• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has virtually unequivocal evidence[W:577]

Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Think of what we have now as the Bible as the books that were peer reviewed

Oh indubitably, for very obvious reasons. If you've ever read any of the similar writings at the time that were rejected for canonisation, many laughs.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Of course all that assumes they never previously reduced to writing (in their own records) that which transpired, or they all developed amnesia, or whatever.

They also had a helper - the Holy Spirit.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26

And now would be the time for skeptics to trot out their anti-supernatural bias!

They very well could have done those things. But is there evidence that those writings not only existed, but the authors of the gospels individually had access to them. That also opens the can of worms of -- well if they did this, why the hell don't the gospels match?

Evidence for this 'holy spirit?' Call it whatever you'd like, it does not change the fact that claims have been asserted and, so far, have lived up to neither the scientific nor the historical burden of proof. I get the Bible may be 'fact' enough for you -- that does not make it so for anyone else. That's why it's called faith.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Of course all that assumes they never previously reduced to writing (in their own records) that which transpired, or they all developed amnesia, or whatever.

They also had a helper - the Holy Spirit.

"But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." - John 14:26

And now would be the time for skeptics to trot out their anti-supernatural bias!

Isn't that a bit circular? We know that the Bible is true because the bible says that it was supernaturally inspired. And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. . And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. etc...
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

They very well could have done those things. But is there evidence that those writings not only existed, but the authors of the gospels individually had access to them.

There's no archaeological or early manuscript evidence for that. But it's called the 'Q' theory, which had some initial support by liberal theologians, but which has now been largely refuted.

That also opens the can of worms of -- well if they did this, why the hell don't the gospels match?

If they did all match exactly the argument would be they all copied from one or more sources. But there is a certain 'Harmony' of the Gospels. Here's a link on the Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Evidence for this 'holy spirit?' Call it whatever you'd like, it does not change the fact that claims have been asserted and, so far, have lived up to neither the scientific nor the historical burden of proof. I get the Bible may be 'fact' enough for you -- that does not make it so for anyone else. That's why it's called faith.

Nope. When you get Jesus you'll probably get a good dose of the Holy Spirit too. He's very real indeed.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Isn't that a bit circular? We know that the Bible is true because the bible says that it was supernaturally inspired. And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. . And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. etc...

That's what novices who have little in-depth knowledge of the Bible often claim. But believe it if you want.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

That's what novices who have little in-depth knowledge of the Bible often claim. But believe it if you want.
Ouch.. "Novice".. Switching from to circulus in probando to ad hominem.

Must be one of those mysteries of the faith which can't possibly be explained, only believed.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Ouch.. "Novice".. Switching from to circulus in probando to ad hominem.

Must be one of those mysteries of the faith which can't possibly be explained, only believed.

It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.

For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?

f851c2befc8900ce226b356bc088b8c2.jpg

The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
 
Last edited:
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

There's no archaeological or early manuscript evidence for that. But it's called the 'Q' theory, which had some initial support by liberal theologians, but which has now been largely refuted.

If they did all match exactly the argument would be they all copied from one or more sources. But there is a certain 'Harmony' of the Gospels. Here's a link on the Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

Nope. When you get Jesus you'll probably get a good dose of the Holy Spirit too. He's very real indeed.

No 'Q' Theory is a theory of investment. You're thinking of Q source. And no, it has not been 'largely refuted,' there is both a case for and against it, as many historical debates.

And if they matched, that would lend to the idea that maybe the stories were true. And no, there's not harmony, there is some broad overlap. For instance, the Virgin Birth mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels. Well that's a pretty damn big deal when you're talking about someone supposedly divine. And how about the other inconsistencies not only in the gospels but between other books in the Bible?

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Was Jesus real? Probably. I wouldn't doubt there was a man named Jesus in the area at this time. I don't doubt there's a guy named Robert in San Francisco right now, either. (Although, he probably pronounces it like Roe-bear :lol:) He could've been crucified by Pilate, etc. but (paraphrasing from the late Christopher Hitchens), 'I could grant you that, and you'd still have all of your work ahead of you.' Why? Because it doesn't matter if he existed. What matters is was he divine.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.

For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?

The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
You're much more familiar with the subject than me and though was once a cynic am less so now. Like many others I've seen evidence that there is more to this life than yes or no and, as usual, Shakespeare gave mention to this conundrum many of us face.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Oh indubitably, for very obvious reasons. If you've ever read any of the similar writings at the time that were rejected for canonisation, many laughs.
Thus the peer review
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

No 'Q' Theory is a theory of investment. You're thinking of Q source. And no, it has not been 'largely refuted,' there is both a case for and against it, as many historical debates.

