it, Q-Notes reports that:

President Barack Obama with Rev. Billy Graham at his house in Montreat, N.C., April 25, 2010.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Q-Notes.

barry

Pisgah, AL

#675 Mar 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Lmfao! Your silly New Testament was written decades of not centuries later by fat sweaty Romans who didn't even properly speak Aramaic!
<quoted text>
it should be easy for you to substantiate this. maybe you could list both of the links that support your theory.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#676 Mar 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
We know this from the secular historical record.
<quoted text>
post it. show a link or two that supports your theory. you see we have the historical record of the disciples of the apostles who verify for us that they wrote what was claimed to be written by them. conspiracies and lies fall apart.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#677 Mar 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>what good is a miracle worker if he can't save himself?
this is what most sane people would think...of course the BS about him being a part of the od he disagrees with was a nice spin on that...for the gullible...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#678 Mar 22, 2013
First prove he even existed and then we can speculate on other details about him.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>what good is a miracle worker if he can't save himself?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#679 Mar 22, 2013
Easily, first you need to name these 120 people that saw Jesus perform miracles and so on. Give these 120 names, prove thy existed and made this claim.

You dodged this. Stop hiding and cowering.

We have several times provided you facts, links and so on. It's long past time you actually answer a question and provide facts backing up your assertion.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>post it. show a link or two that supports your theory. you see we have the historical record of the disciples of the apostles who verify for us that they wrote what was claimed to be written by them. conspiracies and lies fall apart.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#681 Mar 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
First prove he even existed and then we can speculate on other details about him.
<quoted text>
Most historians seem to agree that he most likely existed. there is nothing at all to suggest his divinity...nothing...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#682 Mar 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>using your logic can you prove that they aren't real?
There is no need to prove that-- their existence represents an EXTRAORDINARY claim.

As such? You need extraordinary proof to show they are real.

Without that?

They are, by default, myth.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#683 Mar 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>what good is a miracle worker if he can't save himself?
Indeed.

The same can be asked of your myth-Jesus.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#684 Mar 22, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>it should be easy for you to substantiate this. maybe you could list both of the links that support your theory.
Here ya go: " http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar... ;

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#685 Mar 22, 2013
Old school ones do, but that is slipping away whenever they try to show why the think he existed. When asked to show their work the proof is very flimsy at best.

For example Jesus Ben Strada the so called evil Egyptian sorcerer messiah is actually well documented including his execution by several secular sources. Sources untampered with and verified.

This Jesus of Nazareth chap? Really nothing at all.

Now many historians rely on the religious to get paid or funding for expeditions. As Dr. Price said what with that caveat in place, it's little wonder they make a lukewarm bland Jesus probably existed statement.

The evidence for his existence just isn't there.

If only Christians worshipped that random Egyptian sorcerer they would have a leg to stand on!
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Most historians seem to agree that he most likely existed. there is nothing at all to suggest his divinity...nothing...
Lincoln

United States

#686 Mar 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Old school ones do, but that is slipping away whenever they try to show why the think he existed. When asked to show their work the proof is very flimsy at best.
For example Jesus Ben Strada the so called evil Egyptian sorcerer messiah is actually well documented including his execution by several secular sources. Sources untampered with and verified.
This Jesus of Nazareth chap? Really nothing at all.
Now many historians rely on the religious to get paid or funding for expeditions. As Dr. Price said what with that caveat in place, it's little wonder they make a lukewarm bland Jesus probably existed statement.
The evidence for his existence just isn't there.
If only Christians worshipped that random Egyptian sorcerer they would have a leg to stand on!
<quoted text>
Evangelistic Atheists seem touchy when their views are called into question and found wanting.
Evangelistic Atheists tend to revert into evangelical atheist program of spouting "fundies", "god-bot" and "Jesus of Nazareth chap" ... then into the usual state of denial.
Evangelist Atheist movement represents 69% of the American public and is growing in popularity

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#687 Mar 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Old school ones do, but that is slipping away whenever they try to show why the think he existed. When asked to show their work the proof is very flimsy at best.
For example Jesus Ben Strada the so called evil Egyptian sorcerer messiah is actually well documented including his execution by several secular sources. Sources untampered with and verified.
This Jesus of Nazareth chap? Really nothing at all.
Now many historians rely on the religious to get paid or funding for expeditions. As Dr. Price said what with that caveat in place, it's little wonder they make a lukewarm bland Jesus probably existed statement.
The evidence for his existence just isn't there.
If only Christians worshipped that random Egyptian sorcerer they would have a leg to stand on!
<quoted text>
Yes.

As we move forward into an adult society (one free of childhood fairy-tales like religion) more and more folk are rejecting "because it's tradition" as a valid reason to say a historical assumption is real.

Since there really is no historical, secular evidence supporting a jesus character, it's safe to presume the character wasn't real.

At best, the character "jesus" is loosely based on tens, if not hundreds of Jewish rebel "holy" men. As noted elsewhere, the name "jesus" or more accurately, Yeshua, was quite common in the middle east in those days.

It's not a hard stretch, to presume a few of these were rebel leaders of some small cult-following, here or there.

And as history marched forward, a smattering of "fish tales" grew with the re-telling into an epic tale of ... wonder.

As in "we wonder who was so gullible as to believe this sh7t"...
barry

Pisgah, AL

#688 Mar 22, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Easily, first you need to name these 120 people that saw Jesus perform miracles and so on. Give these 120 names, prove thy existed and made this claim.
You dodged this. Stop hiding and cowering.
We have several times provided you facts, links and so on. It's long past time you actually answer a question and provide facts backing up your assertion.
<quoted text>
we do not know the names of all the 120 and there is no way of knowing them. no one in the history of the church has put forth another contradictory testimony from another witness.
however you made this claim;
"Your silly New Testament was written decades of not centuries later by fat sweaty Romans who didn't even properly speak Aramaic!" so i figured that you would have some proof of that.

so how about backing it up?
barry

Pisgah, AL

#689 Mar 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Bob., you need to go stand over in the corner and be quiet. you really are just embarrassing yourself and not really adding to the conversation.

you are trying to add your 2cents to the responses to this statement;
Givemeliberty wrote:
"Lmfao! Your silly New Testament was written decades of not centuries later by fat sweaty Romans who didn't even properly speak Aramaic!"

to which i essentially responded, "you and who else agrees with this?"

so you post that infidel site which doesn't even agree with you or gml.

from the site;
"Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on."

so really your site does not support either claim that; "[the] silly New Testament was written decades of not centuries later by fat sweaty Romans"

at best they were written only decades later and at worst all before the second century which would be about 65 years later.
barry

Pisgah, AL

#690 Mar 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Most historians seem to agree that he most likely existed. there is nothing at all to suggest his divinity...nothing...
at least that is a logical and worth while consideration that is appropriate to the conversation.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#691 Mar 22, 2013
Oh absolutely he could be a composite sketch of several Jewish rebels. That would make much more sense.

It's such a hodge podge anyways. Deuteronomy was penned first and then genesis through numbers was penned centuries later as prequels honestly.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.

As we move forward into an adult society (one free of childhood fairy-tales like religion) more and more folk are rejecting "because it's tradition" as a valid reason to say a historical assumption is real.

Since there really is no historical, secular evidence supporting a jesus character, it's safe to presume the character wasn't real.

At best, the character "jesus" is loosely based on tens, if not hundreds of Jewish rebel "holy" men. As noted elsewhere, the name "jesus" or more accurately, Yeshua, was quite common in the middle east in those days.

It's not a hard stretch, to presume a few of these were rebel leaders of some small cult-following, here or there.

And as history marched forward, a smattering of "fish tales" grew with the re-telling into an epic tale of ... wonder.

As in "we wonder who was so gullible as to believe this sh7t"...

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#692 Mar 22, 2013
What historians say is irrelevant. I prefer what they are able to demonstrate.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>at least that is a logical and worth while consideration that is appropriate to the conversation.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#693 Mar 22, 2013
Wait wait wait.
No sorry, you don't get to do that. You stated there was 120 people that were documented witnesses to Jesus. Okay so who are these 120 people?

How many can you name?
How many can you show secular evidence really existed?
After that where is the secular historical proof that they indeed stated they saw these magic tricks of Jesus?

If you are unable to answer this then you need to withdraw your assertion.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>we do not know the names of all the 120 and there is no way of knowing them. no one in the history of the church has put forth another contradictory testimony from another witness.
however you made this claim;
"Your silly New Testament was written decades of not centuries later by fat sweaty Romans who didn't even properly speak Aramaic!" so i figured that you would have some proof of that.

so how about backing it up?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#694 Mar 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>we do not know the names of all the 120 and there is no way of knowing them. no one in the history of the church has put forth another contradictory testimony from another witness.
however you made this claim;
So. You freely admit that these... ahem... "120 persons" are 100% anonymous in their.... ahem ... "witness", then?

That rather eliminates any and all credibility both as to their numbers, and as to them actually being real.
barry wrote:
"Your silly New Testament was written decades of not centuries later by fat sweaty Romans who didn't even properly speak Aramaic!" so i figured that you would have some proof of that.
so how about backing it up?
Pay careful attention to the reference notes in this:

" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richar... ;

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#695 Mar 23, 2013
barry wrote:
<quoted text>at least that is a logical and worth while consideration that is appropriate to the conversation.
Not really.

The facts are this:

** Yesuha (and variations) was quite a common name in the Middle East, back in the first century ACE.

** The Hebrews >>were<< being occupied by a foreign power.

** Whenever that happens, it's common for "prophets" and other "holy" men to speak of overthrowing their conquerors in various ways.

** simple statistics would indicate, with the above, that at least several of these "holy" men would've been named "Yesuha" or minor variations of the same.

** Human nature being what it is, ANY story that would encourage a conquered people in their time of oppression, WOULD GET PASSED AROUND. Of course, these stories grow ever more fantastic, with each iteration of being passed along....

Fast-forward to roughly 300ACE, when Constantine needs a new religion. His selected committee of Religion-Creators needed >>something<< around which to base this new religion.

>> fabricate a new religion based on the many Folk Stories of various different "holy" men, from several different regions, but all more or less common to the area.

Since that only covered the first little bit, they also fabricated a 2nd "holy" man, Paul, who allegedly took part of the Second Half--covering the events after the first "holy" man dies.

And he HAD to die-- what better "hero" than one who was a martyr?

>> after much back-and-forth, they also decided "wouldn't it be cool, if the "martyr" wasn't really a martyr, but was a ZOMBIE instead?

----------

There you have it: the fabrication of your Jewsus Myth.

__________

Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Makes perfect sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min River Tam 20,327
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 1 hr Eagle 12 448
News A Strong Muslim Identity Is the Best Defense Ag... 1 hr Romantic Romeo 17
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr New Age Spiritual... 257,150
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 hr Patrick 21,420
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 2 hr Patrick 10,372
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 3 hr ATHEOI 387
More from around the web