<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 4 2004, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 4 2004, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sorry to be so harsh but your argument is weak.
How did Jesus walk on water? HoverCraft?
How did Jesus appear to hundreds of men AFTER his death. These people saw Jesus die, they saw his dead body, pierced with a spear and they SAW him ALIVE after his death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is no EVIDENCE that these stories are anything more than legends. Period. You seem to be making some huge claims of Jesus/the Bible and they really are not supported by the facts.
BTW, you didnt reply to my 4 in a row posts a page or two back... why not?
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 4 2004, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2004, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are also roman records about Jesus's execution, not to mention it doesn't follow the pattern of any fictional character ever created. The accounts of Jesus come from multiple sourses around the same generation, which was very soon after his death, and at least one of them was written with the express intent of being a history text for later generations. Not only that but litterally hundreds of people were mardyered for thier belife in Jesus, many of which were most likely eye whitnesses to his later life, and quite possibly eye whitnesses to him being alive after he died on the cross. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No no no. You aren't getting it. These are legends. Nothing more... There's no substantial evidence for any of these claims you're making.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That being said I have yet to hear of someone willingly accepting death for thier belife in dracula.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right. Why die for a lie? Unless of course, you belong to a cult, or are an Islamic suicide bomber. Oops!
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 02:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 02:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 4 2004, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2004, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are also roman records about Jesus's execution, not to mention it doesn't follow the pattern of any fictional character ever created. The accounts of Jesus come from multiple sourses around the same generation, which was very soon after his death, and at least one of them was written with the express intent of being a history text for later generations. Not only that but litterally hundreds of people were mardyered for thier belife in Jesus, many of which were most likely eye whitnesses to his later life, and quite possibly eye whitnesses to him being alive after he died on the cross. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No no no. You aren't getting it. These are legends. Nothing more... There's no substantial evidence for any of these claims you're making. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that's the case, then you might as well claim Rome never existed, since all the historians writing from that time were just lying about it anyways. You can't assume that historical writers are lying about the world around them just beacause you don't like what they are saying. Its exactly the same logical process as claiming the world doesn't exist simply because the only thing you can prove is that you exist because you are thinking. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Jesus then the existance of Alexander the great, Homer, and Aristol combined. You don't make 300 copies of a religious story that can get you killed about events 100 years ago that simply did not happen, yet we have endless scores, literally thousands and thousands, of new testimate transcripts from the old church that are dated anywhere between 100-300 years after the death of Jesus. For the earlier of these, we are talking less then one generation after the last people who saw Jesus died.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right. Why die for a lie? Unless of course, you belong to a cult, or are an Islamic suicide bomber. Oops! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with this is, we are talking about mayrter who are supposed to have actually seen Jesus alive. If the event of Jesus coming back to life did not happen (or at least something that looked alot like it) the early church would never have been started up. I mean the deciples scattered in fear of the roman empire and were mostly spilt up just 3 days after the death of Jesus, and they didn't come back together until Jesus started apearing all over the place. This means we have people, who would definately know about it if Jesus had not risen from the dead, willingly giving thier lives rather than admiting that the act of the resurrection never happened. If the mayrters were just one layer of word of mouth down I would agree with your case, but we are talking about people who acctually saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross and buried under a giant stone, giving up thier life rather than simply saying that what they had seen had never happened.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 5 2004, 03:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 5 2004, 03:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 02:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 02:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Nov 4 2004, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2004, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are also roman records about Jesus's execution, not to mention it doesn't follow the pattern of any fictional character ever created. The accounts of Jesus come from multiple sourses around the same generation, which was very soon after his death, and at least one of them was written with the express intent of being a history text for later generations. Not only that but litterally hundreds of people were mardyered for thier belife in Jesus, many of which were most likely eye whitnesses to his later life, and quite possibly eye whitnesses to him being alive after he died on the cross. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No no no. You aren't getting it. These are legends. Nothing more... There's no substantial evidence for any of these claims you're making. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If that's the case, then you might as well claim Rome never existed, since all the historians writing from that time were just lying about it anyways. You can't assume that historical writers are lying about the world around them just beacause you don't like what they are saying. Its exactly the same logical process as claiming the world doesn't exist simply because the only thing you can prove is that you exist because you are thinking. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Jesus then the existance of Alexander the great, Homer, and Aristol combined. You don't make 300 copies of a religious story that can get you killed about events 100 years ago that simply did not happen, yet we have endless scores, literally thousands and thousands, of new testimate transcripts from the old church that are dated anywhere between 100-300 years after the death of Jesus. For the earlier of these, we are talking less then one generation after the last people who saw Jesus died.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right. Why die for a lie? Unless of course, you belong to a cult, or are an Islamic suicide bomber. Oops! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with this is, we are talking about mayrter who are supposed to have actually seen Jesus alive. If the event of Jesus coming back to life did not happen (or at least something that looked alot like it) the early church would never have been started up. I mean the deciples scattered in fear of the roman empire and were mostly spilt up just 3 days after the death of Jesus, and they didn't come back together until Jesus started apearing all over the place. This means we have people, who would definately know about it if Jesus had not risen from the dead, willingly giving thier lives rather than admiting that the act of the resurrection never happened. If the mayrters were just one layer of word of mouth down I would agree with your case, but we are talking about people who acctually saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross and buried under a giant stone, giving up thier life rather than simply saying that what they had seen had never happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I second Swift's statements.
I'll say this just once more, we have more historical documents for the existence of Jesus than we do for Socrates, or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Everyone believes these people existed but because Jesus stood for something, because he was God, Atheists get scared in my opinion.
Because if an Atheist thought there was a God than they would have to answer to this almighty being and Atheists in general just want to do what they want to do when it feels good for them. You can contest this as I'm sure you will but that's why most people don't want to believe in Jesus, because if he was who he said he was than you'd have to worship him or truly suffer the consequences, it's more convenient to pretend he was a fake, right?
You claim to look at the evidence but you don't at all. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.
Oh but I like this, very much. I was watching Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade last night (great movie BTW) and Ford said something I liked, he said, "Archeology is the quest for Facts. Not truth, if you want truth then go see the Philosophy teacher across the hall."
Stop seeking Facts and start seeking Truth. You were created by God for his pleasure, that God wants a relationship with you and that he loves you, that is truth.
P.S. Still waiting for your list of contradictions, Nadagast.
Other than historical accounts, Rome also has physical remains for us to examine. Buildings, artifacts, etc. I dont know my American history, but I bet theres Washington and Lincoln stuff laying around for us to prove the existance of these people as well.
Are there equivalents to these for the Bible? Noah's Ark? Stuff that Jesus made when he was a carpenter?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 3 2004, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 3 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> wow I'm amazed you believe stuff like tektonics. That link doesn't even provide a timeline of the day's events, it doesn't complete the challenge, it merely attempts to refute some blatant contradictions. Look, let me point out several examples of blatant contradictions:
Mt. 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Luke 28:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Mk 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
Your site may not CHOOSE TO READ THESE AS CONTRADICTIONS, but they *ARE*. Wether you like it or not. They are contradictory claims. Period. 1 is not 2. The stone blocking the door is not the same as the stone not blocking the door. There is no way to say otherwise unless you wish to decieve yourself.
Did the disciples first see Jesus after his resurrection at Galilee or in a room in Jerusalem?
John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Matthew 28:16-17 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Jesus man isn't it abundantly clear that this stuff is man made? It's OBVIOUS. I don't see how any rational human being can buy into this. JOIN US OR BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY? Right, not man made at all.
Again, you may not choose to read these as contradictions, BUT THEY ARE. Let me say it again: Extraordinary claims (someone being resurrected is pretty damn extraordinary) require extraordinary proof. There's none.
Oh and hey, lets just throw out what's known as science and logic. People can be resurrected if God does it! SERIOUS! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I posted this a few pages back. I'm still waiting for you to reply...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If that's the case, then you might as well claim Rome never existed, since all the historians writing from that time were just lying about it anyways. You can't assume that historical writers are lying about the world around them just beacause you don't like what they are saying. Its exactly the same logical process as claiming the world doesn't exist simply because the only thing you can prove is that you exist because you are thinking. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Jesus then the existance of Alexander the great, Homer, and Aristol combined. You don't make 300 copies of a religious story that can get you killed about events 100 years ago that simply did not happen, yet we have endless scores, literally thousands and thousands, of new testimate transcripts from the old church that are dated anywhere between 100-300 years after the death of Jesus. For the earlier of these, we are talking less then one generation after the last people who saw Jesus died.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Don't link me to a site that says "THESE PEOPLE EXISTED!" You can scream it all you want until you're blue in the face. The facts are that when unbiased people have looked at the evidence, they found no extraordinary evidence of this extraordinary event... It's amazing how you guys have the ability to blatantly ignore facts and twist things so horribly just to stay confident in your worldview.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem with this is, we are talking about mayrter who are supposed to have actually seen Jesus alive. If the event of Jesus coming back to life did not happen (or at least something that looked alot like it) the early church would never have been started up. I mean the deciples scattered in fear of the roman empire and were mostly spilt up just 3 days after the death of Jesus, and they didn't come back together until Jesus started apearing all over the place. This means we have people, who would definately know about it if Jesus had not risen from the dead, willingly giving thier lives rather than admiting that the act of the resurrection never happened. If the mayrters were just one layer of word of mouth down I would agree with your case, but we are talking about people who acctually saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross and buried under a giant stone, giving up thier life rather than simply saying that what they had seen had never happened.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll say this just once more, we have more historical documents for the existence of Jesus than we do for Socrates, or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Everyone believes these people existed but because Jesus stood for something, because he was God, Atheists get scared in my opinion.
Because if an Atheist thought there was a God than they would have to answer to this almighty being and Atheists in general just want to do what they want to do when it feels good for them. You can contest this as I'm sure you will but that's why most people don't want to believe in Jesus, because if he was who he said he was than you'd have to worship him or truly suffer the consequences, it's more convenient to pretend he was a fake, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is a good example of making up my argument for me. Hey let me do it back to you: You're so scared that if a God doesn't exist, you might not have an eternal afterlife, and that scares you. So it's just easier to pretend that a God exists just to help your ease of mind, right? Please don't post garbage like this anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You claim to look at the evidence but you don't at all. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. Okay, look. I used to be a Christian just like you. I looked at the facts for myself (open mind required) and determined that there are too many logical errors in this faith, and no good compelling reason to believe in it. You can scream "Jesus was resurrected!" Forever, but it won't change a thing: There is no great evidence for this great event (Rome existing doesn't break the laws of physics/nature does it?).
I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine".
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 10:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What? He's saying that, because these people would not go back on their word when faced with death, it must be true. By that logic, Islam (and any other religion where people kill themselves) must be true. These people willingly kill themselves for their beliefs.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 10:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? He's saying that, because these people would not go back on their word when faced with death, it must be true. By that logic, Islam (and any other religion where people kill themselves) must be true. These people willingly kill themselves for their beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then you probably shouldn't have included 'suicide bomber' in your comparison.
My apologies, I missed that. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mt. 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Luke 28:2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Mk 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
John 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The verses from Matthew and Luke are from different times. You already put them in chronological order.
There was an earthquake. An angel descended, the soldiers guarding the tomb freaked out. The angel rolled away the stone, sat on it and by the time Mary and the others arrived at the tomb the Angel was inside.
ALL gospels record that when Mary and the others arrived at the tomb, it was open, stone rolled away. So, unless I missed the point... No contradiction.
If you'll allow me a few hours I can write out the "Easter Challenge" Story for you. That may better clarify this whole situation.
Now as for how many angels there WERE, the fact is, where there is TWO there is always ONE. It never fails. If one book says there was an angel and the other says there were TWO angels it is not a contradiction because one author just mentions the one angel for some reason, perhaps it is the angel that spoke to them, who knows? But it isn't a contradiction.
And finally, WHERE the angel(s) sat. I believe that the angel sat on the right side at the head or the feet (depends on which angel Mark is relating here.) Sitting on the "right side" and "at the head and the feet" can, again, be accomplished at the same time. Mark simply chose to say he was on the right side and John said more specifically where they were. The two accounts go hand in hand, however.
Did the disciples first see Jesus after his resurrection at Galilee or in a room in Jerusalem?
John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Matthew 28:16-17 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
This is an easy one. The chronological order of events goes as such:
1. Jesus arose. 2. Jesu spoke with Mary. 3. Jesus met with "THE ELEVEN" on a mountain. 4. That night, Jesus met with his DISCIPLES in a room.
"The Eleven" and "The Disciples" can be the same thing but in these stories I don't think so, looking at context clues you know that Jesus had other followers besides THE ELEVEN. Therefore Jesus met with his close friends, THE ELEVEN and then with the rest of his followers that night.
That is only one possability, I believe, more likely that he met with his disciples IN a mountain IN a house of some sort. It is my belief that one author lists more precisely than the other. But it is not a contradiction. I could say I live in Texas or I could say I live in Dallas, one is more precise but they both are 100% accurate.
And as I said before I'll be happy to write out the Easter story for you later today.
Hope that answers your question!
EDIT: Yes, I was out of line with my comments about Atheists and I apologize.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 10:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 10:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? He's saying that, because these people would not go back on their word when faced with death, it must be true. By that logic, Islam (and any other religion where people kill themselves) must be true. These people willingly kill themselves for their beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then you probably shouldn't have included 'suicide bomber' in your comparison. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why not? A suicide bomber is a man who willingly puts himself to death for his religion...
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why not? A suicide bomber is a man who willingly puts himself to death for his religion... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I really do not think this discussion can continue if you cannot differentiate between a martyr and a suicide bomber.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 5 2004, 10:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 5 2004, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you'll allow me a few hours I can write out the "Easter Challenge" Story for you. That may better clarify this whole situation.
And as I said before I'll be happy to write out the Easter story for you later today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't even bother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The verses from Matthew and Luke are from different times. You already put them in chronological order.
There was an earthquake. An angel descended, the soldiers guarding the tomb freaked out. The angel rolled away the stone, sat on it and by the time Mary and the others arrived at the tomb the Angel was inside.
ALL gospels record that when Mary and the others arrived at the tomb, it was open, stone rolled away. So, unless I missed the point... No contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew 28:1-2 1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Gee, that sure does read a lot like: They arrived at the tomb, there was a great earthquake, and finally, the stone was rolled back. They even "beheld" it!
be·held, (-hld) be·hold·ing, be·holds 1. 1. To perceive by the visual faculty; see 2. To perceive through use of the mental faculty; comprehend (don't claim this is what they are doing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's comprehending, not ESP) 2. To look upon; gaze at
Please tell me where I'm going wrong here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now as for how many angels there WERE, the fact is, where there is TWO there is always ONE. It never fails. If one book says there was an angel and the other says there were TWO angels it is not a contradiction because one author just mentions the one angel for some reason, perhaps it is the angel that spoke to them, who knows? But it isn't a contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is great. Apparantly, if I say I have 2 snickers bars, you say I have 1 snickers bar, that isn't a contradiction? No. You're blatantly ignoring logic here man. Come on WAKE UP. You may not choose to read this as a contradiction, but IT IS. PERIOD. I can't say it any clearer than that. How am I supposed to argue with someone who is this illogical? What can I say? IT IS CONTRADICTORY.
Would I be telling the truth if I say that 2 people live in the USA right now? No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And finally, WHERE the angel(s) sat. I believe that the angel sat on the right side at the head or the feet (depends on which angel Mark is relating here.) Sitting on the "right side" and "at the head and the feet" can, again, be accomplished at the same time. Mark simply chose to say he was on the right side and John said more specifically where they were. The two accounts go hand in hand, however. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I didn't even post this as a contradiction... I guess you're just copy/pasting this from some Christian apologetic website?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an easy one. The chronological order of events goes as such:
1. Jesus arose. 2. Jesu spoke with Mary. 3. Jesus met with "THE ELEVEN" on a mountain. 4. That night, Jesus met with his DISCIPLES in a room.
