Blind faith

[Minstadave]

I love it

 

[sniffy]

That pic is indeed great. Never seen it posted before.

 

[Sleepy]

That pic is indeed great. Never seen it posted before.

Obviously you are remiss and not spending enough time here. Flagellation is called for methinks.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Its been posted a few times, first time by me .

you could have made it bigger

 

[Homeslice]

Except as I have stated from the beginning, and was my very reason for posting in this thread, you are wrong in this matter. I've repeatedly asked for your evidence to justify your claims of written material yet, unsurprisingly, its still has yet to make an appearence

Written evidence? Both John & Matthew claim to have witnessed not only the death but the resurrection as well, but I assume you are saying that these letters, prooved to have been written are just texts based on nothing?

The Gospel of Matthew was composed not much longer than a generation after the death of Christ, at a time when hundreds, if not thousands, of witnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection were still alive. Matthew himself had lived through the events he describes. That is contemporary evidence.

Matthew did not have to fabricate the life of Christ. He wrote out his account and sent it to the people of Judea, the very people who had witnessed Christ’s activities, within forty years of his crucifixion. If these things really did not happen as Matthew said, then Matthew and the other Gospel writers were leaving themselves open to real and dangerous criticism.

These disciples (11), who had been terrified of that same crowd who condemned Jesus and his followers just fifty days earlier, now stood in the midst of them, each man witnessing with assurance and dynamic conviction to Christ’s resurrection. None was fearful for his own personal life.

The Book of Acts makes this plain. And, should you question the reliability of this document, it should be noted that the Book of Acts was written within forty years after the first Pentecost, an event which took place in the midst of thousands of people in Jerusalem. The Book of Acts, in regard to literary criticism, is a contemporary document, written at a time when thousands of witnesses were still alive. There can be no doubt that Luke’s record in Acts is definitely reliable.

err I think you've lost the plot here.

Not really. Please explain to me how you think someone who wants to become a Christian goes about it, or, how someone born into a christian (or catholic) home becomes a christian. I'd love to know the answer.

Catholics base thier entire religion around the virgin Mary more than the focus of Jesus himself as Lord and the Son of God.

You are aware that there is no evidence for the martyrdom of any of the apostles. There is church tradition but no evidence.

Evidence? Even after the resurrection Paul refuted it until the Road to Damascus. Paul was executed for his beliefs. Documented.

 

[RoboCod]

Documented.

All documented a few thousand years ago when people believed in dragons and wizards.

I trust the documentation of modern scientists, not delusional and gullible folk of times past so long ago.

 

[Homeslice]

All documented a few thousand years ago when people believed in dragons and wizards.

I trust the documentation of modern scientists, not delusional and gullible folk of times past so long ago.

Yawn - If you trust modern day scientists, then you are unfortunately delusional, just as people were hundreds of years ago when so called 'scientists' said the earth was flat

 

[RoboCod]

Yawn - If you trust modern day scientists, then you are unfortunately delusional, just as people were hundreds of years ago when so called 'scientists' said the earth was flat

Oh so you're suggesting it's not round, like modern day scientist's claim?

I trust modern day scientists OVER old scriptures and stories of talking snakes and BS to be fair. Delusional is putting blind faith in something that is so uncomprehendingly far fetched. I wish I was around back when people believed any word I'd say, then I'd make up an elaborate story of how I am the son of god and have many people worship me and kiss my ass

 

[sniffy]

Obviously you are remiss and not spending enough time here. Flagellation is called for methinks.

I spend far too much time on OcUK I just try stay clear of threads related to religion

 

[Homeslice]

Oh so you're suggesting it's not round, like modern day scientist's claim?

