• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Is The Difference Between Prayer And Witchcraft?

Why do you ask for extra-biblical evidence for Jesus? Haven't you studied and looked into it yet? And why do you throw the New Testament under the bus? Better have a great argument for doing so.

The old testament does not prove it just the new. If you can't show any other but one story one myth then why should anyone belive it as anything else but that .. a fable
 

Says who?
 
No, that's what you're saying, and it's dead wrong.

Jesus is Risen in all four historical Gospels and various epistles.

The Bible is not proof that the Bible is true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're claiming resurrection. You need more than just the book it's found in.
 
There are many stories by different people in one book yes that is true but that doesn't make it accurate especially* with all the discrepancies

*Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, John 20:1 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb had been rolled away
Matthew 28:1-2 - The stone in front of Jesus’ tomb was still in place and would be rolled away later

And

Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and Salome
Matthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another Mary
Luke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”
John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple


They have very different ideas on what happened.
Even on the things that Jesus could do as he couldn't get even get a fig to bear fruit in Mathew.


*All those people had a narrative* to fill I'm asking for an actual* source that would not be effected by any biased of whether or not that had happened* such as if a dead person had risen from the grave , which would have been major news . Perhaps that is my fault as I had not specified* that part.


The church father's had ideas which where heritical* and they were never verified in any way* and that the actual church itself latter on found these to be wrong and besides* these accounts come from disciples* of** disciples.

Celsus believed the the whole Jesus than was nothing more than magic* and sorcery/ witchcraft and I don't believe* in magic either so what of it ?*


The stories in the bible are insane.* Samson and Deliah .* Sodom / Gomorah* citiy walls destroyed by trumpets. Snakes , donkeys and burning bushes that talk .bears that kill people for making fun of baldness* and revelation* which is basically just one long acid trip . The liad* is almost as nuts as revelation .

The bible isn't historically accurate as it has things which are fabricated* in it.Such as* the ro,an censuses

*SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH LUKE

The best criticism* comes from* a deitist named Thomas Paine* in his book the age of reason which I highly* suggest everyone read at some point
*Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
 
The Bible is not proof that the Bible is true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you're claiming resurrection. You need more than just the book it's found in.

Nonsense, and believe whatever you want, I really don't care.
 
The old testament does not prove it just the new. If you can't show any other but one story one myth then why should anyone belive it as anything else but that .. a fable

If you do your due-diligence and really study the New Testament in depth, you will find the truth. Because right now you don't possess it when it comes to the historical Jesus.

I can recommend a book for you to start with, written by a very knowledgeable scholar.

 

You know, if you put these on a timeline all of these would disappear as conflicts. Of course this has already been done by Simon Greenleaf. You might want to take some time and study up on it to see the errors in your posting.

Harmony of the Resurrection accounts

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

p.s. All four Gospels confirm the resurrection. Try squirming out of that one.
 


I find the new testament to be inane , and it offers nothing of value , but I can't deny a book suggestion .
The age of reason by Thomas paine is a good book which I suggest you read.
 

Somehow because of the major differences it is right and yet because of one detail that being the reserection it is correct? That's conformation biased .
 
Nonsense, and believe whatever you want, I really don't care.

I shall, but pretty much your only way to debate is through dismissal and deflection, you cannot produce anything of credible evidence beyond the Bible. If this were true, there should be many records of the event in various forms from government documents to accounts beyond just his followers credibly documenting Jesus walking around after he was verifiably killed.

But you ain't got it. So I guess the resurrection has been busted.
 
I find the new testament to be inane , and it offers nothing of value , but I can't deny a book suggestion .
The age of reason by Thomas paine is a good book which I suggest you read.

Already read it. The Historical Jesus is better by far.
 

Tell that to somebody who believes your nonsense.

And watch out for that first step into eternity.
 

Intent and execution.
 
Intent and execution.

So, functionally, they are the same? The same brain muscles or whatever being activated? The same form?
 

That greenleaf essay is pretty piss poor, full of unreasonable assumptions, logical fallacies, and a whole bunch of garbage. Can you do better than that?
 
That greenleaf essay is pretty piss poor, full of unreasonable assumptions, logical fallacies, and a whole bunch of garbage. Can you do better than that?

Your analysis of it is sophomoric and unscholarly.
 

If Son is also the Father, then who is Jesus talking to when he prays?

Are you aware of what a literary motif is?

motif
/mōˈtēf/
noun
1. a usually recurring salient thematic element (as in the arts); especially : a dominant idea or central theme

A motif is easily identified as a recurring pattern. The Christian godhead story follows so many motifs repeated in other religions (most of which predate Christianity and the Jews as a tribe) that I'm not about to list them all for you right here. There are hundreds of books dedicated to this. I have taken several college classes where we looked at this in detail, one of which was an entire semester of examining the monomyth and all of the overlapping tropes. Virgin Birth; Birth/Death/Rebirth; Solar Deity; Renewal/Fertility/The Harvest... there are simply too many to talk about in 5,000 characters. And the characters! Horus. Marduk. Dionysus. Vishnu. Rama. Ganesh. Siddhartha. And on, and on, and on.

So, I guess if you're going to link to a religious website with a button at the top conveniently labeled "Accept Jesus Today," then I'm going to link you to The Monomyth by Joseph Campbell, World Mythology by Donna Rosenberg, and several pages of the easiest comparative cases. Do your own homework. Or don't. I really don't care.

I will leave you with this, though:

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/storytelling/plots/hero_journey/hero_journey.htm
Campbell's 'Hero's Journey' Monomyth

Joseph Campbell defined a classic sequence of actions that are found in many stories. It is also known as the Monomyth, a term Campbell coined from James Joyce's Finnigan's Wake.
I. Separation / departure

The first section of the story is about the separation of the hero from the normal world. Separation has symbolic echo of infant transition away from the mother and so has a scary feel to it.

I.1 The Call to Adventure
I.2 Refusal of the Call
Acceptance of the Call
I.3 Supernatural Aid
I.4 Crossing of the First Threshold
I.5 Entering the Belly of the Whale

II. Initiation
In the main part of the story the hero is initiated into true heroic stature by various trials and rites. Through daring and battle, the true character emerges.
II.1 Road of Trials
II.2 The Meeting with the Goddess
II.3 Woman as Temptress
II.4 Atonement with the Father
II.5 Apotheosis
II.6 The Ultimate Boon

III. Return
After initiation the hero can cleansed and return in triumph to deserved recognition, although this in itself may not be without its trials and tribulations.
III.1 Refusal of the Return
III.2 Magic Flight
III.3 Rescue From Without
III.4 Crossing of the Return Threshold
III.5 Master of the Two Worlds
III.6 Freedom to Live
 
Last edited:
Your analysis of it is sophomoric and unscholarly.

Let me break it down to be more precise. Warning. Beause fo the 5000 word limit, it will be a multiple post

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

OK.. Paragraph 1. Here Greenleaf begins to show his intentions, and also is starting to show his bias. By quoting Lord Bacon, Simon Greenleaf is equating science and religion as equal. He also is assuming the Christian version of God as being omniscience, and involved in human affairs.

This paragraph basically establishes that for Greenleaf’s purpose, the God he is assuming is the Christian God, and also assuming that anything that science will discover will prove Christianity correct in all details. He shows his intention to propose evidence to convince people it’s true.
 

Here Simon declares that the basis of the Christian religion is the FACT of all these things that are recounted in the Gospels. He already is saying that he accepts the stories of the gospels as the literal truth, before analyzing it. He then says he is going to show that the testimony of the gospels is true. It seems to me that it he is basically saying the gospels are true because the gospels say they are true. There is a hint of there being a circular reasoning here./
Here he is saying that the truth of Christianity has been established, and he is not going to address it here. Unfortunately for Simon, the beliefs about what Christianity is for a large part is the very documents he is professing to be examining. Simon Greenleafs claim of being objective, and using logic is further damaged by his extreme strong bias here. No facts, just pure devotion and a statement of faith so far in this essay.

I could go on and on, but that would really be spamming. It continues in this manner, and each and every paragraph can be shown to be just a bunch of unsupported claims, and poor reasoning.
 
Tell that to somebody who believes your nonsense.

And watch out for that first step into eternity.

I know, denial and deflection, seems to be about all your arguments can muster. But yes, that first step into eternity sure will suck.
 
<yawn>

There's nothing in the last five posts that in any way works in the skeptic's favor.

They can't bust the resurrection and they're angry about it.
 
<yawn>

There's nothing in the last five posts that in any way works in the skeptic's favor.

They can't bust the resurrection and they're angry about it.

Don't worry. You'll have the last laugh, up in heaven with Chubbs, the aligator, and Abraham Lincoln.
 
<yawn>

There's nothing in the last five posts that in any way works in the skeptic's favor.

They can't bust the resurrection and they're angry about it.

There is nothing to bust, you cant prove Jesus actually died on the cross. Untill you do so there is nothing to talk about.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…