Less's complete lack of Biblical understanding - and John MacArthur's too!!!
No, just you. John MacArthur is very educated. He's a great speaker and gifted in his craft, BUT he holds to beliefs not supported by science and reason.
MacArthur is big on Spurgeon, and it's not hard to see why if one has went through some of Spurgeon's works. Spurgeon, in my opinion, was a genius. His skill in his art is unmatched. In my opinion, he's the Bach of preaching. BUT! I don't think Spurgeon was right on some matters. Genius? yes. Deluded to a degree? I believe so.
Spurgeon was a scholar, even though he never attended college. He believed God spoke to him, saying, "Do you seek great things for yourself? Seek them not!" - verse from Jeremiah, so he didn't attend college. Yet Spurgeon preached better sermons at 23 years old than most can ever dream of preaching in their old age.
Spurgeon struggled with doubts, and almost once became an atheist. AND he believed the world to be ancient, after his scientific research. I used to love Spurgeon, studied his sermons and art of preaching - even owned books on his art of preaching - and still respect him to a degree, but, again, I think he was wrong in many of his beliefs.
no EYEWITNESS accounts of the life of Jesus were EVER recorded, by anyone?; especially people who travelled with Him, in that could be recalled or written down - that is quite a presumption - just call people who cannot defend themselves LIARS, and believers "complete dunces" - darn good debate tactic.
Fact is, scholarship dates Mark at 35 to 40 years after Jesus died, and the rest came later - in the order of Matthew, Luke, and John. These gospels were written in Greek, by men who were NOT eye witnesses. No doubt some of their information is copied from earlier sources and hearsay stories, but nevertheless they were NOT direct eye witness accounts. That plays a role in the historical method.
And the fact remains, these accounts were written at different times by different people and do NOT line up on some major key issues, which discredit it as a reliable historical document.
I am sure John MacArthur dealt quite well with the fact that your WHOLE mocking approach is based on capitalizing on emotions of disappointed believers...not history...not intellectual...and you are certainly not spiritually qualified to address any Biblical matters because you are a proud Christ-rejecting person with a bias against any book of moral instruction that would cite a Supreme Being as an authority over your life and conduct to the degree you WILL BE held equally accountable as believers will be.
Same old logical fallacy - You don't believe therefore you are not qualified!
I've done my research, even a few years ago I was in Texas studying under Professor Thomas White of Southwestern Seminary, as I planned on becoming a minister.
And Bart D. Erhman studied at Moody Bible Institute and Princeton Theological Seminary, he was also a pastor, but since then he's lost faith, and has let the cat out of the bag on the true history of the Bible, etc. He provides all the resources we have for early Christianity in light of the historical method, and doesn't make claims in bias, but based on *probabilities,* as that's why Historians do. He is also a textual critic and professor of New Testament Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He has debated William Lane-Craig and James White, and isn't afraid to debate anyone.
But let me guess, Ehrman knows nothing because he doesn't believe in absurd extraordinary claims without a shred of evidence?
you're scared. - or - I choose not to waste my time? If you see an old lady fall down on the railroad tracks, and you see the gates go down and her struggling to get up in time; are you going to help her because that moral example has been passed on from generation to generation over millions of years from monkeys, or, because she is your human equal and you have a conscience that has been pricked/alarmed that she may die if you do nothing to help her?
Or you're just not able to.
We have societal instincts, that's why we help others. As I've stated before, Morality is subjective the the perception of the species. Hindu's say eating meat is immoral. Christians eat meat. Who's right? If black widows had large brains and could conceptualize morality, they may see it as virtue for the female at eat the head of the male after breeding, as it's in their instincts to do that.
As a community species, we base our morality on what is beneficial for a societal species and the question of suffering. The morality given in religious books is usually far from moral, except on a few guidelines which span all faiths.
scholars, scholars, scholars - I think John MacArthur is a scholar, your appeal to authority(that you slam me for) means what?
MacArthur is learned, I'll give him that. BUT I'm not debating MacArthur here, I'm debating YOU. I provide arguments and scholarly sources to back me. Make an argument against my points, because merely saying "MacArthur disagrees!" doesn't add a damn thing to the point.
...it doesn't seem probable Jesus and Nicodemus ever had this conversation...some later Greek writer...invented this story. - and you can PROVE that - Nicodemus didn't record this conversation, and, there were NO eyewitnesses - you're certain of this via your "historical method"?
The historical method doesn't prove or disprove anything. It's based on *probability,* so based on the criteria of the historical method, such as independent attestation, criteria of dissimilarity, and contextual credibility historians reason as to what most probably
For example, there are 7 billion people in the world. How many of those 7 billion people can walk on water? Zero. How many of those 7 billion can LIE
about someone walking on water? 7 Billion. What's more probable?
500 years before Jesus, the disciples of the Buddha said he walked upon water, as if on dry land. Do you believe that? If not, why not? Thousands of people believe Buddha walked on water because his disciples left us the Sutras, etc., which they believe to be historical documents. Why do Christians believe Jesus walked on water? The same reason. They hear and believe it.
Again, in the light of contextual credibility, it seems probable to many scholars that Jesus never had that conversation in John 3. A Christian can believe that Jesus did have that conversation, but they'll have the weaker side to support it in light of the historical method.
You got nothin' Xerxes, nothing at all - just an attitude about it. Only false Christians are capitalizing off Christianity; guys like me go to work everyday, and live paycheck to paycheck - I am not deceiving anyone through purporting/broadcasting my personal faith - I am not being paid to sell Hovind videos or MacArthur sermons...you are the one who feels threatened that God's commands may actually be binding upon your created life...and you just won't have that, now will you!
The hell you're not trying to deceive people. Christians teach children they are sinners by birth, and cannot make it into heaven until they acknowledge that even their righteousness is as filthy rags. They are taught that homosexuals are some how defective for being born that way. Christians teach children fables about a young earth and some fiction of original sin. Christians teach children that if they don't believe in extraordinary claims, without evidence, they'll be separated from a loving God and loved ones forever. It's SICK. Enough of this child abuse.
It's time the world made intelligent war against Christianity. A war of education, knowledge, and reason. And we see in Europe and America that education, science, and reason are gaining ground over time.
BTW - why do you keep answering me if I am such a fool, or potentially a "complete dunce"? Trying to PRESERVE something...
If you won't think about it, maybe someone else reading will. As a former Christian, I never dismiss the power of planting seeds of reason, for they often bear fruit later. Doubt can be the medicine that cures the disease of blind faith.