Why do half the people who visit the WEPR forums smear Christianity? Why don't you people realize that, yeah, Christians can be real dumb-a** mofo's from time to time, but yet there are many, many Christian organizations out there that do good all across the globe. Why must you spend your time trying to convince people that Christians are bad people when that is simply not true?
...You do realize that Judaism and Christianity are two separate religions, yes?
My bad. When do you think the Old Testament was written, AND when do you think the New Testament was written? They couldn't have been in the supposed time it's about, is it? It's not.
Okay, so by that standard, if child in Africa who is under the rule of a tyrannical leader, whom the boy has never seen, the laws of that ruler are fallible to that boy because they boy has never seen him, never heard him, and only heard of him. Further, what studies have you done on the subject of Church History?
To answer your questions, the real Bible was written in multiple points of time. Most of it was before the birth of Christ, the rest during the times of the Apostle's and the Disciples.
Or was it hundreds of years after the death of the supposed Jesus Christ?
So do you believe that Christ was never born at all?
I like to play games regularly thus I can be classified as a gamer, it wouldn't matter whether or not I was passionate about playing games.
Playing games is not comparable to living a way of life.
What? You want to know how many have died defending their lack of belief?
Yes I do. If you have no answer, then why do you defend it?
So do you believe that Christ was never born at all?
If the New Testament was written much later after Christ died on the cross, then it's no wonder how and why the book is fallible in various places.
Then there's the Old Testament. What year was that written? From multiple sources, they all point to "from 1400BC to 400BC". If they are so...recent, then it is no wonder how the Old Testament's stories and beliefs are so jumbled.
Of course. I gave a year range. Even so, 1400BC? Too recent. But with all these misrepresentations, you would think they would change to fit today's knowledge, right? For instance, the Bible still states that the world is only 6-8000 years old. Come on. At this area, 1400BC seems mighty late to be talking about the early figures of Judaism. And ~600 ACE seems pretty late to be talking about the works of Jesus Christ. Let me remind you that this was when the Old and New testament was WRITTEN.
Oh please, do tell who else was preaching to follow Christ when the Jews were still captive to the Egyptians, when Christ wasn't even born.
I would say because it was assumed that Christ would be a Jewish leader. Not some upstart who decided to create another religion. Messiah is a Jewish word.
Which misrepresentations are you talking about? ACE? Do you mean A.D.? Do you even know why these markers of time exist and what they are based off of? Also, have you ever read Eusibius' work? You may find it useful to answer your questions.
Not some upstart who decided to create another religion. Messiah is a Jewish word.
Was it another religion or just a branch of one that was already established? Further, do you really think that saying that "Messiah is a Jewish word." really adds to your argument? What does it add? It is a word, and nothing more! Jehovah is a jewish word, Yaweh, is a jewish word, we could go on and on and on say what jewish words are, and we would get no where. So please, don't spout silly things, further your argument instead! That's always a good plan.
Which misrepresentations are you talking about? ACE? Do you mean A.D.? Do you even know why these markers of time exist and what they are based off of?
ACE means after common era. I don't use AC, or After Christ.
Which brings us back to the main topic. This ain't a thread for debating Christianity in general. We are discussing why we smear Christians. And I can tell the debate was ending, since we have nothing else to argue from....
So where do we start? Do we start from the misrepresentations of the most-acceptable standards of today's knowledge, or do we start with why they argue with faith? It all works the same for me.