"The Eleven" and "The Disciples" can be the same thing but in these stories I don't think so, looking at context clues you know that Jesus had other followers besides THE ELEVEN. Therefore Jesus met with his close friends, THE ELEVEN and then with the rest of his followers that night.
That is only one possability, I believe, more likely that he met with his disciples IN a mountain IN a house of some sort. It is my belief that one author lists more precisely than the other. But it is not a contradiction. I could say I live in Texas or I could say I live in Dallas, one is more precise but they both are 100% accurate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to go to class right now, I'll answer this later, but you need to reread Matthew 28:16. It doesn't say "THE ELEVEN" it says "THE ELEVEN DISCIPLES".
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 5 2004, 10:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 5 2004, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you'll allow me a few hours I can write out the "Easter Challenge" Story for you. That may better clarify this whole situation.
And as I said before I'll be happy to write out the Easter story for you later today.
Hope that answers your question!
EDIT: Yes, I was out of line with my comments about Atheists and I apologize.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't even bother. rofl...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The verses from Matthew and Luke are from different times. You already put them in chronological order.
There was an earthquake. An angel descended, the soldiers guarding the tomb freaked out. The angel rolled away the stone, sat on it and by the time Mary and the others arrived at the tomb the Angel was inside.
ALL gospels record that when Mary and the others arrived at the tomb, it was open, stone rolled away. So, unless I missed the point... No contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew 28:1-2 1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Gee, that sure does read a lot like: They arrived at the tomb, there was a great earthquake, and finally, the stone was rolled back. They even "beheld" it!
be·held, (-hld) be·hold·ing, be·holds 1. 1. To perceive by the visual faculty; see 2. To perceive through use of the mental faculty; comprehend (don't claim this is what they are doing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's comprehending, not ESP) 2. To look upon; gaze at
Please tell me where I'm going wrong here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now as for how many angels there WERE, the fact is, where there is TWO there is always ONE. It never fails. If one book says there was an angel and the other says there were TWO angels it is not a contradiction because one author just mentions the one angel for some reason, perhaps it is the angel that spoke to them, who knows? But it isn't a contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is great. Apparantly, if I say I have 2 snickers bars, you say I have 1 snickers bar, that isn't a contradiction? No. You're blatantly ignoring logic here man. Come on WAKE UP. You may not choose to read this as a contradiction, but IT IS. PERIOD. I can't say it any clearer than that. How am I supposed to argue with someone who is this illogical? What can I say? IT IS CONTRADICTORY.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And finally, WHERE the angel(s) sat. I believe that the angel sat on the right side at the head or the feet (depends on which angel Mark is relating here.) Sitting on the "right side" and "at the head and the feet" can, again, be accomplished at the same time. Mark simply chose to say he was on the right side and John said more specifically where they were. The two accounts go hand in hand, however. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I didn't even post this as a contradiction... I guess you're just copy/pasting this from some Christian apologetic website?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an easy one. The chronological order of events goes as such:
1. Jesus arose. 2. Jesu spoke with Mary. 3. Jesus met with "THE ELEVEN" on a mountain. 4. That night, Jesus met with his DISCIPLES in a room.
"The Eleven" and "The Disciples" can be the same thing but in these stories I don't think so, looking at context clues you know that Jesus had other followers besides THE ELEVEN. Therefore Jesus met with his close friends, THE ELEVEN and then with the rest of his followers that night.
That is only one possability, I believe, more likely that he met with his disciples IN a mountain IN a house of some sort. It is my belief that one author lists more precisely than the other. But it is not a contradiction. I could say I live in Texas or I could say I live in Dallas, one is more precise but they both are 100% accurate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to go to class right now, I'll answer this later, but you need to reread Matthew 28:16. It doesn't say "THE ELEVEN" it says "THE ELEVEN DISCIPLES". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *Gets all excited.* Yay good debates, FINALLY!
OK, now let's get one thing straight. If you do have two snickers bars and I say, "Nadagast has a snickers bar!" That is not at all contradictory. I am ACCURATE I am simply not being PRECISE. This is logical scientific reasoning, Precision and Accuracy are separate from one another <b>in this way</b>.
I have <b>omitted</b> the second Snickers bar for who knows what reason, maybe it was easier to just scream and flail about saying you have "a snickers bar". Or maybe I wanted one and thought you might keep the other for yourself so I didn't bother mentioning it.
OMISSION
Something omitted or <b>neglected.</b>
If anything these authors were negligent.
You logically cannot deny me when I say you have a snickers bar. You may have two, sure. But you have ONE whenever you have TWO. Period. Always. It works.
The Bible DOES contain omissions. But we do that all the time. It's called PARAPHRASING and I'm sure that these authors were well aware of it and how to use it.
*Working on the Easter Challenge as you read this.*
EDIT: The difference is the words used. I didn't say you had "One Snickers bar." I said you have "A snickers bar." That change of one word makes a huge difference.
It is written, "an angel" not "one angel, by himself" or even just "one angel" because that WOULD be a contradiction.
lol, cheers for the update whoever gave it to me - could have guessed though; its the usual screams of the insane. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just because people claim things, doesn't make it true. Who says the Bible isn't just a big book of interesting and extraordinary legends?
You say that millions of people can't have been deceived by Jesus - why not? They are worshipping something that doesn't exist, the only proof they have is the word of everybody else and the word of the Bible, which no one can prove is true.
I hate it when religious people call me insane or ignorant, THEY are the ones ignoring the FACTs, or lack of facts as it were...
<!--QuoteBegin-AlienCow!+Nov 5 2004, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AlienCow! @ Nov 5 2004, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> lol, cheers for the update whoever gave it to me - could have guessed though; its the usual screams of the insane. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Just because people claim things, doesn't make it true. Who says the Bible isn't just a big book of interesting and extraordinary legends?
You say that millions of people can't have been deceived by Jesus - why not? They are worshipping something that doesn't exist, the only proof they have is the word of everybody else and the word of the Bible, which no one can prove is true.
I hate it when religious people call me insane or ignorant, THEY are the ones ignoring the FACTs, or lack of facts as it were... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who says George Washington was our first president? Who says Abraham Lincoln ever existed, was a President, got shot?
The Bible is not written as <b>Beowulf</b>. It is not written as fiction, it is written as a historical document, just like our Declaration of Independence is written.
Here's a nice Christian cop-out that I like alot, cop-out as it is, it's true. I haven't seen the Bahamas but I trust they exist, I don't have the funds or means to get there but I have faith that it exists.
I don't know wether or not someone poisoned my water but I drink in faith. As I said earlier, why do you think there is all this commotion about Jesus?
I've already answered that, because Satan lies and decieves. He doesn't care if someone believes in the Bahamas or believes their water is OK to drink. But he DOES very much care if you believe in Jesus or not. That's why there is so much confusion about it all.
EDIT: And by the way, I called you, decieved and your argument foolish not insane or ignorant. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think the main problem here is that some people are just willing to accept what's written in the good book as fact without proof, just based on the history of it, others actually require some sort of substantiative proof.
What irks me though is that arguments are being made as to how Jesus could walk on water or resurrect himself without divine presence +2 or a hovercraft, AS IF THESE THINGS HAD BEEN PROVEN ALREADY FOR SURE DEFINITELY NO DOUBTS ABOUT IT 100%, when all we have is a claim in a book that these things happened, who could've quite frankly been written by anyone accounting to be any number of people.
Nope, still not taking it for anything more than it is, an idea on a printed piece of page.
<!--QuoteBegin-xioutlawix+Nov 5 2004, 03:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (xioutlawix @ Nov 5 2004, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think the main problem here is that some people are just willing to accept what's written in the good book as fact without proof, just based on the history of it, others actually require some sort of substantiative proof.
What irks me though is that arguments are being made as to how Jesus could walk on water or resurrect himself without divine presence +2 or a hovercraft, AS IF THESE THINGS HAD BEEN PROVEN ALREADY FOR SURE DEFINITELY NO DOUBTS ABOUT IT 100%, when all we have is a claim in a book that these things happened, who could've quite frankly been written by anyone accounting to be any number of people.
Nope, still not taking it for anything more than it is, an idea on a printed piece of page. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No one willing to debate me?
HOW DO YOU KNOW GEORGE WASHINGTON EXISTED? What makes his story more credible than Jesus'?
We acknowledge that even today, a president exists. We acknowledge based on other factual evidence that is in actual existence that the United States was founded, and that it elected government positions, not the least of which to include a president. We realize that such an institution as it exists today would not likely have only recently instituted a presidency position. And we acknowledge that said president did only that which other mortal men can do, which we see with our very own eyes today.
No offense to you personally, it just really comes down to how gullible you want to be.
If I were to believe in far-fetched stories, I'd personally want to believe in MiddleEarth, that seems like a lot more fun to me.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 5 2004, 03:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 5 2004, 03:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> HOW DO YOU KNOW GEORGE WASHINGTON EXISTED? What makes his story more credible than Jesus'? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For one, nothing written about washington claims he did things that we know aren't physically possible. This already makes his existance infinatly more believable than Jesus walking on water. Also, AFAIK no one here has stated that there never was a Jesus of nazarith. His existance is not in question. What is in question is weather or not he was the son of god, rose from the dead, walked on water, that sort of thing. As was said before, extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary proof, which doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 5 2004, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 5 2004, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 5 2004, 03:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 5 2004, 03:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> HOW DO YOU KNOW GEORGE WASHINGTON EXISTED? What makes his story more credible than Jesus'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> For one, nothing written about washington claims he did things that we know aren't physically possible. This already makes his existance infinatly more believable than Jesus walking on water. Also, AFAIK no one here has stated that there never was a Jesus of nazarith. His existance is not in question. What is in question is weather or not he was the son of god, rose from the dead, walked on water, that sort of thing. As was said before, extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary proof, which doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There have been some who have said he didn't exist at all but yes, most believe he existed and just lied about doing all these things...
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Nov 5 2004, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If that's the case, then you might as well claim Rome never existed, since all the historians writing from that time were just lying about it anyways. You can't assume that historical writers are lying about the world around them just beacause you don't like what they are saying. Its exactly the same logical process as claiming the world doesn't exist simply because the only thing you can prove is that you exist because you are thinking. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Jesus then the existance of Alexander the great, Homer, and Aristol combined. You don't make 300 copies of a religious story that can get you killed about events 100 years ago that simply did not happen, yet we have endless scores, literally thousands and thousands, of new testimate transcripts from the old church that are dated anywhere between 100-300 years after the death of Jesus. For the earlier of these, we are talking less then one generation after the last people who saw Jesus died.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Don't link me to a site that says "THESE PEOPLE EXISTED!" You can scream it all you want until you're blue in the face. The facts are that when unbiased people have looked at the evidence, they found no extraordinary evidence of this extraordinary event... It's amazing how you guys have the ability to blatantly ignore facts and twist things so horribly just to stay confident in your worldview. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You seem to need a little bit of a reminder of how the system of historically gathered evidence works. <a href='http://www.souldevice.org/ol_muslim_nt_rebuttal_2.htm' target='_blank'>Here you go</a>
<a href='http://mozart.operagost.com:8080/scriptural_accuracy.html' target='_blank'>Here is a short artical on new testimate transcripts</a>, several more have been discovered, but this has been one of the staples of evidences for a long time now.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
The only things listed on those sites that I could find are links to 'Faith Defender' sites, as well as a paragraph insisting that proof is to be laid on the disprover...
****-backward. The burden of proof is for the prover to produce. None of the books (old, new, and mormon) are free of human taint. From prior presidents, other nations, and so on.. we have physical remains of their existance. We have things that they touched, used, signed, drank from, or played. We have rocks from the beaches. If we had the money, we could go and wave into a camera.
The short version is that all we have of Jesus is a book which may or may not be fiction. Hell, it could simply be exaggerated legends. But then again, christians really don't like people using the word 'mythology' about their own religion.
As for the passages... one versus two angels. Okay. You've lived in a desert for a good chunk of your life. There was just a huge earthquake, and the place where the prophet has been buried was just reopened in front of your face. You walk inside and you see two angels... then essentially give one of them a '**** off', only mentioning one of the two. Maybe he was the only one who talked.. but wouldn't that show a pretty damned incredible amount of disrespect?
Speaking of which, I'm tempted to borrow my great-great grandmother's King James bible, and compare it with one, word-for-word, off the shelf at a Barnes and Noble. After all, isn't that another christian belief? That god will not allow a misprinting of his word?
As much as I agree Talesin, I've personally given up. Much like the link provided, what you say will somehow get twisted one way to try to adapt to your argument, then provided some sort of counter-argument to that, it'll be twisted back another way.
I think it boils down to people not being able to take themselves out of their position for a moment and say to themselves, "Okay, let's assume the possibility that maybe God does not in fact exist. Let me take this stance, and try to find some sort of concrete argument to disprove it."
Or maybe some have, and haven't been able to argue it. Inevitably, it's challenging someone's safety net. I have no problem myself in believing in a God, hell, it would make things a lot easier to know that someone behind the scenes is covering everything and we've got a place to go when we die, but make me believe it, and not just through words on paper that come from who knows WHAT source realistically.
But at the same time,I know how easily manipulated people are, and how likely they are to believe in something when it makes them feel all fuzzy and warm and comfy inside. I'll acknowledge the fact that in an earlier time period, people would more than likely be VERY eager to institute a self-imposed moral code to keep people from living in sin, especially when you didn't have a unified form of police to enforce good behavior. For Hell to succeed, it has to be horrific beyond belief, and ideally it needs to be drilled into the heads of children at a very early age, so that the fear will stick even after the intellect has grown past the concept. Which is why I think so many people only come into religion through birth, and there's quite a large deal less people who discovery it on their own later in life.
Oh, and regards to us being scared about having to bow down and worship a great something, let me tell you, it's very damned easy to behave for fear of some divine retribution whose existence can't be proven, it's something else entirely to be a moral and just person while at the same time believing there's no great reward or promised land in the hereafter, analyze that for a bit before presuming to know the "hidden agenda's" of atheists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Speaking of which, I'm tempted to borrow my great-great grandmother's King James bible, and compare it with one, word-for-word, off the shelf at a Barnes and Noble. After all, isn't that another christian belief? That god will not allow a misprinting of his word?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jesus said that the Bible would never leave Earth but he never said it wouldn't be tainted. Revelation does bear a warning against it, though.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book."
- Revelation 22:19
That speaks for Revelation, I can imagine God has the same planned for anyone who tampers with the Bible and any of it's books.
Looking for the verse where Jesus says the word will never disappear... I'll edit it in when I find it.
I must say, I have thought long and hard before bothering to reply to any of theses posts. This has to be one of the more thoughtful topics in this forum in a long while, especially without resorting to complete flamewars. That being said, I must say thank you. To both the Christians and Non-Believers, keeping it decently worded and almost insult free. Except for a few straggalers.
I only have a little bit to add and that is simply because of the whole George Washington comparison.
I am not in complete agreement with the analogy, not because it isn't a good one, but because you are using far to recent of an event to compare it too. If you wish to compare the documentation we have on the man known as Jesus, you really shouldn't try to compare him to something we can actually see and touch. Yes, I am trying to assist you with your arguement.
I would probably try to compare Jesus with the Mayans, or perhaps even Atlantis, that would probably be more accurate. With the Mayans, they have left temples/ruins etc. Now, if you were to say Atlantis, that could be construded as fiction as well, yet there are documents that mention a city on Isles. (Namely Plato) ;-)
Granted no one today was technically alive during either of those times, so you have to base it all on faith as it were.
Just trying to assist you with your analogy DarkAti :-)
Well that is my two cents, but I will not mention which side I am on, for in all honestly it comes down to belief and one can not force someone else to believe differently. Though it is fun to debate at times.
<!--QuoteBegin-WoT|Lanfear+Nov 5 2004, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WoT|Lanfear @ Nov 5 2004, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I must say, I have thought long and hard before bothering to reply to any of theses posts. This has to be one of the more thoughtful topics in this forum in a long while, especially without resorting to complete flamewars. That being said, I must say thank you. To both the Christians and Non-Believers, keeping it decently worded and almost insult free. Except for a few straggalers.
I only have a little bit to add and that is simply because of the whole George Washington comparison.
I am not in complete agreement with the analogy, not because it isn't a good one, but because you are using far to recent of an event to compare it too. If you wish to compare the documentation we have on the man known as Jesus, you really shouldn't try to compare him to something we can actually see and touch. Yes, I am trying to assist you with your arguement.
I would probably try to compare Jesus with the Mayans, or perhaps even Atlantis, that would probably be more accurate. With the Mayans, they have left temples/ruins etc. Now, if you were to say Atlantis, that could be construded as fiction as well, yet there are documents that mention a city on Isles. (Namely Plato) ;-)
Granted no one today was technically alive during either of those times, so you have to base it all on faith as it were.
Just trying to assist you with your analogy DarkAti :-)
Well that is my two cents, but I will not mention which side I am on, for in all honestly it comes down to belief and one can not force someone else to believe differently. Though it is fun to debate at times. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like the analogy of Socrates, actually and I should have used him, not G.W. Thank you Lanfear. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Nov 5 2004, 09:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Nov 5 2004, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-WoT|Lanfear+Nov 5 2004, 09:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WoT|Lanfear @ Nov 5 2004, 09:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I must say, I have thought long and hard before bothering to reply to any of theses posts. This has to be one of the more thoughtful topics in this forum in a long while, especially without resorting to complete flamewars. That being said, I must say thank you. To both the Christians and Non-Believers, keeping it decently worded and almost insult free. Except for a few straggalers.
I only have a little bit to add and that is simply because of the whole George Washington comparison.
I am not in complete agreement with the analogy, not because it isn't a good one, but because you are using far to recent of an event to compare it too. If you wish to compare the documentation we have on the man known as Jesus, you really shouldn't try to compare him to something we can actually see and touch. Yes, I am trying to assist you with your arguement.
I would probably try to compare Jesus with the Mayans, or perhaps even Atlantis, that would probably be more accurate. With the Mayans, they have left temples/ruins etc. Now, if you were to say Atlantis, that could be construded as fiction as well, yet there are documents that mention a city on Isles. (Namely Plato) ;-)
Granted no one today was technically alive during either of those times, so you have to base it all on faith as it were.
Just trying to assist you with your analogy DarkAti :-)
Well that is my two cents, but I will not mention which side I am on, for in all honestly it comes down to belief and one can not force someone else to believe differently. Though it is fun to debate at times. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I like the analogy of Socrates, actually and I should have used him, not G.W. Thank you Lanfear. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dark ATI, all we have of socraties is writen records of what he is said to have taught. Clearly the man never acctually existed.
Comments
How did Jesus walk on water? HoverCraft?
How did Jesus appear to hundreds of men AFTER his death. These people saw Jesus die, they saw his dead body, pierced with a spear and they SAW him ALIVE after his death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no EVIDENCE that these stories are anything more than legends. Period. You seem to be making some huge claims of Jesus/the Bible and they really are not supported by the facts.
BTW, you didnt reply to my 4 in a row posts a page or two back... why not?
No no no. You aren't getting it. These are legends. Nothing more... There's no substantial evidence for any of these claims you're making.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That being said I have yet to hear of someone willingly accepting death for thier belife in dracula.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. Why die for a lie? Unless of course, you belong to a cult, or are an Islamic suicide bomber. Oops!
No no no. You aren't getting it. These are legends. Nothing more... There's no substantial evidence for any of these claims you're making. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's the case, then you might as well claim Rome never existed, since all the historians writing from that time were just lying about it anyways. You can't assume that historical writers are lying about the world around them just beacause you don't like what they are saying. Its exactly the same logical process as claiming the world doesn't exist simply because the only thing you can prove is that you exist because you are thinking. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Jesus then the existance of Alexander the great, Homer, and Aristol combined. You don't make 300 copies of a religious story that can get you killed about events 100 years ago that simply did not happen, yet we have endless scores, literally thousands and thousands, of new testimate transcripts from the old church that are dated anywhere between 100-300 years after the death of Jesus. For the earlier of these, we are talking less then one generation after the last people who saw Jesus died.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right. Why die for a lie? Unless of course, you belong to a cult, or are an Islamic suicide bomber. Oops! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this is, we are talking about mayrter who are supposed to have actually seen Jesus alive. If the event of Jesus coming back to life did not happen (or at least something that looked alot like it) the early church would never have been started up. I mean the deciples scattered in fear of the roman empire and were mostly spilt up just 3 days after the death of Jesus, and they didn't come back together until Jesus started apearing all over the place. This means we have people, who would definately know about it if Jesus had not risen from the dead, willingly giving thier lives rather than admiting that the act of the resurrection never happened. If the mayrters were just one layer of word of mouth down I would agree with your case, but we are talking about people who acctually saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross and buried under a giant stone, giving up thier life rather than simply saying that what they had seen had never happened.
No no no. You aren't getting it. These are legends. Nothing more... There's no substantial evidence for any of these claims you're making. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that's the case, then you might as well claim Rome never existed, since all the historians writing from that time were just lying about it anyways. You can't assume that historical writers are lying about the world around them just beacause you don't like what they are saying. Its exactly the same logical process as claiming the world doesn't exist simply because the only thing you can prove is that you exist because you are thinking. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Jesus then the existance of Alexander the great, Homer, and Aristol combined. You don't make 300 copies of a religious story that can get you killed about events 100 years ago that simply did not happen, yet we have endless scores, literally thousands and thousands, of new testimate transcripts from the old church that are dated anywhere between 100-300 years after the death of Jesus. For the earlier of these, we are talking less then one generation after the last people who saw Jesus died.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Right. Why die for a lie? Unless of course, you belong to a cult, or are an Islamic suicide bomber. Oops! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this is, we are talking about mayrter who are supposed to have actually seen Jesus alive. If the event of Jesus coming back to life did not happen (or at least something that looked alot like it) the early church would never have been started up. I mean the deciples scattered in fear of the roman empire and were mostly spilt up just 3 days after the death of Jesus, and they didn't come back together until Jesus started apearing all over the place. This means we have people, who would definately know about it if Jesus had not risen from the dead, willingly giving thier lives rather than admiting that the act of the resurrection never happened. If the mayrters were just one layer of word of mouth down I would agree with your case, but we are talking about people who acctually saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross and buried under a giant stone, giving up thier life rather than simply saying that what they had seen had never happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I second Swift's statements.
I'll say this just once more, we have more historical documents for the existence of Jesus than we do for Socrates, or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Everyone believes these people existed but because Jesus stood for something, because he was God, Atheists get scared in my opinion.
Because if an Atheist thought there was a God than they would have to answer to this almighty being and Atheists in general just want to do what they want to do when it feels good for them. You can contest this as I'm sure you will but that's why most people don't want to believe in Jesus, because if he was who he said he was than you'd have to worship him or truly suffer the consequences, it's more convenient to pretend he was a fake, right?
You claim to look at the evidence but you don't at all. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.
Oh but I like this, very much. I was watching Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade last night (great movie BTW) and Ford said something I liked, he said, "Archeology is the quest for Facts. Not truth, if you want truth then go see the Philosophy teacher across the hall."
Stop seeking Facts and start seeking Truth. You were created by God for his pleasure, that God wants a relationship with you and that he loves you, that is truth.
P.S. Still waiting for your list of contradictions, Nadagast.
~ DarkATi
Are there equivalents to these for the Bible? Noah's Ark? Stuff that Jesus made when he was a carpenter?
Mt. 28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Luke 28:2
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Mk 16:5
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
John 20:12
And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
Your site may not CHOOSE TO READ THESE AS CONTRADICTIONS, but they *ARE*. Wether you like it or not. They are contradictory claims. Period. 1 is not 2. The stone blocking the door is not the same as the stone not blocking the door. There is no way to say otherwise unless you wish to decieve yourself.
Did the disciples first see Jesus after his resurrection at Galilee or in a room in Jerusalem?
John 20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Matthew 28:16-17
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Jesus man isn't it abundantly clear that this stuff is man made? It's OBVIOUS. I don't see how any rational human being can buy into this. JOIN US OR BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY? Right, not man made at all.
Again, you may not choose to read these as contradictions, BUT THEY ARE. Let me say it again: Extraordinary claims (someone being resurrected is pretty damn extraordinary) require extraordinary proof. There's none.
Oh and hey, lets just throw out what's known as science and logic. People can be resurrected if God does it! SERIOUS! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I posted this a few pages back. I'm still waiting for you to reply...
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Don't link me to a site that says "THESE PEOPLE EXISTED!" You can scream it all you want until you're blue in the face. The facts are that when unbiased people have looked at the evidence, they found no extraordinary evidence of this extraordinary event... It's amazing how you guys have the ability to blatantly ignore facts and twist things so horribly just to stay confident in your worldview.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The problem with this is, we are talking about mayrter who are supposed to have actually seen Jesus alive. If the event of Jesus coming back to life did not happen (or at least something that looked alot like it) the early church would never have been started up. I mean the deciples scattered in fear of the roman empire and were mostly spilt up just 3 days after the death of Jesus, and they didn't come back together until Jesus started apearing all over the place. This means we have people, who would definately know about it if Jesus had not risen from the dead, willingly giving thier lives rather than admiting that the act of the resurrection never happened. If the mayrters were just one layer of word of mouth down I would agree with your case, but we are talking about people who acctually saw Jesus alive after he was killed on the cross and buried under a giant stone, giving up thier life rather than simply saying that what they had seen had never happened.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll say this just once more, we have more historical documents for the existence of Jesus than we do for Socrates, or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Everyone believes these people existed but because Jesus stood for something, because he was God, Atheists get scared in my opinion.
Because if an Atheist thought there was a God than they would have to answer to this almighty being and Atheists in general just want to do what they want to do when it feels good for them. You can contest this as I'm sure you will but that's why most people don't want to believe in Jesus, because if he was who he said he was than you'd have to worship him or truly suffer the consequences, it's more convenient to pretend he was a fake, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is a good example of making up my argument for me. Hey let me do it back to you: You're so scared that if a God doesn't exist, you might not have an eternal afterlife, and that scares you. So it's just easier to pretend that a God exists just to help your ease of mind, right? Please don't post garbage like this anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You claim to look at the evidence but you don't at all. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow. Okay, look. I used to be a Christian just like you. I looked at the facts for myself (open mind required) and determined that there are too many logical errors in this faith, and no good compelling reason to believe in it. You can scream "Jesus was resurrected!" Forever, but it won't change a thing: There is no great evidence for this great event (Rome existing doesn't break the laws of physics/nature does it?).
I fail to see how this is any different from a suicide bomber. They WILLINGLY CHOOSE to kill themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine".
There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? He's saying that, because these people would not go back on their word when faced with death, it must be true. By that logic, Islam (and any other religion where people kill themselves) must be true. These people willingly kill themselves for their beliefs.
There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? He's saying that, because these people would not go back on their word when faced with death, it must be true. By that logic, Islam (and any other religion where people kill themselves) must be true. These people willingly kill themselves for their beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you probably shouldn't have included 'suicide bomber' in your comparison.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Mt. 28:2
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Luke 28:2
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
Mk 16:5
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
John 20:12
And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The verses from Matthew and Luke are from different times. You already put them in chronological order.
There was an earthquake.
An angel descended, the soldiers guarding the tomb freaked out.
The angel rolled away the stone, sat on it
and by the time Mary and the others arrived at the tomb the Angel was inside.
ALL gospels record that when Mary and the others arrived at the tomb, it was open, stone rolled away. So, unless I missed the point... No contradiction.
If you'll allow me a few hours I can write out the "Easter Challenge" Story for you. That may better clarify this whole situation.
Now as for how many angels there WERE, the fact is, where there is TWO there is always ONE. It never fails. If one book says there was an angel and the other says there were TWO angels it is not a contradiction because one author just mentions the one angel for some reason, perhaps it is the angel that spoke to them, who knows? But it isn't a contradiction.
And finally, WHERE the angel(s) sat. I believe that the angel sat on the right side at the head or the feet (depends on which angel Mark is relating here.) Sitting on the "right side" and "at the head and the feet" can, again, be accomplished at the same time. Mark simply chose to say he was on the right side and John said more specifically where they were. The two accounts go hand in hand, however.
Did the disciples first see Jesus after his resurrection at Galilee or in a room in Jerusalem?
John 20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Matthew 28:16-17
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
This is an easy one. The chronological order of events goes as such:
1. Jesus arose.
2. Jesu spoke with Mary.
3. Jesus met with "THE ELEVEN" on a mountain.
4. That night, Jesus met with his DISCIPLES in a room.
"The Eleven" and "The Disciples" can be the same thing but in these stories I don't think so, looking at context clues you know that Jesus had other followers besides THE ELEVEN. Therefore Jesus met with his close friends, THE ELEVEN and then with the rest of his followers that night.
That is only one possability, I believe, more likely that he met with his disciples IN a mountain IN a house of some sort. It is my belief that one author lists more precisely than the other. But it is not a contradiction. I could say I live in Texas or I could say I live in Dallas, one is more precise but they both are 100% accurate.
And as I said before I'll be happy to write out the Easter story for you later today.
Hope that answers your question!
EDIT: Yes, I was out of line with my comments about Atheists and I apologize.
~ DarkATi
There is a big difference between being "willing to die for your beliefs" and being "willing for you to die for mine". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? He's saying that, because these people would not go back on their word when faced with death, it must be true. By that logic, Islam (and any other religion where people kill themselves) must be true. These people willingly kill themselves for their beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then you probably shouldn't have included 'suicide bomber' in your comparison. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? A suicide bomber is a man who willingly puts himself to death for his religion...
I really do not think this discussion can continue if you cannot differentiate between a martyr and a suicide bomber.
And as I said before I'll be happy to write out the Easter story for you later today.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't even bother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The verses from Matthew and Luke are from different times. You already put them in chronological order.
There was an earthquake.
An angel descended, the soldiers guarding the tomb freaked out.
The angel rolled away the stone, sat on it
and by the time Mary and the others arrived at the tomb the Angel was inside.
ALL gospels record that when Mary and the others arrived at the tomb, it was open, stone rolled away. So, unless I missed the point... No contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew 28:1-2
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Gee, that sure does read a lot like: They arrived at the tomb, there was a great earthquake, and finally, the stone was rolled back. They even "beheld" it!
be·held, (-hld) be·hold·ing, be·holds
1.
1. To perceive by the visual faculty; see
2. To perceive through use of the mental faculty; comprehend (don't claim this is what they are doing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's comprehending, not ESP)
2. To look upon; gaze at
Please tell me where I'm going wrong here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now as for how many angels there WERE, the fact is, where there is TWO there is always ONE. It never fails. If one book says there was an angel and the other says there were TWO angels it is not a contradiction because one author just mentions the one angel for some reason, perhaps it is the angel that spoke to them, who knows? But it isn't a contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is great. Apparantly, if I say I have 2 snickers bars, you say I have 1 snickers bar, that isn't a contradiction? No. You're blatantly ignoring logic here man. Come on WAKE UP. You may not choose to read this as a contradiction, but IT IS. PERIOD. I can't say it any clearer than that. How am I supposed to argue with someone who is this illogical? What can I say?
IT
IS
CONTRADICTORY.
Would I be telling the truth if I say that 2 people live in the USA right now? No.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And finally, WHERE the angel(s) sat. I believe that the angel sat on the right side at the head or the feet (depends on which angel Mark is relating here.) Sitting on the "right side" and "at the head and the feet" can, again, be accomplished at the same time. Mark simply chose to say he was on the right side and John said more specifically where they were. The two accounts go hand in hand, however.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I didn't even post this as a contradiction... I guess you're just copy/pasting this from some Christian apologetic website?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an easy one. The chronological order of events goes as such:
1. Jesus arose.
2. Jesu spoke with Mary.
3. Jesus met with "THE ELEVEN" on a mountain.
4. That night, Jesus met with his DISCIPLES in a room.
"The Eleven" and "The Disciples" can be the same thing but in these stories I don't think so, looking at context clues you know that Jesus had other followers besides THE ELEVEN. Therefore Jesus met with his close friends, THE ELEVEN and then with the rest of his followers that night.
That is only one possability, I believe, more likely that he met with his disciples IN a mountain IN a house of some sort. It is my belief that one author lists more precisely than the other. But it is not a contradiction. I could say I live in Texas or I could say I live in Dallas, one is more precise but they both are 100% accurate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to go to class right now, I'll answer this later, but you need to reread Matthew 28:16. It doesn't say "THE ELEVEN" it says "THE ELEVEN DISCIPLES".
And as I said before I'll be happy to write out the Easter story for you later today.
Hope that answers your question!
EDIT: Yes, I was out of line with my comments about Atheists and I apologize.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't even bother. rofl...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The verses from Matthew and Luke are from different times. You already put them in chronological order.
There was an earthquake.
An angel descended, the soldiers guarding the tomb freaked out.
The angel rolled away the stone, sat on it
and by the time Mary and the others arrived at the tomb the Angel was inside.
ALL gospels record that when Mary and the others arrived at the tomb, it was open, stone rolled away. So, unless I missed the point... No contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Matthew 28:1-2
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Gee, that sure does read a lot like: They arrived at the tomb, there was a great earthquake, and finally, the stone was rolled back. They even "beheld" it!
be·held, (-hld) be·hold·ing, be·holds
1.
1. To perceive by the visual faculty; see
2. To perceive through use of the mental faculty; comprehend (don't claim this is what they are doing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's comprehending, not ESP)
2. To look upon; gaze at
Please tell me where I'm going wrong here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now as for how many angels there WERE, the fact is, where there is TWO there is always ONE. It never fails. If one book says there was an angel and the other says there were TWO angels it is not a contradiction because one author just mentions the one angel for some reason, perhaps it is the angel that spoke to them, who knows? But it isn't a contradiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is great. Apparantly, if I say I have 2 snickers bars, you say I have 1 snickers bar, that isn't a contradiction? No. You're blatantly ignoring logic here man. Come on WAKE UP. You may not choose to read this as a contradiction, but IT IS. PERIOD. I can't say it any clearer than that. How am I supposed to argue with someone who is this illogical? What can I say?
IT
IS
CONTRADICTORY.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And finally, WHERE the angel(s) sat. I believe that the angel sat on the right side at the head or the feet (depends on which angel Mark is relating here.) Sitting on the "right side" and "at the head and the feet" can, again, be accomplished at the same time. Mark simply chose to say he was on the right side and John said more specifically where they were. The two accounts go hand in hand, however.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok I didn't even post this as a contradiction... I guess you're just copy/pasting this from some Christian apologetic website?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an easy one. The chronological order of events goes as such:
1. Jesus arose.
2. Jesu spoke with Mary.
3. Jesus met with "THE ELEVEN" on a mountain.
4. That night, Jesus met with his DISCIPLES in a room.
"The Eleven" and "The Disciples" can be the same thing but in these stories I don't think so, looking at context clues you know that Jesus had other followers besides THE ELEVEN. Therefore Jesus met with his close friends, THE ELEVEN and then with the rest of his followers that night.
That is only one possability, I believe, more likely that he met with his disciples IN a mountain IN a house of some sort. It is my belief that one author lists more precisely than the other. But it is not a contradiction. I could say I live in Texas or I could say I live in Dallas, one is more precise but they both are 100% accurate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to go to class right now, I'll answer this later, but you need to reread Matthew 28:16. It doesn't say "THE ELEVEN" it says "THE ELEVEN DISCIPLES". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*Gets all excited.* Yay good debates, FINALLY!
OK, now let's get one thing straight. If you do have two snickers bars and I say, "Nadagast has a snickers bar!" That is not at all contradictory. I am ACCURATE I am simply not being PRECISE. This is logical scientific reasoning, Precision and Accuracy are separate from one another <b>in this way</b>.
I have <b>omitted</b> the second Snickers bar for who knows what reason, maybe it was easier to just scream and flail about saying you have "a snickers bar". Or maybe I wanted one and thought you might keep the other for yourself so I didn't bother mentioning it.
OMISSION
Something omitted or <b>neglected.</b>
If anything these authors were negligent.
You logically cannot deny me when I say you have a snickers bar. You may have two, sure. But you have ONE whenever you have TWO. Period. Always. It works.
The Bible DOES contain omissions. But we do that all the time. It's called PARAPHRASING and I'm sure that these authors were well aware of it and how to use it.
*Working on the Easter Challenge as you read this.*
EDIT: The difference is the words used. I didn't say you had "One Snickers bar." I said you have "A snickers bar." That change of one word makes a huge difference.
It is written, "an angel" not "one angel, by himself" or even just "one angel" because that WOULD be a contradiction.
~ DarkATi
Just because people claim things, doesn't make it true. Who says the Bible isn't just a big book of interesting and extraordinary legends?
You say that millions of people can't have been deceived by Jesus - why not? They are worshipping something that doesn't exist, the only proof they have is the word of everybody else and the word of the Bible, which no one can prove is true.
I hate it when religious people call me insane or ignorant, THEY are the ones ignoring the FACTs, or lack of facts as it were...
Just because people claim things, doesn't make it true. Who says the Bible isn't just a big book of interesting and extraordinary legends?
You say that millions of people can't have been deceived by Jesus - why not? They are worshipping something that doesn't exist, the only proof they have is the word of everybody else and the word of the Bible, which no one can prove is true.
I hate it when religious people call me insane or ignorant, THEY are the ones ignoring the FACTs, or lack of facts as it were... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who says George Washington was our first president? Who says Abraham Lincoln ever existed, was a President, got shot?
The Bible is not written as <b>Beowulf</b>. It is not written as fiction, it is written as a historical document, just like our Declaration of Independence is written.
Here's a nice Christian cop-out that I like alot, cop-out as it is, it's true. I haven't seen the Bahamas but I trust they exist, I don't have the funds or means to get there but I have faith that it exists.
I don't know wether or not someone poisoned my water but I drink in faith. As I said earlier, why do you think there is all this commotion about Jesus?
I've already answered that, because Satan lies and decieves. He doesn't care if someone believes in the Bahamas or believes their water is OK to drink. But he DOES very much care if you believe in Jesus or not. That's why there is so much confusion about it all.
EDIT: And by the way, I called you, decieved and your argument foolish not insane or ignorant. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
What irks me though is that arguments are being made as to how Jesus could walk on water or resurrect himself without divine presence +2 or a hovercraft, AS IF THESE THINGS HAD BEEN PROVEN ALREADY FOR SURE DEFINITELY NO DOUBTS ABOUT IT 100%, when all we have is a claim in a book that these things happened, who could've quite frankly been written by anyone accounting to be any number of people.
Nope, still not taking it for anything more than it is, an idea on a printed piece of page.
What irks me though is that arguments are being made as to how Jesus could walk on water or resurrect himself without divine presence +2 or a hovercraft, AS IF THESE THINGS HAD BEEN PROVEN ALREADY FOR SURE DEFINITELY NO DOUBTS ABOUT IT 100%, when all we have is a claim in a book that these things happened, who could've quite frankly been written by anyone accounting to be any number of people.
Nope, still not taking it for anything more than it is, an idea on a printed piece of page. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one willing to debate me?
HOW DO YOU KNOW GEORGE WASHINGTON EXISTED? What makes his story more credible than Jesus'?
~ DarkATi
And we acknowledge that said president did only that which other mortal men can do, which we see with our very own eyes today.
No offense to you personally, it just really comes down to how gullible you want to be.
If I were to believe in far-fetched stories, I'd personally want to believe in MiddleEarth, that seems like a lot more fun to me.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For one, nothing written about washington claims he did things that we know aren't physically possible. This already makes his existance infinatly more believable than Jesus walking on water. Also, AFAIK no one here has stated that there never was a Jesus of nazarith. His existance is not in question. What is in question is weather or not he was the son of god, rose from the dead, walked on water, that sort of thing. As was said before, extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary proof, which doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For one, nothing written about washington claims he did things that we know aren't physically possible. This already makes his existance infinatly more believable than Jesus walking on water. Also, AFAIK no one here has stated that there never was a Jesus of nazarith. His existance is not in question. What is in question is weather or not he was the son of god, rose from the dead, walked on water, that sort of thing. As was said before, extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary proof, which doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There have been some who have said he didn't exist at all but yes, most believe he existed and just lied about doing all these things...
~ DarkATi
SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Don't link me to a site that says "THESE PEOPLE EXISTED!" You can scream it all you want until you're blue in the face. The facts are that when unbiased people have looked at the evidence, they found no extraordinary evidence of this extraordinary event... It's amazing how you guys have the ability to blatantly ignore facts and twist things so horribly just to stay confident in your worldview. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seem to need a little bit of a reminder of how the system of historically gathered evidence works. <a href='http://www.souldevice.org/ol_muslim_nt_rebuttal_2.htm' target='_blank'>Here you go</a>
<a href='http://mozart.operagost.com:8080/scriptural_accuracy.html' target='_blank'>Here is a short artical on new testimate transcripts</a>, several more have been discovered, but this has been one of the staples of evidences for a long time now.
****-backward. The burden of proof is for the prover to produce. None of the books (old, new, and mormon) are free of human taint. From prior presidents, other nations, and so on.. we have physical remains of their existance. We have things that they touched, used, signed, drank from, or played. We have rocks from the beaches. If we had the money, we could go and wave into a camera.
The short version is that all we have of Jesus is a book which may or may not be fiction. Hell, it could simply be exaggerated legends. But then again, christians really don't like people using the word 'mythology' about their own religion.
As for the passages... one versus two angels. Okay. You've lived in a desert for a good chunk of your life. There was just a huge earthquake, and the place where the prophet has been buried was just reopened in front of your face. You walk inside and you see two angels... then essentially give one of them a '**** off', only mentioning one of the two. Maybe he was the only one who talked.. but wouldn't that show a pretty damned incredible amount of disrespect?
Speaking of which, I'm tempted to borrow my great-great grandmother's King James bible, and compare it with one, word-for-word, off the shelf at a Barnes and Noble.
After all, isn't that another christian belief? That god will not allow a misprinting of his word?
I think it boils down to people not being able to take themselves out of their position for a moment and say to themselves, "Okay, let's assume the possibility that maybe God does not in fact exist. Let me take this stance, and try to find some sort of concrete argument to disprove it."
Or maybe some have, and haven't been able to argue it. Inevitably, it's challenging someone's safety net. I have no problem myself in believing in a God, hell, it would make things a lot easier to know that someone behind the scenes is covering everything and we've got a place to go when we die, but make me believe it, and not just through words on paper that come from who knows WHAT source realistically.
But at the same time,I know how easily manipulated people are, and how likely they are to believe in something when it makes them feel all fuzzy and warm and comfy inside. I'll acknowledge the fact that in an earlier time period, people would more than likely be VERY eager to institute a self-imposed moral code to keep people from living in sin, especially when you didn't have a unified form of police to enforce good behavior. For Hell to succeed, it has to be horrific beyond belief, and ideally it needs to be drilled into the heads of children at a very early age, so that the fear will stick even after the intellect has grown past the concept. Which is why I think so many people only come into religion through birth, and there's quite a large deal less people who discovery it on their own later in life.
Oh, and regards to us being scared about having to bow down and worship a great something, let me tell you, it's very damned easy to behave for fear of some divine retribution whose existence can't be proven, it's something else entirely to be a moral and just person while at the same time believing there's no great reward or promised land in the hereafter, analyze that for a bit before presuming to know the "hidden agenda's" of atheists.
After all, isn't that another christian belief? That god will not allow a misprinting of his word?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jesus said that the Bible would never leave Earth but he never said it wouldn't be tainted. Revelation does bear a warning against it, though.
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city and from the things which are written in this book."
- Revelation 22:19
That speaks for Revelation, I can imagine God has the same planned for anyone who tampers with the Bible and any of it's books.
Looking for the verse where Jesus says the word will never disappear... I'll edit it in when I find it.
~ DarkATi
I only have a little bit to add and that is simply because of the whole George Washington comparison.
I am not in complete agreement with the analogy, not because it isn't a good one, but because you are using far to recent of an event to compare it too. If you wish to compare the documentation we have on the man known as Jesus, you really shouldn't try to compare him to something we can actually see and touch. Yes, I am trying to assist you with your arguement.
I would probably try to compare Jesus with the Mayans, or perhaps even Atlantis, that would probably be more accurate. With the Mayans, they have left temples/ruins etc. Now, if you were to say Atlantis, that could be construded as fiction as well, yet there are documents that mention a city on Isles. (Namely Plato) ;-)
Granted no one today was technically alive during either of those times, so you have to base it all on faith as it were.
Just trying to assist you with your analogy DarkAti :-)
Well that is my two cents, but I will not mention which side I am on, for in all honestly it comes down to belief and one can not force someone else to believe differently. Though it is fun to debate at times.
I only have a little bit to add and that is simply because of the whole George Washington comparison.
I am not in complete agreement with the analogy, not because it isn't a good one, but because you are using far to recent of an event to compare it too. If you wish to compare the documentation we have on the man known as Jesus, you really shouldn't try to compare him to something we can actually see and touch. Yes, I am trying to assist you with your arguement.
I would probably try to compare Jesus with the Mayans, or perhaps even Atlantis, that would probably be more accurate. With the Mayans, they have left temples/ruins etc. Now, if you were to say Atlantis, that could be construded as fiction as well, yet there are documents that mention a city on Isles. (Namely Plato) ;-)
Granted no one today was technically alive during either of those times, so you have to base it all on faith as it were.
Just trying to assist you with your analogy DarkAti :-)
Well that is my two cents, but I will not mention which side I am on, for in all honestly it comes down to belief and one can not force someone else to believe differently. Though it is fun to debate at times. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the analogy of Socrates, actually and I should have used him, not G.W. Thank you Lanfear. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
I only have a little bit to add and that is simply because of the whole George Washington comparison.
I am not in complete agreement with the analogy, not because it isn't a good one, but because you are using far to recent of an event to compare it too. If you wish to compare the documentation we have on the man known as Jesus, you really shouldn't try to compare him to something we can actually see and touch. Yes, I am trying to assist you with your arguement.
I would probably try to compare Jesus with the Mayans, or perhaps even Atlantis, that would probably be more accurate. With the Mayans, they have left temples/ruins etc. Now, if you were to say Atlantis, that could be construded as fiction as well, yet there are documents that mention a city on Isles. (Namely Plato) ;-)
Granted no one today was technically alive during either of those times, so you have to base it all on faith as it were.
Just trying to assist you with your analogy DarkAti :-)
Well that is my two cents, but I will not mention which side I am on, for in all honestly it comes down to belief and one can not force someone else to believe differently. Though it is fun to debate at times. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like the analogy of Socrates, actually and I should have used him, not G.W. Thank you Lanfear. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dark ATI, all we have of socraties is writen records of what he is said to have taught. Clearly the man never acctually existed.