Legion Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 And I never said that you believe GW is not real. You basically just said the same thing I did. People keep referring to this because I said something along the lines of "George Washington is not real. Have you ever shook his hand?". And I was saying that anyone that believes that is what I truly believe is retarded. Please excuse me for jumping in here. Matthew I am stunned at how you are missing the point Hans is trying to make. Let me see if I can try and communicate it. You have a personal relationship with Jesus like you have a personal relationship with say Martin Luther King Jr. That is to say you have never met Martin Luther King or had an actual interactive relationship with him. You may know that he existed but you have never held a conversation with the guy. Maybe the question to ask is... Do you talk to Jesus and does Jesus talk back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewBurke Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. K thanks bai So you're gone again. And I don't see your explanation to the contradiction I mentioned earlier... was it too hard? And again, the George Washington vs Jesus and personal relationship... a personal relationship with Jesus is exactly the same as a personal relationship with George Washington. And since GW is unresponsive because he's dead, then Jesus is in my opinion just as dead since he's just as unresponsive. No it's not. I have never communicated with George Washington. If you think I believe that George Washington is not real you're an idiot. I was making a point that for anyone to believe that George Washington is or was not real is just a retarded as someone that doesn't believe that Jesus was, at a minimum, a real person that walked on this earth. Where is the extra-biblical evidence for what is a pretty bald assertion? I say extra-Biblical since to cite the Bible is circular. There is minimal evidence of Jesus as an objective existence, certainly in terms of George Washington or Julius Caesar, where there are foreign documents contemporary to Washington's (and Julius') life... it's a bad analogy, since there is NOT the evidence, unless you care to show some (and spare us the "9 out of 10 cats prefer it" logic, since I've yet to find a scholar who will say anything definite about possibly mythic figures out side his area of expertise, and there is too much tenure at stake to take the word of Biblical Scholar on the putative existence of Jesus the man as anything other than a base hypothesis) to say that there is as much evidence for Jesus ever living as there is for Washington, or Caesar... Kinda back to me not being a scholar again but I will start by saying that theres no reason not to believe the eye-whitenesses testimony from the Bible. You may call it circular but their track record for being historically and geographically accurate has to account for something. But I suppose I'll see what else I can find for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have seen no contradictions to date, so you will have to point out what you believe to be one. Then I will be glad to correct your mistake. Ah Mathew, what a student of life you are. You are approaching this like you already have all the answers. What arrogance don't you think? I thought your god praised humility. Nevertheless, I'll give you some unsolicited advice. You can never learn anything if you already know that you have all the answers. That's the best definition for ignorance I can come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewBurke Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have seen no contradictions to date, so you will have to point out what you believe to be one. Then I will be glad to correct your mistake. Ah Mathew, what a student of life you are. You are approaching this like you already have all the answers. What arrogance don't you think? I thought your god praised humility. Nevertheless, I'll give you some unsolicited advice. You can never learn anything if you already know that you have all the answers. That's the best definition for ignorance I can come up with. Arrogance, perhaps. I'm also arrogant that 2+2=4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Follier Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Matthew, please refer to post #349 on this thread (page 18) for your much-anticipated first contradictions. And to think, I'm popping your cherry with New Testament contradictions! You should consider yourself honored as Old Testament contradictions are much more prevalent and readily available. I'm awaiting your studious response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Arrogance, perhaps. I'm also arrogant that 2+2=4. This is a simple proof. Do you have a simple proof (or any proof) that the bible is without err? Again, this is the best definition of ignorance I can think of. You have all the answers before the questions arrive. Sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 The tomb is empty. What tomb? how do you know its empty? you only have the bible to tell you that, and no evidence back up its claim on this...We can't even get one damn historian from Jesus time who mentions him. Only Josepheus (who wrote 70 years later anyway) and the passage is question is well....highly questionable. In other words Josepheus probably didn't