Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look at what Paul said of who all seen Jesus after He rose the 3rd day.
Jesus Was Seen:
-BY Cephas
-THEN, By The 12
-AFTER THAT, By Over 500 Brethern
-AFTER THAT, By James
-THEN, By All The Apostles
-THEN, LAST OF ALL He was seen By me (Paul) - 1Cor.15:4-8
"He Rose Early On The First Day Of The Week He Appeared FIRST To Mary Magdalene.." - Mk.16:1
Not only didn't Paul memtion Mary FIRST Of All To See Jesus. Paul didn't list Mary At All.
The Bible, as (THE) inerrant, infallible Word 0f God?
Is yet another unscriptural false doctrine created by scholars (scribes) for control.
"How Can You Say, We Are Wise And The Law Of God Is With Us?
Look, The False Pen Of The Scribe Certainly Works Falsehood." - Jer.8:8
Look at what Paul said of who all seen Jesus after He rose the 3rd day.
Jesus Was Seen:
-BY Cephas
-THEN, By The 12
-AFTER THAT, By Over 500 Brethern
-AFTER THAT, By James
-THEN, By All The Apostles
-THEN, LAST OF ALL He was seen By me (Paul) - 1Cor.15:4-8
"He Rose Early On The First Day Of The Week He Appeared FIRST To Mary Magdalene.." - Mk.16:1
Not only didn't Paul memtion Mary FIRST Of All To See Jesus. Paul didn't list Mary At All.
The Bible, as (THE) inerrant, infallible Word 0f God?
Is yet another unscriptural false doctrine created by scholars (scribes) for control.
"How Can You Say, We Are Wise And The Law Of God Is With Us?
Look, The False Pen Of The Scribe Certainly Works Falsehood." - Jer.8:8
Another example of atheists taking extreme legalistic literalism interpretations to force a contradiction or error. So what if he didn't mention Mary? If Jesus did indeed appear to the people that PAUL DID mention then the passage is TRUE. Literary style, context, or cultural reasons could explain why Mary was not mentioned.
Then all ancient history of that time period has to be folklore too. Wrong? After all, you can't say Egyptian records means the Egyptians really built the pyramids. Why Homer did the same thing. You can't say archaeology proves anything because hey, Homer references real places. It's all fiction. Thank you Homer for making archaeology completely worthless.
The point is that atheists hold the Bible to an unrealistic high standard of proof even though there is every bit of proof to establish the books as real history as you accept with other ancient events.
Have you ever heard the phrase "You cannot disprove a negative?"
This is precisely why nobody can claim to "know" whether or not a god or gods exist. There is so much we do not know about reality, existence and the universe.
It may well be that there is a god or gods. Possibly even a creator. Or some beings or some force we might consider "god-like." It is simply more than any human knows.
However, there is no reason at all to default to a belief in god(s). There is no evidence for their existence.
While we do not know whether or not there is a god, or gods, it can (and has been, repeatedly) demostrated that there is no single god ever spoken of, worshipped, written about, etc., by human beings that can be shown to be "real."
The "evolution" (if you will) of any god--even Yahweh--can be viewed historically and by comparing/contrasting the deific beliefs of various cultures.
If one views history and compares cultural myths, it becomes clear how Yahweh as well as Satan and other personages derived through accretion of various myths and cultural beliefs.
Again, there is no reason whatsoever to claim that Yaheh is real but that Shiva, Thor or Zeus are not. That is nonsense.
First, without supreme knowledge, how can you say there is absolutely no evidence in the entire world to show that God exists? Have you personally investigated every supernatural experience, or testimony of healing through prayer? No, you just brush them all off as mental delusions. How convenient.
You know, I once went as far to provide lab results, name of doctors, hardcore proof of a genuine miracle healing to atheists, and guess what, they brushed it off immediately.
The truth is there is no evidence that you will accept. That's your personal choice.
Now you did say:
"While we do not know whether or not there is a god, or gods"
There, you admitted to the possibility that God could exist. You lose the right to claim as proven fact that God does not exist. And I don't care if a claim is in the positive or negative. You are going to claim something is fact, you need supporting evidence.
Look at what Paul said of who all seen Jesus after He rose the 3rd day.
Jesus Was Seen:
-BY Cephas
-THEN, By The 12
-AFTER THAT, By Over 500 Brethern
-AFTER THAT, By James
-THEN, By All The Apostles
-THEN, LAST OF ALL He was seen By me (Paul) - 1Cor.15:4-8
"He Rose Early On The First Day Of The Week He Appeared FIRST To Mary Magdalene.." - Mk.16:1
Not only didn't Paul memtion Mary FIRST Of All To See Jesus. Paul didn't list Mary At All.
The Bible, as (THE) inerrant, infallible Word 0f God?
Is yet another unscriptural false doctrine created by scholars (scribes) for control.
"How Can You Say, We Are Wise And The Law Of God Is With Us?
Look, The False Pen Of The Scribe Certainly Works Falsehood." - Jer.8:8
- I am not an atheist. I was baptized in Water & Spirit.
To teach that THE Bible IS THE Inerrant Infallible WORD Of God? Is Error.
The Bible is "THE TESTAMENTS" of those who had dealings with God.
To teach that THE Bible IS THE Inerrant Infallible WORD OF GOD Is a LIE.
And is proved by 'The Testaments' themself.
If everything Paul wrote was God's Inerrant Infallible WORD?
God would not have allowed Paul to make such a false statement as Paul wrote.
Paul said it. Not God. Paul was fallible. This Testimony of Paul's was error.
Anyone who just has to believe this lie of THE Bible Being THE Inerrant Infallible WORD Of God?
Will always have The Total-Faith 0f Men's Testaments, instead of God. -
The story, for example, of the Prodigal Son. It was never meant to be a literally true story or historical fact. It was an instructive tale. Jesus in no way indicated that the events in the story actually took place, yet the elements of the story are True. The Truth is conveyed through the telling of the story.
It is utterly immaterial whether or not the old man and his two sons from that story ever really existed. What is essential is that the symbols of humanity represented by the characters in the story have much to tell us about each other, about human nature, about humanity's relationship with The Divine, about greed, about remorse, about forgiveness, etc.
Likewise, the fact that Adam and Eve obviously did not exist as actual humans doesn't really matter. They are representative of a Greater Truth. Everything about the creation myths in The Book of Genesis--The Garden, The Tree, The Fruit, The Serpent, Adam and Eve, etc.--are all symbolic of elements of the human condition. The Story of Eden is "True" even if it is not actual history.
The Truths it conveys are in no way diminished by the fact that it is mythical. In fact, as I often say, the Truth contained in the holy texts and stories of many cultures is often of a far deeper, far more resonant nature than mere "facts."
RESPONSE:
Is it important that Jesus was raised from the dead, or might that be "mythical" too?
Theologians, scholars.....people a lot smarter than you and me.
RESPONSE:
Speak for yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
