Apologetic follies

Furion

Well-known member
And this is why evangelical apologetics will die on the vine. The effort and strain put forth to believe is just too worthlessly heavy.
The gospel needs no help, and your little angry fist at the sky means nothing.

Day in and day out the love of Christ overcomes the hate of atheism.

So sorry.
 

5wize

Well-known member
The gospel needs no help, and your little angry fist at the sky means nothing.

Day in and day out the love of Christ overcomes the hate of atheism.

So sorry.
Yet the gospels are left unreconcilable when left alone. The church fathers knew this and invented the apologetic precisely for those problems. You should know that too, but evangelical belief cannot afford scholarship. That too would create irreconciliation.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Yet the gospels are left unreconcilable when left alone. The church fathers knew this and invented the apologetic precisely for those problems. You should know that too, but evangelical belief cannot afford scholarship. That too would create irreconciliation.
I think what you need to realize is that the word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword, cutting your soul right in half.

It is power all on its own because the Spirit ensures it.

Nothing for me to prove here, you are the living proof. You stand so hard against, thus proving it's impact.

Atheists don't seem to realize your visceral reaction is all the proof necessary, to me.

Even your own label you apply to yourself encapsulates it. You can call yourself anything you choose, but you choose to call yourself something in direct opposition to some random goat herders from ages past.

Wake up, oh sleeper.

I like you 5alive, you have spunk, but it's an anvil without a single scratch.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
And yet you're not paying attention, as demonstrated by your failure to engage in discussion.
Does it make you feel better to say that the failure is on my part? To say I am not paying attention? To not even consider that you may have failed? That you have no argument? No evidence? No proof?

That you are just a guy saying he has the words of a god with no way to prove it?

OK. Whatever helps.

I'm here if you can ever prove the things you post are from a god. Until then I just hear...Steve. And I see no reason to believe that you are posting the rods of God but my Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, and Pagan friends are not.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Stone rolled away.....Was your contradiction whether the earthquake of angel rolled it away?
I love research!

The question: was the tomb open or closed when the followers of Jesus found it?

The answer: Mary Madeline found the tomb open. Or Mary Madeline and the other Mary found it closed, saw a violent earthquake, an angel appeared, and rolled the stone away. In short - we have no idea.

Evidence:
  • Matthew (closed tomb - two witnesses - angel - earthquake): Matthew says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary found the tomb closed and then an angel rolled it away in a dramatic earthquake that would be impossible for any other witness to miss.
    • "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. "
  • Mark (open tomb - three witnesses - no angel - no earthquake): Mark is completely different! Mark says that three people went to the tomb - Mary, Mary, and Salome - not two. The tomb was already open when they got there! They did not see a dramatic earthquake or an angel. Totally different account.
    • "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. "
  • Luke (open tomb - vague witnesses - no angel - no earthquake):Luke matches Mark more or less. Luke also missed the violent earthquake and angel somehow. And Luke apparently had no idea who these 'women' who found the risen Christ even were. Not a great witness.
    • "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus."
  • John (open tomb - one witness - no angel - no earthquake):John says Mary Magdalene went alone - no Salome or the other Mary - so that is troubling. John also did not record a violent earthquake or any angel at all - just an open tomb with no explanation of how ti got that way.
    • "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance"
If this were a court and the judge asked about the tomb we would have John say, "Oh - Mary Magdalene found it open." The Matthew says, "No - it was closed. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw a violent earthquake and an angel appeared and rolled the stone away."

Case dismissed :)
I really wish you had the ability to express your so-called contradictions with verses rather than what your cut-and-paste web site said.
You're welcome.

You have one piece of evidence for the Resurrection - The Bible - and it is all over the place. It highlights just how bad your evidence is. I mean not noticing an angel and an earthquake is alarming.

You can rant that this does not matter but you cannot make them align into a single truth.

I look forward to watching you try.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I love research!

The question: was the tomb open or closed when the followers of Jesus found it?

The answer: Mary Madeline found the tomb open. Or Mary Madeline and the other Mary found it closed, saw a violent earthquake, an angel appeared, and rolled the stone away. In short - we have no idea.

Evidence:
  • Matthew (closed tomb - two witnesses - angel - earthquake): Matthew says Mary Magdalene and the other Mary found the tomb closed and then an angel rolled it away in a dramatic earthquake that would be impossible for any other witness to miss.
    • "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. "

They went down to look at the tomb....sounds like prior to their arrival there was an earthquake and an angel had rolled back the stone. The tomb was open when they arrived.
  • Mark (open tomb - three witnesses - no angel - no earthquake): Mark is completely different! Mark says that three people went to the tomb - Mary, Mary, and Salome - not two. The tomb was already open when they got there! They did not see a dramatic earthquake or an angel. Totally different account.
    • "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb? But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. "

Mark agrees with Matthew...the stone was already rolled away. As to who was presented...one account completes the picture.


  • Luke (open tomb - vague witnesses - no angel - no earthquake):Luke matches Mark more or less. Luke also missed the violent earthquake and angel somehow. And Luke apparently had no idea who these 'women' who found the risen Christ even were. Not a great witness.
    • "On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus."
  • John (open tomb - one witness - no angel - no earthquake):John says Mary Magdalene went alone - no Salome or the other Mary - so that is troubling. John also did not record a violent earthquake or any angel at all - just an open tomb with no explanation of how ti got that way.
    • "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance"
See avove

If this were a court and the judge asked about the tomb we would have John say, "Oh - Mary Magdalene found it open." The Matthew says, "No - it was closed. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary saw a violent earthquake and an angel appeared and rolled the stone away."

Case dismissed :)

You're welcome.
Matthew does not say the tomb was closed.

Matt 28:2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it.

You have one piece of evidence for the Resurrection - The Bible - and it is all over the place. It highlights just how bad your evidence is. I mean not noticing an angel and an earthquake is alarming.

You can rant that this does not matter but you cannot make them align into a single truth.

I look forward to watching you try.
Sorry dude,,,but you go to do better.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
They went down to look at the tomb....sounds like prior to their arrival there was an earthquake and an angel had rolled back the stone. The tomb was open when they arrived.
It just does not say this. You are making stuff up now and believing it.
Mark agrees with Matthew...the stone was already rolled away. As to who was presented...one account completes the picture.
They absolutely do not. I cannot believe I have to go down to this level but here we go - do you think these are the same sentence?
  1. "I found a closed tomb but then there was an earthquake and an angel appeared and he rolled the stone away."
  2. "I found the tomb open."
You are lost.
Matthew does not say the tomb was closed.
The stone was rolled away after they arrived - it was closed. Or do you believe the stone was rolled away in lightning and earthquake from an already open tomb? Yu are grasping at straws dude.

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." -- Matthew 28: 2-4

I forgot about the guards - sometimes they are there - sometimes not. More error.

I did not expect you to acknowledge the objective facts that Matthew and Mark tell different stories - which is just a fact dude. I expected you to twist and do somersaults to try and make it work. You cannot though because an earthquake with an angel and no earthquake with no angel are, in fact, different events.

And you did not disappoint. Christians will go to almost insane levels of self delusion to keep the faith intact. They will claim the Bible does not say what it says. They will just make stuff up and add it to The Bible to make it work. They'll say Matthew said the tomb was open when we can all read the text and see that is just not true. They'll even invent something about Mark, John, and Luke hearing an earthquake when that is just plain not in The Bible.

Fascinating.

Believe what you like my friend - I gave you the passages as requested and proved my point beyond any reasonable doubt. The Gospels do not match in a significant, earthquake rattling, angel of lightning in snow clothes kinda way.

Now I am going to go eat some breakfast :)
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
It just does not say this. You are making stuff up now and believing it.

They absolutely do not. I cannot believe I have to go down to this level but here we go - do you think these are the same sentence?
  1. "I found a closed tomb but then there was an earthquake and an angel appeared and he rolled the stone away."
  2. "I found the tomb open."
The bible doesn't say "I found a closed tomb but then there was an earthquake and an angel appeared and he rolled the stone away."
You are lost.

The stone was rolled away after they arrived - it was closed. Or do you believe the stone was rolled away in lightning and earthquake from an already open tomb? Yu are grasping at straws dude.

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." -- Matthew 28: 2-4

They came to the tomb...and then discovered there was...happened earlier...an earthquake.

As Elliots commentary says.....(2) There was a great earthquake.--The words imply, not that they witnessed the earthquake, but that they inferred it from what they saw.

Your so-called contradiction has been answered.
I forgot about the guards - sometimes they are there - sometimes not. More error.

I did not expect you to acknowledge the objective facts that Matthew and Mark tell different stories - which is just a fact dude. I expected you to twist and do somersaults to try and make it work. You cannot though because an earthquake with an angel and no earthquake with no angel are, in fact, different events.

Even Gills commentary puts it this way....And behold there was a great earthquake,.... Or "there had been one";
And you did not disappoint. Christians will go to almost insane levels of self delusion to keep the faith intact. They will claim the Bible does not say what it says. They will just make stuff up and add it to The Bible to make it work. They'll say Matthew said the tomb was open when we can all read the text and see that is just not true. They'll even invent something about Mark, John, and Luke hearing an earthquake when that is just plain not in The Bible.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary puts it this way....
And, behold, there was—that is, there had been, before the arrival of the women. a great earthquake;

Fascinating.

Believe what you like my friend - I gave you the passages as requested and proved my point beyond any reasonable doubt. The Gospels do not match in a significant, earthquake rattling, angel of lightning in snow clothes kinda way.

Now I am going to go eat some breakfast :)
The Pulpit commentary puts it this way...The following event took place before their arrival; they saw only the result.

I presented you with 4 commentaries which disagree with you. That means your statement "I gave you the passages as requested and proved my point beyond any reasonable doubt."....is in error.

