davidylan:

Funny... christians are their own worst enemies. We seem to cherry-pick which verses we believe and which we dont. The ones we do, we defend with dogmatic fervor (most times completely out of context). The ones we reject, we simply invent verbal gymnastics to get around.

Still on with your Ad hominem?

Friendly advise: Ad hominem is not a good tac when saying your views.

striktlymi:

Okay, maybe some things should be made clear, though unnecessary...

1) Killing at a time of war when every 'rule of engagement' is strictly adhered to is NOT murder.

2) Killing out of self defence is NOT murder.

3) Killing by accident aka man slaughter is NOT murder.

Murder is 'unlawful' premeditated killing.

In order words, not every killing is murder.

I hope the above has clarified some of the ish you might have up there?

Then i submit that taking the life of a foetus to save the mother is NOT murder.

striktlymi:

Still on with your Ad hominem?

Friendly advise: Ad hominem is not a good tac when saying your views.

Ad hominems not intended. apologies.

davidylan:

Then i submit that taking the life of a foetus to save the mother is NOT murder.

Only if the procedure is NOT performed with the intent to kill the child.

Though I have explained this a number of times but since there is no harm in repetiton...

1) The mother has a right to try and save her life when faced with certain situations that MUST be life threatening.

2) The procedure the mother is left with is one that is not aimed at killing the child but saving the life of the mother.

3) If in the cause of performing the procedure the child dies, the mother is blameless cause it is not her INTENT to kill the child.

4) Abortion has one goal...the death of the child! No hope of saving the child even when the window of opportunity presents itself.

There is no excuse for murder and abortion is murder.

davidylan:

Ad hominems not intended. apologies.

No P!


#Anony, sorry again!

striktlymi:

Only if the procedure is NOT performed with the intent to kill the child.

Though I have explained this a number of times but since there is no harm in repetiton...

1) The mother has a right to try and save her life when faced with certain situations that MUST be life threatening.

2) The procedure the mother is left with is one that is not aimed at killing the child but saving the life of the mother.

3) If in the cause of performing the procedure the child dies, the mother is blameless cause it is not her INTENT to kill the child.

4) Abortion has one goal...the death of the child! No hope of saving the child even when the window of opportunity presents itself.

There is no excuse for murder and abortion is murder.

In many cases option 2 is just impossible. It is either mother dies or child dies... which option do you think the mother should go with? If she chooses the option to save her life so she can be there for her other children, is she guilty of murder? I submit that the answer to that question is no...

davidylan:

In many cases option 2 is just impossible. It is either mother dies or child dies... which option do you think the mother should go with? If she chooses the option to save her life so she can be there for her other children, is she guilty of murder? I submit that the answer to that question is no...

Like I said before, maybe I am not putting my argument clearly enough...sadly, I am not sure if I can be any clearer but let me try again:

In the case you have up there, the mother reserves the right to choose whether to save herself or to save her child...the following are the possible scenarios:

1) Mother is saved but child dies.

2) Child is saved but mother dies.

3) Both are saved.

4) Both dies.

Given the above...abortion is still NOT an option.

The options the lady has that would be satisfactory would be to save her life without intending the death of the child.

You say the bold is not possible in some cases...why not present a case where the bold is not possible and we would walk through it together...

Hopefully we might understand each other with the case you present...let's try and make it a real life situation.


You can respond here https://www.nairaland.com/1329378/right-choose/5#16426875

striktlymi:

Like I said before, maybe I am not putting my argument clearly enough...sadly, I am not sure if I can be any clearer but let me try again:

In the case you have up there, the mother reserves the right to choose whether to save herself or to save her child...the following are the possible scenarios:

1) Mother is saved but child dies.

2) Child is saved but mother dies.

3) Both are saved.

4) Both dies.

Given the above...abortion is still NOT an option.

The options the lady has that would be satisfactory would be to save her life without intending the death of the child.

You say the bold is not possible in some cases...why not present a case where the bold is not possible and we would walk through it together...

Hopefully we might understand each other with the case you present...let's try and make it a real life situation.


You can respond here https://www.nairaland.com/1329378/right-choose/5#16426875

We seem to be going in endless fruitless circles. In the case i spoke about (and i have been very clear on this), there are only 3 options... mother saved and child dies, let mother carry child to term with a very high risk of maternal death, or both die. The "both are saved" option just does not exist in these cases.

Given the above, what would be your choice?

I have tried to make this as real life as possible, my own mother faced the same choice so this is not some abstract topic to me as it seems to most of you here. There are many cases out there but ectopic pregnancies for example... what shld the mother do?

Logicboy03:

If abortion is murder, then God is the ultimate murderer. He is the number 1 murderer considering how many natural abortions occur compared to man-made ones

You see the issue with you guys is that u don't understand the bible as much as u think u do. Why attribute natural abortion to God when he is not the one responsible, the same way u attribute so many other evils to God when it is the devil that is involved. Listen the devil is the god this world 2 Cor 4:4.

Again we don't run away from issues or twist them, but rightly dividing. As said before it was not a direct command by Paul to prevent women from teaching but to prevent disorder and problems in the church, the same way he chose to work and preach the gospel without charge lest it be brought it disrepute 2Cor 9:1-23, 1 thes 2:9, the same way he asked us not to cause ur brother to stumble because of meat offer to idols. 1 cor 8: 1- 13, pls read those verses and u will understand what I'm saying. Shalom

noblefada:

You see the issue with you guys is that u don't understand the bible as much as u think u do. Why attribute natural abortion to God when he is not the one responsible, the same way u attribute so many other evils to God when it is the devil that is involved. Listen the devil is the god this world 2 Cor 4:4.

Again we don't run away from issues or twist them, but rightly dividing. As said before it was not a direct command by Paul to prevent women from teaching but to prevent disorder and problems in the church, the same way he chose to work and preach the gospel without charge lest it be brought it disrepute 2Cor 9:1-23, 1 thes 2:9, the same way he asked us not to cause ur brother to stumble because of meat offer to idols. 1 cor 8: 1- 13, pls read those verses and u will understand what I'm saying. Shalom

yo man, honest advice: stop talking/typing
you're embarrassing even me now

Mr Troll: yo man, honest advice: stop talking/typing
you're embarrassing even me now

Pls don't show ur ignorance the devil is in charge of these world and the system of this world, it's only xtian believers who are aware of their right in Christ Jesus that are not subject to the devil, except of course you didn't know this before now!

^^^

noblefada:

Pls don't show ur ignorance the devil is in charge of these world and the system of this world, it's only xtian believers who are aware of their right in Christ Jesus that are not subject to the devil, except of course you didn't know this before now!

don die oOoº°˚ ˚°ºoOo ! My own hellfire don sure be that. See what I didn't know before, chei!

What must I do good ser to avoid hellfire?

Mr Troll: ^^^
don die oOoº°˚ ˚°ºoOo ! My own hellfire don sure be that. See what I didn't know before, chei!

What must I do good ser to avoid hellfire?

Very simple believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!

noblefada:

Very simple believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Believe in him how? Pls explain

Mr Troll: Believe in him how? Pls explain

Just accept as Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour and believe he died for you and you're saved.

noblefada:
Just accept as Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour and believe he died for you and you're saved.

daz all


But eh, saved from what exactly?

Mr Troll: daz all


But eh, saved from what exactly?

Saved from the repercussions of sin! In case you may ask whose sins, the answer is Adam's! Rom 5:12 KJV Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned and Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; the wages of this sin is death! Rom 6:23

I'm in love with this thread. Ihedinobi will know why.

mazaje:

It is NOT an irrational position because notable historians themselves have said it. . .Ancient history is mostly reconstructed inbtelligently. . . .You can NEVER trust oral history or hear say stories, especially ones recorded as theological books made for religious belief . . .It is always embellished . . .I gave an example of such embelishment even in the bible. According to Mark the first gospel that was written when the ladies enetered the empty tomb of Jesus they saw a man who told them Jesus had risen , by the time Matthew was written the man had turned to an angle and he told them that Jesus had risen, in Luke it was two men they saw who told them that Jesus had risen . .By the time John the last gospel was written they man in Mark had turned into two angles who told the woman Jesus had risen . .So even there you can see the tradition of embelishment. . .In the first gospel written it was one man by the time the last one was written many years later the man turned into two angles. . .Hear say stories are NOT to be trusted. .

Lol, you really need to read some ancient history writings, you'll see many discrepancies about the lives of historical characters; multiple authors disagreeing on when they were born, when they died and what they did.
To give you a simple experiment you can do: Go to the market with 5 of your friends don't take pictures or record the event on video and then after a month let each of you write about your market visit experience. I can assure you that all 6 accounts will contradict each other. Does this mean the visit to the market never happened? No.
Even people who watched the same football match yesterday still have very different opinions about what happened in it evidenced by long heated football arguments.
As I said, you are making irrational demands for what should count as historical fact

I have told you that the gospels are NOT historical accounts, they were written primarily as a theological document. . .No body considers the oddessy as a historical document . . .No body considers the verders as historical documents. . .They are religious documents that are NOT to be regarded historical . . .Their primary aim is to evangelize and not to report history . . .

I am sorry but this is really nonsense. If you see no dissimilarity between the odyssey and the new testament, then I think your problem is probably that you lack the ability to tell the difference between whether a document is intended as fact or as fiction by reading it

Sure, for a book to be considered worthy the writer MUST identify himself and state his sources so that we can know if he is lying or telling the truth . . .That is why i said the bible is not a religious document and needs not be taken seriously since no one knows who wrote most of the gospel stories . . .They were anonymous documents floating around until some fathers decided to attach name to them to give them credibility, even the fathers knew that no one will consider an anonymous document credible that was why they decided to attach names to them. . . I have told you that historians themselves have admitted that ancient history is not to be trusted because of how difficult it is to verfy things based on the tradtion used at that time. . .How can you expect a person that was not a witness to an event to tell you exactly how it happened like 50 year after the event happened?. . .Even now with our ability to use sophisticated cameras and report live enents we still mixc things up talk more of some one reporting an event he never witnessed 50 year before he was born. . . Ancient history is not very credible. . .I am an Hausa guy and most of our history was tranmitted using oral traditions but most people do not give it credence because it is mostly false just by listening to it. . .

I'm pretty sure that if I saw a man resurrect from the dead, I would still remember the event vividly 50 years later.

I have answered, most ancient history is not to be trusted, most are embellised. . .the tradition they use which is the oral tradition is not credible. . .Most of the stories get changed. . .

I hope you do realize that this destroys your argument against Christ by appealing to the silence of non-christian sources because those too will fall under the category of sources that cannot be trusted. The only way you can proceed with that argument is if you have an initial bias that christian documents are false. For instance, you haven't shown any reason why Josephus is true and Luke false. You have merely assumed that Josephus is true and then went on to critique Luke based on that assumption. Funny enough you are not even criticizing Luke for contradicting Josephus rather you are criticizing Luke for having accounts that are absent in Josephus. This is simply how not to investigate.

And what is your challenge?

Go back and answer the questions you ignored

Mr anony:
Lol, you really need to read some ancient history writings, you'll see many discrepancies about the lives of historical characters; multiple authors disagreeing on when they were born, when they died and what they did.
To give you a simple experiment you can do: Go to the market with 5 of your friends don't take pictures or record the event on video and then after a month let each of you write about your market visit experience. I can assure you that all 6 accounts will contradict each other. Does this mean the visit to the market never happened? No.
Even people who watched the same football match yesterday still have very different opinions about what happened in it evidenced by long heated football arguments.
As I said, you are making irrational demands for what should count as historical fact

I thought the said the bible is the word of god, so your god can not make people to write down things accurately without embelishments, eh?. . .By the way the authors of the gospels were NOT witness to any of the events they recorded, the gospels were NOT written by people who knew Jesus or even meet him. . .Just greek speaking christians writing for different audiences based on hear say stories about Jesus. . .If me and my friends go to a market and are told to recillect what we saw we can never give very contradictory stories as are found in the bible, like one saying he saw a man while another saying he saw two angles. . .The bible is NOT reliable and it has been shown that the later authors tried to correct the mistakes that were made by mark by ommiting some of his errors and putting their own new stories. .For example : In Mark 10:46, 11:1-11, Mark describes Jesus as travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethpage and then Bethany. D.E. Nineham (Saint Mark) says that as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in which travellers from Jericho would reach them, we must therefore assume that St Mark did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road. Matthew appears to have recognised the error since, in his account, he removed the reference to Bethany.

