johnydon22:
How quaint you chose to forgo the jewish talmud messiac prophecy i told you and dabble into misinterpreted prophecies... can you list one of those prophecies for me and all to see?

too bad you can never argue without employing unnecessary ad hominem.. **sighs** anyways..

If you are referring to the various attacks and destructions as seen in the likes of nehemiah and meccabeus, its all part of the everyday events of ancient world.. every civilization face wars and attacks so the jewish attacks is nothing special..
lmao.

i love the excusses..

For this their is nothing i can say to make you drop your belief about the authorship of the supposedly synoptic gospels..leme drop some snapshots for you taken from the New community Bible on introductions to the gospels.

Now dude i bid you to go dabble more and check how these tales were concorted then come back

Dude u have to understand that depending on one literature source is poor scholarship..ur captured screenshot mean little..

let me start by saying they agree with me as well see shots below.. look at what I said about mark and John. .the dates agree with me... including when I said the theory is that John died a very old man. Like is told proton above john is unconservatively estimated to be 90 years after Jesus. . It means at most 90+33 = 123 AD.. Even tho some people say it's as early as 90AD that is 57 years after Christ. Do u get the picture ..


2. I said mark is estimated to be 30 years after the fact...30+33 is 63 ad. .

Peter was was a fisherman and not a scribe,same as some other disciplines hence they may have had others write their stories it's possible or they may have written it themselves I don't know, I wasn't there but the truth remains the assumption that a second generation christain wrote it is pure conjecture and even if true does not make a difference. I think u mistake second generation to mean second century. .I can have someone write my own biography , I don't need to write it myself.

a generation is 30-40 years, hence if it is assumed that mark was written in 65 ad that is 32 years after christ then u can see why someone can also assume it was written by a second generation christian. But there is no evidence for that argument.

U may ask ..why wasn't the gospels written earlier..well they were being persecuted by the jews and Romans and their was probably no time to sit down with scribes and write but Paul was very literate and wrote letters himself. This explains his many letters . Peter the ex fisherman was more into the ground work winning new converts to christiandom and was murdered. . Most of the apostles went to their bl.oody deaths believing in Christ. .

Pr0ton:


Ok then. And about Paul?

I honestly think Paul was a fierce theologian and right in all of his letters..

U said he preached a different Christ. .this is fallacy.. a statement without evidence... he and the apostles got along very well and he got Peters approval. As a christian I believe God is perfect in his plans.. Paul was called to spread christainity and he did it remarkably well..u need to understand that Christ came to fulfil the law and even Paul said all scripture is profitable. He was not anti OT.. he just understood the theology of it better than most.

Is there any issues u think we should discuss on Paul. .

Ifeann:


Dude u have to understand that depending on one literature source is poor scholarship..ur captured screenshot mean little..

let me start by saying they agree with me as well see shots below.. look at what I said about mark and John. .the dates agree with me... including when I said the theory is that John died a very old man. Like is told proton above john is unconservatively estimated to be 90 years after Jesus. . It means at most 90+33 = 123 AD.. Even tho some people say it's as early as 90AD that is 57 years after Christ. Do u get the picture ..


2. I said mark is estimated to be 30 years after the fact...30+33 is 63 ad. .

Peter was was a fisherman and not a scribe,same as some other disciplines hence they may have had others write their stories it's possible or they may have written it themselves I don't know, I wasn't there but the truth remains the assumption that a second generation christain wrote it is pure conjecture and even if true does not make a difference. I think u mistake second generation to mean second century. .I can have someone write my own biography , I don't need to write it myself.

a generation is 30-40 years, hence if it is assumed that mark was written in 65 ad that is 32 years after christ then u can see why someone can also assume it was written by a second generation christian. But there is no evidence for that argument.

U may ask ..why wasn't the gospels written earlier..well they were being persecuted by the jews and Romans and their was probably no time to sit down with scribes and write but Paul was very literate and wrote letters himself. This explains his many letters . Peter the ex fisherman was more into the ground work winning new converts to christiandom and was murdered. . Most of the apostles went to their bl.oody deaths believing in Christ. .

lmao.. after covering my marked texts...anyway... so quick to dismiss a snapshot even from a christian bible..

Do you now agree that the gospels were not written by the people they bear their names?

You keep arguing that John died a very old man even when its clear he wasn't the author of the gospel according to John..

about the gospel of john i marked to proposed hypothesis of how it was written, not surprised you overlooked the second marked space..

let me poste the pic again now take the two marked places into consideration...

Ifeann:


I honestly think Paul was a fierce theologian and right in all of his letters..

U said he preached a different Christ. .this is fallacy.. a statement without evidence... he and the apostles got along very well and he got Peters approval. As a christian I believe God is perfect in his plans.. Paul was called to spread christainity and he did it remarkably well..u need to understand that Christ came to fulfil the law and even Paul said all scripture is profitable. He was not anti OT.. he just understood the theology of it better than most.

Is there any issues u think we should discuss on Paul. .

Hope you aint getting things twisted. I only support the existence of the Paul of the Epistles (some epistles actually). The Paul of the Acts of Apostles is pure fiction and contradicts the other Paul. For example, in Gal. 1 Paul affirmed that he never received approval from man, not even Peter.

[size=20] they were more than 300 gospels available during the council of nicene of which only 4 got voted into the bible by emperor Constantine and other church fathers.. most of the early now called gnostic gospels were not added cus it clearly contradicts each other just like even the four sypnostic gospels contradict themselves too but with similarities..[/size]

johnydon22:
[size=20] they were more than 300 gospels available during the council of nicene of which only 4 got voted into the bible by emperor Constantine and other church fathers.. most of the early now called gnostic gospels were not added cus it clearly contradicts each other just like even the four sypnostic gospels contradict themselves too but with similarities..[/size]

[size=20]Yh. And just as Paul's epistles contradict the gospels[/size]

laye laye, they will never try you, they will abuse the hell out of your head and make you look like you've never had the slightest imagination of school is your family's life. that is how the atheists(black) roll.
Very wonderful question. we need to share their idealogy.

folaski:


your assumption about me is wrong to start with. I wonder if i have ever even met you.

Note that i did not say that there is a general ideology. But for clarity you share yours and i will point you to your god from it. Dare to try?

Pr0ton:


Hope you aint getting things twisted. I only support the existence of the Paul of the Epistles (some epistles actually). The Paul of the Acts of Apostles is pure fiction and contradicts the other Paul. For example, in Gal. 1 Paul affirmed that he never received approval from man, not even Peter.

Oh goodness..there is a fake Paul? Pls elaborate?

Ifeann, no follow paul oo. it is the second of that dude that made the hadith. Who made him an apostle? the must dangerous one is the rapture. Even Jesus did not mention it, Moses forget, Ezekiel did not remember, John in the revelations forgot too. it was only paul that said it, it made me question who he was working for.

Ti o ba lo je ki won rapture e, na slavery part 4 be that o.

Ifeann:


Oh goodness..there is a fake Paul? Pls elaborate?

FOLYKAZE:

You can simply google imperial cult, celebrity worship, ancestor worship and hero worship. To put this on rest too, worship is been defined on wiki as an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity.
- Imperial cult= according to wiki is a form of state religionin which an emperor, or a dynasty of emperors (or rulers of another title), are worshippedas messiahs, demigodsor deities. " Cult" here is used to mean " worship", not in the modern pejorative sense. This is a religiois devotion usually directed toward a deity (kings, empetior and leaders)
- celebrity worship= an act of religious devotion usually dirrected toward a deity (celebs).
- ancestors worship= an act of religious devotion usually directed toward a deity (ancestors).
Hero worship = an act of religious devotion usually directed toward a deity (heroes or influencial person).
Deity has been proven to be learders, celeb, ancestors and human.

You only proved my point.

Human worship anything. Atheists worship something too. Such a devotion is directed to a deity; that thing which is worship.
Are you in postion to tell them what to believe a deity is?
The Iroko tree in my yard is a deity, it is been worship by people. The snake is worship and perceive as deity in many culture. This is their belief and conviction.

An individual who considers something/someone a deity is in no way an atheist.

Deity-
1. a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).

God-
3. an adored, admired, or influential person.

These are things that would prove your definition has it left leg missing. It is falling.

Proving my point again...

DProDG:


Wow...so much dishonesty in that statement.

read very well bro. i supplied the link for you to check it out since you are too lazy to do that then read


dreaming was considered a supernatural
communication or a means of divine intervention, whose
message could be unravelled by people with certain powers. In
modern times, various schools of psychology and neurobiology
have offered theories about the meaning and purpose of dreams.

DProDG:


Wow...so much dishonesty in that statement.

read very well bro. i supplied the link for you to check it out since you are too lazy to do that then read


dreaming was considered a supernatural
communication or a means of divine intervention, whose
message could be unravelled by people with certain powers. In
modern times, various schools of psychology and neurobiology
have offered theories about the meaning and purpose of dreams.


what is dishonest here?

folaski:


read very well bro. i supplied the link for you to check it out since you are too lazy to do that then read


dreaming was considered a supernatural
communication or a means of divine intervention, whose
message could be unravelled by people with certain powers. In
modern times, various schools of psychology and neurobiology
have offered theories about the meaning and purpose of dreams.


what is dishonest here?

The topic was on 'dreams' and not dream interpretation. Also, I wonder why you quoted mid-sentence...

"Dream Interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to dreams. In many ancient societies, such as those of Egypt and Greece, dreaming was considered a supernatural communication or a means of divine intervention, whose message could be unravelled by people with certain powers."

Well, you cited a source and didn't swap "was" for "is" so I'll give you credit for that.

DProDG:


The topic was on 'dreams' and not dream interpretation. Also, I wonder why you quoted mid-sentence...

"Dream Interpretation is the process of assigning meaning to dreams. In many ancient societies, such as those of Egypt and Greece, dreaming was considered a supernatural communication or a means of divine intervention, whose message could be unravelled by people with certain powers."

Well, you cited a source and didn't swap "was" for "is" so I'll give you credit for that.

And left my quote on that unattended... lolzzz.. i know he had nothing more to add.. lmao...

johnydon22:


And left my quote on that unattended... lolzzz.. i know he had nothing more to add.. lmao...

what are you referring to? what post?

folaski:


what are you referring to? what post?

check ur mentions..

johnydon22:


check ur mentions..

haa yes.
well dreams are a miniature /kind of astral travel. which is an out of the body experienced. the soul/ spirit of man leaves the body and travel as an independent entity while the body is still living.

dont you know these things?

folaski:


haa yes.
well dreams are a miniature /kind of astral travel. which is an out of the body experienced. the soul/ spirit of man leaves the body and travel as an independent entity while the body is still living.

dont you know these things?

hahahahahaha so this your own definition of dreams?

woooow am short of words..

Can you quickly give me a definition of dream as defined in ur dictionary please?

johnydon22:


lmao.. after covering my marked texts...anyway... so quick to dismiss a snapshot even from a christian bible..

Do you now agree that the gospels were not written by the people they bear their names?

You keep arguing that John died a very old man even when its clear he wasn't the author of the gospel according to John..

about the gospel of john i marked to proposed hypothesis of how it was written, not surprised you overlooked the second marked space..

let me poste the pic again now take the two marked places into consideration...

I didn't intentionally cover ur texts I ruled over ur red with white to differentiate it from my own red maker..
Ur highlights are still in ur earlier post for all to see.


Apparently u don't understand what u read about John. ..one theory is that he was a withness who documented the events, wrote it and died very old

The 2nd theory is that it was written by another converted scribe who belonged to Apostle John's community.. that said ..this is the opinion of a bible commentary on the gospels... different scholars have different opinions and NT scholars often have little consensus between them. U need to read more John.

However if the gospels where fakes I would expect tonnes of differences between them.. however they are so similar in their narrative that the 4 are termed synoptic gospels.

This conversation is getting boring.
My intention is to point out holes in ur argument so that u don't decieve others just because u read a commentary on the gospels origin and became an atheist.

Ifeann:


I didn't intentionally cover ur texts I ruled over ur red with white to differentiate it from my own red maker..
Ur highlights are still in ur earlier post for all to see.

let me agree..

Ifeann:

Apparently u don't understand what u read about John. ..one theory is that he was a withness who documented the events, wrote it and died very old

And you fail to mention this theory didn't mention John the apostle was the writer huh?...

Ifeann:

The 2nd theory is that it was written by another converted scribe who belonged to Apostle John's community.. that said ..this is the opinion of a bible commentary on the gospels... different scholars have different opinions and NT scholars often have little consensus between them. U need to read more John.

Both hypothesis were proposed by new testament scholars...
Yet this particular hypothesis didn't mention John as the writer still..

I wonder why you still cling to this your traditional belief that John wrote it when clearly New testament scholars says the contrary..

Ifeann:

However if the gospels where fakes I would expect tonnes of differences between them.. however they are so similar in their narrative that the 4 are termed synoptic gospels.

The four synoptic gospels copied heavily from mark, with additional additions from the authors yet they succeeded in creating contradictions in my places.. 300 gospels (now referred as the Gnostic gospels) dismissed at the council of Nicene surely would have told a different story.

Ifeann:

This conversation is getting boring.
My intention is to point out holes in ur argument so that u don't decieve others just because u read a commentary on the gospels origin and became an atheist.

Am starting to search for the holes you pointed out
And then assuming i read commentary and became an atheist is another fallacy and a big flaw in your arguments.(BIG LIE) stop using assumptions when dealing with people..ok dude?

At the end you just sieve out the information you think is ok for your belief and dismiss others ...lol..

johnydon22:


hahahahahaha so this your own definition of dreams?

woooow am short of words..

Can you quickly give me a definition of dream as defined in ur dictionary please?

good luck. I just asked you that question to deduce some things about you and i have drawn my conclusions.

That's not the subject of this thread if you pls

johnydon22:
let me agree..

And you fail to mention this theory didn't mention John the apostle was the writer huh?...
Both hypothesis were proposed by new testament scholars...
Yet this particular hypothesis didn't mention John as the writer still..

I wonder why you still cling to this your traditional belief that John wrote it when clearly New testament scholars says the contrary..

The four synoptic gospels copied heavily from mark, with additional additions from the authors yet they succeeded in creating contradictions in my places.. 300 gospels (now referred as the Gnostic gospels) dismissed at the council of Nicene surely would have told a different story.

Am starting to search for the holes you pointed out
And then assuming i read commentary and became an atheist is another fallacy and a big flaw in your arguments.(BIG LIE) stop using assumptions when dealing with people..ok dude?

At the end you just sieve out the information you think is ok for your belief and dismiss others ...lol..

Dude apparently u haven't been reading my posts.. I have written already that it is unlikely the apostles wrote those..one because they were likely unable to write..Peter for instance was a fisherman. .getting parchment paper was difficult...and they were being hunted and persecuted. .

This is not the arguement.. they mostly likely had scribes do the writing when it was convienent to do so.. Paul on the other hand was a learned Jew ..this explains his many letters.

I don't care if u doubt the authenticity of these gospels. I will only advice u look at christain theologians view on these issues. U will be surprised at what u will learn. I don't sieve information.. I take in everything but like every other human I am biased.. I have studied these thinks long before u..remember in Oct 2014 u were still professing ur Catholic faith..

Ifeann:


Dude apparently u haven't been reading my posts.. I have written already that it is unlikely the apostles wrote those..one because they were likely unable to write..Peter for instance was a fisherman. .getting parchment paper was difficult...and they were being hunted and persecuted. .

This is not the arguement.. they mostly likely had scribes do the writing when it was convienent to do so.. Paul on the other hand was a learned Jew ..this explains his many letters.

I don't care if u doubt the authenticity of these gospels. I will only advice u look at christain theologians view on these issues. U will be surprised at what u will learn. I don't sieve information.. I take in everything but like every other human I am biased.. I have studied these thinks long before u..remember in Oct 2014 u were still professing ur Catholic faith..

You know one big problem with engaging you is that you leave the subject of the matter and dabble into individual talks thats why you and these muslims always have each others throat..

That i turned atheistic few months ago is clearly nothing in this matter, i have been agnostic for more than 5years (clinging to catholicsm due to emotional attachment) ...we have concluded..

[size=20] The gospels were not written by the people they bear their names [/size] nothing more to add..

I have no more time for such unwarranted baseless talk anymore..

folaski:


good luck. I just asked you that question to deduce some things about you and i have drawn my conclusions.

That's not the subject of this thread if you pls

lmao... you brought the spirit world talk up..

why are you afraid now to define dream for me?

johnydon22:


You know one big problem with engaging you is that you leave the subject of the matter and dabble into individual talks thats why you and these muslims always have each others throat..

That i turned atheistic few months ago is clearly nothing in this matter, i have been agnostic for more than 5years (clinging to catholicsm due to emotional attachment) ...we have concluded..

[size=20] The gospels were not written by the people they bear their names [/size] nothing more to add..

I have no more time for such unwarranted baseless talk anymore..

Nope that's not what we concluded.. it was most likely written by scribes on behalf of the apostles, literacy is something we take for granted now.. ..even ur commentary snapshots noted that..

I brought up the issue of ur recent conversion to atheism so as to emphasize ur naiveté on this issue.. u could not have been agnostic for a whole 5 years and be willing to defend ur Catholic faith just Oct last year..

Spend some time reading to make ur arguement stronger if the folly of atheism appeals to u...

Ifeann:


Nope that's not what we concluded.. it was most likely written by scribes on behalf of the apostles, literacy is something we take for granted now.. ..even ur commentary snapshots noted that..

I brought up the issue of ur recent conversion to atheism so as to emphasize ur naiveté on this issue.. u could not have been agnostic for a whole 5 years and be willing to defend ur Catholic faith just Oct last year..

Spend some time reading to make ur arguement stronger if the folly of atheism appeals to u...

argumentum ad hominem as usual... i can't bring myself too low to oblige you such baseless talk..

where ever you read the scribes wrote it for the apostles, i am still wondering...lolzzz

am sure everything speaks for itself now...

folaski:
All human beings are religious without any exception. It is what they worship and how they worship that differs. For anyone to say he/she does not have a religion is not true. This is because we all hold ideologies or believes systems. For instance if you are a strong believer in Carl Max's philosophy of life, that will be the guiding principle that governs your life. So in a sense Carl Max is your god who's opinion guides your life. You have idolised him.

If you are so bound to anything or anyone then you have a god in them ad so you are religious.

Atheist take note : you have a god and a religion .

1) Atheism isn't a religion

2) It's only religious to the extent that there are atheist organizations, creeds and common beliefs.

3) Not all atheists are communists, and many don't agree with Karl Marx's views.

DProDG:


You only proved my point.

Stop dodging when you are already put into the corner. I am not proving your point. I have proved that man is an object of worship which makes him a deity. This you disgareed to.

DProDG:

An individual who considers something/someone a deity is in no way an atheist.

Atheist worship something or someone. Inasmuch worship is involve, the act is directed to deities. That is going by the definition of worship.

Atheism is only noises. . . . .

DProDG:

Proving my point again...

Quit this crap. You have been nailed.

UyiIredia:


1) Atheism isn't a religion

2) It's only religious to the extent that there are atheist organizations, creeds and common beliefs.

3) Not all atheists are communists, and many don't agree with Karl Marx's views.

I disagree with your #2, would you say humanism becomes a religion when there are "organizations, creeds and common beliefs"?

UyiIredia:


1) Atheism isn't a religion

What is religion in the first place. How do you define it? We can know the relationship of atheism and religion with your definition.

Note pls, do you give me definition that wont cover whole religion system.

UyiIredia:

2) It's only religious to the extent that there are atheist organizations, creeds and common beliefs.

You can remove the word 'extent'.

No matter the degree of measurement, when it contain substance of a religion, it is a religion.

UyiIredia:

3) Not all atheists are communists, and many don't agree with Karl Marx's views.

Actuall Sam Harris practise buddhism and he is still an atheist.

And you gon tell me atheism is not a religion?

FOLYKAZE:


Stop dodging when you are already put into the corner. I am not proving your point. I have proved that man is an object of worship which makes him a deity. This you disgareed to.

Man is an object of worship...lolzzz... actually i worship my parents and siblings plus my girl friend

FOLYKAZE:


Atheist worship something or someone. Inasmuch worship is involve, the act is directed to deities. That is going by the definition of worship.

Atheism is only noises. . . . .

It's quite evident enough that you are only reeling out emotional biased sentiments towards atheism...

Who is it atheists worship or should i say what is it ?

FOLYKAZE:


Quit this crap. You have been nailed.

Seriously

FOLYKAZE:


What is religion in the first place. How do you define it? We can know the relationship of atheism and religion with your definition.

Note pls, do you give me definition that wont cover whole religion system.

Simple thing... google a list of world religion and check if you will find atheism there...

FOLYKAZE:


You can remove the word 'extent'.

No matter the degree of measurement, when it contain substance of a religion, it is a religion.

I can smell desperation in this one..

FOLYKAZE:

Actuall Sam Harris practise buddhism and he is still an atheist.

And you gon tell me atheism is not a religion?

So Sam Harris practises two religion huh? atheism and Buddhism... lolzzz smh..

Oh he is a f**king infidel for practising two religions... let us go and preach to him to quite buddhism and start worshipping only (The Godless) of atheism..