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.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 101
16
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Learn some LOGIC, fools.


Easy Crystalsword, I'd even say an apology would be in order. "...first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Shauny, you're right that I did not directly answer your question, because I believe the answer is already there and that I've even already stated it. My hope is by letting it sit it will be more apparent. I can restate things all day, but if it's not heard once, would it be heard a second time? Your argument is not with me, it's with Christ. Why make me a middle-man when you can go to the source? All I'd do is dilute it with my voice.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by saint4God]




posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Crystal,

I don't see how his questioning is in error. Where exactly is he drawing false conclusions?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
You draw false conclusions based off of specious evidence. Your argument in this case is illogical, and given the value of "FALSE". Speaking from a strictly evidentiary point of view, your premise does not even support your assertion!


It's a fact that people today, and in the passed have done things, even murder in the name of God. They have also done it because they believe God told them to do so. Now there's only two conclusions to draw, either God really does tell people, or he doesn't and these people are plain crazy.

The fact that someone could make up that God told them to kill, could also mean other people make up stuff about God speaking to them.

There is logic there, you're just 'ignoring' it.



Learn some LOGIC, fools.


I could say the same to you, but without the 'fools' at the end.


Originally posted by saint4God
Shauny, you're right that I did not directly answer your question, because I believe the answer is already there and that I've even already stated it. My hope is by letting it sit it will be more apparent. I can restate things all day, but if it's not heard once, would it be heard a second time? Your argument is not with me, it's with Christ. Why make me a middle-man when you can go to the source? All I'd do is dilute it with my voice.


Because i'm not asking Christ, i'm asking you. why is it christian policy to avert a person's attention away from something all the time. all i wanted was an answer...and you couldn't even give me that.

i have to go speak to christ? well yeah, that'd be good except i can't because the concept is made up. just like people are disillusioned in to believing god tells them to kill. you're on par with that, except you hear christ say 'i love you' or you hear god say 'good work'...etc



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I could say the same to you, but without the 'fools' at the end.


Thank you for not perpetuating this problem.



Originally posted by shaunybaby
Because i'm not asking Christ, i'm asking you. why is it christian policy to avert a person's attention away from something all the time. all i wanted was an answer...and you couldn't even give me that.


Very well, I shall repeat the answer that came before the question. Christ, son of God, who delivers the word of God and IS the word of God said, "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy", therefore God being perfect ("Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect") would not contradict Himself. God does not tell someone to love their enemy then "don't love your enemy".


Originally posted by shaunybaby
i have to go speak to christ?


It'd be much more accurate and persuasive than anything I have to say. If you're uncomfortable asking, you can even read what he has already said.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
well yeah, that'd be good except i can't because the concept is made up. just like people are disillusioned in to believing god tells them to kill. you're on par with that, except you hear christ say 'i love you' or you hear god say 'good work'...etc


Nothing I've heard contridicts a single word His son spoke. I was directed to that word for that exact reason. Why does everyone think God wants to play some kind of cosmic trick on everyone for giggles? He's consistant and forthright unlike his foe.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Very well, I shall repeat the answer that came before the question. Christ, son of God, who delivers the word of God and IS the word of God said, "love your neighbor" and "love your enemy", therefore God being perfect ("Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect") would not contradict Himself. God does not tell someone to love their enemy then "don't love your enemy".


in that case if someone says god told them to kill, it therefore cannot be true. this means they made up that god spoke to them and told them to kill. if someone can make up that, can other people not be making up that god spoke to them?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
in that case if someone says god told them to kill, it therefore cannot be true. this means they made up that god spoke to them and told them to kill. if someone can make up that, can other people not be making up that god spoke to them?


Of course they can. The Great Gerbert came to me and told me I had to dance in a circle.

Are you claiming that if someone lies about experiencing something, it means that everyone else's experiences must be lies, too?

I'm an athiest based on my life experience.

Dang, that was a lie, and I lied about being an athiest. Therefore, if your logic goes where I think it's about to, you cannot be an athiest, and you're lying by claiming such.

More on dates of the scriptures later; it's going to be a lengthy post and is taking time to compose



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
How do you know the people who wrote the scripture's didn't lie themselve's? People used to write about the earth being flat and zues made lightning and all sort's of fun stuff like that. People write alot of untrue thing's.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
How do you know the people who wrote the scripture's didn't lie themselve's? People used to write about the earth being flat and zues made lightning and all sort's of fun stuff like that. People write alot of untrue thing's.


I'll be throwing that reasoning in, too. Just need to be patient



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Are you claiming that if someone lies about experiencing something, it means that everyone else's experiences must be lies, too?

I'm an athiest based on my life experience.

Dang, that was a lie, and I lied about being an athiest. Therefore, if your logic goes where I think it's about to, you cannot be an athiest, and you're lying by claiming such.


no i didn't claim that therefore everyone else must also be lying... but there's a chance. the fact that people would lie about god telling them to kill, maybe they honestly believe he did, just like some people honestly believe that god's spoken to them...although on different subjects other than murder.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Are you claiming that if someone lies about experiencing something, it means that everyone else's experiences must be lies, too?


Apparently they are, JJ... which is why I told them to learn some basic Logic.



Some gerbils are bald. I've seen a bald gerbil. Therefore, all Gerbils are bald.

Some tall people eat meat. Therefore all tall people eat meat.

Some people own books. Some people are educated with books. Therefore everyone who owns books is educated.



ALL of these examples are examples of BAD LOGIC, logic which makes you a total idiot.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I’ve broken this response into parts. Much of it is already written, but I know my eyes glaze over after hitting page down one or two times, so I’ll wait for some response before posting the next part, and fielding questions relating to each part beforehand. Since writing this takes a lot of research, as answering the questions may be, I ask that you be patient with me. I work during the day and there’s been a lot of work lately.

The question was asked, in what year was the Bible written. While a relatively simple question, when dealing with writings from antiquity, the answer is often harder to establish. In the years before Gutenberg’s Printing Press, publishers didn’t date the books they published because publishers didn’t exist. Instead, to establish the dates of the individual books (as they weren’t all written at the same time), we have to take clues from the literary style, archaeology, other sources suspected to have been written at the same time, or even, in the rare occasion, dated, and the actual content of the piece.

In the case of the New Testament, there are a few things accepted by historians that I won’t go into detail on, but just reiterate here. Many of you are probably aware of these assumptions, but if you’re not, present salient evidence as to why you don’t if you want a response, as I have a ton but don’t want to get sidetracked from what’s really important. If you’re seeking the truth and knowledge, cool, I’m there for ya, but if you’re looking to refute for the sake of refuting…

It is assumed that the book of Acts was written after the gospel of Luke, as Acts picks up where Luke leaves off. It is also assumed that Matthew and Mark were written before Luke wrote his history. There have been theories of a “Q” document due to the similar nature of the synaptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. If this is true, it would be presumed that this was written before all three. Matthew, it is suspected, was written first, as well.

The only Gospel that’s ever really been questioned as far as authorship and date has been the Gospel of John. More on that later.

A question that has led doubt to the authenticity of the Gospel has been based on the formative period, or the time it took to go from being told orally to being written. F. C. Bauer, a theologian from Germany who lived between 1792 and 1860 was one of the strongest voices stating this, believing the Gospel was written near the end of the second century A.D. He believed, as many others did, that this allowed myths to enter into the Gospels in the 150 years between Christ’s resurrection and the writing of the Gospels.

However, in the 19th century, archaeological discoveries started to throw a lot of doubt on this date. Dr. William F Albright, an archaeologist, biblical scholar, linguist and ceramics expert, wrote,


We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today. (p 136)

(George Davis, Bible Prophecies Fulfilled Today. Philadelphia: The Million Testaments Campaigns, Inc., 1955)

While that was all well and good to say, he did have some critics. One of his biggest was Dr. John A. T. Robinson, a lecturer and later dean of Trinity College, Cambridge, an author, New Testament scholar, and former bishop. He was considered a key player in establishing liberal Christian theology. As “little more than a theological joke”, he figured he’d look into the arguments of Bauer and those who agreed with him.

To say he was shocked would be an understatement. He believed it was due to scholarly “sloth”, the “tyranny of unexamined assumptions”, and “almost willful blindness” that such a conclusion had been made in regards to such late dating of the New Testament. He placed the date for all four Gospels, including John and Acts as well, no later than 64 A.D., and publically challenged others to prove him wrong.

(Quotations taken from Robinson as printed in Josh McDowell’s A Ready Defense” Nashville: Thomas Neilson Publishers, 1993)

That’s what some of the experts have said in regards to dating the Bible. However, so what? It’s fine and good to just quote and summarize a bunch of people who spent their lives studying this stuff, what lead them to their conclusions? That, my friends, will be presented, in part, in part 2



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
logic which makes you a total idiot.


Heck, if you'd like I can dig up some quote's from previous discussion's between you and I that, by your own words, make's you a total idiot. And let's not forget confused and contradictive.

Then again, you and I exchanging petty insult's has no bearing's to the topic of the thread. Let's be civil and remain on topic huh? Childishness get's ya no where.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   


That’s what some of the experts have said in regards to dating the Bible. However, so what? It’s fine and good to just quote and summarize a bunch of people who spent their lives studying this stuff, what lead them to their conclusions? That, my friends, will be presented, in part, in part 2


Looking forward to part 2. But, just to clear thing's up, the christian bible was definately written after christ's death?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I've not seen any evidence supporting that the New Testament was written beforehand. The Old Testament, however, was definitely around. There's a debate going on about the dates of authenticity of that, as well, but by all accounts I've seen, it was written well before Christ. There are contentions of the date of Daniel because of the incredible prophesy foreseeing the rise and fall of several kingdoms among other things, some claiming it may have been right around the year 0 or even later. I'd be happy to take that one up after I finish going through the New Testament, as I have access to a lot of resources both pro and con for the date that was written...If I remember



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Heck, if you'd like I can dig up some quote's from previous discussion's between you and I that, by your own words, make's you a total idiot. And let's not forget confused and contradictive.

Then again, you and I exchanging petty insult's has no bearing's to the topic of the thread. Let's be civil and remain on topic huh? Childishness get's ya no where.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Produkt]


I don't recall anywhere where I asserted something both A) as truthful, and B) Used the level of Crappy logic that my examples above displayed.

Please. Quote away.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I've not seen any evidence supporting that the New Testament was written beforehand. The Old Testament, however, was definitely around. There's a debate going on about the dates of authenticity of that, as well, but by all accounts I've seen, it was written well before Christ. There are contentions of the date of Daniel because of the incredible prophesy foreseeing the rise and fall of several kingdoms among other things, some claiming it may have been right around the year 0 or even later. I'd be happy to take that one up after I finish going through the New Testament, as I have access to a lot of resources both pro and con for the date that was written...If I remember


I'm talking about the text's that discuss christ and his teaching's. Obviously it wasn't written before his time ... or there'd be a big problem lol. But, if I'm not mistaken, anything written about him was done so after his death right?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Again, I'm just going to clarify a bit. There is a lot of prophesy predicting Christ's coming, starting with Genesis and going to Malachi.

If I understand your question, though, you're asking if all the books that are ordered in the Bible after Matthew, including the Epistles, Acts and Revelation, then yes. There's no evidence suggesting (that I've seen or read about) any of that was written before Christ came, though there is evidence supporting that it came after Christ, though soon after (relatively speaking).

If there's something specific you have in mind, throw it out there and I'll modify part 5 (I think it's part 5) or add another part between 5 and 6 addressing that book specifically, on its date and legitimacy.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Let me clarify ... or try too. All of jesus' teaching's were written after his death, not durring. So, any books about him/his teaching's would be after his death right? Nothing was written durring his lifetime nor anything written specificly by himself?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Ahh, no, nothing was authored by Jesus Himself while He was here on Earth as flesh and blood, nor was anything authored during His ministry. Reading through the book of Luke (the others touch on this, but not in as much detail), the disciples were crushed when Christ died on the cross. Jewish tradition had held that the Messiah would be as David, a conqueror raising an army and liberating Israel. He was, but not they way they had expected. No armies marching against towns, killing, etc. They were convinced that, when Christ said on the cross, "It is finished", that He meant His ministry was over, that He hadn't been the Messiah. It was not until He came back from the dead that they started to realize what Christ had taught them before He had been crucified and what the prophesies had actually said.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword

Originally posted by junglejake

Are you claiming that if someone lies about experiencing something, it means that everyone else's experiences must be lies, too?


Apparently they are, JJ... which is why I told them to learn some basic Logic.


why do you always have to assume when i say anything, that i therefore mean that it is also universal for everyone?

it'd be on par with me saying, 'there's famine and drought in africa'.

and then you saying, ''hahaha duuuur you're well stupid, you're so dumb, you're a fool, cause not everyone in africa is in famine or drought right now!''

you guys just got all defensive, and i believe it was because i was making a good point. obviously the people who use god as a scape goat for murder, are lying. therefore, it is logical to think that other people may also use god in these ways. if people can lie about god telling them to murder, what is stopping them from lying and saying something like 'i saw a vision', 'he came and spoke to me and said tell the message to the people' and so on.

but i'll say it for your own piece of mind... I'M NOT SAYING ALL CHRISTIANS LIE!! maybe you can understand that, maybe you can't. although the fact that you went all defensive and tried to accuse me of saying 'all' christians were like that... i think made you worried about the point i was making.



Some gerbils are bald. I've seen a bald gerbil. Therefore, all Gerbils are bald.

Some tall people eat meat. Therefore all tall people eat meat.

Some people own books. Some people are educated with books. Therefore everyone who owns books is educated.


i think i answered this above. if you're still confused, let me know, i'll try and explain it again.



ALL of these examples are examples of BAD LOGIC, logic which makes you a total idiot.


well the fact that i never said 'all' christians, and you jumped so quickly to the wrong conclusion, went all defensive and started throwing around that other people use bad logic, and that they're also a 'total idiot'...i think this makes your logic quite bad, and it also makes you by your own definition...a total idiot.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join