Heathen haughtiness "Death Knell for Christian Orthodoxy"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nope. we actually pay very close attention to academia.

We've learned something about it too...... just because it's from academia does not mean its accurate, or true

This is where your irrational thinking is highlighted.

Academics can be gulled and can mistakes peer reviewing helps in reducing and eliminating such errors.

Just what do you think corroborative, extraneous evidence is?

There is none for the narrative details of the four canonical gospels.

No extraneous sources have record have come down that make reference to a man called Jesus, or the crowds he was drawing, or the amazing feats he was performing.

Justus of Tiberias a contemporary of Josephus] is silent on this man.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

This is where your irrational thinking is highlighted.

Academics can be gulled and can mistakes peer reviewing helps in reducing and eliminating such errors.

There is none for the narrative details of the four canonical gospels.

No extraneous sources have record have come down that make reference to a man called Jesus, or the crowds he was drawing, or the amazing feats he was performing.

Justus of Tiberias a contemporary of Josephus] is silent on this man.

So you play god and decide which evidence is kosher and which is not?

You can't even prove you are "academic"

Your Darwinismus post is rock solid proof you know next to nothing about science basics.

 

[SteveB]

This is where your irrational thinking is highlighted.

Oh goodie....
Can I highlight your irrational thinking too?

Academics can be gulled and can mistakes peer reviewing helps in reducing and eliminating such errors.

Yet you've clearly ignored the ones which don't support your bias.
Why is that?
It's curious that the gospels, indeed the rest of the bible too are the most vetted documents in history, and scholars of far greater experience and education than both of us could ever dream of being, and you think a few people who don't want to know God are of greater value than those who do.

There is none for the narrative details of the four canonical gospels.

No extraneous sources have record have come down that make reference to a man called Jesus, or the crowds he was drawing, or the amazing feats he was performing.

Justus of Tiberias a contemporary of Josephus] is silent on this man.

I suppose you have a problem then.
Do you really think your ignorance is proof that he's not real?

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh goodie....
Can I highlight your irrational thinking too?

With regard to the subject of the history of the Christian religion where have I employed "irrational thinking"?

Yet you've clearly ignored the ones which don't support your bias.

Which New Testament and/or biblical academics do you have in mind?

Why is that?
It's curious that the gospels, indeed the rest of the bible too are the most vetted documents in history

But they are not the originals. They are copies of copies of copies and different copies show textual variants, for example, the earliest copies of Mark do not have those last twelve verses in chapter sixteen.

, and scholars of far greater experience and education than both of us could ever dream of being, and you think a few people who don't want to know God are of greater value than those who do.

This is where your preconceived ideas show your prejudice. These texts were written by human beings. Their "divine" importance is a much later Christian belief.

If all these texts were believed to be divinely inspired why did Christians later reject some of those divinely inspired writings? Why were texts included in early codices later removed?

A further mystery concerns the writers of those texts and the congregations who heard them. If the texts were truly considered to be divinely inspired why was the original not preserved and revered for the hand that wrote it?

I suppose you have a problem then.
Do you really think your ignorance is proof that he's not real?

Given the situation in the region an ascetic Jew telling his fellow Jews to repent for the End Times were approaching is entirely feasible. We also know there had been various Messianic sects arising among the rural populations since the late first century BCE and that other individuals would acclaim, or be acclaimed, as the Messiah later in the first century CE.

However, how far the various figures of Jesus that we are given in the three Synoptic gospels reflect a real man is entirely unknown. The figure we are presented with in John is an altogether entirely different "alien" character who is given to long rambling, repetitious, and often allegorical speeches that are not primarily about God and show no preoccupation with the Kingdom of Heaven.

For the Jesus of John it is "all about me".

 

[SteveB]

With regard to the subject of the history of the Christian religion where have I employed "irrational thinking"?

Which New Testament and/or biblical academics do you have in mind?

But they are not the originals. They are copies of copies of copies and different copies show textual variants, for example, the earliest copies of Mark do not have those last twelve verses in chapter sixteen.




This is where your preconceived ideas show your prejudice. These texts were written by human beings. Their "divine" importance is a much later Christian belief.

If all these texts were believed to be divinely inspired why did Christians later reject some of those divinely inspired writings? Why were texts included in early codices later removed?

A further mystery concerns the writers of those texts and the congregations who heard them. If the texts were truly considered to be divinely inspired why was the original not preserved and revered for the hand that wrote it?




Given the situation in the region an ascetic Jew telling his fellow Jews to repent for the End Times were approaching is entirely feasible. We also know there had been various Messianic sects arising among the rural populations since the late first century BCE and that other individuals would acclaim, or be acclaimed, as the Messiah later in the first century CE.

However, how far the various figures of Jesus that we are given in the three Synoptic gospels reflect a real man is entirely unknown. The figure we are presented with in John is an altogether entirely different "alien" character who is given to long rambling, repetitious, and often allegorical speeches that are not primarily about God and show no preoccupation with the Kingdom of Heaven.

For the Jesus of John it is "all about me".

You can indeed employ all the "rationalizations" you desire.
It's not likely the uninitiated will fault you. I'm confident some may even applaud your "rationalizations" and say--- he's such a smart young man. He sounds so educated.
You still have to deal with the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

Something no other "ascetic Jew telling his fellow Jews to repent for the end times were approaching, or the various other messianic" wannabes accomplished.

If you don't care about the truth, then by all means--- you keep right ahead with your beliefs. After all--- just as long as you're sincere in your belief of your beliefs, you'll be rewarded, right?

The question is--- are you prepared to be rewarded your wages of sin, with the death awaiting you?

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You still have to deal with the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

It is not a fact. It is a belief premised on the writings of Paul. What Paul tells us in I Corinthians makes no mention of a flesh and blood character talking and eating. The language he uses can also suggest a vision, or something perceived in the mind's eye.

Something no other "ascetic Jew telling his fellow Jews to repent for the end times were approaching

As far as we know there remains very little evidence for Jewish expectations of an eschatological prophet prior to the early first century CE. However, among the Pharisees and the second century BCE scribe Jesus ben Sira there were expectations of a returning Elijah.

Nonetheless, despite the Christian gospel tradition suggesting that this expectation was present and ready to be applied to figures such as John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth; outside of that Christian Gospel tradition, there is no evidence to indicate that any of the actual prophets who appeared among the people during the first century were understood as the returning Elijah.

, or the various other messianic" wannabes accomplished.

Nor should you forget that prophecy was very much alive among the Jews judging from the forms it assumed at the time of Jesus.

There were active prophets who led movement of peasants in anticipation of divine acts of deliverance and if we read Josephus his hostile tone suggests that there may have been several such movements in existence around the mid first century CE.

Felix who was the Roman procurator of Judaea from 52-60 CE had, like Josephus, well founded anxieties about the potential disruption to Roman control and law and order in the province for such prophets apparently proclaimed that God was finally ending the Jews' oppression and restoring their freedom. Their followers from rural communities who were inspired and convinced of the imminence of divine intervention and action, abandoned their homes and villages to follow these charismatic leaders out into the wilderness. The place where sacred traditions held that God had shown signs and wonders of redemption in earlier times.

Hence contrary to your pious beliefs, Jesus was not the only one preaching of a coming Kingdom of God.

 

[The Pixie]

...
You still have to deal with the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

Something no other "ascetic Jew telling his fellow Jews to repent for the end times were approaching, or the various other messianic" wannabes accomplished.
...

It is not fact, it is opinion. An opinion you shared with the early disciples, at least in broad terms, but still just opinion.

Take a look at Acts 19

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.​

Clearly years later there were still followers of John the Baptist. Why would that be? If we believe the gospels John was just the around to welcome Jesus. Why would anyone still be following John after the resurrected Jesus was seem wandering around Jerusalem for 40 days after being resurrected?

Most likely scenario is the disciples saw something they thought was the resurrected Jesus (probably in Galilee, given Mark 16), but all those Jerusalem appearances were made up later

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Watch how atheists buy into Darwinism which cries out to require miracle mutations in evolutionism. Millions of progressive mutations.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Watch how atheists buy into Darwinism which cries out to require miracle mutations in evolutionism. Millions of progressive mutations.

The vast majority of those who accept evolutionary theory are theists.

Evolution requires no miracles; that is the realm of religion.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Here is a corpse who spoke to the UN.

Nov 12, 2003 died

It is impossible to remove the DNA marker he had removed. Hmm.

" the answer to the attrocities today in this world is Jesus, The Prince of Peace"

 

[The Pixie]

" the answer to the attrocities today in this world is Jesus, The Prince of Peace"

The answer to atrocities today is Jesus being here 2000 years ago? Looks like that was a fail then.

But wait, religion can always offer Jam Tomorrow!

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

What a wonderful story.

What about all the babies that ARE born with birth defeats? Does God not care about them enough to fix them?

I guess they must have sinned in the womb, right? So they deserved to grow up with a permanent disability. If they lived that long. Halleluiah!

Your kults solution is abortion/termination.

 

[The Pixie]

Your kults solution is abortion/termination.

Your kult has no solution, which is why they have to go to the abortion issue as a distraction.

If Christianity is true, every baby born with defeat is like that because God chose fopr him or her to have that defeat, and to suffer with it for the entirety of their life.

You want to talk about abortion? Around two thirds of fertilised embryos fail to make it to term. A tiny minority because the mother chose aborton. The vast majority because God choose to cause a miscarriage.

Why does God kill and mutilate unborn babies?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Why does God kill and mutilate unborn babies?

LIst the names of all the atheists that watched God kill and mutilate just one unborn baby.

 

[The Pixie]

LIst the names of all the atheists that watched God kill and mutilate just one unborn baby.

You must have missed the bit where I said "If Christianity is true,"

No atheist thinks Christianity is true. You claim to, however. So you tell me. Why does your God cause babies to be born with defects?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

You must have missed the bit where I said "If Christianity is true,"

No atheist thinks Christianity is true. You claim to, however. So you tell me. Why does your God cause babies to be born with defects?

God sovereign. He calls all the shots. How does God allow people who hate HIM and serve the devil to live also?

Born character defects.

 

[The Pixie]

God sovereign. He calls all the shots.

So when a baby is born with birth defeats, that was God's choice.

Why do you worship a God who chooses to inflict that on a person?

God's character defeat.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

So when a baby is born with birth defeats, that was God's choice.

Why do you worship a God who chooses to inflict that on a person?

God's character defeat.

Do you serve the Devil whose only option is abortion? What is wrong with birth defects? Your ring leaders have killed 200 million who don't have defects.
You don't have problems with brutal atheeist slavery and crusades. We love babies. All babies.

 

[The Pixie]

Do you serve the Devil whose only option is abortion?

I am an atheist. I do not believe the Devil exists.

Do you serve the same master as the Devil? The Devil works under the authority of God.

And God causes approximately two thirds of fertilised embryos to miscarry. God has the option of abortion or birth, and most of the time chooses the abortion option.

What is wrong with birth defects?

They cause a great deal of suffering.

But of course your God loves suffering - he is torturing billions in hell right now.

 

[Manfred]

They don't, because no one has proved Jesus existed (let alone performed miracles).

RICHARD DAWKINS made a surprise revelation to support the claim “Jesus was real” during his new book, stating the evidence was “convincing”.​

The outspoken atheist is well-known for his criticism of creationism and released a new book titled “Outgrowing God” last week. In the text, Mr Dawkins sought to persuade readers to stop believing in the almighty like he did when he was 15. However, during his attempts, the 78-year-old presented evidence to support the Bible.
He writes: “The Roman Tacitus offers more convincing evidence for Jesus’ existence, for the backhanded reason that Tacitus has nothing good to say about Christians.
“He was writing in Latin about an event during the persecution of the early Christians by Emperor Nero.”
Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, considered by many to be the greatest historian of his era.
He wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.
“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.
“A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”

Mr Dawkins then gave his overall opinion on the whole matter, stating Jesus was most likely real, but doubting the stories of the New Testament.

He added: “The balance of probability, according to most but not all scholars, suggest that Jesus did exist.

Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins reveals 'convincing evidence'

RICHARD DAWKINS made a surprise revelation to support the claim “Jesus was real” during his new book, stating the evidence was “convincing”.

www.express.co.uk