Questions For Christians?

[Jeff]

Yeah and dead popped out of the ground too. So convinced.

Funny how ridiculous the early converts were. They were an embarrassment to themselves according to some actual history that was so kindly provided recently here.

Kinda like a rash of stupidity that broke out with every crazy group fighting and arguing with the rest.

[Guest Furball]

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

According to Acts 2 three thousand people converted after Peter's message. More were added daily.

 

 

 

Do you have any evidence outside the bible to corroborate what acts 2 says? From what I have studied, the earliest christians were a small group that met in caves. Christianity would also have us believe about the mass conversions by the holy spirit based on jonathan edwards great awakening sermons. Unfortunately, I found out later that most of these so called miraculous conversions based on edwards preaching through the power of the holy ghost had actually failed. That after 3 months, almost all of these people who were powerfully converted ended up de-converting and going back to their usual lives. The bible doesn't tell us how many of these three thousand converts remained in the faith, so it's pure speculation to say they remained converted till their death. Since the bible makes numerous claims that can be tested in this world, and which have been accurately and historically proven false, I wouldn't recommend that you use the bible as a factual/historically accurate book. 

[ironhorse]

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

 

Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. 

The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

 

Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. 

The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. 

 

 

Circular argument, Ironhorse!

 

You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection.

 

Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims.

 

Can you provide them please?

 

BAA.

[ironhorse]

I hope you vote for political candidates who will allow non-Christians to live their lives without Christians' trying to control them. Ditto in the other direction.

 

~ ficino in post #14

 

 

I have voted for the Libertarian Party's candidate for president for the past twenty something years.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

 

Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. 

The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. 

 

 

Circular argument, Ironhorse!

 

You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection.

 

Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims.

 

Can you provide them please?

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

[Shinzon]

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

According to Acts 2 three thousand people converted after Peter's message. More were added daily.

 

As I read the history of Christianity, it seemed to have spread quickly through the world.

 

Many accepted the message at a time when doing so might cost you your life.

missed my point entirely. Basically its this, if christianity was so amazingly correct in the eyes of ancient israel, it would have immediately changed the landscape far more then just 3000 people and supposedly more daily. Your asking me to believe that almost the whole of the amcient world had a massive case of denial to something supposedly undeniable. This is exactly why people belive that jesus was a myth. If it was true, the impact would have been substantially greater then it was.

[Shinzon]

And for the record i agree that there was a historical jesus, i just find that arguement i uses in post 32 that is used by mythicists to be relatively weighty and sound.

 

I admit its not a great arguement but its a very meaningful curiousity.

[ironhorse]

And for the record i agree that there was a historical jesus, i just find that arguement i uses in post 32 that is used by mythicists to be relatively weighty and sound.

 

I admit its not a great arguement but its a very meaningful curiousity.

 

missed my point entirely. Basically its this, if christianity was so amazingly correct in the eyes of ancient israel, it would have immediately changed the landscape far more then just 3000 people and supposedly more daily. Your asking me to believe that almost the whole of the amcient world had a massive case of denial to something supposedly undeniable. This is exactly why people belive that jesus was a myth. If it was true, the impact would have been substantially greater then it was.

~ Shinzon (post 32)

 

 

It was not instant information in the ancient world. Greek was a language understood by many. Thanks to Alexander the Great. Also, Rome had built a good roads and had a good navy. They had a pretty fast mail delivery. About two weeks for a letter from Jerusalem to Rome.

 

Interesting note: The word “romance” is based on the fact that Roman soldiers and their wives or girlfriends wrote thousands of letters back and forth.

 

I think the message spread fairly quickly considering the time period.

[ironhorse]

If indeed the bible was authored by an omni-omni god, it should have been written coherently for the humans that would read it and need to understand it.
It simply wasn't written by a god, nor is it coherent.
~ amateur

 

I think the main message of the Bible is clearly presented.

 

Sure there are passages I read that are difficult to understand without study and there are passages I have never been able to understand. It is a collection of 66 books. The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago. The newest book, Revelation, was written around AD 90.

 

It says God inspired these writers to tell the story.

 

If these book lined up in neat little rows of sanitized unblemished narratives, critics would claim it proof they were all in conspiracy to fabricate a lie.

 

To me, the scriptures are fascinating to read and study.

It tells of the train wrecks and the clarity of who God is and His message to us.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

 

Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. 

The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. 

 

 

Circular argument, Ironhorse!

 

You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection.

 

Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims.

 

Can you provide them please?

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-Bump!)

[Thought2Much]

The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.

 

This is a very poor historical understanding of the authorship of these books. You need to read materials written by people other than Baptist preachers.

 

Or did your "skeptical appraisal" of your faith not include topics related to Biblical authorship?

[ironhorse]

 

The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.

 

This is a very poor historical understanding of the authorship of these books. You need to read materials written by people other than Baptist preachers.

 

Or did your "skeptical appraisal" of your faith not include topics related to Biblical authorship?

 

 

 

 

You charge that this is a "poor historical understanding" and do not explain why. Where is what I posted false or misleading?

