-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Weird
- Start date
- Status
Didn't good old Plato said something like: time is the image of eternity in motion.
Shit is deep son lol
Shit is deep son lol
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
you gotta color them in yourself...
I'll borrow my little ones crayons and hop to it! Lmao
I don't see how this 'how the universe started' shit is ever really going to help mankind, find a cure for cancer instead.......
Or find out what's giving us cancer?
or a cure for stupid. the thought of dying does not bother me, stupid people do. cancer DOES suck though. 2 rounds with skin cancer here. no sunbathing for me, thanks...
That is a remarkably naive statement on so many levels.
I can't prove unicorns don't exist either, but if you believe in unicorns, the burden of proof is on you.
Can't prove "bigfoot" doesn't exist either. Again, if you believe, the burden of proof is on you. In the absence of even the tiniest shred of evidence, your beliefs are nothing more than absurd mythologies, passed on through the centuries by the superstitious and ignorant. If you had not been brainwashed from birth to believe in nonsense/fairy tales, you would never come up with the god myth by observations of life on our planet. Superstition ruled the minds of ancient man, in the absence of science. Everything he believed was based on superstition, not reality. These superstitions were passed on down through the centuries by word of mouth by people who were remarkably ignorant. A child believes whatever it's parents teach it, and so, the Muslim child who is taught to strap on a suicide vest believes he/she is doing right. The Christians in the middle ages who tortured and murdered any "non-believers" thought they had the moral "high ground". "I believe in the one, true god, and if you don't agree, I will torture you, and burn you alive." Science and religion have always been at odds, because science relies on facts/evidence/experimentation/proof, whereas religion relies on nothing but superstition, mythology, and ignorance. You may believe any ancient, absurd mythology you want. I won't kill you for it. However, the same can't be said of the "religious". They will kill non-believers (non-superstitious) in a heartbeat, after torturing them, of course. It's been going on for thousands of years and continues unabated to this day. Muslims killing Christians, Jews, and Hindus still goes on in the present. Christians killing Muslims stopped after the Crusades for the most part, but religion has been the root cause of hundreds of millions of murders over the centuries. Religion is organized ignorance, not based on facts of any kind.
You want links? That is funny, but here's one for you (actually, it won't impact you, for you are brainwashed and refuse to evolve), or any one who can maintain a sense of reason:
"We use reason to fight religion and we use logic to come to conclusions. These are the systems you should fight if you want to address the source of atheism and such. Of course you would come off as illogical and irrational, but that is your dilemma, not ours.
And now I shall explain why the very idea of God is logically flawed so that the entity cannot exist.
First of all, the classic paradox. If God is omnipotent he can create a rock which he cannot carry, but if he cannot carry it he isn’t omnipotent, neither is he omnipotent if he cannot create it. This doesn’t logically disprove his existence but rather that omnipotency is a paradox and a perfect being can’t be paradoxical, because a paradox is imperfect.
Secondly, the paradox of omnipresence. If God is a being he has a body. If he is everywhere, that body cannot exist because a body can only be in a finite place at a given time. It is possible to say that God moves so fast that he could be considered omnipresent, but that doesn’t make him omnipresent. It just means that he moves incredibly fast, and that is not the definition of omnipresence. Also, if he is omnipotent he has to be able to be omnipresent; but he cannot be omnipotent. And if he is perfect he cannot be based on a paradox.
So far, in order to prove God logically, we have to remove the parts that make him a god, and as such he wouldn’t be God.
The third claim, which I have to thank my friend Marcus for clarifying, is that since he cannot be proven ever; he can’t exist.
