Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance

[The Grand Nudger]

Your grandfather probably deserves more credit for the attributes that made such an impression on you than any inspiration by faith.

[Undeceived]

How could you know? How can you read the mind of a God you don't think exists?

How could you know? The basis for your theory is a book that you can only attest as real from the book itself saying it is. If I gave you a scrap of paper saying "God is evil. This note is the word of god.", you would say that it was ridiculous to believe that it was real simply on the basis that it says it is, yet that is exactly what you're calling evidence when you quote from the bible.

The Bible has additional evidence supporting it, such as archaeology, historical documents, and the fact that we know it was written by multiple authors within a couple years of the events and hasn't changed since. Within 5 years of Jesus' death, Christianity exploded. Don't you think people 5 years within the fact would know if the claims were bogus? The claims I'm speaking of are Jesus' death and resurrection. God knew people would have a hard time accepting him on words alone, so he arranged actual recordable events. In addition to the evidence, we have the Holy Spirit. When we finally see the light, something clicks in the brain and it all becomes crystal clear. At that point Jesus is more real than anything else, and we know the truth. The process is not only intellectual but spiritual too. Why are people so moved to give their lives as missionaries overseas? Because they are positive of the truth. Muslims, Mormons and members of other fake religions are driven by fear. They only tell people about "God" or follow customs because they might end up in hell if they don't. Christianity is driven by love. Christians know they are already saved; they don't have to do anything. Any actions are a reaction to God's gift to them--eternal life and forgiveness for all their wrongdoings. Once we've determined in our hearts and minds that the Bible is divinely inspired, then we can use it to shape our lives. Christians don't need to read the Bible to learn God is good. They read it because He is good.

Links regarding the Bible's validity:
http://www.millennialstar.org/the-case-f...scripture/
http://www.millennialstar.org/the-case-f...evidences/

[The Grand Nudger]

Man, the timespan just keeps getting pushed farther back doesn't it, 5 years is the claim now? In 5 years you'll be claiming that christianity was huge 3 years before the supposed birth of christ, and if that weren't proof of god, then fuck me, I don't know what would be.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As human being I like to love and be loved. As a Christian I want to be closer to the source of Love-Itself. I find that study and prayer cultivates my receptiveness to that love. That is not the way for everyone. Some Christians focus of community and fellowship, for example. Not all people who study and pray are receptive. Some who neither study nor pray are still receptive to that love. I'm not implying that only believers are receptive to divine lone. I suspect that many accept it without knowing where Love-itself comes from.

[Undeceived]

Man, the timespan just keeps getting pushed farther back doesn't it, 5 years is the claim now? In 5 years you'll be claiming that christianity was huge 3 years before the supposed birth of christ, and if that weren't proof of god, then fuck me, I don't know what would be.

From my above link:

If we assume the earliest date for the crucifixion as A.D. 30, then Paul’s conversion would be placed at about A.D. 32. His first meeting with the Apostles at Jerusalem can then be placed at A.D. 35. So we can place the dating of the 1 Corinthians 15 material as already established and formulated doctrines of the early Church to within 5 years of the crucifixion – far too fast to be Legendary additions of any sort.

To say this interpretation is wrong would be to assume the writer of Acts (Luke) was clever enough to fabricate his whole book completely while fitting it into accounts of early church history that weren't even written yet. And the real Paul would have to be privy to this, allowing Luke to make up stories about him while he penned phantom letters to imaginary churches.

---

The dating of 1 Corinthians, from wikipedia:

The epistle was written from Ephesus (Acts 16:8), a city on the west coast of today's Turkey, about 180 miles by sea from Corinth. According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD. In 16:8 Paul declares his intention of staying in Ephesus until Pentecost. This statement, in turn, is clearly reminiscent of Paul's Second Missionary Journey, when Paul travelled from Corinth to Ephesus, before going to Jerusalem for Pentecost (cf. Acts 18:22). Thus, it is possible that I Corinthians was written during Paul's first (brief) stay in Ephesus, at the end of his Second Journey, usually dated to early 54 AD. However, it is more likely that it was written during his extended stay in Ephesus, where he refers to sending Timothy to them (Acts 19:22, I Cor. 4:17). Also, his references to Apollos (1:12, 3:4, etc.) show that Apollos was known to Paul and the church at the time of writing, which would preclude the first recorded visit to Ephesus (See Acts 18:24-28).

[The Grand Nudger]

You know what they say about assumptions UD.

[Neo-Scholastic]

UD is talking about the assumptions of non-believers, Rhythm. You have not refuted UD's claim.

---

UD, you cannot establish the date 1 Corinthians 15 was written. Paul could have written that much later.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have to refute shit Chad, his claim, his burden, not mine. I'm just mentioning that I don't find his claims very convincing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

UD has fulfilled his obligation of presenting evidence. He claimed 5 years. You said prove it, so he offered up textual evidence. So the ball was in your court. BTW you should thank me for refuting his claim for you. Geez.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not to my satisfaction he hasn't, it's not like we haven't heard these claims before Chad, more than once, more than twice, more than a dozen times. Stick around. I'll thank you for "refuting his claim" when he admits that you have, which he won't. You couldn't refute his claim if you wanted to anyway, how does one "refute" a fairy tale? That being said, I;m sick and tired of the "meteoric rise of christianity" line of apologetic trash. Cargo cults arose even faster and we don't see any of the faithful doubting their own claims in that case, even though we thankfully have excellent documentation of this phenomena that completely demolishes each and every claim a cargo cult made. (Mostly since they thought we and our aircraft and ships were fucking gods)

(I don't remember asking him anything btw..lol, maybe read my post again?)