This is another personal email and my response to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The fundamental doctrin of christianity is that Jesus was born, lived a perfect life, died on the cross for our sins, and was ressurected"
All the gospels differ on the details surrounding these things. If you want specific examples ask. The gospels do not agree on how he was born, on where he was born, on why he died or what happened after his resurrection.
" Does that mean that in my friends autobiography of the same person he needs to also include the discussion he had with me? NO."
You are not comparing the same thing and here is why.
The gospels are not really about the opinions of the writers. These are supposed to be descriptions of an event, of something that happened and they say, they are like reporters.
I do not even have to discuss this any longer since it is a FACT that the people who wrote the gospels were not there in the first place. But lets assume that they were there and that they saw the things they claim they saw.
In your Bob example, you are talking about having differences of OPINION, however the gospels differ on matters of FACTS. Some gospels talk about an empty tomb and others do not, this has nothing to do with opinion, either the tomb was empty or it wasnt and it doesnt matter how they fell about it or what they thought. The same thing happens with who was there, where was Jesus and other big things like that.
The gospels do not have to agree on things like the emotions of the authors. For example, they should all agree on the fact that the tomb was open (or closed) but they do not have to agree on how that made them feel or what it looked like.
In other words... they should all agree on WHAT happened, not necessarily on their interpretations.
""you can test it with children, a few pieces of paper and crayons."
I don't think you meant to say that, that is exactly my point, the scribes were not a couple of children with some paper and crayons."
I did mean to say it. You were skeptical about the position that Ehrman was holding and I tried to explain how a verse can be added that wasnt there.
I can show you articles or you can go to google.com, click on the tab that says more, click on the tab that says "schoolar" and google things about... say... "meme propagation" "evolution of symbols" "communication drifts" etc.
"I don't deny that there are changes (contradicitons). Re-read what I said earlier about the desciples having differences in oppions and perspectives"
Difference of opinion yes... but describing different events NO.
"And where are the contradictions about Jesus's "birth of Jesus, his anointing, his baptism, his arrest, his trial, his crucifixion and his resurrection"
You said you read the gospels but you have not seen these? Ok. Here you go.
Who was at the tomb: Matthew says the first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two). 21:8 Mark says both of the above plus Salome (three). 16:1 Luke says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (at least five) 23:55, 24:1, and 24:10. And John says that only Mary Magdalene was there 20:1
Matthew said it was toward dawn when they arrived.Mark says it was after sunrise Luke early dawn and John said it was still dark. These are not really important, and these could be dismissed as "lost in interpretation". Maybe to mark it was bright but the others thought it was darker. This is an example of something that could be a difference of opinion, the others not.
Matthew said the stone was still there but the other three say the stone had already been removed. That is pretty damn big to screw up dont you think? This is not a difference of opinion, this is a completely different report. One happened, the other did not.
All you need is access to google, the initiative to type "bible contradictions" get your bible and verify. Its very easy.
Now I will deconstruct a paragraph that is... almost completely meaningless since you either made assertions without evidence or said things which were completely wrong.
"God purposefully gave us FREE WILL"
What do you mean by god, and what do you mean by free will? I have heard many different definitions for both... all from christians. And how do you know this happened? What makes you soo sure? Where is your evidence?
"he created humans"
Thats wrong. We were not created. We have only been in this planet (and this universe) for a very small fraction of the total time elapsed. This is something which I will not concede unless you have evidence that we were created. All evidence points to evolution, and it doesnt need a guide or a purpose. So this is wrong. Show me the evidence please.
"because he wanted to love us"
He created us to love us... I could say many things to this but for now I only care about your reasons to believe this. Why do you believe this???
"and becaue he wanted us to CHOOSE to love him back"
I cannot choose to love somebody. Idk about you, my love for people is completely irrational and does not follow choices, reason or anything of the sort. I cannot choose to love anyone or anything. And neither can you, and if god really thinks we do (and expects us to) I WONT. He has to EARN that love.
"Otherwise he wouldn't created a bunch of Robots"
Once again, you need to provide evidence that we were in fact created, and I would like to know what makes you claim that you know ANYTHING about the mind of god. How do you know he gave us free will and for what purpose????
"That's why he put the tree there and he did enstow in Adam right vs. wrong"
No he didnt. The bible says that Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil.
"God specifically told him that it was WRONG to eat from the tree of knowledge"
It doesnt matter.
Hey Sam! listen, you need to fghjg ghjkt fghyjnbv!!! If you dont I will punish you!
God told Adam and eve not to eat because it was wrong? They still dont know the difference between right and wrong dude... how were they supposed to know that wrong is bad? Or that listening to god is good???
"but because Adam CHOOSE to disobey sin entered the world'
Adam had no other choice. He did not have any reason to listen to God or satan. And sin entered the world because god let it happen. It had nothing to do with Adam's "choice".
If god is omniscient then you must believe that he KNEW that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree BEFORE it happened. he still did it, and he still did it in the same way that he had to do it for it to happen in the way that it did.
Either god KNEW that would happen and still did it... or he didnt know (which means he is not omniscient) but he still expected Adam and Eve to do something HE KNEW they couldnt do.
"The wage of Sin is death"
Why? Why is that the punishment? if he really loved us why would he have such a barbaric punishment?
"and because Jesus loves us he sent Jesus to take the punishment"
You have not thought about this have you... you just believe it...
How does that make any sense? Why would he have to send himself to punish himself? Is he unable to think of anything better that does not include this self mutilation??? He must have known this was going to happen... why do it at all?
"Jesus took the sin and Jesus died"
No and no. He didnt die. It was not a sacrifice. Jesus was "resurrected" three days after it happened. How is that a sacrifice? Hey if that ever happens again SIGN ME UP! I will go through 5 weeks of punishment (even worse than the things he went through) cuz who cares!!! You get to be god after it and you dont really die!
"It was the only way for us since we sinned to have the chance to be with God eternally"
No. If god really is omnipotent then no. That was not the only way, god could have just given us the chance or he could have just forget about the earth and just create everyone in heaven. You are not making any sense.
All the gospels differ on the details surrounding these things. If you want specific examples ask. The gospels do not agree on how he was born, on where he was born, on why he died or what happened after his resurrection.
" Does that mean that in my friends autobiography of the same person he needs to also include the discussion he had with me? NO."
You are not comparing the same thing and here is why.
The gospels are not really about the opinions of the writers. These are supposed to be descriptions of an event, of something that happened and they say, they are like reporters.
I do not even have to discuss this any longer since it is a FACT that the people who wrote the gospels were not there in the first place. But lets assume that they were there and that they saw the things they claim they saw.
In your Bob example, you are talking about having differences of OPINION, however the gospels differ on matters of FACTS. Some gospels talk about an empty tomb and others do not, this has nothing to do with opinion, either the tomb was empty or it wasnt and it doesnt matter how they fell about it or what they thought. The same thing happens with who was there, where was Jesus and other big things like that.
The gospels do not have to agree on things like the emotions of the authors. For example, they should all agree on the fact that the tomb was open (or closed) but they do not have to agree on how that made them feel or what it looked like.
In other words... they should all agree on WHAT happened, not necessarily on their interpretations.
""you can test it with children, a few pieces of paper and crayons."
I don't think you meant to say that, that is exactly my point, the scribes were not a couple of children with some paper and crayons."
I did mean to say it. You were skeptical about the position that Ehrman was holding and I tried to explain how a verse can be added that wasnt there.
I can show you articles or you can go to google.com, click on the tab that says more, click on the tab that says "schoolar" and google things about... say... "meme propagation" "evolution of symbols" "communication drifts" etc.
"I don't deny that there are changes (contradicitons). Re-read what I said earlier about the desciples having differences in oppions and perspectives"
Difference of opinion yes... but describing different events NO.
"And where are the contradictions about Jesus's "birth of Jesus, his anointing, his baptism, his arrest, his trial, his crucifixion and his resurrection"
You said you read the gospels but you have not seen these? Ok. Here you go.
Who was at the tomb: Matthew says the first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two). 21:8 Mark says both of the above plus Salome (three). 16:1 Luke says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (at least five) 23:55, 24:1, and 24:10. And John says that only Mary Magdalene was there 20:1
Matthew said it was toward dawn when they arrived.Mark says it was after sunrise Luke early dawn and John said it was still dark. These are not really important, and these could be dismissed as "lost in interpretation". Maybe to mark it was bright but the others thought it was darker. This is an example of something that could be a difference of opinion, the others not.
Matthew said the stone was still there but the other three say the stone had already been removed. That is pretty damn big to screw up dont you think? This is not a difference of opinion, this is a completely different report. One happened, the other did not.
All you need is access to google, the initiative to type "bible contradictions" get your bible and verify. Its very easy.
Now I will deconstruct a paragraph that is... almost completely meaningless since you either made assertions without evidence or said things which were completely wrong.
"God purposefully gave us FREE WILL"
What do you mean by god, and what do you mean by free will? I have heard many different definitions for both... all from christians. And how do you know this happened? What makes you soo sure? Where is your evidence?
"he created humans"
Thats wrong. We were not created. We have only been in this planet (and this universe) for a very small fraction of the total time elapsed. This is something which I will not concede unless you have evidence that we were created. All evidence points to evolution, and it doesnt need a guide or a purpose. So this is wrong. Show me the evidence please.
"because he wanted to love us"
He created us to love us... I could say many things to this but for now I only care about your reasons to believe this. Why do you believe this???
"and becaue he wanted us to CHOOSE to love him back"
I cannot choose to love somebody. Idk about you, my love for people is completely irrational and does not follow choices, reason or anything of the sort. I cannot choose to love anyone or anything. And neither can you, and if god really thinks we do (and expects us to) I WONT. He has to EARN that love.
"Otherwise he wouldn't created a bunch of Robots"
Once again, you need to provide evidence that we were in fact created, and I would like to know what makes you claim that you know ANYTHING about the mind of god. How do you know he gave us free will and for what purpose????
"That's why he put the tree there and he did enstow in Adam right vs. wrong"
No he didnt. The bible says that Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil.
"God specifically told him that it was WRONG to eat from the tree of knowledge"
It doesnt matter.
Hey Sam! listen, you need to fghjg ghjkt fghyjnbv!!! If you dont I will punish you!
God told Adam and eve not to eat because it was wrong? They still dont know the difference between right and wrong dude... how were they supposed to know that wrong is bad? Or that listening to god is good???
"but because Adam CHOOSE to disobey sin entered the world'
Adam had no other choice. He did not have any reason to listen to God or satan. And sin entered the world because god let it happen. It had nothing to do with Adam's "choice".
If god is omniscient then you must believe that he KNEW that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree BEFORE it happened. he still did it, and he still did it in the same way that he had to do it for it to happen in the way that it did.
Either god KNEW that would happen and still did it... or he didnt know (which means he is not omniscient) but he still expected Adam and Eve to do something HE KNEW they couldnt do.
"The wage of Sin is death"
Why? Why is that the punishment? if he really loved us why would he have such a barbaric punishment?
"and because Jesus loves us he sent Jesus to take the punishment"
You have not thought about this have you... you just believe it...
How does that make any sense? Why would he have to send himself to punish himself? Is he unable to think of anything better that does not include this self mutilation??? He must have known this was going to happen... why do it at all?
"Jesus took the sin and Jesus died"
No and no. He didnt die. It was not a sacrifice. Jesus was "resurrected" three days after it happened. How is that a sacrifice? Hey if that ever happens again SIGN ME UP! I will go through 5 weeks of punishment (even worse than the things he went through) cuz who cares!!! You get to be god after it and you dont really die!
"It was the only way for us since we sinned to have the chance to be with God eternally"
No. If god really is omnipotent then no. That was not the only way, god could have just given us the chance or he could have just forget about the earth and just create everyone in heaven. You are not making any sense.
"If Jesus didn't die and take the blame for my sin I would've been screwed a long long time ago, and that's why I love him for it"
You are wrong. You need to go back further. God is at fault here, not you. He created adam and even but failed to give them any knowledge of good and evil and still expected them to do x. When they didnt do this (which he already knew would happen) he punished them. He then fucks up all throughout the OT trying to make his people behave, he has to start all over here and there and he had to kill the entire human race because he really coudlnt take it. God is at fault, NOT you.
"Again I believe in this silly story BECAUSE I know that i'm messed up"
What makes you say you are "messed up" and how is that relevant to this at all? What is the connection between that and the story???
"Again, where is your proof that the Bible is inconsistent about his "virgin birth"
You have not read your own bible or taken time to research your own religion. How are you not embarrassed?
Lets begin with Jesus' alleged genealogy. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph . They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy. Here are the bible verses that support BOTH the genealogy and the statement by Luke. (Luke 3:23) (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38).
Now... why in the world would they even list the geneaolgy of Joseph in the first place??? Matthew and Luke both try to show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels.
The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David. The story looks like is made up already...
Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" and was "born of a woman," not a virgin. Here are the bible verses to support this... Galatians 4:4 Romans 1:3.
Now... read Isaiah 7:14. This is part of the Jewish prophesy describing the messiah. And.. it cannot be Jesus. I was shocked when I read this verse. This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.
This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
"What if you are wrong man?"
(sighs)
A group of atheists and I have been working on a counter apologetics wiki to help atheists respond to stupid arguments like the one you presented. I will link you to an article I wrote about Pascal's wager.
http://wiki.ironchariots.o
"I would rather live my whole life under this false idiotic perception that I am loved by the creator of the universe, rathen then live my life without those feelings of love"
Thats it. We are done.
I care about the truth. You care about emotions and feelings. We will never see eye to eye, because even if you were convinced by what I say you would still believe in it because you want to feel loved.
You are wrong. You need to go back further. God is at fault here, not you. He created adam and even but failed to give them any knowledge of good and evil and still expected them to do x. When they didnt do this (which he already knew would happen) he punished them. He then fucks up all throughout the OT trying to make his people behave, he has to start all over here and there and he had to kill the entire human race because he really coudlnt take it. God is at fault, NOT you.
"Again I believe in this silly story BECAUSE I know that i'm messed up"
What makes you say you are "messed up" and how is that relevant to this at all? What is the connection between that and the story???
"Again, where is your proof that the Bible is inconsistent about his "virgin birth"
You have not read your own bible or taken time to research your own religion. How are you not embarrassed?
Lets begin with Jesus' alleged genealogy. Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph . They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy. Here are the bible verses that support BOTH the genealogy and the statement by Luke. (Luke 3:23) (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38).
Now... why in the world would they even list the geneaolgy of Joseph in the first place??? Matthew and Luke both try to show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus' father, then Joseph's genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels.
The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David. The story looks like is made up already...
Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" and was "born of a woman," not a virgin. Here are the bible verses to support this... Galatians 4:4 Romans 1:3.
Now... read Isaiah 7:14. This is part of the Jewish prophesy describing the messiah. And.. it cannot be Jesus. I was shocked when I read this verse. This verse is part of a prophecy that Isaiah relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the original Hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek.
This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).
"What if you are wrong man?"
(sighs)
A group of atheists and I have been working on a counter apologetics wiki to help atheists respond to stupid arguments like the one you presented. I will link you to an article I wrote about Pascal's wager.
http://wiki.ironchariots.o
"I would rather live my whole life under this false idiotic perception that I am loved by the creator of the universe, rathen then live my life without those feelings of love"
Thats it. We are done.
I care about the truth. You care about emotions and feelings. We will never see eye to eye, because even if you were convinced by what I say you would still believe in it because you want to feel loved.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario