It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a

page: 20
94
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Spider879

Fortunately most scholars disagree with his findings...





Actually most SCHOLARS do not disagree with his findings. Most BIBILCAL SCHOLARS, though, certainly would.


I would think a biblical scholar would have the preferred opinion over a scholar from another field...

Historical scholars and biblical scholars are mostly agreed that Jesus was in fact a real person...

Even Non Christian scholars of both history and religion pretty much share that opinion... unless of course they're on a mission to prove something or trying to sell a book

And it has nothing to do with what has been claimed about him



Then you'll be able to name one person cited by these Biblical scholars who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living? Oh, that's right, you can't.

Lots of books have been sold pushing the Jesus myth.


Actually I already have... Paul lived when Jesus lived... He didn't write about him but he certainly was alive...

Paul was a witness... having met James the brother of Jesus...

Now I think that James would have known that Jesus did not exist if that was the case...

He also met Peter... Who not only wrote (likely dictated) his own letter, possibly two, but 2 peter is suspicious, but he was one of the closest Followers of Jesus...

Im telling you this and I Don't even like Paul's writing... Bart ehrman wrote a book on the historical Jesus saying that Jesus was without a doubt, a real person. And hes not even a Christian anymore!

Sorry you don't like what historians and scholars consider evidence... but unless you are also one of these people

It doesn't matter...

edit on 7-10-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.


Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.


Well, Paul's writings were written very shortly after Jesus crucifixion, and he met 2 of Jesus apostles personally (including Jesus brother, James, who is also mentioned by Josephus). Paul's writings also reference material in the New Testament (which itself is full of eyewitness accounts).

But I guess we must discard those eyewitness accounts as unreliable, despite the fact some of the information they contain has been corroborated by non-biblical historians and modern archaeological finds?

As has been pointed out adnauseum both in this thread and elsewhere, if the new testament account itself is unreliable to you, then you shouldn't expect any other contemporary accounts from that time period when very few of them exist on far more important figures than Jesus (from a roman perspective). It stands to reason that Romans wouldn't have written about Jesus since He was dealt with as far as they were concerned, and didn't re-emerge as a problem until the rise of Christianity within the Roman empire (which is preciesly where we find extra biblical accounts of him within the historical record).

Further to this, we have other documents authored by ancient historians that are considered historically reliable despite the fact they were written 300 years or more after the events they record (like the material written about Alexander the Great, for instance).

If you feel like it, read this opinion piece by Bart Ehrman: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ehrman is a very vocal New Testament critic, and not a Christian.


You still have not named a single person who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived who B) wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.


Sure I did. I mentioned 3 people that would have been alive during the same time Jesus was who also wrote about him. I also find it curious you just stated Bart Ehrman claims there is "NO EVIDENCE" that jesus lived, when you also included the link I posted in which he states the exact opposite to what you just claimed. You clearly didn't even bother reading it. What does that say about your intellectual honesty?


"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. [...] the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground."

—Bart Ehrman


This is from an interview with Bart Ehrman:

"The negative arguments are such things as the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.

Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources."

religiondispatches.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: DeadSeraph


It is clear that religion holds absolutely no bearing on modern secular academia, yet the majority of secular historians agree that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus.


Yet you can't name one document referenced by those historians written by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.


Well, Paul's writings were written very shortly after Jesus crucifixion, and he met 2 of Jesus apostles personally (including Jesus brother, James, who is also mentioned by Josephus). Paul's writings also reference material in the New Testament (which itself is full of eyewitness accounts).

But I guess we must discard those eyewitness accounts as unreliable, despite the fact some of the information they contain has been corroborated by non-biblical historians and modern archaeological finds?

As has been pointed out adnauseum both in this thread and elsewhere, if the new testament account itself is unreliable to you, then you shouldn't expect any other contemporary accounts from that time period when very few of them exist on far more important figures than Jesus (from a roman perspective). It stands to reason that Romans wouldn't have written about Jesus since He was dealt with as far as they were concerned, and didn't re-emerge as a problem until the rise of Christianity within the Roman empire (which is preciesly where we find extra biblical accounts of him within the historical record).

Further to this, we have other documents authored by ancient historians that are considered historically reliable despite the fact they were written 300 years or more after the events they record (like the material written about Alexander the Great, for instance).

If you feel like it, read this opinion piece by Bart Ehrman: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ehrman is a very vocal New Testament critic, and not a Christian.


You still have not named a single person who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived who B) wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living.

Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.


Uhm... No

Bart Ehrman wrote a book supporting the fact that Jesus was an historical person...

get your facts straight...



Bart Ehrman BELIEVES that Jesus existed but he has stated,

"The negative arguments are such things as the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.

Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources."

religiondispatches.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Spider879

Fortunately most scholars disagree with his findings...





Actually most SCHOLARS do not disagree with his findings. Most BIBILCAL SCHOLARS, though, certainly would.


I would think a biblical scholar would have the preferred opinion over a scholar from another field...

Historical scholars and biblical scholars are mostly agreed that Jesus was in fact a real person...

Even Non Christian scholars of both history and religion pretty much share that opinion... unless of course they're on a mission to prove something or trying to sell a book

And it has nothing to do with what has been claimed about him



Then you'll be able to name one person cited by these Biblical scholars who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living? Oh, that's right, you can't.

Lots of books have been sold pushing the Jesus myth.


Actually I already have... Paul lived when Jesus lived... He didn't write about him but he certainly was alive...

Paul was a witness... having met James the brother of Jesus...

Now I think that James would have known that Jesus did not exist if that was the case...

He also met Peter... Who not only wrote (likely dictated) his own letter, possibly two, but 2 peter is suspicious, but he was one of the closest Followers of Jesus...

Im telling you this and I Don't even like Paul's writing... Bart ehrman wrote a book on the historical Jesus... And hes not even a Christian, but he did come from being a fundamentalist evangelical preacher...

Sorry you don't like what historians and scholars consider evidence... but unless you are also one of these people

It doesn't matter...


I'm baffled by your inability to understand that your answers don't meet the conditions specified (ie. name a person who A) lived when Jesus allegedly lived AND B) who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. I could explain to you why your silly examples don't qualify but you clearly wouldn't understand.

As for Bart Ehrman, I will once again repeat: This is from an interview with Bart Ehrman:

"The negative arguments are such things as the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.

Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources."

religiondispatches.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

You have to be one of the most dishonest people I've ever conversed with here. Right from your own link:

So what sources do you use, then, to prove Jesus existed?

Bart Ehrman:

I look at everything that exists. There are not many references from pagan authors or from Jewish authors, but I do talk about those references that do exist and whether or not they are valuable.

Most of the sources that we have are Christian sources, which means they have to be taken with a handful of salt because they’re biased toward their subject matter. And most of them are decades after Jesus’ life.

But, what I show is that if you have a properly historical approach to, for example, the gospels of the New Testament, you realize fairly quickly that these are based on earlier written accounts, and that those earlier written accounts were based on oral tradition that go back even earlier. Some of these oral traditions make better sense when they’re translated back into Aramaic, Jesus’ own language—which means that even if the gospels are 30 to 40 years later, they’re based on sources that go back to very near the time of Jesus in Palestine. So, that’s one kind of source.

I look at the Apostle Paul. His writings were 20 years after Jesus’ life, but Paul himself converted to be a follower of Jesus within a year or two at the latest of Jesus’ death—which means that people were telling enough stories about Jesus for Paul to convert a year or two later.

All of that shows that the mythicists who claim that Jesus was made up 30 years later in Egypt, or some other claim—that simply can’t be right. We have evidence of people telling stories about Jesus in Palestine within a year or two of the traditional date of his death.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I'm really not worried by what you're baffled by honestly....

Its pretty clear as you've been demonstrating... that doesn't take much




posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Tangerine

You have to be one of the most dishonest people I've ever conversed with here. Right from your own link:

So what sources do you use, then, to prove Jesus existed?

Bart Ehrman:

I look at everything that exists. There are not many references from pagan authors or from Jewish authors, but I do talk about those references that do exist and whether or not they are valuable.

Most of the sources that we have are Christian sources, which means they have to be taken with a handful of salt because they’re biased toward their subject matter. And most of them are decades after Jesus’ life.

But, what I show is that if you have a properly historical approach to, for example, the gospels of the New Testament, you realize fairly quickly that these are based on earlier written accounts, and that those earlier written accounts were based on oral tradition that go back even earlier. Some of these oral traditions make better sense when they’re translated back into Aramaic, Jesus’ own language—which means that even if the gospels are 30 to 40 years later, they’re based on sources that go back to very near the time of Jesus in Palestine. So, that’s one kind of source.

I look at the Apostle Paul. His writings were 20 years after Jesus’ life, but Paul himself converted to be a follower of Jesus within a year or two at the latest of Jesus’ death—which means that people were telling enough stories about Jesus for Paul to convert a year or two later.

All of that shows that the mythicists who claim that Jesus was made up 30 years later in Egypt, or some other claim—that simply can’t be right. We have evidence of people telling stories about Jesus in Palestine within a year or two of the traditional date of his death.


Your posts have consistently distorted my position which is that there is zero contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. Ehrman agrees with that. He simply goes on to back-engineer until he convinces the uneducated that he has produced a solid argument (minus an iota of contemporaneous documentation, as he admits) that Jesus lived. What he has really done is produce an argument for the possibility that Jesus lived, which I never denied.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18503604]DeadSeraph[/


I stand corrected! -

At best it (the constantine story), only gives evidence of early Christianity, but not Jesus. However, Tacitus would have used Jesus' name not his religious title “Christos.” Also, Tacitus' reference was not noted by Eusebius or Origen or Clement of Alexandria in the third century. It was probably added in the 1400's (likely in 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice), because no mention is made of it in any known text prior to then, but there are many later references.

All reliable evidence points to Jesus being just a myth. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus even existed, and significant evidence that he didn't. The story of Jesus can be shown to be just a myth cobbled together out of prophesy and stories from the Old Testament and previous gods and myths -- created in the 40's and 50's by Paul of Tarsus (who exhibited evidence of epilepsy and had delusions of Christ talking to him), the other apostles, the unknown authors of the gospels in the 70's or later, and many other people. The reliable evidence for this is overwhelming.

Paul and the other epistle writers don't know any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, his moral teachings, his disciples, or even when he existed. To them Jesus was largely a sky-god, who existed in the spiritual past.

If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:16) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy. He also wrote (in Romans 3:7) that he lied to further the glory of God.

If Jesus had actually existed, the gospels would have been written in first person format. Instead, they were written in third person fiction format like a Harry Potter story, with Matthew and Luke extensively plagiarizing from Mark.

If Jesus had actually existed, at least one of the approximately 30 local historians of the first century would have written about him. No historian of the first century (including Josephus) wrote about him or his disciples.

Therefore Jesus didn't exist.

The Jesus story also shows extensive similarities to other myths of the time. Some Christians attributed this to Satan who went back in time and created the religions that "copied" Christianity.

Jesus is worshiped on Sunday because he is a sun god, like Mithra, Zeus/Jupiter, Horus, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Perseus, Bacchus, Apollo, Helios, and Sol Invictus -- whose birthdays are also on the old winter solstice of December 25, when the sun is “reborn.”

There were more than a dozen other deities and saviors who were resurrected after violent deaths -- Mithra, Osiris/Serapis, Inanna/Ishtar, Horus, Perseus, Bacchus, Attis, Hermes, Adonis, Hercules/Heracles, Tammuz, Asclepius, and Prometheus. Christianity just told the story the best, and managed to get control of the government under Constantine.

For much more evidence, see the links.
-
Source(s):
www.godlessgeeks.com...
www.stellarhousepublishing.com...
ffrf.org...
www.jesusneverexisted.com...
www.godlessgeeks.com...
www.nobeliefs.com...



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Is that so? So now I am distorting your words? You said this:




Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.


It's right there for everyone to read. You actually said it with Ehrman's own opinion piece included in the quote that I linked to you, in which he criticizes Christ Mythicists as largely being uneducated on the matter. Then you followed up with an interview with Ehrman himself in which he not only contradicts your claims about his own views, he also states this:

What kind of evidence to the mythicists bring to table to disprove Jesus’ existence?

They have both negative and positive arguments. The negative arguments are such things as the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.

Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments.

I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong.


Their positive argument is: they claim that there were other divine beings from the time of Jesus who were thought to have existed—gods who were thought to have died and risen again. They argue that Jesus is modeled along the lines of these other dying and rising gods. He was just a Jewish version, invented to be a parallel to these pagan gods.

I show in the book why this simply can’t be true. In part, because we have very little evidence, if it exists at all, that there were any dying and rising gods in the pagan world. I also argue that Jesus could not have been invented as a dying and rising god because the earliest Christians didn’t think he was God.


*****

I haven't misrepresented you at all. You've done that all on your own.
edit on 7-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Tangerine

Is that so? So now I am distorting your words? You said this:




Bart Ehrman has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE proving that Jesus lived. I don't know how many times he has to say that before someone notices.


It's right there for everyone to read. You actually said it with Ehrman's own opinion piece included in the quote that I linked to you, in which he criticizes Christ Mythicists as largely being uneducated on the matter. Then you followed up with an interview with Ehrman himself in which he not only contradicts your claims about his own views, he also states this:

What kind of evidence to the mythicists bring to table to disprove Jesus’ existence?

They have both negative and positive arguments. The negative arguments are such things as the fact that there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true.

Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments.

I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong.


Their positive argument is: they claim that there were other divine beings from the time of Jesus who were thought to have existed—gods who were thought to have died and risen again. They argue that Jesus is modeled along the lines of these other dying and rising gods. He was just a Jewish version, invented to be a parallel to these pagan gods.

I show in the book why this simply can’t be true. In part, because we have very little evidence, if it exists at all, that there were any dying and rising gods in the pagan world. I also argue that Jesus could not have been invented as a dying and rising god because the earliest Christians didn’t think he was God.


*****

I haven't misrepresented you at all. You've done that all on your own.


You're proving my point by quoting Ehrman talking about arguments additional to the one I made. Ehrman agrees with me that there is no evidence proving that Jesus existed. How many times does that have to be repeated? He then back-engineers to make an argument (without an iota of actual hard evidence) that Jesus lived. He twists and manipulates and extrapolates and interprets and offers conjecture but not an iota of hard evidence. How many times does that have to be repeated? You and Ehrman believe that Jesus lived. Whoopdedoo. Neither of you can prove it.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




You're proving my point by quoting Ehrman talking about arguments additional to the one I made. Ehrman agrees with me that there is no evidence proving that Jesus existed.


No, he doesn't. He states as much in not only the interview you posted, but in the oped I posted as well. If Ehrman felt there was no good reason to believe in a historical Jesus, he wouldn't believe in a historical Jesus (being a secular academic and all).


How many times does that have to be repeated? He then back-engineers to make an argument (without an iota of actual hard evidence) that Jesus lived.
so now he is "back-engineering" an argument? Do you understand why your position isn't considered a good argument? Apparently not, since you thought Bart Ehrman shared it, only to be proven wrong.


He twists and manipulates and extrapolates and interprets and offers conjecture but not an iota of hard evidence. How many times does that have to be repeated? You and Ehrman believe that Jesus lived. Whoopdedoo. Neither of you can prove it.


So first, Ehrman doesn't believe Jesus ever existed, and he's on your side. Then, when it's demonstrated he does believe in a historical Jesus and lays out his reasons for this belief within a perfectly reasonable framework as an academic, you discredit him as being manipulative?

I see. So basically, only people who agree with you know what they are talking about. Good to know.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: Tangerine




You're proving my point by quoting Ehrman talking about arguments additional to the one I made. Ehrman agrees with me that there is no evidence proving that Jesus existed.


No, he doesn't. He states as much in not only the interview you posted, but in the oped I posted as well. If Ehrman felt there was no good reason to believe in a historical Jesus, he wouldn't believe in a historical Jesus (being a secular academic and all).


How many times does that have to be repeated? He then back-engineers to make an argument (without an iota of actual hard evidence) that Jesus lived.
so now he is "back-engineering" an argument? Do you understand why your position isn't considered a good argument? Apparently not, since you thought Bart Ehrman shared it, only to be proven wrong.


He twists and manipulates and extrapolates and interprets and offers conjecture but not an iota of hard evidence. How many times does that have to be repeated? You and Ehrman believe that Jesus lived. Whoopdedoo. Neither of you can prove it.


So first, Ehrman doesn't believe Jesus ever existed, and he's on your side. Then, when it's demonstrated he does believe in a historical Jesus and lays out his reasons for this belief within a perfectly reasonable framework as an academic, you discredit him as being manipulative?

I see. So basically, only people who agree with you know what they are talking about. Good to know.


Your chronic distortion of my claims leaves me no choice but to ignore your future posts.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I think we are in mutual agreement that this is probably for the best, given the fact that your premise for a mythical Jesus is entirely predicated on the notion that no contemporary roman historians wrote about him during his lifetime (despite the fact it's been argued by secular experts in abundance why this isn't a sound argument against the historicity of Jesus).



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879
Any first year Theology student knows this.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Spider879

We know for a fact James existed... We know Paul existed...


The best facts are the ones rewritten & retranslated a few hundred times.

King James facts FTW!



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Really? ever played Chinese whispers?
I bet Jesus bought a few beers and fish and chips for a few people and many years later he fed the 5000....



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
How exactly would people have heard of him globally at that time? Jesus traveled pretty locally. That's why he left Peter, the apostles, and the disciples in charge to spread the gospel after he departed...

Mark 16:15 - "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
edit on 7-10-2014 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I think we are in agreement?



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

We need a sarcasm smiley lol.



posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VVV88

originally posted by: Tedgoat
Saw a lot of info about Jesus not existing and to be honest it all makes sense. Jesus and God being the Sun I have no problem with.

I watched some videos with Santos Boracci. He's a clever guy and all the Roman books he has read in which he quotes they all say Jesus never existed and he was just made up fictional character to help with the controlling mechanism of Christianity!

But what' the point of saying it? Christians are so deluded by their indoctrinated religion that they will never accept anyone saying their saviour has never existed. It's like saying to a kid that Santa Claus is not real. You'll never get anywhere! All you'll get is crying, screaming and tantrums!

I'm an ex Christian by the way! I know what it was like when I was shoved into Church ever SUNday by my parents.


Actually, you can`t be an ex-Christian if you were never one in the first place. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.


No True Scotsman fallacy

You don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian. That is a logical fallacy.


LOL...sure, whatever you say.



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join