You Can't Disprove Christianity ( Don't Even Try )

[Yozavan]

Premise Of Debate: Can you disprove Christianity or the Bible?

Open Challenge: I know a King James Bible, Charismatic Christian. His name is Jethro. Present your best arguments against Christianity or the Bible. I will post Jethro's response to your argument. We work at a warehouse. He doesn't believe in the Internet, but he does believe in defending the Bible.

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!


Jethro: Bring it on. I will smash your arguments!

[TRANSPONDER]

Agreed. There is no total certainty, there is only probability, and the Christians have always reckoned that The NT has great credibility as a record of what happened. Ut even mentions verified historical characters, which is more than Exodus does.

I won't go into why that view will no longer pass , tempting though it is, but agree that speculation (or as t you put it 'rhetoric') about the mindset of the other side is beside the point. Both sides do it, with one side saying the other side is doing blind faith, Dismissing doubt and question and believing whatever they are told. The atheist side is told they don't know the Bible, are of course biased, and are denying the Truth of Christ because they want to continue in their sinful life. Which is of course absurd as if putting condiments on tour hot dog was deemed a sinful perversion by Hankism (time for the explanatory vid) then not buying Hank's dubious cult - rules could be dismissed as wanting to sin, or nearer home, 'You only refuse the Truth of Allah because you want to ear bacon!!" Too right we do. But that isn't Why we reject Islam along with the other Abrahamic faiths, it is just a side benefit...and another wink. Atheists are habitual winkers, in case you didn't know, and of course I Rhetoric about the theist mindset all the time. It's because I think I understand it, but that isn't actually the case against Christianity; terminal contradictions an things wrong doers that. Though It does have historical references, and is (I reckon) based on a true story, the gospels no more tell the true story of Jesus than Acts tells the true story of Paul.

Anyway, enough of that; hit the Like button so I can make 4000 by December, and on with the video.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

Yes, both sides do some absurd things, but it is the arguments that matter.

[1213]

....the big contradictions in the Bible are denied ....

How can non existing contradictions be denied? I don't think you can offer any good example of a real big contradiction in the Bible, that is not based on some kind of misunderstanding or poor interpretation.

[TRANSPONDER]

....the big contradictions in the Bible are denied ....

How can non existing contradictions be denied? I don't think you can offer any good example of a real big contradiction in the Bible, that is not based on some kind of misunderstanding or poor interpretation.

I think we have seen how you simply deny demonstrable contradictions and well as things wrong. You, and several before you, have tried to argue away the contradiction of the resurrection - contradictions that are four conflicting testimonies that have the case proven as a made up tale based on imaginary visions as reported by Paul.

Your attempts to show that the women split up failed in the end,m yet you still say 'no contradictions'. This is why it can't be about convincing the other side, as one side has the better case and the other side denies everything, even what the evidence says.

So, your denials count for nothing, as it is the more probable case presented to those looking in, that count; which is why the most important here are the guests, and the hope they will pass the message on, because it seems to me that the Bible critics out there aren't even aware of the Biggies. Like I have never heard of an atheist apologist pointing out that John has no transformation, or that he has no angelic message, no Sanhedrin trial (just a private grilling in the VP's house) and no penitent thief, which I think we discussed and it was the feeble excuse...attempt at bamboozlement more like as it is hardly as excuse...that nobody who saw it or told those who wrote Mark and Matthew dint think it worth mentioning, nor John.

The 'more probable' explanation is that Luke made it up, as his fiddling and invention is clear all the way through his massively fabricated edition of the Synoptic from Nativity to Acts.

Frustrating though it is, 1213, old Finny friend, that apologists use every trick, lie and evasion to avoid an unwelcome more probable conclusion, imor frustrating s how much is missed by the critical apologists. I have read a claim that trainee priests after doing redaction criticism (which is what I did on my own and realised the total contradiction) come out knowing it's all lies but they go ahead with it as a job.

I don't know whether that's true as I know that many atheist apologists used to be Christians and read their Bible as assiduously as a Startrek fan studies the schematics of a Galaxy class cruiser. So how do they never mention that John has not a single parable, and the synoptics not a single Johannine sermon? Why in the long, deep and wide 2nd census debate, has nobody but me (so far as i know) seen that the vacant governorship claim (used to argue for a previous census in Herod's time) is plugged by Varus filling in until Archelaus returned from Rome, putting down the revolts of Simon and Arthronges, as i recall.

Maybe it's like Rachel Slick. Matt taught her the Bible, or beat her over the head with it, daily. And yet it wasn't untilshe went to college and started trying to show the atheists that it was all true, she found out PDQ that it wasn't.

Well well we must peg on, mustn't we? But I should like to Do the Contradictions from Nativity to Acts in hopes that from the two sites I infest some new apologetics are trickling down to some of those website owners who might benefit from a few more apologetics.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they know all the Problems, but i just never hear them, that's all. It's all how many chariots, or how many angels or other easy ones that the Bible apologists can brush away easily. But they seem to have missed the biggies.

Here endeth the Rant . I'm always a grumpy old codger till I've had my third coffee.

[1213]

I think we have seen how you simply deny demonstrable contradictions and well as things wrong.

You have brought only poor interpretations and straw man arguments. It is not sufficient in debate where biases are not accepted.

Frustrating though it is, 1213, old Finny friend, that apologists use every trick, lie ...

Do you really think that your friend lies?

Please give one example of a lie.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think we have seen how you simply deny demonstrable contradictions and well as things wrong.

You have brought only poor interpretations and straw man arguments. It is not sufficient in debate where biases are not accepted.

Frustrating though it is, 1213, old Finny friend, that apologists use every trick, lie ...

