Ignorance and the Bible

domer76 said:
Peterson is nothing but a pile of nonsensical word salad. He is nothing close to a Biblical scholar, much less scientific. His babble is only impressive to the uninformed.
Click to expand...
his analysis is very literary and psychological.

very excellent.

of course now he got a Zionist demon up his ass with daily wire folks and is now a tradcon cuck.
 
domer76 said:
The most rational is that the stories are merely not true.
Click to expand...
That's irrational and anti-intellectual. You can't just say it's 'not true' and leave it there.

You have to explain why it's not true.

It can only be "not true" if all of the witnesses had the same hallucination; if all of them were mentally ill; if all of them conspired to fabricate the story out of whole cloth; or if Jesus didn't die on the cross.
domer76 said:
Jesus never preached that his message was for the salvation of gentiles. He was an apocalyptic Jew. Period.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Yes he did. At the end of Gospel of Matthew Jesus literally said to the apostles go forth and take the gospel to all nations. That unequivocally means all people. That is perfectly consistent with Peter telling Paul in Acts thay he supported Paul's mission to the gentiles.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
That's irrational and anti-intellectual. You can't just say it's 'not true' and leave it there.

You have to explain why it's not true.

It can only be "not true" if all of the witnesses had the same hallucination; if all of them were mentally ill; if all of them conspired to fabricate the story; or if Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Sorry. Yes he did. In Gospel of Matthew Jesus literally said to go forth and take the gospel to all nations. That is perfectly consistent with Peter telling Paul he supported Paul's mission to the gentiles.
Click to expand...
you're a nut.
 
domer76 said:
Once again, Paul never saw Jesus, heard Jesus, met Jesus or talked with Jesus. “Because Paul said so” just doesn’t make the grade.
Click to expand...
Hyper-skepticism.

Paul knew and spoke to the eyewitnesses, Peter, John, and Jesus' brother James. They told him what they knew and what they saw.

Speaking to the eyewitnesses is a good primary source in the study of ancient history. It doesn't get much better than that.

Our knowledge of Alexander the Great comes from extant documents written four centuries after he died.

If we adopted the standards of hyper-skepticism and didn't allow any historical knowledge unless it was written by an eyewitnesses, we would have to abandon ancient history as an academic discipline.
 
domer76 said:
Sorry pally boy. That OT is still part of your Bible whether you like it or not. In fact, you thumpers LOVE to quote the parts that you think damns homosexuality. Jesus never said the OT was replaced and no longer mattered. His main message? Follow the law.

Your holy book is OT and NT. Bummer, huh?
Click to expand...
One of our rare instances of agreement, Domer.

In fact, Jesus seems to have been even stronger in demanding that all "follow the law"...meaning doing what is set in Leviticus and Deuteronomy:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5: 17ff

Nearly as I can tell, Earth has not passed away...and according to Christians, neither has heaven. So...not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with.

The Old Testament applies to present day Christians if Jesus matters. Of course, if Jesus lied and Paul really is the one who matters...well, then everything changes.
 
Margot said:
Atheists are obsessed with the Bible and especially Jesus,because deep inside they are hedging their bet!
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing about that ol’ Bible and those who hang their hat on it. They are using that to justify hateful discrimination against our own citizens. To deny the same basic civil rights that others enjoy. Marriage and all the legal ramifications that accompany it. To prevent the sale of certain pharmaceuticals. That list goes on.

The more militant ones wish to place their Commandments in our classrooms. To include their kind of prayer, as well. To change science and literature curricula. To ban certain books in our libraries. The list is long. All based on that ol’ Bible thing.

The message of that Jesus guy seems to have been a reasonable one. Too bad it has been hijacked by people who use the Bible to do so.
 
Cypress said:
That's irrational and anti-intellectual. You can't just say it's 'not true' and leave it there.

You have to explain why it's not true.

It can only be "not true" if all of the witnesses had the same hallucination; if all of them were mentally ill; if all of them conspired to fabricate the story out of whole cloth; or if Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Sorry. Yes he did. At the end of Gospel of Matthew Jesus literally said to the apostles go forth and take the gospel to all nations. That unequivocally means all people. That is perfectly consistent with Peter telling Paul in Acts thay he supported Paul's mission to the gentiles.
Click to expand...
Carl Sagan put it succinctly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The resurrection, the only one Christians claim has ever occurred in the history of the earth, defies all laws of science. Yet, there is not one shred of evidence outside his circle of followers that is occurred. None. The rational conclusion is then that instead of just ONE instance of a resurrection that defies all scientific laws, there are ZERO such occurrences.
 
Cypress said:
That's irrational and anti-intellectual. You can't just say it's 'not true' and leave it there.

You have to explain why it's not true.

It can only be "not true" if all of the witnesses had the same hallucination; if all of them were mentally ill; if all of them conspired to fabricate the story out of whole cloth; or if Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Sorry. Yes he did. At the end of Gospel of Matthew Jesus literally said to the apostles go forth and take the gospel to all nations. That unequivocally means all people. That is perfectly consistent with Peter telling Paul in Acts thay he supported Paul's mission to the gentiles.
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
That's irrational and anti-intellectual. You can't just say it's 'not true' and leave it there.

You have to explain why it's not true.

It can only be "not true" if all of the witnesses had the same hallucination; if all of them were mentally ill; if all of them conspired to fabricate the story out of whole cloth; or if Jesus didn't die on the cross.

Sorry. Yes he did. At the end of Gospel of Matthew Jesus literally said to the apostles go forth and take the gospel to all nations. That unequivocally means all people. That is perfectly consistent with Peter telling Paul in Acts thay he supported Paul's mission to the gentiles.
Click to expand...
You must be referring to Matthew 19: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

Couple things there. The OT always referred to the “nations” of Israel versus what we think of as nations today. The other odd thing about that verse is that it appears to be referring to the Trinity, a concept that didn’t come along for a couple hundred years or so. Lastly, Paul’s message, which differs from Christ’s in the requirement to “follow the law”, which includes circumcision of the gentiles. Paul let them off the hook. Jesus never did
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Hyper-skepticism.

Paul knew and spoke to the eyewitnesses, Peter, John, and Jesus' brother James. They told him what they knew and what they saw.

Speaking to the eyewitnesses is a good primary source in the study of ancient history. It doesn't get much better than that.

Our knowledge of Alexander the Great comes from extant documents written four centuries after he died.

If we adopted the standards of hyper-skepticism and didn't allow any historical knowledge unless it was written by an eyewitnesses, we would have to abandon ancient history as an academic discipline.
Click to expand...
There are many independent references regarding Alexander the Great which can be used to authentic him as a historical figure. There are none outside the gospels for Jesus.

Additionally, I doubt that any of the independent sources for Alexander claim he defied all laws of science.

One can still study ancient history academically, but for historical truth one must apply the same standards of proof as one would in any discipline. Christ’s resurrection and deification does not meet any reliable level of authentication.
 
domer76 said:
Here’s the thing about that ol’ Bible and those who hang their hat on it. They are using that to justify hateful discrimination against our own citizens. To deny the same basic civil rights that others enjoy. Marriage and all the legal ramifications that accompany it. To prevent the sale of certain pharmaceuticals. That list goes on.

The more militant ones wish to place their Commandments in our classrooms. To include their kind of prayer, as well. To change science and literature curricula. To ban certain books in our libraries. The list is long. All based on that ol’ Bible thing.

The message of that Jesus guy seems to have been a reasonable one. Too bad it has been hijacked by people who use the Bible to do so.
Click to expand...
That's very true of many Bible folks,they especially like to use one verse of Leviticus to justify their Homophobia!
Even though Leviticus is Jewish Law! And the verse they use to attack all things in the LGBTQ2 community! But the Rabbis translate Leviticus 18:22 "Abomination" ,strictly refers to Male on Male penetration. Not same sex relationships.
I agree with the Rabbis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top