Not eyewitness

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:39 pm

How can you guys relly on a book that is based of oral history written 30 years after the man died? Nobody was writting things down as jesus spoke so how do we know they are even close to accuarate. Islam seems like the most historicaly accurate religon if you ask me because it was all wrote in first hand accounts

Danieltwotwenty · Post by **Danieltwotwenty** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:08 pm

Please read the main site http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... icity.html and then if you have any questions about the article please go ahead and ask.\

Daniel

Danieltwotwenty · Post by **Danieltwotwenty** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:13 pm

Nobody was writting things down as jesus spoke

Where is the evidence to support this claim?

Islam seems like the most historicaly accurate religon if you ask me because it was all wrote in first hand accounts

Are you saying here that Jesus disciples didnt write their first hand accounts as opposed to Islam?

Daniel

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:15 pm

Didn't Bart Ernham, an ex- devout christian, do years of research and come to that exact conclusion

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:20 pm

Islam seems like the most historicaly accurate religon if you ask me because it was all wrote in first hand accounts

Are you saying here that Jesus disciples didnt write their first hand accounts as opposed to Islam?

Daniel[/quote]

yes, that's what i understand at this point.....

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:24 pm

Is their any conclusive proof that jesus's deciples were actual eyewtinesses? I'm a believer that john wrote all 4 of the gospels, what evidence is their against that, the writing style in the gospels is very close to that of romans, acts ect..

Danieltwotwenty · Post by **Danieltwotwenty** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:39 pm

Here is a link concerning Bart Ernham http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ption.html

Is their any conclusive proof that jesus's deciples were actual eyewtinesses? I'm a believer that john wrote all 4 of the gospels, what evidence is their against that, the writing style in the gospels is very close to that of romans, acts ect..

Again have you read the main site as this address's these concerns http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... icity.html

Daniel

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:44 pm

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?

Furstentum Liechtenstein · Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:48 pm

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?

I belong to a faith that assures me that the Gospels were all written by Mae West while she was drunk and full of pills. Show me an article on the main site which refutes this.

FL

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:50 pm

I'm not defending the gospels am I?

I trust in solid facts, science is a solid fact, a book which the authorship and origins of it are unknown are not solid

Danieltwotwenty · Post by **Danieltwotwenty** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:55 pm

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?

I dont want to sound rude either but i do not have the time to write pages of material, if you are unwilling to do your own research then well why exactly are you here?
What is your definition of proof, do you hold evolution as an absolute or how about string theory?

Daniel

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:00 pm

evolution is a law as far as i'm concerned.

Evolution is fact, the intermeidates are there, the proof is there. Most people who think freely come to the same conclusion. Ignoring the overwhelming facts borders on ignorance.

Danieltwotwenty · Post by **Danieltwotwenty** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:10 pm

Im Fat wrote:evolution is a law as far as i'm concerned.

Evolution is fact, the intermeidates are there, the proof is there. Most people who think freely come to the same conclusion. Ignoring the overwhelming facts borders on ignorance.

I think freely and i neither support nor denounce evolution theory, as yet there is no definitive evidence supporting marco evolution.
What are the overwhelming facts you are speaking of because i have yet to see them?
If you think so "freely" and are not stuck in your own presuppositions why are you not examining the evidence of the authenticity of the Bible?

Daniel

Danieltwotwenty · Post by **Danieltwotwenty** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:12 pm

Are you genuinely seeking answers here or are you just here with an axe to grind because this is not the website for you if that is the case, please read forum guidlines.

Daniel

Im Fat · Post by **Im Fat** » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:16 pm

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?

Evidence for God from Science

Not eyewitness

Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness

Re: Not eyewitness