(SWGO)SirPepsi wrote:CommanderOtto wrote:(SWGO)SirPepsi wrote:Your hypocrisy is evident, as you constantly cite Bible verses to back up your claims. [/color]
of course, we are talking about the Bible!
No, in a debate about Biblical Inerrancy, passages from the book I'm attempting to debunk do not constitute valid evidence. You need to corroborate Biblical accounts with fact, and you'll notice I didn't criticize his use of the Bible until he called me out on sourcing information he didn't agree with. I'm not limited to looking at the Bible when attempting to disprove it or when illustrating contradictory doctrine.So far you have submitted things from yahoo answers or "About.com" and other websites that are clearly not evidence. The Bible is not scientific evidence of the type you would like, but if you claim it to be false, we have to cite it, do research and prove your point is incorrect.
I've not once cited "Yahoo Answers," and I find it disgusting the way you conveniently ignore the numerous scientific articles I cited in the beginning of the thread and the multiple Biblical analyses written by established scholars. What about the hour lecture by the IV League University Professor? While trying to mis-portray my arguments, you have cast light on the type of discourse you enjoy engaging in - discourse that reaffirms your views.but then, let me ask, what proof is there that Jesus went to India?? About.com lists similarity of stories, which is a pure theory with absolutely no evidence, nothing more. The beliefs of Hindus are completely different from those taught in Christianity.
There exist a wealth of Indian accounts, authored by monks and officials alike that tell the story of Christ visiting India. This documentary is done by the BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiy5uY3Iw2s. Is that source legitimate enough for you? I'm not saying that these accounts are necessarily true, but I am saying that other cultures offer accounts of Christ in their territory - even the Japanese believe he visited their island.and by the way, I just explained to you, gnostics were other Pagan religions from the middle east that had no connection with the original scriptures. The fact that they later "mixed" with Christianity. It is pretty obvious they manipulated the text to gain more followers. Not very different from what happened in the middle ages when the church accepted the use of a cross to symbolize Christ, when in fact that symbol comes from nordic pagan religions. One thing is the original texts, another thing is mixing it with pagan mystic beliefs later on. The gnostic books in the Bible feels like adding a chapter of Physics in the middle of a Poetry book. It doesn't belong there. The content does not match.
There are no "original scriptures," (who are you to say which is correct and which is not without supplying evidence?) and your laughable "explanations" do not elucidate the nature of the scripture. To me, the inclusion of some of the Books in the Bible feels exactly as you described, and the exclusion of others, like the Gospel of Thomas, to me appear to be motivated by a desire to preserve the idea that Jesus was divine, despite the fact that he never claimed to be. Thomas talks about his Jesus's childhood, and much evidence suggested Christ was in love with Mary Magdalene, some of that evidence is found in Thomas. I wonder why the Church excluded his account - he was a disciple after all.
as I said, you can't believe two things. You only believe one. Or you believe one account, or you believe the other one (gospel of thomas). But I know the Bible because I read it (not just mere passages). If something is conflicting
then one of them is false. I chose mine. You choose the gospel of thomas. That's all i'm saying. Either Judas is a traitor or he is a hero. You can't have both. By the way, these are hardly laughable attempts, the problem is that you are debating something you hardly understand. For your account of an Indian Jesus to be true, then that means that text that was found by the russian explorer must have been written sometime around 1-30 of the common era. I doubt that is the case. Tell me, in what year was this text produced? If it was produced 3 or 4 centuries after, it's a legend that formed from probably some christian that traveled there and retold the story of Jesus with very little knowledge of the Bible itself. Note, 300 or 400 years after Jesus in some far away land in an era when people have few or no reading capabilities... thus, it can't be taken seriously. And about BBC making a program about Jesus in India, it is not surprising. There are plenty of programs that make sensational claims to make extra viewers like those Nostradamus tv shows or programs about Armageddon in the History Channel, spewing a bunch of crazy theories to gain an extra buck. And no offense, I am not trying to insult you by this. I sincerely believe you have never even read the Bible you are accusing to be false.
