Comments
21 - 40 of 405 Comments Last updated Nov 6, 2012

“Keep your eyes on Israel”

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

#21 Jun 10, 2012
Jesus explained?

This song says it all:

Enjoy!

&fe ature=autoplay&list=FLQKVO uAoaC-8SrkRxinn0Hg&playnex t=29

God loves you and so do I!
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#22 Jun 10, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You have missed the point COMPLETELY. Modern-day theists have faith because they have heard about what they are representing and BELIEVE it to be true. Jesus' apostles preached the gospel because they KNEW it to be true, as they had seen it with their own eyes. Did the men of Al-Qaeda meet Mohammed? No, he died hundreds of years before they were born. Did the apostles see Jesus? Yes, of course they did! Faith can have very different definitions. The apostles had seen proof that their faith was correct.
If Paul wrote most books of the Bible, he would have to have been more than 200 years old when he began to preach the gospel. And you don't think Jesus was crucified? Visit The Divine Evidence website, all the proof you should need is there.
I see! You are saying that the Apostles did not have to accept the stories of the gospels on “faith” they had first-hand knowledge of them. Therefore their willingness to die while spreading the “faith” is proof of the truth of the gospels.

As previously mentioned, there is no evidence that any of the gospels existed during the lifetime of any of the Apostles. There are writings accredited to the early Christian Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp written early in the second century which contain no mention of the gospels. The earliest mention of any of the gospels was the middle of the second century. Of the 27 “books” of the New Testament, 13 were letters attributed to Paul who never saw or heard Jesus speak.

You as a “modern-day theist” are simply expected to believe that the stories of the gospels come right from the horse's mouth. That isn't necessarily so.

"....Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Ganonymous

UK

#23 Jun 10, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I see! You are saying that the Apostles did not have to accept the stories of the gospels on “faith” they had first-hand knowledge of them. Therefore their willingness to die while spreading the “faith” is proof of the truth of the gospels.
As previously mentioned, there is no evidence that any of the gospels existed during the lifetime of any of the Apostles. There are writings accredited to the early Christian Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp written early in the second century which contain no mention of the gospels. The earliest mention of any of the gospels was the middle of the second century. Of the 27 “books” of the New Testament, 13 were letters attributed to Paul who never saw or heard Jesus speak.
You as a “modern-day theist” are simply expected to believe that the stories of the gospels come right from the horse's mouth. That isn't necessarily so.
"....Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
No, I meant the 'gospel', not the 'gospels', in other words, Jesus' teachings, not the writings concerning Jesus.
And yes, there is a little evidence that I would be able to name off the top of my head: the Gospel of Mark seems to focus mainly on the perspective of St. Peter, suggesting that it was written by someone who interviewed Peter or knew him very well. There almost certainly is evidence otherwise, though...
And quoting someone doesn't necessarily mean what you're saying is correct. You could easily quote Kersey Graves or anyone else whose works have been proven incorrect. Sorry, what's that about wanting proof for the resurrection? How about this: name a reasonable alternative.
'He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.'
Acts 9: 4-5
Ganonymous

Gravesend, UK

#24 Jul 12, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>1. No matter how many artifacts are found to date back to the time of a man allegedly named Jesus - none of them will ever prove the claims made about him. If we tolerate this sort of lame logic, and most of us do not, than we have to accept that all the much larger piles of artifacts for other belief systems are real too. Hell, one pyramid outweighs the entire pile of artifacts related to any one or all of the stories found in the Bible. Therefore by your logic, the beliefs re; the pyramids are real and true.(BTW, this artifact argument of yours is old and cliched and been beaten back a million times, and most often by rational thinking Believers.)
2. The NT doesnt mention much at all about "Life" at that time. You need to actually read the NT, and not take the word of those who extrapolate way too much from it, and or insert things learned elsewhere that have no Biblical relevance.
3. And "historians" (vague term to say the least) are not concerned with disproving the special claims of the Bible, because if any actually found the proof to the Supernatural and therefore proof, they'd be FAMOUS beyond their wildest dreams.
1. I never said anything about it 'proving' the claims about Jesus. I did, however, say that it showed historical accuracy in the Gospels. The pyramids simply being there does not support a belief system, the same way that the gospel artifacts do not. Both, however, attest to the historical accuracy of the things written about them.
2. Of course it teaches about what life is like. Don't be ridiculous. Let me give you an example...
Mark 2:16 'When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him [Jesus] eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples ''Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?'''
From this verse (and indeed, sentence) alone, we learn three things about life from that time: firstly, that teachers of the law could be Pharisees, secondly, that tax collectors were frowned upon by Pharisees, and lastly, that eating with them would be seen as a morally questionable action.
3. How is 'historian' a vague term? I think that by this point, you were just trying to split hairs in my argument. Besides, they would all quite happily go out of their way to disprove Christianity. Say a new religion was formed today that specialised in picking holes in atheists' arguments. Would you want to make a big deal out of something that directly contradicted your beliefs? No, you'd either want to hush it up or mock and ridicule it, as trying to prove it would go against what you had believed for your entire life thus far.
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#25 Jul 12, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I meant the 'gospel', not the 'gospels', in other words, Jesus' teachings, not the writings concerning Jesus.
And yes, there is a little evidence that I would be able to name off the top of my head: the Gospel of Mark seems to focus mainly on the perspective of St. Peter, suggesting that it was written by someone who interviewed Peter or knew him very well. There almost certainly is evidence otherwise, though...
And quoting someone doesn't necessarily mean what you're saying is correct. You could easily quote Kersey Graves or anyone else whose works have been proven incorrect. Sorry, what's that about wanting proof for the resurrection? How about this: name a reasonable alternative.
'He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.'
Acts 9: 4-5
Jesus never wrote a word. All you have are “writings concerning Jesus”.
Ganonymous

Gravesend, UK

#26 Jul 12, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus never wrote a word. All you have are “writings concerning Jesus”.
So what? Jesus never wrote anything, true, but neither did Hannibal! In fact, it's actually a hell of a lot easier to disprove Hannibal's existence than Jesus'. I could easily name tons of different historical figures with less evidence for their existence than Jesus: Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Boudicca (to name but a few).

The fact is, there certainly was a religious teacher from that time called Jesus. The question is not whether or not he existed (although you did attest to his existence earlier on), the question is whether or not he was the man we think he was.
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#27 Jul 12, 2012
You wrote, "No, I meant the 'gospel', not the 'gospels', in other words, Jesus' teachings, not the writings concerning Jesus."

Jesus never wrote a word. All you have are writings concerning Jesus.

Jesus' teachings are only known from writings concerning Jesus.
Ganonymous

Gravesend, UK

#28 Jul 13, 2012
Big Al wrote:
You wrote, "No, I meant the 'gospel', not the 'gospels', in other words, Jesus' teachings, not the writings concerning Jesus."
Jesus never wrote a word. All you have are writings concerning Jesus.
Jesus' teachings are only known from writings concerning Jesus.
I apologise for my misinterpretation. And yes, what you say is true. However, you'd be wrong in saying that there's no evidence that the gospels existed during the lifetime of the apostles. I've done some more research recently, and unearthed some interesting facts. For example, Mark was probably written by a scribe of Peter's, as it contains the most basic language and grammar, which could easily be attributed to an illiterate fisherman. J.P. Holding made a whole series of videos about who wrote the Gospels on his YouTube account, TektonTV. I highly recommend that you check them out.

And lastly, I can prove that at least one of the Gospels existed earlier than you think: a fragment of the Gospel of John has been found that dates back to 125 AD. So that's the proof, but check out the videos if you want evidence.
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#29 Jul 13, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I apologise for my misinterpretation. And yes, what you say is true. However, you'd be wrong in saying that there's no evidence that the gospels existed during the lifetime of the apostles. I've done some more research recently, and unearthed some interesting facts. For example, Mark was probably written by a scribe of Peter's, as it contains the most basic language and grammar, which could easily be attributed to an illiterate fisherman. J.P. Holding made a whole series of videos about who wrote the Gospels on his YouTube account, TektonTV. I highly recommend that you check them out.
And lastly, I can prove that at least one of the Gospels existed earlier than you think: a fragment of the Gospel of John has been found that dates back to 125 AD. So that's the proof, but check out the videos if you want evidence.
125 CE wound be at least 25 years after the death of the last Apostle, John. Also simply because it is called the Gospel of John doesn’t mean it was written by the Apostle John.

“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.”- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Since: May 11

Marietta, GA

#30 Jul 13, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
If the population of the world were decreased to a mere 100 people, 30 of them would be Christian. Christians are part of a strange monotheistic religion dedicated to one thing and one thing alone: Jesus, a 1st Century religious teacher and probably the wisest and most intelligent man to ever walk the earth. Many people around that era claimed to be the Messiah, so what was so special about Jesus?
Jesus has to be placed into 1 of 5 categories: he was either a myth, a prophet, a liar, a lunatic, or the Messiah.
Well, we know Jesus was real. There have been claims that he is identical to the Egyptian god, Horus, but these claims are false. He is also mentioned by many early historians, such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger etc, proving that he did exist.
And he probably wasn't a prophet either. He claimed that he was the son of God, which was seen as blasphemy. A prophet would not deceive someone like that.
That leaves us with 3 options; Lord, liar or lunatic. Which was he? You decide!
Hi Gan!

Your OP (above) is well written, enlightening, and simplistically clarifying. Your follow-up posts, however, get all clotted and bogged in details.

A few thoughts (IMO):
1) You said, "Jesus, a 1st Century religious teacher and probably the wisest and most intelligent man to ever walk the earth."

That is very doubtful. Jesus reportedly believed in the Garden-Adam&Eve-Talking Snake myth; also, the Noah-Flood myth, and things like animal sacrificing and Satan the Devil, etc.!... Any person over the age of puberty who believes in such fables (which fabling is akin to believing in "Santa" and "Wonderland", etc.) cannot be too reality-world smart or bright.

2) Out of the "5 categories" to place Jesus in you eliminate 2 and end with this challenge:
"That leaves us with 3 options; Lord, liar or lunatic. Which was he? You decide!"

Since all religious (metaphysical) belief is base upon human supposition and assumption, Jesus has to be a "LIAR!" His whole OT Bible-based belief system begins with a lie; i.e., "In the beginning God created ..." (Gen 1:1) On that man-made dream-up (it's a LIE), which in no way could have been witnessed or said based upon any empirical proof, all of the rest of the Jewish Biblical religion (the faith of Jesus) and its tenets are based.

Thus, it must follow that if anyone preaches Genesis 1:1 and all the bible-mysticism and dogma that leans on it, like so many teetering dominoes, cannot be anything else but a "LIAR" and a preacher of lies!

Jesus lived the lie, was executed because of his religious lies and hasn't been heard from since. Jesus (his follow-up religion) is responsible for ruining untold billions of lives that stretch out over the past 2,000 years. You can choose not to let religion (lies) ruin yours, too, like I and so many other realists did!

StaccatS
Ganonymous

Gravesend, UK

#31 Jul 13, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
125 CE wound be at least 25 years after the death of the last Apostle, John. Also simply because it is called the Gospel of John doesn’t mean it was written by the Apostle John.
“The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings.”- New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
You seem to be acting as if the fragment is part of the original Gospel of John. The fragment was found in Egypt, while the original 4 were written in Asia Minor, 40 - 70 years before it.

We can't tell for certain who wrote the Gospels, but the videos I recommended certainly provide some strong evidence suggesting apostles or people with very close links to the apostles.

'Why would they [the apostles] make up a religious teacher, put to death for treason against the emperor, and say "We're his followers!"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.'
Ryan Manns, author of God, Faith and Science blog
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#32 Jul 13, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be acting as if the fragment is part of the original Gospel of John. The fragment was found in Egypt, while the original 4 were written in Asia Minor, 40 - 70 years before it.
We can't tell for certain who wrote the Gospels, but the videos I recommended certainly provide some strong evidence suggesting apostles or people with very close links to the apostles.
'Why would they [the apostles] make up a religious teacher, put to death for treason against the emperor, and say "We're his followers!"? If they wanted to commit suicide, there were simpler ways to do it.'
Ryan Manns, author of God, Faith and Science blog
There is no valid evidence of the existence of any of the four Gospels before the second century. There are ancient writings accredited to the Church Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp from early in the second century, but none of these writings contain any mention of any of the Four Gospels.

As I posted earlier I do “believe” that a very intelligent and insightful Jewish teacher lived and taught in the beginning of the first century. However I also “believe” that a lot of myth and superstition grew up around his life and teachings over the years. Sons of God and miracle workers were not uncommon in those days.

Blood sacrifice dates back to the dawn of civilization. Martyrdom is a form of blood sacrifice based the mythical and magical thinking that “God” will be pleased with and reward the martyr for his sacrifice. The Apostles were certainly not the first human beings in the history of the world to martyr themselves for their mythical beliefs.

"’Judaism was itself a religion of martyrdom’ and it was this ‘Jewish psychology of martyrdom’ that inspired Christian martyrdom.”- W. H. C. Frend, English ecclesiastical historian, archaeologist, and Anglican priest.
Ganonymous

Gomshall, UK

#33 Jul 14, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no valid evidence of the existence of any of the four Gospels before the second century. There are ancient writings accredited to the Church Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp from early in the second century, but none of these writings contain any mention of any of the Four Gospels.
As I posted earlier I do “believe” that a very intelligent and insightful Jewish teacher lived and taught in the beginning of the first century. However I also “believe” that a lot of myth and superstition grew up around his life and teachings over the years. Sons of God and miracle workers were not uncommon in those days.
Blood sacrifice dates back to the dawn of civilization. Martyrdom is a form of blood sacrifice based the mythical and magical thinking that “God” will be pleased with and reward the martyr for his sacrifice. The Apostles were certainly not the first human beings in the history of the world to martyr themselves for their mythical beliefs.
"’Judaism was itself a religion of martyrdom’ and it was this ‘Jewish psychology of martyrdom’ that inspired Christian martyrdom.”- W. H. C. Frend, English ecclesiastical historian, archaeologist, and Anglican priest.
(Sigh) You haven't watched those videos, have you? Yes, there is evidence! Why else would I recommend those vids to you? Nearly ALL of those writings contain mentions of the Gospels.

You can believe what you want, but I choose to follow what I think has the most evidence supporting it.
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#34 Jul 14, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
(Sigh) You haven't watched those videos, have you? Yes, there is evidence! Why else would I recommend those vids to you? Nearly ALL of those writings contain mentions of the Gospels.
You can believe what you want, but I choose to follow what I think has the most evidence supporting it.
Mr. Holding has the same evidence regarding the New Testament as everyone else has. He merely interprets it to suit his biases. Mr. Holding’s interpretation of the evidence cannot be considered objective because according to his beliefs he stands to collect a huge benefit in the afterlife if his interpretation is correct.

Mr. Holding’s interpretation of the evidence concerning the New Testament is no more reliable than the Ayatollah Khomeini’s interpretation of the evidence regarding the Koran.

