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.
Well, I was a Christian when I first came in here. The old timers know that. But then Mike and I started scraping with each other over the rapture. He was so serious about the rapture and I was so lighthearted about it. Finally after I said to Mike, "Oh lighten up, Mike or Jesus won't be able to lift you off the ground when the rapture comes!" and everybody cracked up over that, Mike replied indignantly "I will not allow the rapture to be denigrated and treated so basely by this so-and-so upstart pretender bla bla" and that's when we became nemeses. It been hands-to-throat choking between us ever since.
OMG! Ten years later and I'm still laughing over that one! Ahh, those were the good old days!
Everytime I dig something up, I am always embarrassed Being that I have been speaking on forums so long and I have created so many threads, I often google things and I will be reading past two sentences to then realize that I had written it.
I was a Modern day Christian for 40 years, and in all those 40 years, I never once converted anyone, I mean sure, I brought people back to God and encouraged many, but when I converted to Judaism I converted so many I lost count. That is the thing Thrill, you were a modern day Christian, and so you can't say that you were ever a follower of Christ in the religion Jesus brought, your claim is only that you were a Christian, and I had enough problems with Christianity as to convert to Judaism. Modern Day Christians can't understand the New Testament because they don't practice the religion of Jesus, they may as well be Muslims, it's just not the same religion.....
Kind of an oversimplication there. I have rebutted you, as have others with actual, real arguments. But we get drowned out and shouted down by the dozens of atheist posters.
So your challenge is to give a name of any historian not found in the Bible? (On another thread) Why? What does that have to do with anything? We have 66 books with a common theme -- the Messiah who saves. The NT was written by men who walked and talked with Jesus. But you simply ignore those -- you duck and run because you can't process that. You subjectively eliminate those, because they don't fit your narrative. We have a church founded in his name. We have 2000 years of history to show that Jesus lived -- based on the effects of his church on the world.
Honestly....Just answer my point -- why is the Bible NOT a good source? Why must you insist on some silly, subjective standard?
The Bible says that donkeys can talk, that a flood we know didn't happen killed everyone on earth except a handful, which we also know didn't happen , and that the Sun stood still in the sky, which we know would not make any difference in the length of the day as claimed . Why should the Bible be considered a good source ?
Nonsense. And there are PAGES of posts alleging that--and being answered. IF one cares to be honest and do the research. But it doesn't meet the narrative. So you don't--you just accuse me of ducking and running. I'm not going to type up 30 pages of posts to simply be ignored by people too lazy and obstinate to read them.
I honestly don't care. That is not the standard that determines if Jesus existed. We have 27 NT books that demonstrate he did. And we have his church.
Utter nonsense. You haven't answered anything other dismiss it and claim that you answered. If you read any of my posts on the gospels you could not deny that I have done the research, even if you don't want to believe me.
so after having done nothing, you play the 'why should I bother with you people?' ploy.
Because there are a lot of believers who would like to see you actually give proper answers to serious questions. And pointing to the book proves nothing. There are other books about Muhammad and Buddha, and they are as likely to have existed as Jesus. And they have religions, too.
You may argue (it would be about time) that you don't deny the books or the people, but you don't believe what they (supposedly) taught. so why should we believe the gospels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Nope. The events of Genesis predate Hinduism.
Nevermind that in Hinduism, one can simply make up whatever god one wants to worship. I find that contradictory, and thus invalid.
Nope. The evidence is that Genesis is a fabrication - Eden and the flood could not have been real. The evidence also indicates that Judaism as anything more than a tribal cult did not take shape until the 11th c B,C. That's early enough but Hinduism beats it with evidence of Shiva, Nandi and sacred pools in the Harappan culture 2.500 B.C.
Not that one religion predating another makes either of them true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
I DON"T CARE!
Ummm....feels so good to wash my hands of Fundie's total nonsense! Scratch that. Of Fundie's complete malarkey!
I love an online Rhubarb. It's a lively thread...and I was feeling a bit Jaded this morning. it's a lively thread and I like the opportunity to field some stock apologetics.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-29-2018 at 03:05 PM..
lol...take your toys and go home? Because when you ask a dumb question I won't play?
Because when good questions are asked, you won't play. Now, some may give up in disgust and you think you escaped being put on the spot. But you won't work that trick with me because I'm talking to all the readers rather than you (though actually opening your mind would be good). All the time you wriggle and hide, it isn't doing your creed any good at all. It is making our case for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
No. It really isn't. Just the ones you care to quote, and the ones that Trill has quoted. An entire CHURCH as existed for 2000 years that says otherwise. But....because some guy named Rafius and his friend Thrill says so in 2018.....and can reference a few obscure heretical "scholars" with agendas.....well...golly gee...guess we shouldn't believe!
You mean the wikipedia reference? wowzers.
He was probably a Gentile physician. He likely saw Jesus first-hand. He wrote his Gospel, and Acts. But it is clear that he conducted many interviews with first-hand accounts.
Mark was a young man that saw Jesus, and walked and talked with him. And yes--much of his Gospel was a summary of, likely, Peter's sermons giving accounts of Jesus' words.
Still waiting...
Nevermind that you simply ignored the question of John's Gospel. It was written by John....a disciple/apostle.
Really not possible. Luke take the rejection at Nazareth and turns it into a full -scale row and assassination attempt - of which Mark and Matthew know nothing. Luke has Jesus bussed over by Pilate for Antipas to have a look at - of which Mark and Matthew know nothing. He has a penitent thief - of which Mark and Matthew know nothing. These are just three indications of Luke just making stuff up. There are many more.
John does not reference a single parable, instead he writes long sermons that are not hinted at in the Synoptics. He knows nothing of the transformation, but he does have the raising of Lazarus - of which the synoptic writers know nothing. He has the healing of the paralytic - but in Jerusalem, not Galilee. He has doubting Thomas, roundly denied by Luke who says that all the disciples (less Judas) were there on resurrection night.
I was a Modern day Christian for 40 years, and in all those 40 years, I never once converted anyone, I mean sure, I brought people back to God and encouraged many, but when I converted to Judaism I converted so many I lost count. That is the thing Thrill, you were a modern day Christian, and so you can't say that you were ever a follower of Christ in the religion Jesus brought, your claim is only that you were a Christian, and I had enough problems with Christianity as to convert to Judaism. Modern Day Christians can't understand the New Testament because they don't practice the religion of Jesus, they may as well be Muslims, it's just not the same religion.....
Well, whatever Jesus originally taught has been lost to time. The gospels have been revised and redacted and rewritten so many times we don't have the faintest clue what his teaching were. Anyone trying to be a true Christian under these circumstances is lost. We might as well convert to Judaism like you did.
You've TOLD me. You have yet to actually prove that assertion. And no--wikipedia is not a respectable scholarly source. Nor is Bart Ehrman.
Actually Ehrman is a highly respected scholar. Your problem with him would be that his research , which is way over the head educationally of most of his critics , doesn't come to conclusions you like and agree with . This hardly makes him unqualified or not respectable, anymore than a scientist would be unqualified because a flat eather didn't agree with his proof that the Earth is round .
Well, whatever Jesus originally taught has been lost to time. The gospels have been revised and redacted and rewritten so many times we don't have the faintest clue what his teaching were. Anyone trying to be a true Christian under these circumstances is lost. We might as well convert to Judaism like you did.
It's not lost, it is just lost for lack of knowledge. People who know the history of the two kingdoms know that Israel was lost, and they know that Gentiles come back through a wedding proposal and so they say they are the brides of a Jew who has been grafted into he void left in the kingdom of Israel.
There is no debate that Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism, there is just denial of the facts, and the facts are extremely simple with clarity.
In the beginning Gentiles converted to Judaism and then came a day 100 years after Jesus died, that Gentiles were no longer brave enough to keep the feasts of Jesus upon punishment of death and being seen as a Jew.
The simple obvious facts are that only one people have followed the religion of Messiah for the last 2000 years, and those people are the Jews.
Everyone else separated from the religion of God and the worship system of Christ to become lawless and Pagan.
The Jews stand alone as the only people who have been keeping the religion of Messiah all these years and everyone else is just making false claims that they are in a covenant with a Jew who brought a new covenant for Ephraim and Judah. There is no covenant for Gentiles, there is only a covenant for Gentiles who join Jews in Judaism.
The written covenant is very precise and Gentile Christians no longer fall under that covenant because of the fact that the covenant is only for Ephraim and Judah and Ephraim is a Gentile who joined Judaism under a betrothal to a Jew to become a Jew.
The simple facts of history show us that the Jews alone keep the covenant of God, the Jews alone have been persecuted and killed because they wont stop following the religion of God, and all those Gentile Christians are just making a claim for the inheritance of Israel when they are no where close to being Israel........
Unless you have joined the religion of the Jews that God ordained and recorded, then you are just in a different religion and not under the covenant with Jews to become one with Jews.
Paul tells us flat out that he was a Pharisee and he proved that he never left Judaism, and he was about to be stoned to death for being a false prophet speaking against the customs of Moses, but he saved his own life in proving that he never stopped keeping the laws, and he never stopped being a Pharisee.
That fact is in Acts 21, and it is very obvious unless you want to believe a lie.
Sure he is. Please prove otherwise. Then we can talk further.
Ah.
So we go back to your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Genesis 3 alludes to a future Messiah. That's Jesus. The entire Bible is about Jesus.
Christianity is an extension of Judaism. I referenced 2000 years because there was the demand for a reference to Jesus in secular writing.
I only mentioned Genesis once Hinduism was mentioned.
Of course, If it was true it would beat everyone else. But it - on evidence - is a lift from Mesopotamian myths which are contemporary with the earliest signs of Hinduism.
I can't see anything in Genesis at all (let alone gen. 3) that supports Jesus as this supposed messiah, even if I bought that it related to a messiah at all. I see that idea of a redeemer (for Israel, not your Gentiles) coming out of the wars with Assyria.
The fiddling of the OT to provide 'prophecies' for Jesus is not hard to demonstrate. Matthew's lament for the massacre at Bethlehem is really a lament for the two northern tribes obliterated by Assyria. And since the massacre is unhistorical (Mark and Luke - and of course John - know nothing of it - nor do any historians) Matthew lifted it and built this absurd story of Herod going after Jesus (in Luke's nativity, Herod had been ten years dead, when Jesus was born) around the OT passage. Luke and Matthew both make a pig's ear of the OT with bit of quotes to provide a 'prophecy' for the death of Judas. Prophecy is a not -starter as evidence for Jesus.
And that Christianity was foisted on Judaism (for which it may remain truly unthankful) hardly entitles you to reference Jewish mythology as a way of extending Christianity back to the year Dot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Well, I was a Christian when I first came in here. The old timers know that. But then Mike and I started scraping with each other over the rapture. He was so serious about the rapture and I was so lighthearted about it. Finally after I said to Mike, "Oh lighten up, Mike or Jesus won't be able to lift you off the ground when the rapture comes!" and everybody cracked up over that, Mike replied indignantly "I will not allow the rapture to be denigrated and treated so basely by this so-and-so upstart pretender bla bla" and that's when we became nemeses. It been hands-to-throat choking between us ever since.
OMG! Ten years later and I'm still laughing over that one! Ahh, those were the good old days!.
That's a cracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Rafius, this post should be its own thread. This critical info needs to be circulated to as wide an audience as possible and it won't be as just a response to someone who doesn't know their own religion. It will be buried by other posts and be forgotten.
Please consider making this a separate thread so that lurkers thinking of joining this horrible religion based on lies they've been told about Jesus being the Messiah will read the truth about Jesus.
This thread will do fine. But Raffs is earning Gold Stars here
You mean ten tribes sent to Assyria. You were correct about Gentiles, there is no covenant for Gentiles, there is only a covenant for Gentiles who join Jews in Judaism. Isaiah 56 still stands true.
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.
Being that I have been speaking on forums so long and I have created so many threads, I often google things and I will be reading past two sentences to then realize that I had written it.
It's a lively thread...and I was feeling a bit Jaded this morning. it's a lively thread and I like the opportunity to field some stock apologetics. 
because I'm talking to all the readers rather than you (though actually opening your mind would be good). All the time you wriggle and hide, it isn't doing your creed any good at all. It is making our case for us. 
