RE: A simple challenge for atheists
January 29, 2015 at 9:36 am
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 10:09 am by SteveII.)
To tie the two threads together between the OT and revelation, you have to make a distinction based on the content of the revelation. Paul was NOT creating a new religion. He wrote letters explaining and fleshing out the framework of what Jesus already taught. He was instructed by the apostles and inspired by God to write his letters and preach his sermons. He did not impart new commandments, new systems, or new methods of atonement. Since Mohammad and Smith did, there is the distinction.
Regarding the prophets of the OT, the information is true, useful in understanding God, the context of the NT, but supremely more important is what Jesus said and what Paul and others fleshed out (the NT).
As I have already discussed at length, the existence of God was clearly and dramatically demonstrated to the first century Christians. I am not going to type out the same answers I did just a handful of pages back. If you don't like the evidence, fine. You can't claim there isn't any.
If I am wasting your time, don't click on this thread.
What I don't like are atheist whose only answer to anything is prove it.
Do you have anything to add other than "prove it"?
You forgot the 27 accounts from a dozen authors from the period.
We have been over this (with links). The majority of scholars believe that Jesus existed.
Regarding the prophets of the OT, the information is true, useful in understanding God, the context of the NT, but supremely more important is what Jesus said and what Paul and others fleshed out (the NT).
(January 28, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Until you can demonstrate that your god exists, anything you have to say about that god is worthless. Any argument you put forth only wastes everybody's time. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's not our fault you have no support for your assertions and we shouldn't have to give any credence to your assertions just because you've demonstrated a capacity to make them.
As I have already discussed at length, the existence of God was clearly and dramatically demonstrated to the first century Christians. I am not going to type out the same answers I did just a handful of pages back. If you don't like the evidence, fine. You can't claim there isn't any.
If I am wasting your time, don't click on this thread.
What I don't like are atheist whose only answer to anything is prove it.
Do you have anything to add other than "prove it"?
(January 28, 2015 at 6:06 pm)dyresand Wrote: lets... see.... what science and archeology has to say about jesus...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...acter.html
http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reason...r_existed/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barb...83198.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...t-hold-up/
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblia...zar_27.htm
http://www.unbiasedtalk.com/the-intellec...ne-romans/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/31...us-existed
So from this i will draw my conclusion jesus doesn't exist or ever has but rather just made up. So the NT in all its "glory" is not even relevant.
You forgot the 27 accounts from a dozen authors from the period.
We have been over this (with links). The majority of scholars believe that Jesus existed.