Recommended Posts
Quote>My conviction would be stronger if I knew I could save someone I love.
>You cannot save anyone from themselves. Period. Whether it's drugs, or alcohol, or abusive relationships. Even if you think that they are going to burn in hell because they're gay, or they don't accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior, or they don't worship Allah, or whatever. Indeed, often an invasive attempt to "save" them will have exactly the opposite effect.
Your right I, nor you, nor anyone else can save someone from themselves, but God can. The Gospel, though written by man, is the power of God. We become living miracles, what I have seen and been witness to I cannot ignore, the power is too great to not share, so forgive me.
I want to ask you about faith, hope, and love. What do they mean to you?
>What do they mean?
What do they mean to you? Not what man has defined them by. Of course all humans share them, in fact, I belive we need them. I believe they are the power behind life itself. Wouldnt belief without evidence be a pretty powerful thing? Hope is a belief things will get better, but hope has no power without faith, you have to know what your hoping for right? Love, not enough is known about loves power, as its true power also lies in faith, someone saying they will die for you is different than someone actually doing it.
I dont believe anyone will burn in hell because they are gay. It is sin the likes of lust to me. Sin and hell has been given very interesting dynamics. Do this, and you will go to hell. It does not say that at all in the Gospel, nor in the new testament. What it says is that we are already condemned in our sin, were slaves to it, its really not a matter at all about how much sin your into, or which ones in particualr. It is a matter of Truth. The truth is what sets us free.
We cannot control our conscience, it controls us. Either we listen to it or we dont. If we dont then there is a stain of guilt that sits there until it is cleansed. This stain gets darker and darker, hardens our hearts, depresses us, makes life almost unlivable. After a while, it becomes something we dont really even remember, but it has not gone anywhere, it is hidden and the more we put on it, the deeper it goes, it gets covered with more and more, until our hearts are so hard that we forget how to love. Truth is the only thing that brings it all out, and the only acceptable atonement for what is revealed, all the shame, all the guilt, all the pain, is the blood of Jesus.
The truth is you dont want to believe that Jesus is the only way, therefore you choose not to. I had this same problem. You want everyone to find Heaven and everyone to be as comfortable with you as you are with them. Your a peacemaker, as am I, but unfortunately, it seems when you find something that is hard to accept, you choose not to believe it. Respectfully. But you have a sense of justice within you right? Sometimes it is so inflamed that you feel you cannot control it? Dont we think God, in whoms image we are made burns in the same way? i mean we have the death penalty in this age, we arent much different than the old school. What we do is ignore it all, its easier that way."We didn't start the fire"
jakee 1,501
QuoteYou're arrogant manners have continually implied that indeed you do.
You're means you are.
QuoteSo if you haven't in actual fact got the answers, why be so quick to cry bullshit, why be so quick to provide whithering critiscism?
Because not knowing the right answer does not mean I don't know what some of the wrong answers are, and you're wrong.
QuoteBecause if 'dunno' is all you have in providing substance to your 'considered' opinion
Uh, no - you asked me to answer a question and I did. It wasn't intended to provide substance to my opinion about something, it was my opinion about something.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
JackC 0
Quote1) is wrong-- they were all completed between AD 40 and AD 65.
2) is untrue. Most were eye-witnesses, or consulted with an eye-witness (one of the disciples)
3) is TRUE
4) is untrue. There are nearly 5700 handwritten Greek manuscripts of the N.T. There are an additional 9000 manuscripts in other languages (translations), for example, Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Arabic. Some of the 15000 manuscripts are complete bibles, others are individual books of the bible, or pages, and just a few are fragments.
Mockingbird, 40-65 years after the fact (some are thought to have taken longer) is the same as not written at the time. Consulted with eye witnesses means not an eye witness and that is hearsay. You object to my points, then agree with them. You really need to start using the accepted definitions of words. If you keep changing what a word means as you have done here, you end up disagreeing with yourself and quite honestly, no one can make that look smart.
QuoteQuoteYou're arrogant manners have continually implied that indeed you do.
You're means you are.
Duh! Really?It speaks volumes you're now resorting to pointing out my typo's!
QuoteSo if you haven't in actual fact got the answers, why be so quick to cry bullshit, why be so quick to provide whithering critiscism?
Because not knowing the right answer does not mean I don't know what some of the wrong answers are, and you're wrong.
What?QuoteBecause if 'dunno' is all you have in providing substance to your 'considered' opinion
Uh, no - you asked me to answer a question and I did. It wasn't intended to provide substance to my opinion about something, it was my opinion about something.
I'm tempted to mention a word or two that'll only continue this nonsense. But you're boring me now. C'ya.'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
jakee 1,501
QuoteDuh! Really? It speaks volumes you're now resorting to pointing out my typo's!
It's not like I could have made a constructive reply to your useless insult, is it?
QuoteBecause not knowing the right answer does not mean I don't know what some of the wrong answers are, and you're wrong.
What?
Perfectly simple. You asked me to say what England would be like without religion (I'm assuming you meant if it had developed without religion). Simple answer - I don't know. I'm afraid I'm nowhere near intelligent enough to construct accurate alternative timelines in my head on a whim. Sorry.
However, you have categorically stated that a high level of religious belief is neccesary to keep a society moral. You have stated that religion is the only thing that can provide moral guidance. In this, you are simply wrong, and I don't need to be able to speculate about alternative realities in order to say that.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 3,009
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Your right I, nor you, nor anyone else can save someone
>from themselves, but God can.
God can't either. Someone determined to destroy their lives will do so. I haven't seen any Hand-of-Gods reaching down to pluck needles out of people's hands, or keep them from drinking that bottle of Jack Daniels. The only person who can stop that sort of stuff is . . . the person doing it.
Now, if you want to argue that "you have to let God in to do his work" or something along those lines, then I basically agree. But in the end it is the person, not you or a deity, that will take the action that will save them (from drugs, or alcohol, or hell, or whatever fate you imagine might befall them.)
>What do they mean to you? Not what man has defined them by.
I have to go by what men have defined them by, because I am a man. That means I'm a collection of base impulses ruled by a higher intelligence, and my emotions are a result of all that taken as a whole. I'd like to not feel jealousy sometimes, but I do. I'd like to not be angry at people sometimes, but I am. At the same time, I'm glad I can feel love, and hope, even when those are not the most logical things to feel.
>Hope is a belief things will get better, but hope has no power without
>faith, you have to know what your hoping for right?
Nope. You can hope for a better future even if you don't know what that means, how you will get there or how you will recognize it if it does. The term "hope springs eternal" comes from the fact that people often hope against all odds, and against all logic.
>Love, not enough is known about loves power, as its true power also
>lies in faith, someone saying they will die for you is different than
>someone actually doing it.
Again, nope. You can love someone you have no faith in. You can love a child of yours even if he's a drug addict and you know he is going to destroy his life and and the lives of others. It's how we're programmed - and I think that's a good thing overall.
>We cannot control our conscience, it controls us.
Have to disagree with that too. "Conscience" is the name we give to the feelings our actions engender. It is an intelligent comparison between who we would like to be and who we show ourselves to be through our actions. We can decide to ignore our conscience; that has been demonstrated millions of times throughout the world.
>The truth is you dont want to believe that Jesus is the only way,
>therefore you choose not to.
Yep. Just as you do not want to believe that there is more than one path, and therefore you choose not to. That's fine; just allow other people the same freedom to walk their paths that you request when you walk yours.
>But you have a sense of justice within you right? Sometimes it is so
>inflamed that you feel you cannot control it?
I have a sense of justice, but I wouldn't describe it as feeling uncontrollable.
> Dont we think God, in whoms image we are made burns in the same
> way?
Definitely not. I do not ascribe to the image of God as being like a cranky old man, with a flowing white robe and all, who gets angry and kills people. who becomes irate and punishes people, who becomes happy and grants people wishes, and who then disappears once we have the means to detect his actions. That's far too simplistic and anthropomorphic a view of God (IMO) and not far different from every fable and myth in our past.
Look at it this way. We are far, far closer to dolphins than we are to God, a being that (in the view of most religions) is omnipotent, omniscient, immortal and not limited by space or time. In contrast, we share 90% of our DNA with dolphins. We have the same size brain, live in the same world, have a similar lifespan, see with the same eyes, swim in the same waters and bear our children the same way. And yet we can't even agree on basic questions as to how dolphins feel emotions, how intelligent they are or if they have a language.
Claiming that we understand God - a being who is absolutely nothing like us - many times better is, in my opinion, foolish to the extreme. I think Christians see one part of God and Buddhists see a different part. Neither is wrong, they are just doing their best to understand something that's basically incomprehensible to us.
I know you disagree, and think all the answers are found in the Bible. Where you and I disagree is that I think there is far more to understanding God that can be found in the Bible, or in any religious book.
>from themselves, but God can.
God can't either. Someone determined to destroy their lives will do so. I haven't seen any Hand-of-Gods reaching down to pluck needles out of people's hands, or keep them from drinking that bottle of Jack Daniels. The only person who can stop that sort of stuff is . . . the person doing it.
Now, if you want to argue that "you have to let God in to do his work" or something along those lines, then I basically agree. But in the end it is the person, not you or a deity, that will take the action that will save them (from drugs, or alcohol, or hell, or whatever fate you imagine might befall them.)
>What do they mean to you? Not what man has defined them by.
I have to go by what men have defined them by, because I am a man. That means I'm a collection of base impulses ruled by a higher intelligence, and my emotions are a result of all that taken as a whole. I'd like to not feel jealousy sometimes, but I do. I'd like to not be angry at people sometimes, but I am. At the same time, I'm glad I can feel love, and hope, even when those are not the most logical things to feel.
>Hope is a belief things will get better, but hope has no power without
>faith, you have to know what your hoping for right?
Nope. You can hope for a better future even if you don't know what that means, how you will get there or how you will recognize it if it does. The term "hope springs eternal" comes from the fact that people often hope against all odds, and against all logic.
>Love, not enough is known about loves power, as its true power also
>lies in faith, someone saying they will die for you is different than
>someone actually doing it.
Again, nope. You can love someone you have no faith in. You can love a child of yours even if he's a drug addict and you know he is going to destroy his life and and the lives of others. It's how we're programmed - and I think that's a good thing overall.
>We cannot control our conscience, it controls us.
Have to disagree with that too. "Conscience" is the name we give to the feelings our actions engender. It is an intelligent comparison between who we would like to be and who we show ourselves to be through our actions. We can decide to ignore our conscience; that has been demonstrated millions of times throughout the world.
>The truth is you dont want to believe that Jesus is the only way,
>therefore you choose not to.
Yep. Just as you do not want to believe that there is more than one path, and therefore you choose not to. That's fine; just allow other people the same freedom to walk their paths that you request when you walk yours.
>But you have a sense of justice within you right? Sometimes it is so
>inflamed that you feel you cannot control it?
I have a sense of justice, but I wouldn't describe it as feeling uncontrollable.
> Dont we think God, in whoms image we are made burns in the same
> way?
Definitely not. I do not ascribe to the image of God as being like a cranky old man, with a flowing white robe and all, who gets angry and kills people. who becomes irate and punishes people, who becomes happy and grants people wishes, and who then disappears once we have the means to detect his actions. That's far too simplistic and anthropomorphic a view of God (IMO) and not far different from every fable and myth in our past.
Look at it this way. We are far, far closer to dolphins than we are to God, a being that (in the view of most religions) is omnipotent, omniscient, immortal and not limited by space or time. In contrast, we share 90% of our DNA with dolphins. We have the same size brain, live in the same world, have a similar lifespan, see with the same eyes, swim in the same waters and bear our children the same way. And yet we can't even agree on basic questions as to how dolphins feel emotions, how intelligent they are or if they have a language.
Claiming that we understand God - a being who is absolutely nothing like us - many times better is, in my opinion, foolish to the extreme. I think Christians see one part of God and Buddhists see a different part. Neither is wrong, they are just doing their best to understand something that's basically incomprehensible to us.
I know you disagree, and think all the answers are found in the Bible. Where you and I disagree is that I think there is far more to understanding God that can be found in the Bible, or in any religious book.
Well, if you continue reply in such a manner I'll be happy to reply too - rather than let it all develop into a slagfest...
I still have a slight issue with you stating what I said in your own words though. Petty, yes. Still, didn't you make a point earlier regarding cut and paste?
But I'd much prefer this argument to be constructive.
I do believe that the main reason we can see society becoming more immoral is through the increasing lack of religion amongst the general population. Now, I've kind of explained my thought process in why I've came to this conclusion, as I've also acknowledged the almost countless reasons surrounding this issue too.
What I'm asking of you is to explain why this is such a wrong opinion.
I'm all ears - whilst I strongly believe this to be the case I'm very interested in alternative theories. But then that goes back to what I said earlier, the numerous possible reasons all seem to point to one underlying cause.
What else can provide moral guidance? If you're so quick to knock religion as being wrong, then surely you must have an alternative theory?
If you are so certain of what's wrong, that surely implies you have at least an idea of what is right.
So what is it then? And why?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
I still have a slight issue with you stating what I said in your own words though. Petty, yes. Still, didn't you make a point earlier regarding cut and paste?
But I'd much prefer this argument to be constructive.
I do believe that the main reason we can see society becoming more immoral is through the increasing lack of religion amongst the general population. Now, I've kind of explained my thought process in why I've came to this conclusion, as I've also acknowledged the almost countless reasons surrounding this issue too.
What I'm asking of you is to explain why this is such a wrong opinion.
I'm all ears - whilst I strongly believe this to be the case I'm very interested in alternative theories. But then that goes back to what I said earlier, the numerous possible reasons all seem to point to one underlying cause.
What else can provide moral guidance? If you're so quick to knock religion as being wrong, then surely you must have an alternative theory?
If you are so certain of what's wrong, that surely implies you have at least an idea of what is right.
So what is it then? And why?
'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'
QuoteQuote1) is wrong-- they were all completed between AD 40 and AD 65.
2) is untrue. Most were eye-witnesses, or consulted with an eye-witness (one of the disciples)
3) is TRUE
4) is untrue. There are nearly 5700 handwritten Greek manuscripts of the N.T. There are an additional 9000 manuscripts in other languages (translations), for example, Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Arabic. Some of the 15000 manuscripts are complete bibles, others are individual books of the bible, or pages, and just a few are fragments.
Mockingbird, 40-65 years after the fact (some are thought to have taken longer) is the same as not written at the time. Consulted with eye witnesses means not an eye witness and that is hearsay. You object to my points, then agree with them. You really need to start using the accepted definitions of words. If you keep changing what a word means as you have done here, you end up disagreeing with yourself and quite honestly, no one can make that look smart.
Jack, AD 40- AD 65 is only 7 to 30 years after the ascension of Christ. That is not a long time at all when you consider the times and what they had to work with back then. Consulting with an eyewitness would take a bit longer than shooting emails back and forth, especially if travel was involved. No ball point pens and Big Chief tablets to jot things down. But you see, if it had just been 3 years, you would still have a problem with that interval, right? I mean, that's how it seems to me.
Second, as for consulting with an eyewitness for some of the events, being considered "hearsay" in a court--- this isn't a trial. Historians have always consulted with other sources-- those who were present. If The Gospel of Mark was written by a man, John Mark, who assisted Peter (who WAS in Jesus' inner circle of disciples) and got his information from Peter, I have no problem with that, nor would you if it were concerning any other historical account... but it's about Christ who atoned for our sin--- is it Christ saying that he is the Son of God that people have a problem with? or is it admitting that we have sin that needed atoning? I don't know which, but I do know that the records of the gospel authors are held to unreasonable standards, standards not put on any other piece of literature or history.
Third, I don't care how "smart" I look, Jack. I only care that I don't mislead anyone, or say anything that isn't based on fact/reality. You said I've "re-defined" words. What words are you referring to? "Eyewitness"? How have I re-defined it?
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
QuoteAnother inportant point here is that we actually do not know who wrote the original gospels.
Also why is there no other litriture wirtten by authors of the time that mentions anything about the life of Christ????
1. We know beyond a reasonable doubt, if not the shadow of a doubt, who wrote the gospels which make up the new testament. Critics (A.K.A. conspiracy theorists) of the gospels are the ones who have cast doubt on who the authors were by fabricating and/or manipulating facts. There's no reason to believe that they weren't written by the authors they've traditionally been attributed to.
2. There is other contemporary literature about or mentioning the life of Christ. There are four gospels. That's four separate books! (People tend to think of the Bible as one book. It's actually 66 books bound together in one volume. It's like an anthology.) Four books about Jesus' life which are just different enough to lend credibility to their originality, and just enough alike to present a unified message. Christ is also mentioned by non-Christian historians writing within 150 years of his life-- more historians mentioned Jesus than mentioned the Roman Emperor at the time, Tiberius Caesar.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
jakee 1,501
QuoteChrist is also mentioned by non-Christian historians writing within 150 years of his life-- more historians mentioned Jesus than mentioned the Roman Emperor at the time, Tiberius Caesar.
Lists, please.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
kallend 2,032
Quotebut I do know that the records of the gospel authors are held to unreasonable standards, standards not put on any other piece of literature or history.
Incredible claims require incredible proof. The standards are very reasonable considering what is claimed.
If the works of Homer were being claimed to represent real interventions by Zeus and Athena, the same high standards of proof would apply.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteAnother inportant point here is that we actually do not know who wrote the original gospels.
Also why is there no other litriture wirtten by authors of the time that mentions anything about the life of Christ????
1. We know beyond a reasonable doubt, if not the shadow of a doubt, who wrote the gospels which make up the new testament. Critics (A.K.A. conspiracy theorists) of the gospels are the ones who have cast doubt on who the authors were by fabricating and/or manipulating facts. There's no reason to believe that they weren't written by the authors they've traditionally been attributed to.
2. There is other contemporary literature about or mentioning the life of Christ. There are four gospels. That's four separate books! (People tend to think of the Bible as one book. It's actually 66 books bound together in one volume. It's like an anthology.) Four books about Jesus' life which are just different enough to lend credibility to their originality, and just enough alike to present a unified message. Christ is also mentioned by non-Christian historians writing within 150 years of his life-- more historians mentioned Jesus than mentioned the Roman Emperor at the time, Tiberius Caesar.
Didnt Bo sefus right some stuff as well?
"We didn't start the fire"
Quote>Your right I, nor you, nor anyone else can save someone
>from themselves, but God can.
God can't either. Someone determined to destroy their lives will do so. I haven't seen any Hand-of-Gods reaching down to pluck needles out of people's hands, or keep them from drinking that bottle of Jack Daniels. The only person who can stop that sort of stuff is . . . the person doing it.
Now, if you want to argue that "you have to let God in to do his work" or something along those lines, then I basically agree. But in the end it is the person, not you or a deity, that will take the action that will save them (from drugs, or alcohol, or hell, or whatever fate you imagine might befall them.)
>What do they mean to you? Not what man has defined them by.
I have to go by what men have defined them by, because I am a man. That means I'm a collection of base impulses ruled by a higher intelligence, and my emotions are a result of all that taken as a whole. I'd like to not feel jealousy sometimes, but I do. I'd like to not be angry at people sometimes, but I am. At the same time, I'm glad I can feel love, and hope, even when those are not the most logical things to feel.
>Hope is a belief things will get better, but hope has no power without
>faith, you have to know what your hoping for right?
Nope. You can hope for a better future even if you don't know what that means, how you will get there or how you will recognize it if it does. The term "hope springs eternal" comes from the fact that people often hope against all odds, and against all logic.
>Love, not enough is known about loves power, as its true power also
>lies in faith, someone saying they will die for you is different than
>someone actually doing it.
Again, nope. You can love someone you have no faith in. You can love a child of yours even if he's a drug addict and you know he is going to destroy his life and and the lives of others. It's how we're programmed - and I think that's a good thing overall.
>We cannot control our conscience, it controls us.
Have to disagree with that too. "Conscience" is the name we give to the feelings our actions engender. It is an intelligent comparison between who we would like to be and who we show ourselves to be through our actions. We can decide to ignore our conscience; that has been demonstrated millions of times throughout the world.
>The truth is you dont want to believe that Jesus is the only way,
>therefore you choose not to.
Yep. Just as you do not want to believe that there is more than one path, and therefore you choose not to. That's fine; just allow other people the same freedom to walk their paths that you request when you walk yours.
>But you have a sense of justice within you right? Sometimes it is so
>inflamed that you feel you cannot control it?
I have a sense of justice, but I wouldn't describe it as feeling uncontrollable.
> Dont we think God, in whoms image we are made burns in the same
> way?
Definitely not. I do not ascribe to the image of God as being like a cranky old man, with a flowing white robe and all, who gets angry and kills people. who becomes irate and punishes people, who becomes happy and grants people wishes, and who then disappears once we have the means to detect his actions. That's far too simplistic and anthropomorphic a view of God (IMO) and not far different from every fable and myth in our past.
Look at it this way. We are far, far closer to dolphins than we are to God, a being that (in the view of most religions) is omnipotent, omniscient, immortal and not limited by space or time. In contrast, we share 90% of our DNA with dolphins. We have the same size brain, live in the same world, have a similar lifespan, see with the same eyes, swim in the same waters and bear our children the same way. And yet we can't even agree on basic questions as to how dolphins feel emotions, how intelligent they are or if they have a language.
Claiming that we understand God - a being who is absolutely nothing like us - many times better is, in my opinion, foolish to the extreme. I think Christians see one part of God and Buddhists see a different part. Neither is wrong, they are just doing their best to understand something that's basically incomprehensible to us.
I know you disagree, and think all the answers are found in the Bible. Where you and I disagree is that I think there is far more to understanding God that can be found in the Bible, or in any religious book.
"We didn't start the fire"
jcd11235 0
QuoteI do believe that the main reason we can see society becoming more immoral is through the increasing lack of religion amongst the general population. Now, I've kind of explained my thought process in why I've came to this conclusion, as I've also acknowledged the almost countless reasons surrounding this issue too.
What I'm asking of you is to explain why this is such a wrong opinion.
The problem is that it makes an unsubstantiated claim. It's not supported by evidence. No one has shown that there is a causal relationship between religion and moral behavior. In fact, many atheists in history have been quite moral (I'll off Dr. Richard Feynman as an example.), and many religious people have been immoral (I'll offer Warren Jeffs as an example.).
QuoteWhat else can provide moral guidance?
Aesop's Fables is a nice non-religious text for moral guidance.
QuoteIf you're so quick to knock religion as being wrong, then surely you must have an alternative theory?
I have a few ideas, but nothing I would consider a theory. I don't need such a theory to be able to recognize the flaws in the theory that a religious society is a moral society and a non-religious society is an immoral society.
QuoteIf you are so certain of what's wrong, that surely implies you have at least an idea of what is right.
No, it does not imply such a thing.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
QuoteQuoteChrist is also mentioned by non-Christian historians writing within 150 years of his life-- more historians mentioned Jesus than mentioned the Roman Emperor at the time, Tiberius Caesar.
Lists, please.
Non-Christian sources mentioning Jesus:
Josephus; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Thallus, a first-century historian; Seutonius, a Roman historian; Lucin, a Greek satirist; Celsus, A Roman philosopher; Mara Bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son; and the Jewish Talmud. To read a complete listing of mentions of Christ from these sources, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chap. 9.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
QuoteDidnt Bo sefus right some stuff as well?
That's JO sefus, Ryno!
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
QuoteQuoteDidnt Bo sefus right some stuff as well?
That's JO sefus, Ryno!
I told you I wasnt a theologists!!!!!!!"We didn't start the fire"
kallend 2,032
QuoteQuoteQuoteChrist is also mentioned by non-Christian historians writing within 150 years of his life-- more historians mentioned Jesus than mentioned the Roman Emperor at the time, Tiberius Caesar.
Lists, please.
Non-Christian sources mentioning Jesus:
Josephus; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Thallus, a first-century historian; Seutonius, a Roman historian; Lucin, a Greek satirist; Celsus, A Roman philosopher; Mara Bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son; and the Jewish Talmud. To read a complete listing of mentions of Christ from these sources, see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus, chap. 9.
So there's a lot of hearsay, but still no evidence.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", Carl Sagan.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
1) is wrong-- they were all completed between AD 40 and AD 65.
2) is untrue. Most were eye-witnesses, or consulted with an eye-witness (one of the disciples)
3) is TRUE
4) is untrue. There are nearly 5700 handwritten Greek manuscripts of the N.T. There are an additional 9000 manuscripts in other languages (translations), for example, Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Arabic. Some of the 15000 manuscripts are complete bibles, others are individual books of the bible, or pages, and just a few are fragments.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites