(December 1, 2012 at 3:19 am)The truth Wrote: Nobody knows who wrote the gosples? Are you serious? Better yet where's your evidence for such claims? Lol is this a joke?

You are obviously well-aware of church tradition but woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.

Wikipedia is a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Quote:Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D.[1] The anonymous author drew three main sources, including the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community.[2] The narrative tells how Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people), withdrew into the circle of his disciples, passed judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sent the disciples instead to the gentiles[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Quote:Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[36] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[20] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Quote:The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[8] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][9][10][11] However, according to the majority view the author is unknown, the author's use of varied sources telling against the traditional account.[12][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Quote:The Gospel According to John (Greek τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον), commonly referred to as the Gospel of John or simply John[1]
[...]
Footnote 1: ^ Notwithstanding the name, it is an anonymous gospel

So no, this is not a joke.

(December 1, 2012 at 3:19 am)The truth Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 2:33 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: A small amount of years? wtf? That was like close to 400 years!
And again, the conversion of Paul, these "witnesses" you keep naming. It could easily be legend.

When I mean "took the entire roman empire in only a small amount of years!" I was referring to the religions of Rome. Christanity swept threw Rome like a wild fire in the first one hundred years with the gosple of Christ. Any historian can tell you that.

You say the witnesses can easily be legend but they can easily be real. Where's your proof for such a statements. atheist make statements like "there was no witnesses of Christ resurrection" but then when we give you witnesses you say there legend. You cant choose history. If they are witnesses they are witnesses. You might dont cnoose to believe it but its still history. The historical facts are the written new testament of the bible. And the church father's of the late and early second century.

These supposed eye witnesses accounts haven't been confirmed as history anymore than the accounts of aliens crashing landing in Roswell in 1947.

And the supposed rapid growth of Christianity, assuming that were true, doesn't prove anything about the resurrection. Christian had just the right the combination of religious rules and promises to make it a success in the course of 400 years. Gentiles were already joining judaism in large numbers before Christianity rose. The only thing stopping a significant conversion to judaism was all of its strict laws such as dietary laws. When Christianity came around with what the gentiles liked about judaism but without those pesky rules, it sealed itself as a success in the long run. This doesn't prove its divinity anymore than the success of the iPhone proves Steve Jobs was God.

(December 1, 2012 at 1:39 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 1:30 am)The truth Wrote: You've answered it. More eye witnesses of a claim leaves us with greater evidence. Witness equals evidence I thought you knew that?

What eye witnesses accounts?

All you have are the gospels written many decades after the events they are supposed to depict, often having widely contradictory accounts. We don't know who really wrote these gospels (the names only come through late guess work of later Christians).

Then you have Paul who's only connection to Jesus was through a "vision" (hallucination?). There's a reference to I think "500" witnesses to the resurrection but that easily can be made up. No body would have bothered to travel all the way Jerusalem to check up on these supposed witnesses to see if they really saw what whatever evangelist said they did.

Even if one or two people decided to play detective and go all the way to Jerusalem to interview somebody who supposedly saw the resurrection, and then found those accounts to false, that wouldn't stop the growth of Christianity. Said detectives could be claimed to be lying or spiritually blind by the evangelist.

Your post is only opinion. If if if if.... These are all opinions. No detective went back in time to refute the five hundred witnesses so this statement is only a theory based on opinions(I get your since of humor). Please atheist show me facts that chrisitanity is false. Its proven that history shows us a empty tomb. Its proven that they never found christ body. Please people make this cite interesting. keep your if's to your self!

Paul didn't just see a vision did you read the story? The men next to him also experienced this visitation. They hurd the voice of Christ. Illusions does not allow three people at the same time to here the same exact vey words. It often effects the eyes not the ears.

