OLD testament vs. NEW testament

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
AJ777's picture
As i said earlier the

As i said earlier the beginning is an indeterminate period of time. How long did the beginning last? I did not say the first day was 13 billion years. We’re you present to observe there were no waters? I’m glad we’re talking about feelings. It seems you are feeling very angry at a god that you don’t believe in. My belief in God is based on historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, logical arguments, and personal experience. Christianity is testable. You could read books like Cold Case Christianity written by a former atheist homicide detective, I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist by Dr. Frank Turek. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis to give you an idea of what I’m referring to.

mykcob4's picture
I've been to the Baptist

I've been to the Baptist bookstore and have no interest in bullshit propaganda books.
Science has proven that there was no water for billions of years of the Earth's beginning. I'll trust science.
Were YOU present to see jesus? See how absurd your question is?
Your belief isn't based on historical evidence because there isn't any historical evidence of a god. There are no logical arguments either. As for eyewitness testimony, at best, there is only secondhand ambiguous hearsay testimony and none that can or is verified. Most accounts of the christian early years were written some 300 years after the fact.
Dr. Frank Turek a political hack.
C.S. Lewis a nothing writer UNTIL he wrote exclusively for an evangelical audience...worthless.
There is no such thing as a former atheist. Someone may claim to be an atheist but they are a believer inside just looking for an excuse to come out.
I am not mad at a god. There is no god to be mad at. My style is blunt. If you can't handle it tough!
And OH YES, christianity certainly is testable and it has failed every single test of logic there is. That is why it relies on faith because it has no proof.

AJ777's picture
Well mykob you’re mistaken.

Well mykob you’re mistaken. If you don’t want to educate yourself I can’t force you out of ignorance. You are wrong on the dating of the gospels and early Christian writings. Why do you trust or have faith in science? Science doesn’t say anything, scientists interpret data to come to a conclusion on what the data means. Why don’t you take ownership of your mind and attempt to objectively read unbiased sources of data at least rather than have blind faith in science. Your attitude seems to be that what you are currently ignorant of must be wrong even though you don’t know what the wrong information is. Do some research on Bart Ehrmann a liberal skeptic scholar as well as others who affirm minimal facts such as the historicity of the life, death by crucifixion, and later appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. Refuting or disproving Christianity would take much research and study on your part. Far easier to refuse to even look at the evidence.

mykcob4's picture

A person like you bases your whole fucking life on a myth that has ZERO evidence of being true and you have the fucking audacity to call me ignorant.
I am not wrong about the "writings" about the bible. I have had this debate before. The "bible" was written in 325 ADE.
Why do I trust science? Well, science adheres to a strict code of investigation. Science doesn't have a predetermined outcome, it accepts the facts. Science isolates variables. Science verifies every finding, is peer-reviewed by independent sources. SCIENCE HAS CREDIBILITY. You can't say that about "faith."
Your sources are HIGHLY biased. For cryin' out fucking loud! Bert Ehrmann is a religious studies professor at a religious school. He isn't a "liberal skeptical scholar" as you suggest! You think he MIGHT have a bias? Ya think?
And you can stop the condescending BULLSHIT " Why don’t you take ownership of your mind and attempt to objectively read unbiased sources of data at least rather than have blind faith in science."
I don't have "blind faith" in science asshole. I trust information that has been properly scrutinized!
You think that I haven't researched christianity? That is so far off base it isn't even funny. Almost every atheist including me exhausted every avenue before we FINALLY rejected the myth that is christianity.
This last post of yours just personifies how dishonest you are.

AJ777's picture
The Old Testament which is

The Old Testament which is the first part of the Protestant Christian Bible was written starting in around 1400 BC most scholars think genesis or job was the first book. The last book most scholars agree was written is revelation in the New Testament around 90AD. Maybe you’re thinking of the council of Nicea which occurred in 325 AD. I’m not trying to offend you by using the word ignorant. It just means you’re lacking in knowledge on a subject. I lack knowledge on many subjects. Sometimes when we think we know something our pride makes it difficult to admit when we are wrong. If you truly think there is zero evidence pointing to the truth of Christianity you are either not being honest with yourself or have not seriously studied the evidence. Try the case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

mykcob4's picture
It is possible that the Torah

It is possible that the Torah was written before the first century, but that is where it ends. There is nothing and I mean nothing that is written down (that anyone has found) of the new testament that dates to the first century. If you have found anything, that isn't a fake, please submit it to Harvard Divinity for inspection. I'm sure you'd get a Nobel Prize.
Lee Strobel, yet another KNOWN christian propagandist. Do you have any CREDIBLE authors or are they all christian propagandist?

jonthecatholic's picture
Actually, whoever we may give

Actually, whoever we may give to you as credible, you automatically trash them because they don't agree with your view. Bart Ehrman for example is agnostic atheist. Or Tim O'Neill. Both are atheists who disagree with your view on the Bible and Christianity and the Council of Nicaea. And you prefer to rely on internet memes for your information.

mykcob4's picture
Bert Ehrmann is a professor

Bert Ehrmann is a professor of christian studies, he isn't an atheist! Tim O'Neill is an AMATEUR historian and not a very good one at that. I doubt very much if he is an atheist!

jonthecatholic's picture
Bart Ehrman:
mykcob4's picture

Yeah, I saw those sights and they don't prove that they are atheists. They are scam pieces that every scam artist puts out. It's the old trick, "I was an atheist but now I believe in god" bullshit.
Bert Ehrmann is a professor of religious studies. He could not even have that job if he was not a devout believer.
Tim O'Neill is an amateur historian working an angle to become famous.
Both are dubious and have no credibility. They interject bias in all their works.
So don't rag me about gleaning information off of the internet. That is all you do.

