|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
I agree with everything you've posted on this thread. I've found that trying to reason with a fundamentalist Christian is like trying to reason with a Democrat. My barber is a nice enough guy but he's always talking about his Christian beliefs and quoting Bible scripture. I usually just don't respond and try to ignore him. This past Thursday I got a haircut and I was the only one there. He's a real friendly guy and we talk about a lot of different things (but not about religion). I mentioned that I had watched some documentaries about the Neanderthals. I told him that scientists and had finally figured out the Neanderthals genetic makeup (gnome?) and when they compared it to a huge data base that has the genetics of over 10,000 people of all races they found that almost every modern day human has some Neanderthal DNA, some up to 5%. When I got through talking he informed me he was a creationist and that the Neanderthals never existed. He said that all the caveman and dinosaur bones were made by modern man and buried by non-believers to try to prove the theory of evolution. Another customer came in so I said let's talk about something else. I guess when your God is the Bible it's hard to face facts. Your barber may be a great barber but he's ignorant when it comes to science. And I ain't no wiz bang.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
Great flood, Jews regaining their homeland, the two greatest countries turning away from God and losing their blessing, tribes of Israel being scattered to the corners of the earth and loosing their identity, Jews not losing their identity, east meeting west, Red army growing to the point it can amass troop strength of 200 million, development of weapons which can burn for 200 years, etc.
Last edited by eyeball; 07/26/14.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
Jesus has the same problem as Muhammad, no secular contemporary references to him. Jesus is references in a single copy of Tacitus and that's been proven to be a medieval insertion. The next earliest secular reference to him is something like 180 years after his supposed life, years after the New Testiment books were circulating for decades. Likewise, Muhammad wasn't praised or mentioned in a single military dispatch during the Arab conquest of North Africa, with his first non-Koranic reference appearing about 120 years after his supposed death.
In both instances, the "contemporary" references, arenot contemporary.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
As,
Your assertions simply do not hold up. There are dozens of scholarly opinions about the historicity of Jesus.
Just look at the wiki, of all places, article below:
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13] Which Jesus are you referring to? Which messiah? Jesus was a common name back than and there were tons of messiahs. Flavius Josephus was one of the more prominent historians of the Roman Jewish ancestry and he only mentions a Jesus once or twice in his many books. Seems if Jesus was that important he would have recorded more than a paragraph or two. He lived at right around the time of Jesus.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
[quote=eyeball]The Bible predicts events on earth that have subsequently occurred. Give me your single, best, most convincing bible prediction. [/quote The birth of Jesus Christ! There is not evidence for the existance of Jesus beyond the Bible, so this is just an example of circular reasoning. If this is your best example, you just demonstrated how the Bible truly proves nothing. Do what????? Surely you jest? I guess Columbus didn't exist either, or Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzer? Now you are just showing total ignorance of known history! We have independant contemporary accounts of the other individuals you mention.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
Great flood, Jews regaining their homeland, the two greatest countries turning away from God and losing their blessing, tribes of Israel being scattered to the corners of the earth and loosing their identity, Jews not losing their identity, east meeting west, Red army growing to the point it can amass troop strength of 200 million, development of weapons which can burn for 200 years, etc. I asked for your one best, so I will take your first. The world wide flood as portrayed in Noah never happened.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
I agree with everything you've posted on this thread. I've found that trying to reason with a fundamentalist Christian is like trying to reason with a Democrat. My barber is a nice enough guy but he's always talking about his Christian beliefs and quoting Bible scripture. I usually just don't respond and try to ignore him. This past Thursday I got a haircut and I was the only one there. He's a real friendly guy and we talk about a lot of different things (but not about religion). I mentioned that I had watched some documentaries about the Neanderthals. I told him that scientists and had finally figured out the Neanderthals genetic makeup (gnome?) and when they compared it to a huge data base that has the genetics of over 10,000 people of all races they found that almost every modern day human has some Neanderthal DNA, some up to 5%. When I got through talking he informed me he was a creationist and that the Neanderthals never existed. He said that all the caveman and dinosaur bones were made by modern man and buried by non-believers to try to prove the theory of evolution. Another customer came in so I said let's talk about something else. Thanks Victoro, I appreciate the compliment. You are right, it's about impossible to chance the mind of a true YEC, but it's sure fun to see the absurdities they will attempt to convince themselves they are right. In the end, letting the undecided hear the YEC's in their own words is the best way to bring a thinking person to our side.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Jesus has the same problem as Muhammad, no secular contemporary references to him. Jesus is references in a single copy of Tacitus and that's been proven to be a medieval insertion. The next earliest secular reference to him is something like 180 years after his supposed life, years after the New Testiment books were circulating for decades. Likewise, Muhammad wasn't praised or mentioned in a single military dispatch during the Arab conquest of North Africa, with his first non-Koranic reference appearing about 120 years after his supposed death.
