Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou quote the Bible all the time in this forum Ghost.
But just 5 minutes ago you were discrediting the bible. But now, because it suits your purpose, you are citing it as evidence. Is that what you are telling us Chaney?!
I will now consider you a Christian.
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3I quote Dickens, that doesn't make me Oliver Twist.
You quote the Bible all the time in this forum Ghost.
I will now consider you a Christian.
Look, you are the one who just used the bible as a source of evidence when you have said previously:
"I don't trust what happened at the Council of Nicea. I don't trust the men who decided which books to include and exclude. Something seems wrong, to me."
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeDo my doubts about the Bible exclude me from providing a reference of Peter in the Bible? Of course not.
I quote Dickens, that doesn't make me Oliver Twist?
Look, you are the one who just used the bible as a source of evidence when you have said previously:
"I don't trust what happened at the Council of Nicea. I don't trust the men who decided which books to include and exclude. Something seems wrong, to me."
Otherwise, atheists wouldn't be permitted to quote the Bible either.
The Bible says that Peter knew Jesus. That was the answer I gave FMF. Can you please tell me how that is in error?
Originally posted by chaney3You used the bible as evidence of Peter's existence, having repeatedly posted how you didn't value the bible as a reliable source of knowledge.
Do my doubts about the Bible exclude me from providing a reference of Peter in the Bible? Of course not.
Otherwise, atheists wouldn't be permitted to quote the Bible either.
The Bible says that Peter knew Jesus. That was the answer I gave FMF. Can you please tell me how that is in error?
Do you really not see the contradiction and would you like me to walk you through it?
-Removed-Don't be silly, no one owns evidence. If evidence does exist for the veracity of the Bible, no one can claim ownership of it. I had posted a link for the source. You can claim they are lies till you are blue in the face. Until you actually demonstrate why they are lies don't expect anyone to believe you. Are you saying there is no historical evidence to corroborate the events in the Bible?
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
Originally posted by vivifyIf Peter existed and was crucified by the Romans then it is entirely plausible that they would crucify him upside down. The legionaries whose job it was would put people in any position. It's historically consistent.
The Bible doesn't mention Peter being killed, but some Christian traditions hold that he was.
Is this belief considered to be true by most Christians? If so, what basis is there for this to be accepted as true? If not, why do you oppose this view?
Thanks in advance for any insights.
2 edits
-Removed-Oh yes you are the only one who is in the position to decide for everyone what is evidence and what is not.
Your accusations make you sound like a troll. I believe the link I quoted provided evidence. The fact is I know the truth about my background and you don't, if you want to think it's a lie that's fine by me.
Since you believe there is no evidence for the veracity of the Bible, would you describe your belief in it as 'blind faith'?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkTry me with some of your ideas of proof that you think substantiate your superstitious beliefs and I will tell you if I find them credible or not.*
What in your opinion would qualify as evidence for the claims made in the Bible?
* You, of course, know full well that you have asked me this question before at least once, and I answered it on those occasions. However, as is your wont, you ignored it at the time, and now you here you are again, as usual, just repeating it as if the previous 'conversation' never happened.