honourhim:



Was Paul among the disciples who worked with Christ when he was on earth? Why didnt Paul write against the gospel? Why did he make reference to what was written in the gospel in his epistles? Why did he have anything to do with apostle Peter? How come all that they wrote were related to each other?

What was the mission of Jesus on earth? To make disciples of himself. He commanded thee disciples to go into the world and spread what they have learnt from him, and that is part of what they just did in the gospels and epistles. If Jesus had written, you would have still asked why didnt his disciples write or you would have picked another hole. We know your games but it wont work.

Honourhim, nice to meet u again in another thread.
Let me just chip in on part of what u said:
1)The four synoptic gospels, are very very much 'IDENTICAL', though we were told that the works Jesus did was (in comparison) enough to cover the size of an encyclopedia textbook or even more.
2)The man Jesus as recorded in the Bible, attended to more than 5000 people like twice(or more if u include the 'unknown records'), am very sure most of them were young(remember the boy with fishes), but yet in history only Josephus notes which is even a third party reference and also contained fairly minute portion, mentioned Jesus and also this is even sceptical because of Eusebius likely influence . Haba!
3) Even philosophers like Aristotle and Socrates, who were born 3-400 years before Christ, their works, are fairly recorded, and nobody disputes their existence (and guess what; they didn't walk on water). Also, Seneca the Younger who taught stoic philosophy, was also present during Jesus time, yet he does not believe in the supernatural not to talk of mentioning Jesus in his lifetime, in case u say he was from Rome and not Israel, be reminded that Rome colonised Israel in those days, so he must have noticed an extraordinary event to change his pattern of thinking, if at all there existed.

The only strong evidence that Jesus existed is the phrase 'I feel him in my heart'.

4kings:

Honourhim, nice to meet u again in another thread.
Let me just chip in on part of what u said:
1)The four synoptic gospels, are very very much 'IDENTICAL', though we were told that the works Jesus did was (in comparison) enough to cover the size of an encyclopedia textbook or even more.
2)The man Jesus as recorded in the Bible, attended to more than 5000 people like twice(or more if u include the 'unknown records'), am very sure most of them were young(remember the boy with fishes), but yet in history only Josephus notes which is even a third party reference and also contained fairly minute portion, mentioned Jesus and also this is even sceptical because of Eusebius likely influence . Haba!
3) Even philosophers like Aristotle and Socrates, who were born 3-400 years before Christ, their works, are fairly recorded, and nobody disputes their existence (and guess what; they didn't walk on water). Also, Seneca the Younger who taught stoic philosophy, was also present during Jesus time, yet he does not believe in the supernatural not to talk of mentioning Jesus in his lifetime, in case u say he was from Rome and not Israel, be reminded that Rome colonised Israel in those days, so he must have noticed an extraordinary event to change his pattern of thinking, if at all there existed.

The only strong evidence that Jesus existed is the phrase 'I feel him in my heart'.

1) The synoptic gospels are identical because while Mark was the first to be written, Matthew and Luke were drawn from an early oral Q source and mark.
2) All scholars agree that Josephus reference to James the brother of Jesus is authentic and has not been altered, also while the first reference was altered slightly to say that Jesus was a god, it was certainly written by Josephus because it follows thesame pattern and many of the phrases used are in line with Josephus writing style. In fact there are versions from Ethiopia that do not show any sign of being altered. BTW Tacticus also spoke about Jesus.
3) While it is true that the works of Aristotle are well documented, we do not have so much to rely on when it comes to Socrates, it is very much like that of Jesus, we have mark and Paul as well as the Q sources for Jesus, in thesame way we have Xenophone, Plato, and Aristophanes, accounts which scholars do not totally trust as well.
Also l noticed your argument from silence, stating the fact that no one mentioned Jesus in his time. What you fail to prove is why the historians of that time should care about a Jewish teacher and would be messaiah at the time, when there were also many like him. Philo for instance was more interested in politics and philosophy. What we do know about the messaianic movement of that era comes from just one man..Josephus. And he mentioned Jesus not once but twice. Also if we should discard the works of Tacticus simply because he was non contemporary, then historians would have very little to go by today, since a lot of what we know in history comes from non contemporary sources.

bolt000:
Are there any good arguments against Christianity? Of course! That’s why so many intelligent thinking people are not Christians.
Its pretty simple.
So what are the best arguments against Christianity? Well it depends on whether you are a Muslim, a Jew, an atheist, a Hindu or something else. Every ‘worldview’ has its own particular set of arguments.
Here’s a list of twelve of the most common ones I have heard.
It baffles me why some Christians, for some reason, are not very effective at explaining to non-Christians why they do believe.
If you are an atheist please let me know which of these arguments you find most convincing. If you are a Christian then let me know which ones you find hardest to answer. Are there any important ones that you think I have left out?
Carbon Copy: 4everGod, Seun, KingEbukaNaija, weblord1900, OAM4J, winner01, 4kings, Plaetton , Johnydon22 ilovetheline, JackBizzle, Kay17, AgentOfAllah, Ayomikun37 , hahn , sonOfLucifer , frank317 muskeeto , Decker , PastorAIO , ValentineMary , Pyrrho , braithwaite , dragonEmperor , theoneJabulani , lepasharon , cloudgoddess , ifenes , brigance , stephenmorris , thehomer , dalaman , Ranchhoddas , hoefullandlord , weah96 , CAPSLOCKED , lilbrown007 , Elohim1, dalaman, malvisguy212 , Muafrika2, Dejideji1 , truthman2012, Image123 , InesQor, Joshthefirst MrPresident1, gatiano sukkot, OLAADEGBU , vooks, UyiIredia , Jeromejnr, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, Tellemall, Ishilove, Drefan2, Strawman, dazzle101, Dejideji1, Farmerforlife, 4evergod2, udysweet, Edelweiss44 , DeepSight. Thank you.

Lol, mine is...

13. Just believe that Jesus died for your sins and you will go to heaven.

How am I just to believe? Based on what premise? If I just say "I believe" without backup evidence or a reliable source (which the Bible clearly isnt due to its total lack of credentials and established authorship, let alone its monumental errors amd contradictions) I am just being hypocritical. Would God be deceived by my outward belief? Would He then send me the 'Holy Spirit' to make me truly believe, because I previously pretended to believe?

14. "You cant understand (and thereby believe) the gospel of a risen Christ unless you are filled with the Holy Spirit, which you cannot be filled with until you understand (and believe) in the gospel of a risen Christ."

Ok! I give up!

15. God (or a part thereof) came down, sacrificed Himself by getting us to crucify Him, died (can God or His part do that?) and then rejoined the main part that sent the second part, after which they both jointly sent down a third part to teach mankind about the sacrifice of the second part (which was not really dead afterall, but alive), all in order to enable the whole 3 parts to forgive us from a sin incurred by an ancestor and to redeem us from punishment for that sin. The irony is that all 3 parts only thought of that 2000 years ago, while the original sin which needed forgiving had taken place at least 6000 years ago (Biblical literalists) or even millions of years ago (Biblical metaphorists), effectively dooming thousands of innocent earlier generations (from New Zealand to Alaska) to an absence of salvation, or to some arbitrary and unfair post mortem judgement, which no Christian has been able to explain adequately.


None of that makes sense, yet unbelievably, it is a summary of the central theme of Christianity... really.

16. Total reliance on miracles.

So you mentioned this earlier, but deserves another mention. When the Scripture Union craze first took over parts of Nigeria, the narrative was all about miracles; cancer cures, the lame walking, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing. I was invited to many such miracle working centers (some of which are multimillion Naira establishments of Mammon today) and I did attend every single one to which I was invited. I am certain and say with total confidence, that NOT ONE actual miracle took place. All I saw was self deceit and exaggerated testimony. Even if actual 'miracles' did occur, so? Babalawos work equally valid 'miracles'. So do Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, and Chris Angel even supposedly walked on water! Why dont Christians accept the testimonies of all these as' men of God'?

All in all, I tried my best, but Christianity was too illogical for me. The 'wisdom of their god' was truly foolishness to me. Paul knew very well of the lack of logic in his proposition (maybe the less gullible people in his time had pointed out to him), so he tried to pre-empt disbelief by coining this phrase.

But my view is live and let live. I tend to tolerate even those who believe in an undetectable teapot orbiting the earth (a la 'prophet' Russel) and a flying monster made of spaggheti.

Thanks for your contribution farmerforlife.

Your No. 14 is so hilarious. ok i give up lol

The OP did not provide a logical reason for atheism.

The primary issue is the claim that a non human entity spoke with regular humans and identified itself as the creator of the universe.

That claim requires some kind of evidence, especially considering how humans are full of sh8t.

Weah96:
The OP did not provide a logical reason for atheism.

The primary issue is the claim that a non human entity spoke with regular humans and identified itself as the creator of the universe.

Aliens are non humans . Some humans have claimed to have communicated with aliens , are you skeptical about their claims too ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Aliens are non humans . Some humans have claimed to have communicated with aliens , are you skeptical about their claims too ?

Aren't YOU?

kilo4sure:

1) The synoptic gospels are identical because while Mark was the first to be written, Matthew and Luke were drawn from an early oral Q source and mark.
2) All scholars agree that Josephus reference to James the brother of Jesus is authentic and has not been altered, also while the first reference was altered slightly to say that Jesus was a god, it was certainly written by Josephus because it follows thesame pattern and many of the phrases used are in line with Josephus writing style. In fact there are versions from Ethiopia that do not show any sign of being altered. BTW Tacticus also spoke about Jesus.
3) While it is true that the works of Aristotle are well documented, we do not have so much to rely on when it comes to Socrates, it is very much like that of Jesus, we have mark and Paul as well as the Q sources for Jesus, in thesame way we have Xenophone, Plato, and Aristophanes, accounts which scholars do not totally trust as well.
Also l noticed your argument from silence, stating the fact that no one mentioned Jesus in his time. What you fail to prove is why the historians of that time should care about a Jewish teacher and would be messaiah at the time, when there were also many like him. Philo for instance was more interested in politics and philosophy. What we do know about the messaianic movement of that era comes from just one man..Josephus. And he mentioned Jesus not once but twice. Also if we should discard the works of Tacticus simply because he was non contemporary, then historians would have very little to go by today, since a lot of what we know in history comes from non contemporary sources.

1) Your explanation for the synoptic gospels does not make sense, how can witnesses, who stayed with a man for years, bearing in mind that we were told that the works this man did is enough (in comparison) to fill a textbook, require a common source when writing about him. Besides, the q-source is just an hypothesis made not too long ago, in an attempt to explain why the gospels were very much alike.

2) what do u mean by 'all' scholars agree that Josephus reference was authentic?, if that was so this argument would be stupid. BTW u should be open minded when searching for facts so u don't get caught up with biased views.

3) Tacitus, seriously, the same guy who gave detailed account of an adventurer rising from the dead, smh. Also have u noticed that this emperors mostly consulted themselves(romans scholars) for info, (like tacitus and pliny, Constantine and eusebius) and not Jewish people(@ least they're not mentioned in their works).

The Roman empire advocated for christainity, for order, and not because Constantine saw a cross in a sky and got converted, except he was on some high w**d.

Weah96:


Aren't YOU?

Nope . Are you ?

peacesamuel94:
people don't believe what you explain to them, people believe what they choose to believe. choosing to believe that GOD does not exist does not stop him from existing.

