RE: Virgin Mary, Ark of the Covenant
March 26, 2014 at 7:58 am
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2014 at 8:14 am by Chas.)
(March 25, 2014 at 12:39 pm)Thunder Cunt Wrote: I admire an atheist even more when they sacrifice, suffer, and die for what they believe to be true.
Since atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, what is there for an atheist to suffer or die for?

(March 26, 2014 at 3:12 am)Aractus Wrote: You have no authority to claim what the NT books are.
He has scholarship - no 'authority' needed.
Who has this alleged authority? The Queen? She's head of your church - can you cite her scholarly treatises?
Quote:Quote:They are IN NO WAY, "factual".I'm not even going to dignify that bullshit, go troll elsewhere.
Oh, fuck, that's hilarious. You are the outsider and troll here.
Quote:Quote:YOU are the one that "needs to provide evidence" that even ONE thing in them is "factual". You can't even provide ONE piece of evidence that Jesus even existed.I don't need to prove something that's already agreed upon by historians as fact. If you're going to disagree with history it's up to you to provide evidence. Explain the letters of Paul? Explain the book of Acts? Explain Josephus and James the Just?
He already has, but you're too butt-hurt to read his actual words.
Quote:What the fuck are you talking about? Isaiah 7:14? The author of the Gospel according to Mathew translates almah as 'virgin', so what? How do you know that it's a mistranslation?
Because it is an objective fact.
Quote:You're clutching at straws. How about the sermon on the mount? How many scholars do you know that doubt that Jesus delivered that? How about the Last Supper - an event recorded in 5 books in the Bible - how many scholars do you know that doubt that occurred?
You simply ignore the scholars who do, in fact, doubt the historicity of the Bible, and justify that with evidence.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.