After your breakfast don't forget to wipe the egg off of your face.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
The bible doesn't say "I found a closed tomb but then there was an earthquake and an angel appeared and he rolled the stone away."
Matthew says the stone was rolled away after they got there. Good luck with whatever you are doing here. It will not change that.
They came to the tomb...and then discovered there was...happened earlier...an earthquake.
It does not say this. You no longer even believe The Bible. You now believe literally whatever you need to in order to make you faith real. Amazing.

If you are arguing that Matthew and Mark say the same thing about earthquakes and lightning angels then you are no longer rational in any real sense of the word. There is no rational debate with someone who reads Matthew and Mark and says they are the same. There is no point is asking for proof from someone who invents it as they go.

You are objectively wrong about Matthews and Mark and Luke. I have proven this. Everyone knows it. Even you.

I hope your delusion gives you comfort. But you will not stop Christianity form vanishing from American life with this kind of nonsense.

Take care.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
See post 212. Apparently you didn't read it.
You are simply not making any sense anymore. You are saying a witness claiming to see an earthquake, an angel made of lightning, and a stone rolling away is the same as a witness who just found an empty tomb.

That's delusional.

You have become nonsensical in your attempt to make this work. I see no point in saying anything when you'll just invent stuff that s not even in The Bible.

So I am smiling and moving on. If you need to believe that Luke somehow implied an unwritten earthquake, angel of lighting, and a stone rolling away then go for it.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Does it make you feel better to say that the failure is on my part? To say I am not paying attention? To not even consider that you may have failed? That you have no argument? No evidence? No proof?
Your ongoing refusal to come to YHVH, and Jesus for yourself, and the copious excuses you continue to use is all the demonstration that's needed to corroborate what I've said.

That you are just a guy saying he has the words of a god with no way to prove it?
That's because I thought you'd rather have him prove himself to you, instead of these ongoing banterings of yours, making it appear that you're conversing, when in fact you're dodging, and demonstrating that you want to avoid culpability.

OK. Whatever helps.

I'm here if you can ever prove the things you post are from a god. Until then I just hear...Steve. And I see no reason to believe that you are posting the rods of God but my Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, and Pagan friends are not.
What I post isn't from "a god."
It's from THE God, YHVH.
the God who holds your breath in his hand, and sustains your life.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Your ongoing refusal to come to YHVH, and Jesus for yourself, and the copious excuses you continue to use is all the demonstration that's needed to corroborate what I've said.
I do not believe in your god because you have failed to prove he is real.
That's because I thought you'd rather have him prove himself to you, instead of these ongoing banterings of yours, making it appear that you're conversing, when in fact you're dodging, and demonstrating that you want to avoid culpability.
This is nonsensical.
What I post isn't from "a god."
It's from THE God, YHVH.
the God who holds your breath in his hand, and sustains your life.
Sure.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I do not believe in your god because you have failed to prove he is real.
Of course you don't! You're choosing instead to insult yourself, by refusing to take the time to learn to engage him on his terms, which he's made simple enough for children to do and understand.



This is nonsensical.
To those who are perishing, You're absolutely correct!


It's entirely your decision.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Of course you don't! You're choosing instead to insult yourself, by refusing to take the time to learn to engage him on his terms, which he's made simple enough for children to do and understand.
If it is so simple then why is the majority of the world not Christen? It is not as obvious as you think. Billions do not think God is real. More humans do not believe in God than those that do.

And you have never given them any reason to change their mind beyond "believe what I say!"
 

SteveB

Well-known member
If it is so simple then why is the majority of the world not Christen?
That's easy.
Jesus stated:

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.​
18“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”​

People love their sin. They actually like living in their evils, which destroy their lives.
Murderers love to murder.
thieves love to steal.
Rapists love to rape
Drunks love to get drunk.
Drug addicts love to get stoned/high
sex addicts love to have sex.
pornographers love to use porn.
greedmongers love their greed.
powermongers love power
on and on it goes.
Slanderers love to slander.
fornicators love to fornicate
sodomites love sodomy
adulterers love to commit adultery
the covetous love their coveting.


It is not as obvious as you think.
God says otherwise.

Billions do not think God is real.
And billions are dead in their sin, and trespasses. Waiting to perish, ignoring the gospel of JEsus, because, as Jesus said---- light has come into the world, and people loved darkness, because their deeds are evil.

More humans do not believe in God than those that do.
Got statistics for this? I read one a few weeks ago which said atheists are down somewhere under 4% of the world's population.

And you have never given them any reason to change their mind beyond "believe what I say!"
I leave the choice to them, just as Jesus did.


So, pew statistics, on the philosophical distributions--- JUST among atheists. no comparing with other ideas/faiths.


Quite interesting. All y'all here are in the minorities among atheists. It appears most atheists could care less about all this God-talk.
So, it seems to me that you're not really atheists at all.


Religious landscape.... only here in the US.

Oh, and I'm not using wikipedia because of the clear disdain for it by atheists, as a biased source. Or is it only biased when you don't like the results?

I find it intriguing that your belief that atheists far outweigh the rest of the human population is based on ignorance.

As for the rest.....

Religions​


Explore religious groups in the U.S. by tradition, family and denomination​




I'll let you figure out the rest.
 
Top