In both instances, the "contemporary" references, arenot contemporary. As, You, and DD as well, are choosing to ignore centuries of scholarship and history. Just more examples of blind faith amongst the head in sand types. You see, it seems that TRUTH does not matter to you and will quickly THROW it out if it does not meet your particular opinion. I repeat, to deny the historicity of Jesus is not only silly but reveals a disingenuous view of fact. Not unlike what you accuse others of being. Like "scientists" who will support "bad science" because have not the backbone to stand for the truth and desperately desire to keep their careers going. They accept and even embrace the censorship of truth. So, AS and DD, come back with some more info denying the historicity of Jesus. You may also be Krauss fanboys as well. Care to stock up for him again? As you say, still laffin. TF btw, I had never cared much for Stephen Colbert but he sure put Krauss on the spot. Those who may have missed it need to google it or look back a couple of pages.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
Jesus has the same problem as Muhammad, no secular contemporary references to him. Jesus is references in a single copy of Tacitus and that's been proven to be a medieval insertion. The next earliest secular reference to him is something like 180 years after his supposed life, years after the New Testiment books were circulating for decades. Likewise, Muhammad wasn't praised or mentioned in a single military dispatch during the Arab conquest of North Africa, with his first non-Koranic reference appearing about 120 years after his supposed death.
In both instances, the "contemporary" references, arenot contemporary. As, You, and DD as well, are choosing to ignore centuries of scholarship and history. Just more examples of blind faith amongst the head in sand types. You see, it seems that TRUTH does not matter to you and will quickly THROW it out if it does not meet your particular opinion. I repeat, to deny the historicity of Jesus is not only silly but reveals a disingenuous view of fact. Not unlike what you accuse others of being. Like "scientists" who will support "bad science" because have not the backbone to stand for the truth and desperately desire to keep their careers going. They accept and even embrace the censorship of truth. So, AS and DD, come back with some more info denying the historicity of Jesus. You may also be Krauss fanboys as well. Care to stock up for him again? As you say, still laffin. TF btw, I had never cared much for Stephen Colbert but he sure put Krauss on the spot. Those who may have missed it need to google it or look back a couple of pages. Scholarship is like science. We continue to study and learn more. The more we learn, the less it supports your hypothesis.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,154 Likes: 3
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 37,154 Likes: 3 |
As,
Your assertions simply do not hold up. There are dozens of scholarly opinions about the historicity of Jesus.
Just look at the wiki, of all places, article below:
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13] Which Jesus are you referring to? Which messiah? Jesus was a common name back than and there were tons of messiahs. Flavius Josephus was one of the more prominent historians of the Roman Jewish ancestry and he only mentions a Jesus once or twice in his many books. Seems if Jesus was that important he would have recorded more than a paragraph or two. He lived at right around the time of Jesus. Josephus was a prominant 1st century Jewish historian. Born a Jew, he defected to the Romans, in fact was a friend of Titus, Roman Emperor Vespasian's son, who led the Siege of Jerusalem. In his famous work, Antiquitie of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter III, he gives the account of the Lord before Pilate, the politics behind the scene and the condemnation of Christ to the Cross. Not just a word or two, the whole story... Read it, interesting stuff. DF
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
As,
Your assertions simply do not hold up. There are dozens of scholarly opinions about the historicity of Jesus.
Just look at the wiki, of all places, article below:
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13] Which Jesus are you referring to? Which messiah? Jesus was a common name back than and there were tons of messiahs. Flavius Josephus was one of the more prominent historians of the Roman Jewish ancestry and he only mentions a Jesus once or twice in his many books. Seems if Jesus was that important he would have recorded more than a paragraph or two. He lived at right around the time of Jesus. Josephus was a prominant 1st century Jewish historian. Born a Jew, he defected to the Romans, in fact was a friend of Titus, Roman Emperor Vespasian's son, who led the Siege of Jerusalem. In his famous work, Antiquitie of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter III, he gives the account of the Lord before Pilate, the politics behind the scene and the condemnation of Christ to the Cross. Not just a word or two, the whole story... Read it, interesting stuff. DF Yes, I stand corrected, it was the Josephus reference that's considered a 4th century forgery by Eusibius. As for Tacitus reference to Jesus, Tacitus was born in 56AD, 26 years after the supposed crusifiction, and the referenced passage was written in 116 AD, 75 years, or 2 full generations later.....
