The rapture is finally here again!

[Jaysyn]

Alright, let me now ask you something..

Aww, don't feel bad. Min spanks almost every self-righteous bible-thumper that wanders their way in here. He's very good at it & it's quite fun to watch them try to recover from it afterwards. You are no exception.

[thesummerqueen]

Alright, let me now ask you something..

Aww, don't feel bad. Min spanks almost every self-righteous bible-thumper that wanders their way in here. He's very good at it & it's quite fun to watch them try to recover from it afterwards. You are no exception.

I was more amused at him calling Min "hoss". This thread should be entertaining. [heats up popcorn]

[Chapabel]

chatpilot,

You say Christians look foolish for believing by faith what we read, but you do the same exact thing. How do you know who was on the council that determined the canon of scriptures? Because you read somewhere that it was clergy, and you believed that by faith. (BTW, it does not make sense to have non-believers determine what should be in the Bible does it?)

You are correct in that we have no evidence that Matthew or Mark wrote the Gospels attributed to them. However, you are incorrect in denying Luke's authorship of the gospel named for him. Luke also wrote the book of Acts. When you do a proper study, you find the evidence that he did in fact write both letters.

You are also wrong about the eyewitnesses. John and Peter were both eyewitnesses of Jesus and His ministry. Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus. Paul also wrote that at least 500 people were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus.

Here's the real courious thought...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims? I mean, if these Christian letters were being circulated around and someone knew them to be false, why did they not expose them as frauds? Thousands of pieces of evidence for Christ, but not one shred to counter the claims. And you claim I look foolish...

[Jaysyn]

...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims?

Because those claims weren't made until well after those "times" were over?

[thesummerqueen]

Here's the real courious thought...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims? I mean, if these Christian letters were being circulated around and someone knew them to be false, why did they not expose them as frauds? Thousands of pieces of evidence for Christ, but not one shred to counter the claims. And you claim I look foolish...

When I walk into a book store, the overwhelming amount of shelves are devoted to fiction rather than fact. Harry Potter fans and Twitards far outnumber the intellectuals running around inside there. And it's way easier to find birther nonsense on the internet than it is to pull up Obama's cert.

Never underestimate the ability of people to spread "a good story" (although in the case of the Bible and Twilight, 'good' is subjective) at the expense of burying the facts.

Much as I love Robert M Price, it's far less likely for any printed copies of his works to be left for future civilizations to find over Stephanie Meyer.

[Chapabel]

...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims?

Because those claims weren't made until well after those "times" were over?

Nope. Most of the N.T. is thought to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This is well within the time frame...try again.

[Thor]

What about the writings of Cornelius Tactitus? He was neither a Jew nor a Christian. Also, lets not forget Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Thallus, and Suetonius. So we are to assume that ALL secular writings that mention Jesus have been " manipulated " by the church? Right...

Every one of your "sources" (with the possible exception of Thallus) was born AFTER "Jesus" supposedly died. This means they did not witness a living "Jesus". At best, anything they wrote about "Jesus" would be hearsay. And we all know how much weight hearsay is given.

As for Thallus, we don't know anything about him! When he was born, when he died, when he wrote, how much he wrote, or even if his name was really Thallus! And we don't have any of his original writings.

So, you threw out a lot of names but they all mean virtually nothing. I'm surprised you didn't mention Josephus.

Now try finding a mention of "Jesus" in the works of historians who lived at the time "Jesus" supposedly lived. Check out the writings of Philo Judaeus, Pliny the Elder, or Seneca. Of course, Christian apologists don't like to reference these people because they don't support the notion of a living "Jesus".

[chatpilot]

Chapabel, can you say oral traditions? Also, it's nice that you mentioned those so called 500 witnesses mentioned in the scriptures who supposedly witnessed Jesus ascension up into the clouds. Not one of them even wrote about Jesus, in fact Jesus himself did not write a single word himself that is found in your bible. Everything that is written there are second, third, or fourth person accounts ad infinitum. Basically you are believing what someone else said Jesus said. Also, you said Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus which is in the scriptures as well, supposedly while he was traveling on the road to Damascus. It's interesting that none of the others that were there wrote or even mentioned this event so here is my question, were they also illiterate like the other 500 witnesses or was this just a coincidence?

It's interesting to note also that none of the historians of the alleged time when Jesus conducted his ministry around 30 -33 CE even bothered to write one word about him. He was supposedly raising the dead, healing incurable diseases and maladies so much so that he drew the attention of the authorities, yet not one historian bothered to write a single word about this "great" man claiming to be the son of God.

---

...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims?

Because those claims weren't made until well after those "times" were over?

Nope. Most of the N.T. is thought to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. This is well within the time frame...try again.

You better go hit the books this statement is incorrect entirely. The oldest book of the synoptic gospels is believed to be the book of Mark and that book is dated to around 70 AD or later due to the mention of the destruction of the temple Mark 13:1,2

[Thor]

Here's the real courious thought...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims? I mean, if these Christian letters were being circulated around and someone knew them to be false, why did they not expose them as frauds? Thousands of pieces of evidence for Christ, but not one shred to counter the claims. And you claim I look foolish...

Great point! So, you must also believe that Muhammad rode a winged horse up to the Seven Layers of Heaven like the Koran says! After all, there is no record that anyone countered this claim at the time it supposedly occurred. And you must also believe that Joseph Smith translated golden plates with the assistance of an angel, after which the plates were taken up to heaven, just like the Book of Mormon says! Because no one exposed this claim as a fraud when it supposedly took place.

Right?

[DeistPaladin]

Luke also wrote the book of Acts. When you do a proper study, you find the evidence that he did in fact write both letters.

If the same author wrote both the Gospel of Luke and Acts, why do they disagree on when Jesus flew up into the sky (surely an event of memorable import):

Compare the last chapter of Luke where Jesus was carried up into Heaven immediately after the resurrection and his reunion with the disciples with Acts 1:3 where Jesus preaches for 40 days after the resurrection before being taken up.

You are also wrong about the eyewitnesses. John and Peter were both eyewitnesses of Jesus and His ministry.

I'm curious what you think of 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7 where he testifies that some early Christians didn't believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus.

Paul was an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus.

...and he denies that Jesus had lived within his lifetime. 1Cor 15:8

Paul also wrote that at least 500 people were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus.

Compared to 120 believers numbered in Acts 1:15.

Well, perhaps 380 of the eye witnesses saw Jesus flying off into the sky and said "meh, what does that prove?"

Here's the real courious thought...why do we not have even one piece of written evidence of the time to counter these claims?

The works of critics of Christianity are "lost to us" and only come to us as they are quoted by Christian defenders of the faith.