Hm. I don't feel like looking it up, but I know the first verse is correct, and it's Matthew 28:2. Regardless, the examples that russian gave sufficiently countered your notions and then you backpedaled and raised the bar.

No they didn't at all, it's entirely different.




I'm not saying this is impossible if all 3 sources of information are reliable, but it's very unlikely.

It is not at ALL unlikely to not mention every single person in a group of people, especially if the people bear no significance to your narrative.

I cant believe people take this so seriously.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on Aug 9 2012 08:22pm

Or the reason they mention different incidents and people is because the rest of the synoptic gospels copied from Mark, were not eyewitness stories, and each had their own narrative to follow. Which would easily disprove the bible's 'infallibility'.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 9 2012 08:24pm

Ill post it again:

Matthew 13:10-13

10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables

the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them

Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance

Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them

those who attack the bible or do not accept the bibile will never understand the bibile.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Aug 9 2012 10:36pm

Convenient, problem is the hundreds of loopholes just like this make me more certain the bible is a work of fiction.

those who attack the bible or do not accept the bibile will never understand the bibile.

like on the topic i could ask you to explain origional sin in a biblical sense and what it means for jesus to die for our sins.

but that would require you to understand what sin is in a biblical sense.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Aug 9 2012 10:51pm

Right... you have to see the bible the way it will make the Christian appear right. Certainly not the way its written. Again, Christianity is a religion of traditions, not literature. You have to be told what to believe, not believe what is written.

No need to read this far into it.

The gospel of Mark was written in allegory form by someone who never saw Jesus or met anyone who saw Jesus about 40 years after Jesus would have already been dead. The other 3 gospels depend on Mark.

Combine that with the complete lack of any firsthand historical account of Jesus and it's conclusive that Jesus probably did not exist at all.

the river tells no lies though the dishonest man on the shore still hears them.

it is up to you to understand the bible.

only one with an open heart and good intentions will find the true meanings.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Aug 9 2012 11:17pm