Hey FrGamble!

Quote: FrGamble

He had perfect faith and complete trust in God His Heavenly Father but the Church and the NT make clear that He was not in His human intellect omniscient.

But he still knew that everything
would be okay doaky for him
when it was over. So where was
the sacrifice. You can say there
was one till your face turns blue,
but that don't make it so. The game
was rigged in the myth and Jesus
knew it was rigged. They should
have him at the last supper telling
his crew he was going to die tomorrow,
then giving them a wink and a nod,
and they all have a good laugh.

Quote:

First of all I think myself and archaeology disagree with you about how common it was

It was so common they frequently
ran out of nails and just tied a
person to a cross. It was so common
the frequently ran out of crosses
and nailed people to tall fences
or to a barn roof that had a slant.
xXians would love to be told it was
very uncommon, but it wasn't at
all.

Quote:

Give a reason for why you think Christians are wrong about what they believe.

Because everything is based on hearsay
and opinion and just plain guessing.
Passed down thru hundreds of years
it took on a life of it's own and was
taken for absolute truth. You yourself
say things all the time that have no
basis in reality, other than they've been
said for a really long time. Like that
somehow makes them true.

Quote:

There are many more who know more than Ehrman who do believe

Really? Many more who can beat
Egrman's arguments? Name just
one, I dare you.

Quote:

many more that came to faith through a study of these manuscripts.

Which proves people find what they're
looking for and stop looking. Ehrman
went into it expecting to be blown
away by the validity of his religion.
He was stunned that he found none.

Quote:

People do this with their atheistic beliefs as well.

Not really. Atheism is a lack of
belief, you arrive at it by having
beliefs eventually cancel each
other out. Atheism is the natural
result of actively seeking the truth.

Quote:

Personal experiences are not limited to coincidences and getting green lights.

Don't I know it. I heard a boatload of
them when I was in the Xtian group.
Every meeting had a testimony section
and people blamed god for everything
under the sun. and blamed Satan for
the rest. In fact personal testimony has
gotten so out of hand church groups
are starting to ban them from meetings.
Too much competition from people
embellishing so they can get the most
attention.

Quote: Evenbob

But he still knew that everything
would be okay doaky for him
when it was over.

He had faith and trust that it would, are you saying faith is knowledge? I would tend to agree with you but I didn't think you would say that. I also think you yourself have said you don't worry about death and think we will be okay. Does that mean you can never sacrifice or if you did it would be meaningless? I have also said that what you are proposing is not Christian theology so feel free to keep espousing whatever you think but don't attribute it to Christians. If you think Jesus' sacrifice was not meaningful because He was omniscient in His human intellect than just remember that you are not attacking Christians in fact you are supporting the true belief of Christians. So I guess I will say thank you for showing how important Jesus being true God AND true man is.

Quote:

Because everything is based on hearsay
and opinion and just plain guessing.

Christian theology is based on the Scriptures, history, logic, philosophy, anthropology, thousands of years of prayer and study, and personal experiences of billions of people. It is the opposite of guessing, opinion, and hearsay. I know you desperately want to believe that but it is simply not true. Christian theology is a science and if you took the time to listen and learn from it I think you would find all your objections are clearly answered. In fact see above in regards to your objections to the sacrifice of Christ, you know Christian theology in the negative sense your objections are objections that Christians have answered for centuries and centuries.

Quote:

Really? Many more who can beat
Egrman's arguments? Name just
one, I dare you.

Carl Olson
Robert Hutchinson
John Kincaid
John Borgsma
Michael Barber
Brant Pitre
Scott Hahn
Timothy Paul Jones (wrote a good book specifically debunking Ehrman)
William Lane Craig
Joseph Ratzinger

Quote:

Not really. Atheism is a lack of
belief, you arrive at it by having
beliefs eventually cancel each
other out. Atheism is the natural
result of actively seeking the truth.

I had to chuckle at this. First of all you already know that a positive statement can be made in the negative. Saying there is no God is the flip side of saying there is a God. They are both truth claims, you know this already. If you are seeking truth then you have evidence or things to support your claim that you have the truth, this is what you always ask me about. I have given you evidence that I know you reject and dismiss. You know what is strange? You have never given any evidence at all for your belief (and it is a belief) that there is no God or even the possibility of God. Can you perhaps present to me any small thing piece of evidence that makes you think that atheism is true? Name just one, I dare you.

