BS! Muhammad violent SINFUL dead Murderer! Islam/Quran is corrupt! Jesus/Healed/Blessed/Peace/Salvation/GOD! All MUSLIMS who converted to Christianity ARE HAPPY & FREE OF ABUSE & MISERY Islam leaders are killing you! Christians LOVE YOU! PLEASE accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! REBEL & ACCEPT JESUS! Be FREE of ISLAM LIES Visit cbn.com /radio
@tigersforchrist emotional breakdown much? Dude we are true followers of Jesus. Jesus himself says that Muslims are his brothers, sisters and mothers in Bible Itself... :D John 3:16 Go read it again. it never says he was God lol.
Actually that's incorrect. In strict logic, the opposite or contradiction of any proposition is the simple negation of that proposition. For example, if a proposition is the statement that X is white, the opposite or contradiction to that proposition is X is NOT white. In propositional logic, the term "not" or the symbol "¬" denote these concepts.
All will bow before God. I pray you do not answer for your sin apart from Christ. All you atheist will tremble under God, for you will know the truth of your sin and you will be made a fool. Oh it will be a scary day to be that man. Turn from your evil desires and cling to Christ.
Craig is so silly. So Jesus was real because a book that claims Jesus existed said someone saw him alive. Dude Craig that's like me saying the Cheshire cat is real because Alice talked to him.....Craig stumbles at every sentence to try to affirm his hoax cult. LOL! but it's great comedy to watch him struggle to invent some proof when he full well knows he has none.
Pay attention! Craig didn't say Jesus was real because the Bible said so. In fact, he didn't even talk about Jesus' existence. He mentioned the fact that the majority of New Testament scholars accept these particular sayings of Jesus. In a debate with Muslim there would be no point in trying to show that Jesus existed since (1) Muslims already accept he did and (2) No New Testament historian/scholar doubts that Jesus existed anyway (and that's based on historical criteria).
@Christianjr4 He talked about the proof of the resurrection Sorry if I confused you. Craig plainly states the proof is the myth. which is logically absurd. Find me a book other than the same book the myth came out of and maybe it would be a bit more creditable, until then it's just Craig self worshiping fantasy. Of course Craig will never argue the Skeptics point of view on this topic because he can't really provide any real proof or evidence for the resurrection. And that's my point
@GodKillerAtheist : Has anybody ever found the body of Jesus? If he existed as it is said by many who saw him. They were witnesses. The day somebody finds the bones of Jesus somewhere in this planet you cannot say ressurrection did not happen.
@paulinolondon So because no one found the body or even the tomb of this fairy tale dress wearing long haired effeminate man who was really god but was really a man. then that means that that guy flew up in the sky to some place you call heaven. I can say with much confidence that the witnesses in a fairy tale book are not witnesses at all but part of the myth. Even second hand witnesses are not proof but they are proof you have no actual proof for your positive claim of the resurrection
@GodKillerAtheist:There is no evidence that Cesar existed, however we all accept he did. It's in the history books. The long haired, beautiful man with blue/green eyes depicted by the Catholic church neither do I believe. The Bible states quite the contrary. So you met Jesus? Otherwise you could not call him effeminate. Well there were several witnesses 40 I believe. Certainly not a fairy tale.You are naive believing that everything scientists say is true.Oh Well!!
@paulinolondon Yes nothing existed but your fairy tale. Lets get real man. Scientists don't just make up stories like your priests they produce evidence. Big difference. A sign I saw the other day summed it up perfectly, it had an arrow pointing in one direction with the word "Religion" on it, and it had another arrow pointing the opposite direction with the word "Reality" on it. You're going the wrong way LOL! anyhow I don't have time for your foolish anti-reality argument dude peace!
@Christianjr4 You dont have any proof for evolution either. Evolution is just a theory and we dont see it happening today so I suggest you find some real evidence before responding back.
@GodKillerAtheist Actually, you are pretty silly! Your comment actually made me laugh out loud. The "Christianjr4" person hit the nail on the head in response to your comment. Anyhow, looks like your theology and study of history has just begun. I wish you well on your journey.
@mmmcculloch3 And? Because? listen your trollish hit and run fails so deeply. So you're laughing at me because I don't believe in your invisible wizards magic powers. You're laughing at me because I'm not part of a religion based on incest and child rape? Remember Lot? He was the holiest man in the whole of Sodom and he raped his two underage daughters. Are you like Lot so holy and pure and above all us nonbelievers? Who's laughing now =D
@GodKillerAtheist Hey, we both don't believe in invisible wizards or magic powers! Try again, Lot never raped his daughters, They raped him to preserve family blood lines. God used many messed up people throughout the Bible to communicate His word. The rape and incest documented in scripture was a description of the past, not a prescription for the future. God is clear that he can not face sins like rape and incest. Christianity is based on love and forgiveness. God admires your passion.
@mmmcculloch3 So you're a hypocrite first you say you don't believe in invisible wizards then you claim the wizard God used his magic powers to use people like slaves with his magic words in the bible. You are a joke. Yes Lot raped his daughters. I've gotten drunk thousands of times and I can tell you one thing for sure if my daughters even tried to get my dick hard I would back hand the shit out of them. Lot was a sick pedophile and incestuous rapist That proves your holy men are truly evil
@GodKillerAtheist Cold cold cold. Because of Lot's title as "Holy" just proves how horrible everybody else was at that time. So curious: Do you believe there is any form of higher being at all?
@mmmcculloch3 Of course I don't believe in your higher being that supports raping your own children because you haven't proven this higher being nor can you even coherently define this being as anything but vagueness that you use to do evil. So was Lot holy? I wan't to see how many more lies you will tell to support your obvious cult of evil.
@GodKillerAtheist You spend a lot of time studying a God, that you don't believe exists. You are using stories from the Bible, to say how horrible God is, but then...you don't think He exists? So, you think Lot was a real man? Where do you draw the line in deciding which parts of the Bible you believe? You believe in God, but you just don't like Him. I love your desire to learn about God, but make sure to grasp the whole structure of the Bible first. Today, I am praying for you! :-)
@mmmcculloch3 actually I. Spend a lot of time asking for proof of your book of bad morals and evidence for your god thingy you fail to coherently define. I'm only here for a cheap laugh at your expense only fools believe in books that call you a fool if you don't believe in them. You can only make empty fictional claims while the truth you refuse is around you the same truth that invalidates your cult. And that is why you refuse it
@GodKillerAtheist What truth is around me? How do I refuse it? Do you believe in morals? (Oh I look forward to your comments! Hahah, I do look forward to coming home...you present a side to me that has never been presented. Thanks for the challenge.) OK, so you attack Christianity on a daily basis. What do YOU believe, and what is the purpose of your existence on this planet?
@GodKillerAtheist unbiblical sources also support the existence, ministry, teachings, execution, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. So before making stupid statements, research first.
@GodKillerAtheist u do realise there are thousands of new testament scholars who are consumed with this study. it is all the independant documents that confirm this. even extra biblical sources people who hated him discuss him to make him seem crazy or a magician. these facts are of most importance to historians. someone mentioning him in passing or hating him confirms his existence even more so then someone who has a vested interest in it. all serious historians cept a few believe he existed
@GodKillerAtheist - how could you have missed the point? It seems so profoundly simple, yet there is always some atheist from academic bfe who misses the point and argues some other point.
Be honest, you are just another atheist with your junior college understanding (13th grade?) of complex issues, right? you easily confuse sarcasm for an intellectual argument, dont be ashamed to admit this, lot's of dumb people make the same mistake, it's okay
@mollkatless What point bud? This is your first comment to me and I've been commenting to a few other people on here. Sure I'm just another person you failed to convince because your preschool arguments failed. Was that sarcasm or an intellectual argument? You don't have to be ashamed to admit you really believe in an invisible wizard who uses magic spells. Man is that some preschool fairy tale or what HAHA Your hateful apocalyptic world view is just a reflection of yourself. angry, hateful, sad
@GodKillerAtheist - only because I am certain you are a MENSA pretending to be of subnormal intellect will I entertain this further.
Ok atheist, provide the proof you have that the universe came about from nothing (every thing has a cause) what caused this universe to begin about 15 billion years ago, proof not speculation. Again, proof that inorganic materials made the jump to living organisms. Don't cite Darwin, he explains neither - remember only proof, faith is not acceptable from you
@mollkatless Wait is this a debate on physics or biology because you're confusing both and linking evolution to both incorrectly. The universe is the resault of a quantum fluxuation. there is no such thing as living or dead materals we are all made out of atoms that form chemicals that form us. we are not made out of foolish magic spells
@mollkatless Perhaps you want me to prove abiogenesis? Abiogenesis has been proven through many different experiments that have shown how inorganic chemicals can self assemble into RNA. Google "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory" for the WIRED article on that. RNA can undergo natural selection because it can reproduce itself. You have no scientific alternative to this. Your only alternative is a appeal to ignorance and a credulous belief in an invisible wizards magic spell poofing
@GodKillerAtheist There is so much proof that Jesus was the Son of God and that he raised from the Dead. We also have non Biblical evidence for Jesus.
@isaacwdld Ok beyond your empty claim can you provide some evidence? Can you provide anything besides your one fools book? or maybe you'd like bring up the forgeries of Josephus...yawn.. Seriously I have the evidence of the Cheshire cat in the book of Alice and wonderland...So don't give me this we have biblical proof of Jesus in the bible or you may make me shoot milk out my noise from laughing too hard. =D
@GodKillerAtheist I do have some evidence actually. Have you heard of the Acid test for the New Testament? Have you heard of Tacitus? Or have you even heard of Suetonius? and How do you even have any evidence disproving Jesus although you weren't there when Jesus lived on Earth. So you cant tell me he didn't rise from the dead or he didn't live when you weren't there.
@isaacwdld Acid test for the new testament? you mean more bullshit apologizing. LOL! Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians." in Suetonius's Life of Claudius,Claudius reigned from 41-54, while Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time.
HA! so since I wasn't there to see it, it happened? So every fairy tale is true. Man you are lacking some basic common sense.
@GodKillerAtheist Yes I do have evidence. For example Archaeology has backed up the Bible, such as the red sea there has been findings of wheels and chariots that were described in the Exodus. Also The Historian Tacitus has mentioned Jesus in his writings. Also The New Testament has passed every test 100% perfect than any other History book has passed, and BTW thats not opinion thats FACT. Also Jesus died in about 30 A.D. and the Gospels were written atleast 20-30 after His death.
@isaacwdld " Archaeology has backed up the Bible, such as the red sea there has been findings of wheels and chariots that were described in the Exodus"
Link me to the peer reviewed archaeological paper that shows these findings please.
" The Historian Tacitus has mentioned Jesus in his writings."Tacitus writings are merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying. He was recording their fairy tale, dim bulb!
Got any real proof that hasn't been debunked to death 100 years ago?
@isaacwdld I mean 100 years ago like this shit was being argued against in the 1700s. My theory is proven by you using it daily. I want proof for your cretardism. Can you offer any without invoking the word evolution? you can't because cretardism is not an actual theory it's an opinion not even a hypothesis because you have no supporting evidence. Cretardism isn't scientific it's a religious cult. The cult of stupidity and lies.
@GodKillerAtheist most atheists wont debate him because he is an academic legend and scientific philosopher that uses evidence. He is rock solid in his arguments.
@DougsDreamDotCom LOL are you crazy? so you must have missed half the debates where he got PWNED by Atheists over and over Ad nauseam HAHA!!! NO sir he is the one who refuses to debate because his flimsy arguments are so debunked that they are used as examples of bad arguments for religion. SERIOUSLY CRAIG THINKS IT'S OK TO KILL BABIES BECAUSE THEY GO TO A BETTER PLACE WHEN THEY DIE! <-his own words!!! all the dead from 9/11 terrorist attacks are a good thing to Craig This guy is a total lunatic
@DougsDreamDotCom "We are so Wedded to an earthly, naturalistic prospective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heavens incomparable joy."-William Lane Craig
watch?v=D3QTc1jzgvE
Oh here is his sick disturbing quote on why it's ok to kill babies "the distruction of these children was in fact their salvation" He's talking about abortion
@GodKillerAtheist I think its more sick to twist the words to justify your own agenda. NO WHERE IN THIS QUOTE DOES IT SAY its OK TO KILL BABIES. Can you learn to read and comprehend objectively,obviously not. The full quote is not here, this was taken as a clip to slander because its how many atheist prove their points (just like Hitchen's did) there is much more that you did not include on what Craig said...what Craig is pointing out is that its not the babies fault.
@DougsDreamDotCom actually no, craig is supporting mass murder of infants. Its all in black and white just read his words.How hard is it to read his words? I think craig is just your idol and can do no wrong no matter what sick shit he says. You did open your comment with some bullshit of how unbeatable he was. If this was true there would be no atheists because the logic of his argument would be unrefutable. Sadly craig is just a joke
@GodKillerAtheist Wow, you correlate being unbeatable in a philosophical debate to therefore no atheist would exist...if you can't even write a sentence that correlates how will you understand what Craig says....did you even go to school and if you did, did you even bother to try to learn. especially, objectively? you send someone a 5-10 second clip and you think that's truth?
@DougsDreamDotCom A sentence that correlates to what? Aww did you just learn that word? Ok well you're not using it correctly. I suggest you look its meaning up because it sounds like you have no clue what you're saying. Oh I get it now! You're tryhing to act educated, aww how cute LOL cretard trying to be smart haha!
@DougsDreamDotCom if you watched the video clip why haven't you been able to refute it? Oh I know, because craig in his own words is saying how murdering babies is okay.
@GodKillerAtheist you have no idea what you are talking about. You believe in the same global conspiracy nonsense that honestly requires far more faith than Christianity itself. Pure nonsense.
@SuckafreeMilani What are you talking about global conspiracy? If you're going on about Atheism well then Atheism is the result of theists, such as yourself's inability to provide any proof or evidence for their claims. Simple as that. If you think it takes faith to be an Atheist I say all I have to do is look at your failure to provide any proof and that means you have no truth. Your inability to prove theism is my belief because you prove you can't prove it. I am the result of your failure.
@GodKillerAtheist I made the mistake of getting into a long drawn out endless....pseudo intelligent argument about this topic once before and I really don't have the time and effort to dive and explain everything so that you will understand. I feel most atheist believe that Christianity is a global conspiracy in which the lie of God, Jesus Christ and other such ideas have been perpetuated to scare folks and keep them in line. Science has provided exactly zero evidence as well.
@SuckafreeMilani reply if you want.....go tell all your friends about the dumb Christian you "totally pwnd" on the internet with all you saavy knowledge. I don't care.....I have better things to do.
What science? Hell if you knew what science was you'd know it proves a lot.saying science does nothing while using the benifits of science makes you sound ignorant and retarded.Is that what you're trying to do, convince me you're retarded?
I suppose the answer to your question goes to the aspect on the human part of Jesus. He was fully man and fully God. And like the prophet Isaiah spoke of Jesus it was the child (the human aspect of Jesus) that died on the cross, the son (the divine aspect of Jesus) eternally existed. I hope to have answer your question as you needed
@rosepetalaysha Craig is so busy busy busy trying so hard to sound so so smart, but he really doesn't bring any real arguments to the table. Hell he's had to co write just about every book with his name on it. No matter how firm and potent his empty statements are he seems to always fall short of what he promises. And that's not an analogy for his love life. LOL At least he's good at riding everyone else's coat tails to make a buck. Good for Atheists he's considered the leading Appoligizer =D
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
only human can get son or doughter but god ............god is god ....doesnt need to have son ......he is not human ....he is creater of universe.....human need to get family to survive not extinct ....god doesnt have problem like this
@power30n To say "God can and God can't", you're committing a blasphemy. This is GOD we're talking about. I don't know how you view your allah guy, though. Maybe he isn't super "I-can-do-anything"-like...
@rhinnawi95 No brother, you're looking at it the wrong way. You are a human, you cannot be a god. You are god's creation, not a god. God is not His Creation, He is God. As the Qur'an says, God doesn't have children, nor does He have parents, He is not like His creation which requires parents and has children. God doesn't need to eat, sleep, reproduce, or have any temptation. Jesus pbuh was born to a mother, ate, slept, and had temptation. Hope this clarifies, peace.
@got2nesa I don't mean to sound rude, but God and Allah are in no way the same deities, so you can say what you want about Allah, but leave the Yahweh stuff up to Christians. I was raised Arabic, so I could've embraced Islam at any point considering all the Arab Muslim friends we had, but it never appealed to me then, and it really doesn't now.
I do respect you for trying to spread your faith by word as opposed to by sword like the ancestors did, though. Peace and love are pretty neat.
@rhinnawi95 You didn't sound rude at all, it's nice that you're expressing your views in a polite manner, thank you. Well I was born and raised Christian, I converted to Islam because of the research that I did. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that Islam spreads by the sword, if that were the case then there would've been rebellion in Islamic-occupied countries. Muslims were welcomed into cities more than anything, they freed people from tyrants.
@rhinnawi95 That aside, the true Islam (as would be represented by Muhammad himself) was spread over 23 years of his prophethood through diplomacy, ethics, and politics in general. A lot of people converted to Islam because they expected Muhammad to kill them, but he showed mercy to them instead. In these 23 years, less than 3,000 people died, Muslims included, in all of the combined battles/raids, most of which the Muslims were on the defensive. And "Allah" simply means "The God" in Arabic.
@rhinnawi95 In fact, if it weren't for the biography of Muhammad that I've studied, I wouldn't be a Muslim probably. If you've studied his history, you will find him far different from the majority of "Muslims" today that you may associate Islam with. The Islam of Muhammad was far from today's mainstream image. For example, adulterers came to him asking for punishment, he turned away so that they would be forgiven and not punished. He was the only person to visit his enemy when they were sick
@got2nesa people will distort every religion to suit their gains somehow Christ's teachings of peace and love has a following of angry and hate filled people... worse yet, republicans somehow user the Bible to teach h ow the poor should stay poor, and the rich deserve more money... I'd like to read the Quaran to learn more about Muslims.
@NerdKim Of course God can become human, especially if humans were made in the image of God as the Bible proposes. God can't die but humans can, ergo He became human. God cannot be seen but humans can, ergo He became human, He put upon Himself a physical nature, so that spriitually He was still God, but physically He was human, by the way this is also where the Trinity comes in, God was on Earth as the Son, but the Father and the Spirit were in heaven, ergo, God was still infinite.
@philoso It seems to me that you have failed to address the issue here. You write, "Of course God can become human" and then go on to give reasons for why God might become human, but that is confusing separate issues, i.e., how and why. "God can't die but humans can, ergo He became". This MIGHT answer the why but not the how, so it is a non sequitur with respect to the question. I want to know HOW God (the infinte) can become human (the finite). That seems like a square-circle; a contradiction.
@GamerFTW21 another point to mention is when muslims are using bible verses from the bible and then say the bible is corrupt, again, muslims only use bible verses which are consistent with the teachings of the koraan, and yes they use it to remind christians of some teachings they have missed (e.g. the first commandment).
@GamerFTW21 for example ahmad deedat always uses the words of jesus from the four gospels, but all he says is contradictory to the teachings of paul the apostle, this in turn will appear to you as if he is rejecting parts of the bible and accepting others, however what you dont know, is that we muslims, donot beleive that paul is an apostle, but we use the word of jesus because we believe in him, and this my freind may give you the impression that muslims are using double standards
@GamerFTW21 yes brother, i know what are you talking about, this "double standard" only appears to be so, because muslims are using an approach of extracting biblical teachings that are consistent with the teachings of islam and using it to debate Christians from there book of authority and because there are contradictions in the bible 'concerning' the points the muslim argue, it will appear to you that muslims are using a double standard by providing information from a book and rejecting others
i am a muslim and i have to say that doctor craig is the best christian debater i have ever seen, however, the arguments he presents still has a weak bases compared to those of muslims.
@NerdKim The New Testament itself says God can not be seen (John 1:18). You obviously have a very poor understanding of Christian Theology. I suggest taking the time to educate yourself first before making rash statements.
@AegeanKing it actually says no one has seen God the only God who is at the fathers side, he HAS MADE HIM Known. Not only that if God cannot ever be seen then the revelation of Muhammed, Moses, or anyone standing before God at judgement would simply not happen. Leaving Jewish, Christian and Islamic revelations simply abstract hallucinations.
What about Psalm 11:5 :"The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates (NIV)" How is that any different from the Quran saying God hates sinners?
I wish Craig would have brought out the death of Jesus by crucifixion that is accepted by almost every historian and scholar as the most absolute historical fact that we can know about Jesus. The Quran denies this- Surah 4:157 and is therefore wrong on the most sure thing about Jesus
@agnostaxian he probably avoids this b/c it in no way implies the divinity of jesus. the romans crucified a lot of people. but point taken on the qur'an being in error on this point, surely does undermine its claim to be the perfect word of the creator of the universe.