If he can never be proven it means that he can never be observed in any way which makes divine intervention impossible because then we would be able to perceive him. If he cannot alter anything ever, it means that he can’t do anything, and if he cannot do anything then the whole idea of God is superfluous and God himself is non-existent."
http://fightthefaith.tumblr.com/post/1547122291/science-cant-disprove-god-but-logic-can
I could give hundreds more, which you would just ignore. The religious aren't interested in science or facts, as the facts get in the way of their superstitions. Just as creationists ignore the existence of dinosaurs, as it conflicts with their superstitions, you will ignore science/reason/logic, or anything else that conflicts with your particular set of unsubstantiated superstitions. I could go on and on, but there is no sense trying to reason with the unreasonable. You are set in your "beliefs", and no amount of reason will change that. After all, you are going on the "word" of a mythical god, as if god is an author. Your reclusive god hasn't "written" another word since the days when ignorance and superstition ruled. We now have something called science, which continues to gradually unlock the secrets of the universe, despite centuries of persecution by the pious.
Man has created over 10,000 gods. Each and every one of them false. God, if he existed, would have to be a sadist.
Mad Lab
Member
Lol. my parents were atheist. also great parents. now what?
I believe in dinosaurs, evolution and the big bang. doesnt interfere with any of my religious beliefs. now what?
You say "mythical". How is Jesus mythical? Most history scholars admit based on historical evidence and how we measure historical evidence(not observational like science) Jesus did in fact exist. To say Jesus is mythical is humorous.
Man has created 10,000+ gods. Doesnt mean that there isnt ONE real one does it? Your telling me its IMPOSSIBLE that there was an agent who set our laws in place? IMPOSSIBLE? lol. big statement for someone I doubt has much knowledge on theology or science in the depths required to make a statement anywhere near that.
Your paradox doesnt work so much, because you are applying or assuming the laws of omnipotency, of which we cant observe and have never observed. Is the omnipotent supernatural? outside of our natural realm? Or inside. Or both?
You need to be able to observe omnipotency before you can dissect it and claim a paradox. good try though.
You say now that we have science this and now we have science that...
My Bible doesnt give people answers to scientific questions, noone could comprehend it in those times, it gives answer to spiritual ones. God works in numbers, mathematics. Everything breaks down into mathematics. Science does not contradict God. Not the Christian deity anyway. It doesnt need to. So saying "we have science now to disprove God." is a false statement. Science cant disprove God. No, you cant really disprove unicorns ether, bad example. One day, we may find a fossil of a horned horse... when you think about it, it isnt CRAZY, we find horned animals that hadnt been discovered yet all the time. Big foot ether. Lol, i dont knwo or care if bigfoot is real but you really think its IMPOSSIBLE for a monkey to be running around the vast forests of Canada? I dont think he exists but i would never say its IMPOSSIBLE.
- MISCONCEPTION: Science contradicts the existence of God.
CORRECTION: Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God.
Let me ask you this.
Have you ever made a bunch of bad decisions(stealing etc) and got away with them? Then, things started to go wrong in your life, almost like it was punishment? You first wrote it off as unlucky but then as you got older and it always happened, maybe you call it karma?
Has that ever happened? Do you think some sort of karma exists? Or you can just be a bad person and as long as your smart and dont get caught, everything is going to be ok?
Last edited:
Mad Lab
Member
Judging a philosophy by is abuses? That's childplay bro, i thought youd be more intelligent to say that one, lol.
You tell me one thing Jesus said in his philosophy that would resort to violence such as the Crusades.
You have to also understand what happened at those times.
Think Roman Empire, Sparticus era. That's when Jesus was rolling around. Now, he was crucified, then approximately 200 years later Constantine could not stop the spreading of this Christianity theology to the point where he said why not embrace this and use it to my advantage?
So thats what he did. He got all the Christian guys together and they all decided the scriptures that truly represented Christ's message. So theres the bible, but wait, all the sudden there's the Roman Catholic church now, and really all the church is, is Constantine's Roman Army. The really evil shitty army that just got through all that crazy history with Julius Cesar's conquests. Now they are killing in the name of God.
They added all this mumbo jumbo garbage Jesus never taught, in fact contradicted Jesus at every turn. added additional scriptures and jargon that was not approved by Jesus' true followers. Catholics and Protestants are very different.
Thats why you see Catholic Priests in silk robes and gold, while Jesus was preaching wearing a potato sack.
Same with mormons and muslim. They just modeled a religion after the teachings of Christ, but denounce him as God and they contradict his scriptures, of which they base their religion on... stupid. I respect some other theologies like buddhism but the ones who sponsor the Bible as their foundation and contradict it in their other book, big red flag.
Mad lab prove to me Jesus existed cause when you really dig down its all here say
or like buddy says fairytale myth As far as this thread goes i am sure there is beginning and there will be a end sometime
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44). if this is the case where did jesus come from the name chrestus and jesus are 2 different names all together
Here this vid is for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4shqQJDdCA
or like buddy says fairytale myth As far as this thread goes i am sure there is beginning and there will be a end sometime
It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44). if this is the case where did jesus come from the name chrestus and jesus are 2 different names all together
Here this vid is for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4shqQJDdCA
MAD LAB this also is for you
your evidence hahaha
The earliest known references to Jesus are in the writings of Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus), who had a “vision” of Jesus while he was on the road to Damascus. Paul's writings are part of the epistles, which were written after 48 CE [Common Era, equivalent to A.D.]. If there had been an actual Jesus, Paul should have written about his life and teachings. He didn't (except for a few well-known interpolations). [1] Paul and the other epistle writers — including Peter — don't seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his moral teachings, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or even his disciples. [1] The epistle writers don't even say (other than in apocalyptic revelations or well-known later changes) anything about what happened to Jesus before his death. Paul does often refer to the Lord’s brothers, but this is just a term for baptized Christians.
I find this astounding! The most basic details that we've been told about Jesus' life were unknown to the earliest Christian authors. It wasn't that they simply neglected to mention these details. There were many places that Paul and the others could have referred to the disciples or used Jesus' moral authority to emphasize their own points, but they didn't. [1] The simple explanation is that these details didn't exist yet, and wouldn't exist until the gospels were written about twenty or more years later.
To the epistle writers, Jesus appears to have had little or no earthly existence. [2] Paul is anything but a witness for the actual existence of Jesus, explicitly saying that he never met Jesus but just knew of him from scripture and revelation. Paul and Peter refer to themselves as apostles (messengers), not disciples (followers). Paul said he was not inferior to “super-apostles” who preached of a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11), he explicitly opposed Cephas/Peter (Galatians 2:11), and he wrote (Galatians 2:6) that the apostles in Jerusalem (including James and Peter) added nothing to his message. This makes no sense if Peter or James had physically known Jesus. Paul also describes both his own and Peter's “visions” of Jesus using the same word. [1] This means that Paul didn't think that Peter followed an earthly Jesus, but (like him) a spiritual sky god savior that could only be known thru revelation. This savior was a spiritual intermediary between God in Heaven and men on Earth. Paul even admitted that that all his ideas came from revelation and not from any man. [3] In other words, he made it up or got his inspiration from Jewish Scripture and other religions. Two prime candidates are Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, which had a center in Paul's hometown of Tarsus.
Jewish Scripture was the main source for Paul [1], probably using the Greek translation (called the Septuagint) [4]. He thought that the heavenly existence of its predicted messiah was revealed to him by God (Galatians 1:16) and in Scripture, with Jesus as the spiritual intermediary between heavenly God and earthly man — not as a recent living person, but as a mystery hidden for long ages past [5], or to be revealed. [6] Paul often referred to Jesus as “The Christ” (a spiritual term). Even the name “Jesus” appears some 218 times in the Septuagint, so it was not a new name to those familiar with the translation [4]. Paul also never even indicated when Jesus' life, sacrificial death and resurrection occurred, but implied that they had happened in the spiritual past. He also blamed Jesus' death on evil demons, not the Jews or the Romans as in the gospels. Paul's concept of an unblemished, sacrificial, humiliated savior came out of Isaiah 52-53 and Daniel 9. [1] This idea helped make Christianity more popular among the lower classes during the first couple of centuries. They could identify with a righteous man unjustly crucified by the despised ruling class, but who was eventually triumphant. [7]
Another problem with Paul is that his famous “vision” of Jesus has all the earmarks of an epileptic brain seizure. We now know that epilepsy can cause religious delusions, hyperreligiosity (excessive concern with religion), hypersexuality (excessive concern with sexual matters), and hypergraphia (an overwhelming urge to write). These are all characteristics that could be used to describe Paul, as revealed in his letters. Perhaps epilepsy is the “thorn” that tormented him, which he referred to in 2 Corinthians 12:7. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.
The main biblical references to Jesus are in the gospels, which were written by unknown authors after 70 CE (and quite possibly decades later). In a semi-literate and superstitious society, that's a long time after Jesus' supposed life — a long time for myths to grow. Most scholars agree that the first mention of what we call the gospels was by Papias in about 140 CE [8], altho he only referred to Mark and Matthew. All four gospels were first mentioned by name in 180 CE, by Irenaeus of Lyons. [8]
Mark is the earliest gospel. It is ungrammatical [9] and betrays its author's lack of knowledge of the geography and social situation of Palestine — showing that the author was not a local. [8], [10] Luke copied Mark's error in geography (Luke 8), while Matthew changed the location and number of men (Matthew 8). [8] Luke's author created a nonexistent hill near Nazareth and a synagogue that was never listed by Jews of the time (Luke 4:16-29), and Mark's author made the mistake of having Jesus quote from the Greek translation of Scripture (the Septuagint), instead of the original Hebrew. [8] Both Mark and John begin with Jesus already a grown man — with no virgin birth, magic star, or other childhood stories. A strong case can even be made that the gospel of Mark was written as a re-telling of the Homeric epics. [11]
Mark 4:11-12 [12] has Jesus revealing that Christianity began as just another mystery cult, like many others of the time. If Jesus really wanted to save people, he would not hide his messages in parables that could only be understood by those who are in the faith.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke disagree on the year and other details of Jesus' birth, including his lineage. Matthew has him born in the Bethlehem home of Joseph, during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 5 or 4 BCE [Before Common Era]). Luke thinks he was born in a stable during the census conducted by Quirinius in 6 CE — a difference of at least 9 years! Matthew didn't write about the census, and Luke didn't write about the wise men or Herod's “slaughter of the innocents.” Matthew and Luke disagree wildly on Jesus' ancestry, including even his grandfather. (Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23). Plus, the lists in Matthew and Luke differ from 1 Chronicles 3. Note that even listing Jesus' male ancestry disagrees with the doctrine of a virgin birth (which was added later in the myth-making process). Some apologists claim that Luke lists Mary's geneology, but that's impossible because Mary isn't mentioned and because at the time women were not thought to contribute any genetics to a baby, but were thought of as a fertile field where the seed (Greek: “sperm”) was planted.
If the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, why did they wait so long and why don't they describe Jesus? Why were the gospels written mainly in third person format (like a story), instead of first person format? The gospels often quote Jesus' thoughts or words when he was alone or with others. These are examples of fictional narratives, not history. Why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarize much of Mark (and add the childhood stories)? Of Mark's 666 original verses, some 600 appear in Matthew (with improved grammar), some 300 in Luke. [9] The gospel of Matthew oddly refers to Matthew in the third person. The gospel of Luke states that it was written as a retelling of previous accounts. The gospel of John also oddly refers to its supposed author in the third person, and hardly refers to Jesus as a real person with a real life. Like Paul, the author viewed Jesus as more of a sky god.
We know that the gospels have been changed over time, with editing and errors by transcribers. There are even material differences between the different translations. [8] Biblical scholars have shown that the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) were added in the second century, likely to give Jesus post-resurrection activities. The story of Jesus and the adulteress (a favorite of mine because it teaches personal responsibility) was not in the original gospel of John. Evidence shows that it was likely added in the Middle Ages. [13]
your evidence hahaha
The earliest known references to Jesus are in the writings of Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus), who had a “vision” of Jesus while he was on the road to Damascus. Paul's writings are part of the epistles, which were written after 48 CE [Common Era, equivalent to A.D.]. If there had been an actual Jesus, Paul should have written about his life and teachings. He didn't (except for a few well-known interpolations). [1] Paul and the other epistle writers — including Peter — don't seem to have known any biographical details of Jesus' life, or even the time of his earthly existence. They don't refer to Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary or Golgotha — or any pilgrimages to what should have been holy sites of Jesus' life. They also don't mention any miracles that Jesus was supposed to have worked, his moral teachings, his virgin birth, his trial, the empty tomb, or even his disciples. [1] The epistle writers don't even say (other than in apocalyptic revelations or well-known later changes) anything about what happened to Jesus before his death. Paul does often refer to the Lord’s brothers, but this is just a term for baptized Christians.
I find this astounding! The most basic details that we've been told about Jesus' life were unknown to the earliest Christian authors. It wasn't that they simply neglected to mention these details. There were many places that Paul and the others could have referred to the disciples or used Jesus' moral authority to emphasize their own points, but they didn't. [1] The simple explanation is that these details didn't exist yet, and wouldn't exist until the gospels were written about twenty or more years later.
To the epistle writers, Jesus appears to have had little or no earthly existence. [2] Paul is anything but a witness for the actual existence of Jesus, explicitly saying that he never met Jesus but just knew of him from scripture and revelation. Paul and Peter refer to themselves as apostles (messengers), not disciples (followers). Paul said he was not inferior to “super-apostles” who preached of a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11), he explicitly opposed Cephas/Peter (Galatians 2:11), and he wrote (Galatians 2:6) that the apostles in Jerusalem (including James and Peter) added nothing to his message. This makes no sense if Peter or James had physically known Jesus. Paul also describes both his own and Peter's “visions” of Jesus using the same word. [1] This means that Paul didn't think that Peter followed an earthly Jesus, but (like him) a spiritual sky god savior that could only be known thru revelation. This savior was a spiritual intermediary between God in Heaven and men on Earth. Paul even admitted that that all his ideas came from revelation and not from any man. [3] In other words, he made it up or got his inspiration from Jewish Scripture and other religions. Two prime candidates are Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, which had a center in Paul's hometown of Tarsus.
Jewish Scripture was the main source for Paul [1], probably using the Greek translation (called the Septuagint) [4]. He thought that the heavenly existence of its predicted messiah was revealed to him by God (Galatians 1:16) and in Scripture, with Jesus as the spiritual intermediary between heavenly God and earthly man — not as a recent living person, but as a mystery hidden for long ages past [5], or to be revealed. [6] Paul often referred to Jesus as “The Christ” (a spiritual term). Even the name “Jesus” appears some 218 times in the Septuagint, so it was not a new name to those familiar with the translation [4]. Paul also never even indicated when Jesus' life, sacrificial death and resurrection occurred, but implied that they had happened in the spiritual past. He also blamed Jesus' death on evil demons, not the Jews or the Romans as in the gospels. Paul's concept of an unblemished, sacrificial, humiliated savior came out of Isaiah 52-53 and Daniel 9. [1] This idea helped make Christianity more popular among the lower classes during the first couple of centuries. They could identify with a righteous man unjustly crucified by the despised ruling class, but who was eventually triumphant. [7]
Another problem with Paul is that his famous “vision” of Jesus has all the earmarks of an epileptic brain seizure. We now know that epilepsy can cause religious delusions, hyperreligiosity (excessive concern with religion), hypersexuality (excessive concern with sexual matters), and hypergraphia (an overwhelming urge to write). These are all characteristics that could be used to describe Paul, as revealed in his letters. Perhaps epilepsy is the “thorn” that tormented him, which he referred to in 2 Corinthians 12:7. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8.
The main biblical references to Jesus are in the gospels, which were written by unknown authors after 70 CE (and quite possibly decades later). In a semi-literate and superstitious society, that's a long time after Jesus' supposed life — a long time for myths to grow. Most scholars agree that the first mention of what we call the gospels was by Papias in about 140 CE [8], altho he only referred to Mark and Matthew. All four gospels were first mentioned by name in 180 CE, by Irenaeus of Lyons. [8]
Mark is the earliest gospel. It is ungrammatical [9] and betrays its author's lack of knowledge of the geography and social situation of Palestine — showing that the author was not a local. [8], [10] Luke copied Mark's error in geography (Luke 8), while Matthew changed the location and number of men (Matthew 8). [8] Luke's author created a nonexistent hill near Nazareth and a synagogue that was never listed by Jews of the time (Luke 4:16-29), and Mark's author made the mistake of having Jesus quote from the Greek translation of Scripture (the Septuagint), instead of the original Hebrew. [8] Both Mark and John begin with Jesus already a grown man — with no virgin birth, magic star, or other childhood stories. A strong case can even be made that the gospel of Mark was written as a re-telling of the Homeric epics. [11]
Mark 4:11-12 [12] has Jesus revealing that Christianity began as just another mystery cult, like many others of the time. If Jesus really wanted to save people, he would not hide his messages in parables that could only be understood by those who are in the faith.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke disagree on the year and other details of Jesus' birth, including his lineage. Matthew has him born in the Bethlehem home of Joseph, during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 5 or 4 BCE [Before Common Era]). Luke thinks he was born in a stable during the census conducted by Quirinius in 6 CE — a difference of at least 9 years! Matthew didn't write about the census, and Luke didn't write about the wise men or Herod's “slaughter of the innocents.” Matthew and Luke disagree wildly on Jesus' ancestry, including even his grandfather. (Matthew 1:16, Luke 3:23). Plus, the lists in Matthew and Luke differ from 1 Chronicles 3. Note that even listing Jesus' male ancestry disagrees with the doctrine of a virgin birth (which was added later in the myth-making process). Some apologists claim that Luke lists Mary's geneology, but that's impossible because Mary isn't mentioned and because at the time women were not thought to contribute any genetics to a baby, but were thought of as a fertile field where the seed (Greek: “sperm”) was planted.
If the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, why did they wait so long and why don't they describe Jesus? Why were the gospels written mainly in third person format (like a story), instead of first person format? The gospels often quote Jesus' thoughts or words when he was alone or with others. These are examples of fictional narratives, not history. Why do the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarize much of Mark (and add the childhood stories)? Of Mark's 666 original verses, some 600 appear in Matthew (with improved grammar), some 300 in Luke. [9] The gospel of Matthew oddly refers to Matthew in the third person. The gospel of Luke states that it was written as a retelling of previous accounts. The gospel of John also oddly refers to its supposed author in the third person, and hardly refers to Jesus as a real person with a real life. Like Paul, the author viewed Jesus as more of a sky god.
We know that the gospels have been changed over time, with editing and errors by transcribers. There are even material differences between the different translations. [8] Biblical scholars have shown that the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) were added in the second century, likely to give Jesus post-resurrection activities. The story of Jesus and the adulteress (a favorite of mine because it teaches personal responsibility) was not in the original gospel of John. Evidence shows that it was likely added in the Middle Ages. [13]
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to turn into an ideological shitstorm.
Yes. Exactly. There wasn't/isn't an "agent" who set "our laws" into place. Physics set our laws in place, not imaginary, "supernatural" beings.
There's no such thing as "omnipotence" or "supernatural". These ideas were created by the ancients to explain away that which they couldn't understand. It's called superstition, or witchcraft, if you prefer. Remember, the people who created these 10,000 gods believed the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Pure, unadulterated ignorance.
That's a funny one! "Your" bible. A work of fiction, written by men whose ignorance is unfathomable by our standards. Read the Old Testament of "your" bible, and learn about all the torture and killing. And that's only one bible. Each major religion has it's own bible, all written by the ignorant people from thousands of years ago who thought the earth was flat. They believed what they were told, and passed it on to their children.
Science is not at war with religion. Religion is and always has been at war with science. Galileo, the father of science and physics, and one of the great minds in history, was locked up for daring to propose the concept of heliocentrism by the Pope and the Jesuits. He died in captivity. This is the intolerance and traditional ignorance of religion. And it still goes on today, with Muslim fundamentalists trying to eradicate education and impose Sharia law, the laws of the ignorant. Religion=intolerance and arrogance, the arrogance of "belief", all unsubstantiated, but worth killing for.
You have been brainwashed into believing something that is totally irrational: Gee, I don't understand this, therefore there must be an invisible creature in the sky who "created" it all from nothing, with a wave of his imaginary hand. Otherwise, how could all of this have come to pass?
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
An imaginary, reclusive super being is responsible for all that your mind can't understand. Why is this cowardly god hiding? Why doesn't "he" relieve the suffering of his children, as all of us would our own children? The answer, quite plainly, is that "he" would, if "he" existed, which clearly isn't the case.
But enjoy your fantasies. Whatever gets you through the night.
I'll stick with science. Superstition is not my bag.
but back to this thread there has to been a beginning of the clock i mean cmon we live then die as in everything on this earth although space is crazy huge i find it hard the human kind can even pin point actual start of it all but common sense tells me lots of it is true being samples of the moon mars etc asteriods we have one day we will know the truth or come to believe how it all started its surely is not from some god or higher being for all we know it could of been one huge planet billions of years and another civilization and they blew them selfs up scattering life type molecules into space and from colliding and chemical reaction carbons and other molecules heat and what ever started a chain reaction comets coliding into each other forming other planets
and earth just had right temps and proper chemicals to start life
and earth just had right temps and proper chemicals to start life
Mad Lab
Member
I'm not sure your source on the opinions of the epistles there, i hope its not wikipedia.
Also, funny you mention 70 A.D. and the Romans destroying most of Israels religious documents (which is why there likely isnt more about Jesus, although as we all know, the Jews that controlled what was written were the ones who put the messiah to death)
we have something all of the atheists thought would be a grand slam for them: Dead Sea Scrolls. Which ultimately yielded over a thousand priceless manuscripts dating back before A.D. 68, when the Roman legions destroyed the Qumran village during the Jewish war against Rome.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were amazing, but not so much for atheists trying to discredit Christianity, more for Christians.
1. It proved the original Hebrew Scriptures from the Old Testament were reliably copied without error throughout the last two thousand years. Man not changing a book in 2000 years... sounds impossible to me. See thats more of my idea of impossible, expecting something like that from mankind.
2. References to Jesus: Son of God and Messiah scrolls. These scrolls included references to a "Messiah" who suffered crucifixion for the sins of men. The scroll also describes the Messiah as a "leader of the community" who was "put to death." This scroll identified the Messiah as the "Shoot of Jesse" (King David's father) the "Branch of David," and declared that he was "pierced" and "wounded."
Another scroll refers to the Messiah as "the son of God" and the "son of the Most High."
We also have Josephus writings mentioning Jesus.
Anyway, Retro
I'm not here to knock atheists. There are some intelligent atheists who bring very creditable arguments and not the high school arguments to the podium.
But the atheist who thinks he is so sure of everything and tries to disprove theism has a long road ahead of them.
Some great atheist writers focus on where we may have come from IF there was no God to create life, but spend none of that time trying to disprove something they cant disprove. Some writers spend most of there time doing the opposite, which is funny to me. What a waste of time for them to talk so much about something they are so sure doesnt exist.
I'm not going to call you naive or stupid, like you called me, because you are obviously a respected scientist and scholar of philosophy and theology. I am just one of those idiots who tried atheism for 30 years and all the happiness in the world wasnt enough for me.
Retro, you wanna hear something cliche?
ima pray for you buddy...
Also, funny you mention 70 A.D. and the Romans destroying most of Israels religious documents (which is why there likely isnt more about Jesus, although as we all know, the Jews that controlled what was written were the ones who put the messiah to death)
we have something all of the atheists thought would be a grand slam for them: Dead Sea Scrolls. Which ultimately yielded over a thousand priceless manuscripts dating back before A.D. 68, when the Roman legions destroyed the Qumran village during the Jewish war against Rome.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were amazing, but not so much for atheists trying to discredit Christianity, more for Christians.
1. It proved the original Hebrew Scriptures from the Old Testament were reliably copied without error throughout the last two thousand years. Man not changing a book in 2000 years... sounds impossible to me. See thats more of my idea of impossible, expecting something like that from mankind.
2. References to Jesus: Son of God and Messiah scrolls. These scrolls included references to a "Messiah" who suffered crucifixion for the sins of men. The scroll also describes the Messiah as a "leader of the community" who was "put to death." This scroll identified the Messiah as the "Shoot of Jesse" (King David's father) the "Branch of David," and declared that he was "pierced" and "wounded."
Another scroll refers to the Messiah as "the son of God" and the "son of the Most High."
We also have Josephus writings mentioning Jesus.
Anyway, Retro
I'm not here to knock atheists. There are some intelligent atheists who bring very creditable arguments and not the high school arguments to the podium.
But the atheist who thinks he is so sure of everything and tries to disprove theism has a long road ahead of them.
Some great atheist writers focus on where we may have come from IF there was no God to create life, but spend none of that time trying to disprove something they cant disprove. Some writers spend most of there time doing the opposite, which is funny to me. What a waste of time for them to talk so much about something they are so sure doesnt exist.
I'm not going to call you naive or stupid, like you called me, because you are obviously a respected scientist and scholar of philosophy and theology. I am just one of those idiots who tried atheism for 30 years and all the happiness in the world wasnt enough for me.
Retro, you wanna hear something cliche?
ima pray for you buddy...
Mad lab its not that we cannot be on same page .. we surly can Its that i look at things as it is i use common sense if i was to jump in my truck and drive over someone it was my decision not GODS , or jesus all on me
most of the bible or anything about it is really written in AD so called when they allowed science to test the Shroud ??? carbon dating it was not even close to that era Again Why is that ??? Christianity has destroyed its own to better its self hidden stuff if the truth was really out there why is Christianity being forced out of everywhere
There should be a law in place that religion cannot be forced on children until there 18 its there Decision not there parents
To many Flaws in it all do you not think so ???? or you just plain deny whats right in front of you ?
anything written about jesus is done after many years i am not sure how old you are but can you remember 50 60 years ago in Detail ?? i sure can't i remember bits an pieces
In School we did this thing 40 students teacher drew a simple picture of a fish and had it on a table in his office called first student in said here is paper draw it .... once done teacher took his drawing away left students called in next student and so on when it was all over hr later he put it all out in order
From a simple picture of a fish the last students picture looked like a straight line and a dot
This was in 1 hr now when you put this into stories being told you can easily see how it can change difference is we were there at the beginning these clowns that wrote what ever about there GOD or Jesus were not so off course it going to be even more inflated Bull shit
most of the bible or anything about it is really written in AD so called when they allowed science to test the Shroud ??? carbon dating it was not even close to that era Again Why is that ??? Christianity has destroyed its own to better its self hidden stuff if the truth was really out there why is Christianity being forced out of everywhere
There should be a law in place that religion cannot be forced on children until there 18 its there Decision not there parents
To many Flaws in it all do you not think so ???? or you just plain deny whats right in front of you ?
anything written about jesus is done after many years i am not sure how old you are but can you remember 50 60 years ago in Detail ?? i sure can't i remember bits an pieces
In School we did this thing 40 students teacher drew a simple picture of a fish and had it on a table in his office called first student in said here is paper draw it .... once done teacher took his drawing away left students called in next student and so on when it was all over hr later he put it all out in order
From a simple picture of a fish the last students picture looked like a straight line and a dot
This was in 1 hr now when you put this into stories being told you can easily see how it can change difference is we were there at the beginning these clowns that wrote what ever about there GOD or Jesus were not so off course it going to be even more inflated Bull shit
- Status