Do you really think that your friend lies?

Please give one example of a lie.

We have done this so often. We did what's wrong with genesis, the prophecy of Tyre, also evidence for evolution, slavery and the contradictions in the Resurrection and a few others and I don't recall that you made a good case but just denied everything. I don't know about you yourself, but the apologetics of creation lies, for example that Lucy's spine enters the skull from behind when it enters from below, like a human.

It may be ignorance or denial, like your efforts to deny then explain away that the Tyre prophecy fails. and denial of endorsement of chattel slavery in the Bible or the many contradictions in the resurrection. It may be hard to draw the line between obstinate denial of plain fact and lying, but I'd hate to live on the difference.

[1213]

... for example that Lucy's spine enters the skull from behind when it enters from below, like a human...

Thanks, I didn't know about that. I don't believe humans know how it really was.

It may be ignorance or denial, like your efforts to deny then explain away that the Tyre prophecy fails. and denial of endorsement of chattel slavery in the Bible or the many contradictions in the resurrection. It may be hard to draw the line between obstinate denial of plain fact and lying, but I'd hate to live on the difference.

I think it is a lie that there is a contradiction, or that the prophesy has failed, if we are literal and don't make poor interpretations. Where have I denied endorsement of chattel slavery in the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

... for example that Lucy's spine enters the skull from behind when it enters from below, like a human...

Thanks, I didn't know about that. I don't believe humans know how it really was.

It may be ignorance or denial, like your efforts to deny then explain away that the Tyre prophecy fails. and denial of endorsement of chattel slavery in the Bible or the many contradictions in the resurrection. It may be hard to draw the line between obstinate denial of plain fact and lying, but I'd hate to live on the difference.

I think it is a lie that there is a contradiction, or that the prophesy has failed, if we are literal and don't make poor interpretations. Where have I denied endorsement of chattel slavery in the Bible?

Your evasions will get you not very far. if humans don't know how it 'really was', how can you trust the Bible that was written by humans? God's word? But it is full of things nthat are wrong, make no sense and which contradict. That is why the denk of Christianity is pretty much done, and never mind David's chariots or how many angels were at thew tomb. The whole business of the women at the tomb and the angelic message, with or without Jesus showing up as in Matthew and nobody else, it a mess of terminal contradiction and for ne deleted the resurrection as a faith in Vain, and we know what paul says about that.

Never mind the old trick of demanding that I search out your old denialists posts. Let me just post the Passage in Levitcus 25 which set it out clearly, and debunks the lie, frankly that the command to treat 'slaves' nicely only applies to Hebrews and foreign bond - slaves are property; chattel slaves, and have no real rights.

38 I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee.
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
(This all relates to Hebrew servants, who are the indentured servants the apologist rabbiit on about)

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: b
(this endorses chattel slavery of foreigners, and we have done this so many times, that it goes beyong blinkered denial for you to even be arguing the matter)


But over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

(this relates again to Jewish servants who have to treated nicely, which implies the non - Jewish ones can't expect nice treatment.)

So never mind sending me off to find you old denials, let's see right here, whether you can still deny that the OT has God rubber - stamping lifetime chattel slavery of foreigners as property with no mention of any rights for them?

[1213]

...how can you trust the Bible that was written by humans?

I trust it, because I see things going as told in it.

...But it is full of things that are wrong, make no sense and which contradict.

How can you say it is wrong, if you don't even understand it?

I don't think you can show any real error or contradiction in the Bible.

...So never mind sending me off to find you old denials, let's see right here, whether you can still deny that the OT has God rubber - stamping lifetime chattel slavery of foreigners as property with no mention of any rights for them?

Yeah, better not try to find something that doesn't exist.

[TRANSPONDER]

...how can you trust the Bible that was written by humans?

I trust it, because I see things going as told in it.

...But it is full of things that are wrong, make no sense and which contradict.

How can you say it is wrong, if you don't even understand it?

I don't think you can show any real error or contradiction in the Bible.

...So never mind sending me off to find you old denials, let's see right here, whether you can still deny that the OT has God rubber - stamping lifetime chattel slavery of foreigners as property with no mention of any rights for them?

Yeah, better not try to find something that doesn't exist.

The denial of reality and what is actually in the Bible is evident. Your seeing of things going as told in it is delusional. End of world prophecies based on the Bible or on the Mayan calendar or any other man - made imagination has never happened.

Whether you deny it or not, there are real contradictions, like the nativities contradict and the resurrections contradict. You have tried to explain away, by inventing stuff that isn't even in the Bible, the contradictions around the women at the tomb to the disciples running the check the tomb.

We did it before and you denied it even when proven wrong, just as it seems you are in denial about chattel slavery in the Bible even though I posted where it says so and you say nothing about it.

And you have the monumental sauce to say I don't understand it and I am trying to show something that doesn't exist. But, again I point to something i discovered back when I started on apologetics, the 'Ghost Bible' which is the one many a Bible - apologist quotes from, and doesn't exist in print, but in the head of the Bible- apologist and says not what the Bible actually says but what they would prefer it to say, and if I print and post from the actual Bible, it is ignored or denied on the grounds that it 'really' doesn't say that or mean that. Not only do I reckon I might understand the Bible better than the believer, but I might understand the believer better than the believer does.

Fortunately, is is not about getting a stubborn denialist to admit what is in the Bible and before his very eyes, but about a good bad example and the cold, numb feeling a Believer will get when they or them look at your denial of evidence facts and wonder "Is that what I sound like?"

Yes, I believe that Christianity can be disproved, and rather easily, too. It is late in the day indeed to pretend it can't be done and it is foolish of the nonbelievers to even try.