This is what my Bible looked like. Not only did I read it cover to cover twice...

Only the G man was constantly there and influencing his child's upbringing. You sound like a kid who never appreciated his parents, only later to discover they did a hell of a lot for you, even if it wasn't apparent to you at the time.

inb4 Constantine makes yet another shit attempt at apologetics

How is it not possible you could not come to the conclusion that OP is a lying piece of shit all on your own? Did you not read the thread?

Becoming a Christian is a permanent transformation, like a caterpillar dying and turning into a butterfly.

Would you believe any caterpillar that told you it used to be a butterfly?

That's a really dumb comparison, as ideas are not life forms

>be at Thanksgiving dinner
>atheist cousin attends every year
>inevitably we get onto the subject of religion
>"how can God possibly exist if XYZ", "why can you pray for X but not Y", blah blah
>quote Psalms 14:1 to him
>" The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
>he is visibly shaken
>has to leave the table
>becomes a born-again Christian the next day

Spiritually dead human being. Conversion. Spiritually alive new creation in Christ Jesus. Permanent.

Caterpillar. Conversion. Butterfly. Permanent.

Yeah no, that doesn't work. Your religious ideology is no different then any other.

Random phrases. Random words, one after another. Gibberish. Conflations. Bad comparisons.

I don't have any religious ideology.

You have no idea what being a Christian means.

You can't understand that caterpillars transform into butterflies?

kek

>CRSTZNS R DUM N CANT INSTO SCIZNE

Yes, I'm sure your specific, infallible version of Christianity is the only right one. Also, it's never been really tried, that's why it really failed every single time

There is only one.

It's a bible, I don't think they're going to run out.

I'd cringe if it was a rare book but there's nothing wrong with writing in a book that's YOUR book, which gets rolled off the press in the millions, so that you can understand the content it's trying to convey.

The reality is that most people retain hardly any of what they read except the really basic points unless they make an active effort to understand it.

And it works as intended every time.

No, I understand that comparing that to disagreeing with an idea is a really dumb comparison, as ideas are far from permanent, at least compared to biology.

For instance, early Christianity differs wildly from Christianity now, demonstrated by the fact that you probably don't believe that the world can end at any moment. Otherwise, you wouldn't be posting here, you'd be praying that God forgives you for the final judgement that can happen at any moment.

Your actions betray you, and debunk your own point

I SUMMON CONSTANTINE

You said ideas.

I said Christians.

You are still trying to argue ideas.

I am still talking about Christians.

Your ignorance of Christianity is manifest. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, died for the sins of the world and rose on the third day.

That has not changed one whit since 32 AD.

>you probably don't believe that the world can end at any moment.

No christian does.

Holy shit are you fucking retarded.

Now.
Rapture.
70th week of Daniel.
Armageddon.
1000 year reign of Jesus on earth
Final Battle
Final Judgment

THEN the end of the world, AT LEAST 1007 YEARS FROM NOW.

She got BTFO yesterday and exposed as a religious hack.

>>I don't have any religious ideology.
lol bullshit

You'd need to be retarded to come to this conclusion only after studying the Bible scholarly.

No fucking shit people humanize God. God decides to make a pact with people, God makes the man in his image specifically, God decides what is and isn't good for men, shit, God was literally a man at one point.

Tell me what my religious ideology is.

how?

fuck off retard

By understanding the gospel as well as this asshole

The Bible is a conjunction of several texts written during a long period of time and by many hands and minds. Even the Gospels were written much latter than the live of the historical Jesus, and not by any eyewitness.

In the Bible you can find many books and passages of great aesthetic value (Job, Song of Songs, some parts of Isaiah, some parts of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes) and others of great wisdom (again, Ecclesiastes, and some parts of the Gospels).

However, it is quite evident that humans compose the whole book. To believe on any of it is a matter of blind faith: it has nothing to do with evidence, proof or even any remote spark of logic. Many aspects of the book has already been disproven, and the mythological nature of it has long been exposed.

People are free to believe in it, but they must know that they are just using blind faith in order to sustain their beliefs. There is nothing logical and wise in their devotion: it is pure emotional bias.

Is it fun lying on the internet? Being a satanic pawn and spreading satanic lies about the only way to not end up in hell?

