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.

 

Misconceptions about Jesus Chist

page: 11
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I have to care what christians think because too often they do stupid things such as try to get creationism taught in schools (like they did in a local county here a few years back).


How about atheist teaching the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

If Christians can't teach creationism in school, then atheist cannot have evolution in school. That is only fair.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I don't care to convince you that Jesus didn't exist. But I will continue to point out that there is nothing in the way of evidence to establish that he did exist.


Then your going against your own atheist scholars.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You DO understand that these same people only used Christ's image as a means to capture more lands right?

Let me ask you this hypothetical: Let's say your favorite singer is Madonna. Let's say almost everyone in the world loves madonna. The government wants to control the world, so they say to everyone who likes madonna, to join the country and get free Madonna T-shirts. They say to everyone else, "Like Madonna, or we'll kill you". Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You are arguing because you "heard" that after Christianity developed, The Governent started killing people, well, just because Christianity came before it, doesn't mean that that was the cause.All Governments want land and money. They saw Christianity as a means to get more land. If it was something else, say, A Citizenship like Americas doing now, it wouldn't be any different.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by texastig
 


This is exactly correct. Then again, they won't listen, and analyze it. They'll just point out more and more flaws, until someone gets tired.


Let me tell you Atheists this: There IS burden on you shoulders. If someone says Unicorns exist, of course, you'll say no they don't. The person will argue putting forward more and more evidence that they exist, but of course we'll say no they don't. The burden on my shoulders is that I have to prove to him that they don't exist. I will use everything I can. Prove to me that Unicorns exist, i'll say. IF YOU DENY ANY EVIDENCE THAT WE GIVE YOU, HOW CAN WE COME TO A CONSENSUS?
It's like saying:
"Prove to me the object in front of you is square, without looking, touching, breathing, smelling, tasting, etc, it."

This is called FIGHTING BLIND. I can't fight blind , while you hit me. It's not a real argument



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
How about atheist teaching the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.


Atheists don't teach any such thing. Also, it appears you have serious misunderstandings of the Big Bang theory and Evolutionary theory. We teach science in schools and that which is taught is based on testable, repeatable evidence.



Then your going against your own atheist scholars.


I don't care if some atheist scholars insist Jesus actually existed. They cannot make such a claim since there is no evidence supporting it.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


You DO understand that these same people only used Christ's image as a means to capture more lands right?


That was one benefit of it. But when religion is a component of governments it serves a lot of political interests.

My point was that christianity hasn't survived this long solely on its merits. In fact, it couldn't survive this long without the employment of torture and murder.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Atheists DO beileve in such things. They believe that magically, there was a Giant *BANG*, and then some small building blocks formed, which became atoms, then hydrogen, then helium, on and on. Until, Once upon a time, one special atom, hit another special atom and created a living, breathing organism. Explain the faults in your Atheist theory. How the hell would we get a living organism from random particles clashing around together. Of course there had to be another living organism somewhere in the universe that made them, and them, and them, and thus , even in the Atheist theory, there has to be some original living thing, in order for another to be created, otherwise, we wouldn't have evolution. instead, we would die, then a piece of us would break of and grow and so on, because we would be coming from something that wasn't alive.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply topost by traditionaldrummer
 


It hasn't, but of course, everything thing beatiful must be perfectly abused. If you want a piece of gum, and you see that another person can use a 1.00$ to buy gum, wouldn't you do the same?

An in response to Atheists:


In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis.


Obviously, an organic thing must have come from somewhere to initiate life. It couldn't have been done on it's own. Either the Bible is a book that explains what happened, or we all just come from dust.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k

Made Reference: John, Paul, Peter, Solomon, God,





GOD??? God made reference to Jesus?
So not only do have proof/evidence that Jesus existed.... you're now saying that God him/herself weighed in to this argument?

Wow....







almost every Jew believed the saviour was to be born, and almost all of thenm believ it was Jesus Christ.





No they didn't.... many, if not most, Jews absolutely deplored this heretic.... I don't dispute that they believed that the saviour was greatly anticipated... in fact probably too much, but to say almost ALL of the Jews believed Jesus to be that saviour.... is just absolute crap.






Wrote in Detail: 700 books in the bible, including ove 15000 manuscripts.
Documents of the time:




Most of the Bible (OT) is not even original.... Noah and the Flood story.... in fact the creation myth itself..... most of the OT is just borrowed and repackaged from other ancient cultures and religions Including Judaism, Sumerian and Zoroastrianism....

Hilarious.

Also... the Bible is probably the most bastardised book on the planet... the most edited piece of literature known to man.... to claim that this book is evidence in itself is just ludicrous.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Atheists DO beileve in such things. They believe that magically, there was a Giant *BANG*, and then some small building blocks formed, which became atoms, then hydrogen, then helium, on and on. Until, Once upon a time, one special atom, hit another special atom and created a living, breathing organism. Explain the faults in your Atheist theory. How the hell would we get a living organism from random particles clashing around together. Of course there had to be another living organism somewhere in the universe that made them, and them, and them, and thus , even in the Atheist theory, there has to be some original living thing, in order for another to be created, otherwise, we wouldn't have evolution. instead, we would die, then a piece of us would break of and grow and so on, because we would be coming from something that wasn't alive.


Ummm. I'm not going to untie that big messy knot. So much wrong here it's hard to contemplate.

I'll implore you though to brush up on Big Bang theory, Evolutionary theory and it appears you need some basic chemistry education also. While you're at it, learn what atheism actually is.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Either the Bible is a book that explains what happened, or we all just come from dust.


The bible is wrong on so many observations and explanations of the natural world that it makes no sense to look at it as accurate about origins. Unless you have a lot of faith in the scientific knowledge of a bronze age nomadic genital-mutilation tribe.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Dude, just stop arguing you make no sense.

1: Jesus is the Word of God, and of course God said himself that he will send his Word to Earth to guide us.

2: I'm referring to the Jews that became christians. Many, no, most, Jews DID in fact believe that Jesus christ, after his death, was the messiah, and that number just kept growing.

3: This makes ABSOLUTLY NO SENSE.

The flood story is not fake. It happened exactly at that time period. Other cultures were there when it happened. Genesis clearly acknowledged that the Flood happened. Wait, No. Of course the Flood must fake. oTherwise, why would almost all ancient cultures of the World write about it
?
Flood "myth"



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


What messy knot. I explained what the Big Bang is clearly:

he earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially.[31] After inflation stopped, the Universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.


The building blocks I'm reffering to are those elementary particles, and obviously, you did not understand that. Of course, I know what the Big Bang is. I'm in Psychology Ap, after finishing Biology II AP and Chemistry II. I've watched and read so musch about it. Just because I'm a Christian I can't know what the Big Bang is? Obviously you think you're much smarter than me. YOUR NOT! We are the same intellectual level on parallel paths. I already know what the Big Bang and Evolution theory are.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Dude, just stop arguing you make no sense.




I know man.... sense and logic and reason generally don't work on a religious zealot.






1: Jesus is the Word of God, and of course God said himself that he will send his Word to Earth to guide us.





According to who or what? Oh yes, my mistake.... the Bible
:shk:






2: I'm referring to the Jews that became christians. Many, no, most, Jews DID in fact believe that Jesus christ, after his death, was the messiah, and that number just kept growing.





Ah ok.... so most Jews who Became Christians believed he was the saviour... well that slightly different to ALL Jews believed it isn't it?
So actually a ridiculously small percentage of the number of Jews around at the time believed it.... ok, that's more like it.





The flood story is not fake. It happened exactly at that time period. Other cultures were there when it happened. Genesis clearly acknowledged that the Flood happened. Wait, No. Of course the Flood must fake. oTherwise, why would almost all ancient cultures of the World write about it
?
Flood "myth"





Nowhere in my post did I say that the flood story was fake.... not even remotely... I said that the Biblical account of the flood story was not original Do you see the difference?
I'm well aware of the flood stories around the world thanks.... and how the Biblical account of said event, like most Biblical "stories" is just borrowed from the flood story in "The Epic of Gilgamesh", one of the oldest know pieces of literature.

The parallels are quite striking.


The Bible is just a mixed bag of other peoples/religions/cultures stories and beliefs.... like the Buddhist teachings of Jesus...

But whatever..... you're not going to convince me of anything and vice-versa... so It's all good.

Have fun.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Atheists don't teach any such thing. Also, it appears you have serious misunderstandings of the Big Bang theory and Evolutionary theory. We teach science in schools and that which is taught is based on testable, repeatable evidence.


The schools have accepted, and taught evolution and the origin of the species for decades.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I don't care if some atheist scholars insist Jesus actually existed. They cannot make such a claim since there is no evidence supporting it.


Skeptical Scholar Gerd Lüdemann said this:
"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."
Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

J. P. Moreland confirms this and quotes other scholars:
Almost no New Testament scholar today denies that Jesus appeared to a number of his followers after his death. Some scholars interpret these as subjective hallucinations or objective visions granted by God which were not visions of a physical being. But no one denies that the believers had some sort of experience. The skeptical New Testament scholar Norman Perrin admitted: “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.” Dunn, professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, England, agrees: “It is almost impossible to dispute that at the historical roots of Christianity lie some visionary experiences of the first Christians, who understood them as appearances of Jesus, raised by God from the dead.”
J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1987), pp. 171,172.

Bart Ehrman in his book, "Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (published by Oxford University Press in 1999), states:
"Historians … have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution."


[edit on 8/26/2010 by texastig]

[edit on 8/26/2010 by texastig]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Sorry for the Flood thing, wrong wording. I meant to say that it is original. Most of the ancient cultures knew. So are you saying that they too, borrowed from each other?


No, not a small percent of Jews became christian. ALOT did. And even of those who were not christians most of them believed he was the saviour.

Where else would I show you where God said he sent his word Hmmm? What other book am I going to show you, in which God himself says he'll send his word? Hmmmm? Tell me? what other book is there, that is not monotheist, that says that God will send his word. Of course the Bible! Make sense.

And yes I am arguing with someone who thinks that because the flood story came after some of the others, they're fake. Yeah im arguing with a genius here.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Look at how much sources texatig cites. Yet all you do is shrug them off calling them fallacies. You can just say "Oh this information is fake" just by reading it. That's opinion, not fact.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by mr10k]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


You can't argue by promoting yourself. I see that you say your posts are sense, logic, and reason, well what are mine? Shriveled up garbage. Again you are posting opinion. While you ask for facts.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr10k
Just because I'm a Christian I can't know what the Big Bang is? Obviously you think you're much smarter than me. YOUR NOT!


I don't question what you know about Big Bang theory because you're a christian, I questioned it because of what you wrote. Also, I have not professed myself to be smarter than anyone else, nor do I care to.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Then why else would you say that? Obviously it was a means of lessening your moral -- a joke. But immediately, you claim to "know" that I do not know as much as you about the big bang. That's false. So explain your reasons.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by texastig
The schools have accepted, and taught evolution and the origin of the species for decades.


Indeed. That's called "science". Evolution is a fact, confirmed by testable, repeatable experimentation and confirmatory findings. It is not an "atheist belief" nor does teaching it nullify anything about religion.


Skeptical Scholar Gerd Lüdemann said this:
"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."


No, in fact, that is not historically certain. Also, that has nothing to do with the existence of Jesus a anything more than an apparition. People still see those things daily.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join