Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Retract.the reason i posted that video up is because (as someone did to me with post resurrection contradictions) he can make the argument better than i. and to the person who responded entirely to that video, you must have turned it off immediatly after the utterance of the word "BS" because he immediately explains the meaning of the phrase and why it was used at that time (it was not this christian idea is bs, but rather used as "they dont have an answer, so they bs their way out of the contradiction. this is similar to what i have done on occasion with college essays). that said, he is at least mostly respectful of the christian faith.
Funny. So you can't answer the rest of the points, and the inference of p52 being First Century is the only thing you'll assail?heymikey80 said:The video also makes the assumption that for instance John's account of physical encounters with Jesus was written later, say 90 AD at best, while earlier accounts are "spiritualized", that is in his presumption, non-physical or figurative. However, most paleontoligists point out, John's gospel is the earliest of physical fragments of any public Christian work. The gospels are quoted among the writings of the earliest church fathers (with the pastoral letters a close second). The internal evidence in John points to it being written to Jewish people (people highly familiar with Judaism, particularly with Passover) yet who were not particularly familiar with the movement.
That'd make John early in its writing. Not late. And John's physical assertions would then be early as well.
while P52 is the earliest copy, it was certainly not the earliest book. think about it this way. i read "harry potter" before i read "the time machine". does this mean that harry potter existed first? of course not, time machine was written a hundred years before harry potter.
You've no proof at all of that. In point of fact many scholars point to the Thessalonian letters. Some point to Hebrew Matthew. Some Revelation. Some Mark. Some Q.the earliest book that we know to be authentic was Gelations. it was written in around 50-55, making that 20-25 years after the supposed death of jesus.
No, they're not all anonymous. If you had checked the citations from John, you'd know that. And no, they're not propaganda, which is often cited with names in this period. You know -- Augustus Caesar, for instance. Or Herod the Great.it should also be noted that all of the gospels authors are anon. we dont know who wrote them, but we do know why. they are gospels, in other words, propaganda.
As I said before, the post was in response to your proffered video. If you don't want the answer, don't supply the source material.Frankly the post was very long and not on the topic of the post but that is my short response. if you would like to discuss further i invite you to do so through pm or create another thread in a spot where i can post. thanks.
It just isn't his style, speaking straight to us, he likes to have us use our brains, only in some really important cases he directly speaks to humans.
faith (belief without evidence) is a bad thing
"it would be alot easier, and hey, you wouldnt have any atheists and thats a good thing right?"
That's not necessarily true. Jesus came to earth and many did not believe in him then. When he was here he said `I and the Father are one'. He also said `if you have seen me you have seen the Father.' But again, who believed his report? It seemed but a few initially. Therefore the words are true that `though one were to come down from Heaven, some would not believe.'
This is why we are told `blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe'. However, once one truly gives their life to Christ he reveals himself in so many ways that it is harder not to believe than the other way around.
And He has passed the test of a good healthy skepticism:kidsagainstkows said:Jesus, at the end of the day, was just a guy. there were tons of messiahs at that time so a good healthy skepticism was a good thing. that people didnt believe is hardly their fault, even if he was the actual messiah.
Jesus, at the end of the day, was just a guy.
the problem with Jesus as messiah
if i found out today that god exists, i would most certainly not love him. mass genocide, slavery, child rape, no justice system, might makes right mentality. i dont understand why anybody would worship a being who endorses these things. even if he were to squash me like a bug, i would know that i am right and god is wrong.
The problem here is you think your understanding is new or complete.
The book of Job well covers all of this.
For instance, Hitler massacred the Jews. Can you say that Hitler is therefore God? Of course not. That would be entirely absurd. In fact, the antichrist is called "the tyrant". Jesus is the opposite of a tyrant.
We are supposed to care enough to try and fix things.
That love only comes from God.
it is my understanding that the book of Job is about God wrecking a good persons life because it can. all of Job's friends blame him for it. When Job finally says that god is doing it just to be a jerk, god comes down and says that it is doing it because it can do whatever it wants. furthermore God says that Job shouldnt even question him unless Job is at least as powerful as God. this was my "might makes right mentality" argument in my op.
I actually dont have a big problem with the Jesus character. he seems like a nice enough guy. he was hypocritical at times but arnt we all.
how many religious wars have their been, how much loss of life has come as a direct result from religion.
if that is the kind of love that God gives then ill pass.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?