Quote: FrGamble

He had faith and trust that it would,

He knew he was divine and there
you go. Trust and faith when
you're divine means no sacrifice,
just following the plan.

Quote:

Christian theology is based on the Scriptures

And that's 99.9999% of what it's
based on. Ask a Xtian leader
anything about the religion and
99% of the time they send you
right to the NT. And you know
it.

Quote:

Carl Olson
Robert Hutchinson
John Kincaid
John Borgsma
Michael Barber
Brant Pitre
Scott Hahn
Timothy Paul Jones (wrote a good book specifically debunking Ehrman)
William Lane Craig
Joseph Ratzinger

All these people have a superior
knowledge advantage of the NT
over Bart Ehrman and have beaten
him in a debate. I didn't think so.

Quote:

You have never given any evidence at all for your belief (and it is a belief) that there is no God .

It's not a belief, as I've said a hundred
times. It's a conclusion based on
lack of evidence of the existence
of a god. It's the result of searching
for the truth. There is no evidence
unicorns don't exist because how
can something that doesn't exist
have any evidence of anything.
Get it now?

And never forget that original sin was a
manipulation by the priest class of ancient
times, to impose unearned guilt. Jesus
death was supposed to'save' us from that
poppycock that was a made up lie. So in
the myth we were 'saved' from something
that doesn't even in reality exist. Try explaining
original sin to people in India that have
never heard the concept, they'll think
you're nuts. Because it IS nuts.

Quote: Evenbob

My wife has sent me half a
dozen reactions from people
about the 'miracle' that happened
at her fathers dying bedside.

I'd be interested in the story. If you've discussed it before, a link would be fine.

Quote: Evenbob

He knew he was divine and there
you go. Trust and faith when
you're divine means no sacrifice,
just following the plan.

As long as you know that Christians recognize that Jesus in His humanity was not omniscient. I think your argument only has strength if you make Jesus fully God and not a man, which is a Christian heresy. So I continue to think you are proving the wisdom of Christian theology and strengthening the notion of Jesus' sacrifice.

Quote:

All these people have a superior
knowledge advantage of the NT
over Bart Ehrman and have beaten
him in a debate.

Without a doubt! That is clear and evident! Some of them have entered into debate with him and as I mentioned others have written books directly showing where Ehrman is wrong. You should really read it, but I know you won't.

Quote:

It's a conclusion based on
lack of evidence of the existence
of a god.

So just to get it straight: Atheism is a conclusion reached based on a lack of evidence? Very interesting.

You do know that the absence of evidence does not lead to conclusions?

Quote:

And never forget that original sin was a
manipulation by the priest class of ancient
times, to impose unearned guilt. Jesus
death was supposed to'save' us from that
poppycock that was a made up lie. So in
the myth we were 'saved' from something
that doesn't even in reality exist. Try explaining
original sin to people in India that have
never heard the concept, they'll think
you're nuts. Because it IS nuts.

Here we go again. Original Sin is the easiest thing in the world to prove but one of the hardest to explain. Every culture, religion, and person in the universe knows that we often struggle to do what we know is right and struggle not to do what we know is wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

I think your argument only has strength if you make Jesus fully God and not a man,

Doesn't matter if he was 75% man
and 25% god, the fix was in and
he knew it so there was no sacrifice.
C'mon, 36 hours? It barely qualified
as a bad weekend.

Quote:

Some of them have entered into debate with him and as I mentioned others have written books directly showing where Ehrman is wrong.

Ehrman wins every debate he enters.
And people may have claimed him
wrong, but proved it? Not hardly.

Quote:

You do know that the absence of evidence does not lead to conclusions?

People LOVE to say that and it's
so not true. I have a total lack
of evidence unicorns and Santa
exist, yet I've drawn a conclusion
they do not. I can give a hundred
examples where we do this, why
bother. God also defies logic and
reason, on top of no evidence.



{/] Original Sin is the easiest thing in the world to prove but one of the hardest to explain..

Quote: Evenbob

Doesn't matter if he was 75% man
and 25% god, the fix was in

What you are talking about has no bearing for me. You are not attacking Christianity at all. If you want to debate how Christianity understands the sacrifice of Jesus I am more than happy to do so. However, if you want to discuss how wrong what you believe about Christianity is then I think it is kind of pointless. I suggest you don't just make up what you think or want someone to believe but instead talk about what they really do. That would be better for both of us and you can stop accidentally strengthening the Christian position by failing to address it.

Quote:

Ehrman wins every debate he enters.
And people may have claimed him
wrong, but proved it? Not hardly.

Wow, you really have to read more.

Quote:

People LOVE to say that and it's
so not true. I have a total lack
of evidence unicorns and Santa
exist, yet I've drawn a conclusion
they do not. I can give a hundred
examples where we do this, why
bother. God also defies logic and
reason, on top of no evidence.

No you are denying logic. It is really a simple thing to understand. If you have no evidence then you can't use that absence of evidence as evidence that something doesn't exist. You can use real evidence such as images of the North Pole that have no workshops on them or the self defeating myth of one man giving toys to all the boys and girls of the world. You could use evidence such as the history of Santa Claus documented in advertisements and many other things that all point to a reasonable conclusion that there is no Santa Claus. Are you really saying that you think there is no Santa Claus without even looking at any evidence that there is not one? That seems illogical. I'm sure you have used your reason to make that conclusion based on something more than nothing. What is very strange is that you seem to have reached absolute certainty that there is no God without any evidence at all and now you are actually trying to claim that no evidence is evidence. You are not thinking well here.

Quote:

Like I said it's the invention of the ancient
snake oil salesman priesthood. Make
so we're born with 2 strikes against
us so they can help 'save' us. It
can't be explained because it makes
no sense.

It makes perfect sense and you know it, so does everyone if we are honest. We all struggle with doing what is right and not doing what is wrong. This is a fundamental fact of humanity. No one needs to be convinced of this fact. What people need to be convinced of is that God still loves them despite their struggles and has a way to help them overcome original sin and its obvious effects in our lives.

Quote: FrGamble

how Christianity understands the sacrifice of Jesus

You mean how there is obviously
no real sacrifice, so you have to
cook one up? I know where you
think the 'sacrifice' was. It's not
in the death of Jesus, it's that
god bothered to turn his super
holy and perfect divine self into
a lowly stinking pitiful human and
come to earth and die an ugly death
when he didn't have to.
Xtians don't talk about it because it
smacks too much of the master and
slave relationship. That god is sooooo
much better than we are, that he would
lower himself so much for us, that's
where the sacrifice was. In order to
worship a god like that you have to
be a certain kind of person. Do I really
need to elaborate on what that means?

Quote:

you really have to read more.

You need to read without a huge built
in bias.

I

Quote:

f you have no evidence then you can't use that absence

But it makes life so much easier
if you do. No obvious evidence
anywhere, there is no god. Should
evidence present itself, real evidence,
not the pretend faux evidence god
people use, I can reevaluate. Like
Ehrman says, agnostic/atheist,
atheist/agnostic, you say tomato
and I say tomatoe. Doesn't
change the facts of gods existence
or non existence.

Quote:

We all struggle with doing what is right and not doing what is wrong. .

Too bad original sin isn't about
right and wrong. Sin is always
about offending a god. Sin isn't
whatever you want it to be. If
there is no god there is no god
to offend.

sin
/sin/
noun

an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Divine meaning god. An offense against
god. Sin has a very narrow definition,
not the broad one everybody has changed
it into.

Quote: Evenbob

In order to
worship a god like that you have to
be a certain kind of person. Do I really
need to elaborate on what that means?

Is this the quality of debate you wish to engage in? What kind of person do you mean? You are just flailing away because you realize all that effort throughout your life mocking what you thought Christians believed turned out to be just listing at windmills. I can feel your frustration. You don't want to really talk about what Christians believe you just want to keep saying insulting and mean things about my Lord and Savior and me. It is silly and quite childish really, let me know if you want to actually debate about something that is true teaching of Christianity.

Quote:

You need to read without a huge built
in bias.

Wow again Bob. I have never in my life met anyone with more of a huge built in bias than you. You do know I wasn't born a priest right? I really studied these things with a very open mind before I committed my life to it. If you knew just 1% of the academic criticism there is of Bart Ehrman or if you really would have listened to those debates you are talking about you would have a much better understanding why if you are pinning all your hopes on Ehrman or much, much worse the Jesus seminar than I feel for you, I really do.

Quote:

But it makes life so much easier
if you do. No obvious evidence
anywhere, there is no god.

I agree it makes it so much easier and I thank you for your honesty. It is easier to judge someone by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. It is easier to jump to conclusions without thinking or always do whatever makes us feel good. Alas, logic and truth are not about making things easier, in fact they usually always make things more complex and challenging.

duplicate