Believing god exists doesn't mean it exists

imagine someone saying that miracles does not exist, maybe from a logical point of view, you are right, but the truth is on the realistic perspective miracles exist

Are you born again?

Are you filled with the holy ghost?

Can you pray to Jesus, go to Igbobi and restore ONE amputated limb, and share the video on youtube?

I can record the video

4kings:

1) Your explanation for the synoptic gospels does not make sense, how can witnesses, who stayed with a man for years, bearing in mind that we were told that the works this man did is enough (in comparison) to fill a textbook, require a common source when writing about him. Besides, the q-source is just an hypothesis made not too long ago, in an attempt to explain why the gospels were very much alike.

2) what do u mean by 'all' scholars agree that Josephus reference was authentic?, if that was so this argument would be stupid. BTW u should be open minded when searching for facts so u don't get caught up with biased views.

3) Tacitus, seriously, the same guy who gave detailed account of an adventurer rising from the dead, smh. Also have u noticed that this emperors mostly consulted themselves(romans scholars) for info, (like tacitus and pliny, Constantine and eusebius) and not Jewish people(@ least they're not mentioned in their works).

The Roman empire advocated for christainity, for order, and not because Constantine saw a cross in a sky and got converted, except he was on some high w**d.

1) lt was not a culture where things were always written down, besides most of the apostles may not have been that literate to write things down, they also may have thought that the end was nigh and did not think of preserving these stories in books, but when the apostle began to die, the Christian communities had to put down these stories they had from oral culture. Even Talmudic Judaism in those days was oral, not so much writing until the second century.
2) Funny how you tell me to read and not be biased, if you are truly current on this issue you would know that no scholar disputes the reference to James the brother of Jesus by Josephus, and that while the other text may have been altered, it was still written by Josephus, unless you just read up only biased atheist websites, rather than the works of academians on this issue. You are the one who should do more reading on this issue my friend not me. As a matter of fact except for maybe Richard carrier and Robert price(Richard is not even that qualified) no other professor of history( Christian or non Christian) would agree with you here on the issue of Josephus', reference to Jesus.
3) Are you truly non biased as you claim to be? If Tacticus had not made a reference to Jesus, you would also be the first to raise your voice on a thousand hills, that even Tacticus didn't mention Jesus. He did and now you try to prove a point that he can't be trusted. Well as every Historian would tell you many of the sources we rely on for ancient history can't be totally trusted as well, they are biased and give credence to myth and magic. The work of the Historian has always been to separate the chaff from the wheat.
This issue has nothing to do with Constantine or your other Roman conspiracy theories.
Good evening.

bolt000

Don't forget repeat 1 - 12 over and over again when replying to any attempt to respond to any of the 12 questions

hahn:


Believing god exists doesn't mean it exists

Believing God does not exist does not mean He does not exist

On the position of historians on Josephus' reference to jesus, this is what wikepedia has to say......
A passage that states that Jesus the Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate, usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[5][6][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,[12] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.[10]

Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [13] and considers it as having the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[14][1][2][15][16][17]

KingEbukasBlog:


Believing God does not exist does not mean He does not exist

True.

If god existed we wouldn't need to believe it.

It would have been as natural as works of nature.

We would know

hahn:


True.

If god existed we wouldn't need to believe it.

It would have been as natural as works of nature.

We would know

I have said it numerous times that I know God exists . I clearly said that I lack the belief in the existence of God .

hahn:


Believing god exists doesn't mean it exists



Are you born again?

Are you filled with the holy ghost?

Can you pray to Jesus, go to Igbobi and restore ONE amputated limb, and share the video on youtube?

I can record the video

the day God we perform the miracle of causing the arm of an amputee to grow back again, is the day He will perform the miracle of duplicating currencies, miraculous repair of faulty appliances, miraculous loss of weight etc. You guys should not confuse God for a magician, He performs miracles not for the sake of fun but for the salvation of souls that willingly desire it. an amputee can achieve all what he wants to achieve in life even without his arm but the dead cannot, if you don't believe that God can raise the dead ( which he has done times without number). then there is no way you will believe the miracle of an amputee even if it happened right in your presence, that's why I said people do not believe what you try to prove to them, they actually believe what they choose to believe

KingEbukasBlog:


I have said it numerous times that I know God exists . I clearly said that I lack the belief in the existence of God .

You know? How?

KingEbukasBlog:


I have said it numerous times that I know God exists . I clearly said that I lack the belief in the existence of God .

True! Knowing that God exists is different from Believing. To know is to become one with the knowledge of God without needing reason to know about it.

Previous experiences have shaped us and made us transcend believing to knowing.

We are in the same league my bro. God is good.

4everGod:


True! Knowing that God exists is different from Believing. To know is to become one with the knowledge of God without needing reason to know about it.

Previous experiences have shaped us and made us transcend believing to knowing.

We are in the same league my bro. God is good.

This is so on point bro . God is good , All the time

peacesamuel94:
the day God we perform the miracle of causing the arm of an amputee to grow back again, is the day He will perform the miracle of duplicating currencies, miraculous repair of faulty appliances, miraculous loss of weight etc. You guys should not confuse God for a magician, He performs miracles not for the sake of fun but for the salvation of souls that willingly desire it. an amputee can achieve all what he wants to achieve in life even without his arm but the dead cannot, if you don't believe that God can raise the dead ( which he has done times without number). then there is no way you will believe the miracle of an amputee even if it happened right in your presence, that's why I said people do not believe what you try to prove to them, they actually believe what they choose to believe

Hahaha. Nice response.

Whatever

kilo4sure:

1) lt was not a culture where things were always written down, besides most of the apostles may not have been that literate to write things down, they also may have thought that the end was nigh and did not think of preserving these stories in books, but when the apostle began to die, the Christian communities had to put down these stories they had from oral culture. Even Talmudic Judaism in those days was oral, not so much writing until the second century.

Haba!, primitive writings started 3000 years before Christ, even your bible says Jesus read the scriptures(old testaments).

kilo4sure:

2) Funny how you tell me to read and not be biased, if you are truly current on this issue you would know that no scholar disputes the reference to James the brother of Jesus by Josephus, and that while the other text may have been altered, it was still written by Josephus, unless you just read up only biased atheist websites, rather than the works of academians on this issue. You are the one who should do more reading on this issue my friend not me. As a matter of fact except for maybe Richard carrier and Robert price(Richard is not even that qualified) no other professor of history( Christian or non Christian) would agree with you here on the issue of Josephus', reference to Jesus.

I never disputed Josephus, I was saying that his writings about Jesus was most likely influenced by Eusebius. (Read again)

kilo4sure:

3) Are you truly non biased as you claim to be? If Tacticus had not made a reference to Jesus, you would also be the first to raise your voice on a thousand hills, that even Tacticus didn't mention Jesus. He did and now you try to prove a point that he can't be trusted. Well as every Historian would tell you many of the sources we rely on for ancient history can't be totally trusted as well, they are biased and give credence to myth and magic. The work of the Historian has always been to separate the shaft from the wheat.
This issue has nothing to do with Constantine or your other Roman conspiracy theories.
Good evening.

Funny, agnostics\deists here on nairaland & the world think the stories of the bible is comparable to a fairy tale, I just told u that Tacitus(ur evidence) wrote about an adventurer rising from the dead and u said I am being biased because of my point, smh.
Talking about myth Aristotle, Socrates, plato, Seneca were born centuries before Tacitus and they thought rationally and didn't believe in myth, so we can say they had followers that existed then, so how can u say we should believe the words written down by an emperor who was mythological.

KingEbukasBlog:


Nope . Are you ?

Of course I am. Aliens only appear to stoned people or nutcases with 1.0 MP cameras.

Weah96:


Of course I am. Aliens only appear to stoned people or nutcases with 1.0 MP cameras.

So you think it's not plausible for aliens to exist ?

Muafrika2:
bolt000

Don't forget repeat 1 - 12 over and over again when replying to any attempt to respond to any of the 12 questions

lol..

KingEbukasBlog:


So you think it's not plausible for aliens to exist ?

This entire thread is like a merry go round. How can anyone on a merry go round expect to go forward?

The foundation for the question which is a foundation of unbelief or denial of Gods existence then want to see same proof of Gods existence? How would they be able to recognise what they say does not exist? How would they even be able to recognise the proof of His existence?

Without an inner conviction and foundation there can be no basis for proof or even this thread as no explanation is good enough for a man who has already switched off before asking questions.

Its like someone wanting to get to sokoto from Lagos but deliberately facing and heading out to the Atlantic ocean and then while in the middle of the atlantic he begins asking for a road map to Sokoto. He just wants to weary those he is asking as he never had any plans to get to sokoto in the first place.

4kings:

Haba!, primitive writings started 3000 years before Christ, even your bible says Jesus read the scriptures(old testaments).

I never disputed Josephus, I was saying that his writings about Jesus was most likely influenced by Eusebius. (Read again)


Funny, agnostics\deists here on nairaland & the world think the stories of the bible is comparable to a fairy tale, I just told u that Tacitus(ur evidence) wrote about an adventurer rising from the dead and u said I am being biased because of my point, smh.
Talking about myth Aristotle, Socrates, plato, Seneca were born centuries before Tacitus and they thought rationally and didn't believe in myth, so we can say they had followers that existed then, so how can u say we should believe the words written down by an emperor who was mythological.

Wow l think l have made my point, and there's no need to push this any further.
On the issue of Josephus, l still don't get you..
If you are saying that Josephus reference to Jesus was altered by Eusebius, then we are saying thesame thing,but the original paragraph that speaks about Jesus was from Josephus. There are even older Syrian and Arabic manuscripts of the text from Josephus which do not speak of Jesus being the Christ or his ressurection, which would look more like original text of Josephus, the reference to jesus as a wise man who attracted many Jews and of the cheif men among them giving him up to Pontius Pilate is generally agreed to as authentic. This quote sums it up....
Those scholars who accept the "partial authenticity" theory conclude that - at a minimum - something similar to the following reconstruction of the TF was likely original to Book 18:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
(per Meier, op. cit., page 61).
Also the reference to James the brother of Jesus is authentic.
But if you are saying that Eusebius sold ideas about Jesus to Josephus, then this obviously cannot be the case, since Eusebius was not alive the during the time of Josephus.

4everGod:



This entire thread is like a merry go round. How can anyone on a merry go round expect to go forward?

The foundation for the question which is a foundation of unbelief or denial of Gods existence then want to see same proof of Gods existence? How would they be able to recognise what they say does not exist? How would they even be able to recognise the proof of His existence?

Without an inner conviction and foundation there can be no basis for proof or even this thread as no explanation is good enough for a man who has already switched off before asking questions.

Its like someone wanting to get to sokoto from Lagos but deliberately facing and heading out to the Atlantic ocean and then while in the middle of the atlantic he begins asking for a road map to Sokoto. He just wants to weary those he is asking as he never had any plans to get to sokoto in the first place.

Thank you ! Their intention is clearly not to question their unbelief even if all their arguments are addressed or questions answered . Even after their questions are answered , they keep arguing !!! Honestly , they are not interested in knowing God .

KingEbukasBlog:


Thank you ! Their intention is clearly not to question their unbelief even if all their arguments are addressed or questions answered . Even after their questions are answered , they keep arguing !!! Honestly , they are not interested in knowing God .

Nope they are not!

When "we" argue with Christians we don't convince them... at least not at that time. De-converting from indoctrinated beliefs is a slow, difficult process. For the bystanders to the arguments it can be an entirely different matter however.