The bible

Perry Phimosis said:
You call it a "lie" as if you have firm evidence that the opposite is true.

The fact of the matter is you don't. You cannot tell us who wrote the Gospels. They are unsigned. They make no mention of who wrote them. You cannot tell when they were written. The earliest scrap of even a fragment of one of the gospels dates to decades after Christ's death (in the 60's and 70's AD).

So before you decree something a "Lie" perhaps you should show everyone that you have the truth.
Click to expand...

lol...perhaps before you call the gospels a lie you should show everyone you have the truth, rather than simple denial.......

when the canon of the scriptures was established churches from all over the then known world sent copies of their religious writings........there were those that all of them agreed were authored by the men who wrote the gospels........they identified them as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John......they were accepted by the entire Christian church as legitimate....today, 3 billion people accept that as the truth.......on the other hand a dimwitted atheist with 600 posts on a politics board denies it.......in summary, fuck off......
 
Perry Phimosis said:
You call it a "lie" as if you have firm evidence that the opposite is true.

The fact of the matter is you don't. You cannot tell us who wrote the Gospels. They are unsigned. They make no mention of who wrote them. You cannot tell when they were written. The earliest scrap of even a fragment of one of the gospels dates to decades after Christ's death (in the 60's and 70's AD).

So before you decree something a "Lie" perhaps you should show everyone that you have the truth.
Click to expand...

Negative proof fallacy (argument of ignorance fallacy).
 
ExpressLane said:
More Ad Hominem insults because it is all you have. Go back to the politics forum.
Click to expand...

Fuck you.

I'd much rather stay here and argue with people who use what is closer to fairytales than history books...for their history.

If you do not like it...tough.

In any case, most religious discussions have taken place with people being tortured and killed...so making a big deal of a bit of vulgarity is just more bullshit from you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
an outright lie.......the gospels have been attributed to the named authors by the Christian community from the outset......almost all the denials can be traced to the critical theology of the German marxists in the 1930s and the so called "search for the historical Jesus.....
Click to expand...
Nope.

You have no written or literary evidence to assert that. You only have christian tradition and folklore informing you

Saint Irenaeus in the mid second century is the first Christian we know of to claim the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle and that Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the companion of Paul.

Living in the mid second century, Irenaeus would have no direct knowledge if this were actually true, or if he was just repeating an oral tradition which had evolved around the Gospels.

Personally, I would like to believe the two apostles and the two companions of Peter and Paul wrote the gospels. That would be of historical and religious significance of the first order.

But the scientist and armchair historian in me requires better evidence.
 
Cypress said:
Nope.

You have no written or literary evidence to assert that. You only have christian tradition and folklore informing you
Click to expand...

????.....on the other hand, you have no written or literary evidence PLUS no tradition or folklore......all you have is a bunch of 1930 German theologians who started denying their faith.......

Saint Irenaeus in the mid second century is the first Christian we know of to claim the Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle and that Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the companion of Paul.
Click to expand...

bullshit.......between its writing and Saint Irenaeus in the mid second century you have every Christian in every church that had a copy of the gospel of John and the gospel of Luke.......that's why they HAD a copy of the gospels of John and Luke.......the canonization didn't CREATE the writings, it confirmed their universal acceptance by the church......
 
Cypress said:
But the scientist and armchair historian in me requires better evidence.
Click to expand...

so sit back and wait to be convinced.......but pretending it is conclusively NOT written by the authors is nothing but ignorance.......

you stated the gospels were "unsigned and unattributed".......that is an outright false statement........they've been attributed from the date they originated until the early 20th Century......denial is the newcomer to the debate, not attribution......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes....the existence of the Bible......

why do you think 3 billion Christians acknowledge the four authors of the gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John........its because of 2000 years of acceptance of that authorship......no Christians deny it......only the atheists.......
Click to expand...
Tradition and folklore are generally not super convincing.

A billion Muslims accept it on faith that the Quran was transcribed by Muhammad, a barely literate Bedouin camel driver, from the words spoken to him by the archangel Gabriel.

That is not very convincing to me either
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol...perhaps before you call the gospels a lie you should show everyone you have the truth, rather than simple denial.......
Click to expand...


That's not how it works. If you believe the Gospels are as you imagine them then surely you have evidence for your position. Since I have no necessary NEED for the Gospels to be magical writings from the exact time (despite some of them having JARRINGLY different aspects) I am under no obligation to prove ANYTHING.

However, at least I have more proof of my position than you of yours. The fact of the matter is there is NO EVIDENCE that the Gospels were written at the time of Christ (they may have been but there is no evidence for it). Instead the OLDEST we have is a scrap written maybe 3 or 4 decades after the event.

when the canon of the scriptures was established churches from all over the then known world sent copies of their religious writings
Click to expand...

You seem to have somewhat of a cartoon view of how the canon was formed. You might want to read up more on it. Given that there are several apocryphal books that SOME traditions still keep in their canon would put the suggestion that the canon was formed early and in a coordinated fashion into some doubt.

........there were those that all of them agreed were authored by the men who wrote the gospels........they identified them as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John......they were accepted by the entire Christian church as legitimate....today, 3 billion people accept that as the truth.......on the other hand a dimwitted atheist with 600 posts on a politics board denies it.......in summary, fuck off......
Click to expand...

I love how a "Christian" defends his faith and then tells me to "fuck off".

you are a TRUE WITNESS for Christ, my friend.

(I'm an atheist and even I wouldn't mock the faith quite that viciously. But that's now between you and your god. Hope for your sake he isn't real.)
 
Perry Phimosis said:
However, at least I have more proof of my position than you of yours.
Click to expand...

what is it?....

You seem to have somewhat of a cartoon view of how the canon was formed. You might want to read up more on it. Given that there are several apocryphal books that SOME traditions still keep in their canon would put the suggestion that the canon was formed early and in a coordinated fashion into some doubt.
Click to expand...
why would the fact the Christian church rejected some writings from the canon create doubt......the fact they rejected heresy should affirm their acceptance rather than raise doubt....

I love how a "Christian" defends his faith and then tells me to "fuck off".
Click to expand...

so do I.....
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I don't know. I'm not an agnostic.

I'm sure in your Sunday School this is considered clever?
Click to expand...

just egging you on......atheists are easy to make fun of......I think its because they are all irrational by definition........you idiots claim to believe nothing that cannot be proved, then say "there is no God".......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what is it?....
Click to expand...

Weren't you able to read the post you responded to?

why would the fact the Christian church rejected some writings from the canon create doubt......the fact they rejected heresy should affirm their acceptance rather than raise doubt....
Click to expand...

Because there's SO MUCH MORE TO IT than that. I recommend you read some histories of how the faith came to be.

so do I.....
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with this?

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

If not it's in a book you should read some time. It's from Matthew. You know, the one in the Bible. Have you read it?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
just egging you on......atheists are easy to make fun of.
Click to expand...

And hypocrites who spout "Lord, Lord" are easy to make fun of, too. Especially when you know what the Bible says about those who say "Lord, Lord" (Matt 7:21)

.....I think its because they are all irrational by definition........you idiots claim to believe nothing that cannot be proved, then say "there is no God".......
Click to expand...

I don't say "There is no God". I say "I fail to see evidence of God's existence". That's a subtle but important difference. Because I am trained in philosophy and logic I know that universal negatives are impossible to defend. Which is why I'm the kind of atheist that simply fails to see evidence for God.

If a ravening wolf like you can show me evidence for God then by all means. But right now all I see from you is someone who clearly doesn't believe any more in a real god than I do. I see a ravening wolf who dresses in sheep's clothing and spouts "Lord, lord" in hopes of getting into heaven because he says the right things.

There's an apocryphal story about St. Francis which goes something like: When witnessing for the Gospel use words when necessary. Basically it says your actual witness for your fake God comes from how you ACT not what you say.

I know you for the fruit you bear.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
Weren't you able to read the post you responded to?
Click to expand...
there were no facts in the post I responded to.....and yes, I just went back and looked......I saw a statement of your opinion.....

Because there's SO MUCH MORE TO IT than that. I recommend you read some histories of how the faith came to be.
Click to expand...

dude, I have a Masters in Theology......which of the many things you have read do you recommend I look at?...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top