"The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible." -- H L Mencken, A Mencken
Ganonymous

Gomshall, UK

#35 Jul 14, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr. Holding has the same evidence regarding the New Testament as everyone else has. He merely interprets it to suit his biases. Mr. Holding’s interpretation of the evidence cannot be considered objective because according to his beliefs he stands to collect a huge benefit in the afterlife if his interpretation is correct.
Mr. Holding’s interpretation of the evidence concerning the New Testament is no more reliable than the Ayatollah Khomeini’s interpretation of the evidence regarding the Koran.
"The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible." -- H L Mencken, A Mencken
Of course he has the same evidence. However, what I enjoyed about the videos is that it's all explained with a strong and valid argument, while also addresing any objections people may have to an early authorship. I felt that he had better and more convincing arguments than most other apologists of a similar nature, and I struggled to find flaw in them.
Eh? His arguments no more reliable than Ayatollah Khomeini's? Why should they be? I see no reason as to why his evidence regarding the Qu'ran should be as reliable!
Big Al

Abingdon, IL

#36 Jul 14, 2012
Ganonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he has the same evidence. However, what I enjoyed about the videos is that it's all explained with a strong and valid argument, while also addresing any objections people may have to an early authorship. I felt that he had better and more convincing arguments than most other apologists of a similar nature, and I struggled to find flaw in them.
Eh? His arguments no more reliable than Ayatollah Khomeini's? Why should they be? I see no reason as to why his evidence regarding the Qu'ran should be as reliable!
You miss the point. You don’t consider the Ayatollah Khomeini's opinions and interpretations of the evidence regarding the Koran reliable because you understand that as a devout Muslim he is biased. The same holds true for Mr. Holding. His opinion and interpretations of the evidence regarding the New Testament are unreliable because he as a devout Christian is biased.

You accept Mr. Holding’s interpretation of the evidence concerning the New Testament because you want to go to heaven after you die and if Mr. Holding is wrong you might not get your reward.

“Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.”- James Robinson
Jesus

Rutland, MA

#37 Jul 14, 2012
Nope, I never even existed.

“Atheism is the right choice”

Since: Jun 12

Ringwood, Australia

#38 Jul 15, 2012
Jesus wrote:
Nope, I never even existed.
That's all the proof I need.
Ganonymous

Gomshall, UK

#39 Jul 15, 2012
Jesus wrote:
Nope, I never even existed.
That's a shame.
Ganonymous

Gomshall, UK

#40 Jul 15, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You miss the point. You don’t consider the Ayatollah Khomeini's opinions and interpretations of the evidence regarding the Koran reliable because you understand that as a devout Muslim he is biased. The same holds true for Mr. Holding. His opinion and interpretations of the evidence regarding the New Testament are unreliable because he as a devout Christian is biased.
You accept Mr. Holding’s interpretation of the evidence concerning the New Testament because you want to go to heaven after you die and if Mr. Holding is wrong you might not get your reward.
“Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.”- James Robinson
Well, yes. But if he were an atheist, he'd go out of his way to debunk arguments made by Christians. Naturally, if a Christian makes such a video, it is 'biased' and 'unreliable', but if an atheist makes a video on the same subject, it is 'factual' and 'thought-provoking'. Either way, you cannot escape bias. However, as I have mentioned before, as well as presenting his own argument,''Mr. Holding'' debunks skeptic arguments that suggest the contrary, and, trying to look at it from a neutral position, I struggled to find flaw in it, regardless of his personal bias.

By the way, where do you get all these quotes?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
May Solomons knowledge be bequethed on all Beli... 6 min hilariosity 4
Take America Back 9 min NorCal Native 993
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 19 min David_3 433
To Tell The Turth! 44 min Armed Dangerous 102
Time is Coming! Are you ready for it? 1 hr hilariosity 31
Michael Brown was a Christian??? 1 hr no-one-special 245
intelligent debate 1 hr FLBeaver 47
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 3 hr Nc resident 13,668
Scripture cancels Rapture lottery 5 hr dollarsbill expos... 97
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••