even write it. It is thought that it was added by catholic monks around 500-700 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Kinda back to me not being a scholar again but I will start by saying that theres no reason not to believe the eye-whitenesses testimony from the Bible. You may call it circular but their track record for being historically and geographically accurate has to account for something. But I suppose I'll see what else I can find for you. Ok, you admit you are not a scholar or have not studied scholarly works concerning your religion...then you come to people who have studied those works, and came to the conclusion that the bible is bunk based on that study, and attempt to educate us as to what the bible "really" says... Do you realize how absurd this is? Forget the blind leading the blind...its like the blind trying to lead someone with 20/20 vision. There are many good reasons not to believe the "eye-witness" testimony in the bible...such as there not being any evidence that it WAS eye-witness. Lets do a quiz. Who wrote the gospels? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Ok, well first off, even conservative scholars are forced to admit that Mark and Luke were not eyewitness to Jesus. Now...show me in Mathew or John where it names the authors? The fact is that you can't, because the author never names himself. Those gospels, as well as Mark were named based on tradition sometime in the late half of the 2nd century...well over 100 years after these people would have died. So who wrote the gospels again? The answer is NO ONE KNOWS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewBurke Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Was Joseph the father of Jesus? Acts 2:30, Matthew 1:18, Acts 13:23, Matthew 22:45, Romans 1:3, Mark 12:35-37 If you're looking for a biological father, then no. Jesus was born of a virgin, but Joseph was the man that Jesus' peers would have thought to be His father. I can try to get to this and the others as I have time. Busy day at work today getting to fix everything that everyone is breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Follier Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Because being impregnated by a ghost is possible, right? If you were searching for the Ghostbusters movie at a movie rental store would you look in the documentary section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Follier Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 From the Skeptic's Annotated Bible... Peter claims that Jesus is the "fruit of his [David's] loins, according to the flesh." But this is denied in Matthew (1:18, 22:41-45) and Luke (1:34) where it is said that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Because being impregnated by a ghost is possible, right? If you were searching for the Ghostbusters movie at a movie rental store would you look in the documentary section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. K thanks bai So you're gone again. And I don't see your explanation to the contradiction I mentioned earlier... was it too hard? And again, the George Washington vs Jesus and personal relationship... a personal relationship with Jesus is exactly the same as a personal relationship with George Washington. And since GW is unresponsive because he's dead, then Jesus is in my opinion just as dead since he's just as unresponsive. No it's not. I have never communicated with George Washington. If you think I believe that George Washington is not real you're an idiot. I was making a point that for anyone to believe that George Washington is or was not real is just a retarded as someone that doesn't believe that Jesus was, at a minimum, a real person that walked on this earth. Where is the extra-biblical evidence for what is a pretty bald assertion? I say extra-Biblical since to cite the Bible is circular. There is minimal evidence of Jesus as an objective existence, certainly in terms of George Washington or Julius Caesar, where there are foreign documents contemporary to Washington's (and Julius') life... it's a bad analogy, since there is NOT the evidence, unless you care to show some (and spare us the "9 out of 10 cats prefer it" logic, since I've yet to find a scholar who will say anything definite about possibly mythic figures out side his area of expertise, and there is too much tenure at stake to take the word of Biblical Scholar on the putative existence of Jesus the man as anything other than a base hypothesis) to say that there is as much evidence for Jesus ever living as there is for Washington, or Caesar... Kinda back to me not being a scholar again but I will start by saying that theres no reason not to believe the eye-whitenesses testimony from the Bible. You may call it circular but their track record for being historically and geographically accurate has to account for something. But I suppose I'll see what else I can find for you. Well, you've established that you're no biblical scholar by claiming the gospels are 'Eye witness'... they have no idea of Jewish customs, they communicate concepts that could not have been communicated in Aramaic (unless you have proof that Jesus was a Greek) the geography is all wrong, there are anachronisms (Jesus couldn't have been contemporary to Pharisees)... so you can't really claim much accuracy for the Gospel accounts... they're