Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on November 26, 2007, 12:13:04 PM
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
-
Nope not at all.
For the most part i respect many of the Christians on this board and those i know in real life that live their lives like true Christians to the best of their ability.
I also respect that those are their beliefs. But that's what they are, Beliefs, not facts.
I question those beliefs when they are quoted as facts.
I also find it interesting when some of the text in the bible which is believed to be the infallible word of God is questioned for what it is and find the reactions of conservative Christians interesting and sometimes entertaining.
What i do find irritating is condemning other religions or other people by saying because they don't do "X" they will go to hell. Because that is not based on fact, but based on belief which is no different than believing in other religions.
-
Because I have NEVER had anyone try to push that garbage down my throat except for those who believe it is true. Then there are the fakers who use the bible to their advantage by stealing money from the sheep. Religion has started most wars. Church is all for show, a contest if you will. Who gives the most, who shows up the most, who helps the most....etc. That book of lies has been twisted around so much to fit the actions of these "good" people it is sickening. BLAHH......
Instead of living by the words of a book why not just be a good person by using common sense. I am a very compassionate person and never needed that fairytale to make my decisions.
-
Nope not at all.
What i do find irritating is condemning other religions or other people by saying because they don't do "X" they will go to hell. Because that is not based on fact, but based on belief which is no different than believing in other religions.
OzmO,
If what you do find irritating is found in the Bible, then doesn't it irritate you that some of us believe that the Bible is the word of God?
-
Because I have NEVER had anyone try to push that garbage down my throat except for those who believe it is true. Then there are the fakers who use the bible to their advantage by stealing money from the sheep. Religion has started most wars. Church is all for show, a contest if you will. Who gives the most, who shows up the most, who helps the most....etc. That book of lies has been twisted around so much to fit the actions of these "good" people it is sickening. BLAHH......
Instead of living by the words of a book why not just be a good person by using common sense. I am a very compassionate person and never needed that fairytale to make my decisions.
Hey windsor88! What is a good person? Who determines that? What is "common sense"? Did you know that throughout history people have not been able to even agree on what "common sense" is?
Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense#Otherwise
-
OzmO,
If what you do find irritating is found in the Bible, then doesn't it irritate you that some of us believe that the Bible is the word of God?
No.
-
No.
So when you say
"What i do find irritating is condemning other religions or other people by saying because they don't do "X" they will go to hell."
You are referring to beliefs that are not found in the Bible?
-
So when you say
"What i do find irritating is condemning other religions or other people by saying because they don't do "X" they will go to hell."
You are referring to beliefs that are not found in the Bible?
I know many people who believe exactly as you do, but they don't run around quoting the bible or condemning others who don't believe as they do.
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
I don't care if people want to waste their lives on disproven mythology (disproven archaeologically, historically, scientifically and commonsensically) but the problem with bible thumpers like yourself is that you insist on preaching and shoving your bullshit down other people's throats be it in the classroom with ID or on the pulpit. Just keep your delusions to yourself as best you can and everyone will get along fine.
-
I know many people who believe exactly as you do, but they don't run around quoting the bible or condemning others who don't believe as they do.
Exactly as I do? Do they believe in Jesus? Do they share the Gospel with others? Do they warn others about hell?
-
I don't care if people want to waste their lives on disproven mythology (disproven archaeologically, historically, scientifically and commonsensically) but the problem with bible thumpers like yourself is that you insist on preaching and shoving your bullshit down other people's throats be it in the classroom with ID or on the pulpit. Just keep your delusions to yourself as best you can and everyone will get along fine.
How exactly has STella shoved bs down your throat? I don't believe I have seen a post by STella where she says ID is science or that ID should be taught in schools.
-
How exactly has STella shoved bs down your throat? I don't believe I have seen a post by STella where she says ID is science or that ID should be taught in schools.
Well, she is a fundy but yes thus far she hasn't made any of those proposals...unlike you....
-
Well, she is a fundy but yes thus far she hasn't made any of those proposals...unlike you....
I have not made those proposals either. Just because I have posted articles by people who believe ID is science and should be taught in schools to get a discussion going does not mean that I share those beliefs.
-
Exactly as I do? Do they believe in Jesus? Do they share the Gospel with others? Do they warn others about hell?
Yep, but they don't thump. You don't thump either. (for the most part)
they share the gospel with others but not in a annoying or condescending or condemning way.
-
Yep, but they don't thump. You don't thump either. (for the most part)
they share the gospel with others but not in a annoying or condescending or condemning way.
Thanks, I guess! ;D
-
Thanks, I guess! ;D
np ;D
We regularly get into heated debates loco, but i consider you far from any of those things i outlined.
You'll go toe to toe but rarely will you condemn, condescend or are annoying.
-
:)
-
Here's a good one,
anyone here ever watch the world Series of Poker?
In the last Main Event, it got down to like 5 players and 2 of them were saying out loud, asking God to make a believer out of them, to show them their destiny.....
I wanted to puke.
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
No.
What annoys me is when Bible-inspired crazies try to force their craziness on the rest of us, when they try to sabotage the science education of our children, and when the government funnels everyone's tax money to them as part of "faith-based initiatives"...
-
Hey windsor88! What is a good person? Who determines that? What is "common sense"? Did you know that throughout history people have not been able to even agree on what "common sense" is?
Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense#Otherwise
::)...people make shit too complicated. A good person is someone who does not get involved where they have no right to get involved. Someone who takes care of his family. Someone who treats people with the respect that they deserve. That is also common sense too me. If everyone lived by those 3 rules there would not be any problems.
-
loco and stella are some of the best people on this site. i may argue with loco and get a little heated when i hear there arguments which i dont agree with, but they are good people.
in the end, all anyone has is faith. sure some choose to make a rational leap into faith, the lack of evidence is reason to not beleive, which i believe is safe and perhaps correct.then some make a illogical leap, putting there faith all in one belief like me, loco and stella, albeit we have different views on life.
i have never seen stella shove anything down anyones throat nor loco. he simply engages others in arguments, and when others seem to loose their cool he remains pretty respectful.
but to answer the question of the thread truthfully it does irritate me.
-
loco and stella are some of the best people on this site. i may argue with loco and get a little heated when i hear there arguments which i dont agree with, but they are good people.
in the end, all anyone has is faith. sure some choose to make a rational leap into faith, the lack of evidence is reason to not beleive, which i believe is safe and perhaps correct.then some make a illogical leap, putting there faith all in one belief like me, loco and stella, albeit we have different views on life.
i have never seen stella shove anything down anyones throat nor loco. he simply engages others in arguments, and when others seem to loose their cool he remains pretty respectful.
but to answer the question of the thread truthfully it does irritate me.
Thank you!
-
loco and stella are some of the best people on this site. i may argue with loco and get a little heated when i hear there arguments which i dont agree with, but they are good people.
in the end, all anyone has is faith. sure some choose to make a rational leap into faith, the lack of evidence is reason to not beleive, which i believe is safe and perhaps correct.then some make a illogical leap, putting there faith all in one belief like me, loco and stella, albeit we have different views on life.
i have never seen stella shove anything down anyones throat nor loco. he simply engages others in arguments, and when others seem to loose their cool he remains pretty respectful.
but to answer the question of the thread truthfully it does irritate me.
Doesn't apply to McWay though...
-
Doesn't apply to McWay though...
What's wrong with McWay? ;D
I think McWay is a good guy, and very knowledgeable too. I've learned a lot from him.
-
What's wrong with McWay? ;D
I think McWay is a good guy, and very knowledgeable too. I've learned a lot from him.
McWay is a preaching fundy, that's all I'm talking about.
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
STella (not loco or anyone else), why should we believe that anything else than the Ten Commandments is the words of God?
-
STella (not loco or anyone else), why should we believe that anything else than the Ten Commandments is the words of God?
I love it when Swedes play jokes... :P
-
McWay is a preaching fundy, that's all I'm talking about.
yes he is, he throws reason and logic out the window.
its like you tell him something is wrong and show it, he says it cant be because its in the bible, no matter how ridiculous.
a person living inside a whale? has to be true.
-
STella (not loco or anyone else), why should we believe that anything else than the Ten Commandments is the words of God?
how ridiculous does that sound. you got children starving, disease, kids murdering each other and some peoples worries are the petty comandments.
opus dei, live as jesus did is how christians should or try to live. jesus said he is in the sickest, and least fortunate, their you'll find him. judging gays, and other groups etc.. is not what i think he intended. love was suppose to be the main message.
-
how ridiculous does that sound. you got children starving, disease, kids murdering each other and some peoples worries are the petty comandments.
opus dei, live as jesus did is how christians should or try to live. jesus said he is in the sickest, and least fortunate, their you'll find him. judging gays, and other groups etc.. is not what i think he intended. love was suppose to be the main message.
You are not getting the point of my question.
I am asking why should we believe that the Bible is the word of God, and not written by common men, just like you and me?
And that, just like you are implying, that interpreting how Jesus lived, being loveful, and forgiving, is the how to be a Christian?
But the topic in this thread, is whether the Bible is the word of God or not.
I say according to Christianity, it is not (other than the Ten Commandments). And I am asking STella to tell me why she think it is.
Hope this clear things up.
-
You are not getting the point of my question.
I am asking why should we believe that the Bible is the word of God, and not written by common men, just like you and me?
And that, just like you are implying, that interpreting how Jesus lived, being loveful, and forgiving, is the how to be a Christian?
But the topic in this thread, is whether the Bible is the word of God or not.
I say according to Christianity, it is not (other than the Ten Commandments). And I am asking STella to tell me why she think it is.
Hope this clear things up.
i think your misunderstanding me, im agreeing with you. but the way i wrote it was horrible.i can see what your getting at, and i was just adding some thoughts on the matter.
yes it helped
i hope this helps
-
anyone here ever watch the world Series of Poker?
No...is it worth watching? I don't want to get hooked on it!
loco and stella are some of the best people on this site. i may argue with loco and get a little heated when i hear there arguments which i dont agree with, but they are good people.
in the end, all anyone has is faith. sure some choose to make a rational leap into faith, the lack of evidence is reason to not beleive, which i believe is safe and perhaps correct.then some make a illogical leap, putting there faith all in one belief like me, loco and stella, albeit we have different views on life.
i have never seen stella shove anything down anyones throat nor loco. he simply engages others in arguments, and when others seem to loose their cool he remains pretty respectful.
but to answer the question of the thread truthfully it does irritate me.
That was really nice usmoke thank you.
Can I ask why people believing that the bible is the word of God irritates you? Is it just that it seems so irrational to you or that maybe you think people that believe it are unable/unwilling to consider other people's views or something else?
What's wrong with McWay? ;D
I think McWay is a good guy, and very knowledgeable too. I've learned a lot from him.
Me too!
STella (not loco or anyone else), why should we believe that anything else than the Ten Commandments is the words of God?
But the topic in this thread, is whether the Bible is the word of God or not.
Hi Zack!
Actually the intended topic of the thread was to ask those that don't believe the bible is the word of God if it irritates them that some people do believe that it is the word of God. I may not have been clear on that.
It could be compared to....for those that don't believe in the holocaust....does it irritate you that some people do.
Or even something like....for those that don't believe in leprechauns ...does it irritate you that some people do.
But maybe since you know I believe that the bible is the word of God is where your question comes from.
I believe that it is the word of God mainly because of fulfilled prophecy, prophecy that looks set to be fulfilled, the way I changed when I accepted the God of the bible as God and the peace I have felt ever since doing so. In addition it's seeing the way others have apparently changed from the way they were before they accepted Christ as Savior. Could some be fooling me? Sure. But some would seem to be really wasting a lot of time and money just to put on a "show" (and I'm not talking about schisters (sp?) that put on a show to steal other people's money).
In addition, I've never been presented w/an apparent contradiction or difficulty in the bible that after researching it I've been unable to accept an explanation for. I try to look at such w/an open mind because I, like you, want to believe what is true. Science, archeology, the complexities of our physical, mental and emotional world all point to a Creator for me and have not disproven the God of the bible IMO.
-
I know many people who believe exactly as you do, but they don't run around quoting the bible or condemning others who don't believe as they do.
So it's okay to believe in the Bible, but not to tell anyone about it???
You seem to be big on calling the Christian God and Christians hypocrites. If I believe with all of my heart and soul what the Bible says is true, and what it says about nonbeliever's going to hell, wouldn't you think I was a hypocrite if I didn't tell you???
-
So it's okay to believe in the Bible, but not to tell anyone about it???
You seem to be big on calling the Christian God and Christians hypocrites. If I believe with all of my heart and soul what the Bible says is true, and what it says about nonbeliever's going to hell, wouldn't you think I was a hypocrite if I didn't tell you???
Ah, hey Freakshow! You quoted me, loco, but are you really addressing OzmO? ;D
-
Ah, hey Freakshow! You quoted me, loco, but are you really addressing OzmO? ;D
Ooops! ;D I fixed it.
You know us Christians we're not real smart. This computer thingamagiggy is hard man ;)
-
Ooops! ;D I fixed it.
You know us Christians we're not real smart. This computer thingamagiggy is hard man ;)
No problem, brother! Have a great evening! ;D
-
So it's okay to believe in the Bible, but not to tell anyone about it???
You seem to be big on calling the Christian God and Christians hypocrites. If I believe with all of my heart and soul what the Bible says is true, and what it says about nonbeliever's going to hell, wouldn't you think I was a hypocrite if I didn't tell you???
You should scroll up and read the whole thread. Your questions will be answered.
And let's not get started on christian hypocrites i personally and have been good friends with know 1 evangelist and 1 pastor for the past 18 years who are BIG time hypocrites.
-
Oh yeah, Freakshow is another Thumping Nutter...
-
So it's okay to believe in the Bible, but not to tell anyone about it???
You seem to be big on calling the Christian God and Christians hypocrites. If I believe with all of my heart and soul what the Bible says is true, and what it says about nonbeliever's going to hell, wouldn't you think I was a hypocrite if I didn't tell you???
my god says that if you beleive in christianity you go to hell and burn, but he loves you and wants you to worship him because he has wants and needs, and couldnt bear being turned down, so much so that he is willing to allow the things(people) he loves most suffer forever, he is that needy. please worship my god.
thank you
-
my god says that if you beleive in christianity you go to hell and burn, but he loves you and wants you to worship him because he has wants and needs, and couldnt bear being turned down, so much so that he is willing to allow the things(people) he loves most suffer forever, he is that needy. please worship my god.
thank you
Because people have SO MUCH to offer God right???
He meets our needs, we don't meet His!
But of course you don't have any needs, hurts or pains right??? God has nothing to offer you???
It's interesting how people will flaunt their lusts but hide all of their pain.
-
Because people have SO MUCH to offer God right???
He meets our needs, we don't meet His!
But of course you don't have any needs, hurts or pains right??? God has nothing to offer you???
It's interesting how people will flaunt their lusts but hide all of their pain.
Again, you totally missed his point.
-
my god says that if you beleive in christianity you go to hell and burn, but he loves you and wants you to worship him because he has wants and needs, and couldnt bear being turned down, so much so that he is willing to allow the things(people) he loves most suffer forever, he is that needy. please worship my god.
thank you
Awesome mate! :)
-
Again, you totally missed his point.
Of course not! He's a fundy nutter!
-
I believe that it is the word of God mainly because of fulfilled prophecy, prophecy that looks set to be fulfilled, the way I changed when I accepted the God of the bible as God and the peace I have felt ever since doing so. In addition it's seeing the way others have apparently changed from the way they were before they accepted Christ as Savior. Could some be fooling me? Sure. But some would seem to be really wasting a lot of time and money just to put on a "show" (and I'm not talking about schisters (sp?) that put on a show to steal other people's money).
You talk about fulfilled prophecy.
So how does that translate into the Bible being the word of God?
Let me explain what I mean:
The Bible was written by common men, and the New Testament had several writers describing the life of Jesus Christ, his life being guidelines for Christians to follow.
Here's the million dollar question:
What is it that makes you think that God wrote that New Testament, and not those common men?
It is common practice in Christianity to interpret the Bible, to even ignore parts (an eye for an eye isn't practiced by Christians, instead it is "turn the other cheek").
The Koran is the words of God. The Bible, however, is not. You may be the first Christian I come across that make such a claim.
-
The Koran is the words of God. The Bible, however, is not. You may be the first Christian I come across that make such a claim.
Hedgehog,
What does this mean? Do you mean that the Koran claims to have been dictated, not inspired, word for word by God(through archangel Gabriel), while the Bible claims to have been inspired, not dictated word for word, by God?
-
Hedgehog,
What does this mean? Do you mean that the Koran claims to have been dictated, not inspired, word for word by God(through archangel Gabriel), while the Bible claims to have been inspired, not dictated word for word, by God?
The Koran isn't even dictated. I used to think so, but was corrected by a Muslim scholar. He told me it is the direct words of God, through Gabriel, not dictated, not given, just direct words (imagine that?).
Other than that, yes. You are fairly correct in interpreting my post. The Bible is inspired by God, the most important parts being those that describes the life of Jesus, showing us how to lead a Christian life, but since those are written by common men, we still have to interpret them into our modern life.
I should've added, that the Ten Commandments are the direct words of God though. Other than that, the Bible is written by common men.
-
The Koran isn't even dictated. I used to think so, but was corrected by a Muslim scholar. He told me it is the direct words of God, through Gabriel, not dictated, not given, just direct words (imagine that?).
Other than that, yes. You are fairly correct in interpreting my post. The Bible is inspired by God, the most important parts being those that describes the life of Jesus, showing us how to lead a Christian life, but since those are written by common men, we still have to interpret them into our modern life.
I should've added, that the Ten Commandments are the direct words of God though. Other than that, the Bible is written by common men.
Both the bible and the koran are old, useless and highly dangerous books of mythology that humanity needs to get over.
-
You talk about fulfilled prophecy.
So how does that translate into the Bible being the word of God?
Let me explain what I mean:
The Bible was written by common men, and the New Testament had several writers describing the life of Jesus Christ, his life being guidelines for Christians to follow.
Here's the million dollar question:
What is it that makes you think that God wrote that New Testament, and not those common men?
I believe that God wrote the bible through the human writers. From what I've learned, each writer of the New Testament was either an apostle of JEsus or had the backing of an apostle. That holds a lot of weight IMO.
I don't see any contradictions/difficulties that can't be explained to my satisfaction when studied further.
As for fulfilled prophecy, Jesus' birth, life and death was foretold in the OT. He fulfilled the prophecies perfectly, the chances of which are a "gazillion" to one ;D
Thanks for asking these questions Zack. I will remember to make that thread on why Christians believe the bible is true.
The Koran isn't even dictated. I used to think so, but was corrected by a Muslim scholar. He told me it is the direct words of God, through Gabriel, not dictated, not given, just direct words (imagine that?).
Zack, are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell. Do you truly believe the Koran is the direct words of God? I've seen you post against Islam I think? Maybe it was just extreme Islam? If you truly believe the Koran is the direct word of God why aren't you a Muslim?
And if you believe what the Muslim scholar told you, why do you believe it? Would you believe everything he says to you re: the Koran or did you also investigate it for yourself and come to the conclusion that it is the word of God?
-
I believe that God wrote the bible through the human writers. From what I've learned, each writer of the New Testament was either an apostle of JEsus or had the backing of an apostle. That holds a lot of weight IMO.
I don't see any contradictions/difficulties that can't be explained to my satisfaction when studied further.
As for fulfilled prophecy, Jesus' birth, life and death was foretold in the OT. He fulfilled the prophecies perfectly, the chances of which are a "gazillion" to one ;D
This statement is total bullshit. You WANT to believe that but none of that is in the OT. In any event, what is more likely, writing a bunch of fiction, the Gospels and basing them on Old Testament scripture or....well you get the point.
-
I believe that God wrote the bible through the human writers. From what I've learned, each writer of the New Testament was either an apostle of JEsus or had the backing of an apostle. That holds a lot of weight IMO.
I don't see any contradictions/difficulties that can't be explained to my satisfaction when studied further.
As for fulfilled prophecy, Jesus' birth, life and death was foretold in the OT. He fulfilled the prophecies perfectly, the chances of which are a "gazillion" to one ;D
Thanks for asking these questions Zack. I will remember to make that thread on why Christians believe the bible is true.
What prophecies in the OT are you referring to?
Zack, are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell. Do you truly believe the Koran is the direct words of God? I've seen you post against Islam I think? Maybe it was just extreme Islam? If you truly believe the Koran is the direct word of God why aren't you a Muslim?
And if you believe what the Muslim scholar told you, why do you believe it? Would you believe everything he says to you re: the Koran or did you also investigate it for yourself and come to the conclusion that it is the word of God?
I'm discussing the Muslim view of the Koran. That the words in the Koran are the words of God. I do not believe this to be so, but I think it is important to understand how different religions works.
And the Muslim perspective on the Koran is a fundamental part of that religion IMO.
The Christian perspective of the Bible is (usually) not that the words in the Bible are the words of God. You are, as I stated before, the first person I've come across, with that perspective.
-
I'm discussing the Muslim view of the Koran. That the words in the Koran are the words of God. I do not believe this to be so, but I think it is important to understand how different religions works.
And the Muslim perspective on the Koran is a fundamental part of that religion IMO.
The Christian perspective of the Bible is (usually) not that the words in the Bible are the words of God. You are, as I stated before, the first person I've come across, with that perspective.
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I believe the bible is the word of God, meaning God wrote it through human writers by inspiring them as to what to write. I think you may be inferring that I believe each word was dictated by God? That's not what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
-
What prophecies in the OT are you referring to?
I'm discussing the Muslim view of the Koran. That the words in the Koran are the words of God. I do not believe this to be so, but I think it is important to understand how different religions works.
And the Muslim perspective on the Koran is a fundamental part of that religion IMO.
The Christian perspective of the Bible is (usually) not that the words in the Bible are the words of God. You are, as I stated before, the first person I've come across, with that perspective.
He's talking about the alleged 'prophecies' in the OT that predict the alleged coming of the alleged 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
-
He's talking about the alleged 'prophecies' in the OT that predict the alleged coming of the alleged 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
I'm pretty sure STella is a she, not a he.
-
I'm pretty sure STella is a she, not a he.
She then...
-
I'm not sure we are on the same page here. I believe the bible is the word of God, meaning God wrote it through human writers by inspiring them as to what to write. I think you may be inferring that I believe each word was dictated by God? That's not what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
:-*
If God inspired, not directed, human writers - then God did not write the Bible.
And if God did not write the Bible, then the Bible is not the word of God.
Nice to see we can agree on that.
I assume we can agree on that the Ten Commandments are the word of God though? ;)
-
:-*
If God inspired, not directed, human writers - then God did not write the Bible.
And if God did not write the Bible, then the Bible is not the word of God.
Nice to see we can agree on that.
I assume we can agree on that the Ten Commandments are the word of God though? ;)
I still think the bible is the word of God :)
And yes, that includes the 10 Commandments ;D
Zack I think you've said that you accept that the 10 Commandments are the only part of the bible that actually is presented in the bible as coming directly from God?
Are you aware that numerous passages in the bible quote God directly concerning other things?
-
What prophecies in the OT are you referring to?
Prophecies Concerning His Lineage
Prophecy Topic Fulfillment
Genesis 3:15 Born of the seed of woman Galatians 4:4
Genesis 21:12 Descendant of Isaac Matthew 1:1,2
Genesis 22:18, Genesis 12:2,3 Seed of Abraham Matthew 1:1
Genesis 49:10 Of the tribe of Judah Matthew 1:1,2
Numbers 24:17 Descendant of Jacob Matthew 1:1,2
Isaiah 11:1, 10 Descendant of Jesse Matthew 1:1,6
Jeremiah 23:5, Psalm 132:11 Descendant of David Matthew 1:1,6, Revelation 22:16
Psalm 2:7, Proverbs 30:4 Son of God Matthew 17:5, Luke 3:38, Luke 22:70
Prophecies Concerning His Birth
Prophecy Topic Fulfillment
Psalm 72:10 Kings will present gifts Matthew 2:1-11
Isaiah 7:14 Born of a virgin Matthew 1:23-25, Luke 2:7
Isaiah 7:14 Will be called Immanuel Matthew 1:23
Jeremiah 31:15 Children will be killed Matthew 2:16-18
Micah 5:2 Will be born in Bethlehem Luke 2:4-7
Prophecies Concerning His Ministry
Prophecy Topic Fulfillment
Deuteronomy 18:15-18 Will be a Prophet Matthew 21:11, John 6:14, John 4:19
Psalm 29:11 Will bless His people with peace Acts 10:36, John 14:27
Psalm 31:5 Will commit Himself to God Luke 23:46
Psalm 45:2 Will speak words of grace Luke 4:22
Psalm 68:18, Psalm 110:1 Will ascend to heaven--to the Father's right hand Acts 1:9, Hebrews 1:3, Mark 16:19
Psalm 69:9 Will have a zeal for God John 2:15-17
Psalm 78:2 Will teach parables Matthew 13:34,35
Psalm 110:4 Will be a priest Hebrews 5:5,6, Hebrews 3:1
Isaiah 2:4 He will judge & rebuke many Matthew 11:20
Isaiah 9:1 Will begin ministry in Galilee Matthew 4:12-17
Isaiah 9:6 He's eternal John 8:58, John 1:1, Romans 9:5
Isaiah 11:2 Anointing of the Holy Spirit Mark 1:10,11
Isaiah 33:22 Will be Judge Acts 10:40-42, Matthew 25:31-34, II Timothy 4:1
Isaiah 35:5,6 Will have a ministry of miracles John 5:5-9, Luke 7:22, Matthew 11:4-6
Isaiah 42:1, 49:1 He will minister to Gentiles Luke 2:32
Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 59:16 Will make intercession Luke 23:34, Romans 8:34
Isaiah 60:3 Will be a Light to Gentiles Acts 13:47,48
Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6, Psalm 102:25-27, Isaiah 41:4 Jesus' pre-existence Colossians 1:17, John 1:1
Zechariah 9:9, Psalm 2:6 Will be King John 18:33-38, Matthew 27:37
Zechariah 9:9 Triumphal entry on a donkey Luke 19:35-37
Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 40:3 Will be preceded by messenger John 1:23, Matthew 3:1-3
Malachi 3:1 Will enter the temple Matthew 21:12
Prophecies Concerning Others' Reactions to Him
Prophecy Topic Fulfillment
Psalm 69:4 Will be hated without cause John 15:24,25
Psalm 69:9 Will be reproached Romans 15:3
Psalm 110:1, Jeremiah 23:6 Will be called LORD John 20:28, Luke 2:11
Isaiah 9:6 Will be called God John 20:28, Titus 2:13
Isaiah 11:10 Gentiles will seek Him John 12:18-21
Isaiah 28:16, Psalm 118:22 Jews will reject Him, but He will become the Chief Cornerstone Acts 4:11,12, I Peter 2:7, Matthew 21:42,43
Isaiah 53:3, Psalm 31:11, Psalm 69:8 Will be ignored by His own people John 1:11
Prophecies Concerning His Death
Prophecy Topic Fulfillment
Psalm 16:10, Hosea 6:2 Will rise from the dead Acts 2:31
Psalm 22:1 Forsaken by His Father Mark 15:33, Matthew 27:46
Psalm 22:7,8 Will be ridiculed Matthew 27:39-44
Psalm 22:14 Heart will be broken John 19:34
Psalm 22:16, Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 53:5 Hands & feet will be pierced Luke 23:33
Psalm 22:17,18 Will be stripped and stared at Luke 23:34,35
Psalm 22:18 Soldiers will cast lots for His clothing Luke 23:34, John 19:23,24
Psalm 34:20 Bones will not be broken John 19:33
Psalm 35:11 Will be accused by false witnesses Matthew 26:59,60
Psalm 38:11 Friends will stand at a distance Luke 23:49, Mark 15:40
Psalm 41:9 Will be betrayed by a friend Luke 22:47,48, John 18:1-6
Psalm 69:21 Will be offered vinegar & gall John 19:28,29, Matthew 27:34
Psalm 109:25, Psalm 22:7,8 People will wag their heads Matthew 27:39, Mark 15:29,30
Isaiah 50:6 People will spit in His face Matthew 26:67
Isaiah 53:5 Will be whipped Matthew 27:26
Isaiah 53:7 Will be silent before accusers Matthew 27:12
Isaiah 53:9 Buried in rich man's grave Matthew 27:57-60
Isaiah 53:12 Numbered with transgressors - crucified with thieves Mark 15:27,28
Amos 8:9 Darkness will cover the land Matthew 27:45
Zechariah 11:12 Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Matthew 26:14,15
Zechariah 11:13 Money thrown in the house of the Lord Matthew 27:5
Zechariah 11:13 Price for potter's field Matthew 27:6,7
Zechariah 12:10 Look on whom pierced John 19:34-37
Zechariah 12:10 Side will be pierced John 19:34
(from the website truthsaves.org)
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
its a free world..as long as it dosen't effect me you can worship a weedwacker for all i care..
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
It doesn't anger me but it does frustrate me. Here's why:
You say the Bible is the inerrant word of God. How do you know that?
The only honest answer is you do not know that.
Why? B/c it is a matter of hope that the good book is God's word.
I also dislike the air of arrogance that your statement of divine knowledge exudes. I mean for the love of the lord, WHAT PERSON CAN ARGUE WITH GOD'S WORD!
Other than that, I live in a free country and everyone is free to believe whatever idea gets them through the night.
-
I also dislike the air of arrogance that your statement of divine knowledge exudes. I mean for the love of the lord, WHAT PERSON CAN ARGUE WITH GOD'S WORD!
Hi Decker!
Would you say you feel equally frustrated with a Muslim who claims "there is no other god but allah" and that the Koran is the word of god or feel there is arrogance in his/her statements?
Or would you be equally frustrated at a Branch-Davidian that claimed to you that "David Koresh is the messiah" and all that he spoke was true?
If not, why not?
-
Hi Decker!
Would you say you feel equally frustrated with a Muslim who claims "there is no other god but allah" and that the Koran is the word of god or feel there is arrogance in his/her statements?
Or would you be equally frustrated at a Branch-Davidian that claimed to you that "David Koresh is the messiah" and all that he spoke was true?
If not, why not?
That's exactly the point. Thousands of religions all claiming the the absolute truth, what are the chances that your particular one is correct. You were raised in the culture and if you had been born in Meso-America a thousands years ago you would be dancing to a different tune.
As for your socalled prophecies, NT writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the OT and I can cite many 'prophecies' that were not fulfilled and you just would ignore them.
What you have is faith, not knowledge. There's a big difference.
-
Why is it that conservative Christians avoid admitting their "Word of god" is solely based on belief?
-
That's exactly the point. Thousands of religions all claiming the the absolute truth, what are the chances that your particular one is correct. You were raised in the culture and if you had been born in Meso-America a thousands years ago you would be dancing to a different tune.
As for your socalled prophecies, NT writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the OT and I can cite many 'prophecies' that were not fulfilled and you just would ignore them.
What you have is faith, not knowledge. There's a big difference.
good post.
thousands of religions, the chances that YOUR god is real is extremely low. and they are immune to reason. they wont hear opposing sides, or admit some flaw. because they cant, if there is a contradiction, it cant be. why? its gods word, he doesnt contradict himself, we are wrong. all reason and logic goes out the window.
-
That's exactly the point. Thousands of religions all claiming the the absolute truth, what are the chances that your particular one is correct. You were raised in the culture and if you had been born in Meso-America a thousands years ago you would be dancing to a different tune.
As for your socalled prophecies, NT writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the OT and I can cite many 'prophecies' that were not fulfilled and you just would ignore them.
What you have is faith, not knowledge. There's a big difference.
You're right when you say there are many religions that "claim" that there's is absolute truth. However, there is only one that has ever proven it! I know you don't believe, in spite of the evidence, that the Christian faith is the one absolute true faith.
However, do you believe that there is "one" absolute true faith?
You are also correct when you state that if we were raised in a different culture we would be dancing to a different tune. However, after being confronted with the facts of the Gospel, I would have to take a serious look at my beliefs. If I were raised a Jew for example or a Muslim, and I was challenged with the information I have today, I believe I would convert to Christianity.
As far as your statement that the New Testament writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the Old Testament prophecies, do you have any evidence that was in fact the case? Because to my knowledge there is no evidence to deny that those prophesies did in fact occur as stated in the New Testament.
I noticed in one of your previous posts that you referred to Jesus as the "ALLEGED" Jesus of Nazareth.
He's talking about the alleged 'prophecies' in the OT that predict the alleged coming of the alleged 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
Are you saying the Jesus did not exist? Because that is an accepted fact by even the most outspoken skeptics of the Bible.
If you are trying to use the prophecies of the Bible to discredit the Bible, you are headed down the wrong road. If that is your chosen method of debate, you will be a converted Christian soon ;) Come on over to the side of Truth my friend. we will welcome you with open arms :)
-
Does it make you angry that some people do believe it's the word of God? If so, why?
Other people can believe what they like. What I don't like is when they try and impose their beliefs on everyone else - they're usually all the more brazen about it because "it is the word of God".
-
You're right when you say there are many religions that "claim" that there's is absolute truth. However, there is only one that has ever proven it! I know you don't believe, in spite of the evidence, that the Christian faith is the one absolute true faith.
A ridiculous, blanket statement if ever there was one. Christianity has proven nothing and its continued existence is a consequence of a long traditon, authoritarianism, the weakness of human psychology in general, fear of death specifically and cultural memes.
However, do you believe that there is "one" absolute true faith?
No. I have no faith. I prefer knowledge. Faith is the blind leading the blind, the hope for that, which is not, the desire for magic and the denial of reality.
You are also correct when you state that if we were raised in a different culture we would be dancing to a different tune. However, after being confronted with the facts of the Gospel, I would have to take a serious look at my beliefs. If I were raised a Jew for example or a Muslim, and I was challenged with the information I have today, I believe I would convert to Christianity.
My specific example was that of being born and raised in Meso-America a thousand years ago. You would have never heard the name Christianity, Jesus, Moses or anything else related to your religion for that matter. Christians never have an adequate answer to this.
As far as your statement that the New Testament writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the Old Testament prophecies, do you have any evidence that was in fact the case? Because to my knowledge there is no evidence to deny that those prophesies did in fact occur as stated in the New Testament.
This is the approach most critical scholars take when examining the NT, rather than blindly assuming it to be a magic book, fulfilling magic prophecies of the cobbled together OT.
We have abundant evidence for this. In fact, a good deal of it is copied directly out of the OT. The slaughter of the innocents is taken right out of the Book of Exodus for example.
I noticed in one of your previous posts that you referred to Jesus as the "ALLEGED" Jesus of Nazareth.
Are you saying the Jesus did not exist? Because that is an accepted fact by even the most outspoken skeptics of the Bible.
It is not. I do not think there is enough historical evidence to support a real Jesus of Nazareth, never mind the fact that Nazareth didn't exist during the time of his alleged birth. But we have discussed this in other threads to considerable length. Below, a noted sceptic and biblical scholar:
First (and, I warn you, this one takes by far the most explaining): It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological "Christ of faith" a synthetic construct of theologians, a symbolic "Uncle Sam" figure. But if you could travel through time, like Superboy, and you went back to First-Century Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there. Why conclude this? There are three reasons, which I must oversimplify for time's sake.
1) In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.
These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.
And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.
There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was.
2) Specifically, the passion stories of the gospels strike me as altogether too close to contemporary myths of dying and rising savior gods including Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Hercules, and Asclepius. Like Jesus, these figures were believed to have once lived a life upon the earth, been killed, and risen shortly thereafter. Their deaths and resurrections were in most cases ritually celebrated each spring to herald the return of the life to vegetation. In many myths, the savior's body is anointed for burial, searched out by holy women and then reappears alive a few days later.
3) Similarly, the details of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection accounts are astonishingly similar to the events of several surviving popular novels from the same period in which two lovers are separated when one seems to have died and is unwittingly entombed alive. Grave robbers discover her reviving and kidnap her. Her lover finds the tomb empty, graveclothes still in place, and first concludes she has been raised up from death and taken to heaven. Then, realizing what must have happened, he goes in search of her. During his adventures, he is sooner or later condemned to the cross or actually crucified, but manages to escape. When at length the couple is reunited, neither, having long imagined the other dead, can quite believe the lover is alive and not a ghost come to say farewell.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/price1.html
If you are trying to use the prophecies of the Bible to discredit the Bible, you are headed down the wrong road. If that is your chosen method of debate, you will be a converted Christian soon ;) Come on over to the side of Truth my friend. we will welcome you with open arms :)
I have no need to do such a thing; the 'prophecies' discredit themselves.
-
A ridiculous, blanket statement if ever there was one. Christianity has proven nothing and its continued existence is a consequence of a long traditon, authoritarianism, the weakness of human psychology in general, fear of death specifically and cultural memes.
No. I have no faith. I prefer knowledge. Faith is the blind leading the blind, the hope for that, which is not, the desire for magic and the denial of reality.
My specific example was that of being born and raised in Meso-America a thousand years ago. You would have never heard the name Christianity, Jesus, Moses or anything else related to your religion for that matter. Christians never have an adequate answer to this.
This is the approach most critical scholars take when examining the NT, rather than blindly assuming it to be a magic book, fulfilling magic prophecies of the cobbled together OT.
We have abundant evidence for this. In fact, a good deal of it is copied directly out of the OT. The slaughter of the innocents is taken right out of the Book of Exodus for example.
It is not. I do not think there is enough historical evidence to support a real Jesus of Nazareth, never mind the fact that Nazareth didn't exist during the time of his alleged birth. But we have discussed this in other threads to considerable length. Below, a noted sceptic and biblical scholar:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/price-rankin/price1.html
I have no need to do such a thing; the 'prophecies' discredit themselves.
Confronting the Copycat Thesis
In spite of having been pronounced dead even by intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist merely of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by the uncritical and accepted by the gullible. Acharya S and her Christ Conspiracy are simply the latest recycling of the general thesis, but now, even Robert Price has promulgated aspects of it in his Deconstructing Jesus:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
-
You're right when you say there are many religions that "claim" that there's is absolute truth. However, there is only one that has ever proven it! I know you don't believe, in spite of the evidence, that the Christian faith is the one absolute true faith.
However, do you believe that there is "one" absolute true faith?
You are also correct when you state that if we were raised in a different culture we would be dancing to a different tune. However, after being confronted with the facts of the Gospel, I would have to take a serious look at my beliefs. If I were raised a Jew for example or a Muslim, and I was challenged with the information I have today, I believe I would convert to Christianity.
As far as your statement that the New Testament writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the Old Testament prophecies, do you have any evidence that was in fact the case? Because to my knowledge there is no evidence to deny that those prophesies did in fact occur as stated in the New Testament.
I noticed in one of your previous posts that you referred to Jesus as the "ALLEGED" Jesus of Nazareth.
Are you saying the Jesus did not exist? Because that is an accepted fact by even the most outspoken skeptics of the Bible.
If you are trying to use the prophecies of the Bible to discredit the Bible, you are headed down the wrong road. If that is your chosen method of debate, you will be a converted Christian soon ;) Come on over to the side of Truth my friend. we will welcome you with open arms :)
Christ a Fiction (1997)
Robert M. Price
I remember a particular Superboy comic book in which the Boy of Steel somehow discovers that in the future, he is thought to be as mythical as Peter Pan and Santa Claus. Indignant at this turn of events, he flies at faster than light speed and enters the future to set the record straight. He does a few super-deeds and vindicates himself, then comes home. So Superboy winds up having the last laugh --or does he?
Of course, it is only fiction! The people in the future were quite right! Superboy is just as mythical as Santa Claus and Peter Pan.
This seems to me a close parallel to the efforts of Christian apologists to vindicate as sober history the story of a supernatural savior who was born of a virgin, healed the sick, raised the dead, changed water into wine, walked on water, rose from the grave and ascended bodily into the sky.
I used to think, when I myself was a Christian apologist, a defender of the evangelical faith, that I had done a pretty respectable job of vindicating that story as history. I brought to bear a variety of arguments I now recognize to be fallacious, such as the supposed closeness of the gospels to the events they record, their ostensibly use of eyewitness testimony, etc. Now, in retrospect, I judge that my efforts were about as effective in the end as Superboy's! When all is said and done, he remains a fiction.
One caveat: I intend to set forth, briefly, some reasons for the views I now hold. I do not expect that the mere fact that I was once an evangelical apologist and now see things differently should itself count as evidence that I must be right. That would be the genetic fallacy. It would be just as erroneous to think that John Rankin [?] must be right in having embraced evangelical Christianity since he had once been an agnostic Unitarian and repudiated it for the Christian faith. In both cases, what matters is the reasons for the change of mind, not merely the fact of it.
Having got that straight, let me say that I think there are four senses in which Jesus Christ may be said to be a "fiction."
First (and, I warn you, this one takes by far the most explaining): It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological "Christ of faith" a synt hetic construct of theologians, a symbolic "Uncle Sam" figure. But if you could travel through time, like Superboy, and you went back to First-Cen tury Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there. Why conclude this? There are three reasons, which I must oversimplify for time's sake.
1) In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.
These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.
And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.
There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was.
2) Specifically, the passion stories of the gospels strike me as altogether too close to contemporary myths of dying and rising savior gods including Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Hercules, and Asclepius. Like Jesus, these figures were believed to have once lived a life upon the earth, been killed, and risen shortly thereafter. Their deaths and resurrections were in most cases ritually celebrated each spring to herald the return of the life to vegetation. In many myths, the savior's body is anointed for burial, searched out by holy women and then reappear alive a few days later.
3) Similarly, the details of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection accounts are astonishingly similar to the events of several surviving popular novels from the same period in which two lovers are separated when one seems to have died and is unwittingly entombed alive. Grave robbers discover her reviving and kidnap her. Her lover finds the tomb empty, graveclothes still in place, and first concludes she has been raised up from death and taken to heaven. Then, realizing what must have happened, he goes in search of her. During his adventures, he is sooner or later condemned to the cross or actually crucified, but manages to escape. When at length the couple is reunited, neither, having long imagined the other dead, can quite believe the lover is alive and not a ghost come to say farewell.
There have been two responses to such evidence by apologists. First, they have contended that all these myths are plagiarized from the gospels by pagan imitators, pointing out that some of the evidence is post-Christian 2E But much is in fact preChristian. And it is significant that the early Christian apologists argued that these parallels to the gospels were counterfeits in advance, by Satan, who knew the real thing would be coming along later and wanted to throw people off the track. This is like the desperate Nineteenth-Century attempts of fundamentalists to claim that Satan had created fake dinosaur bones to tempt the faithful not to believe in Genesis! At any rate, and this is my point, no one would have argued this way had the pagan myths of dead and resurrected gods been more recent than the Christian.
Second, in a variation on the theme, C.S. Lewis suggested that in Jesus' case "myth became fact." He admitted the whole business about the Mythic Hero archetype and the similarity to the pagan saviors, only he made them a kind of prophetic charade, creations of the yearning human heart, dim adumbrations of the incarnation of Christ before it actually happened. The others were myths, but this one actually happened.
In answer to this, I think of an anecdote told by my colleague Bruce Chilton, how, staying the weekend at the home of a friend, he was surprised to see that the guest bathroom was festooned with a variety of towels filched from the Hilton, the Ramada Inn, the Holiday Inn, etc. Which was more likely, he asked: that representatives from all these hotels had sneaked into his friend's bathroom and each copied one of the towel designs? Or that his friend had swiped them from their hotels?
Lewis's is an argument of desperation which no one would think of making unless he was hell-bent on believing that, though all the other superheroes (Batman, Captain Marvel, the Flash) were fictions, Superboy was in fact genuine.
3) The New Testament epistles can be read quite naturally as presupposing a period in which Christians did not yet believe their savior god had been a figure living on earth in the recent historical past. Pail, for instance, never even mentions Jesus performing healings and even as a teacher. Twice he cites what he calls "words of the Lord," but even conservative New Testament scholars admit he may as easily mean prophetic revelations from the heavenly Christ. Paul attributes the death of Jesus not to Roman or Jewish governments, but rather to the designs of evil "archon," angels who rule this fallen world. Romans and 1 Peter both warn Christians to watch their step, reminding them that the Roman authorities never punish the righteous, but only the wicked. How they have said this if they knew of the Pontius Pilate story?
The two exceptions, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy, epistles that do blame Pilate or Jews for the death of Jesus, only serve to prove the rule. Both can easily be shown on other grounds to be non-Pauline and later than the gospels.
Jesus was eventually "historicized," redrawn as a human being of the past (much as Samson, Enoch, Jabal, Gad, Joshua the son of Nun, and various other ancient Israelite gods had already been). As a part of this process, there were various independent attempts to locate Jesus in recent history by laying the blame for his death on this or that likely candidate, well known tyrants including Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and even Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BC! Now, if the death of Jesus were an actual historical event well known to eyewitnesses of it, there is simply no way such a variety of versions, differing on so fundamental a point, could ever have arisen!
And if early Christians had actually remembered the passion as a series of recent events, why does the earliest gospel crucifixion account spin out the whole terse narrative from quotes cribbed without acknowledgement from Psalm 22? Why does 1 Peter have nothing more detailed than Isaiah 53 to flesh out his account of the sufferings of Jesus? Why does Matthew supplement Mark's version, not with historical tradition or eyewitness memory, but with more quotes, this time from Zechariah and the Wisdom of Solomon?
Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology. Instead, he is a fiction.
Rejoinders:
1) We deem them myths not because of a prior bias that there can be no miracles, but because of the Principle of Analogy, the only alternative to which is believing everything in The National Inquirer. If we do not use the standard of current-day experience to evaluate claims from the past, what other standard is there? And why should we believe that God or Nature used to be in the business of doing things that do not happen now? Isn't God supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and forever?
2) The apologists' claim that there was "too little time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the gospels for legends to develop" is circular, presupposing a historical Jesus living at a particular time. 40 years is easily enough time for legendary expansion anyway, but the Christ-Myth Theory does not require that the Christ figure was created in Pontius Pilate's time, only that later, Pilate's time was retrospectively chosen as a location for Jesus.
a) See Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History on the tendency in oral tradition to keep updating mythic foundational events, keeping them always at a short distance, a couple of generations before one's own time.
b) And even if there were a historical Jesus and we knew we had eyewitness reports, the apologists fail to take into account recent studies which show that eyewitness testimony, especially of unusual events, is the most unreliable of all, that people tend to rewrite what they saw in light of their accustomed categories and expectations. Thus Strauss was right on target suggesting that the early Christians simply imagined Jesus fulfilling the expected deeds of messiahs and prophets.
3) It is special pleading to dismiss all similar stories as myths and to insist that this case must be different. If you do this, admit it, you are a fideist, no longer an apologist (if there is any difference!).
Second, the "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs. (Of course, every biblicist does the same! "I said it! God believes it! That settles it!"). Today's Politically Correct "historical Jesuses" are no different, being mere clones of the scholars who design them.
C.S. Lewis was right about this in The Screwtape Letters: "Each 'historical Jesus' is unhistorical. The documents say what they say and cannot be added to." But, as apologists so often do, he takes fideism as the natural implication when agnosticism would seem called for. What he imagines the gospels so clearly to "say" is the mythic hero! When, in his essay, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism," Lewis pulls rank as a self-declared expert and denies that the gospels are anything like ancient myths, one can only wonder what it was he must have been smoking in that ever-present pipe of his!
My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
Third, Jesus as the personal savior, with whom people claim, as I used to, to have a "personal relationship" is in the nature of the case a fiction, essentially a psychological projection, an "imaginary playmate." It is no different at all from pop-psychological "visualization" exercises, or John Bradshaw's gimmick of imagining a healing encounter with loved ones of the past, or Jean Houston leading Hillary Clinton in an admittedly imaginary dialogue with Eleanor Roosevelt.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with any of this, but one ought to recognize it, as Hillary Clinton and Jean Houston, and John Bradshaw do, as imaginative fiction. And so with the personal savior.
The alternative is something like channeling. You have "tuned in" to the spirit of an ancient guru, named Jesus, and you are receiving revelations from him, usually pretty trivial stuff, minor conscience proddings and the like. Some sort of imaginary telepathy.
In fact I don't believe most evangelical pietists mean anything by "having a personal relationship with Christ" than a fancy, overblown name for reading the Bible and saying their prayers. But if they did really refer to some kind of a "personal relationship," it would in effect be a case of channeling. I suspect this is why fundamentalists who condemn New Age channelers do not dismiss it as a fraud pure and simple (though obviously it is), but instead think that Ramtha and the others are channeling demons. If they said it was sheer delusion, they know where the other four fingers would wind up pointing!
Especially in view of the fact that the piety of "having a personal relationship with Christ" and "inviting him into your heart" is alien to the New Testament and is never intimated there as far as I can see, it is amazing to me that evangelicals elevate it to the shibboleth of salvation! Unless you have a personal relationship with Jesus, buster, one day you will be boiling in Hell. Sheesh! Talk about the fury of a personal savior scorned!
No one ever heard of this stuff till the German Pietist movement of the Eighteenth Century. To make a maudlin type of devotionalism the password to heaven is like the fringe Pentecostal who tells you can't get into heaven unless you speak in tongues. "You ask me how I know he lives?" asks the revival chorus. "He lives within my heart." Exactly! A figment.
Fourth, Christ is a fiction in that Christ functions, in an unnoticed and equivocal way, as shorthand for a vast system of beliefs and institutions on whose behalf he is invoked. Put simply, this means that when an evangelist or an apologist invites you to have faith "in Christ," they are in fact smuggling in a great number of other issues. For example, Chalcedonian Christology, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Protestant idea of faith and grace, a particular theory of biblical inspiration and literalism, habits of church attendance, etc. These are all distinct and open questions. Theologians have debated them for many centuries and still debate them. Rank and file believers still debate them, as you know if you have ever spent time talking with one of Jehovah's Witnesses or a Seventh Day Adventist. If you hear me say that and your first thought is "Oh no, those folks aren't real Christians," you're just proving my point! Who gave Protestant fundamentalists the copyright on the word Christian?
No evangelist ever invites people to accept Christ by faith and then to start examining all these other associated issues for themselves. Not one! The Trinity, biblical inerrancy, for some even anti-Darwinism, are non-negotiable. You cannot be genuinely saved if you don't tow the party line on these points. Thus, for them, "to accept Christ" means "to accept Trinitarianism, biblicism, creationism, etc." And this in turn means that "Christ" is shorthand for this whole raft of doctrines and opinions, all of which one is to accept "by faith," on someone else's say-so.
When Christ becomes a fiction in this sense he is an umbrella for an unquestioning acceptance of what some preacher or institution tells us to believe. And this is nothing new, no mutant distortion of Christianity. Paul already requires "the taking of every thought captive to Christ," already insists on "the obedience of faith." Here Christ has already become what he was to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, a euphemism for the dogmatic party line of an institution. Dostoyevsky's point, of course, was that the "real" Jesus stands opposed to this use of his name to sanction religious oppression. But remember, though it is a noble one, Dostoyevsky's Jesus is also a piece of fiction! It is, after all, "The Parable of the Grand Inquisitor."
So, then, Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, 4) "Christ" as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions.
-
Confronting the Copycat Thesis
In spite of having been pronounced dead even by intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist merely of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by the uncritical and accepted by the gullible. Acharya S and her Christ Conspiracy are simply the latest recycling of the general thesis, but now, even Robert Price has promulgated aspects of it in his Deconstructing Jesus:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html
Turkel is a prison librarian and a fraud. He refutes nothing and simply uses ad hominems. He never posts the other side's view point. Worthless drivel.
"6) J. P. Holding, ex-prison librarian, self-styled web-pologist, who does not have a graduate degree in theology, has not pursued a seminary degree, and his self-styled study of the Bible's original languages has been shown to be deficient. What Holding specializes in is inventing imaginative denials of questions raised by far more informed biblical scholars than himself."
"The disreputable and untrustworthy Christian apologist 'James Patrick Holding' has been receiving and releasing malicious, false and libelous information about me, provided to him by a mentally ill fugitive wanted on three felonies, including child abduction. In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, Holding first revealed my name--also gained from this felonious source and now posted all over the internet--and then passed along the false and libelous material to his fanatic followers, who have since threatened me with further exposure of personal information and lies received from this deranged criminal, who committed violent crimes against me and my small son. Because of this despicable behavior, it is obvious that this man, JP Holding, has no integrity, and that his writings should not be given credibility."
(snip)
"And remember, I didn't start this battle--Holding did, and he continues it, as I have never had any interest in him. (Holding is so obsessed with me that my name is mentioned on almost 150 pages of his website.) In fact, he epitomizes everything I criticize about religion: To wit, that human beings become vicious and nasty defending infantile and intangible concepts by attacking living, breathing human beings. If Holding were a compassionate and pleasant individual--which he clearly is not--he would actually find me to be a very nice and helpful person. Because of his conditioning, he cannot. And THAT'S the whole problem with religion in the first place."
"Those who click the link will find that it is posted on TSR Online rather than on Turkel's site. We have it here, because Turkel deleted it from his website, after some of the material in it proved embarrassing to him, and replaced it with an edited version that had removed the embarrassing statements, such as his now discredited claim that his position on the meaning of Hosea 1:4 was shared by 'commentators of all stripes' and his pledge to his readers that he would never again 'dignify' any of my articles by replying to them, because I was not worth the time it would take to do so."
(snip)
"Here, of course, is a familiar Turkel tactic. When he can't answer an opponent, all is not lost, because he can always hide his inability to refute arguments under a camouflage of sarcasm and insults. If he just calls his opponents' detailed arguments and rebuttals 'incessant blather' that would be read only by someone 'who holds an equitable stake in the local funny farm,' he knows that his sycophantic choir members, lacking any critical-thinking skills, will react with, 'Hey, look how our man is pulverizing Till.' That he would resort to hiding his inability to reply to me beneath an insult that refers to a mental institution and the problems that it treats as 'the local funny farm' speaks volumes about the deficiencies in Turkel's Christian ethics. Such misguided attempts at humor are not at all unusual in his articles, as is evident here, where he used children afflicted with muscular dystrophy as a metaphorical insult hurled at one of his opponents, and also used the scattered wreckage of the Columbia space shuttle as another metaphorical claim of what he had done to the same opponent's 'butt.'"
TURKEL: (Till) "committed several enormous gaffes that would send more honest men to the confessional booth."
TILL: "And just what are those 'gaffes'? Were they more 'enormous' than Turkel's double-sided claim that the gospels were both evangelical and nonevangelical in their intents? Were they more 'enormous' than Turkel's claim that 'rise again' was expressed in Greek by using anestimi twice? Were they more 'enormous' than his use of transliterate when he meant translate and then turned around and repeated the same mistake? Were they more 'enormous' than Turkel's foot-in-mouth gaffe when he defended the authenticity of the ossuary of 'James the brother of Jesus,' which has turned out to be a proven fake and brought about the arrest of Oded Golan, who 'discovered' it? Were they more 'enormous' than Turkel's biblically ignorant claim that there are no cases recorded in the Bible of anyone ever using a restroom? Were they more 'enormous' than Turkel's repeated attempts to defend the inerrancy of the Bible while at the same time chanting 'ma besay-il' (it doesn't matter) that inconsistencies are in the Bible? Were they more 'enormous' than the ones that I identified in 'The "Goofy Gaffe" Exchanges on the Theology Web'? Again, I would have to fill an entire page with nothing but links in order to list all of the places where Turkel has put his foot into his mouth. This has required me many times to say in my replies to him that inconsistency is about his only consistency, as I did here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and... well, you get the idea. Turkel has been so inconsistent in his articles that I have made this statement no telling how many times in winding down my exposures of his inconsistencies."
"One thing to add here is against Holding's now more adamant claim that no one in antiquity had notions of improving their condition. That is outrageous. It is not what any of the scholars he quotes have ever argued--to the contrary, they would all be appalled by what he claims they said. I ask all readers to stop trusting Holding, and actually buy or borrow those books that Holding quotes out of context and read them. Then you will see how those scholars actually discuss the total situation very differently than Holding lets on. On this issue in particular the evidence is overwhelmingly against Holding, as I explain in Chapter 10 (where I also present examples of his gross misrepresentation of the arguments of Bruce Malina). But we needn't trust the opinions of scholars. We can go to the primary evidence. And here Lucian's autobiographical account in My Dream again provides refutation enough: there he explains how his family sought to improve his prospects by buying him an apprenticeship to a stonecutter, and how Lucian in turn regarded it as far better an improvement in his situation to become a scholar instead. Yet according to Holding, no one in antiquity thought like this or acted like this. Holding simply isn't telling the truth."
"In an effort to get the other viewpoint on what I was reading, I turned to the Tektonics website, which I had heard was very good. I felt completely sick when I started reading that guys articles. I had expected to find an intelligent counter-argument to the many excellent articles I had encountered. Instead I found nothing by bitter sarcasm combined with personal attacks on the authors of the articles. In my searching of that web page I found nothing at all that even remotely addressed the relevent issues. Instead it reinforced my growing impression that many Christians are bitter, twisted and arrogant, and would do well to actually get out into the real world for once."
http://the-anointed-one.com/what.htm
Etc., Etc....
-
Jesus is a historical figure, and here is the historical evidence:
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (Arabic summary)
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Antiquities xviii. 33 (early second century) from F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand 2. Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 37.
3. Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
4. Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
5. Talmudic designation of Jesus.
"Sanhedrin," vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
6. Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.
-
Sorry, STella! Your thread has been hijacked.
Trapezkerl, we should discuss this in the multitude of threads dedicated to the historicity of Jesus.
-
As for your socalled prophecies, NT writers wrote the Gospels to conform to the OT and I can cite many 'prophecies' that were not fulfilled and you just would ignore them.
If you're not talking about future prophecies such as mark of the beast/antichrist stuff, to which ones are you referring?
-
If you're not talking about future prophecies such as mark of the beast/antichrist stuff, to which ones are you referring?
Isaiah 17:1. Damascus is predicted to cease to be a city and yet it remains one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Jeremiah 49:33 predicts that Hazor will become an everlasting wasteland in which humans will never again dwell. In the KJV it is said that dragons will come to inhabit the land. This has not happened.
Zechariah 10:11.The Nile is predicted to dry up. This has not happened.
There are numerous others. As a fundy you see what you want to see and not what the evidence tells you and you try to rationalise the evidence so that it fits your bible inspired picture of the world.
-
Jesus is a historical figure, and here is the historical evidence:
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (Arabic summary)
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to themafter his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Antiquities xviii. 33 (early second century) from F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand 2. Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 37.
3. Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
4. Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
5. Talmudic designation of Jesus.
"Sanhedrin," vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
6. Arabic summary, presumably of Antiquities 18.63. From Agapios' Kitab al-'Unwan ("Book of the Title," 10th c.).
The translation belongs to Shlomo Pines. See also James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism.
We have been through all of these 'references' a million times. We can rehash it again for the millioneth time but not now as it is late here and I am off to bed.
-
How about :
2 Samuel 7,
7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
Where is Solomons kingdom?
Psalms
89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
89:4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.
89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
89:37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
-
Hi Decker!
Would you say you feel equally frustrated with a Muslim who claims "there is no other god but allah" and that the Koran is the word of god or feel there is arrogance in his/her statements?
Or would you be equally frustrated at a Branch-Davidian that claimed to you that "David Koresh is the messiah" and all that he spoke was true?
If not, why not?
I am frustrated by anyone or any religion that thinks they/it have the capacity to understand Ultimate Reality, aka God and reduce Him down to biblical soundbytes. I don't trust human capacity to ever speak for god...if he exists.
It takes a maximum arrogance to claim to speak with or for the Infinite Everlasting. I don't believe anyone or anything that makes such a claim...the bible, the koran, Koresh.
I think these people that think they are speaking to god are really speaking to demons of the mind.
-
Isaiah 17:1. Damascus is predicted to cease to be a city and yet it remains one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Jeremiah 49:33 predicts that Hazor will become an everlasting wasteland in which humans will never again dwell. In the KJV it is said that dragons will come to inhabit the land. This has not happened.
Zechariah 10:11.The Nile is predicted to dry up. This has not happened.
There are numerous others. As a fundy you see what you want to see and not what the evidence tells you and you try to rationalise the evidence so that it fits your bible inspired picture of the world.
As far as I can tell, these are all yet to happen. That doesn't mean that they will not happen. I wasn't familiar w/the Jeremiah reference. Do you know where Hazor is? My study bible says "Hazor was a desert area, not the city in northern Palestine." A website I found (yeshuatyisrael.com) says Hazor is part of Saudi Arabia.
How about :
2 Samuel 7,
7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
Where is Solomons kingdom?
Psalms
89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
89:4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.
89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
89:37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.
Yes, Solomon built the temple but the seed enduring to me refers to the future also. Forever would be the future. 89:36 says his seed shall endure for ever....the end of forever hasn't happened yet. Do you ever find it odd (or even miraculous) that Israel still exists with all they've endured?
-
I am frustrated by anyone or any religion that thinks they/it have the capacity to understand Ultimate Reality, aka God and reduce Him down to biblical soundbytes. I don't trust human capacity to ever speak for god...if he exists.
It takes a maximum arrogance to claim to speak with or for the Infinite Everlasting. I don't believe anyone or anything that makes such a claim...the bible, the koran, Koresh.
I think these people that think they are speaking to god are really speaking to demons of the mind.
Thanks for your answer Decker!
-
Yes, Solomon built the temple but the seed enduring to me refers to the future also. Forever would be the future. 89:36 says his seed shall endure for ever....the end of forever hasn't happened yet. Do you ever find it odd (or even miraculous) that Israel still exists with all they've endured?
The throne was gone 400 years later.
Solomon's kingdom ceased to exist.
As for Israel, I find it unusual not miraculous. They can thank Hitler for that.
-
As far as I can tell, these are all yet to happen. That doesn't mean that they will not happen. I wasn't familiar w/the Jeremiah reference. Do you know where Hazor is? My study bible says "Hazor was a desert area, not the city in northern Palestine." A website I found (yeshuatyisrael.com) says Hazor is part of Saudi Arabia.
Yes, Solomon built the temple but the seed enduring to me refers to the future also. Forever would be the future. 89:36 says his seed shall endure for ever....the end of forever hasn't happened yet. Do you ever find it odd (or even miraculous) that Israel still exists with all they've endured?
This is why is it is so frustrating discussing this with people like you. You rationalise everything so as to fit your biblical view of things when it doesn't fit and simply claim that prophecies are just that 'prophecies' in the NT when the more rational and logical step or assumption would be to realise that the NT writers plagiarised huge chunks of the OT and set it down to parchment. The Gospel writers were anomynous and wrote decades after the 'events' described in the Gospels. Yes, fundies like you believe they were apostles but every critical biblical scholar recognises that they were most certainly not. So, yes in a way it is frustrating to me with fundies because you rarely if ever look at evidence that contradicts your rigid faith and if you do, you ignore it or twist to fit your sky daddy belief. Very annoying indeed.
-
Thanks for your answer Decker!
You're welcome Stella.
-
Here's another fun one:
Proverbs
12:21 There shall no evil happen to the just: but the wicked shall be filled with mischief.
Or this one:
Malachi 2
2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces,
And this is God? ::)
-
You're right when you say there are many religions that "claim" that there's is absolute truth. However, there is only one that has ever proven it! I know you don't believe, in spite of the evidence, that the Christian faith is the one absolute true faith.
It is clear to me that you do not know much about Christianity.
Christianity is based on faith in the Lord, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
If you are a Christian, you believe. You do not know.
If you claim to know, and claim you have evidence of God, you are a liar, and does not understand God.
I challenge you to present me one evidence that makes it certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that God is.
-
It is clear to me that you do not know much about Christianity.
Christianity is based on faith in the Lord, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
If you are a Christian, you believe. You do not know.
If you claim to know, and claim you have evidence of God, you are a liar, and does not understand God.
I challenge you to present me one evidence that makes it certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that God is.
You are right in saying that Christianity is based on Faith. That is absolutely true. I BELIEVE in Jesus Christ the Lord God and His Holy Spirit. AMEN!
I am a Chistian that not only believe's, but KNOWS. God has proven Himself true by the FACTS in the Bible and in my life.
So if I'm confronted with evidence that is proven, such as miracles and Jesus being raised from the dead, and I accept that evidence, I am a liar???
Evidence that God "is": YOU being "CREATED" and Jesus rising from the dead!
I challenge you my friend, to provide me evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the God DOES NOT exist!
-
Here's another fun one:
Proverbs
12:21 There shall no evil happen to the just: but the wicked shall be filled with mischief.
Or this one:
Malachi 2
2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces,
And this is God? ::)
Gotta accept the good with the bad. Sometimes that means dung on your face ;D
-
This is why is it is so frustrating discussing this with people like you. You rationalise everything so as to fit your biblical view of things when it doesn't fit and simply claim that prophecies are just that 'prophecies' in the NT when the more rational and logical step or assumption would be to realise that the NT writers plagiarised huge chunks of the OT and set it down to parchment. The Gospel writers were anomynous and wrote decades after the 'events' described in the Gospels. Yes, fundies like you believe they were apostles but every critical biblical scholar recognises that they were most certainly not. So, yes in a way it is frustrating to me with fundies because you rarely if ever look at evidence that contradicts your rigid faith and if you do, you ignore it or twist to fit your sky daddy belief. Very annoying indeed.
NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.
First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.
The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.
If I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.
Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.
In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist. I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???
BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.
Yes, fundies like you believe they were apostles but every critical biblical scholar recognises that they were most certainly not.
I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction? If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.
And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.
Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.
-
I believe God and Satan both exist, because of the existance of Sally McNeil.
-
NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.
First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.
The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.
If I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.
Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.
In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist. I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???
BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.
I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction? If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.
And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.
Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.
Good post, Freakshow!
-
NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.
First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.
The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.
If I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.
Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.
In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist. I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???
BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.
I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction? If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.
And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.
Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.
The Jesus Seminar is not a joke and they garner much respect in academia. I have read the Gospels as have many others who have all come to the conclusion that they are bullshit. Hitler is a terrible analogy. We have photos, film, written documentation by Hitler himself and numerous other pieces of evidence.
Even if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts:
For many people, who possibly haven’t thought much about it, such a claim — that a story is based on an eyewitness account — provides a kind of guarantee of its accuracy. A moment’s reflection, though, shows that nothing could be farther from the truth. Simply consider any two eyewitness accounts of a particular event. Are they ever the same? Not exactly. Sometimes they differ in what they include and exclude, often they disagree on minor details, often they are at odds on issues of major importance (did she scream at him before he threatened her with a knife or afterward?), sometimes they flat out contradict each other; never do they tell the story in the same words.
If eyewitnesses were always completely accurate in what they say, we’d have no need for trials by jury. We could just ask someone what happened.
Scholarly studies of the gospels make it quite clear that they could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Even if they were, though, they were not written down until decades after those events supposedly happen. During these decades, the witnesses would have swapped stories with others, pondered the events, heard about similar events, studies other tales, and so forth. All of these things would have contaminated the original memories immeasurably, making them completely unreliable under even the best circumstances.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257971.htm
The Gospels are so filled with contradictions that it hardly comprehensible that you would consider them 'inerrant' or 'eyewitness accounts'.
-
NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.
First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.
The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.
If I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.
Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.
In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist. I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???
BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.
I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction? If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.
And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.
Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.
There's really a lot I could list here if I really wanted to include all the minor contradictions and seemingly self-contradictory statements of Jesus himself but I'm just going to stick with some of the more glaring, contradictory , factual claims about Jesus. Contradictions which I submit cannot be reconciled.
Let's start with the genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke.
Matthew gives the following:
(Mtt. 1:1-16)
...David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,...
Now let's look at Luke.
(Lk. 3:23-38)
...the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,...
First of all let's bear in mind that these are really geneologies for Joseph, not Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology. That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was born of a virgin and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph.
Looking at the genealogies themselves we see that Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Joseph, while Luke starts with Joseph and counts clear back to Adam (also note that Luke calls Adam "the son of God.")
The parts snipped out are the parts where the genealogies diverge. Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.
Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that's that.
There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it.
Matthew's and Luke's Nativities are quite different and each mentions things not mentioned by the others. Not every difference is a necessary contradiction but some of the differences are and it might be useful to examine them side by side.
Synopsis of Matthew's Nativity:
Joseph and Mary are engaged but they haven't had sex yet. Mary turns up pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph (understandably) wants to break up with her but then an angel comes to him in a dream and tells him that the Holy Ghost knocked her up and she's still a virgin and Joseph should marry her anyway. Somehow Joseph buys all this and agrees to stay with Mary.
Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew does not have anything about a census or an inn. He just says Jesus was born in Bethlehem with the implication that Joseph and Mary already lived there).
Some "astrologers (magoi) from the East" show up at Herod's court and ask him where the new king of Judea is because they "saw his star in the East." (note: Matthew does not call them kings and does not say how many there were. The "three kings" image is an extra Biblical popular tradition)Herod gets pissed and calls the priests to ask them where the "Annointed" is supposed to be born. The priests tell him Bethlehem and quote from Micah. Herod then tells the astrologers to go to Bethlehem and find the kid and then report back to him, ostensibly so he can "pay homage" to the kid but really so he can kill him.
The astrologers go to Bethlehem and then follow the star until it stops over a house (not a stable) with Jesus in it. The astrologers give mad props to Baby Jesus and give him gold and frankincense and myrhh. Then an angel comes to them in a dream and warns them not to go back to Herod so they secretly split back to their own countries instead.
Then an angel comes to Joseph in a dream (in Matthew's Nativity it seems like everybody is constantly getting hounded by angels in their dreams) and tells him to haul ass to Egypt and bring Jesus with him. Joseph packs up his family and blows.
When Herod gets stood up by the astrologers he loses his shit and orders all male children under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be killed.
Herod dies and Joseph gets the message (yep, you guessed it) from an angel in a dream and returns to Israel. He finds out that Herod's son, Archelaus is king of Judea so he's afraid. Joseph gets visited by an angel in yet another dream and is told to go to Galilee (which, incidentally was being ruled by another of Herod's sons, Herod Antipas, so it's not clear why Galilee would have been any safer....but to be fair, Archelaus sucked much harder than Antipas. He was so bad, in fact, that he was forcibly removed in 6 CE by the Romans, Judea was made part of the province of Syria and Quirinius was put in charge). So Joseph drags the family to Galilee and settles down in Nazareth.
Synopsis of Luke's Nativity:
There is a long, boring story about the conception of John the Baptist. During the pregnancy of JBap's mother, Elizabeth, an angel come to Mary (who is already living in Nazareth) and tells her that she's going to get knocked up by the Holy Spirit. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and Elizabeth gets all excited and there's some more boring stuff and then JBap is born.
Jump to a pregnant Mary travelling to Bethlehem with Joseph to register for Quirinius' census. Jesus is born in a stable (and Luke actually intimates that it is for privacy, not because there was no room inside). Cut to a bunch of shepherds tending their flocks at night. An angel comes down and scares the crap out of them. The angel tells them to chill and informs them that the Messiah has been born and is lying in a mager in bethlehem. then a whole bunch more angels come down and start singing at the shepherds. Then all the angels disappear and the shepherds rush off to Bethlehem and find Baby Jesus and give him mad props.
Then, eight days later, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Jerusalem to the Temple to be circumcised. While they're at the Temple an old guy named Simeon comes up to them because the holy spirit told him all about Jesus. Simeon gives Baby Jesus mad props and then predicts doom and gloom for Israel. Then an old lady "prophetess" named Anna happens by and sees this and she starts telling everybody else all about it.
Then after Jesus is properly snipped, Joseph and Mary and Jesus all go back to Nazareth. There is nothing about a flight to Egypt. They go straight to Nazareth and Jesus commences to growing up "strong and wise."
It's pretty easy to see that with the exception of the place of birth and the defense of Mary's virtue these stories have virtually no relationship to each other. as I said above, not every detail in Luke is necessarily in contradiction to Matthew but whatever is not directly contradicted is pretty much incidental in contrast to the details that clash. Let's add some of them up:
Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.
Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.
Luke says nothing about Herod's slaughter of the innocents or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.
Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.
These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.
To recap the most intractable contradictions between the Nativities, we have
1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
3. Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
4. Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
5. Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.
-
NO offense, but we can't expect you to understand the true facts of the Prophecies when you can't even accept that Jesus was actually real.
First, if you actually read through each of the Gospels, you’d have no question as to their authorship.
The fact that the books were written at a later time, but still during the writer’s lifetime, most of whom were eyewitnesses to the events, does not discredit the authenticity or accuracy of the writings.
If I had witnessed with my own eyes many miracles, including someone being murdered and then rising from the dead, I think that if I wrote about it ten, twenty or thirty years later, I would still have an accurate very detailed account vividly in my memory.
Also, how do you know that they did not “start” writing immediately and did not complete writing until years later. You do understand they were under intense persecution at the time.
In addition, I find it interesting that they are all writing about someone you say does not even exist. I suppose that Hitler is just a figment of the Jews and the rest of the world’s imaginations???
BTW, Luke, the author of the Gospel by Luke and the Book of Acts, referred to his Gospel in the first verse of Acts. Luke also verified the authenticity by challenging the reader to whom he wrote the book, to talk to the many ‘eyewitnesses’ that were still alive at the time.
I’m confused, by denying that they were Apostles, you are implying that there were legitimate Apostles, but these guys weren’t them. How could they be Apostles if Jesus doesn’t even exist and this is all fiction? If this were all fiction there would be no such thing as an Apostle.
And who are these “every” ‘critical’ Bible scholars??? There is only a very and mean very small group of people that “proclaim” to be Bible scholars that would contest that fact. Are you referring the group “The Jesus Seminar”? Because they are seriously a joke. There are legitimate “scholars” that have many disagreements with the Bible. You don’t need to reach out to the nut jobs. Most secular scholars have objections mainly related to the “spiritual” aspects, not the authenticity.
Bottom line, it’s obvious that no matter what truth or fact is presented, you are going to disagree. Jesus was REAL! Whether you believe that He was God or not, well that’s a different story.
3. The Gospels contain factual errors
It's hard to know where to start with this one or how to categorize the errors so I guess I'll just take the gospels one at a time starting with Mark.
Errors in Mark
Mark probably has the greatest number of factual inaccuracies. He makes mistakes of geography, custom and law. The trial before the Sanhedrin is Mark's invention and is a catalogue of errors unto itself but let's start with geography.
Geographical errors in Mark:
The Gerasene Demoniac:
In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.
If you look at a map you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.
Matthew reconized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.
Tyre to the Sea of Galilee through Sidon:
In 7:31, Mark says the following:
"And again he [Jesus] went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis."
There is at least one clear error here and arguably two. Tyre and Sidon are on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Mark says that Jesus went from Tyre through Sidon to get to the lake. But Sidon is north of Tyre. It's exactly the wrong direction. You cannot go through Sidon to get to Galilee from Tyre.
There also wasn't any road from Sidon southeast to Galilee but that's a minor point.
The other arguable error is that Mark seems to suggest that Jesus went through the Decapolis to get to the lake. The Decapolis was a cluster of ten Greek cities, most of which were located to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee.
Mark's meaning is a little awkward even in Greek. He says ...ana meson ton horion decapoleos; literally, "...up through the middle of the borders of the Decapolis."
Now the "up" part is somewhat debatable. The preposition "ana" denotes upward movement and with the accusative can indicate either "up through" or just "through." In this case we find the construction "ana meson" which can mean "up through the middle of" or "into the middle of." It would clearly be a boner for Mark to say that Jesus went from Sidon "up through" the Decapolis to get to the lake. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and just translate it as "into the middle of" it still isn't quite clear what he means. There seems to still be an inplication that Mark thinks the Decapolis is between Sidon and the lake. It's possible that he means Jesus went to the lake first and then to the middle of the shores of the Decapolis but then we have a lake in the way (to get to middle of the shores of the Decapolis) and Mark says nothing about another lake crossing here. It is also possible that Mark is truncating a description of a journey which goes all the way around the lake to the south and then goes "up through" the Decapolis to get the middle of southeastern shore of the lake. If that's what he means, he picks a very confusing way to convey it. This may or may not be an error but I mention it because it's said directly in conjunction with another error and the entire verse gives an impression that Mark did not have an accurate understanding of the geography he was describing.
Crossing the Jordan into Judea
Mark 10:1 says that Jesus travelled down from Capernaum then crossed the Jordan into Judea. But crossing to the east bank of the river would have put him outside of Judea into Perea. Furthermore, travelling from Capernaum to Judea would have entailed going through Samaria, a hostile territory which Jews habitually avoided. Customarily, travellers from Galilee to Judea crossed the river north of Samaria, went south along the river in the Transjordan and then crossed back over to Judea. Mark seems to know that crossing the Jordan was part of the journey but doesn't seem to quite grasp the mechanics of the trip.
Of course it is possible that Mark just elided the initial crossing from his description, however what is actually in the text provides a misleading picture of the route.
Bethsaida and Gennesaret
In Mark 6 we get the story of Jesus walking on water. This occurs immediately after Mark's first loaves and fishes story:
(Mk. 6:45-53)
Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.
Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid.” 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.
53 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there.
Jesus tells the disciples to get in the boat and start heading across the lake to Bethsaida which was on the northeast shore. Jesus somehow gets rid of the crowd (usually this is accomplished by getting Elvis out of the building, not leaving him behind to clear the venue himself, but whatever) and then goes up a mountain to pray. That night the disciples get to the middle of the lake. Jesus sees them (somehow from the shore in the middle of the night) straining against the wind. He walks out to them on the surface of the water, the disciples freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he gets in the boat. Then they continue across the lake until they land in Gennesaret....which is on the northwest shore, the same side of the lake they presumably started on.
-
The Jesus Seminar is not a joke and they garner much respect in academia. I have read the Gospels as have many others who have all come to the conclusion that they are bullshit. Hitler is a terrible analogy. We have photos, film, written documentation by Hitler himself and numerous other pieces of evidence.
Even if the Gospels were eyewitness accounts:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257971.htm
The Gospels are so filled with contradictions that it hardly comprehensible that you would consider them 'inerrant' or 'eyewitness accounts'.
For many people, who possibly haven’t thought much about it, such a claim — that a story is based on an eyewitness account — provides a kind of guarantee of its accuracy. A moment’s reflection, though, shows that nothing could be farther from the truth. Simply consider any two eyewitness accounts of a particular event. Are they ever the same? Not exactly. Sometimes they differ in what they include and exclude, often they disagree on minor details, often they are at odds on issues of major importance (did she scream at him before he threatened her with a knife or afterward?), sometimes they flat out contradict each other; never do they tell the story in the same words.
If eyewitnesses were always completely accurate in what they say, we’d have no need for trials by jury. We could just ask someone what happened.
First, they are not filled with contradictions. In fact, they not only compliment each other, they validate each other.
I’m sorry that cameras were not yet invented, or we would have a picture of Jesus. We would have a Youtube video of Him being murdered and rising from the dead too. But after you watched the video you would not be able to tell anyone about what you saw because, did you really SEE it??? Did John F. Kennedy really get shot??? Because I saw a video of him getting shot with my own eyes and in spite of many conspiracy theories, nothing contradicts what I saw on the video. When his wife, who was an EYEWITNESS to him dying, talked about it ten years later, does that mean the event did not happen because she said she was an eyewitness??? Why is eyewitness testimony even allowed in court if it has no merit? What if two, three, four or even five hundred eyewitness testify, does that make the testimony more or less credible???
In First Corinthians the Apostle Paul testified that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were still living at the time of his testimony. Pretty hard to discredit.
My point is this, just because someone is an eyewitness doesn’t discredit the event. That’s like saying, people saw it so it must not be true. Or a comparative analogy is speech. Just because someone says something does not mean it’s true. However, that does not mean that every time someone speaks it is false. But if many people say the same thing it is more likely to be true and less likely to be false.
Take your “scholarly” Jesus Seminar friends, they make dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact or evidence all of the time. They are a perfect example.
BTW, even they agree that Jesus was in fact a real person. They just dent that He claimed to be God. (A statement which is ludicrous.)
Scholarly studies of the gospels make it quite clear that they could not have been written by eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe. Even if they were, though, they were not written down until decades after those events supposedly happen. During these decades, the witnesses would have swapped stories with others, pondered the events, heard about similar events, studies other tales, and so forth. All of these things would have contaminated the original memories immeasurably, making them completely unreliable under even the best circumstances.
Again, “scholarly” studies make it quite clear, how about you make it quite clear that they could not have been eyewitnesses.
Those are some very BOLD statements above. Stating as fact, they “would have” and “makes them completely unreliable”. Those are the 100% speculations and implications, not fact. Of course, they “Could” have, but not guaranteed. Just more dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact. The fact that someone would make such statements PROVES they are not scholarly.
-
Here's a picture of Jesus ;D
-
First, they are not filled with contradictions. In fact, they not only compliment each other, they validate each other.
I’m sorry that cameras were not yet invented, or we would have a picture of Jesus. We would have a Youtube video of Him being murdered and rising from the dead too. But after you watched the video you would not be able to tell anyone about what you saw because, did you really SEE it??? Did John F. Kennedy really get shot??? Because I saw a video of him getting shot with my own eyes and in spite of many conspiracy theories, nothing contradicts what I saw on the video. When his wife, who was an EYEWITNESS to him dying, talked about it ten years later, does that mean the event did not happen because she said she was an eyewitness??? Why is eyewitness testimony even allowed in court if it has no merit? What if two, three, four or even five hundred eyewitness testify, does that make the testimony more or less credible???
