A Question About Your Eternal Destiny (See Poll).

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]The fact that a site is trying to validate an already invalid claim proven wrong by the reliable academic community does in fact invalid it as a source for anything within the confines of an objective debate.

The Earth is not 6000-10000 years old. This has already been proven false. The major piece of evidence that so proves this is the dating of all the geological formations on the planet, which has the age of the Earth to be about 4.54 billion years old. Read this article if you want to know how they do it. We also have ice cores from glaciers that are older than the proposed literal creation age of the Earth.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]It was written by an athiest, but your statement, and indeed the opinion piece written, are bunk:

1. The Crusades were fought between the Christian and Muslim Theocratic Kingdoms to reclaim the Holy Land, the same Holy Land for both Christianity and Islam.

2. You're right, but then again one of the primary reasons for colonisation was to spread the "glories" of Christ to the uninformed masses.

3. And yet are still considered as a sect of Christianity...

tycoonmike

Since you agree with me on two of the three points, how is killing in the name of a religion bringing peace to the world?

I think by regular guy he just meant 'not the son of God'.Funky_Llama

The "reliable" academic community you speak of used to believe the world was flat.Crushmaster

Regular people arn't recorded in history. and given the time frame between the first christian sects and his death and ministry its not likely they were so completely and dramitcally different from the original.123625

[QUOTE="123625"] Dude what do you have against catholics? They beleive in the salvation in sins.Crushmaster

That's not such a bad thing. Even if you think they're wrong, why not just let them be and continue to perform humanitarian aid? Most would agree charity is a good thing...

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Did I say that? You are free to reject anything you wish and so am I. Rather than just attempt to discredit the sources of the mountain of links I provided, why don' t you provide a like number of links to archaeological evidence from secular sources that disproves a person, place, or event listed in the Bible. That's the way to approach it. I am not here to do your research for you. I have done mine and am certain of my beliefs.

blackregiment

And yet I'm not the one making unverified claims. All I have done is debunk your claims with simple common sense. You are trying to confirm a belief by using the belief in and of itself. You are basically saying that Christianity is the one, true religion because the Christian holy book says so. Indeed, I could say that Hinduism is the one, true religion because the Hindu holy book says so. Does that make me just as right as you?

You are free to believe what ever you choose. That being said, you keep complaining about the evidence I have supplied to support the accuracy of the archaeology of the Bible. I claim that it is accurate, you don't seem to think so. Let's take a quick tally on the evidence provided so far to support each of our opinions.

Blackregiment 39

Tycoonmike 0

I'd say you have some catching up to do. :)

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]The fact that a site is trying to validate an already invalid claim proven wrong by the reliable academic community does in fact invalid it as a source for anything within the confines of an objective debate.

The Earth is not 6000-10000 years old. This has already been proven false. The major piece of evidence that so proves this is the dating of all the geological formations on the planet, which has the age of the Earth to be about 4.54 billion years old. Read this article if you want to know how they do it. We also have ice cores from glaciers that are older than the proposed literal creation age of the Earth.Crushmaster

yes and you think one guy made the whole universe on his own

I wonder which one sounds more stupid?

Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Teenaged

What you have to remember is that Christianity would have lived and died soley as an obscure Jewish sect were it not for Paul, and a marvellous bit of politics by Constantine a few centuries later. Also the Jewish people were rather desperate for a messiah at the time.

[QUOTE="123625"] Dude what do you have against catholics? They beleive in the salvation in sins.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] I think by regular guy he just meant 'not the son of God'.123625

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Crushmaster

Or maybe because you've yet to accept that the Bible has been proven wrong.

I don't have anything against Catholics.
I just have things against those who spread false doctrines: and they believe salvation is by works.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]The "reliable" academic community you speak of used to believe the world was flat.foxhound_fox

Regular people arn't recorded in history. and given the time frame between the first christian sects and his death and ministry its not likely they were so completely and dramitcally different from the original.123625

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Crushmaster

The census in Luke makes no historical sense, Jesus has two genealogies, the world isn't 10,000 years old (you might want to look up the hubble constant), Genesis has two contradictory accounts and God did not create plants before the sun.

yes and you think one guy made the whole universe on his own I wonder which one sounds more stupid?McManus107

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Crushmaster

Anyway, what you say is not prooved and since you didn't comment on the first part of my post I believe you too agree that science is pretty much very reliable.

I don't have anything against Catholics.
I just have things against those who spread false doctrines: and they believe salvation is by works.Crushmaster

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"] I think by regular guy he just meant 'not the son of God'.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Well this academic community has advanced ever since. The Bible or any religion hasn't.Frattracide

Regular people arn't recorded in "anceint history".123625

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]The fact that a site is trying to validate an already invalid claim proven wrong by the reliable academic community does in fact invalid it as a source for anything within the confines of an objective debate.

