Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
More falsehoods. Too bad that you have no evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Too late.I am going to be post #300 if I hurry.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I know.
Another “statement” with no supportive documentation… this really is making you look foolish.
GoodAttention
Well-Known Member
Nah bro move on.
Again… another statement. Making a statement “your sources fail” without substantive support is like saying “the earth is flat” without evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my, I did support my claim. I linked your bogus source for you. Here is the thing, when you try to use a source you have to be able to show how it applies to the argument. No one was arguing the claim that that post was talking about. You either misunderstood the argument, misunderstood your source, or were extremely confused for some other reason.-
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that was explained to you multiple times. You are Flat Earthing the debate. But try again. I even offered to try to dumb it down for you would not take me up on that offer.
Perhaps you should slow down and try to understand what is being debated.
You made the statement… it is up to you to support the statement
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have supported my statements. It is your turn now.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do I really have to break out the crayons?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Yes, they got approved by Church leaders. For them, it's "God's" word. But is it really? People can now say, "It's in the Bible" as if that makes it true.
"Eyewitnesses" to what? That Jesus was born of a virgin while a star moved across the sky guiding the Magi? That some angels told some shepherds where to find the baby Jesus? Who witnessed that stuff? But then there are the claims of witnessing water being turned into wine, of seeing Jesus walking on water, one account has Peter taking a few steps on the water too, Lazarus being dead and then brought back to life by Jesus, demons being cast into a herd of pigs, Jesus appearing and disappearing, yet had flesh and bone, and then that flesh and bone body ascending into the clouds.
And now where I agree with some things that Baha'is have said. They say a lot of this stuff didn't literally happen... that some of these things were fictional stories, like a parable, and were only symbolic. And now where I disagree with Baha'is... I think the followers could have easily made up a lot of these stories and/or embellished some of the things to make Jesus into a miracle man.
But just because they wrote it into their stories, and the Church leaders made their stories to be "officially" the infallible, inerrant, Word of God, doesn't mean it really was. But for some Christians, it absolutely has to be and is the Word of God. For non-Christians? Why believe it? No matter if the writer claims to have been a eyewitness to all these things.
The events in the NT and the Bible are way too far beyond belief. But as a religious book, I'm still perfectly okay with seeing it as myth, fictional, embellished stories to get people to believe in an invisible God and in the God/man, Jesus.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Yes, what is this "substance"? It becomes what the Baha'i Faith says it is. Which is not the "substance" that a Born-Again Christian sees in it.
no… you just made statements and I even said “statement - no supportive documentation” (paraphrased)
Can you even draw?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The idea is that changing colors will hopefully keep you interested.
What is amazing is your hypocrisy. I knew that your source was bad, I just did not know how bad. When I read it and could see that it did not help you you just ran away from it.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Not the Lord of the Rings? *crestfallen...
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don't think the question is really, was there a historical Jesus? With few exceptions, the consensus of historians is yes. The question is, is this historical Jesus the same Jesus as depicted in the gospels? I would say not.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a hard concept for some to grasp. They seem to think that disproving a magical Jesus refutes Jesus. They cannot understand that doing so only refutes the magical Jesus, not the historical one. I have seen people bring up that Richard Carrier's idea of Jesus as a myth, in which he denies even historical Jesus, They seem to think that any refutation of Jesus is the same as his beliefs.