The Gospel of Judas Iscariot

Originally Posted by Wesker

The so called gospel of Judas is just one of many Gnostic writings done during the first century. Paul writes about his problems with the Gnostics in his letters.

1st Point...Dead wrong.
2nd Point...Right, but the problems he wrote about were NOT about the Gnostic Gospels.

I am very suprised that so many people here have not researched the true history of the bible and Gnostic writings.
All Christian and 99% of NON Christian scholars and historians are NOW in FULL agreeance that the earliest Gnostic Gospel was written NO earlier then 150 AD...which would be approx 120 years after Jesus rose to heaven.

All Christian and 99% of NON Christian scholars and historians also AGREE that the 4 Gospels that are in the Christian bible were all written beforee 95 AD..and the only one written that late was the Gospel of John, yet it WAS written by him because he lived to a very old age and also wrote revelation.
John also followed Jesus from the first teachings to the time Jesus assended into heaven..therefore getting his info first hand.

Matthew wrote his gospel around 60 AD and followed Jesus through it all and heard him speak, as well as do miracles.
Mark wrote his gospel possibly a few years earlier and got his writings from hundreds of Jesus's followers that were all in agreeance to what was written in that gospel.
The gospel of Luke was written by Luke and he got his information similiar to Mark. Luke was a brilliant scribe and scholar (very educated). He wrote his Gospel in around 55-60 AD..and then he also went on to write the book of ACTS a year or so later.
In the entire book of ACTS, there is NO mention of the destruction of Jeruselm (70AD) or the decimation of Christians under Nero (65-70AD).

Now..since Nero(65-70AD) AND the fall of Jeruselm (70AD) is a HISTORICAL FACT...one would have to think that if Luke wrote his Gospel and the book of ACTS AFTER those happend...hey..he might just of mentioned them in his books which are in the bible...

HOWEVER....those 2 historical occurances are NOT mentioned in the bible...that being said, the gospel of Luke and the book of ACTS MUST of been written BEFORE 65 AD, which makes THOSE bible books written at least 85 YEARS earlier then ANY GNOSTIC gospel.
And if you do your research...you will see that all Christian Scholars as well as around 97% of NON Christian Scholars and historians AGREE with what I said.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

The contradictions are in God's supposed actions and words throughout the Bible. In one book, he's some benevolent almighty being giving out just laws like the Ten Commandments, and then a few pages later, he's some vengeful hateful piece of garbage who wants everything that doesn't agree with him to be stoned to death (Leviticus, Corinthians).
Just doesn't make sense.

You're forgetting the most important thing.
He is GOD. You are a mere human. He owes you NO explanation...and the reason he made some laws that included stoning, was to punish those who did not follow HIS law. What is fair to God...may not seem fair to you . His intelligents level is at a high that you cannot comprhend. Deal with it...There is NO contradiction here.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Actually, I think the Bible fits the exact definition of a historical novel. Of course believers would never agree with that, but until the contradictions are explained and there is some sign of historical accuracy in the whole Bible, I don't think any historians would ever dare consider the Bible a legitimate source of historical information or fact.

Again...totally not true, and you have nothing to back that up.
Even most NON Christian Scholars and Historians will publicly say that the bible is bar-none....one of the BEST sources of History we have for the Middle East.
The entire rise and fall of Jeruselm as well the rise and fall of the Babylonian Empire is in the bible. I could go on.
The capture and captivity of the Jews in Babylon.
Oh...and we can't forget about Solomon and all his wealth. Its ALL there in the bible.
The life, kingdom, and death of David (The most respected King in Israel's history).
The bible contains ALMOST EVERY bit of HISTORY that EVER happend in the middle east.
Non Christian Scholars will agree too. This is not something they argue about.
In fact....we are now at a point where the only thing about (Christianity and the bible) that gets argued about is the deity of Jesus and whether he rose from the dead or not. There are multiple NON Christian sources that witnessed Jesus's miracles, and instead accused him of sorcery. That being said, we know that these NON believers witnessed his POWER.

I suggest that some of you do some REAL research to the authenticity of the Gospel and the rest of the bible...You' would be very suprised.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

knkwzrd..If you actually ever read the bible, you'd know that ALMOST every place in the middle east is mentioned in the bible. Not just Israel and Egypt.
And yes...that would of ended at approx 65 AD.
I don't recall Afghanistan being mentioned though...I'll have to check on that.

Soulzar...right now you can find 100s of debates going on because of the Da Vinci code and all that.
People are realizing more and more how authentic the bible gospels are, and that the gnostics don't have anything to back their teachings up with. The Gnostic gospels are PROVEN to be written late (some as late as 290 AD).
The research is all over the internet, as well as many well respected speakers all over the world right now debating the whole Gnostic thing. Even Non Christian scholars are agreeing with the Christians on the authenticity of the 4 bible gospels.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Watts

If you truly believe this, then how much arrogance do you have to have to assume that you, or anybody else for that matter knows or understands the universal truth and purpose that GOD has set out for all of us? Jesus didn't write or translate the whole bible after all.

That's a huge contradiction in your beliefs. Not one you're likely to understand given what you've said thus far.

Back up. You're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said I understand the universal truth and purpose that God has set out for all of us. I'm just stating what the bible says. No contradiction here. The biggest problem with unbelievers is that they cannot accept the fact that God is ABOVE them.
Reality check time. God IS above US, and we will never be able to fully understand or comprehend him, whether we are Christians or not. And if you read the bible, you will find that scripture CLEARLY states that God owes us nothing in the way of explanation or reasoning as to why he does the things he does. He is your almighty and everlasting GOD....not some Jo shmoe

2 Timothy 3:16
(All Scripture is "God-breathed" and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness)

Sorry, but Jesus did write the whole bible. (In a sense anyway)

Originally Posted by Watts

Furthermore, how can you not comprehend that the true message could not have possibly been lost throughout the many translations/mistranslations? After all we don't know if the original words given were the original words written, which are the current words we have. Man is falliable after all.

The message is not lost. Even the most skeptical Non Christian Scholars admit the Gospel is 99.6% (approx) pure and athentic. The research is all over the internet. Just look for it, not too mention there are many highly respected documents that proves the authenticity of the gospel and its age.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

So you expect us to believe that nearly all historians agree that John lived for over 100 years during a time when life expectancy was very short? What leads them to believe that this one person not only lived longer than average, but at least double the average, without question? I would love to know why this is obvious to them, when it defies any standard of common sense. That it is technically possible, though statistically improbable doesn't usually cut it from my experiences.

John lived to be a very old man. It was possible in those days, although not common. However..scripture tells us that God has numbered each of our days before we were born. If God wanted John to live to an old man, then so be it, that is what he did. One thing is certain. John was exiled, and he couldn't of been exiled until at least 65 AD. Historians, know that scroll of Revelation came from where John was exiled. Going on that evidence alone, would make him 70 years old. However, there is other evidence that points out he wrote it in his 90s. I do not have the evidence handy at the moment, but I assure you, it does exist.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

So basically, what we may perceive as a contradiction, with our mere human senses and potentially flawed logic don't count. They only appear to be contradictions, but since it's God, who by definition we cannot comprehend, then it doesn't have to make sense. How then can we, in good conscience, interpret God's actions, and guess at God's will, in deciding how he intended us to?

Why do you see a contradiction? If you read the bible from start to finish and study it, even as a human being, you will realize there are no contradictions in the bible. The bible is clear in its message.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

This is a point that I've heard argued against actually, or perhaps it was a similar one. But could you please point me to a non-biblical source that coroborates (sp?) the enslavement of Jews in Babylon/Egypt? I'd appreciate it.

I just did a yahoo search on this and found over 200 sources from NON Christian sites that talk about Cyrus, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and everything else that happened in their captivity. This is real history whether you want to believe it or not. I looked into about 6 or 7 of them.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

You have to realize how false your statements about nearly all scholars etc. believing the same things, and there being nearly no debate on these issues. It's argued all the time, for all kinds of angles, and nearly every single point/issue is argued as well. It has *not* been just accepted as fact by almost all scholars, at least not in it's entirety.

Its only argued about from people who don't do the full research. Do some searches..you'd be surprised what is out there.

Originally Posted by Visavi

There's still a chance that it could be the same John, but many theologians doubt that it's the same John.

It is the same John, and I don't know what theologians you are talking about. I've never even heard that.
The bible itself makes that fact unquestionable.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

I'm not going to enter this argument, but I would like to advise you on something.

Instead of saying "I did a yahoo search and got 200 results on this," maybe actually post a few of these links?

Considering I'm debating against pretty much everyone, I'd be looking up and citing text all day. I just don't have time to cite everything. If someone is truely interested in 1 or 2 things, then I don't finding some documents.

Originally Posted by Watts

Now you claim to understand what non-believers think? Or are you just referring to what you've been told to think about non-believers?

Thats what they tell me. I've asked several times. Most non believers tell me they can't stand the thought of some God being above and in control of them.

Originally Posted by Watts

I know there's no room for debate or openmindedness when talking religion, but I interpet that as it make's the bible "inspired by God". That doesn't make it infallible. It was compiled by man, thus it is fallible. Otherwise I'd really like to know the reason why a good 20 years of Jesus's life was omited as somehow not important. This is my own personal lord and savior we're talking about here.

Faith definitely plays a part here.
I fully Believe the bible as inerrant.
As to why Jesus's early life was not in the bible..you'll have to ask God about that, although, there is a quick bit on when he was 12 years of age. Anyway..if God thought it was important for us to know any 'other' details of Jesus's life, you can bet its in the Gospels.

Originally Posted by Watts

That's a matter of faith. Namely, your faith. Everything you read on the internet isn't true. Man is still fallible so there's still a chance that even if every person agreed they could all be wrong if they aren't on the path of righteousness. Religion is an endless cycle of contradictions. A game of pick and choose what serves your faith best.

Again, this isn't about believing everything you read on the internet. I've read all sorts this stuff from "several" reputable Christian sites, to "several" reputable NON Christian sites, and then gone and read physical documents for study and have been able to match up some very good evidence in all 3 areas of source material. Most of this has already been brought forth by many scholars (christian, and non christian). And again, I'm not going to spend hours presenting it here. I just don't have that kind of time. sorry.
So you can either believe me that I'm just trying to debate or I'm a liar. Either way, as a Christian, I don't rely on lying to get my point across.

Originally Posted by Visavi

Not if you look at the way the original texts of both books were written, then the format alone disproves that theory. Now, if you want to take a look at the National Geographic Channel or the History Channel and watch "Secrets From the Bible" or "Decoding the Past" then you'd probably get a chance to see the theologians from Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Cal. Tech, etc. and hear their discussions about the issue.

I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but if not, then you probably won't understand this anyway.
It is unquestionable that revelation and john are written in 2 different formats. Lets understand something here. The FIRST 3 CHAPTERS in Revelation are written no different then the gospel of John. The context only changes in CHAPTER 4 and then remains that way. In chapter 4 of Revelation, John is 'taken' in "spirit" to heaven where he witnesses the END TIMES and watches Jesus reveal Judgments on the earth. Now...considering heaven is a spiritual realm and we have NO idea the exact form it takes, we also have no real idea how things will look. John probably had a heck of a time trying to describe what he saw in heaven, because he would of never seen ANYTHING like it on earth. Also, he was in exile. He had to get this document to the Christians without being caught, so he had to write it in a manner that would not make it obvious what he was doing...so he symbolized most of Revelation and wrote it in a different format.

Originally Posted by Tomzilla

[I] History does tend to change, and religious beliefs are no different.
.

True bible believing Christians have the same view they had 2000 years ago...period.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Type "history on Jews in Captivity in Babylon" into the Yahoo search engine exactly as I have it. The first few pages are loaded with great historical documents.

As for your first point, just do a search on Da Vinci Code debates.
You'll have enough info on Gospel authenticity to last you into next year.

Visavi...I said "true BIBLE believing Christians."
Believe it or not, celebrating Christmas on DEC 25th really has nothing to do with being a Christian. Its an irrelevant point.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Has it ever struck you that "bible believing Christians" have been killing eachother since the time of Jesus over what the bible means?

Um...no....REAL Christians don't kill each other over anything...16 years of education would tell you that.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

There is no one true interpretation of the bible. Other Christians can (gasp!) have a different opinion than you and still believe in the bible.

Partially true. There are some areas of the bible that some Christian groups slightly differ from others. However, the MAIN points, like Jesus as the divine Messiah, and him being the only way to heaven, are NOT argued about by any Christian.
And the smaller conflicts do NOT hurt Christianity and its beliefs in any way.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

Also, stop assuming you're the only one who has ever studied religion. I've had 16 years of education with a Christian slant, including bible studies,

I never assumed or said that, but I can see most people haven't read many of the documents out there by both Christian and Non Christian scholars/historians. If they had, we wouldn't be argueing the authenticity of the gospels.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

and I still think you are a twat.

Please don't resort to flaming. I can still kick your arse at any videogame out there. I'm not living under a blanket.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by FallDragon

This is incorrect. In the book "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman, he quotes "1 Clement" being dated ca. 98, "The Didache" ca. 100, the "Epistle of Barnabas" ca. 135. 9 other texts he dates to "Early 2nd c.", as opposed to Mid or Late, which implies 100-133 AD range, I would assume. So no, you are wrong, or else provide proof.

After reading a rather lengthy Washington Post article concerning Mr. Ehrman and his book, I don't even think that it is worth discussing. Mr. Ehrman is not a believer (it is recorded in the article that he is an agnostic) and therefore I would hold him incapable of telling the truth concerning God.