Is it fun? Or are you possessed by demons that force you to do it?

>However, it is quite evident that humans compose the whole book. To believe on any of it is a matter of blind faith: it has nothing to do with evidence, proof or even any remote spark of logic. Many aspects of the book has already been disproven, and the mythological nature of it has long been exposed.

Sauce.
Also has it ben happened with the quoran too already?

>as this asshole

The original records of the teachings of the Buddha (the ones that we can trace farther back in time, the ones that are more devoid of dogma and ritual) are wiser and more useful and down-to-earth versions of the gospel.

The gospels have many wise sayings, yet they still depend a lot on the false and unproven affirmations that there is another world and that Christ is going to save those who believe in him. The teachings of Buddha are more substantial in lessons on how one can achieve peace of mind, compassion for other and get rid of suffering. In Christ there is always the perpetual promise of the dissolving of suffering after death, yet this is a useless claim, since it is probably false.

Ah... You drank the Kool Aid. As I recall, Armageddon was in 1099. Or was that 1914? Or was that 1975?>I have had multiple PhDs recommend to me
[citation needed]
Aren't younsuch a Special Snowflake.
>...he first task of progress against religion is to curb, and later destroy, the practice of Islam...
>Islam is presently the malignant cancer, requiring the most urgent attention.
[citation needed]
Civilization survived the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch burnings. Why won't civilization survive Jihad?

>Also has it ben happened with the quoran too already?

Of course.

>Sauce.

There are several books that mention the different styles of writing in the Bible, even the different hands on just one book, the Genesis. As for the Gospels, I will quote just Wikipedia for now:

The majority view today is that Mark is the first gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German: Quelle, meaning "source"). This view is known as the "two-source hypothesis".[24] The two-gospel hypothesis, in contrast, says that Matthew was written first (by Matthew the Apostle), and then Luke the Evangelist wrote his gospel (using Matthew as his main source) before Mark the Evangelist wrote his gospel (using Peter's testimony). John was written last and shares little with the synoptic gospels.

The gospels were apparently composed in stages. Mark's traditional ending (Mark 16:9–20, see Mark 16) was most likely composed early in the 2nd century and appended to Mark in the middle of that century.[25] The birth and infancy narratives apparently developed late in the tradition.[26] Luke and Matthew may have originally appeared without their first two chapters.[26]

The consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient

Please, be a troll

The inquisition wasnt that savage desu.
Crusades and Jihad ended a lot of civs.
Its less about civilisation as a whole, but the one that finds itself targeted and you may hold dear.

Humanity cannot descend from just one guy and one gal
No global flood ever happened
Exodus is very very unlikely to have taken place during the reign of Ramses II as it is believed by historians today (however, it could have happened earlier, so it's not like it's all completely disproven - at the very least there effectively was a Canaanite settlment in Egypt that was thriving but then shit started going down and they suddenly left, and cities in Canaan started getting attacked one after the other not long after, however it all happens too early for historians)
The 4 gospels have the purpose of describing what Jesus did yet the 4 gospels are not identical (and with clear propaganda in them, like Jewish prophets rising from the grave and walking around Jerusalem)

>Of course.

Sauce? While Biblical studies are pretty common and known of (and accepted by Catholics at least), Quranic studies are much harder to come by and generally suppressed by Saudi Arabia anyway because Sunni Islam doesn't like it.

Yes, I know what the bible says, and more importantly, I know that what the bible says will happen, will happen.

Armageddon is 7 years after the Rapture. It doesn't last very long. Your side loses.

Civilization was the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings (why is this a problem again?) and Jihad.

Civilization will survive until God wipes it out.

Your biblical illiteracy is just shocking. Really the only bit you got correct was that it was not written by one man, as it spans almost 1500 years.

Everything else was shit.

When we conceptualize things, we do it in a manner of comparison and contrast against an observed value. These values are as contrived as our imperfect, subjective view of the whole. So we collect these, we compare and contrast these, and with combinations we manifest. That is our purpose in life, we're machinations which build order in temporary pockets of the greater chaos and entropy. We instinctively fight a battle which we cannot win, desperately hoping at some point we can touch the infinite.

You can read the Bible without believing in God. To the believer, God is above all of this, not human, not finite. To us, the Bible is the infinite reaching down to us, so we can know it, to know, even in the mass expanse, we are important to it, because we are the children, born in the image of that which manifests.

I bet you don't even know about Nephilim. Git his famalam.

>Humanity cannot descend from just one guy and one gal

We were talking about christianity not american evangelists which has as much to do wiith christianity as Wiccas with ancient Hellenism.

You are now reading this in my voice.

>Sauce?

Just use your logic. People from the desert where not completely stupid and uncultured. There was poetry on those times, and even a famous collection (that dates from before the Quoran) called the Hanging Poems:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu'allaqat

Which shows that the Arabic tribes were not just a bunch of illiterate and uninspired warriors and traders.

As for the Quoran, you find in it several images taken from the surroundings of people who lived in the desert. A sublime being, a God, would naturally know all the secrets of the stars, black holes, galaxies, of every small form of life, of every city on the planet, etc, etc.

Yet the Quoran only uses imagery that an Arab from the time would know; the text only speaks of things that Arabs of the time would know well. Just imagine, the supreme mind of the universe doing his best to recite his divine verb and still producing something inferior to Shakespeare, not to mention something far poorer on its uses of metaphor and imagery.

It is the work of a man of his time and place in history, nothing more.

I know mor than you about poetry and wisdom, trust me.

Please, at least open up to us and admit that you are a Christian, that you have been raised on a Christian family and that you go to the Church every week. Come clean; don’t argue about something as a scholar when we can see that you are filled with faith to the very roots of your mind.

Most Churches agree that Adam and Eve existed to a certain degree. Even the Catholic Church, which prides itself on reason and that understands the two creation stories of Genesis as allegorical, still believes that Adam and Eve existed as our earliest ancestors.

That the Quran takes a bit from everything is not a debate. It even uses a gnostic story about Jesus giving life to a bird of clay.

What I am asking for is
>Source?

It is interesting to note that the Yemeni Kingdom of Himjar already developed an independent Arab Monotheism before Mohammed was born.
The diea was not foreign to them, they just didnt fucked each other over as zealously as it was the case around 600ad.
It may be because their traderoute was in a crisis, the christians of rome did not use incense which had been arabias main export to rome and egypt over the red sea for a long time.

>destroying any book

>What I am asking for is
>>Source?

That I cant give: I did not study it with the same care as the Bible.

I read the work (in translation) and find it so poor in poetry and beauty that I did not maintained an interest on it.

The funny thing is that, if it were up to me to save either The Bible or The Complete Works of Shakespeare I would save Shakespeare without any hesitation. The Bible might be more culturally far-reaching, but Shakespeare is much more beautiful and human, and it is much harder to any other human to produce anything like his works than to people create other books of the same level of technique than the ones in the Bible.

You are most likely a conservative christian of the personal relationship with jesus variety. Your ideology flows from that. You most likely have a very conservative stance on human sexuality, and favor criminalizing abortion. You also probably have a very strong disdain for secular governments and international organizations.

Translated Quran is technically not the Quran though. You shouldn't comment on the poetry when it is supposed to be so closely tied to its original language.

Yeah, I know that. Some poets are more dependent of the sound, and they lose too much in translation.

The beauty of Shakespeare is that he is great, above all other things, because of his metaphors, because of the imagery that he injects in almost all his lines. Thus, when he is translated he might lose a lot in sound, but the great poetical images of his plays will be alive.

I suspect that much of the beauty of the Quoran is derived from sound effects (alliteration, assonance, rhyme), and so the work suffers a lot in translation.

Claiming that is such a foolish claim that the misspelling of "more" pales in comparison.

Open up?

Are you new here?

They can't get me to shut up about being a born again Christian.

You have no clue who I am. Let me just say to your patronizing comments that I have children, and that my children have children.

This is not my first rodeo. I can spot attacks on the bible a mile away.

>>They can't get me to shut up about being a born again Christian.
Why would we tell the idiot who does the intellectual equivalent of dancing for nickels whenever his particular superstitions are questioned to shut up?

You're this board's equivalent of a dancing bear or a clown. Fun to laugh at and not take seriously.

You're giving me political ideologies.

I'll try this again.

Becoming a born again Christian is not a new philosophy, a new ideology, a new religion, or a new religious belief.

