jack T. chick has pantented his own brand of insanity

I've had to do that atleast a dozen times talking with you guys.

ElectronicMagic

just so we're on the same page, you do know what a red herring is right?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

ElectronicMagic

Like I said, the bible talks about many crazy and wacky things, if you want to go putting your whole life into the belief that it's fact, then by all means have at it. It doesn't prove Jesus existed.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Wall of text...

MindFreeze

I don't think many learned opposers of Christianity deny that a man called Jesus existed. He might have been a very smart and hope giving man, and mind you people back then were much more gullible than now, especially when religion and god came in to play. So in other words, the existence of a wise man called Jesus Christ back then does not give any proof to your religion being true or that a God exists.

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

The Bible was a work of literature written by various men who were inspired by God and Jesus.

Since it wasn't written or dictated by God himself, I don't consider it to be the literal "Word of God".

"The Word of God" seems like an alternate title to "The Holy Bible"

In my opinion, it is a book that shows people how to live and it's contents are not meant to act as a weapon, a shield, a history book, or a science book.

The Bible teaches good values and morals, but I don't take it literally.

Drakorain

In all technicality Jesus is the Word of God, but that goes into a lot of crap I don't feel like explaining.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]It was just a simple question, I'm not forcing him to answer it. I answered his question, so I thought it was only fair that he answer mine. I was just trying to see what kind of person he was and now I know.

ElectronicMagic

Too funny. You now proclaim the ability to judge what kin of person a person is based on their refusual to answer a single irrelevant off-topic question.

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about the Bible or anything else really when you make statement like that?

I'm glad you're laughing, I had a giggle when you continuously refused to answer a simple question even when I offered to make a thread that would make that question the topic. Your refusal to answer that question told me everything I wanted to know.

It's not, it's just a book. Or books if you are "picky" about me calling it a book.

ElectronicMagic

[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.greenprince

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

By your "logic," we aren't allowed to write about the Civil War.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="blasto65_basic"]

So what about people before Christ are they dammed for all time

blasto65_basic

What faith it was befor Christ who brought the word of God. Say they worshiped the sun because it gave them food and made them warm.

[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="snoopeymaster"]

[QUOTE="ATOMIC_TOAST"]The Roman historian Tacitus (56-71AD I think) wrote about Jesus about 30 years or so after his death.snoopeymaster

i said talk about one who wrote about jesus WHEN HE EXISTED! nnot when he died

Considering that about ten percent of the population could write while He was alive. . . .

But I think you ignored me. Contemporary historiography does not require your insane standards. If they did, we would consider Socrates to be a myth. Thirty years makes Tacitus a contemporary and reliable account, one of the best, actually.

i just find it weird that 20 historians lived around this time period and NON mentioned him

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]they were and are seperate books, but the christians compiled them under one cover, and no, they are not "chapters" :lol:. thirdly, there is no such thing as "unbias", but its irrelevant because they are still the best sources on the life of Jesus. fourth, there is evidence from teh Gospels and epistles that Jesus lived, and died, and rose again on easter morning.ElectronicMagic

I never said that they weren't separate books. I never said that they were chapters, I said that they are so short they should be considered chapters. I don't doubt that your sources are the best sources on a fictional character such as Jesus. I'm not telling you not to believe in that hocus pocus, I'm simply saying that there isn't any evidence to support what you are proposing.