He has an axe to grind against the Christ of faith.
I have seen Muslims use his work as a defense of their position of the unreliability of the Injeel (gospel). Not to mention Ehrman has next to nothing in the way of sources to back up anything he says. None of his articles use much in the way of sources at all. He is trying to rewrite the history of Christianity to what he THINKS is right..instead of using the proper historical documents and truth.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

It's amusing how you say "EVERYONE AGREES ALL 4 WERE WRITTEN BEFORE 95 AD... except John <.<"...

I said the other 3 were all written around 60AD give or take a few years. John was written in 95 AD at the LATEST. 90AD is a more agreed on figure by most scholars.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

From Wikipedia:
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Wikipedia has been known on SEVERAL occasions to be unreliable. And in this case, the above statement is out to lunch. 'Luke' could NOT have been written that late. Its impossible, as I mentioned Luke also wrote the book of ACTS which is commonly known to be written AFTER the Gospel of 'Luke'. That being said..if ACTS was written after Luke, it ALSO would of been written 80-100 AD, and in that case, the book would of contained history on Nero (65-70AD) and the fall of Jeruselm (70AD).

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Yes, the 4 gospels date back later than most gnostic/non-canon scripture. But keep in mind, most gnostic/non-canon scriptures were BURNED AND DESTROYED by the later-to-be Catholic church since the churches were competing for followers. Comparing dates isn't an appropriate way to judge "truth."

The reason they were burned because they were blasphemes and complete trash.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

That's because it's one of the only existing sources. It wins by default, not by being an amazingly accurate document.

You admit then that it is a source of history. Now we're getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Yes, the Bible talks about things that happened, congratulations. But sometimes, the dates and order of events don't match up. It's amazing how you've provided no evidence for anything you've posted so far. Are you trying to imitate God, in that faith in your rants is necessary for belief instead of evidence?

If you go by the bible alone, the dates ALL match up. If you bring in outside sources, then there are some SMALL discrepancies, but nothing that is a big issue for the reliability of it all.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

Well, from the viewpoint of the author, "scripture" meant Old Testament scripture, not what he was writing. He was saying "The Ancient Jewish Texts are God-breathed etc..." This doesn't credit the NT as being God-breathed. Well, unless you believe the New Testament was meant to be understood only from our present-day perspective; an error than many Bible-thumpers make in their supposedly unbiased interpretation.

It means 'God's Word'. In other words, the "whole bible".

Originally Posted by FallDragon

What this translates to: I make shit up, and then claim it to be true, so I'm not worth debating.

When you use moronic sources like the Ehrman guy, then yes. Go to a Christian debate Forum and bring him up. You'll be shot to pieces in 5 minutes. And there, you will get proven sources.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that during the canonization of the Bible, the church fathers almost didn't include the text because of what it says. This means the canonization of the Bible was up to the discretion of men, not the discretion of God. Which then means, the message of the Bible may or may not be what God intended, since it was decided by MAN what the "correct" message would be.

Completely wrong. The book of Revelation and 1 or 2 of Pauls letter's were up for debate. NONE of the 4 Gospels EVER were considered being tossed out. That is a fact if you do your research.

Originally Posted by Visavi

Really? I guess they do things differently in your denomination, because I know a lot of the denominations in this part of the country consider Christmas to be one of the most important milestones of Christianity (other than Baptisms/Christenings and Easter)

Christmas is a very important celebration in the church, and for Christians. What I was trying to get at is the fact that is has very little to do with your personal walk with God as a Christian, or your eternal salvation.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

You do not need to believe in Christ in order to do an anthropological study.

True, but you can't have a vendetta against it either.

Reznor, you're comments aren't even worth replying to, but I'll say this:
I don't care how many degrees he has. His mission is to belittle the Christian faith and doing it without real proof..nothing more. Therefore he is not a reliable source. Like I said...go to some Christian forums where they have a few scholars there. They'll give you sources and proof that he is a liar.
And yes, those other gospels did NOT have enough proof or reliable sources that they were valid. That is why they never made it into the bible.

Originally Posted by reznor

The Bible is not the word of God. Sorry, not anymore it isn't. Remember the telephone game? Well try playing that for a few centuries. It's NOT the word of God. It's not even what it was in the beginning. The Bible in a whole, is tainted.

You obviously know NOTHING about the preservation of the bible over the last 2000 years +. You are clueless.
You probably haven't even heard of the Dead Sea scrolls found in 1948. When they translated the OT book of Isaiah 58 years ago from the DS scrolls, they compared it to the 'then current' Isaiah in the bible and found the meaning had been preserved PERFECTLY. And if you have any real knowledge in studying this sort of thing, you would know that. Not to mention, Isaiah is arguably one of the most important books in the Old Testament.
Alcohol??? Yeah I figured as much.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

Who, precisely, is "they"? If it's a faction of Christians whose faith stood to lose credibility due to discrepancies between the printed Gospel and the Scrolls, then it would make sense to me that "they" would just nod their heads and say "Yup. This matches perfectly. Yes, it does.", knowing that there are/was precious few who had both access and the ability to decipher the scrolls themselves enough to argue.

Again..this shows that there is very little research done by anyone here.
The original dead sea scrolls have been translated by so many groups, I couldn't even mention them all.
And many of those groups are not Christian, so you can toss that theory out.
Who says Isaiah is one of the most important books??? Lets see...We have a perfectly translated copy of Isaiah that prophesized the coming of CHRIST 700 years prior to when it happened, Then as it is written in the Gospels, it happened EXACTLY that way....including his birth, life, death, and ressurection.. If that aint important, then I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

So why can't you do exactly that, and then bring those sources here for us? You can feed the "I don't have time..." line as long as you like, but you're the one trying to convince us here. None of us has any personal stake in trying to prove the alternate point of view, which puts the onus on you, sir.

I've given great links and searches that will put the proof of everything I say. I don't have time to cut and past and cite all these sources. I have no reason to lie to anyone.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I would have to point out that although not enough proof could be found to satisfy the far-from-impartial scholars who were responsible for the canon Bible, that does not mean that they are not valid. It simply means that they have not been proved valid. You should have learned that distinction in high-school.

Alright...lets give this to you another way. Lets say today I put 4 apples in front of you...and we both agree that they are red. We publish an article about our findings. Then 150 years from now, someone reads our article and puts out a new article saying the apples were ACTUALLY all green. The gospels are no different. The 4 gospels written in the first century were AGREED upon by the VERY early church (thousands of people). There was NO reason to add anymore gospels to the bible 150 years later. The most authentic writings were already in place. And some of these people who agreed to the 4 gospels were eye witnesses or were the children of eyewitnesses. Here is an example of a VERY early witness.
2 Peter 1:16
(We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.)
That was written around 60 AD or so.
And yes...Isaiah is only one of many books, and the dead sea scrolls contain other books of the bible. I just used that one, because its one of my favorite in the OT as well as one of the main prophesies for the coming of Christ.

As to your last statement...this is where its better to be a believer. GOD has his hand in EVERYTHING and the believer will trust in him. By faith, I will tell you, There is nothing in the bible that God doesn't want to be there. And everything he wants in there...IS.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

I don't know about this guy or anything, but if you have proof that his dates are wrong that are reasonably undisputed, maybe you'd have something there. I don't think you do, becides "most scholars say".

Problem is, I can't find anything on his sites or any other site that shows his sources...Pretty much everyone else who talks about him says the same thing to. Most people have come to the conclusion he has made most of his stuff up. He has no source or proof in his own articles. What good is that?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

You have not provided any links in this thread. I ran the search, but my cursory look at some of the sites didn't really help me. If you could please provide links to sites discussing non-biblical proof of the Exodus from Egypt I'd very much appreciate it. Having done so much research into things, your input would be greatly appreciated.

Here's a site that mentions a lack of proof outside of the bible. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm

Your turn.

Ah....now you got something we can really debate. Unfortunately, Christians....or anybody for that matter does NOT have any real evidence for the Exodus from Egypt.

However......
One of the most common theories among Christians is the 'embarrasment' issue. History tells us very CLEARLY that the culture of the Egyptians would not have apprieciated telling the world the fact that they were taken down by someone else's God in the Red Sea.
The may very well have just kept it to themselves.
Not to mention the God had placed plague after plague on them just prior to the Exodus. There wouldn't have been much trade or travel in and out of Egypt for the immediate thereafter. Not to mention a huge % of the Egyptians were killed by God at that time.

Now...if you believe the Gospels inerrantly (which I do), Jesus clearly tells a story about the 5 books of Moses. One of those books is Exodus. The others are Genesis, Lev, Num, Deut.....That being said. We know Jesus fully approved of the 1st 5 books of the bible including Exodus, therefore people understood everything that happened in them was the TRUTH...including the Exodus.

Other then that, I have NO proof for the Exodus.

Here is the passage from Abraham that shows the 5 books were approved by God.

Luke 16: 19-31
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

BTW....this is a passage that if people truely listened to, they might stop and think....

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Answer this...
How am I supposed to argue evidence when the other person has none.
If he had some sources of his own, then I'd use the appropriate sources to match them...providing its not to time consuming of course.
He basically just lectures people with whatever comes out of his mouth.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?