CyberLN's picture
"Bert Ehrmann is a professor

"Bert Ehrmann is a professor of religious studies. He could not even have that job if he was not a devout believer."

That is simply not true.

mykcob4's picture
Bert Ehrmann is an

Bert Ehrmann is an evangelical writer who is also a professor of religious studies @ University of North Caroline Chapel Hill.
His credentials"http://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/". Notice that he graduated from Wheaton which is a religious school.
The claim was made that Bert Erhmann is an atheist. I proved that he is not. Plain and simple CybLN

CyberLN's picture
I'm sure you mean Bart Ehrman

I'm sure you mean Bart Ehrman...not Bert Ehrmann. Bart Ehrman self identifies as an agnostic atheist.


As to your second claim that he cannot hold the job he does without being a devout xtian, can you provide a recourse for that conclusion?

mykcob4's picture
Do you know of ANY professor

Do you know of ANY professor of Religious Studies in the USA that is not a theist? Bet you can't find even one.

CyberLN's picture
Here's one: Bart Ehrman

Here's one: Bart Ehrman

AJ777's picture
Mykcob4, so are you saying

Mykcob4, so are you saying that what you thought you knew about the dating of the Bible might be incorrect? Ever heard of the Dead Sea scrolls?

mykcob4's picture

The Dead Sea Scrolls are not the bible. Nowhere near.
The "bible" wasn't created until 325ADE. Read other threads and you can see the whole issue played out.

AJ777's picture
mycob4, please please,

mycob4, please please, educate yourself by some means outside of YouTube or the internet in general on the council of Nicea, what was written on the Dead Sea scrolls, the dating of these papyri and scrolls, and the dating of the New Testament. Where is the evidence for your claim?

mykcob4's picture
You fucking arrogant moron

You fucking arrogant moron AJ777. The dead sea scrolls don't say a fucking thing about jesus!

AJ777's picture
Psalm 51. Among other places

Psalm 51. Among other places that mention Jesus. Much of the Old Testament is in the Dead Sea scrolls. Jesus is God who is mentioned a few times in the OT. Dated to between 300BC to 100 AD. If you meant there are no New Testament fragments then I think you’re right.

mykcob4's picture
"jesus" is NEVER mentioned in

"jesus" is NEVER mentioned in the dead sea scrolls. Also, you might want to find out when the letter "J" was invented. The old testament refers to the coming of a messiah, there is no proof that that ever happened. The Jews don't believe it happened either.
And you think I need an education....yeah right!

AJ777's picture
I did not say the word Jesus

I did not say the word Jesus appears in the Dead Sea scrolls. I said He is mentioned. Read psalm 51 and tell me who it’s talking about. The Christian understanding is that Jesus is God who inspired the entire Bible, appeared in the burning bush, and in the fiery furnace. I did not mean to imply that you are under educated in general, just in Christianity.

Nyarlathotep's picture
AJ777 - The Christian

AJ777 - The Christian understanding is that...

I'll let you guess what we think that is worth.

jonthecatholic's picture
I guess the hope was there

I guess the hope was there would be some form of respect for one another's opinion but I guess that's gone. I mean it's not like this is a debate forum where ideas can be freely expressed and challenged... oh wait.

mykcob4's picture
Ideas? Opinions? They are

Ideas? Opinions? They are only worth the facts that back them up. You can't prove your god. You have nothing to back up anything that you claim.

Burn Your Bible's picture
I guesss I was not clear

I guesss I was not clear enough that god condones slavery...

You really need to read your bible your exodus verse is about stealing slaves ( someone's property) that's why you will be put to death! Also explain this...

“"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭ESV‬‬

AJ777's picture
Exodus 21:16

Exodus 21:16
Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. ESV

Seems pretty clear to me even from the context the word is man not servant or slave. The Hebrew word is iysh which means man or person.

EXODUS 21:20-21
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.ESV

This does not condone beating, but describes what is to be done to a person who does beat their slave or servant. Nowhere does it say masters beat your slaves.

Burn Your Bible's picture
So if we both pulled ESV

So if we both pulled ESV versions why two different wordings???

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭ASV‬‬

“When a slave owner hits a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner should be punished. But if the slave gets up after a day or two, the slave owner shouldn’t be punished because the slave is the owner’s property.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭CEB‬‬

““If a person beats his male or female slave with a stick so severely that he dies, he is to be punished; except that if the slave lives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his property.”
‭‭Sh'mot (Exo)‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭CJB‬‬

““If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female, and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished. But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property is punishment enough.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭GNBDK‬‬

“If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a rod so that he or she dies at his hand, then he shall surely be punished. Nevertheless, if he survives for a day or two, then he shall not be punished, for it is his money.”
‭‭Exodus‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭MEV‬‬

“And if an ish strikes his eved, or his amah, with a shevet (rod), and he die under his yad; he shall be surely avenged. Notwithstanding, if he continue a yom or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his kesef.”
‭‭Shemot‬ ‭21:20-21‬ ‭OJB‬‬

See we can do this all day

AJ777's picture
And you still can’t see it.

And you still can’t see it.

mykcob4's picture

he sees far better than you.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.