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
[quote=antelope_sniper] Jesus has the same problem as Muhammad, no secular contemporary references to him. Jesus is references in a single copy of Tacitus and that's been proven to be a medieval insertion. The next earliest secular reference to him is something like 180 years after his supposed life, years after the New Testiment books were circulating for decades. Likewise, Muhammad wasn't praised or mentioned in a single military dispatch during the Arab conquest of North Africa, with his first non-Koranic reference appearing about 120 years after his supposed death.
In both instances, the "contemporary" references, arenot contemporary. As, You, and DD as well, are choosing to ignore centuries of scholarship and history. Just more examples of blind faith amongst the head in sand types. You see, it seems that TRUTH does not matter to you and will quickly THROW it out if it does not meet your particular opinion. I repeat, to deny the historicity of Jesus is not only silly but reveals a disingenuous view of fact. Not unlike what you accuse others of being. Like "scientists" who will support "bad science" because have not the backbone to stand for the truth and desperately desire to keep their careers going. They accept and even embrace the censorship of truth. So, AS and DD, come back with some more info denying the historicity of Jesus. You may also be Krauss fanboys as well. Care to stock up for him again? As you say, still laffin. TF btw, I had never cared much for Stephen Colbert but he sure put Krauss on the spot. Those who may have missed it need to google it or look back a couple of pages. Scholarship is like science. We continue to study and learn more. The more we learn, the less it supports your hypothesis. [/quote Nope, wrong again. Just another unsubstantiated claim. TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
As,
Your assertions simply do not hold up. There are dozens of scholarly opinions about the historicity of Jesus.
Just look at the wiki, of all places, article below:
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13] Which Jesus are you referring to? Which messiah? Jesus was a common name back than and there were tons of messiahs. Flavius Josephus was one of the more prominent historians of the Roman Jewish ancestry and he only mentions a Jesus once or twice in his many books. Seems if Jesus was that important he would have recorded more than a paragraph or two. He lived at right around the time of Jesus. Josephus was a prominant 1st century Jewish historian. Born a Jew, he defected to the Romans, in fact was a friend of Titus, Roman Emperor Vespasian's son, who led the Siege of Jerusalem. In his famous work, Antiquitie of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter III, he gives the account of the Lord before Pilate, the politics behind the scene and the condemnation of Christ to the Cross. Not just a word or two, the whole story... Read it, interesting stuff. DF Yes, I stand corrected, it was the Josephus reference that's considered a 4th century forgery by Eusibius. As for Tacitus reference to Jesus, Tacitus was born in 56AD, 26 years after the supposed crusifiction, and the referencedpassage was written in 116 AD, 75 years, or 2 full generations later..... AS, so tell me again. Do you really believe there is no basis for the historicty of Jesus? Really? You see, blithely willing to throw out the opinion of many many scholars because, let me get this right: Because it does not fit your worldview? And it seems to me that you are one to "champion" science. But only it if meets your dogmatic criteria. Anyway, good night to all, I am, as AS puts iot, still laffin. TF
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
Jesus has the same problem as Muhammad, no secular contemporary references to him. Jesus is references in a single copy of Tacitus and that's been proven to be a medieval insertion. The next earliest secular reference to him is something like 180 years after his supposed life, years after the New Testiment books were circulating for decades. Likewise, Muhammad wasn't praised or mentioned in a single military dispatch during the Arab conquest of North Africa, with his first non-Koranic reference appearing about 120 years after his supposed death.
In both instances, the "contemporary" references, arenot contemporary. As, You, and DD as well, are choosing to ignore centuries of scholarship and history. Just more examples of blind faith amongst the head in sand types. You see, it seems that TRUTH does not matter to you and will quickly THROW it out if it does not meet your particular opinion. I repeat, to deny the historicity of Jesus is not only silly but reveals a disingenuous view of fact. Not unlike what you accuse others of being. Like "scientists" who will support "bad science" because have not the backbone to stand for the truth and desperately desire to keep their careers going. They accept and even embrace the censorship of truth. So, AS and DD, come back with some more info denying the historicity of Jesus. You may also be Krauss fanboys as well. Care to stock up for him again? As you say, still laffin. TF btw, I had never cared much for Stephen Colbert but he sure put Krauss on the spot. Those who may have missed it need to google it or look back a couple of pages. No doubt there was a historical Jesus and most likely he was a Jewish leader of some sort. I have a DVD college level lecture on the subject and numerous books. However, no one can prove with absolute certainty that the biblical Jesus is the one and only Jesus. The biblical Jesus left no writings of his own all his teaching was oral and the known historians of his day made very little mention of him. He simply wasn't important enough.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
And what's at the top of the Wiki page on the historicity of Jesus??
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (October 2013)
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
As,
Your assertions simply do not hold up. There are dozens of scholarly opinions about the historicity of Jesus.
Just look at the wiki, of all places, article below:
Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[7][9][10][30][31][32] We have no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[33][34] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[14] Scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[14] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13] Which Jesus are you referring to? Which messiah? Jesus was a common name back than and there were tons of messiahs. Flavius Josephus was one of the more prominent historians of the Roman Jewish ancestry and he only mentions a Jesus once or twice in his many books. Seems if Jesus was that important he would have recorded more than a paragraph or two. He lived at right around the time of Jesus. Josephus was a prominant 1st century Jewish historian. Born a Jew, he defected to the Romans, in fact was a friend of Titus, Roman Emperor Vespasian's son, who led the Siege of Jerusalem. In his famous work, Antiquitie of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter III, he gives the account of the Lord before Pilate, the politics behind the scene and the condemnation of Christ to the Cross. Not just a word or two, the whole story... Read it, interesting stuff. DF What's that prove? There was A Jesus no doubt. Was it THE Jesus who knows for sure, no one.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,325 Likes: 9
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
OP
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,325 Likes: 9 |
historians of his day made very little mention of him. He simply wasn't important enough. Well, history kind of proved them (and you) just a wee bit wrong now didn't it?   
_______________________________________________________
An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 33,856 |
[quote=antelope_sniper] Jesus has the same problem as Muhammad, no secular contemporary references to him. Jesus is references in a single copy of Tacitus and that's been proven to be a medieval insertion. The next earliest secular reference to him is something like 180 years after his supposed life, years after the New Testiment books were circulating for decades. Likewise, Muhammad wasn't praised or mentioned in a single military dispatch during the Arab conquest of North Africa, with his first non-Koranic reference appearing about 120 years after his supposed death.
In both instances, the "contemporary" references, arenot contemporary. As, You, and DD as well, are choosing to ignore centuries of scholarship and history. Just more examples of blind faith amongst the head in sand types. You see, it seems that TRUTH does not matter to you and will quickly THROW it out if it does not meet your particular opinion. I repeat, to deny the historicity of Jesus is not only silly but reveals a disingenuous view of fact. Not unlike what you accuse others of being. Like "scientists" who will support "bad science" because have not the backbone to stand for the truth and desperately desire to keep their careers going. They accept and even embrace the censorship of truth. So, AS and DD, come back with some more info denying the historicity of Jesus. You may also be Krauss fanboys as well. Care to stock up for him again? As you say, still laffin. TF btw, I had never cared much for Stephen Colbert but he sure put Krauss on the spot. Those who may have missed it need to google it or look back a couple of pages. Scholarship is like science. We continue to study and learn more. The more we learn, the less it supports your hypothesis. [/quote Nope, wrong again. Just another unsubstantiated claim. TF And, as more prophesy is fulfilled .....
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
If being stupid allows me to believe in Him, I'd wish to be a retard. Eisenhower and G Washington should be good company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,006 Likes: 2 |
someone disagrees with you, so that fulfills a prophesy? 
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
The real crux of the problem is not whether there was a historical Jesus there most certainly was as Jesus was a popular Jewish name.
The real question is, is Jesus THE Jesus and as such is he God. Here's where my agnosticism kicks in. It is my concerned opinion that the biblical Jesus is Paul's attempt to personify God by using a Jewish teacher as the face of God thereby, making the religion about Jesus (Christianity) and easier sell to everyone especially Gentiles. The ancient Celts noticed that Romans and Greeks personified all their Gods and Goddesses. Therefore, Paul used a Jewish teacher named Jesus to personify God taking his cue from the Romans and Greeks.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
304 members (1lesfox, 160user, 21, 12344mag, 10ring1, 1lessdog, 29 invisible),
1,799
guests, and
1,111
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,633
Posts18,493,066
Members73,977
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
