Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

Now all grampa has to do,  is prove that conversation actually happened. He can't. It's fiction ... obviously for SO many reasons.

It's a perfect example of postdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
Obviously NO JEW would ever say what Peter is claimed to have said, AND in fact deny him later after the trial, if he actually bought this BS ... (as demonstrated in the article from a Jewish encyclopedia .. a view generally accepted by scholars ... and there is NO SCHOLARLY resource that says differently). The verses reflect a MUCH LATER view from a community which, by then, had established views of the events.

Gramps really should take Bible 101, and learn some basics before pretending he knows anything about the NT. He doesn't.
There was NO SUCH THING (at the time that was supposedly uttered) as a "church". NO. SUCH. THING. So Jesus couldn't possibly have said that.
Jesus (if he even existed) was a Apocalyptic Jew who thought the end-times were immanent. Why then "build a *church*" ? Make no sense at all.
In fact the Greek word that is translated "church" was "ecclesia" which means *community*. Jesus was a Jew, who NEVER EVER said his mission was to build some sort of new community.
Sorry. Once again, gramps loses, and it's nothing but child's-play to rebut the crap.

what a dated rebuttal..
and I'm supposed to be the old one. everything you do or say has lost it's shock value back in the 90s.

Let's start with the 'church' the church is a modern term but the KOINE' greek word from which it was derived is not too new to be used. the word being ἐκκλησία ekklēsia which simly translates into the modern word 'church'.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1577&t=KJV

Remember stupid, greek and koine greek are not the same language koine' greek is to greek what portuguese is to spanish. You quoting the greek shows you and your source material are out of touch with the facts. 

plus do you see how your rebuttals are lacking in any source material or actual fact? it's like we must simply take your word on things. as if you screen name carried any water. You are nobody understand you words carry no weight outside of what you can support and even then only so far as your source material will allow. meaning to not think you can topple primary source material with a tertiary commentary.

 the Jews used the same word to describe their assemblies which is all this word means. an assembly of like minded believers coming together for the express purpose of worship or a religious meeting. Again the same word used for a jewish religious gathering so to say there was no 'modern church' is technically correct but people did gather for the purpose of worship and or religious meetings. The sermon on the mount, the olivet discourse where examples of Christ lead church services. Acts 20 there was a church service being held by paul in a small group on the second floor and "Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. and fell out." which is an example of Paul just a few years after Christ making this prediction is teaching in a 'church' or gathering on the very thing you said could not have even existed.

That said no 'church had to be built' the church describes a gathering of two or more coming together Christ is with them.. like right now according to Christ's own definition everytime we come together and talk about him or God your retarded butt has been collecting church hour points. not that they will do you any good, but you in this discussion are apart of church right now.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am with them.”

Do you understand yet? church is not a building. Church is a gathering of people... the only thing you  proved wrong with your statement is that your understanding of what a church is, was completely wrong.

again when do you guys ever get sick of being so wrong all of the time? Aren't you tired of a guy who can not spell showing everyone how lazy and uninformed you really are? how your pretending to be an authority but can even identify the base language the bible uses? how you seem to think greek and koine' is the same? how you use the wrong greek words inplace of the koine words that indeed support scripture???

Hey retard, maybe the guy you are plagiarizing from knows the greek will always show the bible to be in error and that is why the greek is used, rather than the koine greek. just because you are stealing from a brand name like carrier or crowder doesn't mean they honestly represent christianity or the bible.. they can't otherwise they would be wrong. 90% of the bs people bring to me from those guys is hacked up bible verses that have been translated wrongly by them or taken out of context. Given a modern literal meaning when Jesus or someone is speaking to an individual or specific group.

what else you got sport.

---

Your Side could not even verify pontius pilate as a regional governor even though there were tons of official documents at one time concerning everything he was did and his day to day there. all that is left was a name rank and serial number so to speak on a stone found in the region.

Your lack of intelligence never ceases to amaze, dripshit.  We had significant references to Pilate in the works of Josephus and Philo.  Philo was a contemporary of Pilate's and Josephus a near contemporary.  Both of these men recounted allegations of execrable behavior by Pilate while serving as Prefect of Judaea, a title which is the only thing confirmed by that inscription found in 1961 as opposed to "procurator" which the later jesus-freak forger mistakenly used when inserting bullshit into Tacitus' Annales.  No, we knew all about Pilate from the writings of those two men.  Your fucking god-boy?  Not a peep from either of them.  Amusing, huh?

this one confirms the date 1961 was the only evidence of pilate that was not linked to christ in any way
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html

this one allows you to see the stone and transcribes what is on it.
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/15/archaeolo...es-gospel/

this one is older but confirms the other two
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl...84786.html

Again... when do you guys get tired of being wrong all of the time?

This is also proof you all do not collectly seek proof of God. here I made a commonly known statement to proove a greater point about Christ. and despite the proof you all will not except it. 

Yes pilate is mention all over antiquity but again not without Jesus.

You ass holes often say or pretend the roman record in that time was complete. and here is proof that a regional governor had been lost to time like everyone else in the empire except for a hand full of top officials that the government kept track of, and here a top official was completely omitted outside of what stupid people dismiss as 'religious text'. when in fact religious text gives us more on the day to day of the people in that region than any other source we have. But I digress..
The point is we have only one point of reference to pilate outside of 'religious texts' and you people can except pilate as regional governor during this period on one stone tablet's say so...

And on the other hand we have 25,000 texts and manuscripts about jesus and none of that counts. you idiots pretend none of what we have is valid out of 25,000 texts because they confirm what you think is not possible. yet one stone validates pilate.

again you do not seek proof, only points to argue.