Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[RoadRunner79]

---

Can you please provide some of this heaps of evidence.... most of what I have seen, is just making up a different story and denying the actual historical evidence, because of a priori bias against any type of miracle.  It's not considered good historical scholarship at all.

If I wished to deny evolution, can I just deny the evidence, and say that it is more likely that they are mistaken or made things up, simply because of a priori bias?

---

There is no historical or scientific evidence to support any miraculous claims, so there is no reason to believe that miracles happen. Evolution, on the other hand, is backed by evidence from biology, geology, and various other modes of science. One might deny that evidence, but for miracles there is no evidence to deny.

Do you mean the evidence that scientist observe and tell me about?   If you discount observation and testimony as evidence, then I don't believe that science has any evidence either.  There are a great number of things in science, that I have to rely on the observation and accounting of others as evidence.  And while a subjective judgment some of them may be found difficult to believe.  

So I would feel equally justified in saying that there is no evidence for evolution if you are able to use this method to say the same of Christianity.  I don't believe this is correct.  Now if you have actual evidence against or reasons to believe it is untrue, we can discuss it. Even bad evidence is still evidence. And if you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you to support it.

[GrandizerII]

1. He may have exaggerated.

2. He may have been a masochist.

1.He 'may' have been telling the truth. (After all anyone who saw him would have been able to see the scars and his beaten/broken body. it not like they had plastic surgery)

1A. Exaggeration is still based on some truth.
1B. You'd need people to care enough to see his naked body.

2.His beatings were from not yeilding to govermental pressure to stop teaching christianity. He even tried to use his status as a citizen of rome to stave off some of the punishments he endured. a masochist would have sought out the beatings not try and avoid them.

Perhaps he enjoyed certain forms of punishments but not others.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Paul was a convert to Christianity, via "vision". He was their first highly-successful convert to become an evangelist. The fact that he was convinced by his vision and communication with the early Christians is more than enough reason for him to decide to subject himself to various torments -- the evidence is quite clear that the early Christians considered suffering to be a good thing, a method of following in the footsteps of the man they called the Christ.

This willingness to suffer for their message is certainly not evidence that any of them were correct, not any more than it is for the early Mormons or any other religious cult, or that their narrative successfully reflects the reality of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth, when it was written down 20+ years after-the-fact. One decade is more than enough time for a legend to grow to mythical proportions.

[dyresand]

---

---

There is no historical or scientific evidence to support any miraculous claims, so there is no reason to believe that miracles happen. Evolution, on the other hand, is backed by evidence from biology, geology, and various other modes of science. One might deny that evidence, but for miracles there is no evidence to deny.

Do you mean the evidence that scientist observe and tell me about?   If you discount observation and testimony as evidence, then I don't believe that science has any evidence either.  There are a great number of things in science, that I have to rely on the observation and accounting of others as evidence.  And while a subjective judgment some of them may be found difficult to believe.  

So I would feel equally justified in saying that there is no evidence for evolution if you are able to use this method to say the same of Christianity.  I don't believe this is correct.  Now if you have actual evidence against or reasons to believe it is untrue, we can discuss it. Even bad evidence is still evidence. And if you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you to support it.

For fucks sake read a god damn history book.

[robvalue]

http://youtu.be/F4GgKKSPQaM

How do we know that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark? How do we know that Mark recorded the observations of an eyewitness?

The short answer is because Papias (< 70 – c. 155) said so. Papias was a bishop and an avid documenter of oral history from the early church. His book Interpretations was written after 120 CE.
Jesus died in 30, Mark was written in 70, and Papias documents Mark as the author in 120 (dates are estimates). That’s at least 50 years bridged only by “because Papias said so.”

But how do we know what Papias said? We don’t have the original of Papias, nor do we have a copy. Instead, we have Church History by Eusebius, which quotes Papias and was written in 320.

And how do we know what Eusebius said? The oldest copies of his book are from the tenth century, though there is a Syriac translation from 462.

Count the successive people in the claim “Mark wrote Mark, which documents an eyewitness account”: (1) Peter was an eyewitness and (2) Mark was his journalist, and (3) someone told this to (4) Papias, who wrote his book, which was preserved by (5) copyist(s), and (6) Eusebius transcribed parts of that, and (7) more copyist(s) translated Eusebius to give us our oldest manuscript copy. And the oldest piece of evidence that we can put our hands on was written four centuries after Mark was written.

Source

[Hmmm?]

Positive, read the angle fire link

Just wanted to say thanks for the link, I did read the whoooole thing.

I was hoping maybe you could find the time to read some of the references that I posted throughout this thread,  I have referenced them before and have had a chance to double check the details.

Smiles and Blessings

[Drich]

Do you mean the evidence that scientist observe and tell me about?   If you discount observation and testimony as evidence, then I don't believe that science has any evidence either.  There are a great number of things in science, that I have to rely on the observation and accounting of others as evidence.  And while a subjective judgment some of them may be found difficult to believe.  

So I would feel equally justified in saying that there is no evidence for evolution if you are able to use this method to say the same of Christianity.  I don't believe this is correct.  Now if you have actual evidence against or reasons to believe it is untrue, we can discuss it. Even bad evidence is still evidence. And if you are going to make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you to support it.

For fucks sake read a god damn history book.

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[Drich]

1.He 'may' have been telling the truth. (After all anyone who saw him would have been able to see the scars and his beaten/broken body. it not like they had plastic surgery)

1A. Exaggeration is still based on some truth.
1B. You'd need people to care enough to see his naked body.

2.His beatings were from not yeilding to govermental pressure to stop teaching christianity. He even tried to use his status as a citizen of rome to stave off some of the punishments he endured. a masochist would have sought out the beatings not try and avoid them.

Perhaps he enjoyed certain forms of punishments but not others.

1B.
Why would you need to see his naked body?
 I pretty sure when he was beaten, stoned, caned, flogged, the damage could be seen by just looking at him. it wasn't like the only hit him in his 'private parts.'

2. Perhaps he like everyone else would avoid any near death beating if and when they can

[robvalue]

Go to 2:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLUF1leMF0

[John V]

No thanks. Feel free to type it up though!