not even one narrative, but several stitched together... BTW, Jews tend to be tanned, not whitenesses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have seen no contradictions to date, so you will have to point out what you believe to be one. Then I will be glad to correct your mistake. Ah Mathew, what a student of life you are. You are approaching this like you already have all the answers. What arrogance don't you think? I thought your god praised humility. Nevertheless, I'll give you some unsolicited advice. You can never learn anything if you already know that you have all the answers. That's the best definition for ignorance I can come up with. Arrogance, perhaps. I'm also arrogant that 2+2=4. No, arrogance is saying you can correct our 'mistakes' while admitting you can't find your way around a bible... I think any one of us, with no sleep and a hangover knows more history and the Bible than you do... now stop being pompous, you prick. Oh, and no one gives a shit about how 'busy' you are... either play or piss off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Follier Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Oh, and no one gives a shit about how 'busy' you are... either play or piss off... Now, now, Harley... weren't we already warned about snide comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Where are the contradictions. I said in an earlier post I consider myself to be a "Babe in Christ". I've never been to a Bible College nor do I ever plan on attending one. All I know for certain is that in my journey through the Bible I have never come across any contradictions. I assume that you're talking about different passages referring to Paul's revelation contradicting each other. But where? Do I have to repeat myself a third time??? I gave you one contradiction, and I gave it to you twice, and yet you claim you have never seen or heard about any? Answer me, did Abraham now God by the name of Jahweh or not? According to God in the burning bush, talking to Moses, he didn't, but according to the Bible Abraham did know God by that name. So which way is it? Did he, or did he not? Either way, the Bible is contradicting itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Oh, and no one gives a shit about how 'busy' you are... either play or piss off... Now, now, Harley... weren't we already warned about snide comments? Come on FF... This is Gramps... I HAVE to be snyde at least once a page... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewBurke Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 I have seen no contradictions to date, so you will have to point out what you believe to be one. Then I will be glad to correct your mistake. Ah Mathew, what a student of life you are. You are approaching this like you already have all the answers. What arrogance don't you think? I thought your god praised humility. Nevertheless, I'll give you some unsolicited advice. You can never learn anything if you already know that you have all the answers. That's the best definition for ignorance I can come up with. Arrogance, perhaps. I'm also arrogant that 2+2=4. No, arrogance is saying you can correct our 'mistakes' while admitting you can't find your way around a bible... I think any one of us, with no sleep and a hangover knows more history and the Bible than you do... now stop being pompous, you prick. Oh, and no one gives a shit about how 'busy' you are... either play or piss off... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewBurke Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth. K thanks bai So you're gone again. And I don't see your explanation to the contradiction I mentioned earlier... was it too hard? And again, the George Washington vs Jesus and personal relationship... a personal relationship with Jesus is exactly the same as a personal relationship with George Washington. And since GW is unresponsive because he's dead, then Jesus is in my opinion just as dead since he's just as unresponsive. No it's not. I have never communicated with George Washington. If you think I believe that George Washington is not real you're an idiot. I was making a point that for anyone to believe that George Washington is or was not real is just a retarded as someone that doesn't believe that Jesus was, at a minimum, a real person that walked on this earth. Where is the extra-biblical evidence for what is a pretty bald assertion? I say extra-Biblical since to cite the Bible is circular. There is minimal evidence of Jesus as an objective existence, certainly in terms of George Washington or Julius Caesar, where there are foreign documents contemporary to Washington's (and Julius') life... it's a bad analogy, since there is NOT the evidence, unless you care to show some (and spare us the "9 out of 10 cats prefer it" logic, since I've yet to find a scholar who will say anything definite about possibly mythic figures out side his area of expertise, and there is too much tenure at stake to take the word of Biblical Scholar on the putative existence of Jesus the man as anything other than a base hypothesis) to say that there is as much evidence for Jesus ever living as there is for Washington, or Caesar... Kinda back to me not being a scholar again but I will start by saying that theres no reason not to believe the eye-whitenesses testimony from the Bible. You may call it