United Nations to ban religion?

[Sonofason]

There is no evidence they did. There is zero evidence any of it even happened. We don't have a written account of who any of these nameless people were. Its like I asked you to prove that the beaver citizens of Narnia thought the human children were bad rulers.

Back in 2014 I believe, "An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother."
Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Do you even look for further evidence, or do you just look for it with your eyes closed?

 

[Sonofason]

You assure me? You where there?

The illiad and oddesy are not historical documents. We don't care what they said. But when you tell me you have the undeniable fricking word of god you damn well better be able to deliver!

And there are minor but no major contradictions in the cannonized bible? Do you know why? Because it was designed that way by the people who put the bible together 200 years after Jesus. They took the hundreds of different religious passages and narrowed it down to their own version.

I damn well don't have to do a damn thing for you. And you damn well better listen to every damn think I have to say. And I damn well don't give a damn what you care about.

 

[Sonofason]

There is no evidence they did. There is zero evidence any of it even happened. We don't have a written account of who any of these nameless people were. Its like I asked you to prove that the beaver citizens of Narnia thought the human children were bad rulers.

What?

 

[columbus]

Back in 2014 I believe, "An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother."
Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Do you even look for further evidence, or do you just look for it with your eyes closed?

Do you believe everything that comes out of the Vatican?
You know that The Shroud of Turin was dated to less than 1000 years ago, right? People make up stuff all the time.
Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Do you believe everything that comes out of the Vatican?
You know that The Shroud of Turin was dated to less than 1000 years ago, right? People make up stuff all the time.
Tom

I don't believe everything I read. I may have been too hasty posting the finding. It appears it could be fake news. My apologies. I'll keep looking further into it.

 

[columbus]

I don't believe everything I read. I may have been too hasty posting the finding. It appears it could be fake news. My apologies. I'll keep looking further into it.

The thing is, it probably isn't fake news. The facts are probably true. Such a story being found in the Vatican archives is entirely plausible.
It's the inferences from finding something like that which are implausible. "Jesus is God" because of some marks on an old piece of parchment is the improbable part.
Tom

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Back in 2014 I believe, "An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian Marcus Velleius Paterculus that was recently discovered in the archives of the Vatican, found what is presumed to be the first eyewitness account ever recorded of a miracle of Jesus Christ. The author describes a scene that he allegedly witnessed, in which a prophet and teacher that he names Iēsous de Nazarenus, resuscitated a stillborn boy and handed him back to his mother."
Newly-Found Document Holds Eyewitness Account of Jesus Performing Miracle

Do you even look for further evidence, or do you just look for it with your eyes closed?

Okay Daily news is a fake news site that has a disclaimer that states that it isn't accountable for anything they post as being fake. This was back in 2014 and is fake. I see that you have already found this out later in the thread so I will leave this as it is.

So do you even check your evidences before posting them? Or did you just do a quick google search and threw it here?

I damn well don't have to do a damn thing for you. And you damn well better listen to every damn think I have to say. And I damn well don't give a damn what you care about.

If you want to be taken seriously you do. If you don't care about being taken seriously then by all means. I don't sit there and demand evidence from people on the streets telling me that aliens are watching us. But I also don't give any creedence to what they say. So likewise here with you. Sure you don't owe anything to the conversation. But that doesn't give you a single leg to stand on in a debate.

What?

exactly.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The thing is, it probably isn't fake news. The facts are probably true. Such a story being found in the Vatican archives is entirely plausible.
It's the inferences from finding something like that which are implausible. "Jesus is God" because of some marks on an old piece of parchment is the improbable part.
Tom

This particular article is fake however.

 

[columbus]

This particular article is fake however.

Oh I see.
Once again a religious person duped me. I am usually better at avoiding that. This particular claim was not sufficiently important to check.
Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Oh I see.
Once again a religious person duped me. I am usually better at avoiding that. This particular claim was not sufficiently important to check.
Tom

Yet, this particular religious person admitted his mistake before anyone else revealed his mistake.

 

[columbus]

Yet, this particular religious person admitted his mistake before anyone else revealed his mistake.

So, let's go back to the reason you posted it in the first place.
In post 173 you claimed

I assure you, for the most part, those who witnessed what Jesus did became believers as a result of what they saw.

I didn't find that claim plausible and you responded with fake news.

Do you have any better ones? If so, you'd be the first in my decades of experience with Christians.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Do you even look for further evidence, or do you just look for it with your eyes closed?

Back in 2014 I believe, "An Italian expert studying a first century document written by the Roman historian

I damn well don't have to do a damn thing for you. And you damn well better listen to every damn think I have to say. And I damn well don't give a damn what you care about.

Now what?
Do you even listen to yourself on the internet preaching Christianity?
Do you see why I find your religious beliefs to be fiction? Fake news?
Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Now what?
Do you even listen to yourself on the internet preaching Christianity?
Do you see why I find your religious beliefs to be fiction? Fake news?
Tom

I understand that in this world full of liars, including but not excluding the sort that would even consider intentionally fabricating false news and information, I need to be more careful, especially since propagating and perpetuating such falsehoods is equally dangerous and vile. You have my sincere apologies, although I do recognize that forgiveness is not actually something I might expect or see from you. I will however try to be more careful with the information I present.

 

[Sonofason]

Now what?
Do you even listen to yourself on the internet preaching Christianity?
Do you see why I find your religious beliefs to be fiction? Fake news?
Tom

I know you will not recognize that my response to Monk of Reason was more of a tit for tat, but nevertheless, I will not apologize for that. He deserved it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sure. On Josephus we know for a fact it was polarized. This was revelaed by a study done by Catholics. The real issue is if there really was a man who was preforming miracles in front of thousands of people then why in the hell isn't there any records anywhere else? Its not that there were not people writing about the history of the time. Several where and didn't mention him. You have to admit that is a bit fishy.

To me, God simply chose that His Word ( Bible ) would be where we would learn about Jesus.
Bible people are real historical people.
There is secular mention of others preforming miracles but taking the credit to themselves for what Jesus did.
There is Nothing ' fishy ' about Jesus informing us that his followers would be 'fishers' of men.
That 'spiritual fishing work' is done worldwide today just as Jesus' recorded words bring to our attention at Acts of the Apostles 1:8; Matthew 24:14. Such a global international campaign could Not be accomplished as it is being done today under just man's power but through helpful angelic direction - Revelation 14:6

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And there are minor but no major contradictions in the cannonized bible? Do you know why? Because it was designed that way by the people who put the bible together 200 years after Jesus. They took the hundreds of different religious passages and narrowed it down to their own version.

Why, to me, is because KJV added to the ancient manuscripts which were completed by the year 100.
Because of the ancient manuscripts today we know those spurious verses and omit them.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves because they are out of harmony with the ' 66 ' books of Bible canon.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It is the lack of evidence that it happened.
Had the story, as told, been true I would expect a huge outburst of Christianity and fervor. One that would rock Judea.
Instead almost nobody noticed anything. If it hadn't been for Paul I doubt that Christianity would have survived the diaspora. And Paul never met Jesus.
Tom

According to gospel writer Luke, didn't Paul meet, so to speak, with the resurrected Jesus ?

 

[columbus]

According to gospel writer Luke, didn't Paul meet, so to speak, with the resurrected Jesus ?

Who is the Gospel writer Luke, and why do you put Faith in him?

The real answer to your question is "No". gLuke did not claim that Paul met Jesus. He pointed out that Paul hadn't met Jesus, except in a fever dream or something.
Tom

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Just more mumbo jumbo is it not, if God or this Allah is so almighty why does he need us mere mortals fighting his battles for him.

Why, to me, is because Earth is Father's gift to us - Psalms 115:16
If someone spoke disparagingly about your beloved father, would you defend your father?_____
We mere mortals are challenged by Satan - Job 2:4-5 - that ' touch our flesh ' ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God. Both faithful Job and Jesus proved Satan a liar and so can we - Proverbs 27:11

We do Not need to fight literal battles for Him because its the executional words from Jesus' mouth along with angelic armies that will do the battling - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:11; Revelation 19:14-16

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Who is the Gospel writer Luke, and why do you put Faith in him?
The real answer to your question is "No". gLuke did not claim that Paul met Jesus. He pointed out that Paul hadn't met Jesus, except in a fever dream or something.
Tom

Why does anyone put faith in Matthew, Mark, John and Luke ?
Who did Jesus have help Paul but Ananias according to Acts chapter 9 - Acts of the Apostles 9:10-13