In First Corinthians the Apostle Paul testified that Jesus appeared to more than five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were still living at the time of his testimony. Pretty hard to discredit.
My point is this, just because someone is an eyewitness doesn’t discredit the event. That’s like saying, people saw it so it must not be true. Or a comparative analogy is speech. Just because someone says something does not mean it’s true. However, that does not mean that every time someone speaks it is false. But if many people say the same thing it is more likely to be true and less likely to be false.
Take your “scholarly” Jesus Seminar friends, they make dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact or evidence all of the time. They are a perfect example.
BTW, even they agree that Jesus was in fact a real person. They just dent that He claimed to be God. (A statement which is ludicrous.)
Again, “scholarly” studies make it quite clear, how about you make it quite clear that they could not have been eyewitnesses.
Those are some very BOLD statements above. Stating as fact, they “would have” and “makes them completely unreliable”. Those are the 100% speculations and implications, not fact. Of course, they “Could” have, but not guaranteed. Just more dogmatic assertions with no basis in fact. The fact that someone would make such statements PROVES they are not scholarly.
I see you have conveniently falied to address the nativity contradictions as well as the geographical contradictions....
-
Workin' on it.
I reply to the posts when I can. That one was pretty quick. The other one is lengthy.
-
Workin' on it.
I reply to the posts when I can. That one was pretty quick. The other one is lengthy.
Freakshow, I could list 100 obvious contradictions and you would sidestep them, ignore them or rationalise them. You want to believe in fairy tales, that's fine but it isn't intellecually mature. Why not believe in the Apollinius of Tyana? He has all the credentials of Jesus, lived during the same time and we actually have writing by him.
-
Freakshow, I could list 100 obvious contradictions and you would sidestep them, ignore them or rationalise them. You want to believe in fairy tales, that's fine but it isn't intellectually mature. Why not believe in the Apollinius of Tyana? He has all the credentials of Jesus, lived during the same time and we actually have writing by him.
I do not intend to 'sidestep' anything. I will address any so called contradictions. Fairy Tales are false stories that do not deal with reality. The Bible is not a fairy tale. I'm sorry that you feel that believing in the supernatural is intellectually immature. However, everything I believe has a very concrete basis in supported facts. Do not assume that I have not intellectually plumbed the depths of the Scriptures and it's claims. In fact, it is the exegesis of Scripture that is the foundation of my beliefs.
I find it very interesting that some of the worlds greatest minds refuse to look at the Scriptures as an option as an explanation for their existence. However, they will believe that we have evolved out of nothing. To me that is intellectually absurd. A Creater is the only logical and intelligent explanation.
As far as this Apollinius of Tyana character, I'm not familiar with him. You say he has the same credentials as Jesus? Did he perform many miracles, die and rise from the dead?
-
I do not intend to 'sidestep' anything. I will address any so called contradictions. Fairy Tales are false stories that do not deal with reality. The Bible is not a fairy tale. I'm sorry that you feel that believing in the supernatural is intellectually immature. However, everything I believe has a very concrete basis in supported facts. Do not assume that I have not intellectually plumbed the depths of the Scriptures and it's claims. In fact, it is the exegesis of Scripture that is the foundation of my beliefs.
I find it very interesting that some of the worlds greatest minds refuse to look at the Scriptures as an option as an explanation for their existence. However, they will believe that we have evolved out of nothing. To me that is intellectually absurd. A Creater is the only logical and intelligent explanation.
As far as this Apollinius of Tyana character, I'm not familiar with him. You say he has the same credentials as Jesus? Did he perform many miracles, die and rise from the dead?
Yes he did.
As to the ultimate origins of life, I must, for the sake of intellectual honesty, plead ignorance. I don't know and neither do you. But we can talk about historical probabilities and realities. Those things lie within the ream of examination and that's what I want to address.
Briefly however: we are stuck on a tiny mudball in a minor galaxy, a speck in a tiny corner of the universe, one of countless such corners. We have a star (the sun) that will one day turn into a supernova and annihilate this planet and everything in its path. To the best of our knowledge we have no evidence of life beyond our mudball of a planet, once again a pin prick of nothing floating around in a tiny galaxy amongst billions and billions of galaxies and people such as you have the gall and arrogance to claim that alleged events supposed to have taken place on a microscopic patch of desert on this speck of a planet a few thousand years ago, for which there is virtually no archaeological evidence, found in a book, cobbled together over many centuries, are the source of the entirety of existence, including the 125+billion galaxies and the trillions of stars and that the universe is here for the sake of our species and that two thousands ago a pseudo-continuation of the last cobbled together book, the 'son' of the raging and petty desert deity of nomadic goat herders, 'died' for the sins of all mankind, including those living in South America two thousand years prior and the ones who have never heard of him, simply due to geography...all of this is supposed to be the ultimate answer to all the questions of existence? I think not. It IS intellectually dishonest, whatever way you wish to look at it but ultimately it is an issue of psychology. There are those who need to believe such things and others who don't.
-
Yes he did.
As to the ultimate origins of life, I must, for the sake of intellectual honesty, plead ignorance. I don't know and neither do you. But we can talk about historical probabilities and realities. Those things lie within the ream of examination and that's what I want to address.
Briefly however: we are stuck on a tiny mudball in a minor galaxy, a speck in a tiny corner of the universe, one of countless such corners. We have a star (the sun) that will one day turn into a supernova and annihilate this planet and everything in its path. To the best of our knowledge we have no evidence of life beyond our mudball of a planet, once again a pin prick of nothing floating around in a tiny galaxy amongst billions and billions of galaxies and people such as you have the gall and arrogance to claim that alleged events supposed to have taken place on a microscopic patch of desert on this speck of a planet a few thousand years ago, for which there is virtually no archaeological evidence, found in a book, cobbled together over many centuries, are the source of the entirety of existence, including the 125+billion galaxies and the trillions of stars and that the universe is here for the sake of our species and that two thousands ago a pseudo-continuation of the last cobbled together book, the 'son' of the raging and petty desert deity of nomadic goat herders, 'died' for the sins of all mankind, including those living in South America two thousand years prior and the ones who have never heard of him, simply due to geography...all of this is supposed to be the ultimate answer to all the questions of existence? I think not. It IS intellectually dishonest, whatever way you wish to look at it but ultimately it is an issue of psychology. There are those who need to believe such things and others who don't.
owned ;D
-
Why did jesus and all christians for that matter pick a sumerian cross to represent its religion?
-
owned ;D
Yes, I owned his arse big time! ;D
-
owned ;D
owned ;D
Huh??? Owned???
Was it the fact that in his statement he actually expressed the Majesty of God the Creator by naming some of the Galaxies, etc that he can't explain?????
Pay attention son, ain't nobody "ownin'" me!
Remember, I HAVE an answer as to how the Universe was Created!
Now go back to sucking your thumb and while trying to understand the complexities of these posts.
-
Huh??? Owned???
Was it the fact that in his statement he actually expressed the Majesty of God the Creator by naming some of the Galaxies, etc that he can't explain?????
Pay attention son, ain't nobody "ownin'" me!
Remember, I HAVE an answer as to how the Universe was Created!
Now go back to sucking your thumb and while trying to understand the complexities of these posts.
With a response like that, what can I say? You HAVE BEEN OWNED.... ;D
-
You are right in saying that Christianity is based on Faith. That is absolutely true. I BELIEVE in Jesus Christ the Lord God and His Holy Spirit. AMEN!
I am a Chistian that not only believe's, but KNOWS. God has proven Himself true by the FACTS in the Bible and in my life.
So if I'm confronted with evidence that is proven, such as miracles and Jesus being raised from the dead, and I accept that evidence, I am a liar???
Evidence that God "is": YOU being "CREATED" and Jesus rising from the dead!
I challenge you my friend, to provide me evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the God DOES NOT exist!
There is no evidence of Jesus being raised from the dead.
If you claim this, you are a liar, or just not scholared in the Bible.
There are however testimonials of Jesus being raised from the dead.
Big difference.
Testimonials - not evidence.
So I ask you once again, present me an evidence that God exists.
You may want to consider why many Christian scholars have experienced doubt, and why it is considered a natural phase by many.
But lets see the evidence.
-
I do not intend to 'sidestep' anything.
I will address any so called contradictions. Fairy Tales are false stories that do not deal with reality. The Bible is not a fairy tale. I'm sorry that you feel that believing in the supernatural is intellectually immature. However, everything I believe has a very concrete basis in supported facts.[/b] Do not assume that I have not intellectually plumbed the depths of the Scriptures and it's claims. In fact, it is the exegesis of Scripture that is the foundation of my beliefs.
I find it very interesting that some of the worlds greatest minds refuse to look at the Scriptures as an option as an explanation for their existence. However, they will believe that we have evolved out of nothing. To me that is intellectually absurd. A Creater is the only logical and intelligent explanation.
As far as this Apollinius of Tyana character, I'm not familiar with him. You say he has the same credentials as Jesus? Did he perform many miracles, die and rise from the dead?
Still waiting.......
(this ought to be good ;D)
PS: Proving that a book is true becuase it says so in the book is not proof.
-
There is no evidence of Jesus being raised from the dead.
If you claim this, you are a liar, or just not scholared in the Bible.
There are however testimonials of Jesus being raised from the dead.
Big difference.
Testimonials - not evidence.
So I ask you once again, present me an evidence that God exists.
You may want to consider why many Christian scholars have experienced doubt, and why it is considered a natural phase by many.
But lets see the evidence.
First, you throw around the word "liar" quite easily. That's not very respectful.
It's interesting how people on this board will call people disrespectful names and make all kinds of character assassinations. Even the hardest core gang members in Compton would not say something like that to my face.
You don't call HUNDREDS of EYEWITNESSES to His post resurrection life "evidence"??? How about even his enemies stating that His body is NOT in the "Guarded" tomb??? How about the testimony of the man His enemies "paid" to lie and say that His disciples stole His body???
How about the fact that there is NO "evidence" that He did NOT rise from the dead??? Don't you think that with all of the followers of Jesus running around proclaiming that fact the He had risen from the dead, there would have been an urgent need by His enemies and the Government which put Him to death, to prove the statement false??? Well, they attempted and failed!
We know that they faced torture, vilification and severely cruel deaths, for what they fervently believed to be true, it is inconceivable that they would have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie. As Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard put it: “If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operator to lead them to discover and avow their error…If then their testimony was not true , there was no possible motive for this fabrication.”
It is only human to experience doubt. In fact, I think God allows that doubt to encourage deeper investigation. He knows that the deeper we investigate the more convinced we will become. That’s what happens, TRUTH is pretty convincing!
-
I see you have conveniently falied to address the nativity contradictions as well as the geographical contradictions....
Here's Hank Hanegraaff's reply to the statement you cut and pasted:
BETHLEHEM OR BUST
[/b]
Jesus Seminar fellow Marcus Borg gave one of the more curious suggestions in The Search For Jesus with his claim that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. The reasoning used to come to this conclusion would be interesting if it were not so insidious. First, the assertion is made that only two Gospels deal with the place of Christ’s birth, and they tell it differently. Luke says Jesus was born in a manger while Matthew says Jesus is born at home. Further, it is argued that there is no record outside the Gospels that Caesar Augustus ordered a worldwide taxation. Moreover, a man was taxed where he worked and women were not even counted. Therefore, Mary and Joseph would not have had to travel to Bethlehem. Finally, it is suggested that people were known by the place where they were born. Since Jesus is known as Jesus of Nazareth, He must have been born there — not Bethlehem.
At times, the statements made in The Search For Jesus are so bizarre that one hardly knows where to begin to refute. Take, for example, Borg’s presumptuous argument that Matthew and Luke provide different (i.e., contradictory) information concerning Christ’s birth in Bethlehem, and, therefore, neither one is to be trusted. In reality, there is nothing in Matthew that contradicts Luke. To present the appearance of a contradiction Borg says that according to Matthew Jesus was “born at home.” Matthew, however, says nothing of the sort — Borg simply fabricates this statement.
Far from being contradictory, the differences between the Gospel accounts are clearly complementary. Luke adds details to Matthew’s account, such as Christ’s birth taking place in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. Differences between the Gospels not only demonstrate that they did not rely on one another but also add weight to their authenticity. In the words of historian Dr. Paul Barnett, “The differences in the narratives indicate that not only were Matthew and Luke isolated from each other when they wrote, but also that the sources on which they depended were quite separate. Yet from these underlying source strands we have detailed agreement about where Jesus was born, when, to which parents, and the miraculous circumstances of his conception.”11
Furthermore, Jennings’ statement that there is no record outside of the Gospels that Emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a worldwide taxation is not only presumptuous but also patently false. In truth, Caesar Augustus was famous for his census taking — so famous, in fact, that credible historians do not even debate the issue. The Jewish historian Josephus, for example, refers to a Roman taxation of A.D. 6.12 Considering the scope of this taxation, it is logical to assume that it took a long time to complete. It no doubt began with Caesar Augustus about 5 B.C. and was completed approximately a decade later. Luke, a meticulous historian, notes that the census was first completed when Quirinius was governor of Syria.13 In fact, as historian Paul Maier explained during a Bible Answer Man broadcast, “The Romans took 40 years to get a census done in Gaul. For a province 1,500 miles away from Rome in Palestine to take a decade is pretty quick. And since that census would finally come in under Quirinius’s administration, it would be called correctly by Luke his census.”14
Given Luke’s impeccable credentials as a historian, it would have been far more circumspect for Jennings to give him the benefit of the doubt. One need only remember the experience of the brilliant archeologist Sir William Ramsay who set out to disprove Luke’s historical reliability. Through his painstaking Mediterranean archeological trips, he discovered that, one after the other, the historical allusions of Luke proved accurate. If, as Ramsay points out, Luke does not err in referencing a plethora of countries, cities, and islands, there is no reason to doubt him concerning this census.15
Jennings’s assertion that men were taxed where they lived and women didn’t count is also spurious. Maier cites a first-century Roman census in Egypt, in which taxpayers living elsewhere were ordered to return to their homelands for registration.16 Furthermore, a Roman census from Bacchius, Egypt, dated A.D. 119, historically documents that women and children were registered by their husbands or fathers.17
Finally, Borg’s assertion that Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth and thus must have been born there instead of in Bethlehem is also dead wrong. Countless counterexamples undermine his hypothesis. For instance, Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 175–195) was probably a native of Smyrna, where as a boy he perhaps studied and taught at Rome before moving to Lyons;18 Lucian of Antioch (c. 240–312) was born at Samosata but completed his education and eventually led the theological schools at Antioch;19 Paul of Constantinople (d. c. 351) was a native of Thessalonica and became bishop of Constantinople.20 These men were born in one place but later moved to another with which their names became associated, as did Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem but lived the vast majority of His life in Nazareth. History shows that in the broader context of people’s lives several factors influence how they may be known.
More importantly, because the Bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem, we can rest assured that He was born in Bethlehem! While Borg’s scholarship is consistently suspect, the Bible is demonstrably divine rather than human in origin. We therefore should believe the Bible over Borg. Several approaches show the God-breathed nature, and thus utter trustworthiness, of Scripture, one of which, as I alluded to earlier, is through Jesus’ historically verifiable claim to deity and resurrection from the dead in vindication of that claim.21 In the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly validated the Old Testament and guaranteed the veracity of the New Testament.22 Speaking as God, Christ’s pronouncements are true, and, therefore, so is everything the Bible teaches, including all that pertains to His miraculous birth.
-
Still waiting.......
(this ought to be good ;D)
PS: Proving that a book is true becuase it says so in the book is not proof.
Don't ignore the fact that the Bible is one of the most Historically Accurate books of all time, thus only adding to it's credibility.
When a book makes statements that claim to be true, and when investigated, are in fact verified to be true, I guess that makes it true ;)
-
god is imaginary...
the only true god is: THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER (hey! everything is true, they have a book ;D )
-
Don't ignore the fact that the Bible is one of the most Historically Accurate books of all time, thus only adding to it's credibility.
When a book makes statements that claim to be true, and when investigated, are in fact verified to be true, I guess that makes it true ;)
Such as what?
Provide some examples.
Still waiting.
Remember, IF the Bible is the word of God, everything in it must be true and not contradictory.
-
Such as what?
Provide some examples.
Still waiting.
Remember, IF the Bible is the word of God, everything in it must be true and not contradictory.
I'm really not going to go through and list all of the historically accurate info in the Bible.
Take for example the life of Pontius Pilot, for many years sceptics ran around proclaiming that he did not exist nor the area in which he governed. Low and behold, a few years ago archaeologists dug up an ancient monument with his name on it in the very area they said did not exist.
-
I'm really not going to go through and list all of the historically accurate info in the Bible.
Take for example the life of Pontius Pilot, for many years sceptics ran around proclaiming that he did not exist nor the area in which he governed. Low and behold, a few years ago archaeologists dug up an ancient monument with his name on it in the very area they said did not exist.
How does that make Jesus's walking on water a fact?
I'm not asking you to list ALL, i asked you to give some examples.
Any more you'd like to try?
BTW. Before you waste too much time giving examples....just becuase places and people in the bible can be identified in some scriptures, it doesn't mean All the other ones are true and it doesn't mean the instances of fairy tail like events are also true.
If it was the case, then Greek mythology would be true becuase we know where Mt. Olympus is.
If you don't agree, prove otherwise.
PS: You didn't address anything regarding traps geological contradictions. You simply cut and pasted something. Break it down, show where those contradictions are not true.
Because, Freak, you seem to be all talk and no substance. In other words you do very little backing up of what you say.
(odds are 6 to 1 you will not directly address Traps geological contradictions or any of the questions i asked but instead you'll regurgitate some bible thumper rhetoric)
-
How does that make Jesus's walking on water a fact?
PS: I'm not asking you to list ALL, i asked you to give some examples.
Any more?
How does you not believing that Jesus walking on water make it not a fact that He did?
Obviously, some things will remain unproven. However, that does not make them untrue. In fact, there are more evidences the He did walk on water than there are that He did not. For example, there are eyewitness testimonies stating that He did. There are NO testimonies during the same time period stating that He did not.
So what is more likely to be true? Obviously the statements that have gone un contradicted.
Historical Example: (Sorry for the cut & paste, I'm pretty bust right now.)
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) has been called the greatest historian on ancient Rome. He lived during the reign of several Roman emperors and was a Roman historian and a governor of Asia [Turkey] in AD 112. He wrote two major works: Annals and the Histories. The following is a quote from the Annals.
Reference To Jesus Christ
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. - Annals 15.44
Conclusion
This reference reveals several key things:
1) Christ lived during the reign of Tiberius (AD 14-37).
2) Pontius Pilate put him to death.
3) The word "superstition" suggests a religion.
4) Christ had followers who were named Christians.
5) The Christians suffered under Nero and they were hated by others.
-
How does you not believing that Jesus walking on water make it not a fact that He did?
Obviously, some things will remain unproven. However, that does not make them untrue. In fact, there are more evidences the He did walk on water than there are that He did not. For example, there are eyewitness testimonies stating that He did. There are NO testimonies during the same time period stating that He did not.
So what is more likely to be true? Obviously the statements that have gone un contradicted.
Freak,
1. We don't have all the testimonies from every person there.
2. We don't have all the original testimonies
3. We're not completely sure who even wrote the testimonies to begin with
4. These testimonies are 2nd hand, not from every person that allegedly witnesses it
5. The testimonies, if you can even call them that, were written 40 years after the event.
All we do have is is what's written in the bible.
Hardly proof in any capacity.
Regarding your cut and paste:
that has nothing to do with what Jesus did, but only that he existed.
BTW. Before you waste too much time giving examples....just becuase places and people in the bible can be identified in some scriptures, it doesn't mean All the other ones are true and it doesn't mean the instances of fairy tail like events are also true.
If it was the case, then Greek mythology would be true becuase we know where Mt. Olympus is.
If you don't agree, prove otherwise.
-
PS: You didn't address anything regarding traps geological contradictions. You simply cut and pasted something. Break it down, show where those contradictions are not true.
Because, Freak, you seem to be all talk and no substance. In other words you do very little backing up of what you say.
(odds are 6 to 1 you will not directly address Traps geological contradictions or any of the questions i asked but instead you'll regurgitate some bible thumper rhetoric)
First, I am not a Geological expert so I need to look those things up and that takes time. It's actually funny to me that Trap would post something as ridiculous as that statement. Does he have topographical maps from that time period to back up what he is stating?
As far as being all talk and no substance, you seem to be ignoring all of the facts that you are presented. I have continually provided supporting fact to back up what I say. You just choose to disregard them.
Is that how you confront facts, by disregarding them and off the cuff remarks like "you're all talk". You have to deal with the facts you have been confronted with over and over again throughout this thread and others. From what I've seen here on this thread all of the Christians seem to much more than just talk. I don't think you are used to dealing with people that actually have knowledge about the facts.
What have I not addressed? Anything that is true in the Bible is Bible thumper rhetoric to you.
-
Freak,
Imagine if you had to prove someone's innocence with the logic you use to prove Jesus walked on water.
You go into court and say: I have testimonials (dispositions, statements from witnesses)
BUT,
I don't have th originals they wrote on,
What I do have is a copied statement that can be verified up to 100 years after the originals were written by someone who wrote about the event 40 years after it happened.
Now how far do you think you'd get?
-
First, I am not a Geological expert so I need to look those things up and that takes time. It's actually funny to me that Trap would post something as ridiculous as that statement. Does he have topographical maps from that time period to back up what he is stating?
As far as being all talk and no substance, you seem to be ignoring all of the facts that you are presented. I have continually provided supporting fact to back up what I say. You just choose to disregard them.
Look at a map. You don't need to be an expert. Or draw it out.
Also you haven't provided supporting facts, you've provided supporting opinions.
Is that how you confront facts, by disregarding them and off the cuff remarks like "you're all talk". You have to deal with the facts you have been confronted with over and over again throughout this thread and others. From what I've seen here on this thread all of the Christians seem to much more than just talk. I don't think you are used to dealing with people that actually have knowledge about the facts.
What have I not addressed? Anything that is true in the Bible is Bible thumper rhetoric to you.
loco has the most knowledge i've seen here. He posts good arguments and uses supporting facts. You on the other hand you are not doing that. You said becuase it is written that people witnessed it, it must be true. People have wrote that they witnessed all kinds of crap and we have the actual documents they wrote it on.
You on the other don't even have the actual documents.
So that's very far from "legitimate" facts, Freak.
-
Freak,
1. We don't have all the testimonies from every person there.
2. We don't have all the original testimonies
3. We're not completely sure who even wrote the testimonies to begin with
4. These testimonies are 2nd hand, not from every person that allegedly witnesses it
5. The testimonies, if you can even call them that, were written 40 years after the event.
1. How do you know? We do have testimony from people that were there.
2. We have original testimonies. I don't know what you mean by all.
3. That is not true. We are sure. You just don't accept it.
4. "Some" may be second hand. However, there are some EYEWITNESS testimonies as well.
5.You don't know that, and if so, that does not make them false.
All we do have is is what's written in the bible.
Hardly proof in any capacity.
Well then I guess you have to take it at face value if you do not have anything that contradicts it.
The truth is the truth unless it is disproved.
Regarding your cut and paste:
that has nothing to do with what Jesus did, but only that he existed.
You asked for some "historical facts", that's what I gave you. It was not an attempt to prove what Jesus did.
BTW. Before you waste too much time giving examples....just because places and people in the bible can be identified in some scriptures, it doesn't mean All the other ones are true and it doesn't mean the instances of fairy tail like events are also true.
You're right. However, it does prove that the Bible is NOT historically inaccurate. Thus lending to it's credibility.
If it was the case, then Greek mythology would be true because we know where Mt. Olympus is.
If you don't agree, prove otherwise.
Greek "Mythology" is exactly that, "Mythology". There is no proof to back that up.
The Bible is much different, real people, real lives, real miracles, etc.
-
Freak,
Imagine if you had to prove someone's innocence with the logic you use to prove Jesus walked on water.
You go into court and say: I have testimonials (dispositions, statements from witnesses)
BUT,
I don't have th originals they wrote on,
What I do have is a copied statement that can be verified up to 100 years after the originals were written by someone who wrote about the event 40 years after it happened.
Now how far do you think you'd get?
1. I don't need to prove Jesus walked on water. (If He can rise from the dead, I have no doubt that He can walk on water.) Epically since there is nothing to contradict it.
2. Same arguments people used to make about all of the "so called" inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the text. Then they found the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I think I'd get pretty far, considering there is no evidence to contradict my evidence.
How far do you think you'll get by simply saying "He didn't do that", when you have absolutely no evidence or even testimony to show that He didn't.
-
god... damn!
A god is a being created by humans and given supernatural powers or attributes such as immortality, omniscience, telekinesis, and invisibility. These creations serve many purposes, such as imaginary protection from enemies or explanations for the origin of such things as good and evil, fire and wind, or life and death.
Gods are often the central figures around which religions are built. It is often claimed that religion began in fear and superstition. The same might be said for gods.
Some religions maintain that there is just one God and that all the gods of all religions except theirs were created by human beings. Yet, everyone who believes in a god of some sort believes their god is real.
Since gods are supernatural, they exist outside the bounds and laws of space and time. They can possess any of an infinite array of magical powers. Hence, there is no way to prove or disprove their reality. One might say: If gods exist, anything goes!
-
Look at a map. You don't need to be an expert. Or draw it out.
Also you haven't provided supporting facts, you've provided supporting opinions.
loco has the most knowledge i've seen here. He posts good arguments and uses supporting facts. You on the other hand you are not doing that. You said becuase it is written that people witnessed it, it must be true. People have wrote that they witnessed all kinds of crap and we have the actual documents they wrote it on.
You on the other don't even have the actual documents.
So that's very far from "legitimate" facts, Freak.
Sorry I don't have a video of Jesus walking on water ???
-
1. How do you know? We do have testimony from people that were there.
there are 4 gospels. Where there only 4 people who saw him walk on water?
2. We have original testimonies. I don't know what you mean by all.
Do we have the original papyrus, copper, or clay they were written on? No, what we have are reproductions. How do we know those reproductions are accurate if we don't have the originals?
3. That is not true. We are sure. You just don't accept it.
Was Jesus's name Jesus or something else? Was Gospels writer's names John, Matt, Luke and Mark? Were those Hebrew names? do we have other original writings from them that are not in the bible and are not reproduced?
4. "Some" may be second hand. However, there are some EYEWITNESS testimonies as well.
But we don;t have everyone's eyewitness accounts. Not to mention eyewitness accounts have historicallhy had a percantage of inaccuracy, just ask any police officer.
5.You don't know that, and if so, that does not make them false.
It's been commonly accepted they were written many years after Jesus's death. Look in to it.
Well then I guess you have to take it at face value if you do not have anything that contradicts it.
The truth is the truth unless it is disproved.
By that logic then all the things Mohamand did, all his miracles etc... are true also. and so are every written fairy tale or illogical event involving witnesses.
think freak, think.
You asked for some "historical facts", that's what I gave you. It was not an attempt to prove what Jesus did.
I asked for historical facts that prove what he did.
Greek "Mythology" is exactly that, "Mythology". There is no proof to back that up.
The Bible is much different, real people, real lives, real miracles, etc.
Greek mythology involved real people and real lives, the only difference is that main stream society and religious doctrine have labeled Greek mythology as just that while it labeled the exact same thing in the bible as fact.
both are the same, both involve real people and real places.
Just like the Koran.
-
1. I don't need to prove Jesus walked on water. (If He can rise from the dead, I have no doubt that He can walk on water.) Epically since there is nothing to contradict it.
2. Same arguments people used to make about all of the "so called" inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the text. Then they found the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I think I'd get pretty far, considering there is no evidence to contradict my evidence.
How far do you think you'll get by simply saying "He didn't do that", when you have absolutely no evidence or even testimony to show that He didn't.
Freak, sigh........
What i'm telling you is that what you call facts or proof aren't that at all.
Sorry I don't have a video of Jesus walking on water ???
then if you can't prove it it's not a fact. It's a belief.
You believe Jesus walked on water and you don;t have any provable fact to back it up with.
Why can't you just admit that.
I can admit my belief in god is based mostly on belief and not provable facts. It doesn't change what i believe.
-
The Gerasene Demoniac:
In Mark 5:1, Jesus and company sail across the Sea of Galilee and come to "the land of the Gerasenes." There they encounter a man possessed by unclean spirits. Jesus drives out the spirits, the spirits enter some pigs and the pigs run down a hill and jump into the lake.
If you look at a map you can see that Gerasa is 30 miles south southeast of the lake. That's a pretty big jump for those pigs. There is also no 30 mile long embankment running down from Gerasa to the lake.
Matthew reconized Mark's blunder and tried to correct Gerasa to Gadara (the Matthew story also contains two demoniacs instead of one so Matthew's version of the story contains two contradictions with Mark) but Gadara was still six miles from the lake. Luke retains Gerasa in his version indicating that Luke didn't know much about Palestinian geography either.
Mark 5:1 “They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes.”
“They came to the other side of the sea” is the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee.
“into the country of the Gerasenes.” Most likely refers to the small town of Gersa (which today is possibly the modern village of Khersa), which was located midway on the eastern shore.
‘country of” refers to the general region that included Gersa and was under the jurisdiction of the city of Gadara, which was located six miles SE of the Sea of Galilee; this is probably why Luke referred to the region as the country of the Gadarenes.
I have attached an image of the modern day hillside which has a steep hillside directly into the Sea. Apparently, the men traversing the land at the time had more knowledge of Palestinian geography than you.
As far as Matthew’s version contradicting Mark’s because it contains two demon possessed men, I disagree. Matthew’s account includes “additional” information, not contradictory. Mark and Luke focused on the one that was obviously more predominant. The text states that when the demons gave their name it was “Legion”, which means many. It makes sense that they would focus on him because it was the greatest demonstration of Jesus’ power.
-
flying spaghetti monster!!! touched by his noodly appendage!!!
-
Freak, sigh........
What i'm telling you is that what you call facts or proof aren't that at all.
then if you can't prove it it's not a fact. It's a belief.
You believe Jesus walked on water and you don;t have any provable fact to back it up with.
Why can't you just admit that.
I can admit my belief in god is based mostly on belief and not provable facts. It doesn't change what i believe.
They are facts if they have testimony from trustworthy sources that have NOT been contradicted.
I believe Jesus walked on water because I have been provided with evidence that has NOT been contradicted. Until it is, you have to believe what the eyewitnesses state. I'm not just "believing" for the sake of believing.
See that's where you and I differ, you MUST admit to believing without provable facts. Whereas I have provable facts in the Bible and history to back up my beliefs. I have faith. You have a blind faith. VERY big difference!
-
there are 4 gospels. Where there only 4 people who saw him walk on water?
Do we need anymore???
Do we have the original papyrus, copper, or clay they were written on? No, what we have are reproductions. How do we know those reproductions are accurate if we don't have the originals
Same argument I referred to earlier regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls which proved the text to be accurate. We have over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone.
Was Jesus' name Jesus or something else? Was Gospels writer's names John, Matt, Luke and Mark? Were those Hebrew names? do we have other original writings from them that are not in the bible and are not reproduced?
I’m not going to spend to much time on this, because what you want is a PHd course in Theology at the behest of my tying fingers. Here’s an excerpt from (Robert Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, Chicago, Moody Press, 1959, pp. 70,71,85.)
“In 144 cases of transliteration from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Moabite into Hebrew and in 40 cases of the opposite, or 184 in all, the evidence shows that for 2300 to 3900 years the text of the proper names in the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with the most minute accuracy. That the original scribes should have written them with such conformity to correct philological principles is a wonderful proof of their thorough care and scholarship; further, that the Hebrew text should have been transmitted by copyists through so many centuries is a phenomenon unequaled in the history of literature…There are about forty of these kings living from 2000 B.C. to 400 B.C. Each appears in chronological order… with reference to kings of other countries… no stronger evidence for the substantial accuracy of the Old Testament records could possibly be imagined, than this collection of kings. Mathematically, it is one chance in 750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that this accuracy is mere circumstance… The proof that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with substantial correctness for more than 2000 years cannot be denied.”
The evidence is clear that the Bible has been transmitted to us in an accurate manner.
But we don;t have everyone's eyewitness accounts. Not to mention eyewitness accounts have historicallhy had a percantage of inaccuracy, just ask any police officer.
I doubt that there is a time when we have “everyone’s” eyewitness accounts to an event. But that’s irrelevant. We HAVE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY! You keep disregarding that. It’s like you’re a broken record.
It's been commonly accepted they were written many years after Jesus's death. Look in to it.
I’m not disputing that. Remember, that does not make them false or inaccurate.
I simply stated that you do not know that they were NOT written earlier. As I stated in an earlier post, the writer could have begun witting immediately and completed at a later time. We also do not know whether they had “notes” that they wrote at the time.
By that logic then all the things Mohamand did, all his miracles etc... are true also. and so are every written fairy tale or illogical event involving witnesses.
think freak, think.
Look, I’m not going to start getting into the Koran and Mohammad too. I’m going to focus on the Bible. Which is PROVEN TO BE ACCURATE and UNCHANGED. That cannot be stated of the Koran. In addition, we have a significantly greater amount of manuscripts and supporting documents for the Bible. Which was written much closer to the times the actual events occurred.
Greek mythology involved real people and real lives, the only difference is that main stream society and religious doctrine have labeled Greek mythology as just that while it labeled the exact same thing in the bible as fact.
both are the same, both involve real people and real places.
Just like the Koran.
If what Jesus said is true, “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me.”, and everything in the Bible continues to confirm that He did what He said, rising from the dead, miracles, etc. I don’t need to waste my time refuting what other books or myths say, when the Bible is true. Now, if it were proven to be false that would be a different story.
-
flying spaghetti monster!!! touched by his noodly appendage!!!
Dude, move on.
Unless you have some intellectual discussion.
Go play in the Gossip boards.
-
Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense#Otherwise
Great. Fucking. Post.
8)
-
They are facts if they have testimony from trustworthy sources that have NOT been contradicted.
I believe Jesus walked on water because I have been provided with evidence that has NOT been contradicted. Until it is, you have to believe what the eyewitnesses state. I'm not just "believing" for the sake of believing.
See that's where you and I differ, you MUST admit to believing without provable facts. Whereas I have provable facts in the Bible and history to back up my beliefs. I have faith. You have a blind faith. VERY big difference!
What provable facts are you talking about?
Certainly not the 2nd hand reproduced testimonies which are no different from Greek mythology or the Koran/
-
What provable facts are you talking about?
Certainly not the 2nd hand reproduced testimonies which are no different from Greek mythology or the Koran/
Certainly not the second hand?? You've seem to discount the first hand testimony of the a Apostles to the miracles of Jesus.
And as far as reproduction, we've covered the ACCURACY of the reproductions in previous posts. You SURELY are NOT contesting the "accuracy" of the reproductions??? I have three words for you..... DEAD SEA SCROLLS ;)
-
Dude, move on.
Unless you have some intellectual discussion.
Go play in the Gossip boards.
lmao, funny cause i find your story and answers not better than mine
you see the flying spaghetti monster is as valide as your GOD, no evidences, no proof...... nothing
except words taking from a book writen by man..... created by man, and any gods are creations of man!
It was once the case that most people believed the world to be flat. Widespread belief did not change the fact that the world is a sphere. The scientific and observational evidence that we have available today is undeniable -- the world is a sphere.
All scientific evidence shows that God is imaginary. So does all historical evidence. This leads any RATIONAL PERSON to conclude that Christian beliefs are pure mythology. Christianity is just like every other mythology that mankind has dreamed up through the ages...
GOD IS IMAGINARY ...... maybe one day....... you'll wake up, thank buddy.
now i'll go play in G.O........ but...... i'll be back
-
Do we need anymore???
Sorry man, but you kind of thick sometimes.
Were there more than 4 people who saw Jesus walk on water?
Do you have there testimonies?
Same argument I referred to earlier regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls which proved the text to be accurate. We have over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone.
Again, being thick.
You don't have the originals. the originals documents (copper papyrus, clay etc..) the gospels were written on. you have reproduction dated 100 years after they were written.
I’m not going to spend to much time on this, because what you want is a PHd course in Theology at the behest of my tying fingers. Here’s an excerpt from (Robert Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, Chicago, Moody Press, 1959, pp. 70,71,85.)
“In 144 cases of transliteration from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Moabite into Hebrew and in 40 cases of the opposite, or 184 in all, the evidence shows that for 2300 to 3900 years the text of the proper names in the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with the most minute accuracy. That the original scribes should have written them with such conformity to correct philological principles is a wonderful proof of their thorough care and scholarship; further, that the Hebrew text should have been transmitted by copyists through so many centuries is a phenomenon unequaled in the history of literature…There are about forty of these kings living from 2000 B.C. to 400 B.C. Each appears in chronological order… with reference to kings of other countries… no stronger evidence for the substantial accuracy of the Old Testament records could possibly be imagined, than this collection of kings. Mathematically, it is one chance in 750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that this accuracy is mere circumstance… The proof that the copies of the original documents have been handed down with substantial correctness for more than 2000 years cannot be denied.”
The evidence is clear that the Bible has been transmitted to us in an accurate manner.
What a bunch of crap!!! ::) I'm sure this is from fundy sources.
If you don't have the original you don't know how accurate the copy is.
And even then, can you remember events and words spoken just 10 years ago? I think not.
We HAVE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY!
No you don't. eye witness testimony is something you get in court form the person. Gosh, what world do you live in?
What you have is:
- Reproductions (written accounts) who's accuracy cannot be verified or originality cannot be authenticated.
I’m not disputing that. Remember, that does not make them false or inaccurate.
I simply stated that you do not know that they were NOT written earlier. As I stated in an earlier post, the writer could have begun witting immediately and completed at a later time. We also do not know whether they had “notes” that they wrote at the time.
It makes them suspect and probable to be inaccurate. Again, can you tell with 100% accuracy words and events from 10 years ago? Much less 40 years ago?
Look, I’m not going to start getting into the Koran and Mohammad too. I’m going to focus on the Bible. Which is PROVEN TO BE ACCURATE and UNCHANGED. That cannot be stated of the Koran. In addition, we have a significantly greater amount of manuscripts and supporting documents for the Bible. Which was written much closer to the times the actual events occurred.
You haven't proved a single thing yet. And you cannot refute the comparison of the Koran and it's eye witnesses to your bible's eye witnesses.
your logic would be laughed at in the court of law and even more by a group of neutral scholars.
If what Jesus said is true, “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me.”, and everything in the Bible continues to confirm that He did what He said, rising from the dead, miracles, etc. I don’t need to waste my time refuting what other books or myths say, when the Bible is true. Now, if it were proven to be false that would be a different story.
Again you are using words in a book to prove the book is true. No different than greek mythology or the noodle god.
and yes, you don't need to research other religions becuase your afraid of what you will find.
And yes, the bible has many contradictions in it. It's the Brainwashed folk who have traded in their common sense that will always make excuses for it.
Read these posts, you still haven't address the contradictions of geography.
Why?
Are you afraid?
-
Certainly not the second hand?? You've seem to discount the first hand testimony of the a Apostles to the miracles of Jesus.
And as far as reproduction, we've covered the ACCURACY of the reproductions in previous posts. You SURELY are NOT contesting the "accuracy" of the reproductions??? I have three words for you..... DEAD SEA SCROLLS ;)
Freak,
Are you assuming incorrectly written examples of the (biblical not gnostic) Gospels were discovered in the dead sea scrolls?
Further more, and i'll say yet again:
Even then, they are not the original documents John, mark, luke, and matt wrote there gospels on.
-
wait wait wait he will come up with an epic copy past answer in a minute.
anything writen by man is no proof what so ever....
-
Freak,
Are you assuming incorrectly written examples of the (biblical not gnostic) Gospels were discovered in the dead sea scrolls?
Further more, and i'll say yet again:
Even then, they are not the original documents John, mark, luke, and matt wrote there gospels on.
You were questioning the accuracy of "reproductions" of Biblical text, so I gave you evidence that the reproductions in the Bible are accurate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained manuscripts from ALL of the books of the Old Testament expect for Esther. These manuscripts validated that what we have in the Bible today is the SAME as it was in 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. This confirms that the reproductions are in fact accurate.
Do you think that the New Testament reproductions, much of which were written before 70 A.D. “all of a sudden” became inaccurate? I think not!
Also, I noted that we have over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone.
In addition, you are complete ignoring the rules of Textual Criticism, which when applied to the reproductions of the Bible prove them accurate more than any other literary work in ancient history.
-
wait wait wait he will come up with an epic copy past answer in a minute.
anything writen by man is no proof what so ever....
In case you haven't been paying attention.
Although, I may occasionally cut and paste something I am referring to to save time, I'm not a cut and paster ;)
-
so you are saying the bible is right... oooooook
and the bible as been update a lot of time, anyway
bible is right, there you go buddy:
ohhhhh yessssss, thats a copy past (cause i don't read the bible, i have enough fiction book at home)
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
on and on..........
-
You were questioning the accuracy of "reproductions" of Biblical text, so I gave you evidence that the reproductions in the Bible are accurate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained manuscripts from ALL of the books of the Old Testament expect for Esther. These manuscripts validated that what we have in the Bible today is the SAME as it was in 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. This confirms that the reproductions are in fact accurate.
I was questioning the accuracy of the Gospels in regards to Jesus walking on water. But just incase you interested in real facts here's the books that were in the DSS:
Psalms
Deuteronomy
1 Enoch
Genesis
Isaiah
Jubilees
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Minor Prophets
Daniel
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Job
1 & 2 Samuel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
i let you answer the question: Are those All the books of the OT as you said?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls)
and once again, those aren't original documents which even if they were don;t prove anything other than the copies from those periods didn't change.
Do you think that the New Testament reproductions, much of which were written before 70 A.D. are “all of a sudden” became inaccurate? I think not!
Absolutely and probably so.
- They were subject to religious doctrine
- They were assembled/chosen by a politically motivated group (Council of the Nicea)
- They probably weren't accurate in there originals due to them being written 40+ years after the events occured.
Also, I noted that we have over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone.
In addition, you are complete ignoring the rules of Textual Criticism, which when applied to the reproductions of the Bible prove them accurate more than any other literary work in ancient history.
How can you prove the accuracy of something with out the originals? ::)
-
so you are saying the bible is right... oooooook
and the bible as been update a lot of time, anyway
bible is right, there you go buddy:
ohhhhh yessssss, thats a copy past (cause i don't read the bible, i have enough fiction book at home)
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
on and on..........
remember god loves you!!!!!!!!
and he could of choose a reality without suffering, but yet he choose one in which you are given sexual organs yet cannot use them. i mean dolphins screw for fun, are they going to hell?
-
I was questioning the accuracy of the Gospels in regards to Jesus walking on water. But just incase you interested in real facts here's the books that were in the DSS:
Psalms
Deuteronomy
1 Enoch
Genesis
Isaiah
Jubilees
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Minor Prophets
Daniel
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Job
1 & 2 Samuel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
i let you answer the question: Are those All the books of the OT as you said?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls [/qoute]
Come on OzmO, I know you didn't just quote Wikipeda as a source of FACTS. I'll head on over there now and update Wikipedia to include the Book of Esther, then they will have contained them all ;) ;D
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain portions of EVERY book of the Old Testament except Esther, as I said.
and once again, those aren't original documents which even if they were don;t prove anything other than the copies from those periods didn't change.
Absolutely and probably so.
- They were subject to religious doctrine
- They were assembled/chosen by a politically motivated group (Council of the Nicea)
- They probably weren't accurate in there originals due to them being written 40+ years after the events occured.
How can you prove the accuracy of something with out the originals? ::)
Okay, so you're saying that the "copies" of the originals do not contain errors, but the originals probably do?? That's an assumption that has no basis in fact. It actually goes against logic. If the copies and copies of copies don't have significant errors, it's not logical to assume anything other than the originals were just at least as reliable as the copies.
If 2400 people each took a photo copy of an original document, and the original document was destroyed, if all 2400 copies contained the same information, it can only be assumed that they are accurate representations of the original document. BTW, the originals were not necessarily destroyed. They are just undiscovered at this time. Some may possibly still be discovered.
How can you disprove them?
You do realize that the rules used in Textual Criticism to judge the authenticity of every ancient document support the accuracy of the Bible.
So what you're saying is that you will not believe anything unless you read the "original" document??? To be honest, if you had the original documents of the Bible in your hands it would not change your views. You would still claim that they are only stories and that the originals only prove that someone wrote something down. You would still deny what they had written as fact, despite any testimonies or evidence is provided in the originals.
I have no doubt that by using all of the latest scientific tolls and methodologies at our disposal today, that the copies we have are accurate representations of the originals. Also, based on the evidence in the Bible and other writings of the day, I have no reason to doubt anything that the Bible says.
Do some things seem unimaginable to me, of course. I have never seen anyone ascend into Heaven. However, I have in fact been a part of some miracles that are unquestionably supernatural (one of which was witnessed by three other eyewitnesses). These miracles were "directly" related to Scripture, which only reinforced the Divine Authority of the Scriptures in my mind. However, I will not use "experiential" evidence of my own to teach others the authenticity of Scripture.
-
remember god loves you!!!!!!!!
and he could of choose a reality without suffering, but yet he choose one in which you are given sexual organs yet cannot use them. i mean dolphins screw for fun, are they going to hell?
Oh, I can use mine. I'm married to a gorgeous Godly woman ;D
Imagine that, God actually asking people to show some self control.
The reason He forbids sex outside of the marriage bed is because He knows all of the harm it causes. There's nothing better in the world than God ordained sex with your wife!
-
Man, I need to get out of here and get some Gossip. I don't even know if something happened to Britney or not. K-Fed could have fled the country with the kids and I wouldn't even know cause I'm in here getting all serious :)
-
We are not talking about geology here, but geography...there is a difference... ::)
-
Oh, I can use mine. I'm married to a gorgeous Godly woman ;D
Imagine that, God actually asking people to show some self control.
The reason He forbids sex outside of the marriage bed is because He knows all of the harm it causes. There's nothing better in the world than God ordained sex with your wife!
So what do you think god thinks when she gives you head?
-
Okay, so you're saying that the "copies" of the originals do not contain errors, but the originals probably do??
Where do you get that from what i said? ???
I'm saying the because you don't have the originals you don't know if the copies have errors significant or not.
Also, included in the DSS are books not in the Bible, because of the discovery shouldn't they be included too?
You do realize that the rules used in Textual Criticism to judge the authenticity of every ancient document support the accuracy of the Bible.
Quite the opposite, but of course you are going from Fundy sources, the same sources that will tell you there are no contradictions in the bible.
So what you're saying is that you will not believe anything unless you read the "original" document??? To be honest, if you had the original documents of the Bible in your hands it would not change your views. You would still claim that they are only stories and that the originals only prove that someone wrote something down. You would still deny what they had written as fact, despite any testimonies or evidence is provided in the originals.
If we had the originals i'd treat them no differntly than any other ancient manuscript or scripture: "Writings of primitive people with glimpses of God."
I have no doubt that by using all of the latest scientific tolls and methodologies at our disposal today, that the copies we have are accurate representations of the originals. Also, based on the evidence in the Bible and other writings of the day, I have no reason to doubt anything that the Bible says.
You don't have the originals so you'll never know. You just believe it would be, which is the basis of what you consider fact: Belief.
-
Listen to Professor Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament as he discusses the numerous errors and copyist mistakes in the Bible....great listening...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
-
Oh, I can use mine. I'm married to a gorgeous Godly woman ;D
Imagine that, God actually asking people to show some self control.
The reason He forbids sex outside of the marriage bed is because He knows all of the harm it causes. There's nothing better in the world than God ordained sex with your wife!
why would he ask us for something that is not in our nature? to punish us?
there are many monogamous species, and many non-manogamous. do the fact that animals have multiple sex partners spark a light in your brain. men have multiple amounts of sperm and from evolutionary science they want to copulate with as many women as possible to increase genetic fitness. this is both science and commonsense. and is observed in other species. women have only a finite supply of eggs, hence they are often not premiscuous by nature like men are. didnt you notice that most men cheat, or that the majority of cheaters are men. did you ever think there was a scientific reason for this.
so no i dont see the reason why god would ask for self control then allow other species to fornicate all over. if you had any logic in your head you could see that we act just like animals in many respects, and have the same brain structures for the most part, we aint that special. non monogamous animals are everywhere, we are no different.
-
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live.
well since witches dont exist, then i would think god would know this, making this rule ridiculous.
also, i love how god orders everyone to death for everything. its too funny. he has no compassion whatsoever, first offence, you die.
god is all loving. please christians look at this fucking nonsense.
-
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live.
well since witches dont exist, then i would think god would know this, making this rule ridiculous.
usmokepole,
people do practice witchcraft and refer to themselves as witches. Rape and human sacrifice has been involved in their rituals too.
also, i love how god orders everyone to death for everything. its too funny. he has no compassion whatsoever, first offence, you die.
Mm, God orders everyone to death for everything? Are you referring to the God of the Bible? Show me where in the Bible God orders everyone to death for everything.
god is all loving. please christians look at this fucking nonsense.
I read and study the Bible daily, and I practice Christianity. However, it is obvious that I don't see this nonsense that you see.
-
usmokepole,
people do practice witchcraft and refer to themselves as witches. Rape and human sacrifice has been involved in their rituals too.
I'm betting you know very little about Wicca.
Mm, God orders everyone to death for everything? Are you referring to the God of the Bible? Show me where in the Bible God orders everyone to death for everything.
-
I'm betting you know very little about Wicca.
I'm betting you know very little about witchcraft in South American and in the Caribbean. I'm betting you know very little about witchcraft in ancient times.
-
I'm betting you know very little about witchcraft in South American and in the Caribbean. I'm betting you know very little about witchcraft in ancient times.
I'm betting you are right, but to be fair you are the one who made the accusation:
people do practice witchcraft and refer to themselves as witches. Rape and human sacrifice has been involved in their rituals too.
I know a few witches, at least those who profess to follow Wicca. Thier organizations in the USA are far from human sacrifice. but as you say, i do not know about S. American or the Carribean.
-
I'm betting you are right, but to be fair you are the one who made the accusation:
I know a few witches, at least those who profess to follow Wicca. Thier organizations in the USA are far from human sacrifice. but as you say, i do not know about S. American or the Carribean.
First of all, it is not an accusation. Second of all, I am not talking about Wicca. I don't know if rape and human sacrifice is performed in secret by witches in the US. Check with your local FBI. They would know.
-
i dont care if people practice witchcraft or whatever they think they are doing but the are not sorceress and have no reason to die if they pretend they can perform magic. sacrifices are a different thing, but blanket generalizations of death are not warrented whatsoever.
sorcery/sorceress
Use of supernatural power over others through the assistance of spirits; witchcraft.
doesnt exist. i could practice magic, but it doesnt mean its real. people can call themselves whatever they want.
are these not from the bible, if they are not i apologize
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html this is a funny comparison. god kills all over the old testament no doubt.
source
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6
Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7
Sarai tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands him to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. 21:10-14
God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13
Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10
Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31
"The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." 35:5
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24
God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into blood. 7:17-24
"For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14
some good shit here, god is loving
Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19
-
First of all, it is not an accusation. Second of all, I am not talking about Wicca. I don't know if rape and human sacrifice is performed in secret by witches in the US. Check with your local FBI. They would know.
Highly unlikley at least in the norm.
In this overly religious country you'd hear about it.
BTW,
Wicca is the practice of witchcraft which in my mind if you practice witchcraft you are witch.
http://www.wicca.org/ (http://www.wicca.org/)
First of all, it is not an accusation.
If you say so.
-
I'm betting you know very little about witchcraft in South American and in the Caribbean. I'm betting you know very little about witchcraft in ancient times.
BTW don't even bring up ancient times, we've seen what the Jews do in murdering innocent children. So in my mind they are no better that a child sacrificing cult.
-
BTW don't even bring up ancient times, we've seen what the Jews do in murdering innocent children. So in my mind they are no better that a child sacrificing cult.
Don't bring ancient times? I thought we were talking about the Old Testament here.
-
i love how christians say god is all loving but in the bible he is "angry" a negative trait which totally kills that notion. then, he loves to have everyone die. but what makes it ridiculous is that he apparently knows the future, which firstly voids free will, and secondly makes him a murderer. he creates people with characteristics that will make them fail, he knows they will fail, so he orders them to death, wtf? a little juvenile
-
Highly unlikley at least in the norm.
In this overly religious country you'd hear about it.
BTW,
Wicca is the practice of witchcraft which in my mind if you practice witchcraft you are witch.
http://www.wicca.org/ (http://www.wicca.org/)
If you say so.
Check with your local FBI first, then come back and report.
Just because you are ignorant of witch craft rituals outside the US doesn't make it an accusation. Take a trip to Venezuela and visit montaña Sorte in the state of Yaracuy. Don't worry, they won't sacrifice you. The reports of human sacrifice years ago were of babies and young women to some demon called Maria Lionza, goddess of fertility, and to two other spirits.
-
Don't bring ancient times? I thought we were talking about the Old Testament here.
Language issue.
What i said was kind of a figure of speech.
-
i dont care if people practice witchcraft or whatever they think they are doing but the are not sorceress and have no reason to die if they pretend they can perform magic. sacrifices are a different thing, but blanket generalizations of death are not warrented whatsoever.
sorcery/sorceress
Use of supernatural power over others through the assistance of spirits; witchcraft.
doesnt exist. i could practice magic, but it doesnt mean its real. people can call themselves whatever they want.
are these not from the bible, if they are not i apologize
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-has-killed-more-satan-or-god.html this is a funny comparison. god kills all over the old testament no doubt.
source
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8
God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17
God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4
God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10
Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6
Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Peter 2:7-8. 19:7-8
God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24
Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
God threatens to kill Abimelech and his people for believing Abe's lie. 20:3-7
Sarai tells Abraham to "cast out this bondwoman and her son." God commands him to "hearken unto her voice." So Abraham abandons Hagar and Ishmael, casting them out into the wilderness to die. 21:10-14
God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13
Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10
Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is "defiled" by a man who seems to love her dearly. Her brothers trick all of the men of the town and kill them (after first having them all circumcised), and then take their wives and children captive. 34:1-31
"The terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them." 35:5
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7
After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10
After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24
God tells Moses and Aaron to smite the river and turn it into blood. 7:17-24
"For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth." Who else but the biblical god could be so cruel? 9:14
some good shit here, god is loving
Joseph interprets the baker's dream. He says that the pharaoh will cut off the baker's head, and hang his headless body on a tree for the birds to eat. 40:19
Okay, show me where in the Bible God orders everyone to death for everything?
smoke,
Many laws in the Old Testament along with the death penalty for breaking them were for the Jews. This is why it says many times "Let there not be found among you." They were part of Judaism. The Jews agreed to follow these laws and they also agreed to the death penalty as a punishment for breaking them. I don't see any Jews complaining when the law was given to them. The death penalty for breaking them applied to them and anyone living with them. God chose them to be His people, and with that came privileges along with responsibility. To them much was given, and from them much was required.
Israel was supposed to be a good example for other nations to emulate, but Israel was not commanded to go around the world and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc. God did not command Jews to spread Judaism.
-
Check with your local FBI first, then come back and report.
Just because you are ignorant of witch craft rituals outside the US doesn't make it an accusation. Take a trip to Venezuela and visit montaña Sorte in the state of Yaracuy. Don't worry, the won't sacrifice you. The reports of human sacrifice years ago were of babies and young women to some demon called Maria Lionza, goddess of fertility, and to two other spirits.
No need. I'm sure some sick twisted few some place has committed some grizzly act. but as i said it's far form the norm.
But you are the one with the opinion about Wicca, your ignorance begs your research.
As far as Venezuela, i doubt those who you call witches are considered witches be Wiccans. And if they are, they would be bad witches.
-
Okay, show me where in the Bible God orders everyone to death for everything?
smoke,
Many laws in the Old Testament along with the death penalty for breaking them were for the Jews. This is why it says many times "Let there not be found among you." They were part of Judaism. The Jews agreed to follow these laws and they also agreed to the death penalty as a punishment for breaking them. I don't see any Jews complaining when the law was given to them. The death penalty for breaking them applied to them and anyone living with them. God chose them to be His people, and with that came privileges along with responsibility. To them much was given, and from them much was required.
Israel was supposed to be a good example for other nations to emulate, but Israel was not commanded to go around the world and kill homosexuals, adulterers, etc. God did not command Jews to spread Judaism.
LOL, that's what i love about you people, the "word" only applies when it's convenient.
-
LOL, that's what i love about you people, the "word" only applies when it's convenient.
When you actually read the Old Testament, you'll see that God did not command Israel to go around the world and spread Judaism. You'll see that God did not command Israel to go around the world and kill homosexuals and adulterers in other nations.
When you actually read the New Testament, you'll see where it says that Gentiles are not bound by Jewish law.
-
No need. I'm sure some sick twisted few some place has committed some grizzly act. but as i said it's far form the norm.
But you are the one with the opinion about Wicca, your ignorance begs your research.
As far as Venezuela, i doubt those who you call witches are considered witches be Wiccans. And if they are, they would be bad witches.
I'm the one with opinion about Wicca? Where did I say anything about Wicca? I don't care about Wicca.
-
When you actually read the Old Testament, you'll see that God did not command Israel to go around the world and spread Judaism. You'll see that God did not command Israel to go around the world and kill homosexuals and adulterers in other nations.
When you actually read the New Testament, you'll see where it says that Gentiles are not bound by Jewish law.
you mean like the 10 commandments?
So anything said in the OT as far as how to live and laws and sins and all that don't apply to Gentiles?
-
I'm the one with opinion about Wicca? Where did I say anything about Wicca? I don't care about Wicca.
Wicca = witchcraft
Practicing witch craft = Witch.
you are ignorant to Wicca and think witches perform child sacrifice.
And what i'm telling you is that, Wiccans (witches) in the USA in the norm do not do that.
-
you mean like the 10 commandments?
If you read the New Testament, you'll see that following the 10 Commandments will not get you into Heaven. However, they are most likely to be followed by Christians and Jews than by anybody else. We are commanded to obey the 10 Commandments for the common good, but not for eternal life.
-
If you read the New Testament, you'll see that following the 10 Commandments will not get you into Heaven. However, they are most likely to be followed by Christians and Jews than by anybody else. We are commanded to obey the 10 Commandments for the common good, but not for eternal life.
So anything said in the OT as far as how to live and laws and sins and all that don't apply to Gentiles?
-
Wicca = witchcraft
Practicing witch craft = Witch.
you are ignorant to Wicca and think witches perform child sacrifice.
And what i'm telling you is that, Wiccans (witches) in the USA in the norm do not do that.
So what? Witches in Old Testament times and up to the middle ages performed human sacrifice. Witches in some third world countries perform human sacrifice. They are witches because they believe that they can cast spells. The perform human sacrifice to spirits from whom they believe that they can get the power to cast spells. They don't care what wiccans say and they probably don't even know what wicca is, but they call themselves witches and claim to practice witchcraft.
-
If you read the New Testament, you'll see that following the 10 Commandments will not get you into Heaven. However, they are most likely to be followed by Christians and Jews than by anybody else. We are commanded to obey the 10 Commandments for the common good, but not for eternal life.
so you don't really have to follow.......how convenient.
-
So anything said in the OT as far as how to live and laws and sins and all that don't apply to Gentiles?
I'll post some NT verses tomorrow. Paul can explain it better then I can. Good night, OzmO!
-
so you don't really have to follow.......how convenient.
To go to heaven? No. For the common good? Yes.
-
So what? Witches in Old Testament times and up to the middle ages performed human sacrifice. Witches in some third world countries perform human sacrifice. They are witches because they believe that they can cast spells. The perform human sacrifice to spirits from whom they believe that they can get the power to cast spells. They don't care what wiccans say and they probably don't even know what wicca is, but they call themselves witches and claim to practice witchcraft.
So what.
Jews in the old testament times murdered whole nations of children. Same difference, other then you are convinced they were justified.
An din the Medievil times, Crusaders using the Church God let them establish in his name using his word, murdered millions. Maybe 50 million according to the book of Martyrs.
Again, same difference, but with the Jews and Crusaders on a much larger scale.
-
To go to heaven? No. For the common good? Yes.
Convenient. ;D
I'll post some NT verses tomorrow. Paul can explain it better then I can. Good night, OzmO!
thanks, I'd appreciate that. good night. :)
-
So what.
Jews in the old testament times murdered whole nations of children. Same difference, other then you are convinced they were justified.
No, they didn't. And I was responding to smoke's post about witches, but here you go again talking about Children of the Corn. Is that your best argument to every thread and post on getbig?
An din the Medievil times, Crusaders using the Church God let them establish in his name using his word, murdered millions. Maybe 50 million according to the book of Martyrs.
Again, same difference, but with the Jews and Crusaders on a much larger scale.
So what? Is that the best argument you skeptics have, always living in the past?
Yes, Christians have committed grave sins in the name of Christ, and those shameful misrepresentations of the gospel have made many people fearful of, and even repulsed by, the church. But Christians have been called to serve the oppressed, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring healing to the sick, to seek justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly, and to bring good news of "great joy." And by God's grace, many are living out that calling today.
-
No, they didn't. And I was responding to smoke's post about witches, but here you go again talking about Children of the Corn. Is that your best argument to every thread and post on getbig?
So what? Is that the best argument you skeptics have, always living in the past?
Yes, Christians have committed grave sins in the name of Christ, and those shameful misrepresentations of the gospel have made many people fearful of, and even repulsed by, the church. But Christians have been called to serve the oppressed, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring healing to the sick, to seek justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly, and to bring good news of "great joy." And by God's grace, many are living out that calling today.
how can you preach love when your telling others that if they dont repent to your god, they will burn in the most evil place ever devised(by a loving god no less) and burn for eternity. you have a contradiction on your hands it seems. first off why does repentance even matter, your just asking for forgiveness for nasty shit you've done. the only difference between you and another is you asked to be forgiven, doesnt change the fact that you still did negative things. sounds like god just wants to show his dominance to me.
-
First, you throw around the word "liar" quite easily. That's not very respectful.
It's interesting how people on this board will call people disrespectful names and make all kinds of character assassinations. Even the hardest core gang members in Compton would not say something like that to my face.
You don't call HUNDREDS of EYEWITNESSES to His post resurrection life "evidence"??? How about even his enemies stating that His body is NOT in the "Guarded" tomb??? How about the testimony of the man His enemies "paid" to lie and say that His disciples stole His body???
No. I would call that testimonials.
Anyone I know would call it testimonials.
They could've been THOUSANDS. Still wouldn't made them "evidence". Still would be eyewitnesses giving testimonials.
You claim to have evidence of God.
If eye witnesses like these are your "evidence", I think we all can agree (except you maybe) that you do not have any evidence of God, you cannot prove that he exists, and that your belief in that you can, is a faulty one.
Time to re-evaluate your POV on God perhaps? And view a few episodes of "CSI" (they work a lot with "evidence" there) ;)
How about the fact that there is NO "evidence" that He did NOT rise from the dead???
There is no "evidence" either that Jesus didn't turn into 300 feet high giant, and walked around the world in 5 seconds. No "evidence" that Messiah didn't return for one night as Michael Jordan, and shot 63 one night against the Celtics.
Should I have to disprove that?
The burden of proof is obviously on those who claims feats of Jesus.
It is only human to experience doubt. In fact, I think God allows that doubt to encourage deeper investigation. He knows that the deeper we investigate the more convinced we will become. That’s what happens, TRUTH is pretty convincing!
If there were evidence, there would be no room for doubt.
We have evidence that the world is round. We have evidence that babies are born from the mother. We have evidence that cars need fuel. We have evidence that 20 lbs of iron hurts more on the toe than 20 lbs of cotton would. That allows us to not doubt those facts.
We don't experience doubts in the above facts. Because we can see the evidence.
-
No, they didn't. And I was responding to smoke's post about witches, but here you go again talking about Children of the Corn. Is that your best argument to every thread and post on getbig?
Hey buddy, it's in your book of stories......Jews murdered children. Deal with it. You try and hide from it all you want, but it is what it is and you have admitted you'd have done the same thing or at least ordered it. So stop trying to run away from it when i draw a comparison to your attitude about witches who perform human sacrifice. It's really no different becuase innocent people are being murdered in both cases.
So what? Is that the best argument you skeptics have, always living in the past?
YOU are the one who brought the past up when talking about witches in Medieval times. What? Is it only OK for you to bring it up and not someone else? When the truth gets to real you seem to get real squirmy loco.
Yes, Christians have committed grave sins in the name of Christ, and those shameful misrepresentations of the gospel have made many people fearful of, and even repulsed by, the church. But Christians have been called to serve the oppressed, proclaim freedom for the captives, bring healing to the sick, to seek justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly, and to bring good news of "great joy." And by God's grace, many are living out that calling today.
And that's good loco, and that can be added to the many good things "Christians" do, but don't for one moment think that invalidates all the bad things Christians do especially when it comes to judging others or stereotyping them such as you did with witches.
-
Hey buddy, it's in your book of stories......Jews murdered children. Deal with it. You try and hide from it all you want, but it is what it is and you have admitted you'd have done the same thing or at least ordered it. So stop trying to run away from it when i draw a comparison to your attitude about witches who perform human sacrifice. It's really no different becuase innocent people are being murdered in both cases.
No, they didn't. There is nothing to deal with. There is nothing to hide from.
YOU are the one who brought the past up when talking about witches in Medieval times. What? Is it only OK for you to bring it up and not someone else? When the truth gets to real you seem to get real squirmy loco.
You are the one who told me not to bring up ancient times. Is it only OK for you to bring it up and not for someone else?
And that's good loco, and that can be added to the many good things "Christians" do, but don't for one moment think that invalidates all the bad things Christians do especially when it comes to judging others or stereotyping them such as you did with witches.
Where have I judged or stereotyped others? Show me. Witches have raped and murdered in their rituals. Deal with it.
-
Convenient. ;D
Convenient for who? Convenient or not, I didn't write the book. At least I'm consistent, unlike those who pick and choose what is and what isn't God's word out of the Bible. Now, that is convenient and inconsistent.
Acts 15:5
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:19-20
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Romans 3:21-22
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Romans 2:15
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Colossians 2:16-17
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
-
No, they didn't. There is nothing to deal with. There is nothing to hide from.
Running away from that ugly fact are we? Trying our best not to cop to it are we?
Did they not kill the amalikites including there children? .............there babies, their toddlers, their 3-4-5-6 year olds?
You are the one who told me not to bring up ancient times. Is it only OK for you to bring it up and not for someone else?
that was a figure of speech, "don't even bring up ancient times...." It was warning not to bring it up becuase i would show a caparison to the Jews murdering innocent children.
It's a language thing combined with "written" versus "spoken."
Where have I judged or stereotyped others? Show me. Witches have raped and murdered in their rituals. Deal with it.
If i were to say what you said about witches but instead replaced "witches" with "Christians" and replaced " human sacrifice" with stealing, manipulating and hypocrisy, would you not point out that it doesn't apply to all Christians or true Christiains? I was only pointing out that the way you said it you were stereotyping by implication that ALL witches perform human sacrifice as you likely would have interpreted it if i said it about Christians.
-
Convenient for who? Convenient or not, I didn't write the book. At least I'm consistent, unlike those who pick and choose what is and what isn't God's word out of the Bible. Now, that is convenient and inconsistent.
Loco, if the bible wasn't such a "book of stories" filled with man's word and filled with contradictions i wouldn't have to pick and choose. ;)
if the bible was really written by god it would beyond question in its wisdom. Such as "thou shalt not kill." It would be beyond question in it's doctrine and there wouldn't be soo many denominations who can justify till the end of time why their interpretations are correct and others are not. If the bible was really written by God it would not have so many contradictions that demand lengthy fantastical explanations or excuses to preserve it's integrity.
however,
thanks for the versus. I get to those later, got to cook dinner now.
-
Running away from that ugly fact are we? Trying our best not to cop to it are we?
Did they not kill the amalikites including there children? .............there babies, their toddlers, their 3-4-5-6 year olds?
There is nothing to run away from. Christians on this board, including myself have openly debated you over and over again about this. That hardly qualifies as running away or hiding from it.
that was a figure of speech, "don't even bring up ancient times...." It was warning not to bring it up becuase i would show a caparison to the Jews murdering innocent children.
It's a language thing combined with "written" versus "spoken."
If i were to say what you said about witches but instead replaced "witches" with "Christians" and replaced " human sacrifice" with stealing, manipulating and hypocrisy, would you not point out that it doesn't apply to all Christians or true Christiains? I was only pointing out that the way you said it you were stereotyping by implication that ALL witches perform human sacrifice as you likely would have interpreted it if i said it about Christians.
If you told me that Christians have done those things, I would not argue. Christians have done those things. Okay, now show me where have I judged or stereotyped others?
-
There is nothing to run away from. Christians on this board, including myself have openly debated you over and over again about this. That hardly qualifies as running away or hiding from it.
If you told me that Christians have done those things, I would not argue. Christians have done those things. Okay, now show me where have I judged or stereotyped others?
Oh, this thread is still going on...
-
There is nothing to run away from. Christians on this board, including myself have openly debated you over and over again about this. That hardly qualifies as running away or hiding from it.
this qualifies as running away from it:
......Jews murdered children.
No, they didn't. There is nothing to deal with. There is nothing to hide from.
that's denial, that's running away. :-*
If you told me that Christians have done those things, I would not argue. Christians have done those things. Okay, now show me where have I judged or stereotyped others?
I think we are having another one of our language issues. It's OK i get your point. I take back what i said.
-
Acts 15:5
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:19-20
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Romans 3:21-22
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Romans 2:15
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Colossians 2:16-17
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
This doesn't really address what we were talking about. He doesn't directly say you don't have to follow the laws of moses. What he does say, it seems, is that your hearts are purified so you don't have to worry about it. That pretty much means convenient or optional. But I'm sure you could probably explain it better.
-
This doesn't really address what we were talking about. He doesn't directly say you don't have to follow the laws of moses. What he does say, it seems, is that your hearts are purified so you don't have to worry about it. That pretty much means convenient or optional. But I'm sure you could probably explain it better.
What? Yes it does directly say that. Read it again, from the beginning.
Acts 15:5
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:19-20
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
-
What? Yes it does directly say that. Read it again, from the beginning.
Acts 15:5
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:19-20
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Sorry still don't see it.
Where does God say you don't have to follow the laws of the OT?
And what i do see seems like it comes down to: Optional
-
Sorry still don't see it.
Where does God say you don't have to follow the laws of the OT?
And what i do see seems like it comes down to: Optional
You are kidding.
-
You are kidding.
nope.
Very vague. please explain.
-
nope.
Very vague. please explain.
Early Jewish Christians said that Gentile Christians must be "required to obey the law of Moses."(Acts 15:5)
Then some of Jesus' 12 apostles said "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we[Jewish Christians] are saved, just as they[Gentile Christians] are." (Acts 15:19-20)
Instead, they said, Gentile Christians must abstain:
1. "from food polluted by idols"
2. "from sexual immorality,
3. "from the meat of strangled animals"
4. "from blood", drinking blood that is.
In addition, Jesus said Christians should love one another, love God more than anything, and love their neighbor(including their enemies and including non-Christians) as they love themselves. If you do that, you will fullfill the 10 commandments automatically anyway, and it is God who works in Christians "to will and to act according to his good purpose."(Philippians 2:13).
-
Early Jewish Christians said that Gentile Christians must be "required to obey the law of Moses."(Acts 15:5)
Then some of Jesus' 12 apostles said "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we[Jewish Christians] are saved, just as they[Gentile Christians] are." (Acts 15:19-20)
Instead, they said, Gentile Christians must abstain:
1. "from food polluted by idols"
2. "from sexual immorality,
3. "from the meat of strangled animals"
4. "from blood", drinking blood that is.
In addition, Jesus said Christians should love one another, love God more than anything, and love their neighbor(including their enemies and including non-Christians) as they love themselves. If you do that, you will fullfill the 10 commandments automatically anyway, and it is God who works in Christians "to will and to act according to his good purpose."(Philippians 2:13).
So, none of the OT stuff, other than that applies to Christians?
-
So, none of the OT stuff, other than that applies to Christians?
Such as? And what you do mean by "applies"? Please be more specific.
-
Such as? And what you do mean by "applies"? Please be more specific.
All those things God said as do's and don'ts.
-
All those things God said as do's and don'ts.
Since you are not being specific so that I can explain, maybe this will answer your question, or maybe not. Judaism is God's old covenant with the Jews. Christianity is God's new covenant with the Jews which was foretold in the Old Testament, but this time includes non-Jews, also as foretold in the Old Testament.
So it is like saying hey, I gave you all those do's and don'ts to reveal my standards to you. You were not able to keep all those do's and don'ts, not even out of fear of the penalty of death. Now, through faith in Jesus Christ I will give you the Holy Spirit which will help you love me with everything you've got and to love other people as you love yourself. In doing this, you will automatically fulfill the old do's and don'ts, and in doing so, you will be a blessing to those around you and you will bring others to me.
For example, the woman in the New Testament who had just committed adultery and the Jews wanted to stone her to death, then Jesus told them whoever is free of sin cast the first stone. So they all left. Then Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. So adultery is still a sin and we should still abstain from it, but we should not stone people to death for committing adultery.
-
Since you are not being specific so that I can explain, maybe this will answer your question, or maybe not. Judaism is God's old covenant with the Jews. Christianity is God's new covenant with the Jews which was foretold in the Old Testament, but this time includes non-Jews, also as foretold in the Old Testament.
So it is like saying hey, I gave you all those do's and don'ts to reveal my standards to you. You were not able to keep all those do's and don'ts, not even out of fear of the penalty of death. Now, through faith in Jesus Christ I will give you the Holy Spirit which will help you love me with everything you've got and to love other people as you love yourself. In doing this, you will automatically fulfill the old do's and don'ts, and in doing so, you will be a blessing to those around you and you will bring others to me.
For example, the woman in the New Testament who had just committed adultery and the Jews wanted to stone her to death, then Jesus told them whoever is free of sin cast the first stone. So they all left. Then Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. So adultery is still a sin and we should still abstain from it, but we should not stone people to death for committing adultery.
loco!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you beleive in god? :D
-
loco!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you beleive in god? :D
usmoke, you ask me lots of questions to which you already know my answer. What do you think? I'm a "Bible thumping fundy." ;D
-
So what do you think god thinks when she gives you head?
Did you really just ask me that???
I am not about to discuss details of the sexual relationship of me and my wife on a chat board.
That is totally inappropriate. The very fact that you would think that is okay speaks volumes about your moral character.
No wonder you try to deny there is a God.
-
Sorry man, but you kind of thick sometimes.
Were there more than 4 people who saw Jesus walk on water?
Do you have there testimonies?
Again, being thick.
You don't have the originals. the originals documents (copper papyrus, clay etc..) the gospels were written on. you have reproduction dated 100 years after they were written.
What a bunch of crap!!! ::) I'm sure this is from fundy sources.
If you don't have the original you don't know how accurate the copy is.
And even then, can you remember events and words spoken just 10 years ago? I think not.
No you don't. eye witness testimony is something you get in court form the person. Gosh, what world do you live in?
What you have is:
- Reproductions (written accounts) who's accuracy cannot be verified or originality cannot be authenticated.
It makes them suspect and probable to be inaccurate. Again, can you tell with 100% accuracy words and events from 10 years ago? Much less 40 years ago?
You haven't proved a single thing yet. And you cannot refute the comparison of the Koran and it's eye witnesses to your bible's eye witnesses.
your logic would be laughed at in the court of law and even more by a group of neutral scholars.
Again you are using words in a book to prove the book is true. No different than greek mythology or the noodle god.
and yes, you don't need to research other religions becuase your afraid of what you will find.
And yes, the bible has many contradictions in it. It's the Brainwashed folk who have traded in their common sense that will always make excuses for it.
Read these posts, you still haven't address the contradictions of geography.
Why?
Are you afraid?
It's interesting that you discount the manuscripts which are copies of the originals (there is NOTHING to prove otherwise), however, you can't argue the accuracy of the books of the Old Testament because they have been verified against remains of original documents by many sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls. So you are using an argument against the New Testament that was used against the Old Testament before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately for you, the DSS proved the Original Texts.
Now you are presented with the most accurate and reliable documents (the Bible) of ANY religion. So out of all religions the Bible has the most provable manuscripts, supported by over 2400 manuscripts.
So you have two choices, one: Believe the Bible claims (over any religion) or, two: Believe that there is no God and that you somehow just came to exsist.
So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exsist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.
I have mine in the Old Testament :) And there is absolutely no other religion on earth that makes the claims of the Bible backed up by fullfillment.
Now as far as geography, I thought I addressed that. Let me know if there were some still some "so called" geographical contradictions you wanted addressed.
-
Sorry man, but you kind of thick sometimes.
Were there more than 4 people who saw Jesus walk on water?
Do you have there testimonies?
I would assume that there were more than four. The Bible says that "the Disciples" were in the boat. The Disciples typically consisted of 'twelve' individuals. Also, considering the context of the passage (getting in the boat, coming from the mass feeding where Phillip and Andrew were also mentioned by name), I would surmise that all of the twelve disciples were present. But that's irrelevant. The Gospel writers are enough for me. Again, if Jesus can be murdered publically and rise from the dead publically, then I have no problem believing He walked on water. Especially, since there were eyewitnesses.
Testimonies are in the Gospels.
-
It's interesting that you discount the manuscripts which are copies of the originals (there is NOTHING to prove otherwise), however, you can't argue the accuracy of the books of the Old Testament because they have been verified against remains of original documents by many sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls. So you are using an argument against the New Testament that was used against the Old Testament before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately for you, the DSS proved the Original Texts.
The DSS is the original documents that Jerimiah wrote on? that Moses wrote on? that Danial wrote on?
Back up buttercup. Those were copies. all it proves is that in the case of book of Isaiah there has been few changes from the time that book was written until now.
Use some common sense. DSS were copies of copies. They were not the originals. If you still don't get it. the Declaration of Independence on display in Washington is the original. that's what i'm talking about. That's how you know all the copies you see in books are accurate. get it now?
Now as far as geography, I thought I addressed that. Let me know if there were some still some "so called" geographical contradictions you wanted addressed.
You know what i'm talking about. Address each of the geographical contradictions with out playing "cut and paste" some obscure article that barley even addresses the issue. Scroll back up and address each of Trap's assertions. Stop trying to run from it. Do you have the courage to face it?
So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exsist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.
I provide science.
(BTW, i believe god created us through evolution) and i have all of science to back me up. You have a book of fairy tales written by primitive people.
I would assume that there were more than four. The Bible says that "the Disciples" were in the boat. The Disciples typically consisted of 'twelve' individuals. Also, considering the context of the passage (getting in the boat, coming from the mass feeding where Phillip and Andrew were also mentioned by name), I would surmise that all of the twelve disciples were present. But that's irrelevant. The Gospel writers are enough for me. Again, if Jesus can be murdered publically and rise from the dead publically, then I have no problem believing He walked on water. Especially, since there were eyewitnesses.
Testimonies are in the Gospels.
you don;t have everyone's signed statement. In a court of law to prove something, one may use testimonies. If you provided testimonies that aren't the original documents the witness gave their statement on they wouldn't be considered evidence at all.
Imagine going to the judge and opposing attorney and saying look, i can't provide live witnesses, i can't provide signed statements, but what i can provide is a copy of a statement that we don't how many times was copied from a witnesses who died 2000 years ago. You'd look like a complete fool.
So as someone earlier was telling just how stupid you were to think of eye witnesses as evidence your position is even more laugh-able as you don't even have the original testimonial documents they wrote their statements on. all you have is suspect copies.
Try again.
-
Mr. Freakshow,
Your arguments that testimonials provide definitive proof is flawed.
I could find hundreds of testimonials from people who have seen UFOs. What they saw cannot be disproved as not being alien spacecraft. The existence of aliens cannot be disproved. You cannot prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy you continually employ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof ). On the other hand, those testimonials do not definitely prove that aliens have visited earth.
At the most, your Bible testimonials may pass a "preponderance of evidence" test in civil court.
But, going further, you would not believe "hard evidence" even if it was shown to you. For example, as a Creationist, I assume that you think the Earth is merely thousands of years old. However, science conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is billions of years old.
Another logical fallacy that you employ is "God of the gaps" or "argument from ignorance" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps ) with such arguments as:
So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.
Your arguments too often stray into intellectual dishonesty. I strongly suggest, should you continue to reason the truth of Christianity, to learn the basic ground rules of logic and logical fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy ).
-
I provide science.
(BTW, i believe god created us through evolution) and i have all of science to back me up. You have a book of fairy tales written by primitive people.
So in other words, you have created a God in your mind that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF (even copies), that you are not accountable to in any way.
You heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have chosen to deny it because you don't like the God of the Bible that He claims (and proved) He is.
You'd look like a complete fool.
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
If I look like a complete fool, how does that make you look since you have NOTHING to the evidence of the God you say you believe in.
So as someone earlier was telling just how stupid you were to think of eye witnesses as evidence your position is even more laugh-able as you don't even have the original testimonial documents they wrote their statements on. all you have is suspect copies.
Try again.
"Stupid", very academic. Yeah, what was I thinking, believing the of testimony eyewitnesses that was supported even by Christ's enemies.
