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.
No. Wisdom is wisdom no matter who it comes from. And that's why having a discussion with you is a waste of time.
If your Christianity is only as deep as a few feel good quotes, then yes. But Jesus was talking about God's relationship to man when he spoke in the Sermon on the Mount.
so how could 'just a vision' cook breakfast and hand them bread & fish ??
or have Thomas place his fingers & hand into His wounds?
It couldn't, which is why those stories had to be invented later. You think they are true? Why then has Matthew no mention of any appearance on the Sunday but has the disciples troop off to Galilee to get their instructions to preach? Why does Luke not mention Thomas putting his finger in Jesus' side or indeed and wound in the side at all? Luke actually says that the 11 (that is, minus Judas) were there. You must see that these are stories that contradict so utterly that they cannot be true.
Paul only had a vision. Thus the disciples that he mentions seeing Jesus also had a vision. It was not Real, it was not solid body and so three differing resurrection stories had to be invented to give the gospel -story something more substantial.
No doubt you will deny this, but I hope and trust that those who had never bothered to look will now realise how they have been fooled and lied to by Christianity.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-23-2019 at 12:05 PM..
Nearly the ENTIRE christian faith (besides OT) IS based on oral tradition (~90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus)) and hasn't ceased since!**
18 are letters.
And only 1 (a later forgery) mentions anything Jesus allegedly says.
Your mathematics is not very good.
And then the 4 gospels and Acts are literary fictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCyou
YOU can choose to reject it's message, for now, but it's Truth is CONFIRMED & FUSED in the hearts of those that choose to keep it - it's really that simple.
Which message, eat pork, do not eat pork; Jesus is god, Jesus is the son of Yahweh, Jesus is the son of the good god and Yahweh is the evil father of the Jews?
What did God mean when he said he desired Mercy, not sacrifice? What did Jesus say when he said to go learn what it meant?
It's about the faith that motivates one to do God's will. Not he minute details of it.
But can you show me the exact verse that says a person cannot pick and eat kernels of grain?
What passage is that? Jesus did not break the Sabbath. And David did not break the Law.
And he wasn't.
Now you are being palpably evasive. You first try to change the subject. You then try to nit pick with an irrelevance when you know the whole 'shewbread' passage is about Jesus being accused of breaking the sabbath law and he does not deny it, but justifies it. The rest is just denial. Jesus does not say that he was not breaking the sabbath - he uses King David doing something unlawful (which it wasn't and the sinner David is no precedent anyway)as justification for his doing it,. And He is Lord of the Sabbath anyway.
This has been made clear before and you are just repeating obstinate debunked denial. This is why adjudicators are needed as the Christian side will never admit losing points, let alone an argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCCyou
Nearly the ENTIRE christian faith (besides OT) IS based on oral tradition (~90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from Jesus)) and hasn't ceased since!**
**I'll PayPal $100 to the first person to show me where in the bible it states "go forth and pass out books"!!
YOU can choose to reject it's message, for now, but it's Truth is CONFIRMED & FUSED in the hearts of those that choose to keep it - it's really that simple.
Oh we all know that it comes down to faith based denial of anything that contradicts. And 'Books' might not be be the term used because they weren't invented until later, but scrolls and scripture is certainly mentioned. I wonder whether you can show me where it is said to go out and repeat the oral tradition? In fact oral tradition would be even less reliable than a written record because you only have to look at the gospels to see what a shambles they are. Luke has Jesus born ten years after Matthew does. Luke has a messianic declaration and attempted assassination that neither Mark nor Matthew have heard of, even though they refer to the 'rejection at Nazareth', but set at a later time. John has never heard of the transfiguration, while the synoptics have never heard of the raising of Lazarus. Matthew's record has the women at the tomb running slap bang into Jesus, but Luke swears that they didn't see him.
Authoritative, you may claim, but not reliable, trustworthy nor believable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Yes. Paul says that in 1 Cor 15. If there is no Jesus, and no resurrection, then we are idiots believing in vain.
He said a mouthful. It's of course an idiotic argument they way he used it. 'You don't want to be idiotxs, do you? So you have to keep believing it".
Quote:
The sermon on the mount is relevant because Jesus said it. Mohammed, Jay Z, etc have no spiritual authority.
The sermon on the mount is a string of personal opinions of some anonymous writer. Luke only has half of it and the rest is strewn all over the gospel thereafter. Did you know that the most important prayer in Christianity is Not recited at Luke's sermon but taught for the 'first time' to the disciples after they have set out for Jerusalem?
Hardly any of it is in Mark (just the similes of the lamp and the salt) and none in John. It is demonstrably not Gospel -original material and is no more authoritative than the Gospel of Thomas - also a string of some religious opinions stuffed into jesus' mouth to give it 'authority'.
Religion has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the people by telling them what a wonderful teaching it is. in fact it isn't so wonderful at all. As soon as people start to learn that it has no authority (indeed what in the Bible does?) and how much can be questioned, they will stop being mezmerised by this last -ditch appeal to the 'Sermon' and how it's such wonderful advice.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-23-2019 at 11:58 AM..
...The early disciples of Jesus spread a story! An unrealistic story that was largely discounted and discredited at the time by the Jewish population, the very people in the best position to have known what ACTUALLY OCCURRED...
I think I'd actually have to agree with you -
they had no pamphlets, no pictures, no video; just their voices & commission!
Funny how that works out - 12 lowly fisherman still rocking the planet 2000 years later!
I think I'd actually have to agree with you -
they had no pamphlets, no pictures, no video; just their voices & commission!
Funny how that works out - 12 lowly fisherman still rocking the planet 2000 years later!
4 for sure. Simon, Andrew, James and John. Matthew/Levi had been a tax collector and the others we don't know about.
But the point is that such ordinary people had been at the start of a global religion. This is not worth a yawn. All religions began with one person passing on his message. Some catch on, others don't. We can see it with scientology. We can even see how an effort to write science fiction got turned into first a pseudo -science, and then (in order to deflect criticism) into a religion. And just see how it blocked the IRS not long ago.
So it isn't surprising that Paul took the message of some ordinary bods who had Visions and turned it into a religion with more growth drives than any religion other than Islam.
That one started by a single bod hasn't done too bad, either.
Now you are being palpably evasive. You first try to change the subject. You then try to nit pick with an irrelevance when you know the whole 'shewbread' passage is about Jesus being accused of breaking the sabbath law and he does not deny it, but justifies it.
Actually, he did not break the Sabbath.
Quote:
The rest is just denial. Jesus does not say that he was not breaking the sabbath - he uses King David doing something unlawful (which it wasn't and the sinner David is no precedent anyway)as justification for his doing it,. And He is Lord of the Sabbath anyway.
He didn't break it. He brought up King David because he wanted to point out their hypocrisy. That's it.
Quote:
This has been made clear before and you are just repeating obstinate debunked denial. This is why adjudicators are needed as the Christian side will never admit losing points, let alone an argument.
You saying it doesn't make it true.
Quote:
The sermon on the mount is a string of personal opinions of some anonymous writer. Luke only has half of it and the rest is strewn all over the gospel thereafter. Did you know that the most important prayer in Christianity is Not recited at Luke's sermon but taught for the 'first time' to the disciples after they have set out for Jerusalem?
Hardly any of it is in Mark (just the similes of the lamp and the salt) and none in John. It is demonstrably not Gospel -original material and is no more authoritative than the Gospel of Thomas - also a string of some religious opinions stuffed into jesus' mouth to give it 'authority'.
Religion has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the people by telling them what a wonderful teaching it is. in fact it isn't so wonderful at all. As soon as people start to learn that it has no authority (indeed what in the Bible does?) and how much can be questioned, they will stop being mezmerised by this last -ditch appeal to the 'Sermon' and how it's such wonderful advice.
Again, you saying it doesn't make it true.
When you make silly, unsubstantiated comments like this, then proceed to claim a point won, it's kind of absurd.
I think we're done if you are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion.
Just denial. Not unexpected. No doubt you think that by denying everything you 'Win'. but in fact everyone can see that you did the usual:
(1) tried to argue reasonably
(2) tried to cheat
(3) impudent denial.
It just makes you and your professed religion look bad. I don't see this discussion as going anywhere.
(prediction, I may need to post the Black Knight ) but this thread is turning out to e quite fun after all, and thanks to BF for that.
ps This was in response to points about the sermon on the mount.
Quote:
Again, you saying it doesn't make it true.
When you make silly, unsubstantiated comments like this, then proceed to claim a point won, it's kind of absurd.
I think we're done if you are unwilling to have a reasonable discussion.
Aside from the obvious attempt to escape the debate without admitting defeat, the above is quite ludicrous. Look, BF, do you think I can't give you chapter and verse so that anyone can look up where the verses appear in different places? And I'll concede the whole discussion if you can find the sermon in Mark - apart from the two similes I mentioned.
You just damage your own standing - and that of your religion - when you make foolish unthinking remarks like that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-23-2019 at 12:45 PM..
Hi TotN. I want to take our exchange seriously and not have it be a waste of time, for either of us, due to it being side-tracked by us or by other commenters. For the sake of having a productive exchange, it would be good to first agree on a few guidelines, especially since it's unlikely that an impartial moderator will be involved, leaving us to moderate ourselves.
I agree to abide by these terms:
1. Can we agree that will be a respectful exchange without disrespect or insults?
I am not referring to "embarrassing observations and troubling questions." I do not see those as insulting or disrespectful. I am referring to purposeful ridicule intended to be disrespectful.
2. Can we agree that we will focus on each others comments and not get side-tracked by other people's comments or insults?
There will inevitably be distractions that would be best avoided. I have no problem with us repeating a comment or question posed by other people, if we see value in doing so, but it would be impractical for our purposes to directly address comments from others.
3. Can we agree that we will respond to the specific topic being discussed (e.g. one of the 'big questions') and not move on to other topics before the current topic has been adequately addressed by each of us?
---
I would like to start a new thread for our exchange, since this one has so many pages of comments already and because it was started without a clear purpose or agreed-upon guidelines.
I don't mind starting. First things first, though. My worldview is biblical Christianity. What is your worldview? (I will title the new thread, "Comparing Christianity and [your worldview])
As I've mentioned previously, I don't have any experience with having a serious debate (about this, or any, topic). I'll do a bit of research to determine some of the "big questions" that we could consider and list them in the first post of the new thread and get your agreement on them before we start.
I welcome your input on anything I've proposed. Do you have other "guideline" suggestions that will help ensure we have a productive exchange?
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.
) but this thread is turning out to e quite fun after all, and thanks to BF for that.
