Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Christian Threats of Damnation

Recommended Posts

There is a lot of power over believers and profit.  Some of the church that established the bible never were short of, even to this day. In the past they could even bring down kings and queens by coordinating their loyalist fellows. Some king endured a whipping just to apologise to the Roman church. They were for a long time the biggest force in Europe and North Africa. Why would they make this up? Because the church profited from it.

I give one example. When they were building the Vatican they came across a skeleton.  Without further proof and evidence the Pope declared it was Peter and this added credibility to the church and loads of tourists. The skeleton could actually be anyone.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Pete said:

There is a lot of power over believers and profit.  Some of the church that established the bible never were short of, even to this day. In the past they could even bring down kings and queens by coordinating their loyalist fellows. Some king endured a whipping just to apologise to the Roman church. They were for a long time the biggest force in Europe and North Africa. Why would they make this up? Because the church profited from it.

I give one example. When they were building the Vatican they came across a skeleton.  Without further proof and evidence the Pope declared it was Peter and this added credibility to the church and loads of tourists. The skeleton could actually be anyone.

 

Just so.  Facts bounce off faith, like rain bounces off an umbrella.     :umbrella:

 

:whist:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/15/2019 at 3:35 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Written Record?  The Bible?  :birgits_giggle:

 

Long after my death -- when everybody who knew me is dead -- and everybody who knew them is dead -- belief in my existence will have no consequences.  Belief in my existence won't change anything for anybody.  Just like belief in Jesus.

 

 

The difference is belief... If someone found a birth certificate 500 years from now with your name on it, they might very well believe that you existed based on that simple written record that someone else wrote and witnessed. 

That's how Christians perceive the bible. The big difference is that Christ is not dead, and belief in his existence will change everything for everyone. And of course, non-belief has consequences, which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

 

On 11/15/2019 at 7:41 AM, Pete said:

There is a lot of power over believers and profit.  Some of the church that established the bible never were short of, even to this day. In the past they could even bring down kings and queens by coordinating their loyalist fellows. Some king endured a whipping just to apologise to the Roman church. They were for a long time the biggest force in Europe and North Africa. Why would they make this up? Because the church profited from it.

I give one example. When they were building the Vatican they came across a skeleton.  Without further proof and evidence the Pope declared it was Peter and this added credibility to the church and loads of tourists. The skeleton could actually be anyone.

 

Your conflating the acts of the RCC with the gospel. Catholicism violates much (most) of what Christ taught. The faith is not defined by religion or a religious organization. Did Christ whip, beat, or torture anyone? When what a Pope declares conflicts with the teachings and example of Christ, its not Christian, its false. 

 

20 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Just so.  Facts bounce off faith, like rain bounces off an umbrella.  

 

 

Facts don't disprove a faith, and without facts to disprove what I believe, they can't very well "bounce off" my faith.. Consider that when a prophecy is fulfilled to the letter, the facts support faith. 

 

I know how hard it is to believe anything these days, but belief gives life substance. Without faith, life is void of meaning. Life is nothing more than a temporary existence with no definitive answers, resolutions, or purpose. Faith is the substance of what's not yet seen, and its that hope through understanding that makes sense out of life. Perhaps if y'all spent as much time trying to understand rather than disprove the bible,  you wouldn't have such defiant attitudes? Belief begins by emptying yourself of what you think and humbly considering answers that you can't literally substantiate. You won't find physical evidence, and science doesn't have the answers,  so belief replaces "I don't know" with the faith that Christ was and is the Truth. Without that simple foundation, your debating in a vacuum and you'll never find any real rhyme or reason to life.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The difference is belief... If someone found a birth certificate 500 years from now with your name on it, they might very well believe that you existed based on that simple written record that someone else wrote and witnessed. 

That's how Christians perceive the bible. The big difference is that Christ is not dead, and belief in his existence will change everything for everyone. And of course, non-belief has consequences, which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

 

 

Your conflating the acts of the RCC with the gospel. Catholicism violates much (most) of what Christ taught. The faith is not defined by religion or a religious organization. Did Christ whip, beat, or torture anyone? When what a Pope declares conflicts with the teachings and example of Christ, its not Christian, its false. 

 

 

Facts don't disprove a faith, and without facts to disprove what I believe, they can't very well "bounce off" my faith.. Consider that when a prophecy is fulfilled to the letter, the facts support faith. 

 

I know how hard it is to believe anything these days, but belief gives life substance. Without faith, life is void of meaning. Life is nothing more than a temporary existence with no definitive answers, resolutions, or purpose. Faith is the substance of what's not yet seen, and its that hope through understanding that makes sense out of life. Perhaps if y'all spent as much time trying to understand rather than disprove the bible,  you wouldn't have such defiant attitudes? Belief begins by emptying yourself of what you think and humbly considering answers that you can't literally substantiate. You won't find physical evidence, and science doesn't have the answers,  so belief replaces "I don't know" with the faith that Christ was and is the Truth. Without that simple foundation, your debating in a vacuum and you'll never find any real rhyme or reason to life.

 

 

Tedious.  All right.  If you insist.     :boredom:

The difference is belief.

Belief changes nothing.  Wanting changes nothing.  Need changes nothing.

That's how Christians perceive the bible.

Perception changes nothing.

The big difference is that Christ is not dead, and belief in his existence will change everything for everyone.

Empty assertions.  Assertions made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And of course, non-belief has consequences, which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

 

Consequences?  Another threat.  This time from you.  How shameful.  Also, futile.     :sigh2:

 

Facts don't disprove a faith, and without facts to disprove what I believe, they can't very well "bounce off" my faith..

 

1.  I thought that you would recognize the Bible symbolism.  I was referencing the "Armor of God" which is protecting your mind from external reality.  Yes.  Facts do bounce off you.  By your intention.  By Scriptural Command.

2.  You don't care about facts.  3.  I am not concerned with changing your beliefs.

 

 . Without faith, life is void of meaning

It is your life, which lacks meaning without faith.  Don't project onto others.

Perhaps if y'all spent as much time trying to understand rather than disprove the bible,  you wouldn't have such defiant attitudes?

:blink:     Defiant Attitude?   :birgits_giggle:    Defiant Attitude?   :lol:     Defiant Attitude?   :rofl:   

I needed a good laugh.   :coffee:

so belief replaces "I don't know" with the faith

An honest, I don't know is worth a lot more than fantasy.  Faith is strong opinion.  Nothing more.

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

 

Your conflating the acts of the RCC with the gospel. Catholicism violates much (most) of what Christ taught. The faith is not defined by religion or a religious organization. Did Christ whip, beat, or torture anyone? When what a Pope declares conflicts with the teachings and example of Christ, its not Christian, its false. 

 

 

 

I am not conflating anything. All churches have evolved from the church in the Roman empire.  The RCC is the reminent of the Empires church. Much has grown from many differing opinions to that of which the church authorises. Even the nature of Jesus was a debate. Was Jesus God or the receptical of God, or was he still man and God spoke three him?  These were debated and then resolved often with violence.  Hence the belief that Jesus was God and Man evolved. Belief in Salvation has also developed.  Belief that you need to be in gods church on earth or belief in scripture and more later only belief in Jesus came to the fore or all of the above. I know the later was Paul's view but his view was not the only view in the early days.

You can say what you like about your view but it is just an evolutionary conglomerate of history and church synthesis.  The produce of many voices and debate and many times violence. 

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Pete said:

I am not conflating anything. All churches have evolved from the church in the Roman empire.  The RCC is the reminent of the Empires church. Much has grown from many differing opinions to that of which the church authorises. Even the nature of Jesus was a debate. Was Jesus God or the receptical of God, or was he still man and God spoke three him?  These were debated and then resolved often with violence.  Hence the belief that Jesus was God and Man evolved. Belief in Salvation has also developed.  Belief that you need to be in gods church on earth or belief in scripture and more later only belief in Jesus came to the fore or all of the above. I know the later was Paul's view but his view was not the only view in the early days.

You can say what you like about your view but it is just an evolutionary conglomerate of history and church synthesis.  The produce of many voices and debate and many times violence. 

 

 

Yes.     :clap:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/16/2019 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Belief changes nothing.

Perception changes nothing.

Empty assertions.  Assertions made without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Consequences?  Another threat.

Faith is strong opinion.  Nothing more.

 

 

I'd disagree, belief changes the believer.. It can alter your behavior, improve your character,  create a positive demeanor, attitude, and aptitude.

How and what a person perceives to be true also changes them. Life beyond what can be physically observed gives life a deeper meaning. Your entire disposition changes with hope.

You dismiss evidence that doesn't fit into your narrow view, which only consist of what you can see and touch. Considering everything beyond what you can physically observe to be false, is an empty assertion.

