Okay, this is one of those moments in which I get to piss everybody off. Those that know me understand that I dont care. I am truly growing weary of the Christianity debate on both sides. Honestly, I dont care what side of the coin you choose, but you should be able to make a lucid, reasonable and variable assertion based on empirical and pragmatic evidence that underwrites your belief. All of the elementary ignorance is wearing on my reserve nerve (that is the nerve I keep hidden away in case somebody gets on my last one). Those Oppose Christianity as a True Relion With all of the concrete evidence you have at your disposal, stop using that stupid the J wasnt around 2000 years ago argument to assert that the person known as Jesus the Christ never existed. It shows your level of ignorance, and it shows that you have a proclivity to regurgitate the perspective of others without a complete examination of the evidence. Any linguistic expert, historical scholar or critic of ancient literature would rip that argument to shreds in less than two paragraphs. Eashoa Msheekhah later translated Jesus the Christ is the name of the person in question. To argue that the fact that his name could not have possibly been Jesus automatically means that he never existed, would be the equivalent to saying Heru could not have really existed simply because the Greeks changed his name to Horus. Honestly, you would have better footing arguing against the deity of the person that attempting to prove that he did not exist all. There are some very powerful person in this world that would benefit from the fact that he never existed, and yet their scholars go out of the way to challenge his deity, but not his existence. Remember, credibility is important when making a stand, when unfounded and ignorant elementary arguments are made, it exposes you. Now for Christians Generally speaking, you cannot validate ancient literature solely with the argument that the literature says its authentic. 2 Timothy 3:16 is not proof that all scripture is God-breathed. It is only proof that someone nearly 2,000 years ago wrote that it is, and then men chosen by a Roman Emperor decided that they would add that particular book to what would become known as the canon (rule or standard). Any extant writing is validated by the number of extant manuscripts that are in existence. The fact that the New Testament has more than 24,000 extant manuscripts, which is, by far the most of any ancient literature, with Homers Iliad coming in at a distant second with only 600 plus extant manuscripts, would be a better argument for at least authenticity of what exists now. However, this does not account for the manipulation and treachery that took place as this piece of literature was compiled. A piece of literature compiled of 66 different books, written by more than 40 authors over a period of more than 1,500 years should give you more to base your argument on than its real because it says its real. Again, that shows ignorance and a person who is willing to regurgitate what someone else has told them without verifying it for themselves. Honestly, there is plenty to debate with much greater potential for impact, such as why was the Bible whitewashed in the first place? What happened to the original African Hebrews (black)? Why were Christians never told about the original trinity? Why does the book of psalms almost match word for word with the writings of an Egyptian Pharoah that existed more than 5,000 years prior? The list of questions could go on. Lets admit that there have been a lot of lies told for the purpose of separating a particular group of people from their history and heritage for the purpose of subjugation. Lets focus on truths that serve to elevate and empower instead of attempting marginalize the beliefs of another. When you deal in truth, you will spend less time defending it, because you will find that it is powerful enough to defend itself. ~ Dr. Rick Wallace, Ph.D.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 21:52:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015