@mindgrapes He does deal with it in the next section but most of his presentation is on the resurrection & claims of Christ. I did my masters thesis on the Historical Jesus and my Doc on early Christianity and if Craig wanted to crush the muslim position, he could have hammered away in his whole debate about the crucifixion which is as established historically as the existence of Caesar Augustus. To deny the crucifixion is like being a 911 truther- laughable but the Koran denies it
@saidinmas No, Christians don't believe and have never believed that God died. Only the human nature of Jesus died on the cross. A Historical fact so strong that to deny it is like saying the earth is flat- The Quran does just that (Surah 4:157)
@agnostaxian If Jesus had a divine nature, then - Why did he die like others without a divine nature who also died on the crosses?
Further, with the many different paintings or drawings of Jesus' faces, then - Who knows which one of the painted or drawn faces is actually and originally Jesus' real face, coz confusions occur.
Even criminals convicted due to eye-witnesses who saw them have recently been acquitted using DNA evidence, proving eye-witnesses were confused.
@saidinmas Jesus had two natures, one divine the other human, only his human physical nature died not his divine one. No one knows what Jesus looked like TODAY, but all his disciples would have known then. Could someone have died in Jesus place? It is a possibility like it is a possibility that Jesus was a space alien from mars but it is not at all likely historically. It is 99.99% historically certain that Jesus died on the cross contra the Quran, sorry
@agnostaxian may ask anyone who studied historical Jesus scholarship should know as a matter of fact that the Holy Spirt did "come upon" Mary for sex outside of marriage in Luke 1:35 reminiscent of a male animal does "come upon" a female animal in a zoo. That's why the Bible Jesus is child of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 1:18. Of course, the Holy Spirit is never the same person as the Father according to the doctrine of Trinity. So, - What is the Father without the Mother for in the Bible?
1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (King James Version) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 1corinthians 15:12-14
@Arsenal252 Does the Islamic one? The Christian God loves everyone. Through Jesus he has offered the people of the world His hand. But the people who are in hell refused to accept it. Our God loves everyone, even those who are in Hell, but it was their choice to be in Hell.
@TheAntiochus Jesus said he only came to the lost tribes of Israel. So how do you say he came for all and loved all? did he not call the Greek woman with a sick child a God? a greek Gog? who is telling the truth? was Jesus lying? was he being deceptive? how can God love everyone when he placed the original sin on them and if he did he did not love his so called only Son did he?
@szuhbi And Jesus had a plan. Jesus' mission was to preach his word to the Jews, and only then did he order the Jews to preach the good news to the gentiles. And where in the bible does Jesus call a greek woman a god? Do not base your beliefs on false evidence. And God did NOT place the original sin on anyone. This was purley the deed of Adam. He gave us free will, and Adam chose to do what is wrong. This wasn't God's doing. Jesus taught the Jews and ordered them to preach so others can besaved
@TheAntiochus one more thing the Bible of the Old testemant did not love the Philistines did he? he ordered the killing of them all women man children and even animals. how did god love everyone? Hey Hitler was a Staunch Christian he believe in Jesus as lord is he going to heaven? or is He going to Hell? and if he is going to hell then beleiving in Jesus as Lord because he loves you is debunked. So is hitler going to hell or heaven?
@szuhbi God got rid of the Philistines because they did what was against his plan and they were in the way of God's plan for the Israelites. If the Qu'ran affirms this as fact and still deems God holy then you probably share the same view. However, we believe in something called true faith. What Hitler had was DEAD FAITH. He was not religious in any way. Christians do not hate anyone. If I murder many people and claim I'm doing the Christian thing, yet Christianity doesn't teach it then its bad
@agnostaxian The Quran says that God made it appear as though Jesus was crucified, which doesn't contradict them "seeing" the crucifixion. So yes, a crucifixion did occur, no doubt, but it wasn't Jesus.
@Christianjr4 The crucifixion occurred to Jesus' double, coz at the sixth hour on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25). Besides, many painted faces of Jesus have been almost alike and some rather different from each other in causing and adding to the confusion.
Can you give any evidence from the text to suggest that a double was crucified? Using the Koran doesn't count; use a contemporary text or the NT text.
Also, what happened to the real Jesus? His scope was to die for the salvation of many; did he trick the desciples? Did the desciples not recognize him on the cross?
This type of conspiracy theory holds no ater whatsoever.
@regelemihai Prof. Bart Erhman's debate with Dr. Mike Licona mentioned that the Syriac tradition held that Jesus had a brother who resembled him. After all, Paul or Saul never saw nor met with Jesus throughout his life, coz Saul or Paul saw a faceless great light on his journey to Damascus. You must have seen many different pictures of Jesus that somewhat resemble each other to varying degrees, indicating that you cannot be certain which one is actually a picture of Jesus, coz no camera there.
The paintings we have of Jesus come centuries after he died, of course all of them give different depictions of it. But that's beside the point. The disciples and close relatives couldn't have made such an error. It would be like you watching a close friend of yourself going through an ordeal only to realize its a double. I mean, that's not serious.
@regelemihai Luke 24:36-41 describes Jesus was a physical body instead of a spirit or spiritual body with no flesh and bones, coz at the sixth hour (noon in NRS) on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges to save him from death. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25) who was already crucified since the third hour (9am in NRS). No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection.
@regelemihai Luke 24:36-41 describes Jesus was a physical body instead of a spirit or spiritual body with no flesh and bones, coz at the sixth hour (noon in NRS) on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges to save him from death. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25) who was already crucified since the third hour (9am in NRS). No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection.
This tiny conundrum can be explained away easily. John records the Roman way of time keeping, the synoptics are going by the Gallilean or Jewish one. In each one of them the day starts and ends at different times. The "third hour" as recorded by Mark is, as you pointed out, between 6-9 AM. Since John goes by the Roman record his "Sixth hour" is not at noon, but at around 6AM as well. He is accused at that time and his crucifixion takes place some time later--both of them mesh. So no, I see...
...no reason to deny anything. Plus, you're giving me no good reason to believe this rediculous theory. Where's the evidence besdies the Kuran (which doesn't count) to suggets Jesus had a twin, much less that he was crucified in this mass conspiracy? Can you give me any?
" No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection."
True that. Fortunately Jesus was crucified, and was resurrected.
@regelemihai As stated earlier, see a debate between Bart Erhman vs. Mike Licona where Prof. Erhman mentioned the Syriac tradition that Jesus had a brother resembling him.
As to the differences between Roman and Jewish times of the crucifixion in John 19:14 and Mark 15:25, then bring them up to convince the 30 Bible scholars of Christians including one Jewish Rabbi who authored the NRS based on the Ancient Greek scriptures, coz I'm NOT one of them.
The Syriac tradition comes later, after the Gospels were written; more than a century after.
I have an NRS. Doesn't change anything. The scriptures mention the sixth and third hour; both match in terms of their proximity when one considers the different calendars and traditions taht were prevalent in the time. This is supported by scholars as well.
@regelemihai cannot change the history, coz Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus that already existed at the time of Jesus his brother there according o the Syriac tradition. Erhman studied the NT as a historian.
If you have the NRS, then you're NOT supposed to state "the different calendars", coz you should state at what times the sixth and third hours refer to in the NRS to see whether they are different or similar in the NRS.
The fact that it's written in Aramaic is irrelevant. It comes more than a century later, as do the gnostic gospels. They are embellished and lack historical credibility.
The original gospels mention no such alleged twin brother--5 different sources never mention him once.
"you have the NRS, then you're NOT supposed to state "the different calendars.""
I just said I have it, I didn't say anything else. The two calendars approach is very much in-line with a historical exegesis of the text
"The third hour is counted from sunrise at 6am as the first hour, so 9am is the third hour and noon at 12pm is the sixth hour as understood from the NRS."
Yes, because it does its interpretation by presupposing John is using the same time keeping formula, which is not the case. The sixth hour, if we go by the synoptics, is indeed at around noon. However, according to the Roman one it's 6AM.
Nothing hinges on this. Jesus hd no twin and was crucified in front of his family. To believe....
....his twin died in his place would require us to believe that his closest friends and even his own mother who stood in front of the cross did not manage to recognize her own son. It's silly, not to mention that the whole idea of him having a "secret" twin is also ad hoc and unfounded. Did he keep him hidden all his life just so he can later on make him die in his place? There' zero evidence for such a hypothesis. The Gospels are unanimous about who died on the cross.
@regelemihai incorrectly stated that "a secret twin is also ad hoc and unfounded", coz if was the Syriac tradition instead of Greek, which is NOT the language used by Jesus to teach the Bible.
@regelemihai stated "The sixth hour ..., according to the Roman one it's 6AM", indicating that you are in doubt as to whether Jesus was crucified since the third hour at 3AM (Mark 15:25), where the darkness of night made it difficult to ascertain the man was Jesus or his double, coz Jesus was STILL in Pilate's court at the sixth hour 6AM (John 19:14) where he was acquitted of the false charges to save him from death. In other words, the Bible version you rely on is definitely NOT the NRS.
The third hour in Mark is from 6-9AM; no mystery. In John it's the same hour, 6AM.
There's no way Jesus' close followers could confuse his with someone else. Not to mention you have yet to give me a single shred of evidence to support this crazy scenario. So Jesus hada twon brother no one knew of(kinda' like a bad soap opera?) which he kept hidden for no good reason only to send him to his death while he escaped through the back door, all the while confusing his OWN MOTHER and his...
@regelemihai It depends which gospel you read, coz in another gospel they were at a far distance. Besides, you still can't tell which one of the many pictures or Christian paintings is Jesus real face, coz no camera at the time of Jesus, dude!
Can you tell which pictures of Jesus resemble the image of supposedly Jesus' face on the Shroud of Turin? It's only your guessing, coz you're in doubt.
@regelemihai Jesus' disciples surely knew how Jesus' real face looked like, BUT nothing painted and/or written by them in Aramaic was ever archeologically found or discovered, especially Peter and John were illiterates even in Aramaic, their own mother-tongue language in Acts 4:13. Obviously, the gospel of John proclaiming the divinity of Jesus was never written nor read for verification by John himself. Of course, none of them wrote in Greek.
"BUT nothing painted and/or written by them in Aramaic was ever archeologically found."
A banal point that in no way undermines anything. The disciples knew him and therefore couldn't have confused him with someone else. This painting argument is silly at best.
Peter and John were noy illiterate. You're taking the Acts 4:13 directly from Ehrman. Start reading other serious scholars. Acts 4:13 says they were unschooled, or in other traslations unlettered--not having formal theological...
...schooling. Not that they couldn't write or read. The context is important.
"Obviously, the gospel of John proclaiming the divinity of Jesus was never written"
Evidence?
"Of course, none of them wrote in Greek."
Bold assertion. You use scholars as your source but you seemingly like to use very ahistorical arguments that no scholars endoreses. Can you give me an argument as to why you think John didn't write in Greek?
@regelemihai See Acts 4:13 again that both Peter and John were illiterates, uneducated, unschooled, unlettered, or couldn't read and write even in their own mother-tongue language, Aramaic when the gospel of John was in ancient Greek manuscripts. These vocabulary words are synonyms that essentially mean lacking the knowledge, skills, or ability to read and write.
"or couldn't read and write even in their own mother-tongue language."
You're reading your own version of the text. ALl taht Acts says is that they were "unschooled." Nothing more. And all that means is that they were not versed well in Jewish theology--they were facing a council. They certainly knew how to read and write. Nothing "synonymous" with being illiterate. The text is very plain.
@regelemihai A school is formal learning requiring reading and writing. So, "unschooled" means lacking reading and writing skills as referred to Peter and John in Acts 4:13.
"So, "unschooled" means lacking reading and writing skills."
Not at all. Mnay people can be unschooled regardless of their ability to read or write. Many highschool drop-out in the US who have little or no formal schooling can still read and weite. That's what Acts 4:13 talks about. I dunno how that's even relvant to the whole conspiracy theory you believe in, but oh well...
@regelemihai needs to understand what the prefix "un" means in English to indicate the opposite meanings or antonymns of "schooled", "educated", or "lettered".
I understand that much, but again it has an ambiguous meaning. I myself can be unschooled and not be illiterate. In fact I know plenty of people who live in substandard conditions who never went to school and who know how to read.
@regelemihai So, since the disciples knew Jesus, then they wouldn't say at the crucifixion that the man crucified wasn't actually Jesus. That's why the Empty Tomb occurred, coz it wasn't for a man who they knew was NOT actually Jesus. Besides, Pilate had already acquitted Jesus of the false charges to save him from death.
@regelemihai The Jewish authority did NOT recognize Jesus' face. That's why Judas Iscariot identified Jesus for them at the garden of Gestheneme. Many criminals convicted by eye-witnesses' testimonies have been overturned in light of DNA evidence, indicating that even eye-witnesses back then were doubtful.
"The Jewish authority did NOT recognize Jesus' face"
I guess his disciples who were there as well as his mother didn't either?
When Judas identifies him, do the disciples who hug around Jesus knew it was him or did they suddenly reaize it was a double? Do you honestly not see how convoluted this arhgument is? You're willing to go to such distance to disprove the crucifixion that you'll adopt any acounter argument no matter how asinine and moronic it is. Come on man...
@regelemihai Eye-witnesses' errors in identifying innocent persons as the criminals due to DNA evidence is overwhelmingly more convincing nowadays, dude.
@regelemihai again incorrectly counted the third hour as 6AM, coz you do NOT know how to count the third and six hours from the time of sunrise, which is clearly NOT 3 hours before 6am.
What time is the sunrise which begins the counting of hours? It's NOT 3 hours before 6am, dude!
You have your time keeping backwards. Third hour is from 6-9AM in Jewish terms. The fourth watch comes at sunrise, not the third hour. You're using modern day time keeping, it's not how it worked.
@regelemihai The third hour is at 9am in NRS Mark 15:25 and the sixth hour is at noon in NRS John 19:14. So, you should convince the 30 Bible scholars of the NRS with your "Third hour from 6-9AM in Jewish terms", coz I'm NOT among them.
"The third hour is at 9am in NRS Mark 15:25 and the sixth hour is at noon in NRS John 19:14"
The third hour is indeed at around 9 AM and the sixth in john is also close to it (6-9AM) The NRV can say what it wants, many Biblical schiolars that take serious historical exegesis into account recognize the two calendar hypothesis. The NRV simply applies the Jewish one to John instead of using a Roman one--that's why it comes at around noon.
@regelemihai The third hour in Roman times like English times too is 3am and the sixth hour is at 6am, since the NT was first writtn in Greek means using the Roman times instead of the Jewish times.
@regelemihai incorrectly stated "The original gospels", coz they were first archeologically discovered to have been written in ancient Greek instead of in Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus and his disciples.
Again, beside the point. The Gospels are the original documnets; the Syriac tradition is not--it comes almost 2 centuries after Jesus' death. It' irrelvant in what language it was wriiten. If I write today in 2010 my own gospel in Aramaic, does it make it more credible than the Gospels?
@regelemihai again incorrectly stated that "The Gospels are the original", coz the ANCIENT scriptures were written in Greek instead of in Aramaic, Jesus' mother-tonguage language in his teaching his Bible. Obviously, you do NOT understand between ancient manuscripts and today's.
"coz the ANCIENT scriptures were written in Greek instead of in Aramaic."
Again,and I'll say this for the last time,the language in which it's written maybe important under some circumstances but in this case it's not at all relevant. When I say "original" I mean the first manuscripts that were written within the lifetime of Jesus' followers--all of which are corroborated.
The Syriac tradition comes--for the last time--more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Aramaic or not, it's irrelevant
@regelemihai The first manuscripts were NOT even written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, coz they were written by anonymous scribes in Greek instead of in Aramaic as taught by Jesus' disciples. They were never claimed to have been translated from Aramaic to Greek. Therefore, it is relevant instead of irrelevant that the first ancient manuscripts in Greek were NOT the originals. See Craig Evans vs. Bart Erhman debate.
" NOT even written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, coz they were written by anonymous scribes"
That's simply not true. The originals may be anonymous, but so are the majority of ancient manuscripts. They are the original as they date to within 20 years after Jesus' death, and Paul's epistles even earlier. Aramiac or not, it's irrelevant. Greek was the intellectual language of the time; not aramaic.
@regelemihai incorrectly stated "Aramaic or not, it's irrelevant," coz it is completely relevant for the ancient originals to be in Aramaic due to the fact that Jesus and his disciples taught in Aramaic, NOT in Greek.
It is a historical fact that Paul or Saul never saw nor met with Jesus. His road to Damascus saw a faceless light.
" his disciples taught in Aramaic, NOT in Greek."
Irrelevant. If I write today--2000 years alter--a gospel that suits me in the original Aramaic, doesit automatically make it better than the original? It makes no sense. The originals are the originals.
"The originals cannot be in Greek due to the fact that the mother-tongue language of Jesus and his disciples were Aramaic."
Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. The spoken language was the spoken one, greek was the literary one for ages. Aramaic was spoken by the common people, it wasn't used in academic circles. This arguemtn has zero validity.
It was spoken, it wasn't really written. Greek and Latin were used primarly, and as far as semitic languages went, Hebrew was the written form, not really Aramaic.
@regelemihai If by your own standard that Aramaic was NOT really the written form, then if Jesus' teaching was meant to be written down, Jesus' mother-tongue should have been Greek instead of Aramaic. Just like Paul, a Jew who became a Greek scholar well-versed in the Greek myths about God-man by writing down his own version in the majority of the New Testament.
1. They made it up
2. They made it up
3. They made it up
There you go 3 perfectly plausible explanations for each of big Willies "facts".
ma049 1 month ago
BS! Muhammad violent SINFUL dead Murderer! Islam/Quran is corrupt! Jesus/Healed/Blessed/Peace/Salvation/GOD! All MUSLIMS who converted to Christianity ARE HAPPY & FREE OF ABUSE & MISERY Islam leaders are killing you! Christians LOVE YOU! PLEASE accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! REBEL & ACCEPT JESUS! Be FREE of ISLAM LIES Visit cbn.com /radio
tigersforchrist 2 months ago
@tigersforchrist emotional breakdown much? Dude we are true followers of Jesus. Jesus himself says that Muslims are his brothers, sisters and mothers in Bible Itself... :D John 3:16 Go read it again. it never says he was God lol.
flexpape 1 month ago
@vandragoran
"Love and hate are opposites. Love and "not love" are not opposites."
THAT is flawed logic. Poor being.
sooperfukker 2 months ago in playlist ISLAM DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate
hmmm...
scooterjumpers 2 months ago in playlist ISLAM DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate
@vandragoran
Actually that's incorrect. In strict logic, the opposite or contradiction of any proposition is the simple negation of that proposition. For example, if a proposition is the statement that X is white, the opposite or contradiction to that proposition is X is NOT white. In propositional logic, the term "not" or the symbol "¬" denote these concepts.
Christianjr4 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All will bow before God. I pray you do not answer for your sin apart from Christ. All you atheist will tremble under God, for you will know the truth of your sin and you will be made a fool. Oh it will be a scary day to be that man. Turn from your evil desires and cling to Christ.
ScScruzer831 3 months ago
Craig is so silly. So Jesus was real because a book that claims Jesus existed said someone saw him alive. Dude Craig that's like me saying the Cheshire cat is real because Alice talked to him.....Craig stumbles at every sentence to try to affirm his hoax cult. LOL! but it's great comedy to watch him struggle to invent some proof when he full well knows he has none.
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist
Pay attention! Craig didn't say Jesus was real because the Bible said so. In fact, he didn't even talk about Jesus' existence. He mentioned the fact that the majority of New Testament scholars accept these particular sayings of Jesus. In a debate with Muslim there would be no point in trying to show that Jesus existed since (1) Muslims already accept he did and (2) No New Testament historian/scholar doubts that Jesus existed anyway (and that's based on historical criteria).
Christianjr4 3 months ago 8
@Christianjr4 He talked about the proof of the resurrection Sorry if I confused you. Craig plainly states the proof is the myth. which is logically absurd. Find me a book other than the same book the myth came out of and maybe it would be a bit more creditable, until then it's just Craig self worshiping fantasy. Of course Craig will never argue the Skeptics point of view on this topic because he can't really provide any real proof or evidence for the resurrection. And that's my point
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist : Has anybody ever found the body of Jesus? If he existed as it is said by many who saw him. They were witnesses. The day somebody finds the bones of Jesus somewhere in this planet you cannot say ressurrection did not happen.
paulinolondon 3 months ago
@paulinolondon So because no one found the body or even the tomb of this fairy tale dress wearing long haired effeminate man who was really god but was really a man. then that means that that guy flew up in the sky to some place you call heaven. I can say with much confidence that the witnesses in a fairy tale book are not witnesses at all but part of the myth. Even second hand witnesses are not proof but they are proof you have no actual proof for your positive claim of the resurrection
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist:There is no evidence that Cesar existed, however we all accept he did. It's in the history books. The long haired, beautiful man with blue/green eyes depicted by the Catholic church neither do I believe. The Bible states quite the contrary. So you met Jesus? Otherwise you could not call him effeminate. Well there were several witnesses 40 I believe. Certainly not a fairy tale.You are naive believing that everything scientists say is true.Oh Well!!
paulinolondon 3 months ago
@paulinolondon Yes nothing existed but your fairy tale. Lets get real man. Scientists don't just make up stories like your priests they produce evidence. Big difference. A sign I saw the other day summed it up perfectly, it had an arrow pointing in one direction with the word "Religion" on it, and it had another arrow pointing the opposite direction with the word "Reality" on it. You're going the wrong way LOL! anyhow I don't have time for your foolish anti-reality argument dude peace!
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
@Christianjr4 You dont have any proof for evolution either. Evolution is just a theory and we dont see it happening today so I suggest you find some real evidence before responding back.
isaacwdld 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist Actually, you are pretty silly! Your comment actually made me laugh out loud. The "Christianjr4" person hit the nail on the head in response to your comment. Anyhow, looks like your theology and study of history has just begun. I wish you well on your journey.
mmmcculloch3 2 months ago
@mmmcculloch3 And? Because? listen your trollish hit and run fails so deeply. So you're laughing at me because I don't believe in your invisible wizards magic powers. You're laughing at me because I'm not part of a religion based on incest and child rape? Remember Lot? He was the holiest man in the whole of Sodom and he raped his two underage daughters. Are you like Lot so holy and pure and above all us nonbelievers? Who's laughing now =D
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Hey, we both don't believe in invisible wizards or magic powers! Try again, Lot never raped his daughters, They raped him to preserve family blood lines. God used many messed up people throughout the Bible to communicate His word. The rape and incest documented in scripture was a description of the past, not a prescription for the future. God is clear that he can not face sins like rape and incest. Christianity is based on love and forgiveness. God admires your passion.
mmmcculloch3 2 months ago
@mmmcculloch3 So you're a hypocrite first you say you don't believe in invisible wizards then you claim the wizard God used his magic powers to use people like slaves with his magic words in the bible. You are a joke. Yes Lot raped his daughters. I've gotten drunk thousands of times and I can tell you one thing for sure if my daughters even tried to get my dick hard I would back hand the shit out of them. Lot was a sick pedophile and incestuous rapist That proves your holy men are truly evil
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Cold cold cold. Because of Lot's title as "Holy" just proves how horrible everybody else was at that time. So curious: Do you believe there is any form of higher being at all?
mmmcculloch3 2 months ago
@mmmcculloch3 Of course I don't believe in your higher being that supports raping your own children because you haven't proven this higher being nor can you even coherently define this being as anything but vagueness that you use to do evil. So was Lot holy? I wan't to see how many more lies you will tell to support your obvious cult of evil.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist You spend a lot of time studying a God, that you don't believe exists. You are using stories from the Bible, to say how horrible God is, but then...you don't think He exists? So, you think Lot was a real man? Where do you draw the line in deciding which parts of the Bible you believe? You believe in God, but you just don't like Him. I love your desire to learn about God, but make sure to grasp the whole structure of the Bible first. Today, I am praying for you! :-)
mmmcculloch3 2 months ago
@mmmcculloch3 actually I. Spend a lot of time asking for proof of your book of bad morals and evidence for your god thingy you fail to coherently define. I'm only here for a cheap laugh at your expense only fools believe in books that call you a fool if you don't believe in them. You can only make empty fictional claims while the truth you refuse is around you the same truth that invalidates your cult. And that is why you refuse it
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist What truth is around me? How do I refuse it? Do you believe in morals? (Oh I look forward to your comments! Hahah, I do look forward to coming home...you present a side to me that has never been presented. Thanks for the challenge.) OK, so you attack Christianity on a daily basis. What do YOU believe, and what is the purpose of your existence on this planet?
mmmcculloch3 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist unbiblical sources also support the existence, ministry, teachings, execution, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. So before making stupid statements, research first.
theaccousticaddict 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist u do realise there are thousands of new testament scholars who are consumed with this study. it is all the independant documents that confirm this. even extra biblical sources people who hated him discuss him to make him seem crazy or a magician. these facts are of most importance to historians. someone mentioning him in passing or hating him confirms his existence even more so then someone who has a vested interest in it. all serious historians cept a few believe he existed
lravenhill 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist - how could you have missed the point? It seems so profoundly simple, yet there is always some atheist from academic bfe who misses the point and argues some other point.
Be honest, you are just another atheist with your junior college understanding (13th grade?) of complex issues, right? you easily confuse sarcasm for an intellectual argument, dont be ashamed to admit this, lot's of dumb people make the same mistake, it's okay
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless What point bud? This is your first comment to me and I've been commenting to a few other people on here. Sure I'm just another person you failed to convince because your preschool arguments failed. Was that sarcasm or an intellectual argument? You don't have to be ashamed to admit you really believe in an invisible wizard who uses magic spells. Man is that some preschool fairy tale or what HAHA Your hateful apocalyptic world view is just a reflection of yourself. angry, hateful, sad
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist - only because I am certain you are a MENSA pretending to be of subnormal intellect will I entertain this further.
Ok atheist, provide the proof you have that the universe came about from nothing (every thing has a cause) what caused this universe to begin about 15 billion years ago, proof not speculation. Again, proof that inorganic materials made the jump to living organisms. Don't cite Darwin, he explains neither - remember only proof, faith is not acceptable from you
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless Wait is this a debate on physics or biology because you're confusing both and linking evolution to both incorrectly. The universe is the resault of a quantum fluxuation. there is no such thing as living or dead materals we are all made out of atoms that form chemicals that form us. we are not made out of foolish magic spells
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@mollkatless Perhaps you want me to prove abiogenesis? Abiogenesis has been proven through many different experiments that have shown how inorganic chemicals can self assemble into RNA. Google "Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory" for the WIRED article on that. RNA can undergo natural selection because it can reproduce itself. You have no scientific alternative to this. Your only alternative is a appeal to ignorance and a credulous belief in an invisible wizards magic spell poofing
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist There is so much proof that Jesus was the Son of God and that he raised from the Dead. We also have non Biblical evidence for Jesus.
isaacwdld 1 month ago
@isaacwdld Ok beyond your empty claim can you provide some evidence? Can you provide anything besides your one fools book? or maybe you'd like bring up the forgeries of Josephus...yawn.. Seriously I have the evidence of the Cheshire cat in the book of Alice and wonderland...So don't give me this we have biblical proof of Jesus in the bible or you may make me shoot milk out my noise from laughing too hard. =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist I do have some evidence actually. Have you heard of the Acid test for the New Testament? Have you heard of Tacitus? Or have you even heard of Suetonius? and How do you even have any evidence disproving Jesus although you weren't there when Jesus lived on Earth. So you cant tell me he didn't rise from the dead or he didn't live when you weren't there.
isaacwdld 1 month ago
@isaacwdld Acid test for the new testament? you mean more bullshit apologizing. LOL! Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians." in Suetonius's Life of Claudius,Claudius reigned from 41-54, while Christ was purported to have been crucified around 30, so the great Jewish sage could not have been in Rome personally at that time.
HA! so since I wasn't there to see it, it happened? So every fairy tale is true. Man you are lacking some basic common sense.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@isaacwdld BTW I was talking about real evidence not opinion. Got any of that?
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist Yes I do have evidence. For example Archaeology has backed up the Bible, such as the red sea there has been findings of wheels and chariots that were described in the Exodus. Also The Historian Tacitus has mentioned Jesus in his writings. Also The New Testament has passed every test 100% perfect than any other History book has passed, and BTW thats not opinion thats FACT. Also Jesus died in about 30 A.D. and the Gospels were written atleast 20-30 after His death.
isaacwdld 1 month ago
@isaacwdld " Archaeology has backed up the Bible, such as the red sea there has been findings of wheels and chariots that were described in the Exodus"
Link me to the peer reviewed archaeological paper that shows these findings please.
" The Historian Tacitus has mentioned Jesus in his writings."Tacitus writings are merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying. He was recording their fairy tale, dim bulb!
Got any real proof that hasn't been debunked to death 100 years ago?
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist What do you mean debunked a 100 years ago? You have not given me any proof for your theory yet so why dont you give it a shot
isaacwdld 1 month ago
Comment removed
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@isaacwdld I mean 100 years ago like this shit was being argued against in the 1700s. My theory is proven by you using it daily. I want proof for your cretardism. Can you offer any without invoking the word evolution? you can't because cretardism is not an actual theory it's an opinion not even a hypothesis because you have no supporting evidence. Cretardism isn't scientific it's a religious cult. The cult of stupidity and lies.
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@GodKillerAtheist most atheists wont debate him because he is an academic legend and scientific philosopher that uses evidence. He is rock solid in his arguments.
DougsDreamDotCom 6 days ago
@DougsDreamDotCom LOL are you crazy? so you must have missed half the debates where he got PWNED by Atheists over and over Ad nauseam HAHA!!! NO sir he is the one who refuses to debate because his flimsy arguments are so debunked that they are used as examples of bad arguments for religion. SERIOUSLY CRAIG THINKS IT'S OK TO KILL BABIES BECAUSE THEY GO TO A BETTER PLACE WHEN THEY DIE! <-his own words!!! all the dead from 9/11 terrorist attacks are a good thing to Craig This guy is a total lunatic
GodKillerAtheist 6 days ago
@DougsDreamDotCom "We are so Wedded to an earthly, naturalistic prospective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heavens incomparable joy."-William Lane Craig
watch?v=D3QTc1jzgvE
Oh here is his sick disturbing quote on why it's ok to kill babies "the distruction of these children was in fact their salvation" He's talking about abortion
watch?v=af-0fCVT24c
GodKillerAtheist 6 days ago
@GodKillerAtheist I think its more sick to twist the words to justify your own agenda. NO WHERE IN THIS QUOTE DOES IT SAY its OK TO KILL BABIES. Can you learn to read and comprehend objectively,obviously not. The full quote is not here, this was taken as a clip to slander because its how many atheist prove their points (just like Hitchen's did) there is much more that you did not include on what Craig said...what Craig is pointing out is that its not the babies fault.
DougsDreamDotCom 5 days ago
@DougsDreamDotCom let me ask you a question? is abortion a persons right? or is wrong no matter what you think their "rights" should be?
DougsDreamDotCom 5 days ago
@DougsDreamDotCom actually no, craig is supporting mass murder of infants. Its all in black and white just read his words.How hard is it to read his words? I think craig is just your idol and can do no wrong no matter what sick shit he says. You did open your comment with some bullshit of how unbeatable he was. If this was true there would be no atheists because the logic of his argument would be unrefutable. Sadly craig is just a joke
GodKillerAtheist 5 days ago
@GodKillerAtheist Wow, you correlate being unbeatable in a philosophical debate to therefore no atheist would exist...if you can't even write a sentence that correlates how will you understand what Craig says....did you even go to school and if you did, did you even bother to try to learn. especially, objectively? you send someone a 5-10 second clip and you think that's truth?
DougsDreamDotCom 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DougsDreamDotCom A sentence that correlates to what? Aww did you just learn that word? Ok well you're not using it correctly. I suggest you look its meaning up because it sounds like you have no clue what you're saying. Oh I get it now! You're tryhing to act educated, aww how cute LOL cretard trying to be smart haha!
GodKillerAtheist 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DougsDreamDotCom if you watched the video clip why haven't you been able to refute it? Oh I know, because craig in his own words is saying how murdering babies is okay.
GodKillerAtheist 5 days ago
@GodKillerAtheist you have no idea what you are talking about. You believe in the same global conspiracy nonsense that honestly requires far more faith than Christianity itself. Pure nonsense.
SuckafreeMilani 6 days ago
@SuckafreeMilani What are you talking about global conspiracy? If you're going on about Atheism well then Atheism is the result of theists, such as yourself's inability to provide any proof or evidence for their claims. Simple as that. If you think it takes faith to be an Atheist I say all I have to do is look at your failure to provide any proof and that means you have no truth. Your inability to prove theism is my belief because you prove you can't prove it. I am the result of your failure.
GodKillerAtheist 6 days ago
@GodKillerAtheist I made the mistake of getting into a long drawn out endless....pseudo intelligent argument about this topic once before and I really don't have the time and effort to dive and explain everything so that you will understand. I feel most atheist believe that Christianity is a global conspiracy in which the lie of God, Jesus Christ and other such ideas have been perpetuated to scare folks and keep them in line. Science has provided exactly zero evidence as well.
SuckafreeMilani 5 days ago
@SuckafreeMilani reply if you want.....go tell all your friends about the dumb Christian you "totally pwnd" on the internet with all you saavy knowledge. I don't care.....I have better things to do.
SuckafreeMilani 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuckafreeMilani "Science has providedzero evidence"
What science? Hell if you knew what science was you'd know it proves a lot.saying science does nothing while using the benifits of science makes you sound ignorant and retarded.Is that what you're trying to do, convince me you're retarded?
GodKillerAtheist 5 days ago
@bayreuth
I suppose the answer to your question goes to the aspect on the human part of Jesus. He was fully man and fully God. And like the prophet Isaiah spoke of Jesus it was the child (the human aspect of Jesus) that died on the cross, the son (the divine aspect of Jesus) eternally existed. I hope to have answer your question as you needed
Eru87 4 months ago
Im sorry but the otherwise intelligent sounding William Laine Craig sounds very very stupid suddenly when he starts to compare Christianity vs Islam.
rosepetalaysha 4 months ago
@rosepetalaysha Craig is so busy busy busy trying so hard to sound so so smart, but he really doesn't bring any real arguments to the table. Hell he's had to co write just about every book with his name on it. No matter how firm and potent his empty statements are he seems to always fall short of what he promises. And that's not an analogy for his love life. LOL At least he's good at riding everyone else's coat tails to make a buck. Good for Atheists he's considered the leading Appoligizer =D
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
William Lane Craig's Arabic is appalling.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
He is trying to show respect to the culture.
PistisIasis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bayreuth79 "William Lane Craig's Arabic is appalling."
LOL his English is worse! He sounds like a whinny baby
GodKillerAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
only human can get son or doughter but god ............god is god ....doesnt need to have son ......he is not human ....he is creater of universe.....human need to get family to survive not extinct ....god doesnt have problem like this
power30n 5 months ago
@power30n To say "God can and God can't", you're committing a blasphemy. This is GOD we're talking about. I don't know how you view your allah guy, though. Maybe he isn't super "I-can-do-anything"-like...
rhinnawi95 5 months ago
@rhinnawi95 No brother, you're looking at it the wrong way. You are a human, you cannot be a god. You are god's creation, not a god. God is not His Creation, He is God. As the Qur'an says, God doesn't have children, nor does He have parents, He is not like His creation which requires parents and has children. God doesn't need to eat, sleep, reproduce, or have any temptation. Jesus pbuh was born to a mother, ate, slept, and had temptation. Hope this clarifies, peace.
got2nesa 5 months ago in playlist ISLAM DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate
@got2nesa I don't mean to sound rude, but God and Allah are in no way the same deities, so you can say what you want about Allah, but leave the Yahweh stuff up to Christians. I was raised Arabic, so I could've embraced Islam at any point considering all the Arab Muslim friends we had, but it never appealed to me then, and it really doesn't now.
I do respect you for trying to spread your faith by word as opposed to by sword like the ancestors did, though. Peace and love are pretty neat.
rhinnawi95 5 months ago
@rhinnawi95 You didn't sound rude at all, it's nice that you're expressing your views in a polite manner, thank you. Well I was born and raised Christian, I converted to Islam because of the research that I did. I'm not sure why you're under the impression that Islam spreads by the sword, if that were the case then there would've been rebellion in Islamic-occupied countries. Muslims were welcomed into cities more than anything, they freed people from tyrants.
got2nesa 5 months ago
@rhinnawi95 That aside, the true Islam (as would be represented by Muhammad himself) was spread over 23 years of his prophethood through diplomacy, ethics, and politics in general. A lot of people converted to Islam because they expected Muhammad to kill them, but he showed mercy to them instead. In these 23 years, less than 3,000 people died, Muslims included, in all of the combined battles/raids, most of which the Muslims were on the defensive. And "Allah" simply means "The God" in Arabic.
got2nesa 5 months ago
@rhinnawi95 In fact, if it weren't for the biography of Muhammad that I've studied, I wouldn't be a Muslim probably. If you've studied his history, you will find him far different from the majority of "Muslims" today that you may associate Islam with. The Islam of Muhammad was far from today's mainstream image. For example, adulterers came to him asking for punishment, he turned away so that they would be forgiven and not punished. He was the only person to visit his enemy when they were sick
got2nesa 5 months ago
@got2nesa people will distort every religion to suit their gains somehow Christ's teachings of peace and love has a following of angry and hate filled people... worse yet, republicans somehow user the Bible to teach h ow the poor should stay poor, and the rich deserve more money... I'd like to read the Quaran to learn more about Muslims.
PrizeFighter 5 months ago
@NerdKim Of course God can become human, especially if humans were made in the image of God as the Bible proposes. God can't die but humans can, ergo He became human. God cannot be seen but humans can, ergo He became human, He put upon Himself a physical nature, so that spriitually He was still God, but physically He was human, by the way this is also where the Trinity comes in, God was on Earth as the Son, but the Father and the Spirit were in heaven, ergo, God was still infinite.
philosophizer149 6 months ago
@philoso It seems to me that you have failed to address the issue here. You write, "Of course God can become human" and then go on to give reasons for why God might become human, but that is confusing separate issues, i.e., how and why. "God can't die but humans can, ergo He became". This MIGHT answer the why but not the how, so it is a non sequitur with respect to the question. I want to know HOW God (the infinte) can become human (the finite). That seems like a square-circle; a contradiction.
bayreuth79 4 months ago
@bayreuth79 watch; /watch?v=VmoUyCxv9dU
philosophizer149 4 months ago
@GamerFTW21 another point to mention is when muslims are using bible verses from the bible and then say the bible is corrupt, again, muslims only use bible verses which are consistent with the teachings of the koraan, and yes they use it to remind christians of some teachings they have missed (e.g. the first commandment).
0aiwas0 7 months ago
@GamerFTW21 for example ahmad deedat always uses the words of jesus from the four gospels, but all he says is contradictory to the teachings of paul the apostle, this in turn will appear to you as if he is rejecting parts of the bible and accepting others, however what you dont know, is that we muslims, donot beleive that paul is an apostle, but we use the word of jesus because we believe in him, and this my freind may give you the impression that muslims are using double standards
0aiwas0 7 months ago
@GamerFTW21 yes brother, i know what are you talking about, this "double standard" only appears to be so, because muslims are using an approach of extracting biblical teachings that are consistent with the teachings of islam and using it to debate Christians from there book of authority and because there are contradictions in the bible 'concerning' the points the muslim argue, it will appear to you that muslims are using a double standard by providing information from a book and rejecting others
0aiwas0 7 months ago
i am a muslim and i have to say that doctor craig is the best christian debater i have ever seen, however, the arguments he presents still has a weak bases compared to those of muslims.
0aiwas0 8 months ago in playlist Christian Intellectuals: William Lane Craig
@NerdKim The New Testament itself says God can not be seen (John 1:18). You obviously have a very poor understanding of Christian Theology. I suggest taking the time to educate yourself first before making rash statements.
AegeanKing 9 months ago 2
@AegeanKing it actually says no one has seen God the only God who is at the fathers side, he HAS MADE HIM Known. Not only that if God cannot ever be seen then the revelation of Muhammed, Moses, or anyone standing before God at judgement would simply not happen. Leaving Jewish, Christian and Islamic revelations simply abstract hallucinations.
boybeeter4life 8 months ago
@NerdKim i agree that there are too many idiot ppl on the earth and your one of them..
156769 9 months ago
What about Psalm 11:5 :"The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates (NIV)" How is that any different from the Quran saying God hates sinners?
JrStructengineer 11 months ago
We're going to Walmart when my mom gets home.
dwilmer7 1 year ago
@dwilmer7 i like walmart too. what did u get there. u should go to the deli and get some hot wings. they're soo good and cheap. i want cheese cake
missysmithy25 8 months ago
I wish Craig would have brought out the death of Jesus by crucifixion that is accepted by almost every historian and scholar as the most absolute historical fact that we can know about Jesus. The Quran denies this- Surah 4:157 and is therefore wrong on the most sure thing about Jesus
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian he probably avoids this b/c it in no way implies the divinity of jesus. the romans crucified a lot of people. but point taken on the qur'an being in error on this point, surely does undermine its claim to be the perfect word of the creator of the universe.
mindgrapes 1 year ago
@mindgrapes He does deal with it in the next section but most of his presentation is on the resurrection & claims of Christ. I did my masters thesis on the Historical Jesus and my Doc on early Christianity and if Craig wanted to crush the muslim position, he could have hammered away in his whole debate about the crucifixion which is as established historically as the existence of Caesar Augustus. To deny the crucifixion is like being a 911 truther- laughable but the Koran denies it
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian Does your master's thesis say that God died on the cross when God never dies at all?
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas No, Christians don't believe and have never believed that God died. Only the human nature of Jesus died on the cross. A Historical fact so strong that to deny it is like saying the earth is flat- The Quran does just that (Surah 4:157)
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian If Jesus had a divine nature, then - Why did he die like others without a divine nature who also died on the crosses?
Further, with the many different paintings or drawings of Jesus' faces, then - Who knows which one of the painted or drawn faces is actually and originally Jesus' real face, coz confusions occur.
Even criminals convicted due to eye-witnesses who saw them have recently been acquitted using DNA evidence, proving eye-witnesses were confused.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas Jesus had two natures, one divine the other human, only his human physical nature died not his divine one. No one knows what Jesus looked like TODAY, but all his disciples would have known then. Could someone have died in Jesus place? It is a possibility like it is a possibility that Jesus was a space alien from mars but it is not at all likely historically. It is 99.99% historically certain that Jesus died on the cross contra the Quran, sorry
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian Was Jesus among crucified men who died on the crosses to prove having a divine nature that never died?
Can you deny DNA evidence that has recently acquitted persons convicted of crimes like rapes and murders by eye-witnesses who saw them?
Why did the Roman centurion was divinely inspired who pierced Jesus' side to ensure his death in John 19:32-34 AFTER he saw Jesus was "dead already"?
You are confused like explaining triune God is one God when one has no more nor less than one
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas Have you ever studied historical Jesus scholarship?
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@agnostaxian may ask anyone who studied historical Jesus scholarship should know as a matter of fact that the Holy Spirt did "come upon" Mary for sex outside of marriage in Luke 1:35 reminiscent of a male animal does "come upon" a female animal in a zoo. That's why the Bible Jesus is child of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 1:18. Of course, the Holy Spirit is never the same person as the Father according to the doctrine of Trinity. So, - What is the Father without the Mother for in the Bible?
saidinmas 10 months ago
@saidinmas answer the question- have you ever studied historical Jesus scholarship? yes or no
agnostaxian 10 months ago
@agnostaxian oh wait, he does in the next section. nm.
mindgrapes 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (King James Version) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 1corinthians 15:12-14
twotime21 1 year ago
Stop trying to disprove God and start looking for the Ark of the Covenant!
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago
I'd believe in God just to make my life more interesting! I think athiests are boring.
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago
Comment removed
1Thompsonmusic 1 year ago
does the christian god love ppl in hell?
Arsenal252 1 year ago
@Arsenal252 Does the Islamic one? The Christian God loves everyone. Through Jesus he has offered the people of the world His hand. But the people who are in hell refused to accept it. Our God loves everyone, even those who are in Hell, but it was their choice to be in Hell.
TheAntiochus 1 year ago
@TheAntiochus Jesus said he only came to the lost tribes of Israel. So how do you say he came for all and loved all? did he not call the Greek woman with a sick child a God? a greek Gog? who is telling the truth? was Jesus lying? was he being deceptive? how can God love everyone when he placed the original sin on them and if he did he did not love his so called only Son did he?
szuhbi 1 year ago
@szuhbi And Jesus had a plan. Jesus' mission was to preach his word to the Jews, and only then did he order the Jews to preach the good news to the gentiles. And where in the bible does Jesus call a greek woman a god? Do not base your beliefs on false evidence. And God did NOT place the original sin on anyone. This was purley the deed of Adam. He gave us free will, and Adam chose to do what is wrong. This wasn't God's doing. Jesus taught the Jews and ordered them to preach so others can besaved
TheAntiochus 1 year ago
@TheAntiochus one more thing the Bible of the Old testemant did not love the Philistines did he? he ordered the killing of them all women man children and even animals. how did god love everyone? Hey Hitler was a Staunch Christian he believe in Jesus as lord is he going to heaven? or is He going to Hell? and if he is going to hell then beleiving in Jesus as Lord because he loves you is debunked. So is hitler going to hell or heaven?
szuhbi 1 year ago
@szuhbi God got rid of the Philistines because they did what was against his plan and they were in the way of God's plan for the Israelites. If the Qu'ran affirms this as fact and still deems God holy then you probably share the same view. However, we believe in something called true faith. What Hitler had was DEAD FAITH. He was not religious in any way. Christians do not hate anyone. If I murder many people and claim I'm doing the Christian thing, yet Christianity doesn't teach it then its bad
TheAntiochus 1 year ago
They take great pains to show that both religions must be wrong, christianity as well as islam.
BjornPalmen 1 year ago
Gosh, I sure love William Lane Craig.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
i think William Lane Craig is slow
BrockHermann 1 year ago
@agnostaxian The Quran says that God made it appear as though Jesus was crucified, which doesn't contradict them "seeing" the crucifixion. So yes, a crucifixion did occur, no doubt, but it wasn't Jesus.
fandanstan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fandanstan What evidence do you have that someone else was crucified in Jesus' place?
agnostaxian 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 The crucifixion occurred to Jesus' double, coz at the sixth hour on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25). Besides, many painted faces of Jesus have been almost alike and some rather different from each other in causing and adding to the confusion.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas
Can you give any evidence from the text to suggest that a double was crucified? Using the Koran doesn't count; use a contemporary text or the NT text.
Also, what happened to the real Jesus? His scope was to die for the salvation of many; did he trick the desciples? Did the desciples not recognize him on the cross?
This type of conspiracy theory holds no ater whatsoever.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Prof. Bart Erhman's debate with Dr. Mike Licona mentioned that the Syriac tradition held that Jesus had a brother who resembled him. After all, Paul or Saul never saw nor met with Jesus throughout his life, coz Saul or Paul saw a faceless great light on his journey to Damascus. You must have seen many different pictures of Jesus that somewhat resemble each other to varying degrees, indicating that you cannot be certain which one is actually a picture of Jesus, coz no camera there.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas
The paintings we have of Jesus come centuries after he died, of course all of them give different depictions of it. But that's beside the point. The disciples and close relatives couldn't have made such an error. It would be like you watching a close friend of yourself going through an ordeal only to realize its a double. I mean, that's not serious.
regelemihai 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai Luke 24:36-41 describes Jesus was a physical body instead of a spirit or spiritual body with no flesh and bones, coz at the sixth hour (noon in NRS) on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges to save him from death. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25) who was already crucified since the third hour (9am in NRS). No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@regelemihai Luke 24:36-41 describes Jesus was a physical body instead of a spirit or spiritual body with no flesh and bones, coz at the sixth hour (noon in NRS) on the day of crucifixion, Jesus was still in Pilate's court (John 19:14) upon his acquittal from the false charges to save him from death. So, at the same sixth hour, it was Jesus' double on the cross (Mark 15:25) who was already crucified since the third hour (9am in NRS). No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection.
saidinmas 1 year ago
This tiny conundrum can be explained away easily. John records the Roman way of time keeping, the synoptics are going by the Gallilean or Jewish one. In each one of them the day starts and ends at different times. The "third hour" as recorded by Mark is, as you pointed out, between 6-9 AM. Since John goes by the Roman record his "Sixth hour" is not at noon, but at around 6AM as well. He is accused at that time and his crucifixion takes place some time later--both of them mesh. So no, I see...
regelemihai 1 year ago
...no reason to deny anything. Plus, you're giving me no good reason to believe this rediculous theory. Where's the evidence besdies the Kuran (which doesn't count) to suggets Jesus had a twin, much less that he was crucified in this mass conspiracy? Can you give me any?
" No Jesus' death means no Jesus' resurrection."
True that. Fortunately Jesus was crucified, and was resurrected.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai As stated earlier, see a debate between Bart Erhman vs. Mike Licona where Prof. Erhman mentioned the Syriac tradition that Jesus had a brother resembling him.
As to the differences between Roman and Jewish times of the crucifixion in John 19:14 and Mark 15:25, then bring them up to convince the 30 Bible scholars of Christians including one Jewish Rabbi who authored the NRS based on the Ancient Greek scriptures, coz I'm NOT one of them.
saidinmas 1 year ago
The Syriac tradition comes later, after the Gospels were written; more than a century after.
I have an NRS. Doesn't change anything. The scriptures mention the sixth and third hour; both match in terms of their proximity when one considers the different calendars and traditions taht were prevalent in the time. This is supported by scholars as well.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai cannot change the history, coz Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus that already existed at the time of Jesus his brother there according o the Syriac tradition. Erhman studied the NT as a historian.
If you have the NRS, then you're NOT supposed to state "the different calendars", coz you should state at what times the sixth and third hours refer to in the NRS to see whether they are different or similar in the NRS.
saidinmas 1 year ago
The fact that it's written in Aramaic is irrelevant. It comes more than a century later, as do the gnostic gospels. They are embellished and lack historical credibility.
The original gospels mention no such alleged twin brother--5 different sources never mention him once.
"you have the NRS, then you're NOT supposed to state "the different calendars.""
I just said I have it, I didn't say anything else. The two calendars approach is very much in-line with a historical exegesis of the text
regelemihai 1 year ago
"The third hour is counted from sunrise at 6am as the first hour, so 9am is the third hour and noon at 12pm is the sixth hour as understood from the NRS."
Yes, because it does its interpretation by presupposing John is using the same time keeping formula, which is not the case. The sixth hour, if we go by the synoptics, is indeed at around noon. However, according to the Roman one it's 6AM.
Nothing hinges on this. Jesus hd no twin and was crucified in front of his family. To believe....
regelemihai 1 year ago
....his twin died in his place would require us to believe that his closest friends and even his own mother who stood in front of the cross did not manage to recognize her own son. It's silly, not to mention that the whole idea of him having a "secret" twin is also ad hoc and unfounded. Did he keep him hidden all his life just so he can later on make him die in his place? There' zero evidence for such a hypothesis. The Gospels are unanimous about who died on the cross.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai incorrectly stated that "a secret twin is also ad hoc and unfounded", coz if was the Syriac tradition instead of Greek, which is NOT the language used by Jesus to teach the Bible.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@regelemihai stated "The sixth hour ..., according to the Roman one it's 6AM", indicating that you are in doubt as to whether Jesus was crucified since the third hour at 3AM (Mark 15:25), where the darkness of night made it difficult to ascertain the man was Jesus or his double, coz Jesus was STILL in Pilate's court at the sixth hour 6AM (John 19:14) where he was acquitted of the false charges to save him from death. In other words, the Bible version you rely on is definitely NOT the NRS.
saidinmas 1 year ago
The third hour in Mark is from 6-9AM; no mystery. In John it's the same hour, 6AM.
There's no way Jesus' close followers could confuse his with someone else. Not to mention you have yet to give me a single shred of evidence to support this crazy scenario. So Jesus hada twon brother no one knew of(kinda' like a bad soap opera?) which he kept hidden for no good reason only to send him to his death while he escaped through the back door, all the while confusing his OWN MOTHER and his...
regelemihai 1 year ago
...own close followers who did not manage to recognoze him? Sounds too crazy to even be considered a viable scholarly alternative.
Not to mention, Jesus was crucified at daylight in front of Mary who stood right in front of the cross.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai It depends which gospel you read, coz in another gospel they were at a far distance. Besides, you still can't tell which one of the many pictures or Christian paintings is Jesus real face, coz no camera at the time of Jesus, dude!
Can you tell which pictures of Jesus resemble the image of supposedly Jesus' face on the Shroud of Turin? It's only your guessing, coz you're in doubt.
saidinmas 1 year ago
"which one of the many pictures or Christian paintings is Jesus real face"
Remind me again why this is at all relevant? I just don't understand why you would use this argument.
Also, what does the Shroud of Turin have to do with the material? We today don't know how Jesus' looked. Does this mean his own disciples didn't?
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Jesus' disciples surely knew how Jesus' real face looked like, BUT nothing painted and/or written by them in Aramaic was ever archeologically found or discovered, especially Peter and John were illiterates even in Aramaic, their own mother-tongue language in Acts 4:13. Obviously, the gospel of John proclaiming the divinity of Jesus was never written nor read for verification by John himself. Of course, none of them wrote in Greek.
saidinmas 1 year ago
"BUT nothing painted and/or written by them in Aramaic was ever archeologically found."
A banal point that in no way undermines anything. The disciples knew him and therefore couldn't have confused him with someone else. This painting argument is silly at best.
Peter and John were noy illiterate. You're taking the Acts 4:13 directly from Ehrman. Start reading other serious scholars. Acts 4:13 says they were unschooled, or in other traslations unlettered--not having formal theological...
regelemihai 1 year ago
...schooling. Not that they couldn't write or read. The context is important.
"Obviously, the gospel of John proclaiming the divinity of Jesus was never written"
Evidence?
"Of course, none of them wrote in Greek."
Bold assertion. You use scholars as your source but you seemingly like to use very ahistorical arguments that no scholars endoreses. Can you give me an argument as to why you think John didn't write in Greek?
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai See Acts 4:13 again that both Peter and John were illiterates, uneducated, unschooled, unlettered, or couldn't read and write even in their own mother-tongue language, Aramaic when the gospel of John was in ancient Greek manuscripts. These vocabulary words are synonyms that essentially mean lacking the knowledge, skills, or ability to read and write.
saidinmas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"or couldn't read and write even in their own mother-tongue language."
You're reading your own version of the text. ALl taht Acts says is that they were "unschooled." Nothing more. And all that means is that they were not versed well in Jewish theology--they were facing a council. They certainly knew how to read and write. Nothing "synonymous" with being illiterate. The text is very plain.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai A school is formal learning requiring reading and writing. So, "unschooled" means lacking reading and writing skills as referred to Peter and John in Acts 4:13.
saidinmas 1 year ago
"So, "unschooled" means lacking reading and writing skills."
Not at all. Mnay people can be unschooled regardless of their ability to read or write. Many highschool drop-out in the US who have little or no formal schooling can still read and weite. That's what Acts 4:13 talks about. I dunno how that's even relvant to the whole conspiracy theory you believe in, but oh well...
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai needs to understand what the prefix "un" means in English to indicate the opposite meanings or antonymns of "schooled", "educated", or "lettered".
saidinmas 1 year ago
I understand that much, but again it has an ambiguous meaning. I myself can be unschooled and not be illiterate. In fact I know plenty of people who live in substandard conditions who never went to school and who know how to read.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai So, since the disciples knew Jesus, then they wouldn't say at the crucifixion that the man crucified wasn't actually Jesus. That's why the Empty Tomb occurred, coz it wasn't for a man who they knew was NOT actually Jesus. Besides, Pilate had already acquitted Jesus of the false charges to save him from death.
saidinmas 1 year ago
"since the disciples knew Jesus, then they wouldn't say at the crucifixion that the man crucified wasn't actually Jesus."
Huh??
"Pilate had already acquitted Jesus."
He gave him to the Jewish authority to do as they pleased. They crucified him. All accounts agree on that. Only the Kuran doesn't.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai The Jewish authority did NOT recognize Jesus' face. That's why Judas Iscariot identified Jesus for them at the garden of Gestheneme. Many criminals convicted by eye-witnesses' testimonies have been overturned in light of DNA evidence, indicating that even eye-witnesses back then were doubtful.
saidinmas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The Jewish authority did NOT recognize Jesus' face"
I guess his disciples who were there as well as his mother didn't either?
When Judas identifies him, do the disciples who hug around Jesus knew it was him or did they suddenly reaize it was a double? Do you honestly not see how convoluted this arhgument is? You're willing to go to such distance to disprove the crucifixion that you'll adopt any acounter argument no matter how asinine and moronic it is. Come on man...
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Eye-witnesses' errors in identifying innocent persons as the criminals due to DNA evidence is overwhelmingly more convincing nowadays, dude.
saidinmas 1 year ago
Well of course TODAY it can be more conviencing.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai again incorrectly counted the third hour as 6AM, coz you do NOT know how to count the third and six hours from the time of sunrise, which is clearly NOT 3 hours before 6am.
What time is the sunrise which begins the counting of hours? It's NOT 3 hours before 6am, dude!
saidinmas 1 year ago
You have your time keeping backwards. Third hour is from 6-9AM in Jewish terms. The fourth watch comes at sunrise, not the third hour. You're using modern day time keeping, it's not how it worked.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai The third hour is at 9am in NRS Mark 15:25 and the sixth hour is at noon in NRS John 19:14. So, you should convince the 30 Bible scholars of the NRS with your "Third hour from 6-9AM in Jewish terms", coz I'm NOT among them.
saidinmas 1 year ago
"The third hour is at 9am in NRS Mark 15:25 and the sixth hour is at noon in NRS John 19:14"
The third hour is indeed at around 9 AM and the sixth in john is also close to it (6-9AM) The NRV can say what it wants, many Biblical schiolars that take serious historical exegesis into account recognize the two calendar hypothesis. The NRV simply applies the Jewish one to John instead of using a Roman one--that's why it comes at around noon.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai The Roman like English counts from 12am, whereas the Jewish counts from sunrise at the time that you incorrectly stated from "6-9AM"
saidinmas 1 year ago
The "third hour" starts from sunrise (6-9AM), The Roman one indeed starts at 12 AM making the "third hour" in that context to be from 6-9AM as well.
Point refuted.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai The third hour in Roman times like English times too is 3am and the sixth hour is at 6am, since the NT was first writtn in Greek means using the Roman times instead of the Jewish times.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@regelemihai incorrectly stated "The original gospels", coz they were first archeologically discovered to have been written in ancient Greek instead of in Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus and his disciples.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas
Again, beside the point. The Gospels are the original documnets; the Syriac tradition is not--it comes almost 2 centuries after Jesus' death. It' irrelvant in what language it was wriiten. If I write today in 2010 my own gospel in Aramaic, does it make it more credible than the Gospels?
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai again incorrectly stated that "The Gospels are the original", coz the ANCIENT scriptures were written in Greek instead of in Aramaic, Jesus' mother-tonguage language in his teaching his Bible. Obviously, you do NOT understand between ancient manuscripts and today's.
saidinmas 1 year ago
"coz the ANCIENT scriptures were written in Greek instead of in Aramaic."
Again,and I'll say this for the last time,the language in which it's written maybe important under some circumstances but in this case it's not at all relevant. When I say "original" I mean the first manuscripts that were written within the lifetime of Jesus' followers--all of which are corroborated.
The Syriac tradition comes--for the last time--more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Aramaic or not, it's irrelevant
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai The first manuscripts were NOT even written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, coz they were written by anonymous scribes in Greek instead of in Aramaic as taught by Jesus' disciples. They were never claimed to have been translated from Aramaic to Greek. Therefore, it is relevant instead of irrelevant that the first ancient manuscripts in Greek were NOT the originals. See Craig Evans vs. Bart Erhman debate.
saidinmas 1 year ago
" NOT even written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, coz they were written by anonymous scribes"
That's simply not true. The originals may be anonymous, but so are the majority of ancient manuscripts. They are the original as they date to within 20 years after Jesus' death, and Paul's epistles even earlier. Aramiac or not, it's irrelevant. Greek was the intellectual language of the time; not aramaic.
Ehrman is way off base.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai incorrectly stated "Aramaic or not, it's irrelevant," coz it is completely relevant for the ancient originals to be in Aramaic due to the fact that Jesus and his disciples taught in Aramaic, NOT in Greek.
It is a historical fact that Paul or Saul never saw nor met with Jesus. His road to Damascus saw a faceless light.
saidinmas 1 year ago
" his disciples taught in Aramaic, NOT in Greek."
Irrelevant. If I write today--2000 years alter--a gospel that suits me in the original Aramaic, doesit automatically make it better than the original? It makes no sense. The originals are the originals.
Yes, Paul never met Jesus. Okay?
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai The originals cannot be in Greek due to the fact that the mother-tongue language of Jesus and his disciples were Aramaic.
A faceless light that Saul or Paul saw on his road to Damascus could NOT be Jesus or a man, coz Jesus or any man got a face, dude.
saidinmas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The originals cannot be in Greek due to the fact that the mother-tongue language of Jesus and his disciples were Aramaic."
Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. The spoken language was the spoken one, greek was the literary one for ages. Aramaic was spoken by the common people, it wasn't used in academic circles. This arguemtn has zero validity.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai Aramaic was spoken as well as written at the times of Jesus, dude.
saidinmas 1 year ago
It was spoken, it wasn't really written. Greek and Latin were used primarly, and as far as semitic languages went, Hebrew was the written form, not really Aramaic.
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai If by your own standard that Aramaic was NOT really the written form, then if Jesus' teaching was meant to be written down, Jesus' mother-tongue should have been Greek instead of Aramaic. Just like Paul, a Jew who became a Greek scholar well-versed in the Greek myths about God-man by writing down his own version in the majority of the New Testament.
saidinmas 1 year ago