Consequences aren't a threat, you already believe life ends when you die, so how can confirmation of that be construed as threatening?

Faith is much more than an opinion, its the substance and action of an accepted truth.

 

On 11/17/2019 at 10:34 AM, Pete said:

I am not conflating anything. All churches have evolved from the church in the Roman empire.  The RCC is the reminent of the Empires church. Much has grown from many differing opinions to that of which the church authorises. Even the nature of Jesus was a debate. Was Jesus God or the receptical of God, or was he still man and God spoke three him?  These were debated and then resolved often with violence.  Hence the belief that Jesus was God and Man evolved. Belief in Salvation has also developed.  Belief that you need to be in gods church on earth or belief in scripture and more later only belief in Jesus came to the fore or all of the above. I know the later was Paul's view but his view was not the only view in the early days.

You can say what you like about your view but it is just an evolutionary conglomerate of history and church synthesis.  The produce of many voices and debate and many times violence. 

 

The first century church had nothing to do with the Roman empire, the apostles established churches (groups) which often met secretly to avoid Roman persecution. I'd argue that organized religion (Roman church) was a false off-shoot of what was becoming a popular and widely accepted movement (Christianity). It was this false papacy which was motivated by power and money that perpetuated violence to assert control and dominance. The apostles warned of false religion which would evolve and pollute the Truth.

 

Belief in the teachings and example of Christ have never changed, the path to salvation was established, it didn't develop or morph into anything other than what's described in the gospels. The RCC didn't invent or discover the books which comprise the New Testament, they simply took and accepted what was already widely circulated, accepted, and authenticated by the founding first century churches. I agree that the Roman church debated the divinity of Christ, but there was and never has been a biblical question about it. That's all I meant by conflating religion with Christ, who didn't organize or establish what became Catholicism, which contradicts most of what Christ taught.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'd disagree, belief changes the believer.. It can alter your behavior, improve your character,  create a positive demeanor, attitude, and aptitude.

How and what a person perceives to be true also changes them. Life beyond what can be physically observed gives life a deeper meaning. Your entire disposition changes with hope.

You dismiss evidence that doesn't fit into your narrow view, which only consist of what you can see and touch. Considering everything beyond what you can physically observe to be false, is an empty assertion.

Consequences aren't a threat, you already believe life ends when you die, so how can confirmation of that be construed as threatening?

Faith is much more than an opinion, its the substance and action of an accepted truth.

 

 

The first century church had nothing to do with the Roman empire, the apostles established churches (groups) which often met secretly to avoid Roman persecution. I'd argue that organized religion (Roman church) was a false off-shoot of what was becoming a popular and widely accepted movement (Christianity). It was this false papacy which was motivated by power and money that perpetuated violence to assert control and dominance. The apostles warned of false religion which would evolve and pollute the Truth.

 

Belief in the teachings and example of Christ have never changed, the path to salvation was established, it didn't develop or morph into anything other than what's described in the gospels. The RCC didn't invent or discover the books which comprise the New Testament, they simply took and accepted what was already widely circulated, accepted, and authenticated by the founding first century churches. I agree that the Roman church debated the divinity of Christ, but there was and never has been a biblical question about it. That's all I meant by conflating religion with Christ, who didn't organize or establish what became Catholicism, which contradicts most of what Christ taught.

Dan your missing in the first century that there was differing views. If not what was paul Railing against.  The gospel writers have no traceable connection with the disciples and the gospels were modified, edited, and rewritten many times over the years since being written. The names of the gospels were added later. No one knows who the authors of Mark and Matthew were. All you have is a theory they may have connection. Luke and John, are Paulian influenced 

There were followers who stay as judaism, others liked Paul and others still disagreed with Paul. Some saw Jesus as god, some as just a teacher, some as a man who was one of many so called prophets. 

No, it was the church of rome who put what was to be the official or not. They then killed opponents and exiled others to die and just left to rot in the dessert. Rome killed everyone who lived in Jerusalem in 75AD.  So there are no witnesses. It all comes down to your chosen belief and nothing more. Even among the founding fathers there was a frustration at the constant gospel changes and that the originals were lost. Destroyed by the scribes.

You have a belief and that is all

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'd disagree, belief changes the believer.. It can alter your behavior, improve your character,  create a positive demeanor, attitude, and aptitude.

How and what a person perceives to be true also changes them. Life beyond what can be physically observed gives life a deeper meaning. Your entire disposition changes with hope.

You dismiss evidence that doesn't fit into your narrow view, which only consist of what you can see and touch. Considering everything beyond what you can physically observe to be false, is an empty assertion.

Consequences aren't a threat, you already believe life ends when you die, so how can confirmation of that be construed as threatening?

Faith is much more than an opinion, its the substance and action of an accepted truth.

 

 

The first century church had nothing to do with the Roman empire, the apostles established churches (groups) which often met secretly to avoid Roman persecution. I'd argue that organized religion (Roman church) was a false off-shoot of what was becoming a popular and widely accepted movement (Christianity). It was this false papacy which was motivated by power and money that perpetuated violence to assert control and dominance. The apostles warned of false religion which would evolve and pollute the Truth.

 

Belief in the teachings and example of Christ have never changed, the path to salvation was established, it didn't develop or morph into anything other than what's described in the gospels. The RCC didn't invent or discover the books which comprise the New Testament, they simply took and accepted what was already widely circulated, accepted, and authenticated by the founding first century churches. I agree that the Roman church debated the divinity of Christ, but there was and never has been a biblical question about it. That's all I meant by conflating religion with Christ, who didn't organize or establish what became Catholicism, which contradicts most of what Christ taught.

 

1.  I'd disagree, belief changes the believer.. It can alter your behavior, improve your character,  create a positive demeanor, attitude, and aptitude.

 

This is an argument of utility.  We should believe -- not because it is true -- but because it is useful.

:boredom:

 

2.  so how can confirmation of that be construed as threatening?

If only your mind were capable of distinctions.  One more time.  The threat of damnation does not frighten me.  It does irritate me.  

:boredom:

 

:coffee:

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Pete said:

Dan your missing in the first century that there was differing views. If not what was paul Railing against.  The gospel writers have no traceable connection with the disciples and the gospels were modified, edited, and rewritten many times over the years since being written. The names of the gospels were added later. No one knows who the authors of Mark and Matthew were. All you have is a theory they may have connection. Luke and John, are Paulian influenced 

There were followers who stay as judaism, others liked Paul and others still disagreed with Paul. Some saw Jesus as god, some as just a teacher, some as a man who was one of many so called prophets. 

No, it was the church of rome who put what was to be the official or not. They then killed opponents and exiled others to die and just left to rot in the dessert. Rome killed everyone who lived in Jerusalem in 75AD.  So there are no witnesses. It all comes down to your chosen belief and nothing more. Even among the founding fathers there was a frustration at the constant gospel changes and that the originals were lost. Destroyed by the scribes.

You have a belief and that is all

 

 

Your repeating a lot of false and unconfirmed assumptions. The New Testament as it exists today was in circulation and recognized as inspired long before the Council of Nicea. All of the books that comprise the New Testament were written by AD 70 (Revelation 95 AD). Even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already in circulation among the early believers. Paul instructed the members in Colossae: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, & 1 Thessalonians 5:27.) Roman church councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. Nor is there any evidence that the gospels were ever modified or edited. The RCC simply recognized a canon that was already there. It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired. And none of the 27 NT books have differing views or contradict each other. The only temporary disagreement was when Peter disagreed with taking the gospel to Gentiles, but God himself revealed to him that He chose Paul for that specific purpose. You have a disbelief and that is all.

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

This is an argument of utility.  We should believe -- not because it is true -- but because it is useful.

If only your mind were capable of distinctions.  One more time.  The threat of damnation does not frighten me.  It does irritate me.  

 

 

No, one believes what they are convinced is true, the Truth then becomes useful.

Glad you don't take it as a threat.. For me, its not a threat either, its a promise.

 

You guys have chosen not to belief for various reasons, but for believers, it takes more faith to believe the things that you do than it does to belief the gospels. Just take the complexities and harmonization of creation for example. You believe by shear happenstance and unknown origin, that everything just miraculously came into existence and fell together by accident. That to me is like taking all the parts of a Swiss watch, shaking them up in a coffee can, and then magically pouring out an assembled watch. So its as confounding to me to understand how y'all  can be so gullible as to dismiss Intelligent Design in favor of embracing the unknown, unproven, and mysterious existence of all that exist. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Your repeating a lot of false and unconfirmed assumptions. The New Testament as it exists today was in circulation and recognized as inspired long before the Council of Nicea. All of the books that comprise the New Testament were written by AD 70 (Revelation 95 AD). Even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already in circulation among the early believers. Paul instructed the members in Colossae: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, & 1 Thessalonians 5:27.) Roman church councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. Nor is there any evidence that the gospels were ever modified or edited. The RCC simply recognized a canon that was already there. It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired. And none of the 27 NT books have differing views or contradict each other. The only temporary disagreement was when Peter disagreed with taking the gospel to Gentiles, but God himself revealed to him that He chose Paul for that specific purpose. You have a disbelief and that is all.

 

 

No, one believes what they are convinced is true, the Truth then becomes useful.

Glad you don't take it as a threat.. For me, its not a threat either, its a promise.

 

You guys have chosen not to belief for various reasons, but for believers, it takes more faith to believe the things that you do than it does to belief the gospels. Just take the complexities and harmonization of creation for example. You believe by shear happenstance and unknown origin, that everything just miraculously came into existence and fell together by accident. That to me is like taking all the parts of a Swiss watch, shaking them up in a coffee can, and then magically pouring out an assembled watch. So its as confounding to me to understand how y'all  can be so gullible as to dismiss Intelligent Design in favor of embracing the unknown, unproven, and mysterious existence of all that exist. 

 

 

 

 

You keep insisting that you know what I believe.  You insist in putting this into your own terms.  How tedious.  I'm bored.

 

:boredom:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

No scholar worth their salt believe the gospels were all written by 75 AD.

If we say that the crucifixion was around 30-33 AD. Then it took another 30 years for mark to be written.  60 years for Matthew and then Luke to be written. Around 80-90 years for John to be written and Acts is thought to be well into the second century.  There are later and a little earlier dates, but none think they were all written by 75 AD.:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Therefore some of Paul's writtings were ealier than some of the gospels. Mark's gospel may have been before 75 AD but that is thought to have originated in Rome and not Jerusalem.  I believe Dan your figures are another attempt for fundies to twist the history to confim what they want to believe. 

Now I am not denying that there were other churches with varying opinion but I am saying the Roman Empires church forced their view upon they and decided what was to be accepted or not. They then crushed what they deemed not acceptable to them. They set about stating what is to be believed or not. That was also backed up with violence. 

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post

It is often a piece of fundies logic to say the bible is true so all history and science must be bent around it. Luckily,  most historians and scientists are not convinced of this argument. 

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Your repeating a lot of false and unconfirmed assumptions. The New Testament as it exists today was in circulation and recognized as inspired long before the Council of Nicea. All of the books that comprise the New Testament were written by AD 70 (Revelation 95 AD). Even during Paul’s lifetime, his letters were already in circulation among the early believers. Paul instructed the members in Colossae: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Colossians 4:16, & 1 Thessalonians 5:27.) Roman church councils did not create, authorize, or determine the canon. Nor is there any evidence that the gospels were ever modified or edited. The RCC simply recognized a canon that was already there. It is important to understand that no church and no action of men are responsible for Holy Scripture. No council somehow made a book “inspired.” The various statements of the councils merely recognized what the body of believers had already established as inspired. And none of the 27 NT books have differing views or contradict each other. The only temporary disagreement was when Peter disagreed with taking the gospel to Gentiles, but God himself revealed to him that He chose Paul for that specific purpose. You have a disbelief and that is all.

 

 

No, one believes what they are convinced is true, the Truth then becomes useful.

Glad you don't take it as a threat.. For me, its not a threat either, its a promise.

 

You guys have chosen not to belief for various reasons, but for believers, it takes more faith to believe the things that you do than it does to belief the gospels. Just take the complexities and harmonization of creation for example. You believe by shear happenstance and unknown origin, that everything just miraculously came into existence and fell together by accident. That to me is like taking all the parts of a Swiss watch, shaking them up in a coffee can, and then magically pouring out an assembled watch. So its as confounding to me to understand how y'all  can be so gullible as to dismiss Intelligent Design in favor of embracing the unknown, unproven, and mysterious existence of all that exist. 

 

 

 

 

I have had a few days to contemplate your deep wisdom.     :rolleyes:

 

You have no evidence that the Gospels are true.  Still, you believe.  Why?  Because you have faith.  Somehow, your faith makes them true.  Because you believe.

 

Following that same logic -- 

 

Many Muslims believe that the Koran is true.  Because they have faith.  That makes Islam a true religion.  Because they believe.

 

Many Hindus believe that their Scriptures are true.  Because they have faith.  That makes the Hindu religion, a true religion.  Because they believe.

 

Many Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is true.  Because they have faith.  That makes the Mormon religion, a true religion.  Because they believe.

 

Do you ever wonder if the Muslim religion, the Hindu religion or the Mormon religion might be true?  I don't.  Then again, I don't regard the belief or faith of others to be proof of anything.

 

What's your excuse to be a non-believer?

 

:rolleyes:

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You keep insisting that you know what I believe.  You insist in putting this into your own terms.  How tedious.  I'm bored.

 

 

I'm aware that you believe in nothing spiritual (Agnostic), and you accept nothing that can't be proven.. But you've also reached conclusions that have not and can not be proven, so your a walking contradiction. That was my point, you reject intelligent design, but yet you embrace unproven theories like the big bang and evolution. I don't regard your faith in these type of unproven theories to be any more legitimate than what you consider my faith in an Intelligent Designer to be. Your no different than people of faith, you simply rationalize within yourself through limited human understanding of what could or might have been, and then place your faith in what you convinced yourself is true. My point being, when push comes to shove, believing that you evolved from swamp scum has no more evidentiary support than my belief in intelligent design. 

 

17 hours ago, Pete said:

No scholar worth their salt believe the gospels were all written by 75 AD.

If we say that the crucifixion was around 30-33 AD. Then it took another 30 years for mark to be written.  60 years for Matthew and then Luke to be written. Around 80-90 years for John to be written and Acts is thought to be well into the second century.  There are later and a little earlier dates, but none think they were all written by 75 AD.:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

Therefore some of Paul's writtings were ealier than some of the gospels. Mark's gospel may have been before 75 AD but that is thought to have originated in Rome and not Jerusalem.  I believe Dan your figures are another attempt for fundies to twist the history to confim what they want to believe. 

Now I am not denying that there were other churches with varying opinion but I am saying the Roman Empires church forced their view upon they and decided what was to be accepted or not. They then crushed what they deemed not acceptable to them. They set about stating what is to be believed or not. That was also backed up with violence. 

 

Scholar's can only speculate since the original writings no longer exist. No one can possibly know exact dates because there's no direct evidence to date the writings. Why would no NT letter mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD? It was a fulfilled prophecy that would have lent credibility to the gospels. You can google the question and get a variety of dates, so its not a matter of twisting history, but all speculative guessing. 

 

Its true that the Roman church dominated clear through the middle ages, but it was never the only song in town. Many believe that the prophesies in Daniel 11 and Revelation 13 foretold the dark ages where this pagan beast (papacy/catholicism) would persecute the true Church of believers. Jesus warned of many who would come in his name falsely proclaiming themselves, and Paul said it was occurring even at the time of his writings.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm aware that you believe in nothing spiritual (Agnostic), and you accept nothing that can't be proven.. But you've also reached conclusions that have not and can not be proven, so your a walking contradiction. That was my point, you reject intelligent design, but yet you embrace unproven theories like the big bang and evolution. I don't regard your faith in these type of unproven theories to be any more legitimate than what you consider my faith in an Intelligent Designer to be. Your no different than people of faith, you simply rationalize within yourself through limited human understanding of what could or might have been, and then place your faith in what you convinced yourself is true. My point being, when push comes to shove, believing that you evolved from swamp scum has no more evidentiary support than my belief in intelligent design. 

 

 

Scholar's can only speculate since the original writings no longer exist. No one can possibly know exact dates because there's no direct evidence to date the writings. Why would no NT letter mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD? It was a fulfilled prophecy that would have lent credibility to the gospels. You can google the question and get a variety of dates, so its not a matter of twisting history, but all speculative guessing. 

 

Its true that the Roman church dominated clear through the middle ages, but it was never the only song in town. Many believe that the prophesies in Daniel 11 and Revelation 13 foretold the dark ages where this pagan beast (papacy/catholicism) would persecute the true Church of believers. Jesus warned of many who would come in his name falsely proclaiming themselves, and Paul said it was occurring even at the time of his writings.

 

 

This is not a science board.  I'm not interested in arguing about Big Bang theory or Evolution theory.  Neither has a place here.  Both subjects, on a religion board, are nothing more than distractions.

 

For all that, your point is simple.  You regard science as competition for Genesis.

 

Guess what?  I don't need science to disprove Genesis.  You need to prove that Genesis is true.

 

Even if you could prove that a god created the Universe -- it would still not be proof of your God.

 

Even if you could prove that a god was responsible for Intelligent Design -- it would still not be proof of your God.

 

You are attempting a false binary.  This is not science versus God.  This is empty assertions about God -- and Genesis -- with nothing to back them up.  Belief and Faith are not evidence.  Scripture is not evidence.

 

You have ignored my post on that point. (In this thread.  Just a few inches back.)  If Faith and Belief and Scripture were proof -- then you would have to recognize the validity of Islam, the Hindu religion, Mormonism, Christian Science -- and many others.  All of which you have no difficulty in denying.  I have simply gone one step further.  It is your religion that I also don't accept.  For lack of objective, verifiable facts.  You simply go off on the subject of faith.  The followers of the other religions, also have faith.

 

Have a blessed day.

 

:coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm aware that you believe in nothing spiritual (Agnostic), and you accept nothing that can't be proven.. But you've also reached conclusions that have not and can not be proven, so your a walking contradiction. That was my point, you reject intelligent design, but yet you embrace unproven theories like the big bang and evolution. I don't regard your faith in these type of unproven theories to be any more legitimate than what you consider my faith in an Intelligent Designer to be. Your no different than people of faith, you simply rationalize within yourself through limited human understanding of what could or might have been, and then place your faith in what you convinced yourself is true. My point being, when push comes to shove, believing that you evolved from swamp scum has no more evidentiary support than my belief in intelligent design. 

 

 

Scholar's can only speculate since the original writings no longer exist. No one can possibly know exact dates because there's no direct evidence to date the writings. Why would no NT letter mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD? It was a fulfilled prophecy that would have lent credibility to the gospels. You can google the question and get a variety of dates, so its not a matter of twisting history, but all speculative guessing. 

 

Its true that the Roman church dominated clear through the middle ages, but it was never the only song in town. Many believe that the prophesies in Daniel 11 and Revelation 13 foretold the dark ages where this pagan beast (papacy/catholicism) would persecute the true Church of believers. Jesus warned of many who would come in his name falsely proclaiming themselves, and Paul said it was occurring even at the time of his writings.

The bible is no conclusive evidence at all. It gathers from afar. The dating is from the areas they first appeared and the style and location of the scribes. Most comes from what is modern day Turkey and Rome. There is no evidence that anyone in the NT ever met Jesus and books like Peter's 1&2 are thought of as later frauds. James is possibly a connection and his view differs from that of Paul. I don't expect it to mention 75AD because it's not about the persecution ofJudaism and is about the legend of Jesus. Sorry Dan I don't accept your view or analysis or you turning a no religion section of the forum into you pulpit. It was arguing you witch finally convinced me Christianity had no foundation beyond myth and bible worship.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

This is not a science board.  I'm not interested in arguing about Big Bang theory or Evolution theory.  Neither has a place here.  Both subjects, on a religion board, are nothing more than distractions.

 

For all that, your point is simple.  You regard science as competition for Genesis.

 

Guess what?  I don't need science to disprove Genesis.  You need to prove that Genesis is true.

 

Even if you could prove that a god created the Universe -- it would still not be proof of your God.

 

Even if you could prove that a god was responsible for Intelligent Design -- it would still not be proof of your God.

 

You are attempting a false binary.  This is not science versus God.  This is empty assertions about God -- and Genesis -- with nothing to back them up.  Belief and Faith are not evidence.  Scripture is not evidence.

 

You have ignored my post on that point. (In this thread.  Just a few inches back.)  If Faith and Belief and Scripture were proof -- then you would have to recognize the validity of Islam, the Hindu religion, Mormonism, Christian Science -- and many others.  All of which you have no difficulty in denying.  I have simply gone one step further.  It is your religion that I also don't accept.  For lack of objective, verifiable facts.  You simply go off on the subject of faith.  The followers of the other religions, also have faith.

 

Have a blessed day.

 

 

My point was that science proves nothing, whereby your faith is in nothing. Yes, Genesis is accepted by faith, and so is scientific hypothesis & theories. You simply can't prove a supernatural spiritual Being with physical observable evidence. In regards to other religions, I don't find them believable. Christianity is better documented & witnessed, it has prophetic evidence, accurate history, and a consistent message that makes the most sense to me. It also has Christ who is proclaimed to be the living manifestation of God on Earth and who physically rose from the grave. Bottom line is that no one knows anything for certain, so everyone has faith in something, even if its faith in what they've reasoned within themselves and become convinced that what they think is right. 'There is a God' and 'there is no God' are both conclusions reached in the complete absence of objective evidence.

 

2 hours ago, Pete said:

The bible is no conclusive evidence at all. It gathers from afar. The dating is from the areas they first appeared and the style and location of the scribes. Most comes from what is modern day Turkey and Rome. There is no evidence that anyone in the NT ever met Jesus and books like Peter's 1&2 are thought of as later frauds. James is possibly a connection and his view differs from that of Paul. I don't expect it to mention 75AD because it's not about the persecution ofJudaism and is about the legend of Jesus. Sorry Dan I don't accept your view or analysis or you turning a no religion section of the forum into you pulpit. It was arguing you witch finally convinced me Christianity had no foundation beyond myth and bible worship.

 

The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves. The records and dates of the area's where the gospels were first noticed is no indication of when they were written or where they first originated. Claims that certain books are fraudulent is unproven wild speculation. This is not a "no religion" thread, Christianity is in the topic and its considered a religion. And I don't consider this a pulpit, I'm just commenting on wherever the conversation leads, and I believe it was you that brought up the dating of the gospels and all. I don't believe any real Christian can be swayed from the faith by opinions they find argumentative. Christianity has a firm foundation, anyone who rejects it does so on their own judgement of biblical merits. Bottom line is that we are called by faith, not proof, God so ordained it to be that way for a very good reason. 

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

My point was that science proves nothing, whereby your faith is in nothing. Yes, Genesis is accepted by faith, and so is scientific hypothesis & theories. You simply can't prove a supernatural spiritual Being with physical observable evidence. In regards to other religions, I don't find them believable. Christianity is better documented & witnessed, it has prophetic evidence, accurate history, and a consistent message that makes the most sense to me. It also has Christ who is proclaimed to be the living manifestation of God on Earth and who physically rose from the grave. Bottom line is that no one knows anything for certain, so everyone has faith in something, even if its faith in what they've reasoned within themselves and become convinced that what they think is right. 'There is a God' and 'there is no God' are both conclusions reached in the complete absence of objective evidence.

 

 

The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves. The records and dates of the area's where the gospels were first noticed is no indication of when they were written or where they first originated. Claims that certain books are fraudulent is unproven wild speculation. This is not a "no religion" thread, Christianity is in the topic and its considered a religion. And I don't consider this a pulpit, I'm just commenting on wherever the conversation leads, and I believe it was you that brought up the dating of the gospels and all. I don't believe any real Christian can be swayed from the faith by opinions they find argumentative. Christianity has a firm foundation, anyone who rejects it does so on their own judgement of biblical merits. Bottom line is that we are called by faith, not proof, God so ordained it to be that way for a very good reason. 

 

 

With that one simple statement, you dismiss all other religions.  No complications.  No explanations.  You don't find them believable.  

 

That is how I find your religion.  Not believable.  The rest is mere detail.

 

Have a blessed day.

 

:coffee:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

My point was that science proves nothing, whereby your faith is in nothing. Yes, Genesis is accepted by faith, and so is scientific hypothesis & theories. You simply can't prove a supernatural spiritual Being with physical observable evidence. In regards to other religions, I don't find them believable. Christianity is better documented & witnessed, it has prophetic evidence, accurate history, and a consistent message that makes the most sense to me. It also has Christ who is proclaimed to be the living manifestation of God on Earth and who physically rose from the grave. Bottom line is that no one knows anything for certain, so everyone has faith in something, even if its faith in what they've reasoned within themselves and become convinced that what they think is right. 'There is a God' and 'there is no God' are both conclusions reached in the complete absence of objective evidence.

 

 

The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves. The records and dates of the area's where the gospels were first noticed is no indication of when they were written or where they first originated. Claims that certain books are fraudulent is unproven wild speculation. This is not a "no religion" thread, Christianity is in the topic and its considered a religion. And I don't consider this a pulpit, I'm just commenting on wherever the conversation leads, and I believe it was you that brought up the dating of the gospels and all. I don't believe any real Christian can be swayed from the faith by opinions they find argumentative. Christianity has a firm foundation, anyone who rejects it does so on their own judgement of biblical merits. Bottom line is that we are called by faith, not proof, God so ordained it to be that way for a very good reason. 

 

 

 

Yes.  I expect that is true.     :coffee:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this