circular but their track record for being historically and geographically accurate has to account for something. But I suppose I'll see what else I can find for you. Well, you've established that you're no biblical scholar by claiming the gospels are 'Eye witness'... they have no idea of Jewish customs, they communicate concepts that could not have been communicated in Aramaic (unless you have proof that Jesus was a Greek) the geography is all wrong, there are anachronisms (Jesus couldn't have been contemporary to Pharisees)... so you can't really claim much accuracy for the Gospel accounts... they're not even one narrative, but several stitched together... BTW, Jews tend to be tanned, not whitenesses... I don't care what you wanna call it. They were guntunlatupuses. It's a word I just amde and it means they wrote what they saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Follier Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Matthew, please refrain from posting the entire thread; it makes navigating these forums rather cumbersome. If you could brush on your HTML in addition to your ancient history, Jewish prophetic literature, etc. it would be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Well, you've established that you're no biblical scholar by claiming the gospels are 'Eye witness'... they have no idea of Jewish customs, they communicate concepts that could not have been communicated in Aramaic (unless you have proof that Jesus was a Greek) the geography is all wrong, there are anachronisms (Jesus couldn't have been contemporary to Pharisees)... so you can't really claim much accuracy for the Gospel accounts... they're not even one narrative, but several stitched together... BTW, Jews tend to be tanned, not whitenesses... I don't care what you wanna call it. They were guntunlatupuses. It's a word I just amde and it means they wrote what they saw. The didn't 'write' anything until well after the author of the Pauline letters had done his stuff... so around 100 years after the fact. I bet you think Mark wrote 'Mark', Matthew wrote 'Matthew' and John (the Beloved) wrote 'John'... BTW in the earliest versions extant of 'Luke' and 'John' the 'Let him without sin' thing with the woman taken in adultery is in 'Luke' and not 'John'... and the bible wasn't compiled in any stable form until the 19th Ecumenical Council in Trentino (formerly Trent) between 1545 and 1563... so there were numerous 'canon' versions around... I not you've ignored the major point and gone for the flippant one... why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Follier Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 By the way... I will be leaving work in about five minutes, Matthew, so as callers on radio programs say, "I will take my answer (to the two remaining biblical contradictions and my rebuttal for your first point) off the air." Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong? If it were an odds game this would be exactly correct, but it's not. If anyone is truly searching thier heart they will come to that conclusion themselves. I did. If anyone is searching in their hearts sincerely, they will come to the same conclusion as you? My answer to this boast is that I hope not. To conclude that you have and understand the one and only truth that all men should see as you do, is to betray that you have not yet begun to understand anything yet. Images of an 18 -20 year old who thinks they “really know what’s going on”, come to mind. A thought on this? “The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.” It sounds to me like you believe you “know”. Be careful about judging other’s sincerity because they find other “answers” than one’s you do. It makes you sound terribly immature and arrogant. And since some will claim that my response to this is vague I suppose I'll elaborate. Put these other religions to the test, check to see what truths and unthruths they hold. You do the same – sincerely look at them in a purely unbiased way. They hold many relevant truths, and some outdated relics of the past also. All of them do, and Christianity is no exception to this. It is a system of man looking for meaning. Check what historical accuracy they have. Why? Does your faith need proof? If so, how is that faith then? Check what scientific accuracy they have. Again, why? Maybe if you abandoned reading the Bible as a book of science and trying to defend it as one, people might look to see what metaphorical/mythological value it has, rather than just seeing the apologists who make fools out of themselves trying to defend a knowledge of science that is faith based as opposed to fact based. Does your faith fail if you accept the discoveries of modern science as valid? No one is likely to want to build their house on shifting sand like that, are they? BTW, the “science” of the AiG group is pure pseudo-science. They seek validation not by solid data and research, but by appealing to the mass public in political advertising. That is NOT science. That’s religion. But in the end it comes down to if this person searching is truly searching thier heart, opposed to looking for ways to scoff the existence of God or doing it just to do it...when they have already told themselves, "I'll do this just to prove there is no God." I wasn’t looking to disprove God. Not many, if even any of us did that. I was looking for knowledge. I was looking for truth. I always am. I am a sincere person – both emotionally and intellectually. The truth is that when I could no longer defend the way the beliefs were structured (in the typical fundamentalist/evangelical doctrines) I began becoming insincere in trying to defend something that was fractured and weak in its structure. On the contrary, my sincerity and desire to face truth no matter what it’s cost led me to find something quite different than what you have at this point in your life. Should I judge your sincerity that you haven’t come to the beliefs I have? Should I call you blind? Of course not. That would be immature and intellectually weak of me. Jeremiah 29:12-13 (King James Version) 12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. 13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Then I have found “God”, and most surprisingly it was found by not limiting truth to a theology. If in your beliefs “God” can’t be contained in a temple, then why do you have theology to box him in with? BTW, since you brought up the whole “You were never a real Christian" thing we’re always oh so happy to hear yet one more time, I just posted this response in another thread today to someone who brought that topic up. I’ll share my own quote with you for your edification: "Do you believe that John Calvin's interpretation of the Bible is on the same level of authority as God himself in your faith? Of course you don't. Then did you know that the teachings of Jacobus Arminius are agreed with by more Christians than those who accept John Calvin's teaching, and that Arminianism teaches the opposite, that in the Bible it shows quite clearly that a Christian can become an ex-Christian? So are you saying you are a Calvinist, rather than a Christian? Are you saying that those who disagree with John Calvin are just plain wrong, and if so how is it that your studies have revealed something that a huge number of other Christians don't agree with? Have you been particularly favored by God to have knowledge so superior to others that you can sit in judgment over those who claim with good reason that they in fact were sincere, active, believing Christians at one point? Isn't that a rather high and mighty presumption based on theological preferences to judge the sincerity of another human being, like me? I sincerely believed in Jesus like you do now. Perhaps you are just finding that the teachings of one particular theologian’s ideas are helping you to respond to the idea that someone like you could change their mind about something that seems so important to you at this time? Does my being a True ex-Christian ™ frighten you?” Calvinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism Arminianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 GW dead... yesJesus dead... if he existed, yes he's dead now Personal relationship with Jesus = Personal relationship with a dead guy, or a figment of your imagination Personal relationship with GW = Personal relationship with a dead guy, or you're delusional. So I say, you have the same relationship with Jesus as you would have with GW. The tomb is empty. Which tomb? The tomb they just discovered had an assuary with the inscription Jesus and still some bones in it? Which means, the tomb wasn't empty, but Jesus was dead. Now, of course you will argue that this tomb wasn't the "real" tomb of Jesus. Then show me the "real" tomb of Jesus and prove it. And how can you prove an empty tomb once was filled with something that isn't there anymore? I have a bottle. It's empty. Therefore there used to be the nectars of the gods in there, and anyone who drank it would have eternal life. And the proof that the nectar existed, is that the bottle is empty. That's bad logic. So the proof that Jesus is alive isn't that a random tomb is empty, since you don't know if that tomb was used for anyone called Jesus at any time in history, or even if Jesus existed. You're proof is therefore moot. And I never said that you believe GW is not real. You basically just said the same thing I did. People keep referring to this because I said something along the lines of "George Washington is not real. Have you ever shook his hand?". And I was saying that anyone that believes that is what I truly believe is retarded. What is truly retarded is that you believe you have a "personal relationship" with a dead guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Kinda back to me not being a scholar again but I will start by saying that theres no reason not to believe the eye-whitenesses testimony from the Bible. You may call it circular but their track record for being historically and geographically accurate has to account for something. But I suppose I'll see what else I can find for you. How do you know that these so called "eye-witnesses" existed and really saw they someone claim they saw? Why are the "eye-witness" accounts or stories not written as first person? They all say "peter did that, and they went here, and they did so, and he said this..." nothing of "And then I took the bottle and drank it all, and it felt fine. But Jesus told me that I should..." Can you explain how four different people, all tell their "eye-witness" stories, end up writing it as they were telling a fairy tale and not as real, living, material witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts