“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#422510 Nov 25, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Seeing as a few hundred thousand people even know where I live, many more powerful a threat than anyone on Topix, I find nothing stupid about what I posted.
I have bigger things to worry about, like using my creditcard over the net. Now THAT is a real worry.
Going to Hell is your biggest concern. If it weren't , you wouldn't be on here trying to prove my God does not exist.

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

#422511 Nov 25, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't own a christian
not clean enough
LoL

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422512 Nov 25, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
One would expect that it would have had quite a profound effect on the population(especially if there were thousands of followers and witnesses), and many contemporary writers capitalizing on the phenomenon it left in it's wake. None of this ever happened, which leads one to deduce such miracles etc. never actually happened, and the later writings were mere fabrications.
Oh, there are quite a few 'miracle workers' reported during that time. They all raised people from the dead, healed the sick and did other miracles.

Notice that the story of Jesus starts off in Mark with a very humble Jesus just teaching. In each successive book, while they are writing about the same man teaching at the same time, miracles are added. Then, there is a resurrection added. Like I said, it's like playing Telephone, where you line people up in chairs and the first person whispers a few lines to the next. What the first person says has been written out for him by the host/hostess of the Telephone party. When it gets to the last person, they have to stand up and repeat exactly what was said to them. It is NEVER anything like the original message.

“Yes, I'm A Witch; Deal With It”

Since: May 10

No,This*Isnt*ThePsychicHotline

#422513 Nov 25, 2012
So the Los Angeles Zoo received a female of this really rare species of gorilla one day. It seemed really agitated and irritable, though, and eventually the zoo's vets determined it was in heat. Worse yet, they had no male of the species to...erm, satisfy her.

But they did have their groundskeeper / cage cleaner T-Town Clown, who (according to rumor) was hung like a race horse. So the zoo staff approached him with a proposition: Would he be willing to have sex with the gorilla for, say,$500?

T-Town immediately leaped at the opportunity. "Sure!" he said, without a moment's hesitation. "But only under three conditions. First off, you can't ever tell anyone about this."

"Okay, done," said the zoo director.

"Second, I don't wanna have to kiss her. That's yucky."

"Okay, fine," said the zoo director. "What's your third condition?"

"Well," T-Town said thoughtfully as he rubbed his chin, "you're gonna have to give me about a week to come up with that five hundred dollars."

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#422515 Nov 25, 2012
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>you're dumb
Have you met Henry?

I think you two would be fast friends.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422516 Nov 25, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
With the huge exception that I have plenty to back up my ego.
And you seem to be the only one impressed by that.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422517 Nov 25, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>The number of posts generated by the room at large have nothing to do with the few I crank out. You're sounding like you think there's some kind of concerted conspiracy underway, or iow, you're sounding paranoid. I think it's more like you're arguments are not as stellar as you imagine, and it's frustrating that we're not the peach-fuzz skeptics that you imagined you were going to "skool". But enough about your frustrations.
Luke's agenda is not a red herring at all. It's relevance lies in the fact that you're trying to make an analogy with a recent historical event. If the author merely related the stark facts as he finds them, then no bias at all would be expected, or necessary. It would just be a journalistic account. But if the author had, not just an agenda, but a >vested interest< in a preconceived conclusion as to what happened or why, would this not affect your perception of his findings?
Of course it would. You know it would.
The same applies to Luke, and the rest of the NT authors, for that matter. We need outside, uninterested, unbiased corroboration, at the least. Unless you really don't think it's that important.
And we have none.
No I wasn't being paranoid. I was making fun of the atheist arguments
here. I'm neither worried nor impressed by them.

If you need absolute unbiased corroboration and information, you're setting the historical bar too high. No history is written like that. It's an unrealistic expectation, and I think that for some, it's a deliberate tactic to avoid the possibility of accepting the truth. Maybe not you personally, but some do.

Anyway, as time progresses, the number of historical sources dwindles correspondingly. But legend in antiquity (in most history) cannot succeed until all primary and secondary sources are dead. This doesn't mean that people won't try to embellish, or try to create legend to discredit the opposition, but while people who are participants in the event(s) are still alive, embellishment is more the exception than the rule. If Luke wrote in favor of the resurrection appearances, it's because the people he interviewed were convinced of what they believed they had seen.

Let me point something out to you, and just ask you to evaluate it on it's own merit. I think you're reasonable enough to do that. I'm willing to take a shot that you'll at least consider what I say next.

Luke wrote both his gospel, and Acts. Luke was a gentile convert.
If Luke's gospel doesn't mention the persecutions of Nero, or the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D., and it's his first writing, then it must be early. Why? Because Acts is a sequel to Luke, and Acts doesn't mention it either.

The Jews were emotionally attached to the temple. It was the centerpiece of their cultural identity. Hebrew Christians felt just as strongly. The Romans who sacked the Temple set it ablaze. It was standard practice to burn enemy temples. The temple held a vast amount of gold. The common consensus among archeologists is that the Roman soldiers took the temple apart to get the gold that had melted and flowed down through the stones. Once they got to the platform, it was useless. These stones weighed tons. As far as the Jews were concerned, and the Christians too, the temple had been demolished down to the last stone and ceased to exist. As prophesied by Jesus. Even if you choose to interpret this event literally to maintain your warped worldview, the temple proper still ceased to exist and it's not mentioned in past tense as a historical event anywhere in the Bible. Archeologists and historians have faithfully placed this at 70 A.D. If you don't agree, you're going to need a good argument to do so. I'm keeping my eyes open for straw men and red herrings.

