It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: Entreri06
I definately appreciate your participation in the thread, but no ones going to watch a video when you don't know who produced it or it's content. Is it from the American historical society or the westboro baptist church ? Feel me?
Yeah...
Translation: "I don't care about learning anything, this is about me slamming Christians with a bunch of false accusations and made up history".
Enjoy the rest of your thread, I'm out...
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Entreri06
So you want to advocate making an assumption so we can postulate on what Rome may or may not have done given that said assumption is correct? Meaning that if the assumption is incorrect, then the whole conversation is irrelevant? To me, I'd rather determine the event happened first before determining guilt.
originally posted by: Entreri06
Actual translation: I have no need to watch some high Christian BS with zero factual basis.
There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: Entreri06
Actual translation: I have no need to watch some high Christian BS with zero factual basis.
No, its actually based on all the stuff I linked you too in Wikipedia, so what does it matter who made it as long as its based on facts that are also linked. BTW, I know that this isn't said much on here any more, but it is an ATS rule that you cannot knowingly post false information, especially if you're a staff member. So why would I send you to something posted by Westburrow (who aren't Christians to begin with). That said though, if you can't be bothered being spoon fed from a video, I know that there's no way your actually going to following links to anything containing any real history that requires actual study and reading.
That video has more 'factual basis' then much of this thread so far.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.
“Bart Ehrman admits essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06
There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.
About the only evidence you the Bible is lacking archaeologically is Exodus, and just because it hasn't been found yet doesn't mean its not there. For hundreds of years people thought King David was a myth, and they thought the Hittite culture was also a myth until low and behold archaeology confirmed both. So I'd say if you don't think the Biblical accounts match up with archaeology you need to go and do some more research.
And your completely wrong. I think atheist, muslims, mormons, christians, hindus, and just about any adherent to any world view can preform good science, and its intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.
I'll go check that guys information out.
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.
“Bart Ehrman admits essential Christian beliefs are NOT called into question by textual variants”
Bart erhman is a professor at a prespaterian seminary in New Jersey....
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Entreri06
There's one. That's kinda a problem. To a Christian any historian who isn't a Christian is anti Christian. When the biblical account doesn't match up with the archeology at all.
About the only evidence you the Bible is lacking archaeologically is Exodus, and just because it hasn't been found yet doesn't mean its not there. For hundreds of years people thought King David was a myth, and they thought the Hittite culture was also a myth until low and behold archaeology confirmed both. So I'd say if you don't think the Biblical accounts match up with archaeology you need to go and do some more research.
And your completely wrong. I think atheist, muslims, mormons, christians, hindus, and just about any adherent to any world view can preform good science, and its intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. Bart Ehrman is not a christian scholar and I respect his opinion. Do I think he equivocated a little bit to get more sales? Yes.
I'll go check that guys information out.
originally posted by: Entreri06
400 years later they took oral traditions and un secured texts they could barely translate and decided what they felt like keeping. There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.
originally posted by: defcon5
originally posted by: Entreri06
400 years later they took oral traditions and un secured texts they could barely translate and decided what they felt like keeping. There's no global conspiracy to make Christians feel dumb. It just honestly doesn't all add up.
It doesn't add up because you are not reading history, you are reading anti-christian propaganda. Jeez... If the bible was not in any written format until 400ad, how could Irenaeus have been quoting it in Against Heresies by 160ad? This is actually getting to be silly at this point.
Another vid for you to not watch...