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.
So you didn't watch the video, did you? You're the one who asked for evidence, but you do not accept it. Here it is for you again. This man was an atheist homicide detective who decided to apply his skill set to evaluate the veracity of the Bible. Well, having done that, he's now a Christian!
When a policeman gets several alleged eyewitness accounts that 1) contradict each other, and 2) are based on each other, then he would disregard them as evidence. The fact that Wallace does the opposite means he was either not a very good policeman; or that he has thrown his police training out the window, and is therefore not a very good historian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
The lack of mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD reveals the Gospels were written before that time. The Book of Acts also does not mention what transpired in 70 AD.
The destruction of the temple IS mentioned, as alleged prophecy.
And why would Acts write about 70 AD when it is inventing a story that took place before then? That would be like Tolstoy writing about something that happened in 1820 in War and Peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Many people tell lies that these books were written after 70 AD.
Honest people accept the 'prophecy' of the destruction of the temple as evidence if the gospels being written after the event. It is the people who ignore this option that are lying.
See, they are lying. Just the usual, refuted apologetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
As J. Warner Wallace says, this is akin to a history book of NYC that omits the events of 9/11. What does that tell you about the time such a history book would have been written?
And if someone was to have claimed to have prophesied the destruction, historians would have accepted that as evidence the 'prophecy' was most likely written after the event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
No, what we have in the Gospel is akin to a prediction of 9/11 in a history book of NYC that we can prove was written beforehand. We know this, as Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple.
No, this is overwhelming they were written AFTER the temple (unless you like circular logic).
No, they did not. The message of the Gospel stood in complete contrast to Greek and other forms of paganism. No Greek would have submitted to Zeus or any other false god as a doulos - a slave. They considered their gods as friends, ancestors, etc. Pagans abhorred humility and looked down on their slaves. However, if you believe that Jesus paid the full and complete price for your sins, then you acknowledge He has purchased you for redemption that that you are not your own. I am not my own; I happily profess that I am a slave of Christ Jesus, the One who purchased me.
Most of us think that slavery is wrong. But, christianity condoned it then, and apparently you condone it now.
So you didn't watch the video, did you? You're the one who asked for evidence, but you do not accept it.
Yes I did. That's why I said that you are using the Bible to prove the Bible. It assumes that the gospels are true and then uses that as 'evidence'.
Quote:
Here it is for you again. This man was an atheist homicide detective who decided to apply his skill set to evaluate the veracity of the Bible. Well, having done that, he's now a Christian!
LOL! What...you mean like Lee Strobel was an 'atheist investigative journalist' who broke every rule of investigative journalism to reach the conclusion that he wanted in the same way as your 'detective' breaks every rule of investigation in his video?
Quote:
The lack of mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD reveals the Gospels were written before that time. The Book of Acts also does not mention what transpired in 70 AD. Many people tell lies that these books were written after 70 AD.
They were. The first epistle of Clement of Rome, which is reasonably dated to 95CE., makes no mention of any of the Gospels . This is a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Joseph's later works, implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100CE., since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95CE.
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110CE.
Archeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125CE
The earliest allusion to any of the Gospels is from about 130CE. in the works of Bishop Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book whose author is said to be the disciple Matthew. This book of sayings may refer to the lost document Q, but it obviously does not refer to the Gospel of Matthew, as we know it. Papias also mentions recollections of the disciple Peter, recorded by his secretary Mark. Though neither of these references is to what we now know as the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, they begin to suggest that some things resembling these Gospels were in circulation after 130CE.
The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140CE. in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writing”. Shortly thereafter, Marcion broke with the traditional church over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and set up his own church, including in its writings a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke. In 150CE. Justin Martyr composed the first of his two Apologies, in which he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs” but clearly not in the form of the Gospels as we know them. About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian, brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonised book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180 A.D. Irenaeus wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: “The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…”
So you see. The real evidence, the verifiable evidence, the evidence that has been examined by scholars in the field of history (as opposed to ex-policemen who make up things in order to support what they want to be true) points very strongly towards the gospels being, at best, a late 1st century publication or even second century.
Quote:
We know this, as Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple.
You can't even show verifiable evidence that your Jesus the man-god even existed much less what he 'predicted'.
Well, if I had listened to real historians and not internet historians, I might not have been fooled into losing my faith at the age of 14.
Internet historians? Who is talking about internet historians? I am talking about real historians. Whereas you use Wallace, who is not even a historian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
One of the things that internet historians claim is that the Gospel is built on pagan myths and all that nonsense.
So do real historians. It is called Syncretism. That is why historians point to the Hellenistic influences (such as Plato) in Paul's letters, and Jesus the Cynic in the NT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
However, this is false. These are lies.
You keep asserting they are lies, but you have to ignore all the evidence to make that claim. And that is dishonest.
If you are a long standing member of Carm, it says a great deal about you, if hell was a websight, Satan would rule from Carm.
Ironic, when the members of CARM mention Hell and Satan more than anything else.
Matt Slick himself does nothing to stop them, so is complicit with their hate comments.
Argue with Evangelical theology there, and you will either be Banned or made a Secular Forums Member.
I am sure that the creator of a hell and paradise has the power to use them, but not necessarily the right. Using a hell for eternal tortureis monstrously immoral.
I find the Bible agrees with you because there is No eternal hell in Scripture.
The Bible's hell is the temporary grave for the sleeping dead - John 11:11-14.
Everyone in biblical hell is going to be ' delivered up ' ( resurrected out of hell/grave ) as per Rev. 20:13-14.
After everyone in the Bible's hell is delivered up, then emptied-out hell is cast vacant into a symbolic ' second death ' for vacated biblical hell.
Then, enemy death ' will be No more on Earth as per 1st Cor. 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
Anybody who uses CARM as a source for "truth" is indeed a gullible Christian sheep.
Which is forgivable, in itself. What is not is if they then refuse to listen to the refutations. We shall seev whether our poster is willing to listen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
So you didn't watch the video, did you? You're the one who asked for evidence, but you do not accept it. Here it is for you again. This man was an atheist homicide detective who decided to apply his skill set to evaluate the veracity of the Bible. Well, having done that, he's now a Christian!
The lack of mention of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD reveals the Gospels were written before that time. The Book of Acts also does not mention what transpired in 70 AD. Many people tell lies that these books were written after 70 AD.
As J. Warner Wallace says, this is akin to a history book of NYC that omits the events of 9/11. What does that tell you about the time such a history book would have been written?
No, what we have in the Gospel is akin to a prediction of 9/11 in a history book of NYC that we can prove was written beforehand. We know this, as Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple.
I am a slave of Christ, not a slave of man. The "church" refers to the body of Christ. It is the community of believers. It is NOT any one specific institution. Fellow believers are brothers and sisters in Christ. We are to serve and minister to one another for the Lord's sake. That is, our highest and ultimate service is to God.
It was awfully long and I saw from the start, flawed because he trusts the gospels as eyewitness when we can show conclusively that, as witness - testimony, they would not only not stand up in a court of law, they would see the evangelists hauled into court on a charge of perjury.
Thus this fellow is ignoring the most important piece of evidence - the testimonies are inadmissably unsafe. And instead, he prefers to pretend they stand up to forensic analysis.
Now, you may deny my assertion, but I can demonstrate it any time you like. As preview hint - a lawyer who tried to take two conflicting witnesses and tried to pretend they matched by fiddling some bits together and ignoring the rest, could assume that his case was lost and he was going through the motions.
And are you joking? The gospels are full of references to the destruction of the temple. That they are represented as prophecy does not mean that they are not there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90
Well, if I had listened to real historians and not internet historians, I might not have been fooled into losing my faith at the age of 14. One of the things that internet historians claim is that the Gospel is built on pagan myths and all that nonsense. However, this is false. These are lies. Here's a very instructive video:
How odd that he is citing scholars that apparently all agree that Christianity did not borrow from pagan myths. If they did all agree with it, guess who'd be dismissing their conclusions as 'mere opinion?'
Nut the fact is that borrowings from pagan myth is demonstrable - Isis, Mithras and the roman state cult. Perhaps resurrection gods, too, though in fact I find that less obvious.
But in fact i agree with the scholars - the Jesus -myth was not based on previous myth, but merely adopted them. It was either based on a composite of Roman demigods (sons fathered by Gods on human females) and history - Jewish zealotry. Or it might be additions to a real Jesus - who was not the Gospel Jesus.
However, those conclusions follow from the most basic on - the Gospel story is not true. Demonstrably. Thus explaining where it came from arises out of the refutation. It not the refutation itself.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-15-2019 at 02:30 PM..
So you didn't watch the video, did you? You're the one who asked for evidence, but you do not accept it. Here it is for you again. This man was an atheist homicide detective who decided to apply his skill set to evaluate the veracity of the Bible. Well, having done that, he's now a Christian! [youtube]DCH
Who cares.
I'm not even trained in investigation and yet I can refute most of his claims on logic alone.
Even so, just because some policeman suddenly finds himself infatuated with Christianity and decides to convert doesn't move me in the slightest. Namely because there are thousands of people every year who read the Bible and DE-convert from Christianity to atheism. Often that happens when they really do read the Bible and understand what a sick and twisted pile of paper that book actually is.
It takes a truly massive amount of cognitive dissonace to actually believe Yahweh, God of the Jews, is a good and loving God while he simultaneously commits - multiple times - the most atrocious and heinous acts of immorality we mortals are even capable of. And even some atrocities that we're not capable of - like flooding the earth to wipe out all life save 8 people or killing off Egypt's first born after hardening Pharaoh's heart to prevent him from letting the Hebrews go. Because God wasn't done showing off his power and didn't want to be cut short by Pharaoh letting the slaves go before God was finished being a murderous thug.
Those of us who read the Bible *before* we're neck-deep in the religion itself realize that these two gods, the good and loving god - and the murderous thug god - are mutually exclusive. God cannot - or should not - be both good and evil at the same time. And yet that is what one has to believe in order to buy into the Christian myth.
Once a person understand the paradox, another atheist is born. Or, at the very least, they find a more inoffensive belief system like Buddhism.
Fact is, I don't believe that this policeman went into his investigation objectively ... at all ... for one single minute. Even assuming he was an atheist (the "lying for Jesus" epidemic has soured my trust in these kind of religious claims), he began his investigation because he *wanted* to believe. Thus it didn't take much at all for him to turn off his brain like so many others and just accepted whatever the Bible fed him.
I have said before on this forum that I couldn't believe the truth of Christianity even if I wanted to. Once you know what you know, you can't unlearn it. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I would have to ignore all of the logical fallacies, the truckloads of debunked arguments, the complete lack of evidence, the numerous Biblical contradictions, the huge historical gaps where there is no mention of Yahweh at all, that Yahweh is someone else's god since I'm not Hebrew - and a whole lot more. I'd have to dump all of that and pretend that Christianity actually made sense on its face.
And I can't do that.
Which makes me doubt the sincerety of anyone's atheistic beliefs if they suddenly convert to Christianity. It makes me think that they were an atheist in name only - completely oblivious to the reasons for having that belief. Therefore, they were horribly susceptible to the kind of propaganda the Bible pushes.
Not only that, but as a police officer, I wouldn't doubt for a second that there was a great deal of peer pressure to "find Jesus" from his fellow officers and even the administration. I've seen enough articles in local newspapers about officers that were held back, suspended, even fired for refusing to believe in God. Others were ostracized, shunned, or exiled by the rest of the department - which is extremely difficult to deal with when you have to depend on these people to watch your back and possibly save your life. To be welcomed back into the fold - even to just pretend you believe - is a massive incentive to irrationally give up atheism and "find" Christ.
With all of that in mind, I'm not at all impressed with atheist conversion stories - because I feel that if they were truly informed atheists who developed their beliefs through study of the Bible, they wouldn't go back to religion. At all. Because it would be impossible.
But it *is* possible to fake your belief in God just to reintegrate with your community. Policemen are especially vulnerable to this because they are highly visible members of their communities and can't live private lives like the rest of us. An admission of being an atheist in some places is liable to get you kicked out of the "friendly" Christian hospitality - and it won't matter how many babies you save or crimes you solve or missing kids you find. You're an atheist. And that's all that counts.
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.
