›

The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

1…9192949697…108

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    we know for example the empty tomb the conversion of Paul and James the fact that we have a creed dated to 35 that says Christ was died hurried and rose on the third day etc. honestly the lack of evidence comes from the atheist side not the believers side but I digress
    Who is ‘we’? Are you referring to mankind here? Well there are plenty who would contest quite vociferously that we ‘know’ such things. Billions of Muslims for a start.

    The ‘we’ who you say ‘know’ and ‘have a creed’ are Christians - that’s hardly an impartial cross section of society is it.

    Take the concept of gravity or powered flight. There’s no sectarian disagreement about these things because they are demonstrably true and unarguable (unless you’re going to tell us that it’s God’s invisible hand that keeps planes in the sky and planes that crash are full of sinners?) but ask religious people about God and they all have different answers. I suppose one of them might be correct (and that one might even be you old boy!) but the vast majority have to be wrong. Yet you spout stuff about ‘knowing’ like these are proven facts?

    ‘We know’ (your words not mine) about the conversion of Paul. Yet we also KNOW (no inverted commas here as this is a proven fact which is part of court record) that Peter Sutcliffe stated that God told him to murder prostitutes.

    Both men claim something extraordinary but why are you so willing to believe one must be true but the other the delusions of a schizophrenic psychopath? Surely Sutcliffe’s testimony has just as much validity as Paul’s (considerably more so I would say as there are interview tapes with him actually saying it and living witnesses who can testify)? How can we be sure Paul wasn’t mental and Sutcliffe isn’t actually a prophet and we should all be butchering prostitutes if we want to go to heaven?


  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    No the we is not Christians the we is historians here are a few quotes from the we

    Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

    Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

    Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

    A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

    Shall I go on I can easily prove the various points of the resurrection with quotes from atheist and non Christian scholars but please keeps making it easy for me by assuming I only used Christian sources in my desire to become Christian
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    "Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]"

    "The conviction that Father Christmas came down the chimney had already taken root by Boxing Day. On the assumption that Father Christmas did in fact come down the chimney..etc etc etc,2

    convictions rather than facts...assumptions rather than facts...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    patb wrote: »
    "Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]"

    "The conviction that Father Christmas came down the chimney had already taken root by Boxing Day. On the assumption that Father Christmas did in fact come down the chimney..etc etc etc,2

    convictions rather than facts...assumptions rather than facts...

    I thought of posting something similar, and decided not to. But, yeah.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    "All Creatures Great and Small......"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-44366360

    "A crocodile has killed a Protestant pastor who was baptising followers near a lake in southern Ethiopia.

    Docho Eshete was conducting the ceremony for about 80 people on Sunday morning at Lake Abaya in Arba Minch town's Merkeb Tabya district.

    Residents and police told BBC Amharic a crocodile leapt from the water during the baptism and attacked him.

    Pastor Docho died after being bitten on his legs, back and hands."
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Risico007 wrote: »
    No the we is not Christians the we is historians here are a few quotes from the we

    Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

    Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

    Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

    A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

    Shall I go on I can easily prove the various points of the resurrection with quotes from atheist and non Christian scholars but please keeps making it easy for me by assuming I only used Christian sources in my desire to become Christian

    But that proves jack! It only shows that according to these scholars some people believed Jesus resurrected fairly shortly after the alleged events. And even if three days after Jesus's execution we had a genuine, bona fide, authentic letter from Peter saying he saw Jesus resurrected it would prove nothing but Peter's own belief in the resurrection. I can find eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness monster and I'm sure many are sincere. That's not enough to say there is a Loch Ness monster.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Wether it actually happened or not is irrelevant, isn t it?
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    No the we is not Christians the we is historians here are a few quotes from the we

    Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

    Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

    Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

    A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

    Shall I go on I can easily prove the various points of the resurrection with quotes from atheist and non Christian scholars but please keeps making it easy for me by assuming I only used Christian sources in my desire to become Christian

    But that proves jack! It only shows that according to these scholars some people believed Jesus resurrected fairly shortly after the alleged events. And even if three days after Jesus's execution we had a genuine, bona fide, authentic letter from Peter saying he saw Jesus resurrected it would prove nothing but Peter's own belief in the resurrection. I can find eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness monster and I'm sure many are sincere. That's not enough to say there is a Loch Ness monster.
    Sigh ok so let me get this straight

    Macro evolution is a fact even though it’s a theory with no evidence

    Christianity is false even though there is a ton of evidence


    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Wether it actually happened or not is irrelevant, isn t it?

    It is irrelevant insofar as there's no difference between a true resurrection of which there is no evidence and an imaginary one.

    But if someone says there was a Jesus who was the Messiah and who did resurrect after being crucified, then one would hope he based his belief on evidence, so it can be justified.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    "All Creatures Great and Small......"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-44366360

    "A crocodile has killed a Protestant pastor who was baptising followers near a lake in southern Ethiopia.

    Docho Eshete was conducting the ceremony for about 80 people on Sunday morning at Lake Abaya in Arba Minch town's Merkeb Tabya district.

    Residents and police told BBC Amharic a crocodile leapt from the water during the baptism and attacked him.

    Pastor Docho died after being bitten on his legs, back and hands."

    =))
    Where was his God who is supposed to watch over and protect his flock? Asleep on the job once again it seems.

    Still he should be overjoyed as in the words of the esteemed @Risico007 he is now 'on a fast track to Heaven far away from frailties and issues of this life'.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    "All Creatures Great and Small......"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-44366360

    "A crocodile has killed a Protestant pastor who was baptising followers near a lake in southern Ethiopia.

    Docho Eshete was conducting the ceremony for about 80 people on Sunday morning at Lake Abaya in Arba Minch town's Merkeb Tabya district.

    Residents and police told BBC Amharic a crocodile leapt from the water during the baptism and attacked him.

    Pastor Docho died after being bitten on his legs, back and hands."

    =))
    Where was his God who is supposed to watch over and protect his flock? Asleep on the job once again it seems.

    Still he should be overjoyed as in the words of the esteemed @Risico007 he is now 'on a fast track to Heaven far away from frailties and issues of this life'.

    Saint Colomban did better with the Loch Ness monster...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    In other news the moral superiority of the religous laid bare:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-44354369

    I'm not even sure eating during a game is legal under FIFA rules. It's only recently that they allowed players to have drinks. Be priceless if they got booted from the world cup for this.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=FLowJLW6JZ96CwvTBe-PZKqw&t=15s&v=SOtGb8hKyWE
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    No the we is not Christians the we is historians here are a few quotes from the we

    Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

    Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

    Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

    A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

    Shall I go on I can easily prove the various points of the resurrection with quotes from atheist and non Christian scholars but please keeps making it easy for me by assuming I only used Christian sources in my desire to become Christian

    But that proves jack! It only shows that according to these scholars some people believed Jesus resurrected fairly shortly after the alleged events. And even if three days after Jesus's execution we had a genuine, bona fide, authentic letter from Peter saying he saw Jesus resurrected it would prove nothing but Peter's own belief in the resurrection. I can find eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness monster and I'm sure many are sincere. That's not enough to say there is a Loch Ness monster.
    Sigh ok so let me get this straight

    Macro evolution is a fact even though it’s a theory with no evidence

    Christianity is false even though there is a ton of evidence


    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

    You do not understand what a theory is. It's a model based on evidence. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how it works and how species evolve.

    Your "Christianity" is based on extraordinary claims that never had any evidence to back them up. Starting with God.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    No the we is not Christians the we is historians here are a few quotes from the we

    Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

    Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

    Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

    A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

    Shall I go on I can easily prove the various points of the resurrection with quotes from atheist and non Christian scholars but please keeps making it easy for me by assuming I only used Christian sources in my desire to become Christian

    But that proves jack! It only shows that according to these scholars some people believed Jesus resurrected fairly shortly after the alleged events. And even if three days after Jesus's execution we had a genuine, bona fide, authentic letter from Peter saying he saw Jesus resurrected it would prove nothing but Peter's own belief in the resurrection. I can find eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness monster and I'm sure many are sincere. That's not enough to say there is a Loch Ness monster.
    Sigh ok so let me get this straight

    Macro evolution is a fact even though it’s a theory with no evidence

    Christianity is false even though there is a ton of evidence


    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

    You do not understand what a theory is. It's a model based on evidence. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how it works and how species evolve.

    Your "Christianity" is based on extraordinary claims that never had any evidence to back them up. Starting with God.

    Ok micro or macro evolution?
  • patbpatb
    edited June 2018 Posts: 4,617
    What do scientists mean when they call evolution a theory?

    Answer:

    Like gravity and plate tectonics, evolution is a scientific theory. In science, a theory is the most logical explanation for how a natural phenomenon works. It is well tested and supported by abundant evidence. It means quite the opposite from our informal use of the word theory, which implies an untested opinion or guess. As a scientific theory, evolution enables scientists to make predictions and drives investigations that lead to new kinds of observable evidence.

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/what-do-scientists-mean-when-they-call-evolution-theory
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    Ok are we talking micro or macro... micro I agree with macro has less evidence then Pat’s dragon and I am not kidding and far less then Christianity
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    No the we is not Christians the we is historians here are a few quotes from the we

    Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

    Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

    Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

    A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

    Shall I go on I can easily prove the various points of the resurrection with quotes from atheist and non Christian scholars but please keeps making it easy for me by assuming I only used Christian sources in my desire to become Christian

    But that proves jack! It only shows that according to these scholars some people believed Jesus resurrected fairly shortly after the alleged events. And even if three days after Jesus's execution we had a genuine, bona fide, authentic letter from Peter saying he saw Jesus resurrected it would prove nothing but Peter's own belief in the resurrection. I can find eyewitnesses of the Loch Ness monster and I'm sure many are sincere. That's not enough to say there is a Loch Ness monster.
    Sigh ok so let me get this straight

    Macro evolution is a fact even though it’s a theory with no evidence

    Christianity is false even though there is a ton of evidence


    Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

    You do not understand what a theory is. It's a model based on evidence. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution explains how it works and how species evolve.

    Your "Christianity" is based on extraordinary claims that never had any evidence to back them up. Starting with God.

    Ok micro or macro evolution?

    Same mechanism for both. Again you show no understanding whatsoever of what is a theory... or evolution!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    If you are so keen to discuss evolution @Risico007 I'm sure there is a science thread, but I don't see your obsessive efforts to disprove it here as being particularly relevant here.

    Even if you uncover a smoking gun that proves unequivocally that evolution is not true it goes no way to proving that God exists. The planet could just as easily have been seeded by aliens.

    So unless you want to discuss the matter in hand then I suggest you refrain from posting here as your feeble attempts at obfuscation are rather transparent.

    The question remains: what does St Paul seeing the light and converting prove apart from the fact that he himself believed it?
  • Risico007Risico007
    edited June 2018 Posts: 9,860
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    If you are so keen to discuss evolution @Risico007 I'm sure there is a science thread, but I don't see your obsessive efforts to disprove it here as being particularly relevant here.

    Even if you uncover a smoking gun that proves unequivocally that evolution is not true it goes no way to proving that God exists. The planet could just as easily have been seeded by aliens.

    So unless you want to discuss the matter in hand then I suggest you refrain from posting here as your feeble attempts at obfuscation are rather transparent.

    The question remains: what does St Paul seeing the light and converting prove apart from the fact that he himself believed it?

    But he didn’t don’t you get it he hated Christianity so much he became one maybe you guys should took that as a warning lest you hate it so much you too convert.

    And macroevolutuin is a fairy tale and a poorly written one that I don’t need to discuss
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    That Paul hated Christianity before converting (if the story is true that is) proves absolutely nothing. Only his sincerity when converting, if that.

    Evolution is worth discussing with you for sure..You've been rambling nonsense.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    You do realize many species have remained unchanged for millions of years

    Like the platypus... weird how it never evolved for millions of years and that is one example
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Risico007 wrote: »
    You do realize many species have remained unchanged for millions of years

    Like the platypus... weird how it never evolved for millions of years and that is one example

    Well, it DID evolve, just not radically. I think you'd be best served by taking some college science courses. Evolution results in minor changes, major changes, dead ends and entirely new directions based mostly on environmental factors. In the mean time I found this for you...
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    Again I have studied enough to know it’s a croc but again why would over 300 scientist of various faiths walk away from this
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Again I have studied enough to know it’s a croc but again why would over 300 scientist of various faiths walk away from this

    Wow, 300? Really? That's a pretty big # out of SEVEN MILLION.... ;)
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,860
    You know why people cling to evolution it’s about fear more then anything else
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Risico007 wrote: »
    You know why people cling to evolution it’s about fear more then anything else

    Ummm, no. I think you might be describing Creationists a little, though... I mean, what would I be fearful about? I used to believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex stood upright. Now we find he stood canted forward. Okay. New things don't frighten me. I evolve that way... ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    You know why people cling to evolution it’s about fear more then anything else
    Fear of taking the step of believing and seeing the light like you and Paul hey?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote: »
    You know why people cling to evolution it’s about fear more then anything else

    This guy.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    You know why people cling to evolution it’s about fear more then anything else

    This guy.
    Is he now trying to claim that evolution is the outmoded and blinkered way of understanding the universe and that true critical thinkers and the enlightened are all turning to religion?

    You have to admire his chutzpah if nothing else!
This discussion has been closed.