Let's see what you've got.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422518 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
....If I can show the historical plausibility of the origins of Christianity,...
Then you will be the first person ever in 2000 years. LOL

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422519 Nov 25, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>I'll also reiterate that your choice of analogy is quite appropriate for our purposes here. Perhaps more so than you're comfortable with, now you've had a chance to think about it.
If you set out today as a blank slate to write a comprehensive account of this tragic and traumatizing event, you would find a bewildering number of rationales and theories in popular circulation. There would be so many, in fact, that you would be hard-pressed to say authoritatively just what happened and why, from 50 years distant. The strict historian might relate the simple facts which can be confirmed without question, and have a pretty short story to tell. He might even relay the various theories, in the interest of history, without endorsing any one of them. There are so many "explanations" in fact, that one can choose the one that most aligns with one's preconceptions, and run with it as gospel.
Likewise >exactly< with the stories surrounding the death of the preacher man for Galilee. We know without question that there were a bewildering number of "traditions" in popular circulation in the decades after his death, far more than are related in the canonical gospels. Each "school" had their own reasons for attaching credence to this one over that one. Unfortunately, 2000 years later, much less 50 years later, we have no resources independent of each "tradition" to corroborate ANY of them. Thus we are all free to pick and choose that which most closely resonates with our needs and personality.
Like I said, you picked a most excellent analogy.
Maybe we should debate the JFK assassination. Thanks! I know I picked an excellent analogy, but not for the reasons you stated.
My point that you're conveniently ignoring is that a reliable history can be written from a small number of sources so long as those primary sources or secondary sources are still alive to relate what they saw and heard in relation to an event. Hearsay isn't allowed in criminal court, but it's almost essential in recording history so long as it's in close relation to the original sources of information. Like I said. Your expectation are way too high, either out of ignorance or convenience. Go ask a bunch of historians. I'm not talking about people who just remember facts. I'm talking about people who analyze material and sources using established criteria.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#422520 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
If you need absolute unbiased corroboration and information, you're setting the historical bar too high.
You must be kidding.

Are we talking about Almighty God and his alleged plan for eternal life, or not?

I am convinced, due to so many off-hand comments as this, that the typical self-proclaimed Christian has not in fact considered the question seriously, at all. They've simply accepted the religion of least resistance, no more important than their choice of soda pop, and instantly claim their God Warrior arsenal, and head off to the Crusades.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422521 Nov 25, 2012
Mary Palm wrote:
<quoted text>In Ebonics? I saw the grades on that paper. 75. Like how much that Camaro is worth.
ROFLMAO

You can't even do math. Average the percentages in the brealdown item list and you get 84.25 %

That isn't a 75.

You read my creds like you read the bible...erroneously.

Thanks for proving you are a moron.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422522 Nov 25, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
....BTW, Christianity has no sects. You just imply that to create a faux state of confusion....
Are you a moron or a liar ?

There is no difference between Mormonism and Catholicism ?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422523 Nov 25, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Going to Hell is your biggest concern. If it weren't , you wouldn't be on here trying to prove my God does not exist.
Hell is a Germanic/English pagan myth. No such thing exists... not even in the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible.

“Jesus is Love”

Since: Jul 12

Hutchinson, MN

#422524 Nov 25, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you will be the first person ever in 2000 years. LOL
If it has been 2000 years, don't you think atheists would have shown us solid debunking evidence of it by now?

As of now, you're still failing.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422525 Nov 25, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> And you seem to be the only one impressed by that.
Many are. You sound like Kate with those sour grapes. I hope not.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422526 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
....If Luke's gospel doesn't mention the persecutions of Nero, or the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D., and it's his first writing, then it must be early. Why? Because Acts is a sequel to Luke, and Acts doesn't mention it either.....
Unless it was written by a Roman who left out anything that would make Rome look bad or would get him in trouble with the Roman authorities. There is much to show how Christianity embraced the Romkan Empire and distanced itself from all things Jewish. he reason was that most of those Christian persecutions that later authors (Christians) wrote about were actually Jewish persecutions, not Christian.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422527 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
....My point that you're conveniently ignoring is that a reliable history can be written from a small number of sources so long as those primary sources or secondary sources are still alive to relate what they saw and heard in relation to an event.....
Which makes the entire Bible worthless by your own criteria.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422528 Nov 25, 2012
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
If it has been 2000 years, don't you think atheists would have shown us solid debunking evidence of it by now?
As of now, you're still failing.
Bwahahahahahaha.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422529 Nov 25, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO
You can't even do math. Average the percentages in the brealdown item list and you get 84.25 %
That isn't a 75.
You read my creds like you read the bible...erroneously.
Thanks for proving you are a moron.
I only needed to see the one grade. Sorry I didn't pore over your nonsense. You really care way too much about what strangers think about you on the Internet, Jerry. You need mental help.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#422530 Nov 25, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe we should debate the JFK assassination. Thanks! I know I picked an excellent analogy, but not for the reasons you stated.
My point that you're conveniently ignoring is that a reliable history can be written from a small number of sources so long as those primary sources or secondary sources are still alive to relate what they saw and heard in relation to an event. Hearsay isn't allowed in criminal court, but it's almost essential in recording history so long as it's in close relation to the original sources of information. Like I said. Your expectation are way too high, either out of ignorance or convenience. Go ask a bunch of historians. I'm not talking about people who just remember facts. I'm talking about people who analyze material and sources using established criteria.
That wasn't a compliment. Man, you are dense.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min It aint necessari... 795,535
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 min WasteWater 267,456
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Anthony MN 568,265
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min Fix that rodentloder 120,740
Scientific proof for God's existence 21 min Mickey Mouse 581
first gay experience? 26 min Tony 3
Wedding collections Online 40 min Ponni 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Truth from dr Sh... 607,212
More from around the web