I am sorry but this is really nonsense. If you see no dissimilarity between the odyssey and the new testament, then I think your problem is probably that you lack the ability to tell the difference between whether a document is intended as fact or as fiction by reading it

Now you consider the oddesy as fiction, eh?. . .It was not written as fiction, jut the way the bible was not written as a work of fiction even though the bible is also fictitious in reality. . .A lot of fictitious tales abound in the bible, I gave you an example of the trail before Pilate, no followers of Jesus were believed to have been present at any such trial, so the dialogues recorded in gospel accounts (which range from the few words in Mark to a more extensive dialogue between Pilate and Jesus in John's version) are almost certainly fictitious. . . .

I'm pretty sure that if I saw a man resurrect from the dead, I would still remember the event vividly 50 years later.

Only that non of the authors of the gospels claimed to have witnessed it or saw it themselves. . .The gospels were not written by eye witness. . .They were written based on hear say and their primary aim is to evangelize. . .

I hope you do realize that this destroys your argument against Christ by appealing to the silence of non-christian sources because those too will fall under the category of sources that cannot be trusted. The only way you can proceed with that argument is if you have an initial bias that christian documents are false. For instance, you haven't shown any reason why Josephus is true and Luke false. You have merely assumed that Josephus is true and then went on to critique Luke based on that assumption. Funny enough you are not even criticizing Luke for contradicting Josephus rather you are criticizing Luke for having accounts that are absent in Josephus. This is simply how not to investigate.

Why do historians consider Josephus credible but not Luke?. . .Josephus is considered to be a credible historian by all and his works are studied in academic circles. . .No one even knows Luke and no body apart from religious apoligist consider him to be a historian at all. . .No one even knows Luke any where because Luke does not even claim to have written anything to begin with. .Who is Luke?. . .Who knows him any where?. . .Where has he ever introcuded himself as Luke any where in his writtings?. . .

Go back and answer the questions you ignored

the question is irrelevent as I have told you already. . .

noblefada:
Saved from the repercussions of sin! In case you may ask whose sins, the answer is Adam's! Rom 5:12 KJV Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned and Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; the wages of this sin is death! Rom 6:23

wait o, lemme get this straight. I should be saved from a sin committed by adam about 6000yrs ago? What kind of transfered grudge is that? Who keeps that kind of a grudge?

mazaje:
I thought the said the bible is the word of god, so your god can not make people to write down things accurately without embelishments, eh?. . .By the way the authors of the gospels were NOT witness to any of the events they recorded, the gospels were NOT written by people who knew Jesus or even meet him. . .Just greek speaking christians writing for different audiences based on hear say stories about Jesus. . .If me and my friends go to a market and are told to recillect what we saw we can never give very contradictory stories as are found in the bible, like one saying he saw a man while another saying he saw two angles. . .The bible is NOT reliable and it has been shown that the later authors tried to correct the mistakes that were made by mark by ommiting some of his errors and putting their own new stories. .For example : In Mark 10:46, 11:1-11, Mark describes Jesus as travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethpage and then Bethany. D.E. Nineham (Saint Mark) says that as Bethphage and Bethany are given in reverse order to that in which travellers from Jericho would reach them, we must therefore assume that St Mark did not know the relative positions of the two villages on the Jericho road. Matthew appears to have recognised the error since, in his account, he removed the reference to Bethany.

1. I think you really should do that experiment with your friends, the result will interest you.

2. your point about the authors not being born at the time of Christ is moot because almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about.

3. Your argument about Mark's geographical knowledge of Bethany, Jerusalem and Bethphage can easily be solved by showing you a map as well as the actual text. Here you go:

Mark 11:1 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples.



Notice that though Mark is talking about Christ moving from Jericho towards Jerusalem, he is not in any way attempting to tell the reader which city comes first on the way but rather the focus is that Christ came to Mount Olives. Your argument about Matthew "correcting this error" is just your conspiracy theory. Please tell me what point were you trying to make again?

Now you consider the oddesy as fiction, eh?. . .It was not written as fiction, jut the way the bible was not written as a work of fiction even though the bible is also fictitious in reality. . .A lot of fictitious tales abound in the bible, I gave you an example of the trail before Pilate, no followers of Jesus were believed to have been present at any such trial, so the dialogues recorded in gospel accounts (which range from the few words in Mark to a more extensive dialogue between Pilate and Jesus in John's version) are almost certainly fictitious. . . .

1. Nonsense again, the odyssey is actually a poem. It was written to entertain Greeks at the time and not record history.
2. And your contention about the trial before Pilate is simply funny. How do you know for sure that no followers of Christ were present in that trial? Merely saying "it is believed" does not make it fact. Believed by who and how do they know?

Only that non of the authors of the gospels claimed to have witnessed it or saw it themselves. . .The gospels were not written by eye witness. . .They were written based on hear say and their primary aim is to evangelize. . .

The author of the gospel of John was an eyewitness.

Why do historians consider Josephus credible but not Luke?. . .Josephus is considered to be a credible historian by all and his works are studied in academic circles. . .No one even knows Luke and no body apart from religious apoligist consider him to be a historian at all. . .No one even knows Luke any where because Luke does not even claim to have written anything to begin with. .Who is Luke?. . .Who knows him any where?. . .Where has he ever introcuded himself as Luke any where in his writtings?. . .

Lol, this is funny because both Luke and Josephus' works are studied in academic circles. You have just made another blind assumption. Which historians consider Josephus credible and reject Luke?

All you have done here is sneak in the claim that "if one thinks Luke as a historical source, he is wrong". That's circular reasoning my friend because you have not justified why Luke is not acceptable other than just assume that he was wrong because he wrote mainly about Christ.

What we know about Antonius Felix, Pontius Pilate, Porcuis Festus, Aretas IV, Herod Agrippa, Joseph Caiaphas, Jesus Christ, Rabban Gamaliel, James the Just, Paul the Apostle e.t.c. are from the writings of Luke. Were all these people fictional characters?

Also, your point about no named author is moot. I have already explained to you why an ancient work having a named author is not really necessary for authenticity. Most of the works we believe today were written by Confucius were merely attributed to him, same as the sayings we attribute to Socrates, same as the works we attribute to Homer so nothing new there my friend.

the question is irrelevent as I have told you already. . .

Lol seriously? For instance: You claimed that in Mark 4 Jesus Christ did not want non-Jews to be converted, I asked you to show where in Mark 4 you got that and suddenly it became irrelevant?

So in Mazaje's world asking people to back up their claims is now irrelevant eh? I see.

Mr anony:
1. I think you really should do that experiment with your friends, the result will interest you.

2. your point about the authors not being born at the time of Christ is moot because almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about.

I repeat if I do there will be very minor differences not like the major differences we have in the gospels. . Where almost every thing is different. . .Your second point is false because many people in antiquity wrote about people they knew and had been with. . . .

3. Your argument about Mark's geographical knowledge of Bethany, Jerusalem and Bethphage can easily be solved by showing you a map as well as the actual text. Here you go:

Mark 11:1 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples.



Notice that though Mark is talking about Christ moving from Jericho towards Jerusalem, he is not in any way attempting to tell the reader which city comes first on the way but rather the focus is that Christ came to Mount Olives. Your argument about Matthew "correcting this error" is just your conspiracy theory. Please tell me what point were you trying to make again?

Where does it say he went to mount of olives? It just said they drew nearer to Jerusalem and listed the cities around. . .How do you know he was not trying to tell the readers which city came first?. . .

1. Nonsense again, the odyssey is actually a poem. It was written to entertain Greeks at the time and not record history.
2. And your contention about the trial before Pilate is simply funny. How do you know for sure that no followers of Christ were present in that trial? Merely saying "it is believed" does not make it fact. Believed by who and how do they know?

Just as the gospel is a theological book for religious belief. . .And not to record history. . .According to the bible when Jesus was arrested all his disciples ran away. . .Even the story was embellished, according to Mark the fist gospel very little was written but in John the conversation was embellished. . .

The author of the gospel of John was an eyewitness.

Where did the author of John claim to have been an eyewitness himself?. . .From John 21:24 It says "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

Clearly you can see that this is an interporlation and was NOT written by the original writer of the book. Some one not even the author of the book of John said the part in bold, trying to give credibility to the stories that were written in the book. No where in the whole book does the writer claim to have meet Jesus any where or known him. . .Just some some where adding some claims later on. . .Some one other than the author. . .The author himself does NOT claim to be an eye witness any where. . .The gospel of John was written way too late to be of any value and importance. . .It brings its own theology and portrays Jesus in a different light than the other gospels. . .it embelishes almost every account reported in the other gospels. . .

Lol, this is funny because both Luke and Josephus' works are studied in academic circles. You have just made another blind assumption. Which historians consider Josephus credible and reject Luke?

Luke is studied in theoligical circles, not in historical classes. . . The claim the Luke wrote anything remains an assumption, since, Luke himself does not claim to have written anything any where. . .

All you have done here is sneak in the claim that "if one thinks Luke as a historical source, he is wrong". That's circular reasoning my friend because you have not justified why Luke is not acceptable other than just assume that he was wrong because he wrote mainly about Christ.

What we know about Antonius Felix, Pontius Pilate, Porcuis Festus, Aretas IV, Herod Agrippa, Joseph Caiaphas, Jesus Christ, Rabban Gamaliel, James the Just, Paul the Apostle e.t.c. are from the writings of Luke. Were all these people fictional characters?

I repeat, who is Luke?. .. Where did he claim to have written anything down?. . .pls show me where he claimed to have written anything at all. . .What is his complete name?. . .Where was he born? Where was he living when he wrote down the book attributed to him?. . .Is he a Jew or a gentile?. . .Is he married or not?. . .Who is he and where did he claim to have written anything down?. . .You can not compare the names mentioned about to Luke because you do not even know Luke's complete name talk more about where he was born or who he was. . .All you know is that some people claim he wrote a book. . .A claim he himself never made. . .You just have an anynimous book going round with claims which was later attributed to a person called Luke and you are here insiting its true. . A claim Luke himself never made. . .

[/quote]Also, your point about no named author is moot. I have already explained to you why an ancient work having a named author is not really necessary for authenticity. Most of the works we believe today were written by Confucius were merely attributed to him, same as the sayings we attribute to Socrates, same as the works we attribute to Homer so nothing new there my friend.

To claim the point is moot is not true, no body gives credibility to any book whose author is unknown any where. . .That is why the church fathers decided to give authorship to those books to give them credibility. . . .Its possible that Socrates and all never said those things, so my position still remains, the bible is purely a work of men and has nothing to do with any divine source. . .It is actually worse than many other book written by men that lived at that time. . .

Lol seriously? For instance: You claimed that in Mark 4 Jesus Christ did not want non-Jews to be converted, I asked you to show where in Mark 4 you got that and suddenly it became irrelevant?

Mark 4:11-12And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

I hope this isn't the end of this thread.

Logicboy03:
Majaze, you dey read bible

I have to up my game....chei.....i no fit even contribute to this menn......I need to start reading up.

Great work sir.

Yeah. You thought DEBUNKING was about being the logic boy and inventing words like Anonysm and telling Christians to shut up?

mazaje:

If your assertion is true then why not say that the message in Galatians was only for the church in Galatians. . .By the way the injunction for women not to speak in public and usurp the authority of men was repeated by Paul in his letter to Timothy. . .

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 1 Timothy 2:12

Or are you going to come with the excuse that the letter was addressed to Timothy alone?. . .If that is the case then why not just jettison everything written in the bible because it was addressed to specific people and never addressed to any body in the 21st century. . .

Classic.

Great posts, Mazaje (Ph.D.)

MyJoe:
Yeah. You thought DEBUNKING was about being the logic boy and inventing words like Anonysm and telling Christians to shut up?

MyJoe:
Classic.

Great posts, Mazaje (Ph.D.)

Majaze is a boss

This thread proves it.

Anony, power pass power- your Anonyism no fit near majaze's arguments!

MyJoe:
Classic.

Great posts, Mazaje (Ph.D.)

Seconded and +1 till infinity

mazaje:
I repeat if I do there will be very minor differences not like the major differences we have in the gospels. . Where almost every thing is different. . .

Lol, I wonder what you mean by minor and major. Bear in mind that Matthew and Mark for instance are 90% similar. I think you should really do the experiment with your friends. The results would interest you very much.

Your second point is false because many people in antiquity wrote about people they knew and had been with. . . .

Lol, "many" is a very vague word. If I said "most Nigerians are civilians", telling me that many Nigerians are soldiers does not refute my claim at all. 1 million military Nigerians counts as many but it is still less than 1% of the Nigerian population. So of course many people wrote about people they knew but this is not what I said. Here is what I said:

"almost all the ancient history you know was written by people who never met those they wrote about."

All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide examples of ancient historical characters (excluding Church history) from before the time of Christ up until around the end of the Roman empire written by people who actually knew these characters. I'll wager that I can provide two characters for every one character you produce.

I'll even push further to argue that based on your contentions, you are equally discounting the works of modern historians working today because almost all of them definitely weren't born and don't personally know the people they are writing about. In fact according to your argument, we must also reject any modern day historian that writes anything about events that happened in 1800 for instance.

According to your argument criticizing the New testament writers for writing in Greek and not Hebrew, How about those modern day historians who are currently writing African history in English? Should we discredit their work too?

Let us play fair with the evidence here and stop being irrational. If you are going to apply some lofty unreasonable standard to one text, then please apply the exact same same standard to all other texts.

Where does it say he went to mount of olives?

Lol, it says it right there in the text. Did you miss it?

Mark 11:1-3 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent out two of His disciples and said to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it. If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.

It just said they drew nearer to Jerusalem and listed the cities around. . .How do you know he was not trying to tell the readers which city came first?. . .

That burden of proof is yours to bear and not mine. You are the one who was claiming that Mark did not know which cities came first on the way from Jordan to Jerusalem. It is up to you to tell us how you knew that he was trying to tell us which city came first especially with the verse and the map I've shown you. Don't shift try to shift your burden to me

Just as the gospel is a theological book for religious belief. . .And not to record history. . .According to the bible when Jesus was arrested all his disciples ran away. . .

Apparently, not all ran away...

John 18:12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews arrested Jesus and bound him.
John 18:13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.
John 18:14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
John 18:15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,
John 18:16 but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

Even the story was embellished, according to Mark the fist gospel very little was written but in John the conversation was embellished. . .

I hope you know that in order to claim that a story is embellished, you must be able to demonstrate that the extra added details are actually false either by providing and defending what the truth ought to be or by showing logical incompatibility in the account. Failure to do that and you cannot make that claim.

Where did the author of John claim to have been an eyewitness himself?. . .From John 21:24 It says "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down". We know that his testimony is true.

Clearly you can see that this is an interporlation and was NOT written by the original writer of the book. Some one not even the author of the book of John said the part in bold, trying to give credibility to the stories that were written in the book. No where in the whole book does the writer claim to have meet Jesus any where or known him. . .Just some some where adding some claims later on. . .Some one other than the author. . .The author himself does NOT claim to be an eye witness any where. . .The gospel of John was written way too late to be of any value and importance. . .It brings its own theology and portrays Jesus in a different light than the other gospels. . .it embelishes almost every account reported in the other gospels. .

.
Lol, interesting. So your modus operandi is to start by claiming that there is no eyewitness because you find nobody that claimed to witness the event. But then when shown one: someone clearly claiming to have witnessed the event you claim that it is an interpolation. How exactly do you know this? or is it just something that stems from your anti-bible bias? So far all I have seen from you is "it is false because I say so".

You have made the claim that it is an interpolation and therefore have inherited the burden of proof. If you fail to conclusively show that it is an interpolation. I'll just have to disregard your comment as an empty rant.

Luke is studied in theoligical circles, not in historical classes. . . The claim the Luke wrote anything remains an assumption, since, Luke himself does not claim to have written anything any where. . .

I repeat, who is Luke?. .. Where did he claim to have written anything down?. . .pls show me where he claimed to have written anything at all. . .What is his complete name?. . .Where was he born? Where was he living when he wrote down the book attributed to him?. . .Is he a Jew or a gentile?. . .Is he married or not?. . .Who is he and where did he claim to have written anything down?. . .You can not compare the names mentioned about to Luke because you do not even know Luke's complete name talk more about where he was born or who he was. . .All you know is that some people claim he wrote a book. . .A claim he himself never made. . .You just have an anynimous book going round with claims which was later attributed to a person called Luke and you are here insiting its true. . A claim Luke himself never made. . .

I listed a few names of historical characters for you. Look them up on wikipedia and you will see that the writings of Luke are cited among the sources for their life stories. That puts an end to your claim that Luke is not studied in historical circles.

