XXXXTENTACION:
Atheists are not the only people that believe them it's general science...
if you don't trust scientific theories then why do you use the internet...

It is as you say. They are theories and that is why i don't trust them. I trust the facts of the Bible and that is that.

LordReed:


Facts about what?

You previously said you don't conclude without facts so i'm asking you what facts do you have that have led you to the current conclusions that you possess.

Hismasterpiece:


You previously said you don't conclude without facts so i'm asking you what facts do you have that have led you to the current conclusions that you possess.

Mention 1 thing I have concluded and I will tell you what facts I have.

Hismasterpiece:


It is as you say. They are theories and that is why i don't trust them. I trust the facts of the Bible and that is that.

Facts like talking snakes or what...

XXXXTENTACION:
Facts like talking snakes or what...

Facts like there is a God, our evil has separated us from Him, Jesus is the way to Him, Jesus dies and rose again and ascended, etc..

LordReed:


Mention 1 thing I have concluded and I will tell you what facts I have.

That Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Hismasterpiece:


Facts like there is a God, our evil has separated us from Him, Jesus is the way to Him, Jesus dies and rose again and ascended, etc..

If God existed why does he allow christians to wallow in suffering...

Hismasterpiece:


That Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

1. If Jesus is still alive and is accessible then we would have objective evidence of him being alive just like we likely have objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea.

2. If Jesus rose from the dead with all the events that took place around the time we would have evidence of it from extra biblical sources. The supposed rising of other people who showed themselves in Jerusalem, the angel that supposedly rolled away the stone, the 500 people that supposedly saw him ascend, etc. None of this is captured any where else but the Bible.

3. No person I know of has sustained the kind of wounds Jesus supposedly had then stayed untreated for 72hrs and was revived after. Therefore I have no reason to believe this occurred at any time especially without evidence.

If you don't mind, I have a few questions on the issues you raised.

LordReed:


1. If Jesus is still alive and is accessible then we would have objective evidence of him being alive just like we likely have objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea.

When you say "objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea". What do you mean sir?

2. If Jesus rose from the dead with all the events that took place around the time we would have evidence of it from extra biblical sources. The supposed rising of other people who showed themselves in Jerusalem, the angel that supposedly rolled away the stone, the 500 people that supposedly saw him ascend, etc. None of this is captured any where else but the Bible.

When you say "captured outside the bible", do you mean by non-christain writers? Also what time period are you looking at?

jamesid29:
If you don't mind, I have a few questions on the issues you raised.

When you say "objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea". What do you mean sir?

Basically textual evidence.

When you say "captured outside the bible", do you mean by non-Christian writers? Also what time period are you looking at?

Yes. If these events happened as described by the bible there would have been a mention of them by non-Christian writers because they were not normal occurrences. Th period would be between 33-37AD.

LordReed:


Basically textual evidence.

You mean people writing about the man Jesus, right?

Yes. If these events happened as described by the bible there would have been a mention of them by non-Christian writers because they were not normal occurrences. Th period would be between 33-37AD.

Make sense. But I have a kinda of a follow up question.
How many literatures about occurances in Judea from this time period ( 33 - 37 AD) do you believe exist in our historical records?

jamesid29:

You mean people writing about the man Jesus, right?

Correct.

Make sense. But I have a kinda of a follow up question.
How many literatures about occurances in Judea from this time period ( 33 - 37 AD) do you believe exist in our historical records?

I don't know but it is certain that should any that provide independent corroboration did in fact exist, they'd have been trotted out as evidence.

LordReed:

Correct.

That would hardly be considered as objective evidence in the way I think you might be framing it.
Outside of the Christian sources (in this instance, the gospels), almost all mentions of Jesus were in connection to his followers after the fact.

I don't know but it is certain that should any that provide independent corroboration did in fact exist, they'd have been trotted out as evidence.

We have almost none, but I get your point.
Judea was a backwater region filled with mostly peasants. And like most of the ancient world, only a very small percentage of the population were literate , so oral traditions took precedence over written ones.
So if an event whereby a young Jewish apocalyptic preacher who didn't get along with the political elites came back to life after being executed,
Which people do you believe are the most likely to spread such an occurrence and document it for others?

Also if you don't mind, what do you believe the most likely course of action would be from the opposition.

I'm not Atheist buh....
The greatest form of a ignorance in the black community is believing and worshipping an abrahamic God. You need to do some research.

jamesid29:

That would hardly be considered as objective evidence in the way I think you might be framing it.
Outside of the Christian sources (in this instance, the gospels), almost all mentions of Jesus were in connection to his followers after the fact.

Just as you describe Judea as a backwater it is quite significant that we have so much textual evidence for a single person in such a place and time. It's not ideal but it's enough I would think.

We have almost none, but I get your point.
Judea was a backwater region filled with mostly peasants. And like most of the ancient world, only a very small percentage of the population were literate , so oral traditions took precedence over written ones.

Yes so how come now of these oral traditions carry forward any narrative from the resurrection events that wasn't a Christian source?

So if an event whereby a young Jewish apocalyptic preacher who didn't get along with the political elites came back to life after being executed,
Which people do you believe are the most likely to spread such an occurrence and document it for others?

The place was ruled by the Romans so there was an exposure of the area to more than the influence of the Jewish elite. If there was a narrative that was carried by the locals the Jewish elite won't have been able to completely suppress it, the Christian narrative is evidence of that.

Also if you don't mind, what do you believe the most likely course of action would be from the opposition.

You mean opposition to Jesus? Sure they'd try to suppress the teachings but they couldn't succeed in that so I have no expectation they would have succeeded in suppressing non-Christian sources.

LordReed:


Just as you describe Judea as a backwater it is quite significant that we have so much textual evidence for a single person in such a place and time.

As I mentioned earlier,the reason why Jesus was even mentioned in other sources was because of the influx and influence of Christians into the broader Roman consciousness. If christains weren't so counter cultural to the Roman/ancient ethos, it's unlikely we would have the mentions we have of him or most people would know who he is today.
The rise of Christianity and Christians was the reason for the textual records we have. Not the other way round

It's not ideal but it's enough I would think

That's actually my point sir.
It's not objective evidence the way we think of it in the hard sciences, but from an historical stand point, it's the type of evidence we expect to see and it has the best explanatory power.

So if I may ask my original question again, what type of evidence are you expecting to see today

Yes so how come now of these oral traditions carry forward any narrative from the resurrection events that wasn't a Christian source?

Ok so, a couple of comments on your statement.
From our historical records of the events, there are a couple of things that are generally agreed upon of the events in Judea at this time period, one of which is the empty tomb.
This is already a tradition that has come down to us.
If I may ask, what type of "non-christain" narrative are you expecting to be preserved of the event.

The place was ruled by the Romans so there was an exposure of the area to more than the influence of the Jewish elite. If there was a narrative that was carried by the locals the Jewish elite won't have been able to completely suppress it, the Christian narrative is evidence of that.

Rome for the most part left provinces like Judea to their own as long as they were getting their taxes, order was kept and no one was making too much ruckus that would challenge the empire's rule. Even most of the soldiers stationed in the provences wouldn't have been roman or born roman. And as you know even the tax collectors and the immediate rulers were not roman. Basically, as long as you knew your place and weren't challenging Roman might, Rome basically left you to your internal squabbles.

You mean opposition to Jesus? Sure they'd try to suppress the teachings but they couldn't succeed in that so I have no expectation they would have succeeded in suppressing non-Christian sources.

This goes back to my earlier question.
Pls bear in mind, there was an active attempt to suppress this new Jewish sect and it's leadership,starting in judea from what we can piece together

jamesid29:

As I mentioned earlier,the reason why Jesus was even mentioned in other sources was because of the influx and influence of Christians into the broader Roman consciousness. If christains weren't so counter cultural to the Roman/ancient ethos, it's unlikely we would have the mentions we have of him or most people would know who he is today.
The rise of Christianity and Christians was the reason for the textual records we have. Not the other way round


That's actually my point sir.
It's not objective evidence the way we think of it in the hard sciences, but from an historical stand point, it's the type of evidence we expect to see and it has the best explanatory power.

So if I may ask my original question again, what type of evidence are you expecting to see today

Exactly, the Jewish elite were unsuccessful in suppressing the Christian narrative, there's no reason to believe they could have suppressed any other sources of oral traditions.

Do you mean what evidence I would expect in this day and age?

Ok so, a couple of comments on your statement.
From our historical records of the events, there are a couple of things that are generally agreed upon of the events in Judea at this time period, one of which is the empty tomb.
This is already a tradition that has come down to us.
If I may ask, what type of "non-christain" narrative are you expecting to be preserved of the event.

While largely agreeing with your comments so far, I don't agree the historical evidence covers an empty tomb. That is not something that can be verified as following what we know of the time period. As you may already know criminals would not have been given dignified burials and it would be strange for a member of the same Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus would be the one to make such an arrangement. Add to that the unreconcilable accounts of what supposedly happened at the tomb. It rather seems like a cobbled together tale designed to perpetuate the specialness of a beloved teacher.

The kind of narrative one would expect from that period would be tales of people suddenly seeing many previously dead people, record of an earthquake, the guards tales of seeing an angel, stories from the 500 people who supposedly saw him ascend. On a broader scale Jesus supposedly raised up at least 2 people from the dead, those were significant events that should have been very much circulating among the people. The fact that these and many more don't appear anywhere else just doesn't seem like what would happen if those events really happened.

LordReed:


Exactly, the Jewish elite were unsuccessful in suppressing the Christian narrative, there's no reason to believe they could have suppressed any other sources of oral traditions.

So what type of non-christain narrative or tradition do we expect to see in the historical records?

Do you mean what evidence I would expect in this day and age?

Yes sir. Given the same criteria you gave about the historicity of his life

While largely agreeing with your comments so far, I don't agree the historical evidence covers an empty tomb. That is not something that can be verified as following what we know of the time period.

Well thats not entirely correct sir. The earliest preserved criticism of the resurrection of Jesus that has come down to us was that the body was simply stolen from its burial place (the stolen body hypothesis) and the lack of a body is more or less generally taken as a given amongst historians on both sides. That is what generally fits the traditions (for & against) that have come down to us.

As you may already know criminals would not have been given dignified burials and it would be strange for a member of the same Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus would be the one to make such an arrangement. Add to that the unreconcilable accounts of what supposedly happened at the tomb. It rather seems like a cobbled together tale designed to perpetuate the specialness of a beloved teacher.

This would be more of conjecture sir. From what we reasonably know about Christ and from the ethics of his followers (who supposedly were trying to imitate Christ), it's safe to say he wasn't a criminal and most people would have known that.
It is not unreasonable to believe that people(even some within the ruling class) would have been sympathetic to a blameless man who was given the worst death imaginable based on trumped up charges.
From the records we have(which are "christian", even Herod and Pilate found Jesus not guilty. We have no contrary tradition to that.

Secondly, Jesus was crucified during a time of peace and the Romans generally respected the laws of the people they ruled during such times. One of the laws Jews generally held strongly was the Deuteronomy laws of not leaving the condemned person's body overnight. We see this iterated in the temple scrolls, the book of tobit,and in later rabbinic literature(Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4-6.)

Thirdly, if his body was left on the cross, it would be inconceivable to make up a bodily resurrection story of the 3rd day. The Jewish authority would have simply pointed at the body exposed on the cross and ended Christianity before it even got started.
No resurrection, no Christianity.
But as mentioned earlier, every single tradition we have from late antiquity (both for & against) talks of a burial and a missing body.

The kind of narrative one would expect from that period would be tales of people suddenly seeing many previously dead people, record of an earthquake, the guards tales of seeing an angel, stories from the 500 people who supposedly saw him ascend. On a broader scale Jesus supposedly raised up at least 2 people from the dead, those were significant events that should have been very much circulating among the people. The fact that these and many more don't appear anywhere else just doesn't seem like what would happen if those events really happened.

I'm still trying to understand sir? Where is the anywhere else you expect it to appear outside of the people who actually believed that this thing actually happened?
We do have quite a number of records from the group that believed a resurrection happened. We also have records from those who originally didn't believe but we're persuaded at a later date. And finally we have traditions from those who never believed but thought the disciples were looney and gave alternate rational for the missing body( the body was simply stolen from its burial site).

Which other narrative should we expect to see in the records sir?

LordReed:


1. If Jesus is still alive and is accessible then we would have objective evidence of him being alive just like we likely have objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea.

2. If Jesus rose from the dead with all the events that took place around the time we would have evidence of it from extra biblical sources. The supposed rising of other people who showed themselves in Jerusalem, the angel that supposedly rolled away the stone, the 500 people that supposedly saw him ascend, etc. None of this is captured any where else but the Bible.

3. No person I know of has sustained the kind of wounds Jesus supposedly had then stayed untreated for 72hrs and was revived after. Therefore I have no reason to believe this occurred at any time especially without evidence.

Watch these two videos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=14&ab_channel=drcraigvideos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=14&ab_channel=drcraigvideos

XXXXTENTACION:
If God existed why does he allow christians to wallow in suffering...

You seem to forget that He also allowed His Son Jesus to suffer the worst suffering anyone has ever had

watch these videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=11&ab_channel=drcraigvideos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=11&ab_channel=drcraigvideos

Hismasterpiece:


Watch these two videos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=14&ab_channel=drcraigvideos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=14&ab_channel=drcraigvideos

1 min in and I already have an issue. The issue I have is the narrator saying the Bible authors were "independent" sources. That is laughable. These authors are all Christian so what were they independent of? Also it has been established that Luke and Matthew both copied from Mark, so how exactly can you call them independent?

jamesid29:

So what type of non-christain narrative or tradition do we expect to see in the historical records?

The same type we see about Jesus. These should have come about as fascinating stories and rumors that could not be easily dismissed. Josephus particularly as a Jewish historian would have noted such things if they were in circulation. Their lack is extremely curious.

Yes sir. Given the same criteria you gave about the historicity of his life

The criteria cannot be the same. We have way more tools at our disposal for verifying events. So again the lack of these is very curious. No video, no audio recording of this person that is supposedly alive and has supposedly appeared and spoken to his followers.

Well thats not entirely correct sir. The earliest preserved criticism of the resurrection of Jesus that has come down to us was that the body was simply stolen from its burial place (the stolen body hypothesis) and the lack of a body is more or less generally taken as a given amongst historians on both sides. That is what generally fits the traditions (for & against) that have come down to us.

That is a narrative that was put forth by Christians, there is no other source that says anything about a missing body. The lack of a body is not something we can verify since that is physical evidence so that even if there is a body it would not be any state to be verified as that of Jesus. We don't even have a any way to recognise it even if it was found for instance.

This would be more of conjecture sir. From what we reasonably know about Christ and from the ethics of his followers (who supposedly were trying to imitate Christ), it's safe to say he wasn't a criminal and most people would have known that.
It is not unreasonable to believe that people(even some within the ruling class) would have been sympathetic to a blameless man who was given the worst death imaginable based on trumped up charges.
From the records we have(which are "christian", even Herod and Pilate found Jesus not guilty. We have no contrary tradition to that.

He was crucified as a criminal even if his offense was trumped up. The Romans came down hard on anyone who was viewed as seditious or usurping their authority. And we do know how they treated criminal corpses, they were generally buried in mass graves after being left to be displayed for awhile.

Secondly, Jesus was crucified during a time of peace and the Romans generally respected the laws of the people they ruled during such times. One of the laws Jews generally held strongly was the Deuteronomy laws of not leaving the condemned person's body overnight. We see this iterated in the temple scrolls, the book of tobit,and in later rabbinic literature(Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4-6.)

Pilate is on record being not particularly caring to Jewish sensibilities so there is no reason to think he had an inclination to treat Jesus any differently. And even if he was inclined to take down the body what would be the impetus to release it to a member of the Sanhedrin?

Thirdly, if his body was left on the cross, it would be inconceivable to make up a bodily resurrection story of the 3rd day. The Jewish authority would have simply pointed at the body exposed on the cross and ended Christianity before it even got started.
No resurrection, no Christianity.
But as mentioned earlier, every single tradition we have from late antiquity (both for & against) talks of a burial and a missing body.

Yes there was a burial but what type is the question. In a mass grave that has been covered over how would the anybody have recovered the body without significantly disturbing the gravesite? What stopped the disciples from claiming it was spiritual resurrection?

I'm still trying to understand sir? Where is the anywhere else you expect it to appear outside of the people who actually believed that this thing actually happened?
We do have quite a number of records from the group that believed a resurrection happened. We also have records from those who originally didn't believe but we're persuaded at a later date. And finally we have traditions from those who never believed but thought the disciples were looney and gave alternate rational for the missing body( the body was simply stolen from its burial site).

Which other narrative should we expect to see in the records sir?

Already answered above.

LordReed:


The same type we see about Jesus. These should have come about as fascinating stories and rumors that could not be easily dismissed.

We do have not just one but 3 separate literatures on the events, that has been preserved. We call them gospel & scripture but the authors & the audience would have regarded it as penning down a recount by/from eyewitnesses of the events with a theological lens(at least from their point of view).

We do see through the historical records, a shift from the oral traditions which was highly valued over the written ones, up until around the second century. This was when the "supposedly" eyewitnesses became fewer & fewer and the oral narratives about the events began to diverge significantly from what the apostolic fathers(2nd generation of church leaders) heard from the first generation of Christians.
It's at this point we increasingly see the documents being referenced almost in the same capacity as the old testament scriptures.
And when Marcion forced("My interpretation" ) the hand of the early church; Out of all the gospels & stories floating around, the 4 gospels we have today(including the letters of Paul) were universally accepted without issues immediately.
For a deeper dive into how the new testament books came to be, I would recommend

Bruce Metzger's :The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 3rd edition. It a bit old but I would still recommend it to anyone interested in the new testament.

Josephus particularly as a Jewish historian would have noted such things if they were in circulation. Their lack is extremely curious.

It's actually the opposite sir. Josephus was writing an historical document of the Jews to a Roman audience. It would have been odd if he included narrative of an event in the past he didn't believe or benefit him in some way. That would have been a significant departure from everything else he wrote.
This is one of the reasons it's unanimously agreed upon that Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 18 is definitely a Christian interpolation. Although it's safe to say there was a core narrative behind what was christianized.

Josephus wrote almost nothing about Jesus's life, so it would have been odd if he recorded rumours about his death.
If Josephus being a Jew had believed that there was something to the rumours of a Messiah figure who was resurrected on the third day as promised, Josephus would have become a Christian. We would have seen it in the records, the same way we see that of Paul, James and Jude.

The criteria cannot be the same. We have way more tools at our disposal for verifying events. So again the lack of these is very curious.
No video, no audio recording of this person that is supposedly alive and has supposedly appeared and spoken to his followers.

I was only reiterating what you proposed in your first proposition sir. You said we should have the same level of evidence for him being alive today with the same level of evidence we have that he lived sometime ago in Judea.

That is a narrative that was put forth by Christians, there is no other source that says anything about a missing body.

What do you mean by this sir.

The lack of a body is not something we can verify since that is physical evidence so that even if there is a body it would not be any state to be verified as that of Jesus. We don't even have a any way to recognise it even if it was found for instance.

When we say lack of body sir, we are not talking about it from our standpoint today. We are talking about from the standpoint of the early opposition of the sect during the persecution.

He was crucified as a criminal even if his offense was trumped up. The Romans came down hard on anyone who was viewed as seditious or usurping their authority. And we do know how they treated criminal corpses, they were generally buried in mass graves after being left to be displayed for awhile.

So two things.
1) From the records that we have today, Jesus was crucified on the behest of the ruling class, not because Rome thought he was really trying to usurp their authority

2) Yes, we do know how criminal corpses were treated, and it was not a one size fits all. People did bury the bodies of criminals.

Finally, if we are talking of evidence, there is no evidence of mass grave burials both in the archeological records and in the literary sources in Judea during these periods.
In contrast what we do have evidence for points in the other direction.
I have already mentioned the literary evidence of how Jews were ought to and did treat the bodies of even criminals, and we can include even Josephus writing also.
But most importantly we do have one archeological evidence of the burial of another cruficied man around the same time of Jesus under that same Pilate.
Does this prove Jesus was definitely buried. No.
But it does show that even crucified criminals were allowed to proper burial.
And as stated above there is no evidence of mass burial anywhere in Israel.

Pilate is on record being not particularly caring to Jewish sensibilities so there is no reason to think he had an inclination to treat Jesus any differently. And even if he was inclined to take down the body what would be the impetus to release it to a member of the Sanhedrin?

Yes, as a Roman, he would not necessarily care much about Jewish customs but at the same time as a governor he would not make rash stands that could offend Jewish sensibilities for no reason and risk unnecessary risk civil disobedience. Risking his own political office. Pilate won't have been different from any human or dictator....Complex

Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace.
The same sources people have used to show that Pilate could be ruthless, are the same sources that show him caving to Jewish sensibilities and trying to avoid unnecessary breakdown of order.
Ex: Wanting to bring images of ceaser into Jerusalem, that the Jews kicked against. Etc

And as stated previously also, there wouldn't have been a resurrection story in the first place if the body was left on the cross for a while till birds and animals pick it clean. A third day bodily resurrection would have been stopped right on it's tracks from the beginning,since everyone would have known what happened to the body and how long it stayed on the cross.

As for why he wouldn't release the body to a member of the Sanhedrin, the question would be, why wouldn't he?

Yes there was a burial but what type is the question. In a mass grave that has been covered over how would the anybody have recovered the body without significantly disturbing the gravesite?

There is simply not a shred of evidence that mass grave sites with bodies simply dumped on each other occured any where in Israel during this period.
The Romans did kill quite a lot of people but we have no literary or any other type of evidence for a mass grave for dumping in Israel.
What we do have is quite the opposite as shown above.

What stopped the disciples from claiming it was spiritual resurrection?

And that would be the crux of the matter sir. If the disciples had simply said it was a spiritual resurrection, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
But they chose to die on the hill of a bodily resurrection in actual space and time. Even the earliest christian creed that we have, which can be liberally dated to have developed very early made a point of the bodily resurrection.
1Cor 15:3-4 (Paul was quoting it).... Interestingly the only two names Paul mentions, are two of the apostles we are reasonably sure we're put to death for this believe.
To me, this demands an explanation. It's either they were cucu or they were dead sure of what the believed. And for me

Hismasterpiece:


You seem to forget that He also allowed His Son Jesus to suffer the worst suffering anyone has ever had

watch these videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k64YJYBUFLM&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=11&ab_channel=drcraigvideos


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=11&ab_channel=drcraigvideos

What name do you call someone who loves to watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=11&ab_channel=drcraigvideos[/quote] What name do you call someone who loves to watch people suffer...

LordReed:


Unlike your beliefs there is no eternal consequence to your persistence in continuing in your beliefs for the atheist so he has no obligation to save you except may be to save you from destroying others by your beliefs. You on the other hand believe wholeheartedly that we shall end up in hell, a place of torment for eternity but you sit in your house have your 3 square meals, watch TV, browse the Internet become bored and go to bed, sparing no thought for those you claim are going to suffer. Shouldn't you be spending every minute of everyday attempting to save people from this hell? Are you not more wicked according to your own criteria? If you truly believed in hell you'd be crying and wailing everyday begging people to be saved but you don't do that because you are very wicked (according to you).

Actually they shouldn't be evangelizing at all. Since by continually telling people about Christianity they have doomed billions of people to hell–and continue to do so–who would otherwise have been excused for their ignorance.

BeLookingIDIOT:

Actually they shouldn't be evangelizing at all. Since by continually telling people about Christianity they have doomed billions of people to hell–and continue to do so–who would otherwise have been excused for their ignorance.

I agree. Nobody should be attempting to convert people to their religion. Enjoy your god belief or whatever and live people alone.

XXXXTENTACION:
What name do you call someone who loves to watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX&index=11&ab_channel=drcraigvideos What name do you call someone who loves to watch people suffer...

God doesn't love to watch people suffer as a matter of fact it hurts him to see people suffer.

But one day He will come and right all wrong

LordReed:


1 min in and I already have an issue. The issue I have is the narrator saying the Bible authors were "independent" sources. That is laughable. These authors are all Christian so what were they independent of? Also it has been established that Luke and Matthew both copied from Mark, so how exactly can you call them independent?

Who established that they copied eachother?

Hismasterpiece:


Who established that they copied eachother?

Bible scholars.

Thanks amigo :am already convinced about wat I am into.Atheism has always been wat I imagined as a kid. Am not dependent on anyone and I pay my bills.Thanks all the same

@macAB

Make sure you already cleared those doubts before abandoning the religion of your birth

It is very important you do that, if not when you leave just like that those doubts would continue to come up but this time in disguise and your mind then become a battle ground of conflicting thoughts which you may not be able to handle alone.

It is not easy thing to abandon the religion you were born into. Some persons can assume they are free from it but not being aware that at the subconscious level they still strongly tied it. And this can create many problems that may be difficult to manage except through professional help. .

You could find yourself struggling with the feeling from time to time that you're two persons in one. That's a split personality syndrome which is a form of mental illness and those close to you can sense all is not well with you.
The reason why this can happen is that there still exist some deeply embedded beliefs in your subconscious mind that's still running at the background .

Those who don't know what is happening at this time, would run back to the religion they have abandoned or sadly end it in suicide believing they are losing their minds.. I have friends who have gone back to the same religion they abandoned and condemned as not good. This happens all the time




So my friend be yourself . Don't try to imitate anyone. Know exactly what you're doing before making the decision to quit

And in case you don't know it's not easy living your life as a non religious person in this part of the world you will be hounded on all sides by people around you and this can impact on your mental health.

You need people around you to succeed but when you try to separate yourself prematurely , then it can be become difficult for you.

My advise is you just play along until you can stand alone without depending on anyone.
[/quote]

Hismasterpiece:


God doesn't love to watch people suffer as a matter of fact it hurts him to see people suffer.

But one day He will come and right all wrong

I did not beg you to share any video with me.. Just simply tell me what name you call someone who loves to watch people suffer...
Only a weak and irresponsible God would watch people destroy what he suffered so much to build...

LordReed:


Bible scholars.

I'm sure that's not how they phrased it.. they couldn't have explicitly said that they copied one another