 

You then tell me I need to read "materials" written by people other than Baptist preachers. Where is the basis for that statement from anything I have ever posted here in the Lion's Den?

 

I mentioned this to help you understand that when I say read many of my father’s religious books in his library, they were not just books written by Billy Sunday, John R. Rice or Oliver B. Greene.

My parent’s library covered a wide range of topics but I guess a little over half of them were on religion. The rest were science, math, psychology, history and some fiction. There was a very old copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species that had belonged to my grandmother. It might have been a first edition. I can't remember.

I grew up and encouraged to read anything I wanted.

~ Notes about Me

 

And I see you also go along with this continuing criticism by some here that what I posted in "Notes About Me" is all bunk.

You have your every right to not accept what I wrote. My story will never be accepted genuine by some because my conclusions are opposite of theirs. So be it. 

 

 

So, I asked myself. Is it true or was it all made up of myths, bits of history, fictional stories and with Jesus, a giant hoax?

If it was a conspiracy, it was a good one. Text spanning centuries, all threaded with a simple message.

~ Note About Me

 

 

I did not specifically mention authorship in my post there but I have posted here I have read books on higher criticism which includes questions of authorship. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

 

Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. 

The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. 

 

 

Circular argument, Ironhorse!

 

You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection.

 

Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims.

 

Can you provide them please?

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-Bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-bump!)

[Thought2Much]

 

 

The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.

 

This is a very poor historical understanding of the authorship of these books. You need to read materials written by people other than Baptist preachers.

 

Or did your "skeptical appraisal" of your faith not include topics related to Biblical authorship?

 

 

 

 

You charge that this is a "poor historical understanding" and do not explain why. Where is what I posted false or misleading?

 

You then tell me I need to read "materials" written by people other than Baptist preachers. Where is the basis for that statement from anything I have ever posted here in the Lion's Den?

 

If you had read anything by anyone other than Baptist preachers and apologists that was written after the turn of the 20th century, you would have quickly learned that the scholarly consensus about the authorship of Genesis and Job is that they weren't written by Moses, and that, in fact, Moses was very unlikely to have been an actual person. A basic encyclopedia entry would provide this information easily enough.

 

The only people to still believe that any of the books of the Bible were written by Moses are evangelical Christians. Hence, my accusation that you don't read anything besides the writings of Baptist preachers. If you've read anything else, you certainly didn't retain that information.

[Jeff]

IH do you even retain and reflect on these corrections you receive or do you just keep chugging along?

[Thought2Much]

IH do you even retain and reflect on these corrections you receive or do you just keep chugging along?

 

I have never once seen Ironhorse acknowledge he was incorrect about anything. Fuck, he can't even acknowledge that only religious people (and particularly within his own brand) still think that Moses wrote any of the Bible, over a century after the scholarly consensus says he didn't. This means he either lied about his skeptical appraisal of his religion, he doesn't accept any of the information he read that contradicts his religion, or he just plain doesn't remember any of the information he read that contradicts his religion.

 

It's like he has a mind made of Teflon. Whenever he's presented with information that doesn't match his internal paradigm, he just changes the subject.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If indeed the bible was authored by an omni-omni god, it should have been written coherently for the humans that would read it and need to understand it.

It simply wasn't written by a god, nor is it coherent.

~ amateur

 

I think the main message of the Bible is clearly presented.

 

Sure there are passages I read that are difficult to understand without study and there are passages I have never been able to understand. It is a collection of 66 books. The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago. The newest book, Revelation, was written around AD 90.

 

It says God inspired these writers to tell the story.

 

If these book lined up in neat little rows of sanitized unblemished narratives, critics would claim it proof they were all in conspiracy to fabricate a lie.

 

To me, the scriptures are fascinating to read and study.

It tells of the train wrecks and the clarity of who God is and His message to us.

Does the gospel according to Mark mention the resurrection of jesus?

 

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

Are you sure?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

IH do you even retain and reflect on these corrections you receive or do you just keep chugging along?

 

I have never once seen Ironhorse acknowledge he was incorrect about anything. Fuck, he can't even acknowledge that only religious people (and particularly within his own brand) still think that Moses wrote any of the Bible, over a century after the scholarly consensus says he didn't. This means he either lied about his skeptical appraisal of his religion, he doesn't accept any of the information he read that contradicts his religion, or he just plain doesn't remember any of the information he read that contradicts his religion.

 

It's like he has a mind made of Teflon. Whenever he's presented with information that doesn't match his internal paradigm, he just changes the subject.

 

He once spelled "Cheerwine" without capitalizing the "C".  I called him on it and he made the correction; but I don't think he made any public apologies for having committed such a grievous error.  That's likely to be the closest he's ever come to an admission of error, to my knowledge, anyway.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Why didnt they have a mass conversion if they had no rebuttal to the resurrection in the first century?

 

 

Considering the time period the Christian faith did grow quickly. Acts 2 records three thousand or so converting. 

The good news of a crucified dead man returning to life was a message that appealed to people. 

 

 

Circular argument, Ironhorse!

 

You are appealing to the Bible (Acts 2) to validate what the Bible says elsewhere about Jesus' resurrection.

 

Furball is right to ask for extra-Biblical evidence of these claims.

 

Can you provide them please?

 

BAA.

 

 

(Bump!)

 

 

(Re-Bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-bump!)

 

 

(Re-re-re-bump!)

[ironhorse]

IH do you even retain and reflect on these corrections you receive or do you just keep chugging along?
~ Jeff

I try to reflect, as you say on what I read. This is one of the reasons my replies are not always instantaneous. I think I have acknowledge past mistakes I have made here. 

 

I have never once seen Ironhorse acknowledge he was incorrect about anything. Fuck, he can't even acknowledge that only religious people (and particularly within his own brand) still think that Moses wrote any of the Bible, over a century after the scholarly consensus says he didn't. This means he either lied about his skeptical appraisal of his religion, he doesn't accept any of the information he read that contradicts his religion, or he just plain doesn't remember any of the information he read that contradicts his religion.

It's like he has a mind made of Teflon. Whenever he's presented with information that doesn't match his internal paradigm, he just changes the subject.

 

~ Thought2Much

 

 

“The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.”

My error was using the word most to the number of scholars. I should have used the word some.

I agree that many liberal scholars question whether Moses wrote any of the first five books or only parts of them. There are also still conservative scholars (Jewish and Christians), who support the arguments for Mosaic authorship.

I agree that many present-day Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians continue to believe that Moses wrote the entire first five books of the Bible.

Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians have deviated from traditional Christian teachings. They believe that selected passages were written by persons other than Moses.

[bornagainathiest]

IH do you even retain and reflect on these corrections you receive or do you just keep chugging along?

~ Jeff

I try to reflect, as you say on what I read. This is one of the reasons my replies are not always instantaneous. I think I have acknowledge past mistakes I have made here. 

 

Then please show us where you have acknowledged your past mistakes, Ironhorse.  

 

I have never once seen Ironhorse acknowledge he was incorrect about anything. Fuck, he can't even acknowledge that only religious people (and particularly within his own brand) still think that Moses wrote any of the Bible, over a century after the scholarly consensus says he didn't. This means he either lied about his skeptical appraisal of his religion, he doesn't accept any of the information he read that contradicts his religion, or he just plain doesn't remember any of the information he read that contradicts his religion.

 

It's like he has a mind made of Teflon. Whenever he's presented with information that doesn't match his internal paradigm, he just changes the subject.

 

~ Thought2Much

 

 

“The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago.”

My error was using the word most to the number of scholars. I should have used the word some.

I agree that many liberal scholars question whether Moses wrote any of the first five books or only parts of them. There are also still conservative scholars (Jewish and Christians), who support the arguments for Mosaic authorship.

I agree that many present-day Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians continue to believe that Moses wrote the entire first five books of the Bible.

Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians have deviated from traditional Christian teachings. They believe that selected passages were written by persons other than Moses.

[Thought2Much]

I agree that many present-day Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians continue to believe that Moses wrote the entire first five books of the Bible.

Some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians have deviated from traditional Christian teachings. They believe that selected passages were written by persons other than Moses.

 

And they are as wrong about that as they are about the idea that the earth is 6000 years old, and that there was a Noachian flood. You will find quite a large overlap between those that believe Moses even existed (let alone wrote anything), and those that also believe in Young Earth Creationism and that Noah's Flood occurred. It should tell you something when only the believers in the faith think a particular thing is true, and everyone else who studies the same thing without that particular faith bias thinks something else.

 

Once again, this tells me you haven't thoughtfully considered sources outside of your faith bubble. You either haven't read them, or you've simply ignored them.

[Thought2Much]

My error was using the word most to the number of scholars. I should have used the word some.

 

Thank you for acknowledging one time that you have made an error.

 

It should be noted that this "some" to which you refer is almost exclusively to be found within the same type of faith tradition from which you and your parents hail, and if it is found in other traditions, it is the more conservative ones (i.e., those traditions that are most resistant to historical and scientific facts intruding into their knowledge base). You should question why this is, if you are capable of that kind of skeptical thinking.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

If indeed the bible was authored by an omni-omni god, it should have been written coherently for the humans that would read it and need to understand it.

It simply wasn't written by a god, nor is it coherent.

~ amateur

 

I think the main message of the Bible is clearly presented.

 

Sure there are passages I read that are difficult to understand without study and there are passages I have never been able to understand. It is a collection of 66 books. The oldest book of the Bible, according to most scholars, is either Genesis or Job, both thought to have been written by Moses and completed around 1400 BC, about 3,400 years ago. The newest book, Revelation, was written around AD 90.

 

It says God inspired these writers to tell the story.

 

If these book lined up in neat little rows of sanitized unblemished narratives, critics would claim it proof they were all in conspiracy to fabricate a lie.

 

To me, the scriptures are fascinating to read and study.

It tells of the train wrecks and the clarity of who God is and His message to us.

Does the gospel according to Mark mention the resurrection of jesus?

 

 

...

 

 

...

 

 

Are you sure?

 

Bump