• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debunking the 7 Myths Regarding the Bible

You haven't done your homework on that either.

Here's a site with numerous reasons why your claim lacks merit.

Part 1:




Part 2:



What's more...

"William Ramsey noted (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"): Ramsay held that Quirinius was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here..."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Once again the Liar for Jesus references random assholes’ blogs instead of actual peer reviewed sources by historians. Because Logicman’s goal is not to tell the truth.

You realize nothing there disputes anything I said, yes?
 
Once again the Liar for Jesus references random assholes’ blogs instead of actual peer reviewed sources by historians. Because Logicman’s goal is not to tell the truth.

You realize nothing there disputes anything I said, yes?

LOL. You're busted. Your left wing hysterics is quite amusing. And since when are you a peer-reviewed scholar!?

Arguing with liberals monkey.jpg
 
LOL. You're busted. Your left wing hysterics is quite amusing. And since when are you a peer-reviewed scholar!?

View attachment 67414315

When have I claimed to be peer reviewed? If you want me to provide links supporting my statements, I will and from actual peer reviewed sources. Not some random asshole’s blog.

But then again, I actually understand the scientific method and logical fallacies, as opposed to you who lies about your scientific education.
 
And they did it in spite of the Bible. The Bible explicitly condones slavery and not once does the Bible call slavery evil or say people shouldn’t own slaves.
But Paul's letter to Timothy explicitly call out slave traders as evil. But far, far more importantly is the tenor and tone of the gospel message that abolitionists themselves wrote as the philosophical fuel for their movement.

So, were abolitionists lying when they claimed that?
 
But Paul's letter to Timothy explicitly call out slave traders as evil. But far, far more importantly is the tenor and tone of the gospel message that abolitionists themselves wrote as the philosophical fuel for their movement.

So, were abolitionists lying when they claimed that?

Paul calls the enslavement of one specific slave evil because that slave is his friend.

Yes, they were lying. The message of the Gospel is not that slaves should be free.
 
Paul calls the enslavement of one specific slave evil because that slave is his friend.
Wrong scripture.

Yes, they were lying. The message of the Gospel is not that slaves should be free.
Of course the message of the Gospel isn't that "slaves should be free". It's that you're forgiven. That powered abolitionism.

I have to say, for you to reject Wilberforce's et al claim 200 years later, on what powered the abolitionism movement and replace it with some other "enlightenment philosophy" that you've yet to explain, is somewhat bizarre by the way. Far, far more likely that you have no idea of what you're talking about here.
 
Wrong scripture.


Of course the message of the Gospel isn't that "slaves should be free". It's that you're forgiven. That powered abolitionism.

I have to say, for you to reject Wilberforce's et al claim 200 years later, on what powered the abolitionism movement and replace it with some other "enlightenment philosophy" that you've yet to explain, is somewhat bizarre by the way. Far, far more likely that you have no idea of what you're talking about here.

Christians may have thought their Christianity was behind their abolitionism, but they were deliberately ignoring all the parts of the Bible where slavery is condoned.
 
Christians may have thought their Christianity was behind their abolitionism, but they were deliberately ignoring all the parts of the Bible where slavery is condoned.
If it's all the same to you, I think I'll accept the abolitionists' stated source for their life's work of abolitionism over Questerr the internet atheist.

No offense of course.
 
If it's all the same to you, I think I'll accept the abolitionists' stated source for their life's work of abolitionism over Questerr the internet atheist.

No offense of course.

Do you accept it when Christians today say their support for LGBTQ rights is based on the Bible? It requires them to ignore all the myriad of passages that condemn LGBTQ people, but that’s okay, right?
 
The purpose of the Bible has never been to change the secular laws of the land but to help believers to live under that law, yet keep their faith intact...God's government/kingdom, under Christ's rule, will do that very thing soon...

38a357db723afe89f83951fe2e4c5c9b.jpg
 
Do you accept it when Christians today say their support for LGBTQ rights is based on the Bible? It requires them to ignore all the myriad of passages that condemn LGBTQ people, but that’s okay, right?
I absolutely do accept that. The heart change that some christians speak of isn't about who has the biggest bible list of don'ts. It's about a change of heart from;

I am intrinsically complete and don't need help, to
I am intrinsically broken and do need help.

With that 180 change in how I view mankind, the pink-haired lesbian at my bank now goes from a dirty pink-hair lesbian beneath me, not worthy of my honor (no one actually admits that mindset of course), to someone who's broken like me, created in the image of God just like me, and absolutely worthy of my respect and honor - organically and without any effort. Someone I love and want the best for, because Christ died for her just like he did me. That's the change in heart that powered those guys decades ago. Wasn't based on a list of rights and wrongs or some Levitical obscurity. It was based on a prior encounter with the living Christ and as a result, set a worldview for abolitionists that wasn't understood by most Christians at the time, nor understood by you decades later.
 
I absolutely do accept that. The heart change that some christians speak of isn't about who has the biggest bible list of don'ts. It's about a change of heart from;

I am intrinsically complete and don't need help, to
I am intrinsically broken and do need help.

With that 180 change in how I view mankind, the pink-haired lesbian at my bank now goes from a dirty pink-hair lesbian beneath me, not worthy of my honor (no one actually admits that mindset of course), to someone who's broken like me, created in the image of God just like me, and absolutely worthy of my respect and honor - organically and without any effort. Someone I love and want the best for, because Christ died for her just like he did me. That's the change in heart that powered those guys decades ago. Wasn't based on a list of rights and wrongs or some Levitical obscurity. It was based on a prior encounter with the living Christ and as a result, set a worldview for abolitionists that wasn't understood by most Christians at the time, nor understood by you decades later.

Why even claim to be a Christian if you aren’t going to follow “the Word of God”.

And if you claim the problematic parts aren’t “God’s Words”, how do you know the other parts are other than arbitrarily?
 
Why even claim to be a Christian if you aren’t going to follow “the Word of God”.
I just succinctly summarized the Gospel to you and you ask me why I'm not following the Word of God. I can't help you.

And if you claim the problematic parts aren’t “God’s Words”, how do you know the other parts are other than arbitrarily?
Jesus himself discounted the Leviticus law. I'm a Christian and I follow him. I am not Jew dependent on Levitical law.
 
I just succinctly summarized the Gospel to you and you ask me why I'm not following the Word of God. I can't help you.


Jesus himself discounted the Leviticus law. I'm a Christian and I follow him. I am not Jew dependent on Levitical law.

So Christians who don’t follow Jesus when it comes to other things aren’t Christians?

For instance Jesus saying that marriage is between men and women?
 
So Christians who don’t follow Jesus when it comes to other things aren’t Christians?

For instance Jesus saying that marriage is between men and women?
I'm not good at judging myself, much less anyone else.
 
What a dishonest cop-out.
If you wanna judge people's hearts, knock yourself out. But don't bang on judgmental, so-called Christians who wanna give it back. They're book is bigger than yours.
 
I absolutely do accept that. The heart change that some christians speak of isn't about who has the biggest bible list of don'ts. It's about a change of heart from;

I am intrinsically complete and don't need help, to
I am intrinsically broken and do need help.

With that 180 change in how I view mankind, the pink-haired lesbian at my bank now goes from a dirty pink-hair lesbian beneath me, not worthy of my honor (no one actually admits that mindset of course), to someone who's broken like me, created in the image of God just like me, and absolutely worthy of my respect and honor - organically and without any effort. Someone I love and want the best for, because Christ died for her just like he did me. That's the change in heart that powered those guys decades ago. Wasn't based on a list of rights and wrongs or some Levitical obscurity. It was based on a prior encounter with the living Christ and as a result, set a worldview for abolitionists that wasn't understood by most Christians at the time, nor understood by you decades later.

The change you describe does not require belief in gods, just acknowledgement of the shared human condition.
 
LOL. Tell you what, mrjurrs. You guys love to play the ones in the know. How about you show me your BEST ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) of a fictitious person, place, or event in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). PERSON, PLACE OR EVENT. Cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious. Please follow the instructions above. Let's see that bad boy.
I see you resort to your standard fallacious deflection when challenged. Typical intellectual dishonesty.
 
No, you can't. But if you think you can then cite your 'BEST' ONE EXAMPLE ( 1 - JUST ONE) from the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) why the resurrection if false. Remember to cite the pertinent scripture(s) and make your case with some kind of evidence or substantiation why it's fictitious.
I sure can. I can easily prove to any rational person that resurrection is not possible and does not and did not happen. Granted, that leaves you out.
 
If it's all the same to you, I think I'll accept the abolitionists' stated source for their life's work of abolitionism over Questerr the internet atheist.

No offense, of course.

But you refuse to accept the slave-holders stated source for their defence of slavery - the Bible

Genesis 9:24-27
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
By the late 18th, early 19th century, many academics agreed that a primary justification for slavery among Christian slave-owners in the southern states, was the belief that African-Americans were descendants of Ham, the son of Canaan.

Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
 
I sure can. I can easily prove to any rational person that resurrection is not possible and does not and did not happen. Granted, that leaves you out.

So far you've stuck out on pretty much everything you've claimed. You have no credibility with your dilettante rants.
 
Back
Top Bottom