God to Jesus. I just condemned the human race. Now go die to save them.

[GreatestIam]

SSSHHHH no one tell ERGO...

Nazareth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archaeological research revealed a funerary and cult center at Kfar HaHoresh, about two miles (3 km) from current Nazareth, dating back roughly 9000 years (to what is known as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B erae]

This cannot be true can it?

Older than 6,000 years old. Impossible right?

Regards
DL

 

[ERGO]

Nice, Unable to refute this information, which no doubt is unintelligible to you for reasons of your indoctrinated preconceived notions of Christianity...so you resort to childish sophomoric ad hominem.


A

Hah, refute your information that denies themost obvious facts from the ancient world?

You might as well try to convince the world that the Jews run the world and the British Royal family are a bunch of shape changing lizards.

I dont have to refute idiocy; it refutes itself.

The bible is so full of errors, contradictions and inconsistencies that it cannot be a reliable source for history. The bible is a hodge podge of allegorical stories, which are taken literally by many Christians. The bible consists of plagiarized stories from previous cultures, such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Assyrians.

The comment about "You might as well try to convince the world that the Jews run the world and the British Royal family are a bunch of shape changing lizards."

This is a Straw man argument

It appears your unable to refute anything I posted thus far because you're intellectually incapable of doing so.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o]The "Straw Man" Fallacy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hortysir]

It is not merely Christ, divine son of God, that is an article of faith, but also the so-called "Jesus of history". A liturgy of carefully crafted "proofs", a hallowed parade of alleged witnesses, and a handful of dogmatically interpreted writings are the sacraments of this faith.

But what better explains a thousand different Jesuses than the single word: fiction

Was Jesus, like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, a real historical figure to whom legends and myths became attached? Or, rather, like Huckleberry Finn or Sherlock Holmes a purely fictional character, passed off as a genuine personage or later historicized by other hands?

Perhaps the choice is not quite so clear cut: a person (perhaps several) were certainly in the mind of Mark Twain and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when they constructed their heroes. Twain drew inspiration from his own life. Doyle modeled much of the character of his detective on his own professor of medicine, a Dr Joseph Bell. Did that make Sherlock Holmes any less of a fiction? (Interestingly, Holmes's trademark “deerstalker” hat is never mentioned in Doyle's stories and the drop-step pipe was the contribution of actor William Gillette years later. That's how myths grow.)

With Jesus, most people feel more comfortable with the 'historical kernel' approach. It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the towering legend. We do, after all, have Christianity, and it is hard to give credence to the idea that someone "just made-up" Jesus Christ and then managed to convince anyone else to believe that he had lived and died. In fact, one can reach the conclusion that "there must have been a Jesus" without any research at all, which of course is what most people do.

Substitute a word or 2 in the underlined portion with "fossils" and you could just as well be discussing evolution.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Immortals can die. LOL.

Good analyzing there pal.

Regards
DL

In our faith we define 'death' as seperation of the spirit from the body. In the case of Christ, He existed prior to His taking human form, so His eternal spirit not only survived death but His death itself transcends time and is present in each mass.

You might try attempting to grasp the point of view of those you discuss things with before running your mouth.

Your ilk only have one POV.

Regards
DL

My 'ilk'?

ROFLMAO, I was right after all, you are a moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The bible is so full of errors, contradictions and inconsistencies that it cannot be a reliable source for history. The bible is a hodge podge of allegorical stories, which are taken literally by many Christians. The bible consists of plagiarized stories from previous cultures, such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Assyrians.

So ******* what? The Bible is a collection of different books and whatever errors you strain your poor little noggin to accept in one book has nothing to do with the reliability of any other book, dipstick.

Which demonstrates what you still just cannot grasp; you are abysmally IGNORANT about Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths. You seem to be getting all your information from the equivalent of an atheists take on Chick Tracts and you think you know something, when you dont know jack shit.

The comment about "You might as well try to convince the world that the Jews run the world and the British Royal family are a bunch of shape changing lizards."

This is a Straw man argument

It wasnt an argument, Einstein, it was an analogy.

It appears your unable to refute anything I posted thus far because you're intellectually incapable of doing so.

You wouldnt recognise a refutation if it bit you in the ass, doofus, because you are too comitted to your own point of view to honestly take an objective look at the subject. You would far rather spew out the most lame and assinine militant athiest bullshit and pat yourself on the back for having 'won' the argument.

What you dont get is that there is no win. No one is applauding you in your little reality show that exists only in your head where you play Hitchens and vanquish the forces of superstition, dumbfuck.

You are just a bigotted little cretin who would rather posteur like some religious expert when you are in reality nothing more than a propaganda mouthpeice for athiest fucktards who privately think you are a pretentious dumbshit.

 

[koshergrl]

Nice, Unable to refute this information, which no doubt is unintelligible to you for reasons of your indoctrinated preconceived notions of Christianity...so you resort to childish sophomoric ad hominem.


A

Hah, refute your information that denies themost obvious facts from the ancient world?

You might as well try to convince the world that the Jews run the world and the British Royal family are a bunch of shape changing lizards.

I dont have to refute idiocy; it refutes itself.

The bible is so full of errors, contradictions and inconsistencies that it cannot be a reliable source for history. The bible is a hodge podge of allegorical stories, which are taken literally by many Christians. The bible consists of plagiarized stories from previous cultures, such as the Greeks, Egyptians, and Assyrians.

The comment about "You might as well try to convince the world that the Jews run the world and the British Royal family are a bunch of shape changing lizards."

This is a Straw man argument

It appears your unable to refute anything I posted thus far because you're intellectually incapable of doing so.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o"]The "Straw Man" Fallacy - YouTube[/ame]

Actually, the bible is remarkable in it's accuracy and extent, and is one of the primary sources of information about the ancient world for just that reason.

It contains information about people we know existed, that is backed up by archaeological evidence and collaborated by written documents and other artifacts generated by non-Jewish and non-Christian historians, clerics, and monuments.

BTW, intellectual giant, your post is full of misspellings and grammatical errors, but it is the content that illustrates your lack of knowledge on this subject.

 

[koshergrl]

The NT, in particular, is accepted universally as an accurate depiction of the times and the people referenced, including Christ.