Sorry All You Weak-Minded Christians, "The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven" Was A Liar.

[Parture]

Do you even know the history of your own religion?

Look who’s asking

The Catholic Church was so corrupt for so long.

False. Let God be the final judge.

Evil Popes are now saints.

You don’t know what you are talking about (again)

But of course you think your church is the one true church.

With good cause, all that clearly escapes you.

Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. all think they have it right too.

Yeah, fine, what of it?

They think your church is misrepresenting what god said. Fact is, god never said anything to any of you.

Fact is, you have chosen to remain blind. You have an “end” and choose only those means or claims which appear to abet your cause and you ignore all that which says you are dead wrong.


Joseph Smith got it half right. He prayed to the lord asking what church he should join and the lord told him none of them. They were all corrupt and he should start his own church…. Remember the most famous couple in the 60's that said they not only saw a UFO but they were abducted? They stuck to their story too. And many other people have claimed to see aliens/ufo's. Do you believe them? Why not? Hell, I might even believe they believe. In other words they aren't making it up. Sorry, its all in their heads.

This is all making you look stupid and/or desperate. Do you need to be shown why?


If science can't verify it, don't believe it.

Yawn. Science won’t even put a toe in the water.


You need to question the saying of the ancients more. Don't believe everything you are told.

Clearly starting with you.


In the past the Catholic church said all non Catholics will go to hell. Do they still believe this? I hope you say yes. I want everyone to know your churches honest answer.

You show me where they said that. They have taught the very opposite for centuries. Their catechism and the councils say the exact opposite. Perhaps you are referencing the Vatican I council from 1854 which stated “outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” Well, I can assure it is not how you are reading it or want to read it. It is not much different than Jesus saying “no one comes to the Father but through me.” You do not have to be a Christian to get to heaven, but Jesus is your judge. You do not have to be a Catholic to be saved, but through some mystical way you are judged or weighed through the tenets and authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ. (Close enough for your interest.)


“Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God. God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity. God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device. Hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God.” - Your New Pope.

And no doubt you grabbed on to that “quote” and ran with it. I did not have to give those words a second look and I knew that had to be totally false. So out of curiosity I googled your quote and what do you know? It is a total parody, totally made up by some blogger or magazine not unlike The Onion. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/dont-fall-for-this-pope-francis-hoax-5-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz3Q438nK2P It is a total hoax brother.


You couldn't marry a non Catholic until the year 1818. Maybe this isn't doctrine but I think you get my point.

It’s not doctrine. I am not sure I get your point? If God and God’s word does not matter or have an eternal effect on our souls, then I guess what we do with our spiritual lives does not matter. But that is not the case.


Here is what your church will do in time. They will drop the notion that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That way they won't have to change their doctrine as far as adultery goes.

Only you know where you are coming from, I surely do not?

You ignore all the reasons I'm dead right.

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

It was made up! Is that naturalistic enough for you?

The post just above on legends theory fails as a naturalistic explanation in this case. And, like was said, people don't willingly die for what they made up.

 

[Parture]

Do you even know the history of your own religion?

Look who’s asking

The Catholic Church was so corrupt for so long.

False. Let God be the final judge.

Evil Popes are now saints.

You don’t know what you are talking about (again)

But of course you think your church is the one true church.

With good cause, all that clearly escapes you.

Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. all think they have it right too.

Yeah, fine, what of it?

They think your church is misrepresenting what god said. Fact is, god never said anything to any of you.

Fact is, you have chosen to remain blind. You have an “end” and choose only those means or claims which appear to abet your cause and you ignore all that which says you are dead wrong.


Joseph Smith got it half right. He prayed to the lord asking what church he should join and the lord told him none of them. They were all corrupt and he should start his own church…. Remember the most famous couple in the 60's that said they not only saw a UFO but they were abducted? They stuck to their story too. And many other people have claimed to see aliens/ufo's. Do you believe them? Why not? Hell, I might even believe they believe. In other words they aren't making it up. Sorry, its all in their heads.

This is all making you look stupid and/or desperate. Do you need to be shown why?


If science can't verify it, don't believe it.

Yawn. Science won’t even put a toe in the water.


You need to question the saying of the ancients more. Don't believe everything you are told.

Clearly starting with you.


In the past the Catholic church said all non Catholics will go to hell. Do they still believe this? I hope you say yes. I want everyone to know your churches honest answer.

You show me where they said that. They have taught the very opposite for centuries. Their catechism and the councils say the exact opposite. Perhaps you are referencing the Vatican I council from 1854 which stated “outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” Well, I can assure it is not how you are reading it or want to read it. It is not much different than Jesus saying “no one comes to the Father but through me.” You do not have to be a Christian to get to heaven, but Jesus is your judge. You do not have to be a Catholic to be saved, but through some mystical way you are judged or weighed through the tenets and authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ. (Close enough for your interest.)


“Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer. This doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God. God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity. God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device. Hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God.” - Your New Pope.

And no doubt you grabbed on to that “quote” and ran with it. I did not have to give those words a second look and I knew that had to be totally false. So out of curiosity I googled your quote and what do you know? It is a total parody, totally made up by some blogger or magazine not unlike The Onion. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/dont-fall-for-this-pope-francis-hoax-5-things-to-know-and-share/#ixzz3Q438nK2P It is a total hoax brother.


You couldn't marry a non Catholic until the year 1818. Maybe this isn't doctrine but I think you get my point.

It’s not doctrine. I am not sure I get your point? If God and God’s word does not matter or have an eternal effect on our souls, then I guess what we do with our spiritual lives does not matter. But that is not the case.


Here is what your church will do in time. They will drop the notion that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That way they won't have to change their doctrine as far as adultery goes.

Only you know where you are coming from, I surely do not?

You ignore all the reasons I'm dead right.

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

 

[sealybobo]

You ignore all the reasons I'm dead right.

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Look it up. Those men did not pen those books. Most experts know that. Show me the actual books so we can carbon date them

 

[sealybobo]

You ignore all the reasons I'm dead right.

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

It was made up! Is that naturalistic enough for you?

The post just above on legends theory fails as a naturalistic explanation in this case. And, like was said, people don't willingly die for what they made up.

The ones who made it up didn't die. They went through Greece converting Zeus believers to christianity because Zeus didn't let many humans come to Mr Olympus to be gods for all eternity but christianity did.

People died believing this lie.

 

[sealybobo]

You ignore all the reasons I'm dead right.

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

 

[guno]

" Weak-Minded Christians"

You repeated yourself in the thread title

 

[Parture]

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Look it up. Those men did not pen those books. Most experts know that. Show me the actual books so we can carbon date them

Most experts agree they did pen those books. Nobody else qualifies.

Some of the New Testament authors explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection (and transfiguration). Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 2.16).John also said, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched...we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard" (1 John 1.1,3).

Paul said he was the author of his books also. And John puts himself at the cross in John and as the author of Revelation. Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. Moreover, there is no evidence for your alleged alternate unknown authors. Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. Almost all scholars concede that fact.

 

[Parture]

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

It was made up! Is that naturalistic enough for you?

The post just above on legends theory fails as a naturalistic explanation in this case. And, like was said, people don't willingly die for what they made up.

The ones who made it up didn't die. They went through Greece converting Zeus believers to christianity because Zeus didn't let many humans come to Mr Olympus to be gods for all eternity but christianity did.

People died believing this lie.

When you make something up by definition it is not true. And people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie, so they didn't make it up.

 

[Parture]

You must have quite a following.

An acknowledgement of false advertising on the pope should have been a minimum.

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

That's a fair question. God has to visit somewhere when He steps down on earth. Why Israel of all places? I believe the reason is because no nation has ever suffered as much as the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. So they had an ear to hear to usher in the Messiah who would be pierced for our sins.

After Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, He didn't vanish, for He was seen by Paul and others throughout the years, but has not returned because people like you killed Him, so He is allowing us to do it on our own to prove we need Him. The Church is not corrupt which is the body of Christ. It is beautiful! Don't confuse false churches with the Church uncorrupt. And however corrupt you think the Church it would be a gem from Heaven compared to your circle of influence.

Muslims six centuries later claim Jesus didn't die on the cross without any evidence. How can a system that says anything without evidence be better? Jesus died for sins, nothing is more personal, caring and loving. Mormons claim God use to be a man and that they existed for an eternity in the past without the need for an uncreated Creator, but man is a created being and Satan is the author of confusion. When Jesus returns we will all know it. It will be powerful like lightening from the east and the west, broadcast everywhere, and He returns just as He left (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

I wasn't born in a Muslim, Mormon or Christian family. I simply gave into the evidence.

 

[Parture]

" Weak-Minded Christians"

You repeated yourself in the thread title

Why is repeating yourself so wrong?

 

[sealybobo]

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Look it up. Those men did not pen those books. Most experts know that. Show me the actual books so we can carbon date them

Most experts agree they did pen those books. Nobody else qualifies.

Some of the New Testament authors explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection (and transfiguration). Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 2.16).John also said, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched...we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard" (1 John 1.1,3).

Paul said he was the author of his books also. And John puts himself at the cross in John and as the author of Revelation. Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. Moreover, there is no evidence for your alleged alternate unknown authors. Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. Almost all scholars concede that fact.

Yea sometimes the authors wrote in first person so what?

The oldest known bible is 1600 yrs old. Pretty old but not 2000

 

[sealybobo]

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

That's a fair question. God has to visit somewhere when He steps down on earth. Why Israel of all places? I believe the reason is because no nation has ever suffered as much as the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. So they had an ear to hear to usher in the Messiah who would be pierced for our sins.

After Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, He didn't vanish, for He was seen by Paul and others throughout the years, but has not returned because people like you killed Him, so He is allowing us to do it on our own to prove we need Him. The Church is not corrupt which is the body of Christ. It is beautiful! Don't confuse false churches with the Church uncorrupt. And however corrupt you think the Church it would be a gem from Heaven compared to your circle of influence.

Muslims six centuries later claim Jesus didn't die on the cross without any evidence. How can a system that says anything without evidence be better? Jesus died for sins, nothing is more personal, caring and loving. Mormons claim God use to be a man and that they existed for an eternity in the past without the need for an uncreated Creator, but man is a created being and Satan is the author of confusion. When Jesus returns we will all know it. It will be powerful like lightening from the east and the west, broadcast everywhere, and He returns just as He left (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

I wasn't born in a Muslim, Mormon or Christian family. I simply gave into the evidence.

Why don't Jews atheists Muslim and Mormons see it your way?

Must not be good evidence

 

[Parture]

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Look it up. Those men did not pen those books. Most experts know that. Show me the actual books so we can carbon date them

Most experts agree they did pen those books. Nobody else qualifies.

Some of the New Testament authors explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection (and transfiguration). Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 2.16).John also said, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched...we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard" (1 John 1.1,3).

Paul said he was the author of his books also. And John puts himself at the cross in John and as the author of Revelation. Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. Moreover, there is no evidence for your alleged alternate unknown authors. Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. Almost all scholars concede that fact.

Yea sometimes the authors wrote in first person so what?

The oldest known bible is 1600 yrs old. Pretty old but not 2000

Apostles identifying themselves as the authors is no issue at all.

Jesus was born 6 BC. That wouldn't make much sense the Bible was already completed a few years after He was born when the events of the NT had not happened yet. You're confused. There is no document in antiquity that has papyri still preserved so close to their events as we have for the Bible holding to the highest of standards.

 

[Parture]

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

That's a fair question. God has to visit somewhere when He steps down on earth. Why Israel of all places? I believe the reason is because no nation has ever suffered as much as the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. So they had an ear to hear to usher in the Messiah who would be pierced for our sins.

After Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, He didn't vanish, for He was seen by Paul and others throughout the years, but has not returned because people like you killed Him, so He is allowing us to do it on our own to prove we need Him. The Church is not corrupt which is the body of Christ. It is beautiful! Don't confuse false churches with the Church uncorrupt. And however corrupt you think the Church it would be a gem from Heaven compared to your circle of influence.

Muslims six centuries later claim Jesus didn't die on the cross without any evidence. How can a system that says anything without evidence be better? Jesus died for sins, nothing is more personal, caring and loving. Mormons claim God use to be a man and that they existed for an eternity in the past without the need for an uncreated Creator, but man is a created being and Satan is the author of confusion. When Jesus returns we will all know it. It will be powerful like lightening from the east and the west, broadcast everywhere, and He returns just as He left (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

I wasn't born in a Muslim, Mormon or Christian family. I simply gave into the evidence.

Why don't Jews atheists Muslim and Mormons see it your way?

Must not be good evidence

Free choice to accept the evidence. The truth is not unreasonable but it is unloved because people prefer to be selfish.

 

[sealybobo]

Islam has a lot of members. Does that make it any more credible to you?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst. The Bible is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimize it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and textsand many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

What a lot of members around the world does (RCC, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity only) is show that that such a particular god is accessible not that he is the correct one. Whereas in Christianity we know Jesus is the correct one because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings. You prove Jesus is God. Thank you.

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

That's a fair question. God has to visit somewhere when He steps down on earth. Why Israel of all places? I believe the reason is because no nation has ever suffered as much as the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. So they had an ear to hear to usher in the Messiah who would be pierced for our sins.

After Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, He didn't vanish, for He was seen by Paul and others throughout the years, but has not returned because people like you killed Him, so He is allowing us to do it on our own to prove we need Him. The Church is not corrupt which is the body of Christ. It is beautiful! Don't confuse false churches with the Church uncorrupt. And however corrupt you think the Church it would be a gem from Heaven compared to your circle of influence.

Muslims six centuries later claim Jesus didn't die on the cross without any evidence. How can a system that says anything without evidence be better? Jesus died for sins, nothing is more personal, caring and loving. Mormons claim God use to be a man and that they existed for an eternity in the past without the need for an uncreated Creator, but man is a created being and Satan is the author of confusion. When Jesus returns we will all know it. It will be powerful like lightening from the east and the west, broadcast everywhere, and He returns just as He left (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

I wasn't born in a Muslim, Mormon or Christian family. I simply gave into the evidence.

If Jews 2000 years ago don't believe it why should we today?

We all know how uneducated and superstitious our grandparents were let alone 1600 years ago. Those people were gullible.

Christianity was just a new religion for non Jews. Notice Jews don't try to recruit? So some Jew saw a business opportunity and took it.

You can't tell me a story like the jesus myth and convince or guilt me into believing.

As much as I'd like it to be true....

 

[sealybobo]

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Look it up. Those men did not pen those books. Most experts know that. Show me the actual books so we can carbon date them

Most experts agree they did pen those books. Nobody else qualifies.

Some of the New Testament authors explicitly claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection (and transfiguration). Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 2.16).John also said, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched...we proclaim to you what we have seen and heard" (1 John 1.1,3).

Paul said he was the author of his books also. And John puts himself at the cross in John and as the author of Revelation. Luke said Acts was part two of his former work of Luke. Moreover, there is no evidence for your alleged alternate unknown authors. Paul really wrote 1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1 & 2. Almost all scholars concede that fact.

Yea sometimes the authors wrote in first person so what?

The oldest known bible is 1600 yrs old. Pretty old but not 2000

Apostles identifying themselves as the authors is no issue at all.

Jesus was born 6 BC. That wouldn't make much sense the Bible was already completed a few years after He was born when the events of the NT had not happened yet. You're confused. There is no document in antiquity that has papyri still preserved so close to their events as we have for the Bible holding to the highest of standards.

You saved the rag Jesus sweated on but not the sacred holy paper Paul wrote the bible on? Not even in a urn?

 

[sealybobo]

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

That's a fair question. God has to visit somewhere when He steps down on earth. Why Israel of all places? I believe the reason is because no nation has ever suffered as much as the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. So they had an ear to hear to usher in the Messiah who would be pierced for our sins.

After Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, He didn't vanish, for He was seen by Paul and others throughout the years, but has not returned because people like you killed Him, so He is allowing us to do it on our own to prove we need Him. The Church is not corrupt which is the body of Christ. It is beautiful! Don't confuse false churches with the Church uncorrupt. And however corrupt you think the Church it would be a gem from Heaven compared to your circle of influence.

Muslims six centuries later claim Jesus didn't die on the cross without any evidence. How can a system that says anything without evidence be better? Jesus died for sins, nothing is more personal, caring and loving. Mormons claim God use to be a man and that they existed for an eternity in the past without the need for an uncreated Creator, but man is a created being and Satan is the author of confusion. When Jesus returns we will all know it. It will be powerful like lightening from the east and the west, broadcast everywhere, and He returns just as He left (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

I wasn't born in a Muslim, Mormon or Christian family. I simply gave into the evidence.

Why don't Jews atheists Muslim and Mormons see it your way?

Must not be good evidence

Free choice to accept the evidence. The truth is not unreasonable but it is unloved because people prefer to be selfish.

See how you wrongfully misjudge us? I specifically said as much as wed like to believe.

What a choice. When you die its over vs going to my Olympus to live among the gods forever in paradise.

Having sex with me is like seeing god. Hey ladies! Do you not want to see god? How dare you reject god

 

[sealybobo]

The bible was not written by eye witnesses. Hearsay baby. All hearsay. Maybe written 400 years later. Altered edited redacted. Just one of many ancient books

Paul was an eyewitness. He wrote the epistles. James was an eyewitness who wrote James. John was an eyewitness who wrote John, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. Peter was an eyewitness who wrote 1,2 Peter. Luke knew many of the eyewitnesses who wrote Luke and Acts. Matthew was an eyewitness and his testimony went into Matthew. Mark's went into Mark. Jude, brother of Jesus, wrote Jude. Paul even said he spent 15 days with Peter, and time with John and James as well. Polycarp and Clement of Rome said they knew Peter and John personally, and even knew of Paul's martyrdom. This multiple corroboration and travels together setting up the churches is the best evidence you can ask for. You can think of nothing better.

God says, "What more could have I done than I did?" (Is. 5.4).

Why is it god visited 2000 yrs ago in the most remote primitive place before modern technology and then vanish without a trace.

Leaving only corrupt churches behind as authority. Sucker.

Why is your story any better than Muslim or Mormon? Because you weren't born into a Mormon or Muslim family is all.

That's a fair question. God has to visit somewhere when He steps down on earth. Why Israel of all places? I believe the reason is because no nation has ever suffered as much as the Jews who were enslaved in Egypt for 430 years. So they had an ear to hear to usher in the Messiah who would be pierced for our sins.

After Jesus was resurrected and went to Heaven, He didn't vanish, for He was seen by Paul and others throughout the years, but has not returned because people like you killed Him, so He is allowing us to do it on our own to prove we need Him. The Church is not corrupt which is the body of Christ. It is beautiful! Don't confuse false churches with the Church uncorrupt. And however corrupt you think the Church it would be a gem from Heaven compared to your circle of influence.

Muslims six centuries later claim Jesus didn't die on the cross without any evidence. How can a system that says anything without evidence be better? Jesus died for sins, nothing is more personal, caring and loving. Mormons claim God use to be a man and that they existed for an eternity in the past without the need for an uncreated Creator, but man is a created being and Satan is the author of confusion. When Jesus returns we will all know it. It will be powerful like lightening from the east and the west, broadcast everywhere, and He returns just as He left (Zech. 14.4, Acts. 1.11, Rev. 1.7).

I wasn't born in a Muslim, Mormon or Christian family. I simply gave into the evidence.

Why don't Jews atheists Muslim and Mormons see it your way?

Must not be good evidence

Free choice to accept the evidence. The truth is not unreasonable but it is unloved because people prefer to be selfish.

Why didn't any of the Jews who supposedly saw it convert? Instead Paul peter and Luke had to go lie to ignorant illiterate superstitious people in Greece who had an even more primitive religion the Greek gods.

I know you think thousands of people in Jesus day saw it and did but that was embellished centuries after it supposedly happened the way the catholic church says it happened. All other sects of christianity are just newer sects of an original lie that's still believed today by too many humans.

I guess we are still a very young unevolved species.

 

[teddyearp]

" Weak-Minded Christians"

You repeated yourself in the thread title

Why is repeating yourself so wrong?

Parture, what guno meant, in his opinion, is this:

Weak-Minded = Christian

His opinion, not mine, so don't take and misquote me on that one as well.

 

[teddyearp]

You saved the rag Jesus sweated on but not the sacred holy paper Paul wrote the bible on? Not even in a urn?

Where did Parture say he saved "the rag Jesus sweated on"?