(December 1, 2012 at 3:47 am)The truth Wrote: ...
Your post is only opinion. If if if if.... These are all opinions. No detective went back in time to refute the five hundred witnesses so this statement is only a theory based on opinions(I get your since of humor). Please atheist show me facts that chrisitanity is false. Its proven that history shows us a empty tomb. Its proven that they never found christ body. Please people make this cite interesting. keep your if's to your self!

Paul didn't just see a vision did you read the story? The men next to him also experienced this visitation. They hurd the voice of Christ. Illusions does not allow three people at the same time to here the same exact vey words. It often effects the eyes not the ears.

These aren't opinions. They're arguments! You're suppose to address them!

Show that these accounts are actual history and not just the likes of Mother Goose or Hanzel and Gretal. We never observe proven supernatural events today. We have thousands accounts spanning all of human history of gods waging war, dragons, ghosts, ufos, but we never see evidence for them. They can't possibly be all true.

When you make a claim that a miraculous event occurred such as Jesus resurrected or Paul and a few others saw a vision of Christ, you cannot just use their word that those things really happened. You have to bring up a huge mountain of solid evidence to provide adequate proof that such things occurred because in everyday experience, those things never occur. These are not ordinary events.

(December 1, 2012 at 2:13 am)Darkstar Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 2:05 am)The truth Wrote: I don't get it? You say science do not know what started the universe. But then you question the bible's answer concerning the universe. How is that possible? If science don't know than how can you be shore that every one else is wrong? Is this logic? Can you prove that god didn't create the universe based on science? No! Besides, what you stated about deism that's your opinion not fact.

You, sir, are passing off unfalsifiable assumptions with no evidence in support of them as uncontestable fact. I can't prove god didn't do it any more than you can prove he did. It is simply the fact that there is no good reason to believe he did. If you don't have evidence, and science does, but science doesn't know for sure, then I can safely say you can't know for sure either.

And about Deism, that is not an opinion. Do you know the definition of deism? If a god created the universe this would prove a deistic god, but would not be sufficient to prove the specific god Yahweh.

Biochemical Information Systems

Structure of Biochemical Information

Biochemical Codes

Genetic Code Fine-Tuning:
No what these scientific termologys are? When you study them get back at me. And don't study them from an atheist who's bias. Study it from someon with an open mind. There is so many evidence concerning design creation it's not a game. Study these and you will see.

Do you know what the fallacy of the argument from ignorance is? When you study it get back to me.

(December 1, 2012 at 3:43 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 3:19 am)The truth Wrote: Nobody knows who wrote the gosples? Are you serious? Better yet where's your evidence for such claims? Lol is this a joke?

You are obviously well-aware of church tradition but woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.

Wikipedia is a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

Quote:Matthew probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century A.D.[1] The anonymous author drew three main sources, including the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community.[2] The narrative tells how Israel's Messiah, having been rejected by Israel (i.e., God's chosen people), withdrew into the circle of his disciples, passed judgment on those who had rejected him (so that "Israel" becomes the non-believing "Jews"), and finally sent the disciples instead to the gentiles[3]

mathew

Not only does tradition unanimously ascribe this Gospel to the work of Matthew, but the early Church Fathers do as well.  “This Gospel does not name its author.  However, from the early Church Fathers, beginning with Papias, a pupil of [the apostle] John, onward, it has been accepted as the work of Matthew...”18  You may say, “Yes, maybe a few of the Church Fathers thought so, but...” Well, consider what H.C. Thiessen says, “The early Church unanimously ascribed this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew… Irenaeus says:
 
‘Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.’  Irenaeus claims that he knew Polycarp in his early youth, and that Polycarp always taught the things he learned from the apostles.”19  Other Church Fathers who cited Matthew as the author of the Gospel were many.  They included Pseudo Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.20  “The earliest statement of the Church Fathers regarding its [Matthew’s] authorship is to be found in the writings of Papias in the second century. He stated that ‘Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.’”21  So as we can see here, external evidence (that of tradition and the early Church Fathers) holds to the ascription of “the Gospel according to Matthew” to Matthew the tax collector, the apostle of our Lord.  By now, it should be abundantly clear that Matthew wrote Matthew, and so we will press on and examine the evidence that supports the authorship of the Gospel of Mark by the one so named.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

Quote:Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[36] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[20] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read.

Luke

External Evidence: “About the year A.D. 400 Jerome wrote: ‘Luke, a medical man from Antioch, was not ignorant of the Greek language.  He was a follower of Paul and a companion in all his travels and he wrote the Gospel.’”39  Right from the start we see that at least this Church Father believed Luke to be the author of the Third Gospel.  Was he the only one, or did others feel the same?  At the beginning of the fourth century the church historian Eusebius wrote: “Luke, by race an Antiochian, and a physician by profession, had long been a companion of Paul, and had more than a casual acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.  In two God-breathed books, namely, the Gospel and the Acts, he left us examples of the art of soul-healing which he had learned from them.”40  The list of Church Fathers that held Luke as the author of the Third Gospel goes back as early as the second and third centuries A.D.  Origen said, “... and thirdly the Gospel according to Luke [was written].  He wrote for those who from the Gentiles [had come to believe], the Gospel was praised by Paul.”41  He wrote this in the third century.  Even earlier than this, in the second century after Christ, Tertullian is quoted as saying: “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith in us, while the apostolic men, Luke and Mark, renew it afterward.”42  Finally we see what Irenaeus says.  He is the earliest writer mentioned here.  Irenaeus was a pupil, or disciple, of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the apostle John. “He writes, ‘Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him [Paul]’”43  The testimonies of the Church Fathers still bears loud testimony to the fact of Lukan authorship of the Third Gospel.
“Tradition unanimously affirms this author to be Luke. This is attested by the early heretic Marcion (who died c. A.D. 160; Luke was the only Gospel in his canon), the Muratorian Fragment (a list of the books accepted as belonging to the New Testament; it is usually held to express Roman opinion at the end of the second century), the anti-Marconite Prologue of Luke…, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and others.”44  The evidence, both internal and external, make it plain. Luke wrote Acts; the writer of Acts wrote “the Gospel of Luke”, and the testimony of the Church Fathers upholds this – the Gospel according to Luke was written by Luke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Quote:The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A tradition evident in the 2nd century ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[8] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][9][10][11] However, according to the majority view the author is unknown, the author's use of varied sources telling against the traditional account.[12][13]

mark
Probably one of the greatest testimonies to the reliability of this canon of Scripture and its author can be found in the affirmation of the early Church Fathers.  Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, as quoted by Merrill C. Tenney, says: “And John the Presbyter also said this – Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded, he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as was before said, he was in the company of Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them, for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts.”

Also, according to Clement of Alexandria, “Peter’s hearers urged Mark to leave a record of the doctrine which Peter had communicated orally, and that Peter authorized the Gospel to be read in churches.”

H.C. Thiessen also says that Papias is quoted in saying that “Mark… wrote down accurately everything that he remembered without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ.”

ancient manuscripts such as the Muratorian Fragment of Rome and the Didache back up Markan authorship, but the testimonies of the early Church Fathers do also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Quote:The Gospel According to John (Greek τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην εὐαγγέλιον), commonly referred to as the Gospel of John or simply John[1]
[...]
Footnote 1: ^ Notwithstanding the name, it is an anonymous gospel

John
External Evidence: Although many writers and writings such as Ignatius, Tatian, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, or the Epistle of Barnabas and the Muratorian Fragment, all make allusions to the Gospel and letters of John (it is generally admitted that for one to recognize 1 John one must recognize the Gospel also), it is Irenaeus who gives us the best evidence concerning the Fourth Gospel.  “The external evidence for the early date and Apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel is as great as that for any book in the New Testament... From Irenaeus on, the evidence becomes clear and full.”47  The reason that Irenaeus’ testimony should carry so much weight for the student in this area of study is because he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the man in question, the Apostle John. “Polycarp (ca. AD 69 – ca. AD 155) spoke of his contact with John.  Irenaeus (ca. 130 – ca. 200), the bishop of Lyons, heard Polycarp and testified that ‘John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned on His breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia.’  Polycrates, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other later Fathers support this tradition.  Eusebius was specific that Matthew and John of the apostles wrote the two Gospels which bear their specific name.”48  And further it is said that, “Irenaeus is the chief witness.”49  Clement of Alexandria also stated that John wrote what he called a “spiritual Gospel.”  “The early Church Fathers agree with this statement of authorship.”50

Quote:So no, this is not a joke.

That's correct that was a joke lol destroyed your debate.

Geez, this guy makes Godschild and Lion IRC look like geniuses.

(December 1, 2012 at 3:47 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 3:19 am)The truth Wrote: When I mean "took the entire roman empire in only a small amount of years!" I was referring to the religions of Rome. Christanity swept threw Rome like a wild fire in the first one hundred years with the gosple of Christ. Any historian can tell you that.

You say the witnesses can easily be legend but they can easily be real. Where's your proof for such a statements. atheist make statements like "there was no witnesses of Christ resurrection" but then when we give you witnesses you say there legend. You cant choose history. If they are witnesses they are witnesses. You might dont cnoose to believe it but its still history. The historical facts are the written new testament of the bible. And the church father's of the late and early second century.

These supposed eye witnesses accounts haven't been confirmed as history anymore than the accounts of aliens crashing landing in Roswell in 1947.
It hasn't been confirmed? The church fathers document? That's not confirmation?

And the supposed rapid growth of Christianity, assuming that were true, doesn't prove anything about the resurrection. Christian had just the right the combination of religious rules and promises to make it a success in the course of 400 years. Gentiles were already joining judaism in large numbers before Christianity rose. The only thing stopping a significant conversion to judaism was all of its strict laws such as dietary laws. When Christianity came around with what the gentiles liked about judaism but without those pesky rules, it sealed itself as a success in the long run. This doesn't prove its divinity anymore than the success of the iPhone proves Steve Jobs was God.

"Gentiles were already joining judaism in large numbers before Christianity rose."
That's not true. They may have excepted some of there rituals but joining Judaism in a large number? That's not true. youre reaching a little high on that one don't you think? Before chrisitanity arose the Jewish people were under rome's subjection. They wasn't going to give up there gods for such strict laws even you say that. Judaism requires serving only one god.

Why doesn't it prove anything about the ressurection? The church was established on Jesus Christ. He promised that the church would grow and it did. If christ was only a legend chrisitanity would have dwindled off way before the 4th century. Early Christians died for what they said they saw that early morining. If it were a lie that wouldn't have happened. Granted men die for there religion everyday but there is no one who would die, change there religion and cause there families to be tormented all on the bases of a lie. And that's what the early first Christians did.

---

(December 1, 2012 at 3:58 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 3:47 am)The truth Wrote: ...
Your post is only opinion. If if if if.... These are all opinions. No detective went back in time to refute the five hundred witnesses so this statement is only a theory based on opinions(I get your since of humor). Please atheist show me facts that chrisitanity is false. Its proven that history shows us a empty tomb. Its proven that they never found christ body. Please people make this cite interesting. keep your if's to your self!

Paul didn't just see a vision did you read the story? The men next to him also experienced this visitation. They hurd the voice of Christ. Illusions does not allow three people at the same time to here the same exact vey words. It often effects the eyes not the ears.

These aren't opinions. They're arguments! You're suppose to address them!

Show that these accounts are actual history and not just the likes of Mother Goose or Hanzel and Gretal. We never observe proven supernatural events today. We have thousands accounts spanning all of human history of gods waging war, dragons, ghosts, ufos, but we never see evidence for them. They can't possibly be all true.

When you make a claim that a miraculous event occurred such as Jesus resurrected or Paul and a few others saw a vision of Christ, you cannot just use their word that those things really happened. You have to bring up a huge mountain of solid evidence to provide adequate proof that such things occurred because in everyday experience, those things never occur. These are not ordinary events.

CAN I WRITE THIS EVEN CLEARER? history gives you eye witness accounts from men who gave there lives over to be burned. If this was a lie they wouldn't have done so. No one dies on the bases of lies. And besides because history reveals eye witnesses it is up to you to refute it not me. You claim that these historical facts are not reliable prove it. But you can't. So you keep asking me to do it. When I've already stated the historical facts. Again it is a fact that there were eye witness in history disprove it. The decsiples were eye witnesses and died for what they believed. We know that the church fathers knew the disciples personally and stated there own testament of the truth. That's in history. Check the archives! Check the historians! We know this. What? You're going to ask me to prove it again? I've stated historical facts you state yours! Come atheist you can do better

(December 1, 2012 at 4:58 am)The truth Wrote:

(December 1, 2012 at 3:47 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: These supposed eye witnesses accounts haven't been confirmed as history anymore than the accounts of aliens crashing landing in Roswell in 1947.

It hasn't been confirmed? The church fathers document? That's not confirmation?

Assertions of historical figures is not enough proof for a miraculous event.

Quote:"Gentiles were already joining judaism in large numbers before Christianity rose."
That's not true. They may have excepted some of there rituals but joining Judaism in a large number? That's not true. youre reaching a little high on that one don't you think? Before chrisitanity arose the Jewish people were under rome's subjection. They wasn't going to give up there gods for such strict laws even you say that. Judaism requires serving only one god.

There were a number of gentiles converting to judaism. A good many were able to submit to judaism's restrictions (and monotheism) but not as many as there could have been because of the restrictions. This is basic mainstream history. Look it up if you like. I might provide citations if this debate is worth the effort.

Christianity or something like it was inevitable. It met the growing demand of the time and because of that it grew. It's not miraculous. It's just good marketing.

A lot of this is explained in the book "Not the Impossible Faith" by phd historian Richard Carrier.

Quote:Why doesn't it prove anything about the ressurection? The church was established on Jesus Christ. He promised that the church would grow and it did.

We don't know for sure what Jesus said. Very little of the gospels can be truthfully said to be authentic sayings of Jesus with any degree of certainty.

Quote:If christ was only a legend chrisitanity would have dwindled off way before the 4th century.

Um, except for you know every single other religion in the history of mankind, several of which continue to this day.

Quote: Early Christians died for what they said they saw that early morining. If it were a lie that wouldn't have happened. Granted men die for there religion everyday but there is no one who would die, change there religion and cause there families to be tormented all on the bases of a lie. And that's what the early first Christians did.

Who said they were lying? How about delusional?

---

(December 1, 2012 at 4:58 am)The truth Wrote: ...
CAN I WRITE THIS EVEN CLEARER? history gives you eye witness accounts from men who gave there lives over to be burned. If this was a lie they wouldn't have done so. No one dies on the bases of lies. And besides because history reveals eye witnesses it is up to you to refute it not me. You claim that these historical facts are not reliable prove it. But you can't. So you keep asking me to do it. When I've already stated the historical facts. Again it is a fact that there were eye witness in history disprove it. The decsiples were eye witnesses and died for what they believed. We know that the church fathers knew the disciples personally and stated there own testament of the truth. That's in history. Check the archives! Check the historians! We know this. What? You're going to ask me to prove it again? I've stated historical facts you state yours! Come atheist you can do better

I have been abducted by aliens on several occasions. They come at night during the spring time and do weird experiments on my body. You can even see the scars they left. My friend Bob, who's away at the moment also claims he saw me being lifted up into their spacecraft one night.

Prove that I wasn't abducted.