Page 2 of 4

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:33 pm
by Im Fat
oh wow, this was a great and informative use of my time....

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:39 pm
by Furstentum Liechtenstein
Im Fat wrote:And my purpose here is to discuss bible authenticity, and that hasn't got anywhere has it?
Perhaps you should go somewhere else to discuss this. An atheist forum would be more appropriate for someone like you.

FL

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:46 pm
by Murray
You have a interesting interest list for a 100 year old may I add.....

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:20 pm
by neo-x
You have a interesting interest list for a 100 year old may I add.....
:lol:

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:27 pm
by neo-x
Im Fat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:33 am

Islam seems like the most historicaly accurate religon if you ask me because it was all wrote in first hand accounts
Well r u a muslim?

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 9:42 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
OK lets see, likes music by bands that are satan worshipers, claims to be one hundred years old, likes to watch porn, likes dead cows and wont do his own research, seems to me you have already made up your mind concerning the peace and love of Christ.

I will pray for you.


Daniel

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:54 pm
by neo-x
evolution is a law as far as i'm concerned.
You are of course in error to believe that all Christians don't believe in evolution.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:59 pm
by B. W.
Im Fat wrote:Dodn't want to sound rude, but could you narrow down the search a bit? I do truely do not feel like reading through 10 articles to find the information I'm looking for
And before I even read through the article, does it have definitive proof that the gospels are not all wirtten by john?
You answered your own question - you sound like you hate research if youcan't go thru 10 pages. Therefore, if you do not take time to read and study and learn, then, why are you here?
-
-
-

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:02 pm
by neo-x
Danieltwotwenty on Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:42 am

OK lets see, likes music by bands that are satan worshipers, claims to be one hundred years old, likes to watch porn, likes dead cows and wont do his own research, seems to me you have already made up your mind concerning the peace and love of Christ.

I will pray for you.
Dan, he may have written all of that, just to get attention, you think he is 100 years old? he is just making a "hate me, I'm bad, dirt, filth" kind of persona, in a childish sort of way. Most of the likes of him, whom I have seen, often just get ridiculed because of all this nonsense and then they come back charging on a lame horse claiming "we are not good Christians as we don't love the sinner at all.". This is immature behaviour, really, on his part if he seeks to argument and debate here.

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:24 am
by Danieltwotwenty
haha yea i had kinda figured that, but still there is always an element of truth mixed into lies.
I know because i liked some of those things including cradle of filth before i became a Christain, now it just makes me ill.

Daniel

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:54 am
by Widge
Im Fat wrote:Why do so many intermediates exist for humans?
hell it's even better for the horse, soooo much evidence for evolution in the fossil record for the horse but yet we ignore this because it threatens christianity.

And you not answered my question to authenticity of the bible. You sent me on a wild goose chase, and from what I saw on that slide show on the main site, the arguements for bible authenticity are weak.

And my purpose here is to discuss bible authenticity, and that hasn't got anywhere has it?
It is hard to prove who wrote what in terms of the Bible I believe that John and Matthew are first hand accounts of Jesus's life

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:04 am
by Silvertusk
Tradition states that - Mark is a friend of Peter. Matthew is the tax collector Levi. Luke is the Doctor that followed Paul on his travels and John is the beloved apostle John in the gospels. I for one believe in that tradition.

Silvertusk

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:06 am
by Byblos
Silvertusk wrote:Tradition states that - Mark is a friend of Peter. Matthew is the tax collector Levi. Luke is the Doctor that followed Paul on his travels and John is the beloved apostle John in the gospels. I for one believe in that tradition.

Silvertusk
Heresy. 8)

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:08 am
by Silvertusk
Byblos wrote:
Silvertusk wrote:Tradition states that - Mark is a friend of Peter. Matthew is the tax collector Levi. Luke is the Doctor that followed Paul on his travels and John is the beloved apostle John in the gospels. I for one believe in that tradition.

Silvertusk
Heresy. 8)

I see what you did there. :pound:

Re: Not eyewitness

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 7:58 am
by jlay
I've got it.

Bart Ehrman = infallible
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John = poppycock.

Thanks for clearing that up I'm Fat.