About Luke not naming himself in his work, I have explained how that doesn't change anything about the authenticity of his story. You can argue about the authenticity of the author but that is an entirely different argument from the authenticity of his story. For instance, did you know that the earliest copy of Josephus works that we have is dated at least 700 years after Josephus is supposed to have died? Also by the way, Josephus wrote in Greek to Jews about Jewish history. (I hope you realize that this firmly refutes your contention that the writers of the New testament were not writing to a Hebrew audience)
Did you know that Plato never names himself in his most famous work The Republic coupled with the fact that the earliest copy of the republic that we have is dated at least 1000 years(one complete millennium) after Plato's death yet it is unthinkable for anyone to say that Plato didn't write The Republic. Let play fair with the evidence here.

If you want to criticize the gospel texts, then be ready to criticize every other text with the same standard let us see how well they do. Don't use a double standard and claim "interpolations" and "embellishments" especially when you haven't provided an ounce of proof anywhere

To claim the point is moot is not true, no body gives credibility to any book whose author is unknown any where. . .That is why the church fathers decided to give authorship to those books to give them credibility. . .

The bold is false because it would mean we'll have to throw a lot of classical writings down the toilet.
Secondly, I hope you know that the Church fathers you are talking about, some of them were actual contemporaries of the apostles or at most 1 generation apart; especially the ones who gave these books their names.

In the same way we know about Socrates from Plato, Plato from Aristotle and so on. So do we know about Christ from His disciple John, and John from his disciple Polycarp and so on.
(note that at each stage of the chain, these guys had contemporaries like Paul, Ignatius, Clement e.t.c. all corresponding in a very rich chain network of information - in fact it is said that one can build up the entire New testament just by the citations in the writings of the early church fathers). If you apply one measure to one thing, be sure to apply the same measure to another. No double standards here.

Its possible that Socrates and all never said those things, so my position still remains, the bible is purely a work of men and has nothing to do with any divine source. . .

I notice that now you are beginning to play down the authenticity of ancient history just to keep your attack alive. Your argument that the bible is not divinely inspired only makes me laugh at this point because now you have seen that to deny the gospel truth will lead you into the dangerous waters of denying history itself, you cannot possibly make that claim anymore.
The New Testament account has passed the test of what will normally pass as historically true. By any measures you use to fault it, we must apply the same measures to other historical accounts and see if they pass. If they don't pass, then we must declare them false as well.
It is only after you have successfully proven that the gospels and epistles have failed as a historical truth that you can make the claim that it cannot possibly be divinely inspired. Until then, you have no basis upon which to make that claim.

It is actually worse than many other book written by men that lived at that time. . .

And by "worse" you mean? Please be sure to name the other books it is worse than and in what sense it is worse other than merely your subjective opinion.

Mark 4:11-12And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.

But the people Christ is referring to here are Jews. Can't you see how this destroys your claim that Jesus came exclusively for the Jews and didn't want non-Jews to be saved?

Nice back and forth so far. I must say I'm very impressed by both parties. Anony more so. Anyway, I'd like to make some input based on this quote herein...

Mr anony: The New Testament account has passed the test of what will normally pass as historically true. By any measures you use to fault it, we must apply the same measures to other historical accounts and see if they pass. If they don't pass, then we must declare them false as well.
It is only after you have successfully proven that the gospels and epistles have failed as a historical truth that you can make the claim that it cannot possibly be divinely inspired. Until then, you have no basis upon which to make that claim.

By the standards Mazaje has been using, it is quite possible to fault other historical accounts. He himself has said it that most historians do not consider orally passed down history as absolute fact(something like that I think).
Now there's a subtle yet very important difference between other ancient historical accounts and the bible. If today it is proven for example, that plato was in fact not a real person but just a figment of Aristotles imagination then all the works supposedly accredited to him might have to be counted as false, BUT that still doesn't change the fact that they are great writings, philosophical truths etc and heck! Nobody has ever considered them to be inviolable truths, nations have not gone to war because of their belief in such historical accounts, people do not hinge their whole existence here on earth to a promise made in those writings. I hope you do see the point I'm making, that as far as ancient history is concerned especially those recorded based on hear say, it is very dangerous to base your whole life existence on the claims of men 2000 yrs ago whom by modern day standards cannot be absolutely verified to be historically accurate, let alone divinely inspired.
My half cent

You really need to stop drinking from those lead Cups.. LMAO

Mr anony: This video proves that Christianity was definitely made up. Watch and be blessed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBLdHiaFYwk