I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
I will take a shot in guessing you don't realize that there are no first hand accounts of Jesus, thus no witnessed accounts of miracles and speeches. The Gospels were written by authors who weren't even alive during the time Jesus was suppose to be around.
The bible was written by the disciples that lived and follwed Jesus. They were there when he preformed miracles and told speeches to the people of Jeruselem and Bethlehem. So I think that is first had acounts of Jesus perfoming miracles in the Bible. Also there were four disciples that decided to record of Jesus' miracles and acts of goodness. So that makes four accounts. Unless this is just all made up and millions of beleiver's are beleiving in nothing? Just read a little of the Bible maybe.
The bible was written by the disciples that lived and follwed Jesus.
No. It was not. The Bible is basically a collection of stories which were then put together over 300 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Much of this is from oral traditions, although there are some letters and such which were also included. This forms the new testament. The old testament is selected Hebrew scripture.
Unless this is just all made up and millions of beleiver's are beleiving in nothing?
Like I said, it's amazing how little Christians know about their own religion.
Oh, and let us not also forget the other gospels, supposedly written also by some of the 12 disciples, which the Church ignored because they flagrantly opposed canonical teachings.
Oh, and let us not also forget the other gospels, supposedly written also by some of the 12 disciples, which the Church ignored because they flagrantly opposed canonical teachings.
The church didn't forget the 12 disciples they inclue all of them in scripture.
First of all you can't get your sources from Wiki because people can just edit and change what it says. Also I am not a strong beleiver in the Christian faith so yes I might not know everything. I actually have a life and I don't just study the Bible and my faith.
It seems that you are just dising the Catholic faith. What is your faith? I thought this was supposed to be supporting the Christian faith.
The bible was written by the disciples that lived and follwed Jesus.
The first of the Gospels were written some 40-70 years after Jesus's supposed death. The last of the Gospels were written at least 100 years after the fact. Those who might have been there would have been dead.
The church didn't forget the 12 disciples they inclue all of them in scripture.
Sorry but there were gospels that were left out of the canon Bible. For example the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, or the Gospel of Judas.
First of all you can't get your sources from Wiki because people can just edit and change what it says.
*Shrugs* Yes, they can. But Wikipedia is accurate 95% of the time, especially when I already know the answer beforehand and can dismiss the wiki because it currently has false info. It works well for a quick link, and like Mage said, you can always look at their citations.
It seems that you are just dising the Catholic faith.
No, not in particular. This is the thread, "Christianity FTW" however, so the focus is on Christianity. I am simply pointing out logical contradictions/mass misconceptions held by Christians. Currently focused on Catholicism, because you mentioned before that you were a Catholic.
What is your faith?
I don't have one. I dislike the word faith because it implies accepting something without having any reason to. It basically means you're gullible.
What you could call my "beliefs" are just random introspective thoughts and amusing "What if..." games in my head when I get bored.
I thought this was supposed to be supporting the Christian faith.
The OP originally intended that, but it was not to be for a few reasons.
1) There's a lot of active Atheists on this site, more so than active Theists. 2) Naturally, we're going to comment on what we disagree with. 3) The OPs post, "No Atheists or w/e please" initially drew all those he didn't want, and since then this thread has been the place where Christianity is discussed/picked at.
For example, how many people did Jesus heal on the road from Jericho?
This is an excerpt from Insight Volume 1 1988 in an article about that.
In reporting this event, Mark and Matthew say it occurred when Jesus was "going out of Jericho," but Luke says it was "as he [Jesus] was getting near to Jericho." (Mt 20:29; Mr 10:46; Lu 18:35) Some have said that these refer to two separate incidents. On this, Joseph P. Free writes: "Archaeology, however, has thrown additional light on this apparent discrepancy. Early in the twentieth century A.D., excavations were made at Jericho by Ernest Sellin of the German Oriental Society (1907-1909). The excavations showed that the Jericho of Jesus' time was a double city . . . The old Jewish city was about a mile away from the Roman city. In the light of this evidence, it is possible that Matthew is speaking of the Jewish city which Christ had left, whereas Luke is speaking of the Roman, at which Christ had not yet arrived. Thus, on His way from the old to the new city, Christ met and healed the blind Bartimaeus."â"Archaeology and Bible History, 1964, p. 295.
This is an excerpt from Insight Volume 1 1988 in an article about that.
It's really best not to use apologetics in defense of the Bible. The arguments often come out sounding like grade-A crap.
The problem is this is talking about the same event. There is just no getting around that. The story clearly follow parallels. For example going back just a little bit from this point in both Gospels.
Matthew 20: 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zeb´e·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: âWhat do you want?â She said to him: âGive the word that these my two sons may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.â 22 Jesus said in answer: âYOU men do not know what YOU are asking for. Can YOU drink the cup that I am about to drink?â They said to him: âWe can.â
Mark 10: 35 And James and John, the two sons of Zeb´e·dee, stepped up to him and said to him: âTeacher, we want you to do for us whatever it is we ask you for.â 36 He said to them: âWhat do YOU want me to do for YOU?â 37 They said to him: âGrant us to sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.â 38 But Jesus said to them: âYOU do not know what YOU are asking for. Are YOU able to drink the cup which I am drinking, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am being baptized?â
So your arguing here that these people had practically the same conversation in two separate locations just with there mom joining in on one occasion. Then Jesus leave two separate Jerichos and happens to run into someone need of healing who asks for the healing in the same way. With differences being two in one case and one in the other. This is really what your arguing?
Not to mention this is just one example, I'm not seeing how this version of the Bible differs from any other version in terms of contradicting itself.
I read the summary of the Bible of Judas so it says that Judas might have not been the betrayer that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is so because Jesus asked Judas to turn him over to the authorities. Why would Jesus do that? To fullfill the profecy that the profets wrote about years before Jesus was born. I don't think so because the authorities were already not happy with what Jesus was preaching so they would have cuaght him one way or another.
I suggest that everyone read the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel.
Since no one here will probably have the time to read it and respond to your post, I don't think it's a bad idea for you to actually post a summary, and explain how it supports your case.
Otherwise, I can quote you a range of Atheist books and tell you to read it. Then we'll get no where.
I would've rather argued that the accounts are very similar with minor discrepancies. Eyewitness accounts aren't perfect, but multiple accounts of the same event are better than one. Look at the accounts from the Kennedy assassination. Some say the shot came from the book depository behind him. Some say the grassy knoll. Some say both. In any case, he was shot.
I would've rather argued that the accounts are very similar with minor discrepancies.
Then your basically agreeing with me. Your mother's statement was that there are no contradictions i.e. no discrepancies. I said no, no this version of the Bible contains the same contradiction (discrepancies) all the rest do. You then provided me with an apologetics argument that these are two separate events. I again said no, no they are the same event and showed this.
1.) #1 isn't a reason as to why Adam/Eve were real, it's an excuse to defend the Bible by saying we shouldn't just ignore it.
2.) "The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the ANE"
Laughable. Christianity is so full of pagan culture. It DOES start with just one more mythical account of creation.
3.) "And even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?"
Taking Genesis literally is where the issues come in. This is hurting itself here, not helping. We can, on multiple levels, logically show that events could not have occurred in the order listed in Genesis.
4.) "There is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12."
Using the bible to support itself. Tsk-tsk. That doesn't work. I could write a paper which details how unicorns poop rainbows, and then use it to support itself. Doesn't mean anything if I do though.
5.) "The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical"
Same issues as #4.
6.) "Paul believed in a historical Adam "
Same issues as #4 and #5.
7.) "The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam."
AGAIN same issue as #'s 4, 5, and 6.
8.) "Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents."
Because, uh, we don't? No one has the same nature. If there's no god, no one was made in his image, there would be no "sin" problem, and no, everyone is not born from the same parents *facepalm*
9.) "Without a historical Adam, Paul's doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together."
AGAIN the same problem as #'s 4, 5, 6, and 7.
10.) "Without a historical Adam, Paul's doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together."
I don't even know what he means by "Second Adam" but okay. AGAIN a full HALF of his argument is inherently fallacious. #'s 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 all assume the Bible to be true and use itself as a point of evidence. That's like picking yourself up by your own arm. You can't do that.
I don't even know what he means by "Second Adam" but okay. AGAIN a full HALF of his argument is inherently fallacious. #'s 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 all assume the Bible to be true and use itself as a point of evidence. That's like picking yourself up by your own arm. You can't do that.
I just want to make sure this is clear... The "science" of PEOPLE is your explanation of the beginning of the universe. YOU are also a PERSON. So does that not mean that YOU are also using yourself to support yourself?
I just want to make sure this is clear... The "science" of PEOPLE is your explanation of the beginning of the universe. YOU are also a PERSON. So does that not mean that YOU are also using yourself to support yourself?
Confusing Troll is confusing.
Could you guys explain this to me? I'm having a tough time figuring what most of them say. Must be my allergies.