It is an actual, physical, spiritual, and eternal transformation from what you are now, a spiritually dead human being, into what I am now, a new creation in Christ Jesus.

Jesus made everything.
Jesus made human beings.

Now Jesus is making out of human beings new creations, with our consent. Something fit to live with Him in heaven forever.

It's an open invite; it's a limited invite; it's up to you whether you want to take this step or not.

If you reject it, you need to be very clear on what God is, Who God is, what God brings to the table, and what the complete and utter absence of all of those things mean to you, personally.

>You have no clue who I am. Let me just say to your patronizing comments that I have children, and that my children have children.
that autism

Thanks. That's really not the worst downside I can imagine.

Ok, so we can simply ignore you in this debate: you are voicing opinions based on nothing more than faith, without any evidence to sustain it. Actually, the majority of evidence disprove your believes, as you yourself now. But your need to believe is based on emotions that don’t have anything to do with logic and intellectual honesty and respect; you just need to believe, and no matter how much evidence is appointed you will keep believing.

I respect your right to have your opinion, but I will not waste time with you in any real and fruitful debate. You don’t have the necessary emotional strength and honesty to discuss this matters.

Good luck, but take care not to act with too much fanaticism and end up contaminating your children and grandchildren with your own sadness and fear.

Your logic, like you, is twisted and wrong.

>You have no clue who I am. Let me just say to your patronizing comments that I have children, and that my children have children.

Prove it kiddo.

...

He is born again.
That is murrican "christianity".

kek

It's you who hasn't a clue about these matters, as they are spiritually discerned, and you are spiritually dead.

I guess I'll take the time to pick apart your offensive post.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ...

It's Christianity.

>different styles of writing in the Bible
Yes, 40 men writing 66 books over 1500 years are going to have their own styles of writing. kek

>even the different hands on just one book, the Genesis.
Funny, the atheists were cursing up and down that there was no way any of the patriarchs contributed to the writings of Moses just the other day.

>As for the Gospels, I will quote just Wikipedia for now:
TOPKEK

Using wiki as a source for biblical knowledge: Priceless!

The 'Q' hypothesis is completely fabricated by an atheist, based on another atheist who refused to believe anything in the bible was written by the various authors, and completely without evidence.

Men writing about the same man at the same time have similar stories? Gee, Mr. Wizard!

Luke wrote Luke, but he stated quite plainly that he was taking everything that was written already and putting it into good order. He also wrote Acts, and not from other men's writings.

Wiki speculating that Matthew, Mark and John were written in stages is priceless. Did they think it was written instantaneously? No, the only valid textual criticism is that the end of Mark appears to be a late addition, and while true, not part of Peter's account. Because that's not why Peter through John Mark wrote his account; nobody cares about the end of a servant's story. Servant did his job, the end.

>The consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek, the lingua franca of the Roman Orient

Bullshit. Matthew was written in Hebrew; pidgin Hebrew apparently so awful that Papias complained it was very difficult to translate. And of course copies of Matthew's gospel in the original Hebrew still exist.

Your knowledge of the bible comes from wiki, and is laughably incorrect.

>>all this bullshit
Yeah no. You have no proof for any of this. Nor is there any reason to think you are anything other then a bog-standard christard moron high on his own righteous indignation.

Yeah, okay, you've just exposed yourself to be an American evangelical, an ideology that is tied to a very specific time and place. You probably also have very strong opinions on capitalism and America's place in the world.

But what does that mean? Can it mean born again in a spiritual form after the body dies away?

Nobody is taking you seriously here, just leave

>And of course copies of Matthew's gospel in the original Hebrew still exist.
sauce

Old Testament God =/= New Testament God

>The cosmogony is The Bible has been disproved by scientists (Big-Bang, supernovas, the structure of galaxies, etc. area all well known and proved facts);
>The evolution of man is a fact and disproved all that has been stated about creation in the Bible;
>There are no geological evidences of a major world flood;
>So far there was never any concrete prove of life after death;
>We now know how the Universe erupted, and how the Earth and the Stars were formed;
>People suffer terribly in all parts of the world, innocents die from many terrible and illogic causes, and no God seems to care about that;
>Jesus Christ died and so far he never came back to say anything to us again (just like every single dead person in history).
>All relics have been disproven (even the Famous Turin shroud)

Boy, are you delusional

>(even the Famous Turin shroud)

Oh god, you've done it now. Inb4 the dump.

C’mon man, be frank and open with us: what happened to you?

Did you lost your parents, or your wife, maybe one of your kids? Where you an alcoholic? We are all anonymous here, so you can feel safe and explain to us why you need so much to believe.

Also, lets imagine, just imagine, that a new evidence was found, one that disproved completely every religion in the world, an evidence so strong that all churches would admit that it was the end of faith. Just imagine that: you yourself was not going to be able to ignore this evidence.

Let say that something like this happens (we know that it will not, but sill): if it happened, would you still be willing to live even knowing that there is no life after death?

The proof of all of it is in the bible.

In your fear and ignorance, you toss out the entire bible and then say there is no proof.

When God reveals something to mankind, it's not up for proof. It's not up for debate. You're either on board, or you're run over.

You're tired of getting run over. I get it. You're a bitter angry moron with an axe to grind with everyone who's not.

Hop on board.

It's tied to the bible, which predates America.

kek

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.

Romans 12:2
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Pretty sure Paul wrote this before there was an America.

Pretty sure all born again Christians around the world know these things to be true.

Hey, psit:

>>The cosmogony is The Bible has been disproved by scientists (Big-Bang, supernovas, the structure of galaxies, etc. area all well known and proved facts);
>>The evolution of man is a fact and disproved all that has been stated about creation in the Bible;

What do you say about this?

Your god doesn't exist and your bible is a load of horseshit.

>>bitter
Not really, Just having a bite to eat while simultaneously mocking a retard.

It means you have to regain the Spirit of God that Adam and Eve lost in the Garden of Eden.

It means that the Holy Spirit literally dwells within you, the instant you are saved.

2 Timothy 1:14 That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

So, is 66 AD before 1776 AD, or no?

Fools take nothing seriously. That's why they're fools.

this. top upvoted post on /r/christianity

don't toss catholics in the same bag please

I just did a reverse google image search on that jpg faggot. Lame pasta.

lrn2google

Concerning Mark, these things were related by the father [John the Elder]. Concerning Matthew these other things were said, “Therefore, Matthew set in order the logia (“divine oracles”) in a Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them, as he was able.”

v Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15-16.

Anything that purports to disprove the bible is itself proven false, eventually. It's been that way for 3500 years. The bible remains the anvil upon which thousands of hammers have been broken.

You can believe that the collective wisdom of mankind exceed's God's wisdom, if you'd like.

It just cements your status as a fool.

You don't know shit. Annotating is something every good writer/academic does.

Please, Christ-fag sama, answear this:

i'm asking about hebrew copies of matthew, not what somebody said

i can't find something about it. are the copies intact? how long ago were they discovered?

No, I came to Jesus at a young age, realizing that I had sinned and was in need of a savior. I confessed out loud that Jesus was Lord, and believed in my heart that God raised Him from the dead.

Since then, I have been walking with Jesus for decades, and have seen many wonderful things, things you would call miracles. I have a relationship with the living God that's family, not adversarial as yours is.

That you think you can stand against God is merely a testament of how long suffering God is towards you.

While your theory that people who know they are lost have a much easier time being saved holds water, in my case I have nothing to check off on your list.

I fear no new discovery as I worship the truth.

If by some sort of MKUltra conditioning I were forced to disbelieve in life after death, and assuming I could maintain my relationship with Jesus here on earth until I died, I would still rejoice and be glad.

If you took all of that away from me (which God would not allow you to do), I would be as you. Hopeless. Despondent.

Wow, you are incredibly coward, dishonest and narrow-minded.

However, I am happy for the diversity of human minds; if it were up to people like you humanity would still be living in caves and adoring the gods of fire and thunder.

Humanity manages to walk forward despite the existence of people like you.

And you appear to have no idea what any of the words you're using mean.

I find Scientism to be hypocritical and unreasonable.

The "Big Bang", a catholic hypothesis, is merely a computer model that starts with this singularity that contains everything in the universe, but somehow came from nothing. And then explodes. Into order.

It's rubbish.

The evolution of man? They lined some different size skulls from different people in a row and led you to the conclusion that the ones on the left turned into the ones on the right.

It's a joke.