Once again I have a book of testimonies that prove that the God of the Bible IS who He says He is, you have nothing documenting the God you have created in your own mind.
BTW, the copies are only "suspect" to you because you don't agree with what they say.
I provided you proof that contradicted the so called geographical contradiction you referenced and you immediately discounted it. Wasting my time proving one point after another to someone that is just going to discount the truth because he's in denial is really an exercise in futility.
Why don't you prove to me that the text is inaccurate by proving that the phophecies that were fullfilled in the Bible didn't happen. Oh wait, I think you did earlier by claiming that Jesus was never really born :D :D :D :D
-
So in other words, you have created a God in your mind that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF (even copies), that you are not accountable to in any way.
You heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have chosen to deny it because you don't like the God of the Bible that He claims (and proved) He is.
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
If I look like a complete fool, how does that make you look since you have NOTHING to the evidence of the God you say you believe in.
"Stupid", very academic. Yeah, what was I thinking, believing the of testimony eyewitnesses that was supported even by Christ's enemies.
Once again I have a book of testimonies that prove that the God of the Bible IS who He says He is, you have nothing documenting the God you have created in your own mind.
BTW, the copies are only "suspect" to you because you don't agree with what they say.
I provided you proof that contradicted the so called geographical contradiction you referenced and you immediately discounted it. Wasting my time proving one point after another to someone that is just going to discount the truth because he's in denial is really an exercise in futility.
Why don't you prove to me that the text is inaccurate by proving that the phophecies that were fullfilled in the Bible didn't happen. Oh wait, I think you did earlier by claiming that Jesus was never really born :D :D :D :D
do you beleive the earth is only 6000 years old? if so, do you discount hard fatual evidence that it is not, but accept a book written thousands of years ago with some testimonies?
-
Mr. Freakshow,
Your arguments that testimonials provide definitive proof is flawed.
I could find hundreds of testimonials from people who have seen UFOs. What they saw cannot be disproved as not being alien spacecraft. The existence of aliens cannot be disproved. You cannot prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy you continually employ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof ). On the other hand, those testimonials do not definitely prove that aliens have visited earth.
At the most, your Bible testimonials may pass a "preponderance of evidence" test in civil court.
But, going further, you would not believe "hard evidence" even if it was shown to you. For example, as a Creationist, I assume that you think the Earth is merely thousands of years old. However, science conclusively demonstrates that the Earth is billions of years old.
Another logical fallacy that you employ is "God of the gaps" or "argument from ignorance" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps ) with such arguments as:
So herein lies your problem, How did you come to exist? Provide the "original" supporting documentation for the creation of mankind.
Your arguments too often stray into intellectual dishonesty. I strongly suggest, should you continue to reason the truth of Christianity, to learn the basic ground rules of logic and logical fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy ).
Actually, the Bible would pass the "proponderonce of the evidence" test in court. Remember, there were eyewitnesses and PHYSICAL evidence at the time these books were written.
I will be sure to go over to Wikipedia and study up on all of the "scientific" proof over there. You realize you can't even reference Wikipedia in a college paper as a source or you will fail right?
-
do you beleive the earth is only 6000 years old? if so, do you discount hard fatual evidence that it is not, but accept a book written thousands of years ago with some testimonies?
I don't know how old the earth is.
I also have never seen a transitional form from one species into another species. Darwin, the Evolution master never did either. He had fits of rage cause he could never find any explanation for the evolution of the human eye.
But he surely has the answer now ;)
-
So in other words, you have created a God in your mind that you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF (even copies), that you are not accountable to in any way.
You heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have chosen to deny it because you don't like the God of the Bible that He claims (and proved) He is.
No, I'm looking at real evidence not stories of primitive men.
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
If I look like a complete fool, how does that make you look since you have NOTHING to the evidence of the God you say you believe in.
You crack me up. You are the biggest most extreme THUMPER I've talked to ever. Your arguments are not even on the level of childishness. You are like a brainwashed dude avoiding any logic even on the most simple things.
"Stupid", very academic. Yeah, what was I thinking, believing the of testimony eyewitnesses that was supported even by Christ's enemies.
Once again I have a book of testimonies that prove that the God of the Bible IS who He says He is, you have nothing documenting the God you have created in your own mind.
BTW, the copies are only "suspect" to you because you don't agree with what they say.
I provided you proof that contradicted the so called geographical contradiction you referenced and you immediately discounted it. Wasting my time proving one point after another to someone that is just going to discount the truth because he's in denial is really an exercise in futility.
you run like a scared boy. Are you afraid of what you might find freak?
You run from what witnesses are in relation to proving things.
You run from DSS being copies of copies and not original documents.
You run from addressing geographical contradictions.
Sorry if it offends you, but you are what atheists talk about when they say religion is for the ignorant and weak minded.
A long as you are happy, and feel safe, more power to you.
You are now on the THUMP THUMP list. :)
-
Actually, the Bible would pass the "proponderonce of the evidence" test in court. Remember, there were eyewitnesses and PHYSICAL evidence at the time these books were written.
Yeah, you are living in a fairy tale, your own little world............. ::)
THUMP THUMP
-
Actually, the Bible would pass the "proponderonce of the evidence" test in court. Remember, there were eyewitnesses and PHYSICAL evidence at the time these books were written.
I will be sure to go over to Wikipedia and study up on all of the "scientific" proof over there. You realize you can't even reference Wikipedia in a college paper as a source or you will fail right?
You are too cute by half. You may have a great deal of knowledge and fact at your command, but your skill in logical reasoning is hurting your cause. A little formal education in logic would help you greatly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
-
You are too cute by half. You may have a great deal of knowledge and fact at your command, but your skill in logical reasoning is hurting your cause. A little formal education in logic would help you greatly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
To be honest, a "little" formal education probably wouldn't hurt me. But I could use "a lot" of formal education. Which I agree would definitely be beneficial to me.
However, a 'fallacy' truly is a falsehood or untruth, nonfactual. To argue that reasoning would make something a fallacy or not is really a philosophical approach. I truly have no interest in philosophy. There really are no 'absolutes' in philosophy, it's abstract.
My argument is presenting the facts which are supported by as much data as is available (which happens to be significantly more than the counter argument that the God of the Bible is not the true God).
Based on the definition of arguments provided in the article you provided (excerpt below), my argument's conclusion must be true! At worst, the conclusion is likely to be true.
However, the counter argument is based purely on a belief that the evidence is a lie.
A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.[/quote]
-
To be honest, a "little" formal education probably wouldn't hurt me. But I could use "a lot" of formal education. Which I agree would definitely be beneficial to me.
However, a 'fallacy' truly is a falsehood or untruth, nonfactual. To argue that reasoning would make something a fallacy or not is really a philosophical approach. I truly have no interest in philosophy. There really are no 'absolutes' in philosophy, it's abstract.
My argument is presenting the facts which are supported by as much data as is available (which happens to be significantly more than the counter argument that the God of the Bible is not the true God).
Based on the definition of arguments provided in the article you provided (excerpt below), my argument's conclusion must be true! At worst, the conclusion is likely to be true.
However, the counter argument is based purely on a belief that the evidence is a lie.
A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.[/quote]
your insanse, what evidence do you have for god. if it was a factual as you think no one would be arguing. im sorry but testimonies are not evidence, and can be swayed a subject to bias. thats why testimony is on the bottom run of the hierarchy in medicine etc.....
its not acceptable as evidence and i havent even read enough this thread to argue specifics, but no one can prove a negative, your asking people to provide this type of evidence is indicative of your ignorance.
-
No, I'm looking at real evidence not stories of primitive men.
You crack me up. You are the biggest most extreme THUMPER I've talked to ever. Your arguments are not even on the level of childishness. You are like a brainwashed dude avoiding any logic even on the most simple things.
you run like a scared boy. Are you afraid of what you might find freak?
You run from what witnesses are in relation to proving things.
You run from DSS being copies of copies and not original documents.
You run from addressing geographical contradictions.
Sorry if it offends you, but you are what atheists talk about when they say religion is for the ignorant and weak minded.
A long as you are happy, and feel safe, more power to you.
You are now on the THUMP THUMP list. :)
:D :D :D :D :D :D Childishness :D :D :D :D
"You run" You run" "Are you afraid" "Are you scared" :D :D :D :D
You do realize the earth was created in "primitive" times, right??? What kind of evidence would be legitimate, obviously the type that dates back farther than any of your evidence.
You say I "run from addressing geographical contradictions", however I provided you with evidence that the contradiction was false (now this is what the third or forth time i"ve told you) and you dismissed it. There's no dismissing it. The land is where the Bible said it was and the hill slopes into the water, just like the Bible says, I EVEN GAVE YOU A PICTURE!
If a Thumper is someone who believes the truth when presented with it, then add me to the list!
you run like a scared boy. Are you afraid of what you might find freak?
That would be BIG boy to you.
What do you think I would be afraid of??? That makes absolutely no sense. Isn't the TRUTH the most important thing? Why would it matter to me if God were disproved? All that would mean is that I'm not accountable to anyone and would be left with no answer to how I was created. There are many people that live without answers.
I don't believe in God because of any rewards I get or what I can get out of it. I believe in God because I believe He's the Truth. Plain and simple.
Calling me names like Thumper, yada yada yada....... I could care less.
You're arguments are in fact VERY WEAK! You are confronted with evidence and discount it because you don't want to believe it. I have always just been in search for the truth. You on the other hand ignore the truth.
-
However, a 'fallacy' truly is a falsehood or untruth, nonfactual. To argue that reasoning would make something a fallacy or not is really a philosophical approach. I truly have no interest in philosophy. There really are no 'absolutes' in philosophy, it's abstract.
Really, grasp what a "logical fallacy" is.
It's all philosophy. Everything you know about God is in the abstract, simply for the fact that no man can know the thoughts and face of God. The Bible does it's best to describe Him and His Kingdom in abstarctions that man can try to comprehend.
I've long ago given up reasoning God into or out of existence. It's pointless. Smarter and more educated men than I am have been both atheists and believers. I can never learn enough to come to any logical absolute that refutes the giants on either side. In this area, I've come to the conclusion that ONLY anecdotal evidence is persuasive evidence.
-
:D :D :D :D :D :D Childishness :D :D :D :D
"You run" You run" "Are you afraid" "Are you scared" :D :D :D :D
You do realize the earth was created in "primitive" times, right??? What kind of evidence would be legitimate, obviously the type that dates back farther than any of your evidence.
You say I "run from addressing geographical contradictions", however I provided you with evidence that the contradiction was false (now this is what the third or forth time i"ve told you) and you dismissed it. There's no dismissing it. The land is where the Bible said it was and the hill slopes into the water, just like the Bible says, I EVEN GAVE YOU A PICTURE!
If a Thumper is someone who believes the truth when presented with it, then add me to the list!
That would be BIG boy to you.
What do you think I would be afraid of??? That makes absolutely no sense. Isn't the TRUTH the most important thing? Why would it matter to me if God were disproved? All that would mean is that I'm not accountable to anyone and would be left with no answer to how I was created. There are many people that live without answers.
I don't believe in God because of any rewards I get or what I can get out of it. I believe in God because I believe He's the Truth. Plain and simple.
Calling me names like Thumper, yada yada yada....... I could care less.
You're arguments are in fact VERY WEAK! You are confronted with evidence and discount it because you don't want to believe it. I have always just been in search for the truth. You on the other hand ignore the truth.
THUMP THUMP
At some point you'll realize what people here are trying to tell you. But maybe not becuase something that obvious may be too much for you.
-
THUMP THUMP
At some point you'll realize what people here are trying to tell you. But maybe not becuase something that obvious may be too much for you.
How about addressing his post instead?
-
How about addressing his post instead?
There's no point in doing that.
-
There's no point in doing that.
Why hang out in the Religious Debates section if you don't want to debate religious fundamentalists?
Go find some atheists board if you want to circle jerk with like minds.
-
How about addressing his post instead?
loco why does god want everyone to die. and as a fundamentalist do you agree that everyone who works on sunday should be put to death. i mean you dont question gods wisdom do you?
-
Why hang out in the Religious Debates section if you don't want to debate religious fundamentalists?
Go find some atheists board if you want to circle jerk with like minds.
No. there's just no point in responding to his post. Everyone else is a different story. Look around, i post quite a bit here. (It's far and away a better circle jerk)
PS I'm not an atheist. ;D
-
You are too cute by half. You may have a great deal of knowledge and fact at your command, but your skill in logical reasoning is hurting your cause. A little formal education in logic would help you greatly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
a great deal of fact? ::)
-
First, you throw around the word "liar" quite easily. That's not very respectful.
It's interesting how people on this board will call people disrespectful names and make all kinds of character assassinations. Even the hardest core gang members in Compton would not say something like that to my face.
You don't call HUNDREDS of EYEWITNESSES to His post resurrection life "evidence"??? How about even his enemies stating that His body is NOT in the "Guarded" tomb??? How about the testimony of the man His enemies "paid" to lie and say that His disciples stole His body???
No. I would call that testimonials.
Anyone I know would call it testimonials.
They could've been THOUSANDS. Still wouldn't made them "evidence". Still would be eyewitnesses giving testimonials.
You claim to have evidence of God.
If eye witnesses like these are your "evidence", I think we all can agree (except you maybe) that you do not have any evidence of God, you cannot prove that he exists, and that your belief in that you can, is a faulty one.
Time to re-evaluate your POV on God perhaps? And view a few episodes of "CSI" (they work a lot with "evidence" there) ;)
How about the fact that there is NO "evidence" that He did NOT rise from the dead???
There is no "evidence" either that Jesus didn't turn into 300 feet high giant, and walked around the world in 5 seconds. No "evidence" that Messiah didn't return for one night as Michael Jordan, and shot 63 one night against the Celtics.
Should I have to disprove that?
The burden of proof is obviously on those who claims feats of Jesus.
It is only human to experience doubt. In fact, I think God allows that doubt to encourage deeper investigation. He knows that the deeper we investigate the more convinced we will become. That’s what happens, TRUTH is pretty convincing!
If there were evidence, there would be no room for doubt.
We have evidence that the world is round. We have evidence that babies are born from the mother. We have evidence that cars need fuel. We have evidence that 20 lbs of iron hurts more on the toe than 20 lbs of cotton would. That allows us to not doubt those facts.
We don't experience doubts in the above facts. Because we can see the evidence.
Bump for answer from Freakshow!
-
No. I would call that testimonials.
Anyone I know would call it testimonials.
They could've been THOUSANDS. Still wouldn't made them "evidence". Still would be eyewitnesses giving testimonials.
You claim to have evidence of God.
If eye witnesses like these are your "evidence", I think we all can agree (except you maybe) that you do not have any evidence of God, you cannot prove that he exists, and that your belief in that you can, is a faulty one.
Time to re-evaluate your POV on God perhaps? And view a few episodes of "CSI" (they work a lot with "evidence" there) ;)
There is no "evidence" either that Jesus didn't turn into 300 feet high giant, and walked around the world in 5 seconds. No "evidence" that Messiah didn't return for one night as Michael Jordan, and shot 63 one night against the Celtics.
Should I have to disprove that?
The burden of proof is obviously on those who claims feats of Jesus.
If there were evidence, there would be no room for doubt.
We have evidence that the world is round. We have evidence that babies are born from the mother. We have evidence that cars need fuel. We have evidence that 20 lbs of iron hurts more on the toe than 20 lbs of cotton would. That allows us to not doubt those facts.
We don't experience doubts in the above facts. Because we can see the evidence.
Bump for answer from Freakshow!
"EVIDENCE" as defined in Webster's Dictionary:
Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence— American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2: as evidence
-
loco why does god want everyone to die. and as a fundamentalist do you agree that everyone who works on sunday should be put to death. i mean you dont question gods wisdom do you?
God does not want everyone to die.
Nobody who works on Sunday should be put to death. That is not God's wisdom.
-
No. I would call that testimonials.
Anyone I know would call it testimonials.
They could've been THOUSANDS. Still wouldn't made them "evidence". Still would be eyewitnesses giving testimonials.
You claim to have evidence of God.
If eye witnesses like these are your "evidence", I think we all can agree (except you maybe) that you do not have any evidence of God, you cannot prove that he exists, and that your belief in that you can, is a faulty one.
Time to re-evaluate your POV on God perhaps? And view a few episodes of "CSI" (they work a lot with "evidence" there) ;)
There is no "evidence" either that Jesus didn't turn into 300 feet high giant, and walked around the world in 5 seconds. No "evidence" that Messiah didn't return for one night as Michael Jordan, and shot 63 one night against the Celtics.
Should I have to disprove that?
The burden of proof is obviously on those who claims feats of Jesus.
If there were evidence, there would be no room for doubt.
We have evidence that the world is round. We have evidence that babies are born from the mother. We have evidence that cars need fuel. We have evidence that 20 lbs of iron hurts more on the toe than 20 lbs of cotton would. That allows us to not doubt those facts.
We don't experience doubts in the above facts. Because we can see the evidence.
Bump for answer from Freakshow!
I would agree if the testimonials written in a two thousand year old piece of parchment was all we had. But it is not only the testimonials, but also what it was that these eye witnesses did as a result of their alleged sighting of a risen Jesus. They gave up all they had to spread the Good News, under penalty of death. This was no legend that they believed in because it all happened around the same time. Hence, too little time for such a powerful legend to form.
We may have thousands of people witness UFOs and we may have thousands of people witness Elvis, but has anything resulted from those sightings? On the other hand, we have early Christians sell everything they had, give it to the poor, preach Jesus Christ, suffer ridicule and rejection, get arrested, get tortured and die, all without retaliation or violence on their part, thus following their own teachings which got them executed in the first place. So much for the theory that Jesus Christ was invented to control people and to obtain power and wealth. Most, if not all of the early Christians, including the leaders, suffered and died poor, holding no power at all. I know this is no proof, but it is evidence to me, part of it anyway. It is insufficient and unacceptable evidence to many, but not to me.
More extra-Biblical information about early Christians:
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."2
References:
1. Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
2. Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
-
On the other hand, we have early Christians sell everything they had, give it to the poor, preach Jesus Christ, suffer ridicule and rejection, get arrested, get tortured and die, all without retaliation or violence on their part, thus following their own teachings which got them executed in the first place. So much for the theory that Jesus Christ was invented to control people and to obtain power and wealth. Most, if not all of the early Christians, including the leaders, suffered and died poor, holding no power at all. I know this is no proof, but it is evidence to me, part of it anyway. It is insufficient and unacceptable evidence to many, but not to me.
This Jesus character must have been a hell of a talker and magician.
That is no proof anyway. Look how many people followed around this nut. same with David Koresh.
Jim Jones
They reach a consensus to commit group suicide. Most appear to have committed suicide by drinking a grape drink laced with cyanide and a number of sedatives, including liquid Valium, Penegram and chloral hydrate. Some sources say it was Kool-Aid; others say FlaVor-Aid®. Other victims appear to have been murdered by poison injection. The Guyanese coroner said that hundreds of bodies showed needle marks, indicating foul play. Still other victims were shot. A very few fled into the jungle and survived.
In all, 914 died: 638 adults and 276 children. Some sources say 911 died. Their bodies were in a state of extensive decay when the authorities arrived. There was no time to conduct a thorough investigation. TV station KTVU in San Francisco CA has a collection of photographs of the "Peoples temple Agricultural Project." Some are quite disturbing. Unfortunately, their web site implies that all of the dead committed suicide.
-
This Jesus character must have been a hell of a talker and magician.
That is no proof anyway. Look how many people followed around this nut. same with David Koresh.
Jim Jones
They reach a consensus to commit group suicide. Most appear to have committed suicide by drinking a grape drink laced with cyanide and a number of sedatives, including liquid Valium, Penegram and chloral hydrate. Some sources say it was Kool-Aid; others say FlaVor-Aid®. Other victims appear to have been murdered by poison injection. The Guyanese coroner said that hundreds of bodies showed needle marks, indicating foul play. Still other victims were shot. A very few fled into the jungle and survived.
In all, 914 died: 638 adults and 276 children. Some sources say 911 died. Their bodies were in a state of extensive decay when the authorities arrived. There was no time to conduct a thorough investigation. TV station KTVU in San Francisco CA has a collection of photographs of the "Peoples temple Agricultural Project." Some are quite disturbing. Unfortunately, their web site implies that all of the dead committed suicide.
cult leaders do what jesus had done all the time, big deal, if thats proof, its proof that jesus was a cult leader. wait.................... ...
-
cult leaders do what jesus had done all the time, big deal, if thats proof, its proof that jesus was a cult leader. wait.................... ...
First "there's no proof", then there's "well if there is proof" he must be a magician, a cult leader, yada yada yada......
You have ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH!!!! You just want to try to bash Christianity.
It all sounded like a good idea when you started, "I think I'll go on the boards and make all the Christians look stupid by showing them that the Bible is full of inaccuraces, contradicts itself, Jesus wasn't real, He was married and Had kids, (and all of the other nonsense you've heard rumors about)."
Then, oooooopppps.... you're confronted with the reality that Bible is reliable and these so called inconsistencies really don't exist. Then you realize that you have issues you have to deal with in your life if this is true. "Oh well, I think i will just deny all of the evidence and call them a bunch of names and make fun of them, then maybe they'll be distracted and they won't realize what a fool I am.". Uhh, duhhh, Jesus was..........wait....... .
-
First "there's no proof", then there's "well if there is proof" he must be a magician, a cult leader, yada yada yada......
You have ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH!!!! You just want to try to bash Christianity.
It all sounded like a good idea when you started, "I think I'll go on the boards and make all the Christians look stupid by showing them that the Bible is full of inaccuraces, contradicts itself, Jesus wasn't real, He was married and Had kids, (and all of the other nonsense you've heard rumors about)."
Then, oooooopppps.... you're confronted with the reality that Bible is reliable and these so called inconsistencies really don't exist. Then you realize that you have issues you have to deal with in your life if this is true. "Oh well, I think i will just deny all of the evidence and call them a bunch of names and make fun of them, then maybe they'll be distracted and they won't realize what a fool I am.". Uhh, duhhh, Jesus was..........wait....... .
Thump thump ::)
-
I would agree if the testimonials written in a two thousand piece of parchment was all we had. But it is not only the testimonials, but also what it was that these eye witnesses did as a result of their alleged sighting of a risen Jesus. They gave up all they had to spread the Good News, under penalty of death. This was no legend that they believed in because it all happened around the same time. Hence, too little time for such a powerful legend to form.
We may have thousands of people witness UFOs and we may have thousands of people witness Elvis, but has anything resulted from those sightings? On the other hand, we have early Christians sell everything they had, give it to the poor, preach Jesus Christ, suffer ridicule and rejection, get arrested, get tortured and die, all without retaliation or violence on their part, thus following their own teachings which got them executed in the first place. So much for the theory that Jesus Christ was invented to control people and to obtain power and wealth. Most, if not all of the early Christians, including the leaders, suffered and died poor, holding no power at all. I know this is no proof, but it is evidence to me, part of it anyway. It is insufficient and unacceptable evidence to many, but not to me.
Similar stuff happens like that all the time. People give up their worldly possessions and join some cult. While in that cult they do things that are against the law. What the followers of Jesus did was hardly significant at the time as law enforcement in this day in age is far more efficient.
the theory that Jesus Christ was invented to control people and to obtain power and wealth.
It wasn't deliberate. At least in the beginning, but after 300 years it was to the extend of creating a "world religion" involving a council of "authorities" all in competition to draw the frame work for the collection of books you call the Bible and determine doctrine.
-
Similar stuff happens like that all the time. People give up their worldly possessions and join some cult. While in that cult they do things that are against the law. What the followers of Jesus did was hardly significant at the time as law enforcement in this day in age is far more efficient.
It wasn't deliberate. At least in the beginning, but after 300 years it was to the extend of creating a "world religion" involving a council of "authorities" all in competition to draw the frame work for the collection of books you call the Bible and determine doctrine.
CONSPIRACY :D :D :D :D :D
-
First "there's no proof", then there's "well if there is proof" he must be a magician, a cult leader, yada yada yada......
You have ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH!!!! You just want to try to bash Christianity.
It all sounded like a good idea when you started, "I think I'll go on the boards and make all the Christians look stupid by showing them that the Bible is full of inaccuraces, contradicts itself, Jesus wasn't real, He was married and Had kids, (and all of the other nonsense you've heard rumors about)."
Then, oooooopppps.... you're confronted with the reality that Bible is reliable and these so called inconsistencies really don't exist. Then you realize that you have issues you have to deal with in your life if this is true. "Oh well, I think i will just deny all of the evidence and call them a bunch of names and make fun of them, then maybe they'll be distracted and they won't realize what a fool I am.". Uhh, duhhh, Jesus was..........wait....... .
are you serious? i honestly cant tell, you must be a gimmick. its funny that you beleive the earth is 6000 years old despite proof, yet are talking about truth. the irony. i came on this board because delusional people like you exist and make the world worse off. im sick of hearing you cooks talk about people going to hell, gays etc....
i never even made an argument in this thread yet about the bibles accuracy, it can be geographically accurate for all i care(i dont know if it is, i havent looked) but the words contained inside are nothing short of hatred and have nothing to do with true compassion and love.
-
are you serious? i honestly cant tell, you must be a gimmick. its funny that you beleive the earth is 6000 years old despite proof, yet are talking about truth. the irony. i came on this board because delusional people like you exist and make the world worse off. im sick of hearing you cooks talk about people going to hell, gays etc....
i never even made an argument in this thread yet about the bibles accuracy, it can be geographically accurate for all i care(i dont know if it is, i havent looked) but the words contained inside are nothing short of hatred and have nothing to do with true compassion and love.
Apparently you havent really taken a look. The Bible sets the standard for LOVE, Women's rights, Moral and Ethical standard, etc. It is NOT a book about hate. The only people that get hate out of the Bible are critics with a personal agenda that completely distort the text out of context. The whole message of the Bible is a message of LOVE.
Jesus summed it up, "By this they will know that you are my Disciples, by your LOVE for one another."
-
Apparently you havent really taken a look. The Bible sets the standard for LOVE, Women's rights, Moral and Ethical standard, etc. It is NOT a book about hate. The only people that get hate out of the Bible are critics with a personal agenda that completely distort the text out of context. The whole message of the Bible is a message of LOVE.
Jesus summed it up, "By this they will know that you are my Disciples, by your LOVE for one another."
so calling for death to women who dont obey there men, slavery, death to those who work on sunday, death to those who disobey there parents etc.. are examples of love and compassion. your fooling yourself.
-
are you serious? i honestly cant tell, you must be a gimmick. its funny that you beleive the earth is 6000 years old despite proof, yet are talking about truth. the irony. i came on this board because delusional people like you exist and make the world worse off. im sick of hearing you cooks talk about people going to hell, gays etc....
i never even made an argument in this thread yet about the bibles accuracy, it can be geographically accurate for all i care(i dont know if it is, i havent looked) but the words contained inside are nothing short of hatred and have nothing to do with true compassion and love.
This guy is a fundy of the highest order to the point of ridiculous. You aren't talking to someone with all their marbles here and on top of that this person doesn't have very many to begin with.
-
This guy is a fundy of the highest order to the point of ridiculous. You aren't talking to someone with all their marbles here and on top of that this person doesn't have very many to begin with.
:)
-
The Freakshow, did your god love the first born children of Egypt when he supposedly murdered them, as your holy books claim?
-
This Jesus character must have been a hell of a talker and magician.
That is no proof anyway. Look how many people followed around this nut. same with David Koresh.
Jim Jones
They reach a consensus to commit group suicide. Most appear to have committed suicide by drinking a grape drink laced with cyanide and a number of sedatives, including liquid Valium, Penegram and chloral hydrate. Some sources say it was Kool-Aid; others say FlaVor-Aid®. Other victims appear to have been murdered by poison injection. The Guyanese coroner said that hundreds of bodies showed needle marks, indicating foul play. Still other victims were shot. A very few fled into the jungle and survived.
In all, 914 died: 638 adults and 276 children. Some sources say 911 died. Their bodies were in a state of extensive decay when the authorities arrived. There was no time to conduct a thorough investigation. TV station KTVU in San Francisco CA has a collection of photographs of the "Peoples temple Agricultural Project." Some are quite disturbing. Unfortunately, their web site implies that all of the dead committed suicide.
What does this have to do with Jesus or with Christianity? These leaders you speak of were modern time nuts. Jesus was sane. Jesus never asked his followers to commit mass suicide, or to hurt, or to kill anybody. The same goes for early Christian leaders and early Christians in general. They did not commit suicide. They were executed for spreading the gospel. They were good people who did good things. And all of this happened around the same time, before such a powerful legend could be formed.
And read my post again. I said that this is not proof, but it is part of sufficient and acceptable evidence to me.
-
Similar stuff happens like that all the time. People give up their worldly possessions and join some cult. While in that cult they do things that are against the law. What the followers of Jesus did was hardly significant at the time as law enforcement in this day in age is far more efficient.
All the time? Just like that? Okay, then you must have lots of detailed examples. Please share some with us.
It wasn't deliberate. At least in the beginning, but after 300 years it was to the extend of creating a "world religion" involving a council of "authorities" all in competition to draw the frame work for the collection of books you call the Bible and determine doctrine.
So what does the fact that three centuries later Christianity was corrupted and abused by the Roman Catholic Church in order to control and exploit people have to do with Jesus and with his early followers? If you were a third century king and wanted to keep control of your kingdom by abusing a religion and its followers, you too would pick the fastest growing religion of the time.
-
What does this have to do with Jesus or with Christianity? These leaders you speak of were modern time nuts. Jesus was sane. Jesus never asked his followers to commit mass suicide, or to hurt, or to kill anybody. The same goes for early Christian leaders and early Christians in general. They did not commit suicide. They were executed for spreading the gospel. They were good people who did good things. And all of this happened around the same time, before such a powerful legend could be formed.
And read my post again. I said that this is not proof, but it is part of sufficient and acceptable evidence to me.
It has everything to do with Jesus and Christians. Maybe you don't know the story. This was a snippet of what lengths people go to because they are duped.
That is what I meant when you said what these people did for Jesus, which is, give all their stuff to the poor and preach and help others. That's how the above started too. Then..... at the end most were so scared of not doing what Jim Jones said and risk being condemned to Hell, that they drank the poison and gave their own children poison. In their minds they were doing the right thing.
So in my mind I do not see how a group of people giving up everything and spreading the word is proof of this mythical jesus.
Also, a revelation just came to me. If anything, the higher authority people from the congregation who shot the non-believers because they tried to run, were actually doing what the bible states according to this youtube piece . They were the "OG" Christians.
-
It has everything to do with Jesus and Christians. Maybe you don't know the story. This was a snippet of what lengths people go to because they are duped.
That is what I meant when you said what these people did for Jesus, which is, give all their stuff to the poor and preach and help others. That's how the above started too. Then..... at the end most were so scared of not doing what Jim Jones said and risk being condemned to Hell, that they drank the poison and gave their own children poison. In their minds they were doing the right thing.
So in my mind I do not see how a group of people giving up everything and spreading the word is proof of this mythical jesus.
Also, a revelation just came to me. If anything, the higher authority people from the congregation who shot the non-believers because they tried to run, were actually doing what the bible states according to this youtube piece . They were the "OG" Christians.
I know the story and it has nothing to do with Jesus. First of all, if these people knew their Bibles they would not have committed mass suicide. Second of all, according to your own story which you posted, they were forced to drink the poison, while others where injected with the poison, others were even shot, and a few even ran and were able to survive. These guy had guns, so it was not his charisma that got this people killed.
As for that video, that guy is ignorant or purposely being deceptive. Many Christians do read and study the Bible daily, and we don't see Christians today stoning anybody to death for anything. So that's non sense.
-
All the time? Just like that? Okay, then you must have lots of detailed examples. Please share some with us.
What loco? You think Christians are the only ones to do that? The only ones to die for what they believe in? What an arrogant and ignorant assumption.
Off the top of my head regarding cults....
Jim Jones
Harry Krisna's (sp)
Scientology
David Koresh
Moonies
Those people who all committed suicide to travel to that comet a few years ago.
In many of these cases people have given up their worldly belongings and turned away from their families.
I might even ad Jehovah Witnesses to that group. I know a gal who's parents haven't spoken to her in 5 years because she no longer follows that faith.
Here's a wik source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults)
My point is, What early Christians did in giving up their belongings and risking their lives is NOT unique to Christians. Unless of course you are a brainwashed fundy which you are not.
So what does the fact that three centuries later Christianity was corrupted and abused by the Roman Catholic Church in order to control and exploit people have to do with Jesus and with his early followers? If you were a third century king and wanted to keep control of your kingdom by abusing a religion and its followers, you too would pick the fastest growing religion of the time.
Simple. The Christianity you know today is based on the collection of scripture that council put together.
-
I know the story and it has nothing to do with Jesus. First of all, if these people knew their Bibles they would not have committed mass suicide. Second of all, according to your own story which you posted, they were forced to drink the poison, while others where injected with the poison, others were even shot, and a few even ran and were able to survive. These guy had guns, so it was not his charisma that got this people killed.
As for that video, that guy is ignorant or purposely being deceptive. Many Christians do read and study the Bible daily, and we don't see Christians today stoning anybody to death for anything. So that's non sense.
NO....Not all were forced to drink poison. MOST did it on their own weak will. You do not know the story. Some who came to their senses at the midnight hour..well it was too late and they were shot as non-believers.
Why is the video deceptive? That is real proof from your "guide to life" bible.
I'm done. You think we are blind and we think you are blind. It will never end. I don't hate people who believe in Biblical tales. I just wonder how in utter amazement. Maybe one day I will "see the light". It could be possible, who knows, but until then I am a skeptic till the end.
-
What loco? You think Christians are the only ones to do that? The only ones to die for what they believe in? What an arrogant and ignorant assumption.
Show me where I said that Christians are the only ones who die for what they believe in. Show me where I said that Christians are the only ones who give up their possessions for what they believe in? You are so quick to jump at any chance you get to call us arrogant and ignorant.
I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. I think you are way off topic now. I was pointing out that the fact that Jesus' followers first ran and went into hiding after Jesus was arrested and crucified, then suddenly they are preaching the Gospel in the open, selling everything they have and giving it to the poor, willing to be tortured and executed for preaching the gospel is acceptable and sufficient evidence to me that their claim to have seen, spoken to and touched a risen Jesus is true. You then proceeded to claim similar things happen all the time.
So I ask you, give me some examples of a religious leader whose followers run and hide after he is killed, then emerged fearless, doing good deeds and spreading this religion peacefully under penalty of death, claiming to have seen, spoken to and touched their risen leader, all having happened around the same time, with not enough time for legends like this to form?
-
NO....Not all were forced to drink poison. MOST did it on their own weak will. You do not know the story. Some who came to their senses at the midnight hour..well it was too late and they were shot as non-believers.
Why is the video deceptive? That is real proof from your "guide to life" bible.
I'm done. You think we are blind and we think you are blind. It will never end. I don't hate people who believe in Biblical tales. I just wonder how in utter amazement. Maybe one day I will "see the light". It could be possible, who knows, but until then I am a skeptic till the end.
How do you know that?
And the video is ignorant and deceptive because 1. Christian do read their Bible, 2. The Bible does not tell Christians to shoot anybody for working on Sunday and 3. Christians are not shooting anybody for working on Sunday.
The guy is trying to make the Bible and Christianity appear to be dangerous when neither is.
-
How do you know that?
And the video is ignorant and deceptive because 1. Christian do read their Bible, 2. The Bible does not tell Christians to shoot anybody for working on Sunday and 3. Christians are not shooting anybody for working on Sunday.
The guy is trying to make the Bible and Christianity appear to be dangerous when neither is.
The Bible tells us that god wishes that those who work on the Sabbath be slain; it is quite explicit; are you denying this?
-
The Bible tells us that god wishes that those who work on the Sabbath be slain; it is quite explicit; are you denying this?
No, The Bible tells us that God gave ancient Israel that law. The law and the punishment for breaking it are two different things. The penalty of death for breaking that law was accepted by the people of Israel of that time. They did not complain about the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath.
That was for ancient Israel. God did not tell Israel to spread Judaism. God did not tell Israel to go around the world killing homosexuals, adulterers, or anyone who worked on the Sabbath.
The law is still a good thing, but there is no longer a death penalty for breaking it.
For example, the woman in the New Testament who had just committed adultery and the Jews wanted to stone her to death, then Jesus told them whoever is free of sin cast the first stone. So they all left. Then Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. So adultery is still a sin and we should still abstain from it, but we should not stone people to death for committing adultery.
And Christians are not bound by the law of Moses like ancient Israel was:
Acts 15:5
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:19-20
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Romans 3:21-22
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Romans 2:15
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Colossians 2:16-17
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
-
Show me where I said that Christians are the only ones who die for what they believe in. Show me where I said that Christians are the only ones who give up their possessions for what they believe in? You are so quick to jump at any chance you get to call us arrogant and ignorant.
I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. I think you are way off topic now. I was pointing out that the fact that Jesus' followers first ran and went into hiding after Jesus was arrested and crucified, then suddenly they are preaching the Gospel in the open, selling everything they have and giving it to the poor, willing to be tortured and executed for preaching the gospel is acceptable and sufficient evidence to me that their claim to have seen, spoken to and touched a risen Jesus is true. You then proceeded to claim similar things happen all the time.
So I ask you, give me some examples of a religious leader whose followers run and hide after he is killed, then emerged fearless, doing good deeds and spreading this religion peacefully under penalty of death, claiming to have seen, spoken to and touched their risen leader, all having happened around the same time, with not enough time for legends like this to form?
My point was, and still is, what you call significant in that people risking their lives and giving up all their worldly possessions is nothing significant. It happens all the time. (all the time being a figure of speech)
Now as far as them touching the risen Jesus................. Sounds like he never died on the cross to me. But further more you don't have any proof other then scripture that has been copied many times over from the originals written by primitive people who always in those times had a predisposition to believe in fancy tales. Hardly proof but instead something that is a belief.
-
No, The Bible tells us that God gave ancient Israel that law. The law and the punishment for breaking it are two different things. The penalty of death for breaking that law was accepted by the people of Israel of that time. They did not complain about the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath.
That was for ancient Israel. God did not tell Israel to spread Judaism. God did not tell Israel to go around the world killing homosexuals, adulterers, or anyone who worked on the Sabbath.
The law is still a good thing, but there is no longer a death penalty for breaking it.
For example, the woman in the New Testament who had just committed adultery and the Jews wanted to stone her to death, then Jesus told them whoever is free of sin cast the first stone. So they all left. Then Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. So adultery is still a sin and we should still abstain from it, but we should not stone people to death for committing adultery.
And Christians are not bound by the law of Moses like ancient Israel was:
Acts 15:5
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
Acts 15:8-11
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Acts 15:19-20
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Romans 3:21-22
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
Hebrews 10:16
"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."
Romans 2:15
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Colossians 2:16-17
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
Convenient. Yet again.
-
just because primitive people accepted death as a proper punishment for working of the sabbath doesnt mean it is ok. god is suppose to have better rational, better logic then us, and as we have evolved we know that death for workign on sunday is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. god should have known this. if you agree that people should be killed for workign on sunday then you have some serious mental issues, since sunday is an abstract thing created by man. some calendars are different.
god is absolutely ridiculous for calling for death of these people, and since he knows the future it makes it even more fucking absurd. god loves killing.
-
just because primitive people accepted death as a proper punishment for working of the sabbath doesnt mean it is ok. god is suppose to have better rational, better logic then us, and as we have evolved we know that death for workign on sunday is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. god should have known this. if you agree that people should be killed for workign on sunday then you have some serious mental issues, since sunday is an abstract thing created by man. some calendars are different.
god is absolutely ridiculous for calling for death of these people, and since he knows the future it makes it even more fucking absurd. god loves killing.
Here's the part where you are asked if you think you have more wisdom than God. ::)
-
Convenient. Yet again.
Yet again, Convenient or not, I didn't write the book. At least I'm consistent, unlike those who pick and choose what is and what isn't God's word out of the Bible. Now, that is convenient and inconsistent.
-
My point was, and still is, what you call significant in that people risking their lives and giving up all their worldly possessions is nothing significant. It happens all the time. (all the time being a figure of speech)
That part is not what I am calling significant and acceptable evidence. It is the sum of all the circumstances surrounding Jesus and his early followers, the timing and their sudden change in attitude from one extreme to the other. You missed the point and continue to misunderstand my post which I posted in response to Hedge's post anyway.
So again, show me how this sequence of events happens all the time?
Now as far as them touching the risen Jesus................. Sounds like he never died on the cross to me. But further more you don't have any proof other then scripture that has been copied many times over from the originals written by primitive people who always in those times had a predisposition to believe in fancy tales. Hardly proof but instead something that is a belief.
And I never said that I had proof? How many times do I have to repeat myself? I said that I have sufficient and acceptable evidence.
Now Jesus never died on the cross? He did, and my evidence includes much more than just he Bible. For starters, it includes historical evidence outside the Bible:
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
1. Antiquities xviii. 33 (early second century) from F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 37.
2. Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
3. Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
4. Talmudic designation of Jesus.
5. "Sanhedrin," vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
-
Yet again, Convenient or not, I didn't write the book. At least I'm consistent, unlike those who pick and choose what is and what isn't God's word out of the Bible. Now, that is convenient and inconsistent.
No, loco. life is not black and white, life is not wrong or right, yes or no, smart or dumb. I don't have to accept the collection of stories you call the bible in whole or not at all. Only the purely primitive would and in turn condemn others for not doing so.
If the Bible was truly written by God it would not have all the contradictions in it forcing it's supporters to make up fantastical explanations for it or make excuses for it. It would be beyond reproach in it's wisdom and maniacs would be incapable of using to force their ideas such as David Koresh. It would be simple and straight forward.
But because it's not the word of God, and it's written by men, primitive men, anyone with half a brain is forced to pick and choose the wisdom that is of God in it, the same wisdom you find in other religions, of course not including the doctrine you find in every religion including that book you worship.
Yes, Christianity is set to be very convenient for Christians, they can condemn others for sins, by using the OT and are not required to follow it. Just like God does when he goes on one of his murdering binges in the OT.
-
No, loco. life is not black and white, life is not wrong or right, yes or no, smart or dumb. I don't have to accept the collection of stories you call the bible in whole or not at all. Only the purely primitive would and in turn condemn others for not doing so.
If the Bible was truly written by God it would not have all the contradictions in it forcing it's supporters to make up fantastical explanations for it or make excuses for it. It would be beyond reproach in it's wisdom and maniacs would be incapable of using to force their ideas such as David Koresh. It would be simple and straight forward.
But because it's not the word of God, and it's written by men, primitive men, anyone with half a brain is forced to pick and choose the wisdom that is of God in it, the same wisdom you find in other religions, of course not including the doctrine you find in every religion including that book you worship.
Yes, Christianity is set to be very convenient for Christians, they can condemn others for sins, by using the OT and are not required to follow it. Just like God does when he goes on one of his murdering binges in the OT.
You keep going off subject. I was simply giving my reasons for believing. When have I condemned you for not believing? Who is forcing you to believe anything? You are the one who keeps calling us dumb, stupid, arrogant and ignorant.
-
just because primitive people accepted death as a proper punishment for working of the sabbath doesnt mean it is ok. god is suppose to have better rational, better logic then us, and as we have evolved we know that death for workign on sunday is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. god should have known this. if you agree that people should be killed for workign on sunday then you have some serious mental issues, since sunday is an abstract thing created by man. some calendars are different.
god is absolutely ridiculous for calling for death of these people, and since he knows the future it makes it even more fucking absurd. god loves killing.
Many people today accept the death penalty for other things. And keeping the Sabbath wasn't as strict as some made out to be. The gospels are full of examples where Jesus tried to bring the Jews back to what keeping the Sabbath really meant.
And what's important here is that Christians don't believe in killing anyone for working on Sunday, for being homosexual, for committing adultery, etc.
-
You keep going off subject. I was simply giving my reasons for believing. When have I condemned you for not believing? Who is forcing you to believe anything? You are the one who keeps calling us dumb, stupid, arrogant and ignorant.
No, you made an assertion:
At least I'm consistent, unlike those who pick and choose what is and what isn't God's word out of the Bible. Now, that is convenient and inconsistent.
From my point of view that's what i have to do, because of the inconsistencies of the Bible I am forced to find the Wisdom of God in it, while you accept the whole thing as the Word of God, inconsistencies and hypocrisies included, and strive to justify it with fantastical excuses or rationals.............an d then to top it off, you've shown Christians don't have to follow the OT, while they "conveniently" quote it and condemn from it. Which supports my assertion to begin with.
As far as calling people who believe the Bible "Dumb and Ignorant"............If the shoe fits so be it. But in your case and several others the shoe does not fit. Now occasionally i might find something you said dumb and ignorant and might respond to it, but don't take that as me calling you dumb. You are far from it.
-
I dont know if its the word of god or not, but its surely a good paper resource to roll a joint (that's what i've been told)
-
Many people today accept the death penalty for other things.
Such as what loco? Is there anything civilized people today accept the death penalty outside of a punishment for killing another person?
Are you trying to normalize the audacity of killing someone who doesn't honor Sunday by making a comparison to modern civilized society?
And keeping the Sabbath wasn't as strict as some made out to be. The gospels are full of examples where Jesus tried to bring the Jews back to what keeping the Sabbath really meant.
So God's word doesn't mean anything? It's to be taken lightly? What else then is to be taken lightly?
And what's important here is that Christians don't believe in killing anyone for working on Sunday, for being homosexual, for committing adultery, etc.
But they believe in condemning people for those things even though they are not require to follow all of them?
-
Such as what loco? Is there anything civilized people today accept the death penalty outside of a punishment for killing another person?
Murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty. In many countries that have capital punishment, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.
So God's word doesn't mean anything? It's to be taken lightly? What else then is to be taken lightly?
But they believe in condemning people for those things even though they are not require to follow all of them?
I explained this to you earlier, but you had a hard time understanding it. columbusdude82 sent you to the library when you asked for an explanation on evolution in another thread. I did not do that, but instead looked up the Bible verses for you, posted them, highlighted the relevant parts and tried to explain it to you. Sorry it didn't work. Perhaps somebody else can explain it to you better without you having to go read the Bible yourself.
-
Many people today accept the death penalty for other things. And keeping the Sabbath wasn't as strict as some made out to be. The gospels are full of examples where Jesus tried to bring the Jews back to what keeping the Sabbath really meant.
And what's important here is that Christians don't believe in killing anyone for working on Sunday, for being homosexual, for committing adultery, etc.
the bible clearly states that disobedient children should be put to death, and those that work on sunday.
what we put people to death for are crimes that cause great suffering and harm to others, like multiple murders etc.. its used to keep others from doing the same thing. working on sunday harms no one and is a far cry from murder. to compare the two is lunacy.
-
Murder, espionage, treason, or as part of military justice. In some countries sexual crimes, such as rape, adultery and sodomy, carry the death penalty. In many countries that have capital punishment, drug trafficking is also a capital offense. In China human trafficking and serious cases of corruption are also punished by the death penalty. In militaries around the world courts-martial have imposed death sentences for offenses such as cowardice, desertion, insubordination, and mutiny.
So how does all that, save death for drug trafficking, compare to death for working on Sundays?
I'd say pretty primitive and barbaric.
Which is par for the course for the OT.
Murder murder murder.
I explained this to you earlier, but you had a hard time understanding it. columbusdude82 sent you to the library when you asked for an explanation on evolution in another thread. I did not do that, but instead looked up the Bible verses for you, posted them, highlighted the relevant parts and tried to explain it to you. Sorry it didn't work. Perhaps somebody else can explain it to you better without you having to go read the Bible yourself.
Oh no, i get it clearly. I was asking those questions to point out the lunacy of the issue.
-
So how does all that, save death for drug trafficking, compare to death for working on Sundays?
I'd say pretty primitive and barbaric.
Which is par for the course for the OT.
Murder murder murder.
Oh no, i get it clearly. I was asking those questions to point out the lunacy of the issue.
Oh, you do. Okay. Good. ::)
-
Oh, you do. Okay. Good. ::)
What, you don't see the lunacy? I'm not surprised. You HAVE to see it the way you see it otherwise your black and white world unravels. ;D
-
Convenient. Yet again.
Decidedly INCONVENIENT for you.
You willfully ignore the very basic foundations of Christian theology that loco explained and reply with an absurd quip. Why do you ask questions when you have no desire to understand the answers? That YouTube video is an absurd commentary on Christianity in that it ignores Christ.
Again, why are you here? To only be abusive and insulting about something you so clearly do not care to understand?
Your appeals to Common Practice and Popularity, Begging the Question, Ad Hominem attacks, etc. are no more convincing than Christian appeals to Ignorance and Tradition.
-
Decidedly INCONVENIENT for you.
You willfully ignore the very basic foundations of Christian theology that loco explained and reply with an absurd quip. Why do you ask questions when you have no desire to understand the answers? That YouTube video is an absurd commentary on Christianity in that it ignores Christ.
Again, why are you here? To only be abusive and insulting about something you so clearly do not care to understand?
Your appeals to Common Practice and Popularity, Begging the Question, Ad Hominem attacks, etc. are no more convincing than Christian appeals to Ignorance and Tradition.
You really need to spend more time reading my past posts.
The last you posted you said:
Why hang out in the Religious Debates section if you don't want to debate religious fundamentalists?
Go find some atheists board if you want to circle jerk with like minds.
So now since you've read my postings since, you've come to the conclusion that:
To only be abusive and insulting about something you so clearly do not care to understand?
I'll make it easy for you:
1. I don't believe the Bible is the 100% Word of God and 99% of my posts are rooted in questioning that.
2. Much of the questioning is the absurdity of some of the ideas or beliefs....such as the convenience of the using the OT to condemn others but not being bound to it or murdering a nation's worth of children on God's order as with what was done with the Amalikites.
You have 3 sides here: Atheists, Conservative Christians, and those who believe in God, but not religious doctrine which would be me and maybe smoke.
Just as many of the people who believe the Bible is the 100% WOG some are intelligent and others are plain stupid and if someone gives a stupid argument i have no problem saying it's a stupid argument.
If that bothers you, I apologize.
-
I would agree if the testimonials written in a two thousand year old piece of parchment was all we had. But it is not only the testimonials, but also what it was that these eye witnesses did as a result of their alleged sighting of a risen Jesus. They gave up all they had to spread the Good News, under penalty of death. This was no legend that they believed in because it all happened around the same time. Hence, too little time for such a powerful legend to form.
We may have thousands of people witness UFOs and we may have thousands of people witness Elvis, but has anything resulted from those sightings? On the other hand, we have early Christians sell everything they had, give it to the poor, preach Jesus Christ, suffer ridicule and rejection, get arrested, get tortured and die, all without retaliation or violence on their part, thus following their own teachings which got them executed in the first place. So much for the theory that Jesus Christ was invented to control people and to obtain power and wealth. Most, if not all of the early Christians, including the leaders, suffered and died poor, holding no power at all. I know this is no proof, but it is evidence to me, part of it anyway. It is insufficient and unacceptable evidence to many, but not to me.
More extra-Biblical information about early Christians:
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."2
References:
1. Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
2. Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
Nothing you quote really indicates anything else other than that having faith is a vital part of Christianity.
There are numerous passages in the Bible, where people question God, and even question the message.
Freakshow on the other hand, claims that there is evidence of God's existance.
If you believe God exist, because you think there are evidence out there, then I think your Christian faith is based on flawed premises.
And I've read some of your (recent) posts, where it seems that you're taking the leap of faith, and believes that there is a God, based on your faith.
And not based on certain evidence.
Correct me if I am wrong.
-
Nothing you quote really indicates anything else other than that having faith is a vital part of Christianity.
There are numerous passages in the Bible, where people question God, and even question the message.
Freakshow on the other hand, claims that there is evidence of God's existance.
If you believe God exist, because you think there are evidence out there, then I think your Christian faith is based on flawed premises.
And I've read some of your (recent) posts, where it seems that you're taking the leap of faith, and believes that there is a God, based on your faith.
And not based on certain evidence.
Correct me if I am wrong.
You are correct! I believe in God through faith, not because of any evidence or because of any proof. In the end, belief in God comes down to faith.
-
yep
-
You are correct! I believe in God through faith, not because of any evidence or because of any proof. In the end, belief in God comes down to faith.
Don't misunderstand loco. Just because he believes through faith (like we all do), that does not mean there is no evidence or proof to back that faith up.
As I've said before, there's a BIG difference between "faith" and "blind faith".
-
Don't misunderstand loco. Just because he believes through faith (like we all do), that does not mean there is no evidence or proof to back that faith up.
As I've said before, there's a BIG difference between "faith" and "blind faith".
Lie of the century; they are identical.
Live this life, enjoy it and have fun; it's the only one you have...
-
Lie of the century; they are identical.
Live this life, enjoy it and have fun; it's the only one you have...
And then you wake up at The Judgement.....ooooooooop ppppppppss!!!
-
And then you wake up at The Judgement.....ooooooooop ppppppppss!!!
No, then we cease to exist; oblivion and our bodies are worm food.
-
you both are whacked! :o
But the tie breaker goes tot he Thumper ;D
:)
-
Don't misunderstand loco. Just because he believes through faith (like we all do), that does not mean there is no evidence or proof to back that faith up.
As I've said before, there's a BIG difference between "faith" and "blind faith".
there is no evidence for god, and there is no difference between faith and blind faith, faith is the belief in something without evidence. its a leap of logic and irrational by definition.
-
you both are whacked! :o
But the tie breaker goes tot he Thumper ;D
:)
You claim I am whacked?
Where is your evidence for this statement?
-
You claim I am whacked?
Where is your evidence for this statement?
Issues with your intestines perhaps? ;D
-
Issues with your intestines perhaps? ;D
No, I merely contend that it could be built better by omnipotent, omniscient creator...
-
No, I merely contend that it could be built better by omnipotent, omniscient creator...
But you've brought it up 2 times as thread starters i think which shows an abnormal focus on it.
Did you have a really bad dump one day and did it cause you start asking questions? ;D
-
But you've brought it up 2 times as thread starters i think which shows an abnormal focus on it.
Did you have a really bad dump one day and did it cause you start asking questions? ;D
The dump process annoys me and is time consuming; it could have been done better.
-
we are rube goldberg machines, designed very poorly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg