ForumsWEPR[necro]How could people believe in god?!

636 96083
Sebi
offline
Sebi
662 posts
Nomad

Do you believe in god?! I dont believe in him!!! Please could you explain me how people could believe in god?!

  • 636 Replies
Somers
offline
Somers
1,532 posts
Nomad

hidden your really dead on about proving christianity is wrong huh?

patriotboy1
offline
patriotboy1
238 posts
Nomad

Ya I dont quote perfectly as I already said. It's kinda hard to quote word for word. I think you knew what I meant by your'e and conside.

Also, providing a link to a story

true I'll look it up sometime and put a link to it

And when I'm subtracting words it's by accident or I don't need to add everything you said.

Well said WarTank33.


you don't factor in all the times that people walk in & get blown up by a gas leak.

[quote]Why would I?
TheWarTank33
offline
TheWarTank33
1,081 posts
Nomad

But it wasn't. The best estimates put the writing of the new testament at 150 AD, more then a hundred years after the death of Jesus - pretty much assuring in that day & age that all of the people who were eye witnesses were all dead.
Additionally, roman census records & judicial records do not make any note of a man by the name of Jesus Christ (this was after all a title given to jewish kings) being put to death by crucifixion. With a conflict in literature, it casts the validity of the bible into further doubt.


I'll just have to look into that then. I have a bible that says who wrote which books in the bible. I'll get back to you on that either tonight or friday morning...it all depends on which house my bible's at.
Also keep in mind that, though even i find this unlikely but not impossible, the bible claims that there were people that lived to be hudreds of years old as well as a few that were 9 feet tall.
patriotboy1
offline
patriotboy1
238 posts
Nomad

Roman census records & judicial records do not make any note of a man by the name of Jesus Christ

Why would they the Romans hated him and wanted people to forget about him (well not all Romans hated him)

The best estimates put the writing of the new testaments at 150ad more than a 100 years after the death of Jesus

Two things.

1. Were ta
patriotboy1
offline
patriotboy1
238 posts
Nomad

Ok that was an accident

1. I was talking about the original bible

2. Care to put a link to that.

3.The testaments the bible?!?! (I thought they were diffrent)

TheWarTank33
offline
TheWarTank33
1,081 posts
Nomad

[quote]Roman census records & judicial records do not make any note of a man by the name of Jesus Christ

Why would they the Romans hated him and wanted people to forget about him (well not all Romans hated him)[/quote]

The romans were generally firm believers of the old testament, and they hated the idea of jesus being the some of God. hthey viewed jesus as a blasphomer(totally spelled wrong i bet). :P
patriotboy1
offline
patriotboy1
238 posts
Nomad

and they hated the idea of jesus being the son of God.

Another reason they wouldn't put him in the census
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

1. I was talking about the original bible


So was he.

3.The testaments the bible?!?!


YOU added the s at the end of the word 'testament' in his quote. You're generating false points for your own argument.

--------

He probably will put upa link.
ligaboy
offline
ligaboy
1,051 posts
Peasant

There were no primary sources to verify the existence of Jesus

patriotboy1
offline
patriotboy1
238 posts
Nomad

Im sooooo sorry please forgive me for adding the s. (sarcasm) \\.

He probably will put upa link.


What's UPA I have no idea it's barely understand able. Please tell me someone ANYONE.

Also when your bitching about spelling make sure you PROPERLY SPELL.

And why is spelling so big an issue in debating especially if it's still understandable
patriotboy1
offline
patriotboy1
238 posts
Nomad

There are no primary sources to verify the existence of Jesus

THAT'S BECAUSE THE ROMANS DELETED HIM FROM THEIR CENSUS
Somers
offline
Somers
1,532 posts
Nomad

And why is spelling so big an issue in debating especially if it's still understandable


Grammar nazis man. Their EVERYWHERE! THEY WONT STOP!

http://www.forumspile.com/Spelling-GrammarNazi.jpg Thier leader...he must be stopped!
ligaboy
offline
ligaboy
1,051 posts
Peasant

What's UPA I have no idea it's barely understand able. Please tell me someone ANYONE.

Also when your *****ing about spelling make sure you PROPERLY SPELL.

And why is spelling so big an issue in debating especially if it's still understandable


"upa" is "up a" without a space

His post was understandable

This on the other hand
Then how could you say anything that has been *scientificly* proven be true. Some thing were proven true by science has been proven right has been reproven wrong. For ex. How Albert Einstein proved whats hin name that (I forget the guys name) That stars move towards the light. When before it was thought it was common sense that light doesn't aflict the course of stars.


I had to read about 3 times to understand what you were trying to say.


PROPERLY SPELL


By the way, spell properly would be more grammatically correct.
TheWarTank33
offline
TheWarTank33
1,081 posts
Nomad

There are no primary sources to verify the existence of Jesus


once again the bible may be primary....not sure. I'll need to flip through mine when I'm at my mopm's house on friday morning.
HiddenDistance
offline
HiddenDistance
1,310 posts
Peasant

hidden your really dead on about proving christianity is wrong huh?


*shrugs*

Ya I dont quote perfectly as I already said. It's kinda hard to quote word for word.


Copy? Paste?

Why would I?


Because you're ignoring the negatives and only focusing on the positives. People fall into this with fortune telling all the time. They ignore the times that the fortune teller is *way* off base, and only focus on the times that they were correct, building a sort of mental fortification for fortune tellers being legit. Similarly, you're focusing on the supposed 'miracles' but never the countless times when people die horribly. No miracle for them, huh?

Also keep in mind that, though even i find this unlikely but not impossible, the bible claims that there were people that lived to be hudreds of years old as well as a few that were 9 feet tall.


Yes.. but we don't have any evidence for anyone like that.. there's definitely no corpses; we can barely keep a person alive for more then a hundred years today with all modern medical science.

Why would they the Romans hated him and wanted people to forget about him


So.. explain all of the *other* people that the Roman government hated, crucified, and then put in the judicial logs. Why would Rome *not* log the death of christ? To them, he would have just been another crazy person stirring up trouble. And to be crucified? Put on display for *everyone* to see tortured in sun for an excruciating long time? If they didn't want to advertise his suffering and make him an example, they would have just killed him in an alley and thrown his body in a ditch or fed him to animals.

Sure, here's[http://www.slideshare.net/pcuadra/the-bible-presentation-873309] a link[/url] from a religious studies teacher - I will concede that one or two of the books could have been written by the people who were still alive at the time; but 30-40 years in those days was usually a pretty good life span for someone who had enough to eat and drink & housing; much less the picture that's painted of his ragged followers. They were already adults when Jesus died; another 30-40 years is really stretching it.

The romans were generally firm believers of the old testament


You have to be joking. The romans had been at war with the jews.. and subsequently occupied jewish territory. They tolerated them - only because the jews that were wealthy paid off the romans to protect their wealth and interests - in return, the romans made them responsible for their own lower classes. The romans were not believers of the old testament.. where are you getting that idea?
Showing 496-510 of 636