Another Challenge For Chris: Explain The Connection Between The Ten Commandments And

[SkepticOfBible]

You’re right, not every martyr had eyewitnessed the resurrected Jesus. The word for someone who has is apostle. Peter is a good example. He was crucified upside down for his beliefs that he knew not to be false.

 

Where are you getting this from?????

 

With the exception of the death of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2) and Judas (Matthew 27:9, Acts 1:18), no other apostolic deaths is recounted in the New Testament.

 

The traditional material relating to the life of the apostles are simply unreliable.

 

BTW I had always assumed Peter died in Rome, since he was the first "Pope"

 

How do you know that he apostles believed about Jesus is the same essentially as what can be found in the New Testament. The stories in the gospels were not written by the apostles or any of their close associates, apart from off course the self-proclaimed apostle Paul

It doesn’t matter if there were gold tablets or not. What was written on them was not verifiable.

The same goes for your bible. More than 90% of the biblical cannot be verified, specially the major events such as the life of Jesus and the Exodus story.

 

According to you one should not believe in something that is not verifiable, so if I ask, why do you believe in the bible?

[Antlerman]

Grow up. What is this Psychology 101? Even though Freud has been highly influential, he is still seen as a hack in that field. And that’s not just my opinion. That’s a secular psychology view of Freud. Quit being trivial with any kind of ad hominem you can bring up against me.

I will state this one final time for you. I brought this up because I suspected a sense arrogance in your tone. I found it a "questionable" way of putting things because I have seen your brand of faith manifest this sort of attitude about liberal Christians versus Fundamentalist Christians more than a few times ("pinhead liberals", and whatnot by our old xian pal Txviper). I find that attitude one that - if you are in fact displaying - to be one that betrays that all your theologies, and "proofs" (that seem to make "faith" unnecessary, I might add), to be pretty worthless in the end. The fruits of the "spirit" I see in fundi beliefs are overwhelmingly non-spiritual.

 

So, you have dismissed my points about this twice now, and once again told me to grow up. I refuse to become a Jerk for Jesus and speak to people as you do, being thus filled by the true spirit of your beliefs. I want nothing to do with being arrogant for Christ.

 

BTW, this is not an ad hominem attack. This is the evidence for your faith being true according to your own Bible, "By their fruits you shall know them." The evidence I see is arrogance and pride, not humility and grace. You can argue the myth of Peter being crucified upside down all you want, but in the end, what am I hearing and what am I seeing?

 

Your beliefs are thus duly rejected.

[triv]

As for the Talmud and the Peter dying upside down, I'm sorry for using things outside the Bible that might just add more confusion to the discussion. The Talmud with its apparent disagreement over the translation and even though Peter's martyrdom is biblical, the upside down part comes from Origen. I'll try to stay away from stuff like that more.

[Taphophilia]

Triv,

 

The Autographs (the original written gospels) were not written until the end of the first century and into the second century AD. The writers of the gospels were not the disciples nor were they eyewitnesses to Jesus. Ask your pastor, if he's even been to theology school. It's common knowledge.

 

Taph

[SkepticOfBible]

Hey Triv,

 

I just wanted to point out one more regarding your last big response

 

The page claims that Christians can’t decide on who the genealogies belong to. Well, that’s not true, its pretty much accepted that Luke gives Mary’s lineage

 

I don't know whether you are lying or just ill-informed, but that is certainly not the case. this position isn't accepted by all christians, it is just a popular one.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

 

It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

 

There are Christians that prefer other explanations including the scenario that Matthew is about Mary.

 

The position of Genealogy of Luke belong to Mary, has got NOTHING to do with scripture but man-made catholic tradition.

Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David

 

.....

At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.