I trust modern day scientists OVER old scriptures and stories of talking snakes and BS to be fair. Delusional is putting blind faith in something that is so uncomprehendingly far fetched. I wish I was around back when people believed any word I'd say, then I'd make up an elaborate story of how I am the son of god and have many people worship me and kiss my ass

You make no sense. How can a scientist be Modern Day? Were scientists 2000 years ago not 'modern day' back then. They could only prrove what they knew which ended up being wrong based on the evidence they could extract at the time. In 2000 years time, what is to stop new ways of discovering science disprooving everything we know and understand today? Nothing.

Oh, and what does science 'actually' proove other than what we see is real?

 

[RoboCod]

You make no sense. How can a scientist be Modern Day? Were scientists 2000 years ago not 'modern day' back then. They could only prrove what they knew which ended up being wrong based on the evidence they could extract at the time. In 2000 years time, what is to stop new ways of discovering science disprooving everything we know and understand today? Nothing.

Oh, and what does science 'actually' proove other than what we see is real?

Yeah we could argue all day, just like all these threads tend to, blah blah.

You know exactly what I mean when I refer to scientific research that is obtained. When I say "modern scientist" I mean that the theories and facts that we produce have up to date evidence that I can see there in front of me in some form or another. To put full faith in something written by some guy tripping on mushrooms a few thousand years ago is foolish.

YOU make no sense.

 

[Azagoth]

You make no sense.

I find that extremely strange coming from you. A person who stated above that the Catholic church does not believe in the resurrection. Which is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Christian faith, if not the backbone of the entire religion.

 

[Homeslice]

I find that extremely strange coming from you. A person who stated above that the Catholic church does not believe in the resurrection. Which is one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Christian faith, if not the backbone of the entire religion.

www.google.co.uk

Theres a large difference between Roman Catholic religion (or Christianity as people call it) and the Protestant Religion that came from the Resurrection of Jesus.

Do you think that in order to become a Christian you just need to be Christened as a child and lead a good life and honest life according to the teachings of the RC church?

Yeah we could argue all day, just like all these threads tend to, blah blah.

You know exactly what I mean when I refer to scientific research that is obtained. When I say "modern scientist" I mean that the theories and facts that we produce have up to date evidence that I can see there in front of me in some form or another. To put full faith in something written by some guy tripping on mushrooms a few thousand years ago is foolish.

But evidence from science can only be concluded from the understanding our tiny brains give it. There is no scientific proof that the Big Bang occured for instance. Even modern day scientists know that 'something' helped to create the universe and earth. Only the most arrogant dispute it.

 

[Sleepy]

Written evidence? Both John & Matthew claim to have witnessed not only the death but the resurrection as well

NO THEY DON'T

Regarding the authorship of Matthew

that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.

What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.

There is internal evidence that suggests that the author resided in Antioch, Syria

...Peter's status in Matthew accords with his standing in Antioch, said to be the first bishop there. Not a strong argument on its own, but it fits the pattern.
Antioch had both a large Jewish population as well as being the site of the earliest Gentile missions, Matthew more than the other gospels reflects this duality.
Only in Antioch did the official stater equal 2 didrachmae, Matt 17.24-7.
The two texts which seem to refer to Matthean tradition (in the one case to the text of Matthew in the other case possibly to the text, but more likely to M material) are the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and the Didache whose provenance is also Syria or northern Palestine thus placing Matthew fairly firmly in those areas at the end of the first century...

Regarding the authorship of John

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled." (p. 918)

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)

So plenty of evidence to refute any supposition that apostles wrote those two gospels.

The Book of Acts makes this plain. And, should you question the reliability of this document, it should be noted that the Book of Acts was written within forty years after the first Pentecost, an event which took place in the midst of thousands of people in Jerusalem. The Book of Acts, in regard to literary criticism, is a contemporary document, written at a time when thousands of witnesses were still alive. There can be no doubt that Luke’s record in Acts is definitely reliable.

Dating Acts to within 40 years of the pentecost is at the earliest that most scholars date it, going by "King Agrippa and Bernice arrived in Caesarea" Acts 25:13, Bernice wasn't famous till post AD70 when works which mentioned her by Juvenals and Suetonius were published. Whether Luke used Josephuses Antiquities is controversial but if he did that dates Acts to post AD93. given that Luke was almost certainly a compatriot of Paul that limits the later dates to early 2nd C,

So given that your dating is at best tentative and at worst a few decades too soon, to say that Acts is contempory is flawed, both in that a book written 40 years after the fact is not contempory. And given life expectancies back then allmost all, if not all the witnesses would have died so its hardly strong evidence if no objected to its contents.

Catholics base thier entire religion around the virgin Mary more than the focus of Jesus himself as Lord and the Son of God.

This is simply wrong.

Evidence? Even after the resurrection Paul refuted it until the Road to Damascus. Paul was executed for his beliefs. Documented.

And its so well documented that no one even knows what year he died in.

Yet again you make claims of evidence that just aren't supported by any evidence.

 

[Sleepy]

Yawn - If you trust modern day scientists, then you are unfortunately delusional, just as people were hundreds of years ago when so called 'scientists' said the earth was flat

More ignorence, people have known the earth is spherical since 900BC, and the greeks worked out the circumference in around 150BC

 

[RoboCod]

But evidence from science can only be concluded from the understanding our tiny brains give it. There is no scientific proof that the Big Bang occured for instance.

Not proof, but a growing amount of EVIDENCE. Where is the evidence of your god? In your tiny human brain!

Even modern day scientists know that 'something' helped to create the universe and earth. Only the most arrogant dispute it.

Yes, and I'm sure one day they will formulate a very tangible theory as to what that "thing" was too! I highly doubt it will ever be concluded that some higher being did because that, of course, is far too simplistic. I must be arrogant! I'd rather be arrogant rather than ignorant. Religion breeds ignorance. Because we can't explain something we'll just replace that big hole in our knowledge with the word "GOD" and then we're happy. Why when we can learn and discover what is really happening?

 

[Sleepy]

You make no sense. How can a scientist be Modern Day? Were scientists 2000 years ago not 'modern day' back then. They could only prrove what they knew which ended up being wrong based on the evidence they could extract at the time.

science is a modern concept that slowly developed from the 15 to 19thC into its modern form. Using that term for earlier thinkers is simply wrong.

In 2000 years time, what is to stop new ways of discovering science disprooving everything we know and understand today? Nothing.

You say this like its a bad thing, its not. As science increases so does our understanding of the universe in which we live. however gaining deeper understandings and improving theories does not in itself overturn history, which isn't science to begin with.

Oh, and what does science 'actually' proove other than what we see is real?

Actually it doesn't prove that, reread dolphs postings about science, scientific method, proof, truth and belief.

 

[Azagoth]

Anyway, didn't Deep Thought create the Earth? I read it in a book, so it must be true.

 

[Homeslice]

NO THEY DON'T

YES THEY DO - I can provide you with hunderds of pages documenting to the contrary of what you have written regarding Matthew and John. But really, what is the point?

This is simply wrong.

No, its not. Answer my question about entering the religionof Christianity, and then we'll discuss it.

Yet again you make claims of evidence that just aren't supported by any evidence.

No, I dont. I use the testamonies and documention of the NT which is a valid source of information from writers either at the time or within very close proximity of a timeline. If life expectancy was so short (not that you'd even know how long it was back then) how did the writers of such documents even know who or what they were writing about? As said, Scholars over hundreds of years have shown pureity in the NT and the whole Bible and DSS venture near 95% pureity.

More ignorence, people have known the earth is spherical since 900BC, and the greeks worked out the circumference in around 150BC

not really, I was saving time as 24 was about to start

 

[Homeslice]

Anyway, didn't Deep Thought create the Earth? I read it in a book, so it must be true.

Billy Goats Gruff called - they want their Troll back

Two people to whom I have posed a question. Side stepping it in amazingly arrogant fashion. I pitty you.