The Earth is not 6000-10000 years old. This has already been proven false. The major piece of evidence that so proves this is the dating of all the geological formations on the planet, which has the age of the Earth to be about 4.54 billion years old. Read this article if you want to know how they do it. We also have ice cores from glaciers that are older than the proposed literal creation age of the Earth.Crushmaster

Well they had two choices back then, believe the Earth was flat or be burned by the ruling church.

[QUOTE="McManus107"] yes and you think one guy made the whole universe on his own I wonder which one sounds more stupid?Crushmaster

I provided sources; you evidently ignored them.
Why don't you do some research for yourself? Some google-searching and such.Crushmaster

yes,but I misunderstood it so what did you mean when you saidMcManus107

The fact that another evangelism thread has been created despite having every single evangelism thread before this one fail just baffles me.

If it didn't work the past x amount of times, it's probably not going to work at all.

Move on to a more productive method that hasn't been done before.

[QUOTE="123625"]Regular people arn't recorded in "anceint history".foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Perhaps that is because the Bible has yet to be proven wrong.Crushmaster

I addressed every source relevant to the great flood you have provided. I suppose I could have missed one, this is a big thread, but I have read every page. I'll go back and check.

Edit: Nope, I went back and checked, I did not miss a single one.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]I don't have anything against Catholics.
I just have things against those who spread false doctrines: and they believe salvation is by works.foxhound_fox

The Bible would agree with you. ;)

Actually there are plenty, most come from the church fathers, and other non christian sources. But mostly they refer to him as the Christ, or chrestus. But the most valuable sources are from tacticus and Josephus, but I need to learn more about all the anceint sources which atest to Jesus.123625

[QUOTE="McManus107"] yes,but I misunderstood it so what did you mean when you saidCrushmaster

so the bible is right since it makes more people feel better and your proof is the bible and that christiniaty might be able to help africa.

[QUOTE="123625"]Actually there are plenty, most come from the church fathers, and other non christian sources. But mostly they refer to him as the Christ, or chrestus. But the most valuable sources are from tacticus and Josephus, but I need to learn more about all the anceint sources which atest to Jesus.foxhound_fox

Not that I know of, but I wouldn't expect there to be. Jesus hung around with the poor, the socially unnacceptable, as well did he only have twelve disciples. He was not rich man, a royal or anything like that, he was just a preacher. No body at this probably paid much attention to him. But this is just a a guess on why I think there is no contemporary account. Also we should be open to the possibility that such an account could be lost.

[QUOTE="McManus107"] yes,but I misunderstood it so what did you mean when you saidCrushmaster

Crushmaster, nothing written 2000 years ago can be prooved right for the following reasons: The perception of supernatural themes has been altered since then and that's why the Bible then managed to fill those gaps through allegories that would answer the existential questions of ancient civilizations in an easy way. Science does not fight religion. Science, for me is the natural continuation of religion, filling the gap where people don't need allegories anymore but the plain truth. The reason why the Bible and science seem to fight each other is because for one part some people don't know how to move on leaving behind them the wisdom of the old for a new era. The fears religious people have that make them not want to go on are not unjustifiable, that's true. But the ironic thing even as I'm talking to you is that I kind of know that you couldn't ever possibly be convinced about your wrong perspective or that there are more than one ways to look into a subject.

The point of everybody else here i think is not too make you look stupid by prooving you wrong but by showing you that there is always room for error and misconception, both in the Bible and science (but science for that reason evolves and religion in fear of being prooved wrong won't evolve willingly.) Everyone is entitled to having their opinion but you never seemed to respect others opinion. By arguing you don't proove that but you just preach. It's like you wished your audience was mute and just listened.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
That's very interesting.
1: Claiming to be Christian and being Christian are two very different things.
2: I don't need to comment on this.
3: Yes, they are, as is Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible says that only those who accept Christ as their Savior and repent of their sins are Christians. Nearly all Catholics have not done that; they trust in their works, which cannot save them.Crushmaster

Since you agree with me on two of the three points, how is killing in the name of a religion bringing peace to the world?

1. The suppression of all religions other that Christianity, and in that Catholicism, by the government and military doesn't make medieval France, England, Spain, etc., doesn't make those nations theocracies?

2. By your will...

3. You have admitted that Catholics, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, are Christians.

I ask again: how is killing in the name of a religion bringing peace to the world?

[QUOTE="123625"]Regular people arn't recorded in "anceint history".foxhound_fox

Crushmaster, nothing written 2000 years ago can be prooved right for the following reasons: The perception of supernatural themes has been altered since then and that's why the Bible then managed to fill those gaps through allegories that would answer the existential questions of ancient civilizations in an easy way. Science does not fight religion. Science, for me is the natural continuation of religion, filling the gap where people don't need allegories anymore but the plain truth. The reason why the Bible and science seem to fight each other is because for one part some people don't know how to move on leaving behind them the wisdom of the old for a new era. The fears religious people have that make them not want to go on are not unjustifiable, that's true. But the ironic thing even as I'm talking to you is that I kind of know that you couldn't ever possibly be convinced about your wrong perspective or that there are more than one ways to look into a subject.

The point of everybody else here i think is not too make you look stupid by prooving you wrong but by showing you that there is always room for error and misconception, both in the Bible and science (but science for that reason evolves and religion in fear of being prooved wrong won't evolve willingly.) Everyone is entitled to having their opinion but you never seemed to respect others opinion. By arguing you don't proove that but you just preach. It's like you wished your audience was mute and just listened.

Anyone who met him and wrote about what he said? foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Crushmaster, nothing written 2000 years ago can be prooved right for the following reasons: The perception of supernatural themes has been altered since then and that's why the Bible then managed to fill those gaps through allegories that would answer the existential questions of ancient civilizations in an easy way. Science does not fight religion. Science, for me is the natural continuation of religion, filling the gap where people don't need allegories anymore but the plain truth. The reason why the Bible and science seem to fight each other is because for one part some people don't know how to move on leaving behind them the wisdom of the old for a new era. The fears religious people have that make them not want to go on are not unjustifiable, that's true. But the ironic thing even as I'm talking to you is that I kind of know that you couldn't ever possibly be convinced about your wrong perspective or that there are more than one ways to look into a subject.

The point of everybody else here i think is not too make you look stupid by prooving you wrong but by showing you that there is always room for error and misconception, both in the Bible and science (but science for that reason evolves and religion in fear of being prooved wrong won't evolve willingly.) Everyone is entitled to having their opinion but you never seemed to respect others opinion. By arguing you don't proove that but you just preach. It's like you wished your audience was mute and just listened.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Anyone who met him and wrote about what he said? danwallacefan

They never met Jesus, as they both contain references to the diaspera, which happened in 70 AD. Current historical thinking is that Mark wrote his gospel first, most likely around 70 AD and then Matthew and Luke used this as a source. John is a lot harder to place, except for being post-diaspera.

well yes actually, we have John the Elder and Matthew bar Alphaeus. These 2 men wrote the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John. danwallacefan

[QUOTE="123625"]Actually there are plenty, most come from the church fathers, and other non christian sources. But mostly they refer to him as the Christ, or chrestus. But the most valuable sources are from tacticus and Josephus, but I need to learn more about all the anceint sources which atest to Jesus.foxhound_fox

You have to remember that Jerusalem and the surrounding towns were totally destroyed by the Romans in 70AD and this would have probably resulted in a lot of historical data being destroyed, Then there are the 8 New Testament writers. Now, I don't expect you to give any credence to what they wrote about Christ and that's fine.If one thinks they were lying, though historically accurate on hundreds and hundreds of other things they wrote, then one would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the Resurrection story. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publically. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixtation and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]well yes actually, we have John the Elder and Matthew bar Alphaeus. These 2 men wrote the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John. foxhound_fox

Here is something for you to consider. The majority of scholars agree that this creed dates to 2-8 years after the ressurection.

You have to remember that Jerusalem and the surrounding towns were totally destroyed by the Romans in 70AD and this would have probably resulted in a lot of historical data being destroyed, Then there are the 8 New Testament writers. Now, I don't expect you to give any credence to what they wrote about Christ and that's fine.If one thinks they were lying, though historically accurate on hundreds and hundreds of other things they wrote, then one would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the Resurrection story. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publically. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixtation and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

blackregiment

The only time we can rationally accept a miracle occured is when it would be more miraculous for it not to have happened. I think that the resurrection being a fabrication or a hallucination etc. is a much less miraculous explanation for events.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Anyone who met him and wrote about what he said? _glatisant_

They never met Jesus, as they both contain references to the diaspera, which happened in 70 AD. Current historical thinking is that Mark wrote his gospel first, most likely around 70 AD and then Matthew and Luke used this as a source. John is a lot harder to place, except for being post-diaspera.

No, a significant event, the destruction of the temple in 70AD is not recorded in the New Testament. This is evidence that the entire New Testament, with the possible exception of Revelation, was written before then.