Will a Christian answer this rational...
LowellGuy

United States

#11479 Jan 14, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>What Scripture mentions a ball in the OT?
Look, I get it. You're a dumbass. You don't have to beat me about the head and neck about it!
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#11480 Jan 14, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a HUGE difference between 1.) a man crossing a river and 2.) a man parting the sea magically.
The latter is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.
We have no reason to doubt that a man crossed a river. Happens all the time.
True. Proving the sea parting is more difficult. Crossing the Rubicon is not. Now prove he crossed the Rubicon. Where is the "ordinary evidence" for this event?
LowellGuy

United States

#11481 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You got all the facts you need. Here is the question again for you:
Anyone who denies these things is stupid. Do you deny these things?
Since you deny these things, we know where this puts you.
Where have I ever said they're untrue? Why do you keep telling this lie. I DID say that there is no evidence that any of the magical stories in the Bible are anything more than just stories. You keep saying there is evidence that supports the Bible, and so far all you've done is repeat the assertion and cite Bible passages. I asked you if you understood the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." You have yet to directly answer that question, but you consistently demonstrate that you don't understand the difference.
LowellGuy

United States

#11482 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The gospels were written within the life time of the eyewitnesses which puts them withing 30-50 years of Christ. He had 12 disciples who lived with Him for 3 years and saw all that He did.
Have you read I Corinthians 15:1-8? Here is a good summary of the eyewitnesses.
At best, pretty much all of the NT is hearsay. How about some extra-biblical evidence for the magical stories in the Bible?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#11483 Jan 14, 2013
Think so wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like a christian being cute to avoid answering questions..Either that, or you're getting tangled up in your own web..
You gave me a list of things that represents your Gods nature and one of them was Love. See your post to me # 11346 page 552. Love is the only one I was questioning. You never answered that post or the questions I gave you about your gods love expressed in his actions. Take some smelling salts, here they are again.
The image of your God is love?? Does love condone ripping innocent babies from mothers wombs? Does love protect a man that murdered his brother out of jealousy? Also, does love threaten the innocent grieving relatives with harm if they seek justice for the murderer? Your Gods image is expressed in all of this horror show in your ancient book, these are legitimate questions you haven't answered when asked.
<quoted text>
If you're talking about the christian god, it's impossible to know the nature of something that doesn't exist. Feel free to give me some real evidence it does exist. What I've written above is proof positive your bible god doesn't exist except in the mind of a delusional person IMHO.
The image of God is not just love. Take some smelling salts if you need to understand this. You will know if the salts are helping when you understand that the nature of God is more than just love.
I'm still trying to figure what god you are talking about.

The Bible tells us what God is like. It is a record of His revelation to mankind. Now if you don't accept this, then you need to give counter facts (not assertions or your opinion) that this is not true. Without counter facts that shows that the Bible is mere myth all you have is opinion.
LowellGuy

United States

#11484 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Proving the sea parting is more difficult. Crossing the Rubicon is not. Now prove he crossed the Rubicon. Where is the "ordinary evidence" for this event?
You're really asking for evidence that people cross rivers, and have done so for thousands of years? Wow...just when you think fundies can't be any stupider...

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

United States

#11485 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You got all the facts you need. Here is the question again for you:
Anyone who denies these things is stupid. Do you deny these things?
Since you deny these things, we know where this puts you.
I deny those things and your ilk are the only ones who think I am stupid and you do not know me at all. Where does that put you???

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11486 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The gospels were written within the life time of the eyewitnesses which puts them withing 30-50 years of Christ. He had 12 disciples who lived with Him for 3 years and saw all that He did.
Have you read I Corinthians 15:1-8? Here is a good summary of the eyewitnesses.
WTF, you actualy believe in that load?

It's unknown which gospel actually written first, although the order of inclusion in the christian Bible is established. The estimated time when the gospels were written is collectively sometime between 70 and 100 A.D.

For instance, in Matthew (2:23) the Gospels talk about Nazareth. While the area has been inhabited for thousands of years, the actual town of Nazareth didn't exist until after 70 A.D.

This is a reason of conflicts between Gospels?
Answer
Mark's Gospel is generally accepted as the earliest of the gospels. According to the respected New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown, most biblical scholars believe it to have been written approximately 68-73 CE.

The reason why Mark's gospel is considered the earliest (around 69-72 AD) is because it is believed that Luke and Matthew used much of Mark in writing their own gospel as so much of Mark's account is found in both of the others. However, there is much evidence for another account which both Luke and Matthew used - called 'Q'(from 'Quelle..who?) which is now lost and the author unknown. Some scholars believe that this account predated even Mark to be written in the 50s, but this is based on circumstantial evidence rather than firm fact. The last gospel to be written is most likely John - around 90 - 100 AD when John was very elderly. There are other non-canonical gospels (like Thomas, Philip and so on) but scholars believe that these were written much later (possibly even centuries?) and lack sufficient providence to be included in the bible.

I did not know that people lived for over 100 years, 2000 years ago. Unless it was not actualy eye whiitness. HUH some thing smells rotten in Denmark
LowellGuy

United States

#11487 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Millions of people over the past 2000 years have accepted these accounts as true. Many of them are far smarter than you are. So how could people who are smarter than you accept these accounts as true and yet not be crazy?
Popularity does not prove validity. Argumentum ad popularum. Google it. That is why your argument is bullshit. Try not making your every post a textbook example of various logical fallacies. It will go a long way in making you appear less idiotic.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#11488 Jan 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
At best, pretty much all of the NT is hearsay. How about some extra-biblical evidence for the magical stories in the Bible?
Are eyewitness accounts hearsay? If they are, then all of history is hearsay.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#11489 Jan 14, 2013
John from Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
I deny those things and your ilk are the only ones who think I am stupid and you do not know me at all. Where does that put you???
Thank you for making it clear what camp you are in.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#11490 Jan 14, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>WTF, you actualy believe in that load?
It's unknown which gospel actually written first, although the order of inclusion in the christian Bible is established. The estimated time when the gospels were written is collectively sometime between 70 and 100 A.D.
For instance, in Matthew (2:23) the Gospels talk about Nazareth. While the area has been inhabited for thousands of years, the actual town of Nazareth didn't exist until after 70 A.D.
This is a reason of conflicts between Gospels?
Answer
Mark's Gospel is generally accepted as the earliest of the gospels. According to the respected New Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown, most biblical scholars believe it to have been written approximately 68-73 CE.
The reason why Mark's gospel is considered the earliest (around 69-72 AD) is because it is believed that Luke and Matthew used much of Mark in writing their own gospel as so much of Mark's account is found in both of the others. However, there is much evidence for another account which both Luke and Matthew used - called 'Q'(from 'Quelle..who?) which is now lost and the author unknown. Some scholars believe that this account predated even Mark to be written in the 50s, but this is based on circumstantial evidence rather than firm fact. The last gospel to be written is most likely John - around 90 - 100 AD when John was very elderly. There are other non-canonical gospels (like Thomas, Philip and so on) but scholars believe that these were written much later (possibly even centuries?) and lack sufficient providence to be included in the bible.
I did not know that people lived for over 100 years, 2000 years ago. Unless it was not actualy eye whiitness. HUH some thing smells rotten in Denmark
Even if we take the dates you give for the gospels they are still superior to almost all of biographical writings of the ancient world. Take Alexander the Great. The first bio was written almost 400 years after his death. This is not even close to being an eyewitness account. Yet historians for the most part accept this as a true account. How much more the gospels should be accepted?
I actually think the gospels were written before 70 A.D. because none mention the destruction of the temple. This was something Jesus predicted. You would think they would have included this in the gospels as proof that Jesus' prediction came true.
Keep in mind, that disciples of rabbis were to master the rabbis teachings. There is no reason to think that did not write things down and later composed the gospels from these.

Just because something looks impossible today does not mean its not in the past. Whose to say the conditions of the earth were different enough thousands of years ago that allowed some people to live far longer lives?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#11491 Jan 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Popularity does not prove validity. Argumentum ad popularum. Google it. That is why your argument is bullshit. Try not making your every post a textbook example of various logical fallacies. It will go a long way in making you appear less idiotic.
The argument shows that its compelling to many many intelligent people. Many who are more intelligent than you.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

