Evidence God Exists

[Epimethean]

So now the christies are inventing "oral" scripture to rehabilitate their tired old god. Fucking brilliant desperation.

[Faith No More]

Similarly ( to me) the NT has value even if there were no christ. Why is it that I, as an atheist can see this, and yet believers somehow feel the worth of the NT is entirely dependant upon the historical accuracy of jesus' existence?

Because what's in the NT that is most valuable are the crucifixion and the resurrection. If Jesus didn't exist, then these things never happened and their religion is false. And if Jesus wasn't the son of god, then why would they want to listen to some lame hippie?

[Godscreated]

It's just too much to even consider isn't it. The idea that people are either too lazy, or too busy to invent a religion entirely out of nothing, and instead rely on the religious concepts and narratives of those that immediately precede or surround them. Perish the thought. Our ancestors are also apparently too ignorant to write fiction. To top it off, we know for fact, that no one ever fabricated anything for personal gain, least of all the religious.

In all seriousness, if anyone had a reason to research the concepts found in the NT, the traditions that led to what we call christianity, it would be christians. There is an immense body of knowledge on the subject there for the taking if one were so inclined. Some of these narratives have value regardless of the divinity of christ. Insisting that every story be a prop, or somehow proof of a single concept robs them of the greater value they have as metaphor. Aesop's fables have value even if there were no Aesop (which may be the case). Similarly ( to me) the NT has value even if there were no christ. Why is it that I, as an atheist can see this, and yet believers somehow feel the worth of the NT is entirely dependant upon the historical accuracy of jesus' existence?

GC, wanna field that one for me? If there were no christ, would the NT have any value? What is the value (if any) of the NT in the absence of christ?

No and none. The value is Christ for without Him there's no hope.

[Shell B]

No and none. The value is Christ for without Him there's no hope.

Your beliefs are depressing me. Maybe you should look outside the box. Maybe you will find that hope, like all other human emotions, come from within us, as corny as that sounds.

[Epimethean]

Is there life outside the box for GC?

Shaking the magic 8 ball to find out ...

[The Grand Nudger]

So GC, without god murder would be neutral, no reason to be kind to your fellow man. The elderly or infirm do not deserve compassion. etc etc etc. Yet you continue to function as a human being despite there being no christ, and no value in scripture.

Your every breath betrays you.

[Minimalist]

There is no "oral history" (unless the high priest was getting a blow job in the temple ) until you just tried to invent one in order to salvage your horseshit.


Since you obviously did not read Till's essay ( and why should you...you only read things that tell you what you want to hear ) I'll quote the relevant part so you can ignore it again and then insist that your made up shit is right.

This matter also came up in my debate with Bill Jackson. He tried to circumvent the problem by claiming that the prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and that nothing was said to imply that it had ever been written (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20).This is at best a far-fetched quibble that fails to take note of the fact that Matthew routinely introduced written "prophecies" by saying that they had been spoken by so-and-so. He said, for example, that the "voice heard in Ramah" had been "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (2:17-18). Earlier he had said that the famous virgin-birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had been "spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (1:22). He introduced Isaiah 9:1-2 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet"(4:14). He introduced Isaiah 42:1-4 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet" (12:17). There are numerous other examples in Matthew to show that his style was to introduce alleged prophecies by saying that they had been spoken by such and such a prophet. If the prophecy-fulfillment argument offers such wonderful proof of divine inspiration, then, we have every right to demand that bibliolaters show us just where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene as Matthew claimed in the passage cited from his gospel account. How can there be proof of divine inspiration in a prophecy statement that may never have been made?

[Godscreated]

There is no "oral history" (unless the high priest was getting a blow job in the temple ) until you just tried to invent one in order to salvage your horseshit.


Since you obviously did not read Till's essay ( and why should you...you only read things that tell you what you want to hear ) I'll quote the relevant part so you can ignore it again and then insist that your made up shit is right.

This matter also came up in my debate with Bill Jackson. He tried to circumvent the problem by claiming that the prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and that nothing was said to imply that it had ever been written (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20).This is at best a far-fetched quibble that fails to take note of the fact that Matthew routinely introduced written "prophecies" by saying that they had been spoken by so-and-so. He said, for example, that the "voice heard in Ramah" had been "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (2:17-18). Earlier he had said that the famous virgin-birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had been "spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (1:22). He introduced Isaiah 9:1-2 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet"(4:14). He introduced Isaiah 42:1-4 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet" (12:17). There are numerous other examples in Matthew to show that his style was to introduce alleged prophecies by saying that they had been spoken by such and such a prophet. If the prophecy-fulfillment argument offers such wonderful proof of divine inspiration, then, we have every right to demand that bibliolaters show us just where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene as Matthew claimed in the passage cited from his gospel account. How can there be proof of divine inspiration in a prophecy statement that may never have been made?

Ignored! Your brain is so full of sand that you make no sense at all, from now on I'll just ignore you, thanks for the suggestion.

---

No and none. The value is Christ for without Him there's no hope.

Your beliefs are depressing me. Maybe you should look outside the box. Maybe you will find that hope, like all other human emotions, come from within us, as corny as that sounds.

That does not sound corny, I believe that same thing only in a different light. I did look outside the box and there stood God waiting on me. Since my beliefs depress you I have a suggstion, don't read what I post and be glad.

---

So GC, without god murder would be neutral, no reason to be kind to your fellow man. The elderly or infirm do not deserve compassion. etc etc etc. Yet you continue to function as a human being despite there being no christ, and no value in scripture.

Your every breath betrays you.

That was not what I said, you are always trying to rewrite what I say. The NT would be nothing more than the OT without Christ and there would not be any advantage to having two OTs. The OT is a wonderful book and directs one in life and you nor I nor anyone could live up to it's standards of God given law, so thus Christ and the NT.

---

Is there life outside the box for GC?

Shaking the magic 8 ball to find out ...

Make sure you shake it till you get the answer you want,OK.

[downbeatplumb]

This matter also came up in my debate with Bill Jackson. He tried to circumvent the problem by claiming that the prophecy was only spoken by the prophets and that nothing was said to imply that it had ever been written (Jackson-Till Debate, p. 20).This is at best a far-fetched quibble that fails to take note of the fact that Matthew routinely introduced written "prophecies" by saying that they had been spoken by so-and-so. He said, for example, that the "voice heard in Ramah" had been "spoken through Jeremiah the prophet" (2:17-18). Earlier he had said that the famous virgin-birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 had been "spoken by the Lord through the prophet" (1:22). He introduced Isaiah 9:1-2 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet"(4:14). He introduced Isaiah 42:1-4 by saying that this had been "spoken through Isaiah the prophet" (12:17). There are numerous other examples in Matthew to show that his style was to introduce alleged prophecies by saying that they had been spoken by such and such a prophet. If the prophecy-fulfillment argument offers such wonderful proof of divine inspiration, then, we have every right to demand that bibliolaters show us just where it was prophesied that Jesus would be called a Nazarene as Matthew claimed in the passage cited from his gospel account. How can there be proof of divine inspiration in a prophecy statement that may never have been made?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Epimethean]

"Make sure you shake [the 8 Ball] till you get the answer you want,OK."

I think you fundies call that "interpretation."