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.

 

why cant christians accept the origins of christianity

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420


SunMatrix,

You are so so so far fone that I can't even argue with you anymore.


Thank you. Facts do that..........don't they




posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Yeah, that's it


No, it's that you haven't provided any reliable sources for your info. You misinterpret the facts to fit your own personal views, and you rely heavily on "facts" from a majorly disputed source. Meaning, if that source is discredited (which it has been) your entire argument crumbles. You've used multiple logical fallacies to come to your conclusions, which have been pointed out, and yet you still insist on using them.

Since I've already proven my point, and you still refuse to see the glaringly obvious, I refuse to waste any more time on it.

thanks



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You are right about the large expanse of time that went by between the time the gospels were written and when Jesus was crucified. Your fifty year estimate is kind of a conservative one actually. I have heard that it was between 70-80 years after the death of Christ.


This sounds odd. Jesus died in 33 AD; none of the gospels were composed until 103-113 AD?

I really don't think that this is the consensus of scholarship, and there are obvious problems with it.

1. Acts doesn't record anything after 61 AD; ignoring Paul's release; the execution of Peter and Paul; the criminalisation of Christians (compare the attitude of Revelation to the Romans -- "the whore of Babylon" -- with Luke's!); the destruction of the temple; the end of the connection with the Jews. It seems fairly natural that Acts was *written* in 61. Any later and all these crucial events could hardly have been ignored.

2. The fathers know scraps of info about composition; Mark completed ca. 68-70; John reading the other 3 texts.

3. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally. I's works are extant and discuss the authorship of the gospels.

4. A fragment of John's work -- the latest to be written -- exists, written ca. 125 AD. Since it can hardly be part of the original, or even a close copy, it would seem likely that at least 25-30 years have gone by before that copy was written, and it could be more.

Thus Luke-Acts must date from 61; Mark from the 60's; John from around 90-ish, and Matthew somewhere in between.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Factually, there is no evidence for his existance as was written...


Your quarrel is not with Christians on this but with the educated historians of the world who laugh at such an idea.

Meanwhile I suggest that simply living by the societal values set by those who control the media agenda of the time and place in which one happens to live -- which is the basis for most people's way of life -- is hardly rational. Particularly when one happens to know that this set of values changes every 50 years. Just why are the values of 2006 perfect, in a way that those of 1956 or 2056 will not be?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Yeah, that's it


No, it's that you haven't provided any reliable sources for your info. You misinterpret the facts to fit your own personal views, and you rely heavily on "facts" from a majorly disputed source. Meaning, if that source is discredited (which it has been) your entire argument crumbles. You've used multiple logical fallacies to come to your conclusions, which have been pointed out, and yet you still insist on using them.

Since I've already proven my point, and you still refuse to see the glaringly obvious, I refuse to waste any more time on it.

thanks


It's hard form me to understand your position, but I will remember this moment and if the day comes that I am proven wrong I will think back and attempt to remember your pain.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by Sun Matrix]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Still banging that same old drum, huh, Sun

What are you getting out of this?

No matter what a person responds with you seem to twist things in a way that you believe yourself to be right. I think there is a term "self righteous" which describes your behaviour.

What is the point you are attempting to make, thread after thread, argument after argument. Does it feel powerful to make others feel angered?

People don't get mad at you because they are wrong and you have proved it, no....they get mad at you because you are so obstinate.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
Still banging that same old drum, huh, Sun

What are you getting out of this?



I must be rubbing off on you. That sounded like me! hahahah lol Who loves ya baby!:shk:



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
You know what they say (the drivers, that is):

rubbin's racin



Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
~1 Corinthians 9:24


AND if you are a 'flinty' rock and rub up against another rock....sparks!

ADD dead wood and FIRE!

pa arriba!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
You know what they say (the drivers, that is):

rubbin's racin



Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
~1 Corinthians 9:24


AND if you are a 'flinty' rock and rub up against another rock....sparks!

ADD dead wood and FIRE!

pa arriba!


Annie was up. you never return my emails anymore.
j/k

I sent you a couple... :shk:

P.S. love you annie


[edit on 27-11-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
Still banging that same old drum, huh, Sun

What are you getting out of this?

No matter what a person responds with you seem to twist things in a way that you believe yourself to be right. I think there is a term "self righteous" which describes your behaviour.

What is the point you are attempting to make, thread after thread, argument after argument. Does it feel powerful to make others feel angered?

People don't get mad at you because they are wrong and you have proved it, no....they get mad at you because you are so obstinate.


I thought I detected a rat in the chili. And so it proved out.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Do you mean a

RED
BIRD
RAT
SINGER
in the
RED
HOT
Chili
Peppers
under the
RAINBOW
BRIDGE?!?!?!?

If so
then

BINGO

Prince of Apostles
comes to rock our world

( I don't TRY anything....I just DO IT.....go ahead and TRY me )



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

P.S. love you annie


eye luv ewe 2!



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Do you mean a

RED
BIRD
RAT
SINGER
in the
RED
HOT
Chili
Peppers
under the
RAINBOW
BRIDGE?!?!?!?

If so
then

BINGO



What the heck did that mean? lol Annie you make me smile.

Goodnite Annie, LGM



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by interestedalways
Still banging that same old drum, huh, Sun

What are you getting out of this?

No matter what a person responds with you seem to twist things in a way that you believe yourself to be right. I think there is a term "self righteous" which describes your behaviour.

What is the point you are attempting to make, thread after thread, argument after argument. Does it feel powerful to make others feel angered?

People don't get mad at you because they are wrong and you have proved it, no....they get mad at you because you are so obstinate.


I thought I detected a rat in the chili. And so it proved out.


So, I am a Rat in the chili, huh? Don't you like rat chili? It is really tasty if you cook it just right. That is a really meaningless statement, Sun Matrix. You can do better, I'm sure. Ha Ha Ha



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   


why cant christians accept the origins of christianity


in order for your opinion to accept any reply to this question, a pre-requisite would be having enough love and empathy to permit you to comprehend how christians think.

instead your "opinion" judges with a one track mind. so, the decisions you have made that "perfected" your current "opinion" were possibly made years if not decades ago. and, now those decisions you made years or decades ago, is how you view the world. automatic responses of how to interpret reality is made by your subconsious mind, which recieves all incoming sensory stimulation, then regergitates what it is you choose to believe.

In other words, the judgments you made long ago have an affect on your perception of reality.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Or_Die_Trying
Its blatantly obvious that nearly all modern day creation based religions have strikingly similar (almost to the point of names being the only real difference) stories regarding creation, adam and eve, a flood, a "noah" character, a "jesus" character etc.... many of which pre-date christianity and even those stories can be traced even further back to egyptian, assyrian, babylonian etc "mythologies". When the evidence is so obvious why does every bible thumper seem to think their idealogy is the one truth when its obviously based on more ancient knowledge and stories? this goes for muslims too and jews, and so forth. anyone who does any research regarding ancient beliefs and creation stories willfind modern religion copying liberally from these.


Never thought of this before but I do agree with you.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways



So, I am a Rat in the chili, huh? Don't you like rat chili? It is really tasty if you cook it just right. That is a really meaningless statement, Sun Matrix. You can do better, I'm sure. Ha Ha Ha


When I became the Sun
I shone light
Into the Man's heart



When who became the sun? Thought so.....part of the Sun Matrix. ha ha ha



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

How can you have a religion that controls through fear, when the only thing that is required of its believers is to accept Christ as their savior, and truly repent their sins?


But what happens? These institutions establish ways to use it to control. And these days its not so much about fear. What is better than fear these days? Self Esteem. Going to church will make you a better person! You will meet people and make connections that will Enhance your lifestyle! And there you have it. People who keep going back to church get something out of it. When people change churches, it is because of the church, not because they suddenly disagreed with God.

We can't really be sure if it was meant to control or not. It certainly has the capacity to, it does every day. I do tend to agree with you though. It's not the religion, it's people taking advantage of it and twisting it to their own agendas.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Going to church will make you a better person! You will meet people and make connections that will Enhance your lifestyle!


My answer to that is \" Why must I go to a man made structure to commune with My creator/s? My lifestyle is just fine and as a matter of fact I prefer to associate with the
4 leggeds and winged ones more than the 2 leggeds.

The more I\'m around people the more I love Wolves.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by The Dark Lord]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Yeah lol, I was kind of being sarcastic, because the point of church should be to go learn about the religion and worship. But really, what it provides to people is esteem needs of some sort.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join