• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Richard Dawkins an Associate of The National Academy of Sciences?

Logicman said:
That's absolute nonsense. All four Gospels and various epistles, including a number of eyewitnesses, confirm the resurrection. There's nothing different about that. The resurrection happened. You're probably referring to ancillary events of secondary importance.

What's more, you've never been able to refute any of that. If you think you can, hop out here with your best ONE (1 - JUST ONE) example, and cite the appropriate scripture(s) and make your argument. I'm calling you out to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

The "gospels" weren't written by actual witnesses. That's problem number one. There are many supernatural events described in those books, which don't even match each other. That's number two. What language did the supposed actual witnesses use and what language are the oldest complete copies of those books in?

You grabbing at "the tomb was empty in all accounts and that's all that matters" is absurd. Lane Craig is nuts there - no historian would look at a bunch of accounts of supposed supernatural events and claim that, since one of those allusions to an event (tomb was empty, therefore Jesus was resurrected) is nuts. It's nuts because of the supernatural aspect of the claim. Real historians don't dabble in the supernatural. They deal with reality. "Raised saints" need not apply.

Prove any of that happened. Explain why there are 4 different stories, and the last one written was fantastically different.

You can't.

I don't need to use your unproven book to disprove your unproven book. What an absurd demand.
 
devildavid said:
So then, how exactly did the bible come to be written and compiled? Who did it and what was their purpose in doing so?
Click to expand...

To validate their religious beliefs.

For the KJV, King James likely had other ulterior motives.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
The "gospels" weren't written by actual witnesses. That's problem number one.
Click to expand...

Nuts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark relayed Peter's accounts. And Luke wrote, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you.."

<alt>doxygen said:
There are many supernatural events described in those books, which don't even match each other. That's number two.
Click to expand...

Where's your scriptural support for that?

<alt>doxygen said:
You grabbing at "the tomb was empty in all accounts and that's all that matters" is absurd. Lane Craig is nuts there - no historian would look at a bunch of accounts of supposed supernatural events and claim that, since one of those allusions to an event (tomb was empty, therefore Jesus was resurrected) is nuts. It's nuts because of the supernatural aspect of the claim. Real historians don't dabble in the supernatural. They deal with reality. "Raised saints" need not apply.

Prove any of that happened. Explain why there are 4 different stories, and the last one written was fantastically different.

You can't.

I don't need to use your unproven book to disprove your unproven book. What an absurd demand.
Click to expand...

I have the independent historical accounts from the Gospels / New Testament. You've got nothing. You make all sorts of claims and can't support them from the scriptures or from anything else.

I asked you to refute the Gospel accounts and you can't.
 
Logicman said:
Nuts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark relayed Peter's accounts. And Luke wrote, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you.."



Where's your scriptural support for that?



I have the independent historical accounts from the Gospels / New Testament. You've got nothing. You make all sorts of claims and can't support them from the scriptures or from anything else.

I asked you to refute the Gospel accounts and you can't.
Click to expand...

"There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by Christian scholars. Dr. Dodwell says: “We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of the New Testament, nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists named” (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him [Justin] — do not occur once in all his writings” (Christian Records, p. 71).

Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE."

https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/

https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wo...the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
 
Logicman said:
Nuts. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark relayed Peter's accounts. And Luke wrote, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you.."



Where's your scriptural support for that?



I have the independent historical accounts from the Gospels / New Testament. You've got nothing. You make all sorts of claims and can't support them from the scriptures or from anything else.

I asked you to refute the Gospel accounts and you can't.
Click to expand...

You can start here, although I'm sure you'll say that none of this matters.
Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection - ReligionFacts

Also, from post 357:
Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously. These names first appeared in the second century and were assigned to the anonymous writings to give the writings apostolic authority. The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
Click to expand...
 
<alt>doxygen said:
You can start here, although I'm sure you'll say that none of this matters.
Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection - ReligionFacts
Click to expand...

The Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts -

Greenleaf?s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

<alt>doxygen said:
Also, from post 357: Even though the Gospels go under the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were, in fact, written anonymously.
Click to expand...

That claim is demolished. They didn't do their homework.

Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship


<alt>doxygen said:
The Gospel of Mark was written before any of the other canonical gospels and was written after the fall of the second temple which occurred in 70 CE.
Click to expand...

The overall consensus of scholars is that Mark was written before 70 AD. A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books
 
Logicman said:
The truth is often lost on those it's intended for. But here's something for the Dawkins disciples:

View attachment 67225094
Click to expand...

Right back at yah...

the-satanic-bible1.jpg
 
zyzygy said:
You have posted that book cover many times and many times we have posted a thorough debunking of the tome.
Click to expand...

I will also note that despite the many times he has posted that picture, not once has he discussed the contents of the book itself. It's like he looked at the cover, and didn't bother to read the inside.
 
RAMOSS said:
I will also note that despite the many times he has posted that picture, not once has he discussed the contents of the book itself. It's like he looked at the cover, and didn't bother to read the inside.
Click to expand...

Being called a Dawkins disciple when I have never read a word of Dawkins is very amusing. The advantage of being an atheist is that when it comes to religion one can think for one's self. Atheism is not a religion with a Messiah.
 
RAMOSS said:
I will also note that despite the many times he has posted that picture, not once has he discussed the contents of the book itself. It's like he looked at the cover, and didn't bother to read the inside.
Click to expand...

There you go again, fulminating about things you know nothing about.
 
Logicman said:
There you go again, fulminating about things you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

Yet, for all your one liners, you have yet to show that you actually read and understood his arguments, nor could actually defend any of his arguments in your own words.
The mainly reason is that those arguments are full of logical fallacies, poor reasoning, fit to pat the believer on the back, but nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom