How To Get To Heaven When You Die

Just a reminder that Alter2Ego is a troll who spams religion/science forums all over the internet with multi-coloured, debunked nonsense in various-sized fonts.

She has been banned from numerous forums for spamming, refusing to debate and generally being a troll.

This behaviour is likely related to the fact that Jehovah Witnesses are notorious for treating women as second class citizens so she's acting out in a way she's not allowed to do in real life.

Quick google for "Alter2Ego" pulls up dozens of links to various forums spammed by this troll.

[QUOTE=Mr Beer;1591278451]LOL

There are no writings from Christ's day concerning Christ period, he wasn't mentioned until like 50 years after he died. But yeah his death, which wasn't written of at the time, was being proclaimed 'all over the world'.

Something that no-one was talking about wasn't refuted in writing, therefore God is real, ha ha ha, you can't make this stuff up![/QUOTE]

That's not True. The Biblical writings are within 20 years of His resurrection AND the writings of Josephus are from His day. He also have plenty of other Secular Writings within 50-200 years after His resurrection.

As far as His resurrection being proclaimed all over the world, that was done by the EYEWITNESSES to His resurrection. They didn't need writings to convince them because they had seen Him themselves.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591346841]That's not True. The Biblical writings are within 20 years of His resurrection AND the writings of Josephus are from His day. He also have plenty of other Secular Writings within 50-200 years after His resurrection. [/QUOTE]

OK, I'm not a Biblical scholar so I could be wrong. Source please? Secular one, not one of those wacky creationist sites.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591346841]As far as His resurrection being proclaimed all over the world, that was done by the EYEWITNESSES to His resurrection. They didn't need writings to convince them because they had seen Him themselves.[/QUOTE]

"All over the world" is a ridiculous overstatement on top of the already bold claim that anyone saw a dead man rise (which didn't happen). Which Bronze Age contemporary of Jesus travelled to China? Which one to the South Sea Islands? What's the name of the one who went to South America and his friend to North America? Who was preaching to the Australian aborigines? Absolutely absurd.

All that aside from the fact that non-evidence isn't evidence, which was part of your initial case.

^^^

As usual Paddington spouting falsehoods. Josephus's [i]Anitiquities of the Jews[/I], containing the (very questionably authentic) passages about Jesus were not written until late 1st century, way after Jesus. This is not disputable, as Josephus talks about specific historical happenings in mid to late first century concerning the Jewish people (I.e. First Jewish-Roman war near 70 C.E). How in the world can this work have been written during the time of the supposed Jesus, which by any account wouldn't have been past, say, 30-40 C.E. Mr. Beer above is correct about no contemporary sources writing about Jesus.

[QUOTE=numberguy12;1591281471]False. It's like you didn't even read my post at all, and just continue to spout your nonsense.

Besides any of that. [b]Words written down in a text are not evidence in themselves.[/b]. As predicted, your "evidence" for hundreds of people seeing Jesus after the supposed resurrection is simply that: words written down in the Bible.

But if you actually read that Corinthians passage, which of course is not evidence, you will note it does not refer specially to hundreds of people seeing Jesus [i]ascend[/i], just people who apparently saw him post resurrection. The passages in the Bible that actually talk about the ascension in Luke and Acts just say he was with the disciples.[/QUOTE]

My evidence is that it was written by the actual eyewitnesses and you arrogantly think you know more than they do because they were there and you were not. It is also recorded in other writings. What do you expect me to go by? The Video and Photographs of Him from that day? Interesting, so you won't believe the eyewitness writings about Christ, do you believe the eyewitness writings about George Washington being President of the US or do you dismiss them as well?

So are you saying that you do believe the eyewitness account of men seeing Him after the resurrection?

Acts 1 records the ascension, but it doesn't say how many witnessed it.

Ac 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So, I will have to look into it deeper. The fact that so many saw Him after His resurrection should be evidence enough for you though that He did ascend into heaven.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591411331]My evidence is that it was written by the actual eyewitnesses and you arrogantly think you know more than they do because they were there and you were not. It is also recorded in other writings. What do you expect me to go by? The Video and Photographs of Him from that day? Interesting, so you won't believe the eyewitness writings about Christ, do you believe the eyewitness writings about George Washington being President of the US or do you dismiss them as well?

So are you saying that you do believe the eyewitness account of men seeing Him after the resurrection?

Acts 1 records the ascension, but it doesn't say how many witnessed it.

Ac 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So, I will have to look into it deeper. The fact that so many saw Him after His resurrection should be evidence enough for you though that He did ascend into heaven.[/QUOTE]

1. Why did you not respond to the post right above this one, that Josephus was not contemporary with the supposed historical Jesus, and certainly did not write his questionable passages during the time of Jesus? You are objectively wrong about this fact.

2. As to the above quoted post.....you honestly can't see the problem here? [b]Mere words written down in a group of texts are not themselves evidence[/b]. If you argue this, you are literally arguing that the events of Star Wars happened, because they were written down in a story. This is the pinnacle of absurdity.

Here is a breakdown:

A. The texts in question (NT books, primarily the gospels) are likely [i]not[/i] eyewitness accounts. They were composed after Jesus lived, by anonymous authors, etc. You don't seem to comprehend this, but you would have to [i]show[/i] they are eyewitness accounts, using convincing arguments/evidence. You are merely stating they are, like someone who is unable to form any kind of rational argument, and just assuming the conclusion.

B. Anyone can literally write down anything. I can't believe you seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. Your "evidence" isn't really evidence at all. Have you noticed that you are simply using the Bible as your "evidence"? Example: " b.b.but 1 Corinthians [i]says[/i] that Jesus was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses. Thus, err, it happened! Eyewitnesses wrote about it!". This is not good evidence. If you are blindly taking everything in the Bible to be good evidence, I expect you to also take whatever is written in, say, the Quran to be good evidence, to be consistent.

It is ludicrous you are comparing the historical evidence we have of George Washington and his presidency to what we have available for the supposed events associated with Jesus's life. Note the incredible detail we have of the timeline of the former man's life- all kinds of specific events are referenced, all kinds of contemporary sources, all kinds of writings by Washington himself, physical evidence, you name it. We just don't have this type of vast evidence for the historical Jesus- in fact, no contemporary sources at all. We do have mere stories (gospels) that seem so focused on "fulfilling" the OT prophecies to a T- sometimes using the exact language.....which in itself is a tell-tale sign that there is motive afoot, and these aren't historical happenings described by eyewitnesses.

[QUOTE=SmithJLee;1591413681]Can you prove they were eyewitnesses?[/QUOTE]

Yes because the early Church and Councils would NOT have accepted these writings as authentic unless they were written by an Apostle, and Eyewitness or an Associate of an Apostle. The ONLY exceptions were James and Jude who were half Brothers of Christ.

So I take it the point about Josephus not writing as a contemporary of Jesus has been conceded. Paddington was incorrect about this fact.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591492771]Yes because the early Church and Councils would NOT have accepted these writings as authentic unless they were written by an Apostle, and Eyewitness or an Associate of an Apostle. The ONLY exceptions were James and Jude who were half Brothers of Christ.[/QUOTE]

What a strange argument. You simply saying the early church would not have accepted these writings as authentic unless written by the above...does not make it true. They most certainly could have, but further than that, canonization was a rather long, fluid process for the NT, and it's is entirely possible the people arguing for a certain canon at a later date didn't even really know who the true authors were anyway.

Let's take an example, the epistle of James, which you refer to.

Stop reading into the text all kinds of preconceived notions and personal wishes. [I]What do we actually have in front of us[/I], in terms of this epistle.

-A text that begins with the author merely identifying himself as "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" in James 1:1.

So we really just know the author's name is James (the skeptic will note that even this is not known, but that's besides the point). You then want to say, "well certainly, it must be a James from the Bible". But how would this even be justified? [I]It doesn't say that[/I]. But there are several James's mentioned in the Bible. You want to go even further. You claim "well certainly, it must be James, the brother of Jesus". But how would this be justified? [I]It doesn't say that[/I]. There is absolutely ambiguity here. You can attempt to push it back a step and say, well the early Church somehow knew......but how exactly do you know this, and how exactly would they have known?

No, we certainly do not have concrete evidence regarding who exactly wrote this epistle. One stance in bible scholarship says is it was composed late 1st century to early 2nd century based on linguistic considerations and content. You, of course, are merely claiming it was written by James, brother of Jesus- almost as if you are unwilling to critically examine anything at all that is thrown at you in the form of traditional church doctrine. It's no wonder why you appear to be so opposed to higher criticism- a study of how these documents actually came to be historically (I'm always amazed how little fundamentalist apologists seem to be interested in the true background of the literal texts they are claiming to be scripture)

To summarize the post above more concisely: why do you never seem to ask the question "How do we know what we know?" regarding anything in the bible. I feel like this is a rather basic question to ask.

[QUOTE=SmithJLee;1591501831]The earliest church councils accepted dozens and dozens of early writings about Jesus that are not regarded as authentic today.[/QUOTE]

Bull. Like what? Just because those writings exist doesn't mean that the early Church accepted them. They were rejected because they weren't written until 200 years after the events and not by an eyewitness.

Create heaven before you die and bury yourself there

Lmao at how hard paddington got owned by numbersguy, but just sticks his head in the sand. A true Christian!

There is no God.

[QUOTE=numberguy12;1591498761]To summarize the post above more concisely: why do you never seem to ask the question "How do we know what we know?" regarding anything in the bible. I feel like this is a rather basic question to ask.[/QUOTE]

I explore this every day. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of God and the Bible.

[QUOTE=LuckyAH;1591579381]Lmao at how hard paddington got owned by numbersguy, but just sticks his head in the sand. A true Christian![/QUOTE]

I would LOVE to know how. What has he said that has stumped me? Sometimes I get bored of petty questions and accusations and he is full of petty questions and accusations. I don't always respond to questions that aren't sincere.

[QUOTE=numberguy12;1591414431]1. Why did you not respond to the post right above this one, that Josephus was not contemporary with the supposed historical Jesus, and certainly did not write his questionable passages during the time of Jesus? You are objectively wrong about this fact.

[b]Josephus was born in AD 37, whereas, Christ died and rose again around AD 33-34, so he wasn't technically contemporary, but he was born very shortly afterward. [/b]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus[/url]

2. As to the above quoted post.....you honestly can't see the problem here? [b]Mere words written down in a group of texts are not themselves evidence[/b]. If you argue this, you are literally arguing that the events of Star Wars happened, because they were written down in a story. This is the pinnacle of absurdity.

[b]We aren't talking about Star Wars. We are talking about REAL events that were written down by the actual eyewitnesses to the events. They are supported by the Secular historians of Christ's day and shortly thereafter. There are over 100 prophecies fulfilled in Christ's first coming that were fulfilled in Him. Since neither of us were actually there, we must rely on the eyewitness accounts of what happened. Just as we would rely on the eyewitness accounts of who the first President of the US was. Do you doubt those writings as well? Was George Washington really the first President of the US or is that false as well?[/b]

Here is a breakdown:

A. The texts in question (NT books, primarily the gospels) are likely [i]not[/i] eyewitness accounts. They were composed after Jesus lived, by anonymous authors, etc. You don't seem to comprehend this, but you would have to [i]show[/i] they are eyewitness accounts, using convincing arguments/evidence. You are merely stating they are, like someone who is unable to form any kind of rational argument, and just assuming the conclusion.

[b]Well you are wrong again, like usual. They ARE and WERE eyewitness accounts. As I told you many times before, they wouldn't have been accepted as Scripture if they weren't eyewitness accounts. They also have to be written by an Apostle or an associate of an Apostle. The only exceptions were James and Jude who were half brothers of Christ. [/b]

B. Anyone can literally write down anything. I can't believe you seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. Your "evidence" isn't really evidence at all. Have you noticed that you are simply using the Bible as your "evidence"? Example: " b.b.but 1 Corinthians [i]says[/i] that Jesus was seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses. Thus, err, it happened! Eyewitnesses wrote about it!". This is not good evidence. If you are blindly taking everything in the Bible to be good evidence, I expect you to also take whatever is written in, say, the Quran to be good evidence, to be consistent.

[b] Anyone can write down anything, correct. But no one can write down over 100 prophecies of a future Messiah that would come true in Him, including when He would be born, where He would be born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, ect. The Bible isn't just one book. It is many books that were written by the eyewitnesses to the events. Why shouldn't I use these eyewitness accounts? They are history and they are not refuted by any writings from Christ's day. Why were't there any writings refuting the Bible? Christ had many enemies that would have gladly pointed out these false hoods, but none did. It's not blind faith. It is faith that is backed up by the facts and history. The quran is not written by an eyewitness. It also directly contradicts God's Word, the Bible and the Historians of Christ's day and shortly thereafter. Question: Was George Washington really the first President of the US?[/b]

It is ludicrous you are comparing the historical evidence we have of George Washington and his presidency to what we have available for the supposed events associated with Jesus's life. Note the incredible detail we have of the timeline of the former man's life- all kinds of specific events are referenced, all kinds of contemporary sources, all kinds of writings by Washington himself, physical evidence, you name it. We just don't have this type of vast evidence for the historical Jesus- in fact, no contemporary sources at all. We do have mere stories (gospels) that seem so focused on "fulfilling" the OT prophecies to a T- sometimes using the exact language.....which in itself is a tell-tale sign that there is motive afoot, and these aren't historical happenings described by eyewitnesses.

[b]YES we DO have all kinds of Historical evidence of Christ. In fact, He is the most documented person in ancient History. You just don't like dealing with the fact that He is real and you will stand before Him and be judged one day. [/b]
[/QUOTE]

My responses are in bold above

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591626901]I explore this every day. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of God and the Bible.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, all one needs to do is turn to the very first chapter of the first book of the bible, to find all sorts of blatant falsehoods. Genesis 1 very specifically has vegetation- seed-bearing plants, and fruit-bearing trees being created on the 3rd Day. It has the sun, moon, and stars created on the 4th Day. [I]This is objectively wrong[/I]- thanks to modern science, we know there is absolutely no way plants existed on earth before our literal sun existed. No amount of "well, it's just metaphor, bro" will save this either- even if the days are somehow eons of time in some strange figurative language, it simply cannot be argued that 4 is less than 3. Day 3 must have come before Day 4, and so this is false.

The above is picking just one example out of countless. No, there aren't some sort of strange waters above the firmament, which the writer(s) of Genesis, oblivious to modern science, likely believed because the sky is blue. No, the stars were not all created along with our sun at the same time.....and all these lights created with the most curious purpose of "marking sacred times" for people on earth- lol at stars being created for this trivial human-centered purpose. No, there was not just one man and one woman on earth to start off the human race. No, there was no worldwide deluge that destroyed everyone and every animal, save whatever some 600 yr-old man managed to get on a 450-ft boat made of wood. Besides the absurdity of this story on basic grounds (Noah gathering a pair....or seven pairs?....of every species of animal onto this 450 ft boat....), it contradicts essentially everything we know from natural history (the fossil record, for example). And later after the flood waters rained down (for 40 days...or 150 days?), we have God creating the rainbow as a sign of covenant with the people...the pre-scientific writers of the book of Genesis obviously didn't understand what the rainbow was, [I]and its perfectly natural explanation[/I], and so resort to stories like this to "explain" what the rainbow is from. This is all clearly mythology....not to be taken seriously as actual history whatsoever. Not even original mythology btw: flood mythology, in many cases quite parallel with the Genesis account was around way before Genesis was written- see the various Babylonian and Sumerian flood stories.

Remember, this is all just [I]part of one book of the bible (Genesis)[/I]. Imagine the problems that start to accumulate when you consider the bible as a whole. Paddington appears to be posting as a fundamentalist-oriented Christian, taking everything at literal face value- if he could have his way, I'm sure he would want to include all of the above nonsense in school curriculums, etc. In short, he wants to ignore all of the understanding we have of how the world actually works, which we have slowly acquired over the past 7+ centuries..... and take us back to the literal dark ages. Sorry, not gonna happen.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591627971]My responses are in bold above[/QUOTE]

This is barely worth a response, all babble.

To respond to a few random non-points:

-actually the issue regarding Josephus is a big deal in terms of your point. You said originally these were contemporary sources- they are not. Josephus composed [I]Antiquities of the Jews[/I] towards the end of the first century- like around 90 C.E. This is a significant gap from when the supposed Jesus would have lived. This is not even getting into the questionable nature of the passages themselves.

-you are forgetting that these "prophecies being fulfilled" mean nothing if someone can just write down in a story that so-and-so prophecy was fulfilled. Imagine one of these anonymous NT writers writing in the first century C.E: they obviously have the OT texts in front of them- this isn't rocket science, they can simply say the prophecies are fulfilled by constructing stories to fulfill them. In fact, in several instances, they go out of their way to say event X happened "just as prophet Y said in scripture"- these writers clearly seem obsessed with having these prophecies fulfilled. Take the 30 pieces of silver: the anonymous writer of Matthew mentions the 30 pieces being used to buy a field as prophesied by Jeremiah (err....I guess he means Zechariah?). It is entirely possible (the rational person would say probable) that the author of Matthew is simply constructing this story about the 30 pieces [I]so that[/I] this prophecy is "fulfilled".

-You continue to say these are eyewitness accounts, without real evidence. Nothing more even needs said about that.

-It is laughable you are claiming the historical Jesus is the most documented person in ancient history, nothing could be further from the truth. There are all kinds of ancient figures who were extensively written about by contemporaries, who literally wrote works themselves that survive to this day, who have physical evidence surviving to this day in the form of contemporary or near-contemporary coins, portraits, etc, and much more. Take almost any prominent political figure of Rome, for example: Julius Caesar, Tiberius Caesar, Nero, etc. Consider Aristotle, or countless others. Unfortunately, none of the above can be said about the historical Jesus. You are simply incorrect on this point.

Not much else needs to be said, pointless entertaining more of this nonsense. Lol at the 2-bit, first grade take on "judgment" you are referencing involving presumably literal damnation and hellfire- from a benevolent God, no less. Would hate to be an innocent person from an uncontacted tribe, going through life and minding his business, and having to face all that.....smh.

Kanye brings officers to tears, inmates to knees with concert: 'This is a mission, not a show'

[url]https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/kanye-brings-officers-tears-inmates-knees-concert-mission-not-show/[/url]

Kanye West is an extremely talented man who is also mentally ill. I think therapy and medication are better treatments for his problems than religion but if it works for him, that's great. I wish him the best in dealing with his bipolar disorder, the struggle is real.

[QUOTE=Mr Beer;1591800671]Kanye West is an extremely talented man who is also mentally ill. I think therapy and medication are better treatments for his problems than religion but if it works for him, that's great. I wish him the best in dealing with his bipolar disorder, the struggle is real.[/QUOTE]

Whether or not Christianity solves any mental disorders he may or may not have, becoming a Christian is certainly the best thing He could ever do for His soul.

Souls don't exist

[QUOTE=Mr Beer;1591347731]OK, I'm not a Biblical scholar so I could be wrong. Source please? Secular one, not one of those wacky creationist sites.



"All over the world" is a ridiculous overstatement on top of the already bold claim that anyone saw a dead man rise (which didn't happen). Which Bronze Age contemporary of Jesus travelled to China? Which one to the South Sea Islands? What's the name of the one who went to South America and his friend to North America? Who was preaching to the Australian aborigines? Absolutely absurd.

All that aside from the fact that non-evidence isn't evidence, which was part of your initial case.[/QUOTE]

Look up the NT books on Wiki yourself. Not going to post all of them for you when you can do it yourself. I didn't say that they saw a dead man rise, they saw Him AFTER He had risen from the dead. Paul traveled all over the ancient world preaching the Gospel and planting Churches.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591929401]Look up the NT books on Wiki yourself. Not going to post all of them for you when you can do it yourself.[/QUOTE]

Your refusal to back up your claim with a source is noted. BTW I didn't ask for a link to every book in the New Testament, just a legitimate source for your claims, no need to lie about what I said.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1591929401]I didn't say that they saw a dead man rise, they saw Him AFTER He had risen from the dead. Paul traveled all over the ancient world preaching the Gospel and planting Churches.[/QUOTE]

Your tacit admission that 'all over the world' was a ridiculous overstatement on your part is noted.

HISTORY OF THE BIBLE - NEW TESTAMENT


Read more: [url]http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=adb1#ixzz65sov1FEG[/url]

[url]http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=adb1[/url]

[QUOTE=Paddington;1592010781]HISTORY OF THE BIBLE - NEW TESTAMENT


Read more: [url]http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=adb1#ixzz65sov1FEG[/url]

[url]http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=adb1[/url][/QUOTE]

"The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. It was probably written between AD 75 and 85"

So Jesus died around 30 AD, died 45 to 55 years later, so when I said nothing was written down until ~50 years after he died, your source agrees with me.

When you said we have writings from 20 years after he died, your source disagrees with you.

Classic Paddington.

^^^

While Mark is usually considered the first gospel, some of the Pauline epistles are thought to be composed circa 50-65 AD. These are considered the earliest written works of the NT. Of course, as with all these datings, there is no certainty, and these are guesses.

It is striking though just how lacking the Pauline Epistles are in terms of biographical details associated with Jesus- the various miracles, historical timeline of his life, etc. They are not like the gospels in this respect, and instead concentrate on behavior of the early church, theology, and so on. It's odd how the actual details of Jesus's life suspiciously don't seem to take a full narrative until later in the century, quite long after Jesus would have died- almost like they were neatly polished accounts (realizing there are still several contradictions between them). The hypothetical Q source for Matthew and Luke, which perhaps was a sayings gospel, could have preceded even Mark, but no one knows... it is not known if this lost text even existed.

Paddington, however, if one follows the track of discussion above, said that Josephus was writing during Jesus's time, which is patently false- Josesphus wasn't even born yet, and the text in question wasn't composed until late first century.

[QUOTE=Mr Beer;1592012211]"The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. It was probably written between AD 75 and 85"

So Jesus died around 30 AD, died 45 to 55 years later, so when I said nothing was written down until ~50 years after he died, your source agrees with me.

When you said we have writings from 20 years after he died, your source disagrees with you.

Classic Paddington.[/QUOTE]

Epistles and Acts: AD 50-90

Jesus rose again around AD 33. That's as early as 17 years later and the latest being 90 AD and that would be Revelation. Revelation was written by John who was an Apostle.

[QUOTE=Paddington;1592070341]Epistles and Acts: AD 50-90

Jesus rose again around AD 33. That's as early as 17 years later and the latest being 90 AD and that would be Revelation. Revelation was written by John who was an Apostle.[/QUOTE]

I love how the tone here is so certain (declaratively "Revelation was written by John who was an Apostle").....when there is no certainty here at all. Instead of blindly accepting whatever tradition dictates and stating it like a truism, maybe at least consider, I dunno.....what historians who research this stuff have to say?

[QUOTE=numberguy12;1592072511]I love how the tone here is so certain (declaratively "Revelation was written by John who was an Apostle").....when there is no certainty here at all. Instead of blindly accepting whatever tradition dictates and stating it like a truism, maybe at least consider, I dunno.....what historians who research this stuff have to say?[/QUOTE]

The only one who is blind around here is you. It's not just tradition that tells you these things, it's the Scholars and the Historians who know 100x more than you do, yet you arrogantly act like you know what you are talking about. Historians ARE the ones who researched this stuff. Right! Why don't you believe them?