Part 6 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

It's not hard to discredit total myth. Sources for your eyewitness accounts.

You would not. Your the type of right wing nut that sits on a jury and convicts a person for a crime based on testimony from a witness that was 100 blocks away and never saw a thing.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg03.htm

 

Even if the gospels were eye witness accounts, weren't they accounts written down many years after the fact?

 

Yes they were. They never coaxed the Jesus Monkey out of the tree.

 

Read the OT, that should clear up the confusion. Understand, use logic, that should clear up confusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Can this be answered?

 

Quote Posted by Woody on pg. 18 #180 of Part 3

#5. No Gospel writer saw any miracle this jesus performed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry... but not true. Matthew and John who were disciples of Jesus seen the miracles that Jesus performed.

 

Oh so now I am supposed to be God and know what is in everyone's heart? This is something no one knows, all we Orthodox know is that God proves the sanctity of certain people, not only through their virtues and the charisms He gives them, but also by the miracles that occur through their intercessions after they die.

Now you can find first hand accounts, and even experience one for yourself by visiting a shrine during a saint's holy day. But I know you won't.

 

Quote Posted by Woody on pg. 18 #180 of Part 3

#6. Luke never saw a jesus Luke 1:1-4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. Luke was a doctor and a co-worker with the Apostle Paul. Because some spurious stories about Jesus were circulating, Luke decided to interview local eye-witnesses and people who had followed Jesus closely.

Luke was like an investigative journalist compiling a story from several informants, he composed his Gospel from the accounts of several eyewitnesses of Jesus' life.

Luke collated all the interviews into a single account, recording details not mentioned elsewhere, for example regarding the conception and birth of Jesus and Mary's extended family, as you might expect of a doctor.

 

Quote Posted by GraspingforPeace on pg. 19 #188 of Part 3

Why are you still pretending that you have any clue about Scripture? You ignore it to fulfill your own desires, hence why you ignore when Genesis 1 says God created the stars, moon, and sun on the Fourth Day so that you can loudly and foolishly claim that they were made on the First Day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you have misterpreted the Book of Genesis. The sun was created on day 1 and not on day 4 as you have wrongly interpreted it to be.

Refer to my post #7 on pg. 1 of Part 3. I have thoroughly explained it very clearly and so if you still can't accept the fact that the sun was created on day one... well all I can say is that...who is really the pretender here?...I'd say the atheist guy is the pretender thinking he fully understands Scripture...lol

 

elves made my big screen tv last tuesday morning, but everyone who sees it swears it was made on thursday, around midnight.

 

Sorry...I just don't believe you...lol

 

Matt and John were not written by disciples. Well at least not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

It is not some big secret that the Trinity is not specifically given in the Bible. What is even less of a secret is that the Early Church Fathers did not believe that Jesus and the Father were equal. Go read up on subordinatism. The early church Fathers believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

When Tertullian first came up with the modern trinity doctrine the Church at large declared it to be heresy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

 

Why did Matthew get a book named after him when he never did anything in the book?

 

http://www.holybooks.info/matthew.html

All of them are anonymous no one knows who wrote a single word of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why believe in a dying and resurrecting ghost?

 

Interesting point. The gospel was not authored and so they gave it a name many years later. Perhaps the Matthew fellow did some interesting things that folks back then knew about which made him worthy have having a gospel named after him. Those deeds, if they existed are lost to us today.

 

No, but you could put a thinking cap on or try a search engine to find out the % of the world that is christian.

Where does one find a shrine, and what is "saint's holy day"?
What would that give me?

 

Quote Posted by thebrucebeat on pg. 19 #186 of Part 3

Actually the many errors are well documented. They are concealed to you because you limit your research to those that have an agenda in their scholarship
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible cannot err, since it is God's Word, and God cannot err. This does not mean there are no difficulties in the Bible. But the difficulties are not due to God's perfect revelation, but to our imperfect understanding of it. The history of Bible criticism reveals that the Bible has no errors, but the critics do.

Jesus affirmed that the "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, NASB). As an infallible book, the Bible is also irrevocable.

 

Like I said, you use internal sources with an agenda to do research and study, and so of course come up with what you want to hear.
Serious seminaries around the country don't have the fear of outside sources that evangelicals have. They embrace knowledge, wherever it may come from, to nudge them closer and closer to a true understanding of God, and don't seek to protect their preconceived ideas as sacrosanct and unmovable.
Evangelical "criticism" is astonishing to read, as the mental gymnastics required to maintain the inerrancy of scripture is dramatic. Reading it without the presupposed agenda is jaw dropping sometimes as the leaps of logic are extreme occaisionally, and frequently a stretch.
But if your faith denies you the freedom of thought to investigate outside of the pre-approved sources, you will always find what you're looking for, and if this brings you peace, that's wonderful.
It won't do you alot of good on a debate forum though.
You'll get torn to pieces.

 

scripture can stand on its own. What are "serious" seminaries?

 

so do you believe everything in the catholic encyclopedia?

 

Quote Posted by GraspingforPeace on pg. 19 #187 of Part 3

The problem is that apologists have literally had two millennia to "harmonize" the Gospels. Scribes who took manuscripts and re-wrote them would not have let Earth shattering mistakes remain so now all we have are small contradictions that Christians, with their extremely special ability in mental gymnastics, can easily explain away. While it may not be sufficient for us, they pretty much have an answer for every teensy contradiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real problem is that atheists such as yourself will always be in denial of the truth.

So now you believe that the Scribes conspired to clean up the mistakes...that is just so ludicrous!

Where is your concrete proof of this? That's all right, you don't have to furnish any proofs...because I know you don't have any...it is just a typical atheist tactic to spew out unsubstantiated claims to discredit the Holy Bible.

I guess that's just your way to comfort yourself into falsely believing that the Bible can't be taken seriously. But the truth is, all you're doing is simply being in denial of the truth.

Just admit you are simply in denial of the truth. As for me and a few billions of others, we are accepting the truth!

 

Accredited academic institutions.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

Clearly the Catholic Church would like nothing better than to have the Gospels written by disciples. It is a known fact that Matt was not written by a disciple. Not just by the Catholic Encyclopedia by every reputable scholar in existence.

John is also not believed to have been written by the disciple John by the vast majority of scholar as the arguments advanced for authorship by John have been shown to "falter under close scrutiny"

 

The Bible has been proven to contain alterations, interpolations, additions, ommisions, errors and contradiction. This is the hand of man at work and not the mouth of God.

The vast majority of Christianity does not believe in inerrancy. Catholic and Orthodox do not believe this and the mainstream protestantism does not believe this.

The only major Christian group that believes this are Evangelicals and they are an embarrassment to the Christianity in general.

- - - Updated - - -

I already answered this question to you. Why are you asking others the same question and pretending to not know the answer ?

 

wow, way to overuse a word

meantime, it's funny that you should elect to hammer that particular word, as it's the one thing you theists avoid like the plague. at least, how many of you actually stop in your tracks and consider if what you've been (force) fed is true? I mean, REALLY consider. the same way you would anything else reasonably important in your life. eg, if I offer to sell you a small island for $100, would you check my credibility? or just hand over the money because the idea of an island of your very own is just too ticketty boo to say no to?