RE: Theists are Insecure
December 31, 2011 at 12:21 am
(This post was last modified: December 31, 2011 at 12:28 am by chi pan.)
"This would include lack of corroborating sources, the uncertainty in when certain things were written, the time gap between the events and the recording of those events. Also the possibility of legends developing over the course of the 30 year period or so (conservative dating estimate I believe) before the first gospel was written etc"
do you really see any historical document that covers all gaps in history? no we cover gaps by pooling in historical sources written by many historians. keep in mind, the bible is the work of many documents and not all the jewish documents made the old testimate. they made the bible as a religous document not a historical one, therefore some historical texts were discluded when they put the bible together.
"One thing that will help in your discussions here with people is to do some lurking around the older posts here. If you are here to learn from others I would encourage you to go to the back of the forum pages here and start reading through relevant threads. There has been a lot of different discussions/ideas shared here. You don't need to respond to these older threads either as that would necro them back but a lot of time/energy has been spent discussing this and is stored on the forum."
good idea i'll look into it.
"Firstly, I'm not trying to prove the Bible wrong. I'm trying to prove YOU wrong, and succeeding."
really? you think you're proving me wrong by throwing sites at me that are clearly biased? even if i were to prove every single passage on that site is missrepresented, then you still would just way whatever b/c you don't care about the truth, you just want to prove you're right and everyone else is wrong. why don't you read these passages for youself; if i spoonfeed you everything, you son't learn a thing.
"Secondly, I think it's interesting that through your argument, you've actually ended up arguing that if a couple of passages from the Bible are wrong, then the whole thing is wrong, which is pretty hilarious. You've said that if one thing is not credible, then that invalidates the rest of it. "
actually i said by your logic, if you would have read my post thoroughly. i do not agree with this logic however if you do, then at the same time you must agree with what i used b/c it uses the same logic.
" Jesus was a human sacrifice. Game over."
human sacrifice? no he was God's sacrifice of his son who in fact was more than human. he came as the flesh of a man however his soul was not. in the bible animal sacifice was sufficient to cover the sin's of a man however God did away with this in sending his only son as a sacrifice for everyone. he was not sacrificed like a sacrifice but exicuted like a man. if you pay attention, sacrifices are burnt and jesus was not burnt.
do you really see any historical document that covers all gaps in history? no we cover gaps by pooling in historical sources written by many historians. keep in mind, the bible is the work of many documents and not all the jewish documents made the old testimate. they made the bible as a religous document not a historical one, therefore some historical texts were discluded when they put the bible together.
"One thing that will help in your discussions here with people is to do some lurking around the older posts here. If you are here to learn from others I would encourage you to go to the back of the forum pages here and start reading through relevant threads. There has been a lot of different discussions/ideas shared here. You don't need to respond to these older threads either as that would necro them back but a lot of time/energy has been spent discussing this and is stored on the forum."
good idea i'll look into it.
"Firstly, I'm not trying to prove the Bible wrong. I'm trying to prove YOU wrong, and succeeding."
really? you think you're proving me wrong by throwing sites at me that are clearly biased? even if i were to prove every single passage on that site is missrepresented, then you still would just way whatever b/c you don't care about the truth, you just want to prove you're right and everyone else is wrong. why don't you read these passages for youself; if i spoonfeed you everything, you son't learn a thing.
"Secondly, I think it's interesting that through your argument, you've actually ended up arguing that if a couple of passages from the Bible are wrong, then the whole thing is wrong, which is pretty hilarious. You've said that if one thing is not credible, then that invalidates the rest of it. "
actually i said by your logic, if you would have read my post thoroughly. i do not agree with this logic however if you do, then at the same time you must agree with what i used b/c it uses the same logic.
" Jesus was a human sacrifice. Game over."
human sacrifice? no he was God's sacrifice of his son who in fact was more than human. he came as the flesh of a man however his soul was not. in the bible animal sacifice was sufficient to cover the sin's of a man however God did away with this in sending his only son as a sacrifice for everyone. he was not sacrificed like a sacrifice but exicuted like a man. if you pay attention, sacrifices are burnt and jesus was not burnt.
