Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The word Christian never appears in the Bible
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality vs Skepticism
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Boltwave
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 01:20 AM) [snapback]1188788[/snapback]

POST 92 claearly show you acting DISRESPECTFUL towards my belief all because I said Jesus came back as a ghost..I stated it was my belief and you ATTACKED saying it was a load of CRAP...who's paranoid? hmm.gif w00t.gif
See not only do you show disrespect for MY belief but now look at you acting the lil baby passifier.gif grow up bolty innocent.gif w00t.gif w00t.gif



Right, oh mmmmkay.........
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Boltwave @ May 15 2006, 02:30 AM) [snapback]1188808[/snapback]

Right, oh mmmmkay.........

Where's my kiss?? Dont you love me no more? wub.gif dont forget to SHARE the love Bolty...my lil bolty how cute is that wub.gif


I can almost pic you sitting there at your monitor..going all.... disgust.gif at me LOL I LOVE IT you are so cute when you are angry w00t.gif wub.gif








grin2.gif
Boltwave
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 01:33 AM) [snapback]1188814[/snapback]

Where's my kiss?? Dont you love me no more? wub.gif dont forget to SHARE the love Bolty...my lil bolty how cute is that wub.gif
I can almost pic you sitting there at your monitor..going all.... disgust.gif at me LOL I LOVE IT you are so cute when you are angry w00t.gif wub.gif
grin2.gif



If you really want to know what kind of face I'm making at my monitor as we speak, use this as an example= thumbdown.gif rolleyes.gif no.gif

Have fun talking to yourself BM.
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Boltwave @ May 15 2006, 02:42 AM) [snapback]1188832[/snapback]

If you really want to know what kind of face I'm making at my monitor as we speak, use this as an example= thumbdown.gif rolleyes.gif no.gif

Have fun talking to yourself BM.

w00t.gif so when I make light of this situation to try and get you to lighten up you take the huff LOL thats figures...I dont believe you are a loving christian after all then....you may be a christian but not a loving one innocent.gif

At least I am loving wub.gif and I love thy neighbor wub.gif and I am SERIOUS..at least I understand what that term means thumbsup.gif

I'll pray for you either way....after all you DID tell me that I am in your prayers when I found out I had cancer..and here you are telling me likewise unsure.gif
BZRK
You would think that the Vatican's Secret Archives would be some dumb conspiracy theory. I mean, it sounds ridiculous. The Vatican's Secret Archives. Let it roll off your tongue. Surely, we're into serious conspiracy weirdness here.

Except, of course, that there really is such a thing. And it's pretty much exactly what you think it is.

There are a lot of reasons for an organization like the Catholic Church to have Secret Archives. After all, they've been in the conspiracy business for millennia longer than Majestic-12. They've been in the disinformation business for about 18 times as long as Donald Rumsfeld has been alive. They were taking secret vows when the Masons were just a bunch of architects. And they have more to hide that Richard M. Nixon on his worst day.

The Catholic Church first officially started keeping a library around the fourth century. Formed at the height of the first great heresy craze, the contents of this library included a lot of attacks on heretical branches of Christianity and the documents and scriptures used by these heretical branches (which the Church fathers admitted to having read).

The entire contents of the pre-eighth century archives, presumably including all these fascinating heresies, mysteriously disappeared, according to the Vatican's official account of the library's history, "for reasons not entirely known."

The library was strictly closed to the public until around the 15th century, when the church decided to open its contents for the masses. OK, not all of the contents. Starting in the fourth century, the Catholic Church, in a position of political power for the first time, had been ruthlessly suppressing what it saw as heresy:

QUOTE
"Theodosius is said to be the first (Roman emperor) who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichaeans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned."


Well, most of the books. After all, you would have to be pretty stupid to destroy valuable intelligence on your most hated enemies (read the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on heresy for a sense of the magnitude of enmity we're talking about here). Around the time the library first opened to the public, Pope Paul IV issued the "index of prohibited books." Reading, possessing or distributing these books had a spiritual penalty of excommunication (i.e., condemnation to hell without appeal), and in Catholic countries, they often had civil penalties as well (of varying severity, depending on the nature of the books).

Ironically, the pope issued an order later that same year mitigating the penalties regarding violations of the Index's non-reading list, but the order was conveniently "lost" until 1909. Whoops! Guess they should've invented the Dewey decimal system while they were opening the library. This minor paperwork snafu justified 400 years of suppression and censorship, and when the modification of the order was discovered, it was ignored in favor of 400 years precedent, until the church finally lightened the order (slightly) in 1966.

While all this sounds pretty revolting to the American mindset, the church officially condones censorship even today: "Censorship of books is a supervision of the press in order to prevent any abuse of it. In this sense, every lawful authority, whose duty it is to protect its subjects from the ravages of a pernicious press, has the right of exercising censorship of books."

Starting in the third century, the Church had expressly ordered the destruction of heretical books, but their contents were clearly referenced by the main heresy-hunters of the day, such as Irenaeus, a Father of the Church who wrote extensively about the fallacies of heresy. His texts explicitly admit he had read some of the source materials, as well as showing a great familiarity with the various beliefs of the many different heretic sects in existence at the time. The church's official history of the archives confirms it contained such materials as a resource for those designated to fight against heresy.

Thus, the existence of a secret archive became inevitable for an organization obsessed with information control. Whatever form this archive took, it indisputably dates back to the fourth century at the latest. According to the Vatican, the early secret archive contained mainly the names of believers and wealthy patrons of the church, but as noted above, it almost assuredly contained copies of heretical and banned works, information deemed too "dangerous" for the public.

As the centuries wore on, the list of banned and dangerous books grew and grew, thanks to repeated expansions of the enemies list and aggressive attempts to snuff out the list's members. The Inquisitions rounded up hundreds of books on topics ranging from Protestantism to Witchcraft and ritual magic, to the libraries of groups like the Knights Templar and the Cathars.

The latter groups might have had some particularly explosive additions for the library. Modern Conspiracy theorists have speculated that the Templars and the Cathars could have been protecting secrets like the possibility that Jesus Christ didn't die on the cross as advertised, and that there might be hard evidence to support that claim, not to mention descendents of the allegedly sexless messiah.

Pope Pius IV is credited with first officially designating the existence of something which would formally be called the "Secret Archive." The actual building was completed early in the 17th century and remained an ironclad fortress of forbidden information until the end of the 19th century, when it was purportedly opened to select scholars.

A heavily edited index of the Archives contents was published, and a large set of rules were developed regarding who got access to what. An even more secret archive known as the "Apostolic Penitentiary" exists, containing papal documents and canon law, and a lot of other stuff which is super-classified. Absolutely no one is allowed access.

As the 20th century dawned, the increasingly free flow of information around the world (and the decreasing political power of the Catholic Church) made it more and more difficult for the Vatican to effectively control what people were reading.

Archaeological discoveries of ancient Gnostic texts spilled the beans on the original heretics, and a vast surge of interest in all things magical and occult just made things worse. It's difficult to justify banning access to the rituals of witchcraft, just for instance, when every major bookseller in American carries three or four flavors of "Teen Witch Spell Kits."

Another predictable problem arose when the Vatican admitted the secret archives existed. People very naturally began guessing what might be in there, sometimes very accurately.

Among the more recent good guesses were the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima, an allegedly devastating prophecy of doom delivered by the Virgin Mary in a series of appearances to illiterate peasant children which was allegedly revealed by the Church in 2000. Under intense pressure, the Church released a series of 20th century documents from the secret archives relating to papal complicity in the rise of the Nazis in Germany.

In addition to Nazi collaboration, the archives are generally thought to contain rather a lot of information about the Catholic Church's wrongdoings, such as the current scandal on priestly pedophilia. In fact, the archives contain miles of allegations concerning the sexual kinks and other vices enjoyed by priests and bishops, dating back to at least the 14th century, and possibly even earlier.

Realizing the danger of such disclosures, the Vatican structured access to the archives to allow a minimum of accidental disclosures and a maximum of secrecy. The most obvious way to do this is also the most effective. It's strictly prohibited to go browsing the shelves in the Vatican's secret archives. It's unclear whether even the archive's librarians are allowed to do so.

Scholars wishing to review information in the archives have to arrive at the gate knowing exactly what documents they want, which is a pretty crappy way to encourage scholarship but a great way to make sure no one stumbles onto the Explicit Erotic Diaries of Jesus and Mary. Scholars also have to present their research requests in writing in advance, allowing the librarians ample time to decide between their three options in responding — 1) bring out the requested document, 2) claim the document doesn't exist, or 3) admit the document exists but refuse to give the scholar access.

So if you were hoping poke around the archives looking for evidence that Jesus was an extraterrestrial, just forget it. You have a better chance of getting a guided tour of Area 51 than getting a glimpse of the Sacred Alien Rectal Probing Device.

I just personally think theres more to religion and alot of it is hidden and the truth is in supressed.

Cheers

BZRK
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1187970[/snapback]

But the whole time I was trying to say...
Meaning there where NO SUCH THINGS as christian back when Jesus was here and still Anti againing and PA threw their info at me that didnt relate to what I was trying to say laugh.gif
The Bible mentions
Christian twice: Ac 26:28 and 1Pe 4:16
Christians once: Ac 11:26 <---Uhuh long after Jesus's time on earth...hee hee!!

SO I was right...christians where not around back then untill way after Jesus died LOL abnd then shortly approx 50-60 years in came the NEW testament... w00t.gif

I kept saying there where NO such things as christians when Jesus was here on earth...but a few just kept posting the dribble thinking they had me hook line and sinker...when the truth is I WAS RIGHT ha ha ha clap.gif See the bible NT was written by a christian...so he had to have put them in there but in reality they didnt come about untill WAY WAY WAAAYYYY After Jesus...la la la la whistling2.gif
Ummm, we're answering the original poster - check the title of the thread:

The word Christian never appears in the Bible, soooo BOOYAH!

And BOOYAH! It does appear. When did this argument turn into the word CHristian being around when Jesus walked the Earth? It's about the word being in the Bible. And only the first four books of the New Testament actually deal with Jesus' time on Earth.
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ May 15 2006, 03:12 AM) [snapback]1188875[/snapback]

Ummm, we're answering the original poster - check the title of the thread:

The word Christian never appears in the Bible, soooo BOOYAH!

And BOOYAH! It does appear. When did this argument turn into the word CHristian being around when Jesus walked the Earth? It's about the word being in the Bible. And only the first four books of the New Testament actually deal with Jesus' time on Earth.

Why didnt you just post this comment of yours to the OP?? hmm.gif After all it was Gods Forever Servant that made this in the 1st place blink.gif
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]1188550[/snapback]

but not in the way the bible says so...sorry...I believe he was born on a different month than Dec...I believe that when he was a teenager he traveled and did a lot of study.....I believe he was indeed very smart...i believe he married and had kids...this is part of my belief..if you cant respect that..TOUGH happy.gif
The way the Bible says? The BIble says nothing about a December birth, or of his marital status or of his life before ministry. Where is this info coming from?

QUOTE(zarvirus @ May 15 2006, 10:18 AM) [snapback]1188676[/snapback]

Have you ever stop to think...What is the real truth?, i mean can anyone really prove Jesus existed?, i thonk not, History is not the truth, it is however some ones point of view or how he or she has expirienced its cultures surroundings, so people?, DO THE ASIAN PEOPLE WILL GO TO HELL BECOUSE THEY ARE NOT XTIANS? give me a break, thats all bull$%&!, the bible and all that crap... disgust.gif
Where did Asian people come into this? This has nothing to do with Race at all....
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ May 15 2006, 03:24 AM) [snapback]1188886[/snapback]

The way the Bible says? The BIble says nothing about a December birth, or of his marital status or of his life before ministry. Where is this info coming from?

Where did Asian people come into this? This has nothing to do with Race at all....

I dont believe in what the bible says..I make up my own mind as to when he was born ect...why cant you just respect that PA?? hmm.gif

And you never answered my last question asking you WHY didnt you just post it to the OP??
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]1188878[/snapback]

Why didnt you just post this comment of yours to the OP?? hmm.gif After all it was Gods Forever Servant that made this in the 1st place blink.gif
blink.gif It originally was answering the original poster - let's look at the backstory:

Antiaging replies to the original poster:

QUOTE(antiaging @ May 14 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]1187503[/snapback]

QUOTE(Gods forever Servant @ Apr 13 2006, 02:02 PM) [snapback]1145444[/snapback]

Can someone please point me into a where the word Christian is in the Bible?

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.


And you reply in the post immediately after:

QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]1187509[/snapback]

What are you new here on earth?? LOL there was no such things as christians back then..for crying out load....christians didnt come along till long after Jesus left the earth rolleyes.gif


Which leads to everything else. This all comes from you answering antiaging, who answered God's Forever servant. Or am I mistaken?

Regards, PA
Beckys_Mom
You quoted me on post 106 PA...when you should have quoted Gods Forever Servant ..after all you say you where talking to him right?
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]1188894[/snapback]

I dont believe in what the bible says..I make up my own mind as to when he was born ect...why cant you just respect that PA?? hmm.gif
I do respect that - the way you phrased your question however was as if December 25'th is a biblical teaching - but not in the way the bible says so...sorry...I believe he was born on a different month than Dec... - and as I was pointing out, December is not a biblical concept at all. You are free to your belief, I was just correcting information.

QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]1188894[/snapback]

And you never answered my last question asking you WHY didnt you just post it to the OP??
I was answering it - i was reading the rest of the thread at the time.
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ May 15 2006, 03:34 AM) [snapback]1188902[/snapback]

I do respect that - the way you phrased your question however was as if December 25'th is a biblical teaching - but not in the way the bible says so...sorry...I believe he was born on a different month than Dec... - and as I was pointing out, December is not a biblical concept at all. You are free to your belief, I was just correcting information.

I was answering it - i was reading the rest of the thread at the time.


I know I made it sound as though its the biblical way..oppssiee..but you have to admit a lot and I mean a lot of christians, catholics..protestants ect ALL believe he was born in Dec 25th christmas day...I on the other hand dont...........but I still celebrate christmas LOL cuz I love the pressies w00t.gif
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]1188899[/snapback]

You quoted me on post 106 PA...when you should have quoted Gods Forever Servant ..after all you say you where talking to him right?
Oh dear, I guess I must quote more detail. Immediately after your reply to antiaging, he replies again:

QUOTE(antiaging @ May 14 2006, 01:43 PM) [snapback]1187586[/snapback]

The person that wrote Acts 11:26, who stated that the disciples were called Christians in the first century, was Luke, a medical doctor and a convert to Christianity that lived in the first century, and he is telling an historical fact.
He is the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts of the apostles. He accompanied the apostle Paul in his ministry in the first century.
His account is reliable.
You, are mistaken.


You then come back with:

QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1187647[/snapback]

No mate I aint mistaken...the fact is..there where NO christians back then everyone knows that


So far, it's all in response to antiaging's original reply to God's Forever Servant. This is when I reply, since the origin of this debate is in the original post, I thought you were replying to that:

QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ May 14 2006, 04:00 PM) [snapback]1187753[/snapback]

I see - so why is the word 'Christian' in there? btw, when this was written, Jesus HAD left the earth.


You then say

QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1187970[/snapback]

But the whole time I was trying to say...
And then you quote that original reply of yours to antiaging, and finish your post

QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1187970[/snapback]

Meaning there where NO SUCH THINGS as christian back when Jesus was here and still Anti againing and PA threw their info at me that didnt relate to what I was trying to say laugh.gif
The Bible mentions
Christian twice: Ac 26:28 and 1Pe 4:16
Christians once: Ac 11:26 <---Uhuh long after Jesus's time on earth...hee hee!!

Keep in mind the NT was not written for atleast 50-60 years after the events supposedly took place. w00t.gif SO I was right...christians where not around back then untill way after Jesus died LOL abnd then shortly approx 50-60 years in came the NEW testament... w00t.gif

I kept saying there where NO such things as christians when Jesus was here on earth...but a few just kept posting the dribble thinking they had me hook line and sinker...when the truth is I WAS RIGHT ha ha ha clap.gif See the bible NT was written by a christian...so he had to have put them in there but in reality they didnt come about untill WAY WAY WAAAYYYY After Jesus...la la la la whistling2.gif


Which was why I quoted you. The only person who's taken this away from the original post is you, I'm afraid, my dear BM.

Regards, PA
Paranoid Android
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 15 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1188906[/snapback]

I know I made it sound as though its the biblical way..oppssiee..but you have to admit a lot and I mean a lot of christians, catholics..protestants ect ALL believe he was born in Dec 25th christmas day...I on the other hand dont...........but I still celebrate christmas LOL cuz I love the pressies w00t.gif
Fair enough. Most people believe December 25 to be Jesus' birthday. I don't believe it either. My family never kept Christmas, so no pressies for me no.gif

lol, PA tongue.gif
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ May 15 2006, 03:41 AM) [snapback]1188909[/snapback]

Oh dear, I guess I must quote more detail. Immediately after your reply to antiaging, he replies again:
You then come back with:
So far, it's all in response to antiaging's original reply to God's Forever Servant. This is when I reply, since the origin of this debate is in the original post, I thought you were replying to that:
You then say

And then you quote that original reply of yours to antiaging, and finish your post
Which was why I quoted you. The only person who's taken this away from the original post is you, I'm afraid, my dear BM.

Regards, PA

I was saying that CHRISTIANS wernt around that time when Jesus was here on earth..I have stated that over and over again..and sadly when I did *sigh* the few chrsitians kept quoting the bible to me...and they DIDNT get what I was SAYING... innocent.gif

QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ May 15 2006, 03:44 AM) [snapback]1188912[/snapback]

Fair enough. Most people believe December 25 to be Jesus' birthday. I don't believe it either. My family never kept Christmas, so no pressies for me no.gif

lol, PA tongue.gif

Hmm shame though...
shodau
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not certain what's being argued here. Are you arguing that "Christians" did not exist until the first time they are described as such in writing? Surely you see the absurdity of that argument.

EDIT: I quoted the verse from Acts in response to the original claim that the word "Christian" doesn't appear in the bible.
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(shodau @ May 15 2006, 03:52 AM) [snapback]1188925[/snapback]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not certain what's being argued here. Are you arguing that "Christians" did not exist until the first time they are described as such in writing? Surely you see the absurdity of that argument.

Christians did NOT exist before and around the time Jesus was here on earth NO they didnt..they only came about years later yes.gif
shodau
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 09:55 PM) [snapback]1188927[/snapback]

Christians did NOT exist before and around the time Jesus was here on earth NO they didnt..they only came about years later yes.gif


What is your evidence for this assertion?
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(shodau @ May 15 2006, 03:58 AM) [snapback]1188933[/snapback]

What is your evidence for this assertion?

Can you prove me WRONG? hmm.gif
shodau
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ May 14 2006, 10:01 PM) [snapback]1188937[/snapback]

Can you prove me WRONG? hmm.gif


The writings which bear witness to early Christianity (defined as a religion which began with the resurrection of Christ) unanimously place its origin at approximately AD 30, i.e. Bible, Josephus, various inscriptions, etc. Do you have a reason to believe that these sources are in error? Do you believe that a group of people calling themselves Christian appeared in AD 60 preaching the teachings and acts of a man that no one had ever heard of, and whose very existence no one could corroborate? Do you treat all history in this manner? It seems to me that it would be accepted unless one has compelling reasons to do otherwise.
prsd402
The word Christian is most definitely found in Scripture .. three times in the New Testament ... Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16 and Acts 11:26 where it states, "And they were first called Christians in Antioch".

Patsy yes.gif
seanph
First, I completely agree with those above who stated that Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion. No question. As for the term Christian ... it does appear in both Acts 26.28 and 1 Peter 4.14–16. Its origin is uncertain.

Kindly,

Sean
seanph
Patsy, you beat me to it! wink2.gif

Sean
prsd402
Sean, I only beat you by a few minutes but it would behoove all those who make rash statements like that to actually READ the Bible before opening their mouths.

Patsy rolleyes.gif
boorite
I agree and think it's very important to point out that the historical Jesus, if any, probably had no intention whatever of creating a new religion, particularly not one that equated one man to God and had so much ritual emphasis on consuming body and blood. Such tenets would strike a Messianic figure as completely alien, even blasphemous.

Paul makes it clear that he invented Christianity on the road to Damascus, back when he was Saul.
Beckys_Mom
QUOTE(prsd402 @ Jun 2 2006, 06:57 PM) [snapback]1215190[/snapback]

Sean, I only beat you by a few minutes but it would behoove all those who make rash statements like that to actually READ the Bible before opening their mouths.

Patsy rolleyes.gif

The person that began this topic..should have said it wasnt in the old testament....when the NT was written by then it was long after jesus was on earth...christians didnt forum untill years after jesus died.....
rhyknow
QUOTE(Gods forever Servant @ Apr 13 2006, 06:02 AM) [snapback]1145444[/snapback]

Can someone please point me into a where the word Christian is in the Bible? I was once a "Christian" but I consider myself more spiritual now.. but how can some christians say that you have to be a christian to get into heaven.. or have to follow the christian ways, when Jesus wasn't a christian and never promoted christianity, AND the word Christian is no where to be found in the Bible?
FOR YEARS RELIGION DID NOTHING BUT DIVIDE sad.gif

There is no religion higher then the truth

RELIGION IS A PRISON FOR THE SEEKERS OF WISDOM

MAY God show us the truth and the light..



I agree... what are your beleifs now? if you don't mind me asking?
PM or email me with 'em... i'd be interested in hearing em...
seanph
QUOTE
I agree and think it's very important to point out that the historical Jesus, if any, probably had no intention whatever of creating a new religion, particularly not one that equated one man to God and had so much ritual emphasis on consuming body and blood. Such tenets would strike a Messianic figure as completely alien, even blasphemous.


Well said! yes.gif notworthy.gif

QUOTE
Paul makes it clear that he invented Christianity on the road to Damascus, back when he was Saul.


Again, well said. Paul made it quite clear that he had not received his gospel from man [disciples], but by divine revelation, visions of the risen Jesus.

Paul was a complete nutter IMHO.

Sean
wishes2
I don't think the word "christian" has to be in the Bible for the religion to be true. "Christian" is the modern word we gave to describe the religion. The word itself doesn't mean anything except to represent the belief, so it doesn't really matter if it is in the Bible or not.
Atheist God
QUOTE(shodau @ May 14 2006, 10:18 PM) [snapback]1188970[/snapback]

The writings which bear witness to early Christianity (defined as a religion which began with the resurrection of Christ) unanimously place its origin at approximately AD 30, i.e. Bible, Josephus, various inscriptions, etc. Do you have a reason to believe that these sources are in error? Do you believe that a group of people calling themselves Christian appeared in AD 60 preaching the teachings and acts of a man that no one had ever heard of, and whose very existence no one could corroborate? Do you treat all history in this manner? It seems to me that it would be accepted unless one has compelling reasons to do otherwise.


Did you ever get prooven wrong..... grin2.gif

So pwn3d and that's why before you make a post with the nature of yours you make sure to do the research. Or otherwise it makes you look like a fool. Good job psrd402 thumbsup.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.