Why do the God-haters persist?

[koshergrl]

Modern progressives aren't christian. Period. If they claim they are, then they're liars.

 

[orogenicman]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?

 

[thebrucebeat]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Not many, but some.
I am not making the claim, so if you are responding to me it is a silly thing to attribute to me.
But how would one know, as you haven't yet mastered the quote feature.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't attribute it to you.

 

[koshergrl]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?

I thought it was all mythical?

Isn't that what you maintain?

 

[thebrucebeat]

I didn't attribute it to you.

Should I assume this post is directed at me?

 

[koshergrl]

You can assume whatever you like.

 

[orogenicman]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?

I thought it was all mythical?

Isn't that what you maintain?

Where did you see me say it was mythical?

 

[orogenicman]

Modern progressives aren't christian. Period. If they claim they are, then they're liars.

Well, that is certainly NOT true. I know many Christians who are progressives.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm afraid not.

 

[Boss]

If there were actually something there, science could eventually detect it. So once more, EPIC FAIL!!!

Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?

To be fair, he did say science could eventually detect it.

I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday, if something is there.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm afraid not.

The first part of that sentence is certainly correct. That last part, however, is seriously mistaken.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Oh really? So for hundreds of years before astronomers were able to confirm that Jupiter was there, it didn't exist? Until Pasteur confirmed the presence of microorganisms, they weren't actually there? Until about 15 years ago when we confirmed black holes existed, they didn't really exist and weren't really real? Back when scientists didn't yet know the Earth was round, it was actually flat?

YOU are an EPIC FAIL! You don't even make rational sense. What exactly was your statement supposed to prove aside from your idiotic stupidity?

To be fair, he did say science could eventually detect it.

I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday, if something is there.

And yet completely contradictory to all the other posts where you have categorically stated that the spiritual nature could never be discovered in this way.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm afraid not.

The first part of that sentence is certainly correct. That last part, however, is seriously mistaken.

 

[westwall]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?

That's not the question that should be asked. The question is, did he accurately report what he saw? There is no doubt that Josephus wrote eloquently about the Romans...he was PAID to do that. The fact that Jesus appears in any of Josephus' writings lends credence to his existence. There is no reason for Josephus to make him up after all.

Furthermore, whenever archaeologists get to dig deep enough they invariably find evidence to support what was written in the bible. Pilate is mentioned on a plaque that was found in Ceasarea for instance. He's not mentioned in Roman sources but his name was found on the stone during a dig in 1961.

 

[orogenicman]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?

That's not the question that should be asked. The question is, did he accurately report what he saw? There is no doubt that Josephus wrote eloquently about the Romans...he was PAID to do that. The fact that Jesus appears in any of Josephus' writings lends credence to his existence. There is no reason for Josephus to make him up after all.

The fact that he makes reference to more than one person using that name throws in doubt the entire interpretation that he is referring to the Jesus of the New Testament. The fact that many scholars believe that large sections of Josephus' writings were redacted by later Christians also throws the entire narrative in doubt.

Furthermore, whenever archaeologists get to dig deep enough they invariably find evidence to support what was written in the bible. Pilate is mentioned on a plaque that was found in Ceasarea for instance. He's not mentioned in Roman sources but his name was found on the stone during a dig in 1961.

Furthermore, not one scrap of archaeological evidence supports the Jesus narrative in the New Testament. The evidence that Pilate may have been a real person is evidence only that Pilate MAY HAVE BEEN A REAL PERSON.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm afraid not.

The first part of that sentence is certainly correct. That last part, however, is seriously mistaken.

All I need to disprove your claim is to find one Christian who is a progressive. But wait, ahem, there is an entire progressive Christian movement:

Progressive Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boss]

To be fair, he did say science could eventually detect it.

I know, which is why the statement made no rational sense. He is assuming it's not possible that something is there because science "could have" detected it if so. Whereas, my statement is more rationally stated: It is possible that science could detect it someday, if something is there.

And yet completely contradictory to all the other posts where you have categorically stated that the spiritual nature could never be discovered in this way.

No I haven't and that is a mischaracterization of what I've said. By definition, something that is physically proven with physical science is physical in nature. If something is thought to be spiritual and physical evidence comes to light in support of it, that thing can no longer be spiritual in nature because it just became physical. It's a logic dichotomy.

Where you might be drawing confusion is my position on "evidence" and how physical science can't evaluate spiritual evidence. This does not mean that physical science can't evaluate physical evidence that explains something believed spiritual in nature.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Progressives do like to try to blend in....they generally do it by changing the language to hide what they're doing, or changing the definition of the words that can describe them. This is one of those cases. They may call themselves Christians...but they're not. They've changed the meaning of the word.

 

[thebrucebeat]

There's no such thing as a Christian who is a modern progressive.

If they say they are, they're either lying or mistaken.

Progressives do like to try to blend in....they generally do it by changing the language to hide what they're doing, or changing the definition of the words that can describe them. This is one of those cases. They may call themselves Christians...but they're not. They've changed the meaning of the word.

And they think the hate-filled conservatives have.
Who is the one real Scotsman?
You of course, right?