United States

#11492 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Proving the sea parting is more difficult. Crossing the Rubicon is not. Now prove he crossed the Rubicon. Where is the "ordinary evidence" for this event?
The evidence is the existence of riparian boats.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#11493 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if we take the dates you give for the gospels they are still superior to almost all of biographical writings of the ancient world. Take Alexander the Great. The first bio was written almost 400 years after his death. This is not even close to being an eyewitness account. Yet historians for the most part accept this as a true account. How much more the gospels should be accepted?
I actually think the gospels were written before 70 A.D. because none mention the destruction of the temple. This was something Jesus predicted. You would think they would have included this in the gospels as proof that Jesus' prediction came true.
Keep in mind, that disciples of rabbis were to master the rabbis teachings. There is no reason to think that did not write things down and later composed the gospels from these. As for the miricals, well see the word fiction.
Just because something looks impossible today does not mean its not in the past. Whose to say the conditions of the earth were different enough thousands of years ago that allowed some people to live far longer lives?
ROFLMAO, what is the differance between the bible and say books written by Jules Verne??? Not much, well at least alot of what Verne dreamed up came true. Both however are fictional writtings at best. Look sport is it possible that 2000 years ago lives a long haired radical Rabi? You bet, does that make him god or gods son? Not so much.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

United States

#11494 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for making it clear what camp you are in.
You're welcome!

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#11495 Jan 14, 2013
John from Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
I deny those things and your ilk are the only ones who think I am stupid and you do not know me at all. Where does that put you???
treating strangers meanly? I think frozen in salt, doesn't it? I don't know . I get those god punishments the fundies love to throw out so mixed up.
LowellGuy

United States

#11496 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Are eyewitness accounts hearsay? If they are, then all of history is hearsay.
Which eyewitnesses wrote what? Evidence?
LowellGuy

United States

#11497 Jan 14, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument shows that its compelling to many many intelligent people. Many who are more intelligent than you.
Adding the argument from authority doesn't help your case. Remember what I said about not making your posts examples of logical fallacies? You're doing it wrong.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#11498 Jan 14, 2013
When Were They Written?

Closely related is the matter of dating. While debate continues as to the exact dating of the Gospels, few biblical scholars believe that any of the four works were written after the end of the first century. "Liberal New Testament scholars today," writes Blomberg, "tend to put Mark a few years one side or the other of A.D. 70, Matthew and Luke–Acts sometime in the 80s, and John in the 90s" (Making Sense of the New Testament, 25). Meanwhile, many conservative scholars date the synoptic Gospels (and Acts) in the 60s and John in the 90s. That means, simply, that there exist four accounts of key events in Jesus’ life written within 30 to 60 years after his Crucifixion—and this within a culture that placed a strong emphasis on the role and place of an accurate oral tradition. Anyone who denies that Jesus existed or who claims that the Gospels are filled with historical errors or fabrications will, in good conscience, have to explain why they don’t make the same assessment about the historical works of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Livy, Josephus, Tacitus, and other classical authors.

Secondly, historical details are found in the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. These include numerous mentions of secular rulers and leaders (Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Felix, Archelaus, Agrippa, Gallio), as well as Jewish leaders (Caiaphas, Ananias)—the sort of names unlikely to be used inaccurately or even to show up in a "myth." Anglican scholar Paul Barnett, in Is The New Testament Reliable?, provides several pages’ worth of intersections between biblical and non-biblical sources regarding historical events and persons. "Christian sources contribute, on an equal footing with non-Christian sources," he observes, "pieces of information that form part of the fabric of known history. In matters of historical detail, the Christian writers are as valuable to the historian as the non-Christian" (167).

Then there are the specifically Jewish details, including references to and descriptions of festivals, religious traditions, farming and fishing equipment, buildings, trades, social structures, and religious hierarchies. As numerous books and articles have shown in recent decades, the beliefs and ideas found in the Gospels accurately reflect a first-century Jewish context. All of this is important in responding to the claim that the Gospels were written by authors who used Greek and Egyptian myths to create a supernatural man-god out of the faint outline of a lowly Jewish carpenter.----continued

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christians made Jesus God, turnaround and call ... 3 min little lamb 3
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 42 min Big Al 8,329
Evidence Against God 52 min Atheistgirl 3,902
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 1 hr Big Al 1,359
Let's have a discussion, HG. (Oct '12) 1 hr Molly 178
GS, defend this defamation of my character with... (Oct '12) 2 hr Molly 969
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 2 hr Barnsweb 5,572
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 12 hr Cookie_Parker 20,066
More from around the web