Some call it Q Source and some call it what it really is - the Q Theory, and one for which there is zero historical, archaeological, or traditional evidence for.

And if they matched, that would lend to the idea that maybe the stories were true. And no, there's not harmony, there is some broad overlap. For instance, the Virgin Birth mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels. Well that's a pretty damn big deal when you're talking about someone supposedly divine.

That's a bad example against there being harmony for the simple reason that the other two Gospels (Mark and John) begin their Gospels when Jesus is fully grown.

And how about the other inconsistencies not only in the gospels but between other books in the Bible?

Listen, you get four eyewitnesses in a court of law and think they'll all agree 100%? I don't think so.

But they all confirm the resurrection. So when they do all agree on something you still won't believe it, right?

You're taking the view that if they don't agree 100% then that's inconsistencies or contradictions. It's neither. Instead they're complementary.

What matters is was he divine.

Anyone who declares in advance that he is going to be killed, and then three days later raises HIMSELF from the dead like he prophesied, and pulls it off, gets my vote.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Some call it Q Source and some call it what it really is - the Q Theory, and one for which there is zero historical, archaeological, or traditional evidence for.

That's a bad example against there being harmony for the simple reason that the other two Gospels (Mark and John) begin their Gospels when Jesus is fully grown.

Listen, you get four eyewitnesses in a court of law and think they'll all agree 100%? I don't think so.

But they all confirm the resurrection. So when they do all agree on something you still won't believe it, right?

You're taking the view that if they don't agree 100% then that's inconsistencies or contradictions. It's neither. Instead they're complementary.

Anyone who declares in advance that he is going to be killed, and then three days later raise HIMSELF from the dead like he prophesied, and pulls it off, gets my vote.

I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.

So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)

I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."​

See. We're no better off than when we started. And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much. Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?

... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.

So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)

In Christianity there's always the leading of the Holy Spirit about what to write. Whether or not they followed the Holy Spirit on that only they and God knows.

[I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."​

What - you're going to get the truth from an atheist?

A careful study of the independently recorded events gives rise to a logical conclusion. And you can read about that in this link. There's 12 basic, historical facts that over 1,400 scholars (skeptic and non-skeptic) agree on.

12 Historical Facts - Gary Habermas

Also, the fact is there's a number of non-biblical sources that wrote about Jesus, and they confirm a lot of interesting details. Many of these are covered in scholar Gary Habermas' book, "The Historical Jesus." Recommend you read it. Available on Amazon.

These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much.

The vast majority of history is hearsay, goldsmith. Are you prepared to be consistent and rip out major sections of collegiate history books?

Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?

You didn't read the Harmony of the Resurrection link I provided earlier, did you? And don't miss the forest for the trees. They ALL confirm the resurrection!
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

They were written by various people over that time frame... never knew you were so dishonest.

Not at all - I was making fun of you switching from "Centuries" to "Decades", those two things being rather radically different.

The Pauline Epistles were written roughly 15-30 years after the death of Christ, with the Gospels starting in that time, and ending a bit after them, all being completed prior to the turn of the century. The 150 AD date is as far as you could possibly push some of the material (the editorial language in the end of Mark, for example), but with regards to the body of texts, it's not all that plausible. Even the earliest of Paul's letters contain references to earlier items held in common, such as hymns.

No later than 150 AD... seems like that fits perfectly.

:shrug: Sure. You could also say "no later than 1865, and it would be no less accurate.

I won't deal with another poster tha I used to respect that starts lying... at least not tonight.

:roll: Whatever man, it's clear you wandered outside your scope of knowledge.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.

That is correct. Both Mark and Matthew were written before Luke/Acts, and the earliest Epistles also discuss Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence.

That's interesting. You want something that would almost certainly have to be faked: the transportation of modern scientific methodologies and capabilities two millenia backwards in time.

By that standard, the vast majority of history must be chucked.

Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."​

This is a common misconception. We do not believe in God because the Bible told us to. We believe in the Bible because God told us to.

And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much

Naturally. You write the accounts down as the generation who can attest to it directly dies so that their accounts can be preserved. Prior to that, we have the Epistles, the expository material of that early generation. Which is precisely what you would expect.

Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?

Both John and Mark state that it was Mary. Matthew and Luke do not say, but simply record other interactions. Which is precisely what you would expect.

... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.

:lol: yes. Jesus was whipped, flogged, starved, dehydrated, crucified, and then stabbed through the lungs.... and then upon being placed in a sealed cave with zero medical attention or water, revived, survived three days (again, massive blood loss, massive trauma, hands and feet split, no food, no water), tossed a giant stone designed to require multiple men to move out of the way, ninja-fought off a company of Roman soldiers, and escaped. :D

:lol: Thanks. - It's been a long day, and that was a good chuckle. :)
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

To all the cynics and skeptics let me say that I was once just like you.

Doing my best to define Jesus and the Bible down into a collective work of fiction and hearsay.

But eventually I did accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.

There is something substantial that you receive and it grows over time. Ive never met the physical Jesus but the more I know him the more of this " gift " ( my words ) I receive

Hard to explain it ...peace ? Definitely Love, Joy. But like I said its real, substantial and I can remember how I felt before. It reminds me of the love I feel for my Children.

Deep, personal and unconditional and its free.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

I mean, the gospel according to Luke starts off by saying he's aware of other accounts of the of Jesus. So using what you consider evidence, there's evidence of Luke being aware of other accounts.

So they begin when he's grown? Didn't think to mention it? 'Oh, by the way, this fella was somehow conceived without even a turkey baster.' I mean, something. If you're writing a story about a divine character, that's something to add in. (See: other religious icons and their stories)

I'm all for accepting it but I want to see the scientific evidence. Using a claim (i.e. the Bible) as support for another claim (i.e. the Resurrection) is circular logic. Watch.

"Logic, how do you know the Resurrection happened?"
"Well, it says it in the Bible."
"Well, how do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because it is the word of god."
"But how do you know it's the word of god?"
"It says it in the Bible."​

See. We're no better off than when we started. And yes, I take that view. Why? If you're writing something down, perhaps the greatest story ever told, something so pivotal, it's probably best to get it right and make sure it happened as it did. But no, instead we get some stuff that overlaps (coincidentally with other supernatural religious icons, too, but that's another ball of wax). These aren't eyewitness accounts. This is hearsay YEARS after it happened, even you admitted it as much. Acts, Corinthians, the Gospels, etc. all give different stories of what happened. Who did Jesus first appear to when he got over his three-day binger?

... of course he you. That's called confirmation bias. People are resuscitated all the time. I can tell you, they are not divine.

Even the three days is a stretch, Friday evening till Sunday morning is barely 36 hours.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Isn't that a bit circular? We know that the Bible is true because the bible says that it was supernaturally inspired. And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. . And we know that's true because the Bible says it's true and the Bible was supernaturally inspired. etc...
Yes, I've posted this previously to the Consternation of several of the usual suspects.

Circular Reasoning

CIRCULAR REASONING
circulus in demonstrando
......
Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.
This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.
......
Example #2:

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.
This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.​
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

It wasn't an ad hominem but an observation that most skeptics I've encountered really haven't spent a lot of time in in-depth study of the scriptures. Quite a few of them have never read the Bible, much less studied it in depth.

For instance, how many books on "Christ in the Old Testament" have you read? Have you read the basics, like this one?

View attachment 67182985

The more you study that Bible the more you will see how beautifully interconnected it is.
Nice backpedal.

You're right, I certainly qualify as a "novice" or an "amateur" as I don't make money off of religious studies.

And it's funny, you say that the more you study the Bible and yet.. studying the Bible seems to consist of reading commentaries other people wrote on the Bible. Why not just read the actual Bible? Most of those commentaries, including the Evidence that Demands a verdict series are unfortunately pseudo-intellectual fluff pieces. They spend a lot of time attacking weak strawmen arguments and are chalked full of factual inaccuracies. eg.. the New Testament wasn't written by eyewitnesses, isn’t' unique among ancient manuscripts, and is no more self consistent through the centuries than any other document... (arguably less so).

How could you ignore the Council of Nicea and it's relationship to Constantine and the politics of Rome? What about the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts? What about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? The differences between the Apostles' Creed and the Nicean Creed? What of the Gnostic movement? What about the numerous contradictions throughout the Bible? The actual hard questions are far too numerous to tick off here.

A better question would be for you. What constitutes "studying" the Bible? Have you read the Richard Lattimore verision? (He's widely regarded as a preeminent translator of ancient Greek works and produced the go to versions of the Illiad, the Odyssey, etc..
Englishing the Iliad: Grading Four Rival Translations - The New Yorker

The net result is a much more true to life feel. Much of the "interconnectedness" you're talking about is that most Bible versions translate everything to sound the same. Lattimore's doesn't. Mark is choppy and unsophisticated. Luke is flowing and elegant. The letters are actually letters.

But.. I'm a novice, and you're an "expert".
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Nice backpedal.

You're right, I certainly qualify as a "novice" or an "amateur" as I don't make money off of religious studies.

Neither do I.

And it's funny, you say that the more you study the Bible and yet.. studying the Bible seems to consist of reading commentaries other people wrote on the Bible. Why not just read the actual Bible? Most of those commentaries, including the Evidence that Demands a verdict series are unfortunately pseudo-intellectual fluff pieces. They spend a lot of time attacking weak strawmen arguments and are chalked full of factual inaccuracies. eg.. the New Testament wasn't written by eyewitnesses, isn’t' unique among ancient manuscripts, and is no more self consistent through the centuries than any other document... (arguably less so).

How would you know? You've a novice, remember?

How could you ignore the Council of Nicea and it's relationship to Constantine and the politics of Rome? What about the Septuagint vs the Masoretic texts? What about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? The differences between the Apostles' Creed and the Nicean Creed? What of the Gnostic movement? What about the numerous contradictions throughout the Bible? The actual hard questions are far too numerous to tick off here.

Not ignoring anything, but what about it? Do you have a particular argument that demonstrates (for instance) that the Gospels are wrong? If you do, let's see it.

The net result is a much more true to life feel. Much of the "interconnectedness" you're talking about is that most Bible versions translate everything to sound the same. Lattimore's doesn't. Mark is choppy and unsophisticated. Luke is flowing and elegant. The letters are actually letters.

But.. I'm a novice, and you're an "expert".

You are a novice, but I never claimed to be an expert. Just a lot further down the road than you are.

Now how about you show me where the Gospels are wrong, or fabrications. Pick your best one (1) or two (two) examples and document them. Include scripture numbers. Just one or two. Your very best ones.
 
Last edited:
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Wow! Stunning....If this is reviewed, and verified, what, and how do you see this effecting Christianity? Especially considering the open attack it is under today?

Attack on Christianity???? All I see is that people are resisting the attempt of Christians to legislate their religious "morality" on the rest of us as is done in theocracies like Iran and by ISIS. Worship as you like, just leave me out of it. And don't go trying to preach religious beliefs on my kids under the guise of science. Creationism is not science. The world is not 7,000 years old. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Christians are the aggressors here pretending to be victims.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Attack on Christianity???? All I see is that people are resisting the attempt of Christians to legislate their religious "morality" on the rest of us as is done in theocracies like Iran and by ISIS. Worship as you like, just leave me out of it. And don't go trying to preach religious beliefs on my kids under the guise of science. Creationism is not science. The world is not 7,000 years old. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Christians are the aggressors here pretending to be victims.

so you are ok with people using atheist values to decide how to vote. but if someone uses christian beliefs to decide how to vote you will throw a fit, rant and rave, and basically lose it.

well, at least your honest
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Ah, I see. It's not because they are Christian but because they actually live by their beliefs then. You've got Google, you can look it up if you like, but you won't. Personally I have never seen gay people discriminated against, so I guess it never happens. Interesting enough we do not see other religions attacked in the same way. Islam says to kill homosexuals, and yet we don't hear anything from the gay community about that. It also treats women as property, and yet the feminists don't seem to know it, or at least they don't say anything about it. There is most certainly discrimination toward Christians, I suspect the reason Muslims and Christians are treated differently by these groups is that if you attack Muslims they just might kill you. Our President pointed out that Christians were barbaric during the Crusades, perhaps we should go back to that.

The Bible says adulterers and gays are to be put to death. It also treats women as property, even says women are not to speak in church.

There is *nowhere* in the Bible forbidding a business owner to serve a homosexual.
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Proof that he was human and not Divine? Like many thought back then too...

Did you think they nailed a spirit to the cross or something? Who believes that?
 
Re: The lost tomb of Jesus? Scientist claims he has 'virtually unequivocal evidence'

Attack on Christianity???? All I see is that people are resisting the attempt of Christians to legislate their religious "morality" on the rest of us as is done in theocracies like Iran and by ISIS. Worship as you like, just leave me out of it. And don't go trying to preach religious beliefs on my kids under the guise of science. Creationism is not science. The world is not 7,000 years old. The Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Christians are the aggressors here pretending to be victims.

Christians are being slaughtered in genocide around the world....That's a fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom