Posted on 01/05/2014 6:51:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I guess that means you have no faith in G-d either.
Why is the historic account of the Bible not to be considered regarding the authenticity of the book's claims when you ask for proof?
So many details of Jesus’s life were predicted hundreds of years before. Including that where he would be born (Micah 5:2), and how he would die (Psalm 22, John 19:37); both hard to imitate. There are just a few of the examples that were given. We have multiple eyewitness accounts to the resurrection (Acts 1:3). What more proof could you ask than that God would send his Son? As it says in Romans 5:8 “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” There is evidence, seek and ye shall find.
Well those people weren’t atheists Gator..
They just believed in the wrong designer God..
Listen to “Reverend” Jones’ speeches...He was an atheist Marxist.
Listen to “Reverend” Jones’ speeches...He was an atheist Marxist.
I doubt Jones followers listened much...
They just did what they were told..
A problem with many religious types..
They do what their told.. beyond the yada yada yada...
Tell them what to do.. the details hurt their heads..
All that is needed to cause heat in in a fixed volume Hell is the steady compression caused by the addition of all the souls that enter it every year.
All I want is evidence.
You wouldn’t want to make the wrong decision in this matter.
It may be we are both atheists when it comes to the great number of G-ds that have ever been worshiped. I just have one fewer than you.
The historic account of the bible is considered and rejected, in part because there was much manufacture of ‘pious frauds’ which were rejected by the early church.
Gospel of Thomas
Acts of Peter
Gospel of Peter
Example of error in Bible accounts include
(1) Virgin Birth (we know that doesn’t happen. What happens is mothers deny having sex)
(2) Jesus being born in time of Census (AD6) and time of Herod (BCE 4)
(3) Authors of Matthew and Luke copying material from Mark
Begging the question.
Bingo!
This reminds me of the old joke:
A nurse struggles into her hospital's employee entrance, bruised and battered, her clothing torn and hair in a mess. She has obviously been in a physical struggle.
A group of nurses run towards her and begin treating her abrasions, holding her up under the arms.
"What happened to you?" they yelled.
"I was raped!" she sobbed.
"What kind of a monster would do such a thing in a hospital parking lot?" chorused the other nurses. "Do you know who it was? Have you seen him before?"
"I don't know who he was," sobbed the victim, "but I can tell you this -- it was a doctor!"
"How do you know?" they cried.
"Because," she replied, "I had to do all the work!"
bye
I did some cursory history review and according to at least one source the Census is estimated to have taken place in 6 BC 2 years before Herod died. Also to my knowledge; most Bible Scholars estimate Mark was the Gospel written first, the fact they agree in their accounts (though they do not all cover the same events) would strengthen the historic account. Indeed considering the nature of eyewitnesses it would take a miracle to get the kind of agreement present in the gospels.
If an ‘agnostic’ requests proof in the form of a miracle and then rejects that miracles can happen, are they really agnostic?
It'll be a miracle if donmeaker replies.
ping
He was a nutty poster.
And that’s being kind
Not to mention dishonest and disrespectful. That last trait is what got him sent to the cornfield.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.