Page 40 of 128 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 1276
Thanks Tree313Thanks

Thread: Atheists go after Sen. Marco Rubio with guns blazing — this is why they’re dead wrong

  1. #391
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12,185
    Thanks
    4758

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    From one source, NASA. How is having a few moon rocks proof a man landed on the moon?
    There were more like 10,000 rocks that they brought back. They looked nothing like any rocks on earth and exactly like the rocks the Soviets brought back from the moon. They also filmed the expedition.
    Last edited by Michael J; 13th September 2017 at 07:09 PM.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  2. #392
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12,185
    Thanks
    4758

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    I accept the Gospels and you Accept NASA with less evidence then the gospels
    I read about this type of deception. People tend to start believing something when it is repeated incessantly, regardless of its truth value. That is exactly what you are doing.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  3. #393
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12,185
    Thanks
    4758

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    From one source. Remember, you like other sources or you discredit them. Lets see a secondary source other then NASA?
    NASA is a primary source, not a secondary one. Those pictures and footage were taken during the time, and the moon rocks were collected at the time, too.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Panzareta

  4. #394
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    51,425
    Thanks
    2789

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    If that were true then the attack on the temple in 70ad would have been in the books

  5. #395
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    51,425
    Thanks
    2789

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Antisemitic claptrap.
    all you have is a pity party

  6. #396
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    51,425
    Thanks
    2789

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    I read about this type of deception. People tend to start believing something when it is repeated incessantly, regardless of its truth value. That is exactly what you are doing.
    You accept that man landed on the moon because there was a lot of rocks brought back.

  7. #397
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,630
    Thanks
    4397

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    False, all the gospels were written before the fall of the temple or it would have been noted in the books.
    Why would you make that claim, unless you were working from the assumption that they are beyond critique?

    When all the evidence is in, it shows that the four gospels were written soon after the events they recorded.
    If one takes them at face value.

    An examination of the Matthew, Mark and Luke show that each gospel has Jesus predicting the destruction of the city of Jerusalem as well as the temple. However none of these writings records the fulfillment. Since the city and temple were both destroyed in the year A.D. 70 there is good reason to believe that these three gospels were written before this destruction took place. The same is true with the gospel of John. It is written from the perspective of the city of Jerusalem still standing. This would make all four gospels written during the period when eyewitnesses, both friendly and unfriendly, were still alive.https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_410.cfm
    Yeah, I know the simplistic theories of the apologists (the author of your link isn't biased at all much). But sensible people don't buy into prophecy, and so scholars accept that owing to the amount of times the destruction of the temple is mentioned within the text, the authors were clearly trying to present the texts as contemporaneous to the death of Jesus when obviously they weren't. We don't have the original source for Matthew, Mark and Luke (referred to by textual analysts as 'Q') and we know that it could not have existed until the 1st Jewish Revolt owing to certain references. Matthew, Mark & Luke are all secondary sources that shared elements of the original text, but there are mistakes (cf. the lineage of Christ problem), so don't fall into the trap of thinking they are infallible-they are not. They were written by men, for men with an agenda to convert more men to the religion of these men.

    I, for one don't believe Christ became the Walking Dead (nor Lazarus). I feel that Paul resurrected an ailing cult for his own purposes and 'created' the legend that was written later (the four gospels are attributed to the early second century AD, so 'Q' may be Paul). There are textual analysts that feel the letters of Paul, Titus etc. pre-date the gospels of the four unknown evangelists owing to the depth of social content.

    Some feel the resurrection chapters in Mark were a later addition interpolated to make that text agree with Luke and Matthew. The writing style is quite different in the pre-James I texts. Unfortunately, harmony exists within the Shakespearean adaptations of James owing to the texts being manipulated to suit the linguistic formalities of the period. That is misleading for many that don't venture onward. The Jerusalem Scholar's Bible is a more accurate version of the anthology and it contains the Apocrypha, which was expurgated by James's council. The Jerusalem translation incorporates the earliest known OS's for the period that were discovered at St. Catherine's monastery in Anatolia, and some of these copies of Mark do not contain the resurrection.

    If one takes in the Nag Hammadi finds, the conversation on the authenticity of the evangelical gospels changes yet again, as the unknown evangelical authors seem somewhat 'culturally' vague when one compares the texts. It is clear that the authors were Romanised Hellenes, and not ethnic Jews.

    The Bible, in its history has had two national figures edit, expurgate, interpolate and alter the content of the anthology for their own purposes. It is drawn from a variety of sources, many of which the authorship is completely unknown. It contradicts itself and conflates events and timelines. The selection of texts within the anthology was quite arbitrary and not the result of scholarship.

    Why do many put faith in this text and regard it as infallible? It is merely the work of men to manipulate other men. The Bible is the work of a Jewish cult trying to expand into the Roman World and losing its ethnicity as a result. The four gospels are Roman texts written in the lingua franca of the eastern and Hellenistic Roman empire, Greek, intended for a non-Jewish (Gentile) audience, and that fact alone places them in time much later than that of Jesus (c. 4BC-29AD) at around the First Jewish Revolt, as many Jews fled Judea, or perhaps after the Bar Kokhba Revolt in the time of Hadrian (117-139AD).

    Need I restate that zombies and virgin births are the figment of someone's febrile imagination?
    Last edited by Blues63; 14th September 2017 at 02:48 AM.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Panzareta

  8. #398
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,630
    Thanks
    4397

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    If that were true then the attack on the temple in 70ad would have been in the books
    Not if the author existed later and was trying to represent the texts as contemporaneous to Christ.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  9. #399
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,630
    Thanks
    4397

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    You accept that man landed on the moon because there was a lot of rocks brought back.
    He stated other factors as well. Come on, at least try to act honest. Are you a Lunar Hoaxer? Tell me now as I won't waste another second reading your posts if you are. Apollo hoaxers are idiots from the bottom of the 'stupid' barrel and aren't worthy of a second of my time.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  10. #400
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,287
    Thanks
    23760

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    If that were true then the attack on the temple in 70ad would have been in the books
    Your assumption, with no basis in fact or logic.

Page 40 of 128 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why is Marco Rubio So Poor
    By Friday13 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 16th November 2015, 10:42 PM
  2. The right way to take on Marco Rubio
    By RosieS in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27th September 2015, 06:46 PM
  3. Marco Rubio - Being Gay Is Not A Choice
    By HayJenn in forum Current Events
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 20th April 2015, 11:15 AM
  4. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 13th April 2015, 05:57 PM
  5. Marco Rubio
    By yuri zhivago in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 24th January 2014, 08:12 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed