The difficulty of talking to Atheist

Colter said:

Go back to sleep M8.

Click to expand...

So you can't answer my questions then? Were they invalid in some way?

Colter said:

Good question, I don't have anything that would stand up in a court of law. But then again, people who dealt directly with Jesus and even saw miraculous things didn't believe him. His apostle's were skeptical of the resurrection until they saw him.

Click to expand...

Have you ever investigated the work of NT historians, regarding what the consensus deems as being historically credible, in regards to Jesus?

If you do, you will find, NT historians can only come to a consensus on the following in regards to what is historically reliable in regards to Jesus:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, anything regarding Jesus in the four gospels is on very thin ice, when one applies the historical method to determine credibility. Sure, you can find some conservative evangelical historians, that will claim much more of it is credible, but you will also find many in the middle and on the other side, that make very good arguments, that very little of the NT is historically reliable.

Colter said:

Good question, I don't have anything that would stand up in a court of law. But then again, people who dealt directly with Jesus and even saw miraculous things didn't believe him. His apostle's were skeptical of the resurrection until they saw him.

Click to expand...

And yet we, who don't get the luxury of witnessing such a thing, are expected to believe it even when those who were there had some doubts? Kinda unfair, don't you think?

PsychoSarah said:

People are willing to die for stuff that isn't true you know. I can't even think of a religion that doesn't have some sort of martyr

Click to expand...

This is true. But you will be hard-pressed to find people willing to die for something they know is false. Which is exactly what you think the early martyrs did.

Aldebaran said:

Reading what you wrote to him in reply---I wouldn't respond to you either.

Click to expand...

Cheerleading for the guy who believes Jesus and the Mother Nature Spirit used magic to make Lucifer?

Not surprised.

Aldeban said:

How is it hard to understand why he wouldn't want to continue responding to you?

Click to expand...

Is it not true that a trip to Walmart is better recorded than this story he wishes us to base our lives on? Yes, I call his story phlegm, but I do so to emphasize its worthlessness. I am sorry the story is worthless, but it is indeed the case. Do I think this story of this god is trippy? Yes. Do I find reason to think it is the creator of the cosmos? No.

I'm sorry that strong opposing opinion backed-up by reasoning causes the two of you distress.

Colter said:

This is all true. You will note that Jesus didn't rely on proof texts of scripture writing to buttress his authority to teach.

Today what we have, beyond the imperfect accounts of the NT, is the "spirit of truth" that Jesus sent to believers in this age.

John 20:26-29

"Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”​

Click to expand...

Funny you quote verses from John, which most NT scholars and historians feel, is the least credible of the four gospels and was written last and about 60-70 years after Jesus died. Of course, as with the other 3 gospels, John was not actually written by John, but an anonymous scribe.

Colter said:

Good question, I don't have anything that would stand up in a court of law. But then again, people who dealt directly with Jesus and even saw miraculous things didn't believe him. His apostle's were skeptical of the resurrection until they saw him.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that Jesus did any miracles? How do you even know that the resurrection story is accurate?

Colter said:

No, that's more an observation on my part, it's not the basis of the faith gift that I have from God. I just wonder sometimes how pessimist reason things out. The NT is to messed up to be a fraud.

Click to expand...

Why don't you apply the same reasoning to the Heaven's Gate cult? They gave their lives for their beliefs, and yet you shrug it off. Why?

Colter said:

Students of the UB now know who wrote the gospels.

Again, this is from the Urantia Papers, do with it what you want.

Previous Written Records​

(1341.2) 121:8.1 As far as possible, consistent with our mandate, we have endeavored to utilize and to some extent co-ordinate the existing records having to do with the life of Jesus on Urantia. Although we have enjoyed access to the lost record of the Apostle Andrew and have benefited from the collaboration of a vast host of celestial beings who were on earth during the times of Michael’s bestowal (notably his now Personalized Adjuster), it has been our purpose also to make use of the so-called Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

(1341.3) 121:8.2 These New Testament records had their origin in the following circumstances:


(1341.4) 121:8.3 1. The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew), briefest, and most simple record of Jesus’ life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter’s death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter’s memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew’s and Matthew’s notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus.

(1341.5) 121:8.4 2. The Gospel of Matthew. The so-called Gospel according to Matthew is the record of the Master’s life which was written for the edification of Jewish Christians. The author of this record constantly seeks to show in Jesus’ life that much which he did was that “it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.” Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as a son of David, picturing him as showing great respect for the law and the prophets.

(1341.6) 121:8.5 The Apostle Matthew did not write this Gospel. It was written by Isador, one of his disciples, who had as a help in his work not only Matthew’s personal remembrance of these events but also a certain record which the latter had made of the sayings of Jesus directly after the crucifixion. This record by Matthew was written in Aramaic; Isador wrote in Greek. There was no intent to deceive in accrediting the production to Matthew. It was the custom in those days for pupils thus to honor their teachers.

(1342.1) 121:8.6 Matthew’s original record was edited and added to in A.D. 40 just before he left Jerusalem to engage in evangelistic preaching. It was a private record, the last copy having been destroyed in the burning of a Syrian monastery in A.D. 416.

(1342.2) 121:8.7 Isador escaped from Jerusalem in A.D. 70 after the investment of the city by the armies of Titus, taking with him to Pella a copy of Matthew’s notes. In the year 71, while living at Pella, Isador wrote the Gospel according to Matthew. He also had with him the first four fifths of Mark’s narrative.

(1342.3) 121:8.8 3. The Gospel by Luke. Luke, the physician of Antioch in Pisidia, was a gentile convert of Paul, and he wrote quite a different story of the Master’s life. He began to follow Paul and learn of the life and teachings of Jesus in A.D. 47. Luke preserves much of the “grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in his record as he gathered up these facts from Paul and others. Luke presents the Master as “the friend of publicans and sinners.” He did not formulate his many notes into the Gospel until after Paul’s death. Luke wrote in the year 82 in Achaia. He planned three books dealing with the history of Christ and Christianity but died in A.D. 90 just before he finished the second of these works, the “Acts of the Apostles.”

(1342.4) 121:8.9 As material for the compilation of his Gospel, Luke first depended upon the story of Jesus’ life as Paul had related it to him. Luke’s Gospel is, therefore, in some ways the Gospel according to Paul. But Luke had other sources of information. He not only interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the numerous episodes of Jesus’ life which he records, but he also had with him a copy of Mark’s Gospel, that is, the first four fifths, Isador’s narrative, and a brief record made in the year A.D. 78 at Antioch by a believer named Cedes. Luke also had a mutilated and much-edited copy of some notes purported to have been made by the Apostle Andrew.

(1342.5) 121:8.10 4. The Gospel of John. The Gospel according to John relates much of Jesus’ work in Judea and around Jerusalem which is not contained in the other records. This is the so-called Gospel according to John the son of Zebedee, and though John did not write it, he did inspire it. Since its first writing it has several times been edited to make it appear to have been written by John himself. When this record was made, John had the other Gospels, and he saw that much had been omitted; accordingly, in the year A.D. 101 he encouraged his associate, Nathan, a Greek Jew from Caesarea, to begin the writing. John supplied his material from memory and by reference to the three records already in existence. He had no written records of his own. The Epistle known as “First John” was written by John himself as a covering letter for the work which Nathan executed under his direction.

(1342.6) 121:8.11 All these writers presented honest pictures of Jesus as they saw, remembered, or had learned of him, and as their concepts of these distant events were affected by their subsequent espousal of Paul’s theology of Christianity. And these records, imperfect as they are, have been sufficient to change the course of the history of Urantia for almost two thousand years.{/B]

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to this information? Would like to see their reasoning behind who they identify as authors, as it goes against the majority opinion of NT scholars.

Aldeban said:

All you did here was state opinions, which are not facts.

Click to expand...

This part which you have bold is my evaluation, and thus opinion based on the facts as I have presented. The facts upon which I base my evaluation are obviously not opinion.

Colter said:

You are just being difficult, acting like an overaggressive prosecutor, you don't want to understand, you just seem to want to argue, find some technical fault.

Click to expand...

You said that all celestial beings have a mother and a father. Lucifer's mother and father are the Son and Mother Nature Spirit. I asked you who their parents are and you said it is I AM. But that doesn't make sense if they don't have a mother and a father.

You say that Lucifer is an atheist. But you also say he was born of divine beings. You say he knows who is parents are. Therefore he cannot be atheist since he knows the divine exists.

You say that Lucifer is a celestial being. However, in explaining Lucifer's poor decision-making, you referred to him as a man. This seems to be contradictory. Lucifer cannot be a man and a celestial being at the same time.

These are simple things that can be answered once you invent more story for your religion (or someone else does it for you). Don't be mad at the questions, be mad at the lack of fiction.

I have explained it clearly to you, Lucifer had to live by faith in the Unseen Father of his celestial parents, no magic, you made that up.

Click to expand...

So his celestial parents didn't have parents?

To the I AM nothing is a miracle, he just knows how to do it. I will provide the entire Lucifer manifesto from the 1955 Urantia Revelation

Click to expand...

Here are some ways in which the Urantia Book is wrong scientifically and reveals itself to have been written by people with early 1900's understandings of the universe (not celestial beings):

The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]

According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.[105] The book does not support the big bang theory.[106]

A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.[107]

The Andromeda Galaxy is claimed to be "almost one million" light years away, repeating the understandings of the 1920s,[108] but the galaxy is now understood to be 2.5 million light years away.

The book repeats the mistaken idea that planets close to a sun will gradually spin slower until one hemisphere is left always turned to the sun due to tidal locking, citing Mercury as an example. Scientists at the time of the book's origin thought one side of Mercury always faced the sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces the Earth. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered however that Mercury rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.[106] Scientists further established that Mercury is locked in this spin rate in a stable resonance of 3 spins for every 2 orbits, and it is not slowing and so will never have one side left always turned to the sun.[109]

Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species.[110] The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but was short-lived and is not now supported.[111]

The book erroneously says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.[112] In 2009, Urantia Foundation acknowledged the error and revised the book.[c]

Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book.[114] Gardner believes that William S. Sadler, who wrote some eugenicist works, had a hand in editing or writing the book, and that this is how the ideas were included.

-- The Urantia Book - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So go ahead and whine about it being a Wikipedia article, then feel free to answer the issues.