Scientists slowly proving the bible is right.

This is beyond category....
I can now add to the list...


Stu is now unilaterally redefining scholar.
Stu is unilaterally redefining historicity.


Stu vs. the dictionary (he redefines athesim)
Stu vs. Nobel prize winners - he refuses to read english when it comes to the existence of evidence of design in our universe.
Stu vs. the definition of Christian being belief in the Trinity he states that Christians do not have to believe in the divinity of Jesus and do have a right to define it as such.
Stu vs scholars stating that only christian scholars accept the historicity of Jesus
Stu vs. Scholars in the field.
 
Quote from peilthetraveler:

So now you are saying Matthew, Mark & Luke were not real people? Wow. I bet you think the holocaust never happened too, just like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Maybe you also think we never landed on the moon either.
More...
we dont know if Matthew and Mark were real people. we sure dont know who wrote most of the gospels.

"The Bible is filled with discrepanies, many of them irreconcilable contradiction. Moses did not write the Pentateuch and Matthew, Mark Luke and John did not write the Gospels. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught."
Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar
 
Quote from stu:
Quote from peilthetraveler:

There are at least 3 that attested to Christ that lived when he lived....they are named matthew, mark and luke.
More...
That's equivalent to the Three Bears attesting Goldilocks lived when she lived.
More...
It's even worse than that, stu.

The Gospels are allegedly eyewitness accounts. Putting aside the fact that they are all written decades or more after the time of Jesus on Earth, let's look at the following:

The Gospel According to Mark (Not His Real Name) is universally regarded as the oldest and probably most authentic, if that word applies. The Gospels According to Matthew and Luke (Not Their Real Names) both repeat large chunks of the Gospel According to Mark (Not His Real Name), and the Gospel According to John (Not His Real Name) comes last.

So why is the order in the New Testament "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" instead of the historically accurate "Mark, Matthew, Luke and John"? This is like putting the Book of Job before the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament.

Well, let's consider the facts that in the Gospel According to Mark (Not His Real Name), Jesus is but a man. An alleged prophet of God, sure, but not some divine offspring. In the Gospels According to Matthew and Luke (Not Their Real Names), Jesus becomes a demigod, like Hercules or Perseus. Finally in the Gospel According to John (Not His Real Name), Jesus becomes God Himself.

So the Christians deceitfully reordered the gospels as "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in order to put forth the notion early on that Jesus was at least a demigod, or eventually, God Himself, and screw all the contradictions.

I've always wondered why the Three Wise Men (some say Three Kings (!!!)) who came out of nowhere to celebrate the miraculous birth of Christ failed to put down that miracle on paper. Surely the Three Wise Men (some say Three Kings (!!!)) were literate, or wise enough or kingly enough to find writers to record such a monumentous event, soon after it happened. :D
 
If you don't believe, why do you bother with your rants? It seems you have put some effort into study of the Bible. Could it be that you are afraid you might be wrong?
Quote from kut2k2:

It's even worse than that, stu.

The Gospels are allegedly eyewitness accounts. Putting aside the fact that they are all written decades or more after the time of Jesus on Earth, let's look at the following:

The Gospel According to Mark (Not His Real Name) is universally regarded as the oldest and probably most authentic, if that word applies. The Gospels According to Matthew and Luke (Not Their Real Names) both repeat large chunks of the Gospel According to Mark (Not His Real Name), and the Gospel According to John (Not His Real Name) comes last.

So why is the order in the New Testament "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" instead of the historically accurate "Mark, Matthew, Luke and John"? This is like putting the Book of Job before the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament.

Well, let's consider the facts that in the Gospel According to Mark (Not His Real Name), Jesus is but a man. An alleged prophet of God, sure, but not some divine offspring. In the Gospels According to Matthew and Luke (Not Their Real Names), Jesus becomes a demigod, like Hercules or Perseus. Finally in the Gospel According to John (Not His Real Name), Jesus becomes God Himself.

So the Christians deceitfully reordered the gospels as "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" in order to put forth the notion early on that Jesus was at least a demigod, or eventually, God Himself, and screw all the contradictions.

I've always wondered why the Three Wise Men (some say Three Kings (!!!)) who came out of nowhere to celebrate the miraculous birth of Christ failed to put down that miracle on paper. Surely the Three Wise Men (some say Three Kings (!!!)) were literate, or wise enough or kingly enough to find writers to record such a monumentous event, soon after it happened. :D
More...
 
Bible Pros, Calling All Bible Pros...

Biblewide, Is H called by any other word?

Revelation 19, The Rider from Heaven and his Victory (19:11–21)

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse.[14]
He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and
His name is called The Word of God.[17]
-
Who is called "The Word of God"?
G = God
H = "He who is called The Word of God"
Is H called by any other word?
 
easymon1 said:
...
-
Who is called "The Word of God"?
G = God
H = "He who is called The Word of God"
Is H called by any other word?
More...

You'd need someone who has studied Biblical history all their life to come up with the answer...

 
how do you prove that the biblical family tree (> 50 generations?) is accurate?

do note that in the olden days, people used rocks for documentation.
Then people used the plant-based for documentation.

all these could be destroyed easily.
It could get lost too.


even in modern days with computers and high-tech gadgets,
we can't even produce a family tree of > 2 generations.
 
Last edited:
quipu.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top