Please repost on http://forums.christianity.com/Christian_Doctrine/forumid_50/tt.htm.
Criss Angel is a fraud. He uses camera tricks, unlike real illusionists. He also hires people who pretend to be impressed to make him look more amazing.
I think he was a magician and orator who may or may not have been given a mission by God. But, you're right, certian bits don't add up.
Criss Angel is a fraud. He uses camera tricks, unlike real illusionists. He also hires people who pretend to be impressed to make him look more amazing.
Of course Jesus wasn't the Messiah: it's all fiction. The Bible is the longest living piece of science fiction ever written.
But, if you use the Bible to prove Jesus is not the Messiah, like the OP did, you won't get anywhere, because the Bible is the Testemony that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.
First of all, you should make it clear for yourself if you believe in God Almighty or not.Hmmm, if not sci-fi then the Bible is certainly fantasy.
If you do, then you must believe that a Messiah is to come on Earth. Now, whether he already arrived in the form of Jesus of Nasareth or not is a different argument.
But, if you use the Bible to prove Jesus is not the Messiah, like the OP did, you won't get anywhere, because the Bible is the Testemony that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.
If you don't believe in God, then the term 'Messiah' has no meaning to you and you should not post in this thread. Also, what science fiction could have been represented in the Bible at that level of development of sciences.
For example: "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
In other words, the Messiah would rule at a time of world peace. This was clearly not the case in the days of Jesus, and arguably hasn't been the case since then. In fact, the very idea of the Crusades is hypocritical in light of this fact.
But the Crusades may have been necessary in the eyes of the Middle Age Christians, because the Messiah was supposed to usher in a period when everybody in the world worshiped under one God:
"And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord" (Isaiah 66:23)
This passage is clear in its intent, but seems to be ignored by Christians. Even if you make the supposition that all followers of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the same God, you still have the Hindu as well as other smaller religions who do not, not to mention atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists who do not worship any God.
The Crusaders who spilled the blood of millions in the name of Christ tried to fulfill this prophecy, God love 'em (summarily ignoring the first prophecy mentioned, but they may have felt that was justified given that we've never had a period of world peace since the placement of Jesus as the Messiah anyway...) but failed even trying to force-feed their propaganda to the world at large.
In addition, the Messiah was supposed to be a direct male descendant of King David:
"And when your days [David] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12-13)
Since Jesus was not Joseph's biological son, it follows that he was not a direct descendant of David in the sense given here.
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.(Matthew 1:16)
My mistake :-[
However, there are 28 generations from David to Christ. If only half of them had only 2 children, then that would amount to:
2^14 = 16,384
equal decendants to the David's line as Jesus. This is the population of a small town.
There was no need of Jesus to be a blood relative of Jospeh. By recognizing him as his firstborn son under the Law, he is is his decendant."And when your days [David] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..."
Also, by admitting that Jesus is not the son of Joseph, but actually the Son of G-d, you pwn yorself and must reckongnize that he is actually the Messiah.
The Judean Messiah was supposed to be a statesman, King of Israel. But, it turned out that he was the Son of God, our Lord and Savior.
It is true he wasn't the son of Joseph, because in the very next verse of the Gospel of Matthew it is said that he was concieved by the Holy Spirit.
It is true that he wasn't the Messiah the Jews were expecting. Because he wasn't an ordinary human. He was Our God in a human form.
Which goes back to my original argument, that the New Testament writers picked and chose which prophesies were relevant, blatantly ignoring others. The Messiah was not supposed to be a divine figure.
Oh, and he was also supposed to bring all the Jews together into the Holy Land. :P
Where from the Old Testament did they pick and choose about the divine nature of Jesus? I'm sorry for the Jews that it didn't turn out the way they expected. I'm sorry that the Messiah didn't bring them together in the Holy Land. Maybe he was to busy SAVING THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE and fullfilling the Will of God.When did Jesus save the human race? Do we live in the same universe?
It's obvious you are an arogant atheist but the fact is that you pwned yourself with your own argument and you're being obtuse about it thinking it will go away.
Old.It's obvious you are an arogant atheist but the fact is that you pwned yourself with your own argument and you're being obtuse about it thinking it will go away.
I never did. I did pwn you a couple times, though.
See this link (http://you.justgotowned.com/) for more evidence in my favor.
No, I just want to point out the absurdity of Roundy's argument. He claims that Jesus is not the Messiah because he is not a direct decendant of David because he is not really Joseph's biological son and we know this from the Gospel of Matthew which states that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit making him the Son of God.
Of course, the Son of God cannot be the Messiah.
Are we in agreement that this counts as being in the line of David as predicted by the bible, or not?
LOL, the fundie called me a troll. ;D
Seriously though, when and how did Jesus save the world?
My point is that Jesus did not come from David's seed, therefore he was not the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.Ok, if you want to make me pull it out of your keyboard, fine. How do you know that Jesus was not from the line of David?
Bushido's point appears to be that the New Testament said Jesus was the Messiah so :P.
Notice I said the human race, you trunk.Way to evade the question. How and when did Jesus save the human race then?
Notice I said the human race, you trunk.Way to evade the question. How and when did Jesus save the human race then?
By taking upon him all the sins of mankind and dying on the cross. Now, go worship.If that is so, why should I even worship? After all, Jesus died for all the sins that I will ever make, so my place in heaven is made no matter what I do. I win.
Yes, you do. Here's a cookie.By taking upon him all the sins of mankind and dying on the cross. Now, go worship.If that is so, why should I even worship? After all, Jesus died for all the sins that I will ever make, so my place in heaven is made no matter what I do. I win.
Ok, if you want to make me pull it out of your keyboard, fine. How do you know that Jesus was not from the line of David?
The only thing relevant.How do you know that Jesus was not from the line of David?I don't.
And, yeah. If Jesus saved the whole human race, why do so many people go to hell?I don't plan to give you free classes in theology. Jesus died so that the righteous ones CAN go to heaven. God doesn't choose who goes to heaven or hell. Every person chooses for her/himself. And we don't go to one of these places immediatelly after death, but we wait for the Second Coming of the Messiah when all the souls that ever lived will be trialed.
Jesus's credibility as the Messiah the Jewish people foresaw is predicated on the fulfillment of certain prophesies set forth in the Old Testament. But the writers of the New Testament seemed content to pick and choose what was needed to be fulfilled, blatantly ignoring some prophesies.
For example: "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
In other words, the Messiah would rule at a time of world peace. This was clearly not the case in the days of Jesus, and arguably hasn't been the case since then. In fact, the very idea of the Crusades is hypocritical in light of this fact.
Actually, Jesus was born durin the Pax Romana, a time of a moderately peaceful world. In other words, it was peaceful where Jesus was, but not nessisarily all over the entire globe. (See that, I used RE Globularism!)
But the Crusades may have been necessary in the eyes of the Middle Age Christians, because the Messiah was supposed to usher in a period when everybody in the world worshiped under one God:
"And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord" (Isaiah 66:23)
This passage is clear in its intent, but seems to be ignored by Christians. Even if you make the supposition that all followers of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the same God, you still have the Hindu as well as other smaller religions who do not, not to mention atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists who do not worship any God.
Ths refers to the end of the world. If you didn't know, Isaiah, the person you quoted, deals with the "end times" quite often. He was refering to Judgment day, where christians believe all will bow at the feet of Jesus.
The Crusaders who spilled the blood of millions in the name of Christ tried to fulfill this prophecy, God love 'em (summarily ignoring the first prophecy mentioned, but they may have felt that was justified given that we've never had a period of world peace since the placement of Jesus as the Messiah anyway...) but failed even trying to force-feed their propaganda to the world at large.
Remember, the Crusades were basically for wealth. The Catholic Church had much more corruption than it did today.
In addition, the Messiah was supposed to be a direct male descendant of King David:
"And when your days [David] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12-13)
Since Jesus was not Joseph's biological son, it follows that he was not a direct descendant of David in the sense given here.
Look through Mary's side of the family. She leads back to David.
Even though I don't personally believe any of it, I thought it would be interesting to give a Jewish spin on the arguments for and against the Jesus myth, since it's not currently represented here. If you consider these criteria (and there are other criteria that Jesus doesn't fulfill as well, these are really just the most glaring) you really can't accept Jesus as the Messiah.
If you take all this, combined with the facts that
1)there is no historical record of Jesus's time on earth;
Luke, one of the Gospels and Jesus' followers, was a historian.
2)many elements of the Jesus story come from pagan tradition; and
I'm sure it does, along with other religions.
3)the books of the New Testament were written down long after the events supposedly took place,
Not always. Much of the Gospels were written during the last few months of Jesus' life.
you can see how the early Christians cobbled together bits and pieces of Old Testament and pagan lore to form a cult that is really based solely on myth. The bottom line is that Jesus does not fulfill the most important prophesies set forth in the Old Testament in any way, so his credibility as the Messiah predicted by the Jews is non-existent.
Actually, Jesus was born durin the Pax Romana, a time of a moderately peaceful world. In other words, it was peaceful where Jesus was, but not nessisarily all over the entire globe. (See that, I used RE Globularism!)
During this time the Romans still fought a consistent number of wars against neighboring states and tribes, most notably the Germanic tribes and Persians. There was also still political unrest among the noble families. Nonetheless, the Pax Romana was an era of relative tranquility in which Rome endured neither major civil wars, such as the perpetual bloodshed of the third century AD, nor serious invasions, such as those of the Second Punic War three centuries prior.(from Wikipedia's entry on the Pax Romana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_romana)) Hardly suggestive of world peace.
Ths refers to the end of the world. If you didn't know, Isaiah, the person you quoted, deals with the "end times" quite often. He was refering to Judgment day, where christians believe all will bow at the feet of Jesus.Again, true, but the Jews equate the End Times with the coming of the Messiah, so it's really an academic argument.
Look through Mary's side of the family. She leads back to David.Can you prove this? Is it in the conflicting account of Jesus's genealogy that Luke gives?
Luke, one of the Gospels and Jesus' followers, was a historian.I see. What major works is he known for? ::)
I'm sure it does, along with other religions.So you agree that elements were lifted from pagan tradition? Then how can you also believe that the events took place as related?
Not always. Much of the Gospels were written during the last few months of Jesus' life.Absolutely not true. The earliest writings in the New Testament were actually Paul's epistles (which were obviously written after Jesus's death).
Doesn't matter, the mods sit back because we, the normal members, have a nice ability to completely burn the offenders in retaliation. The offset neutralizes everything, and balance is restored.
It's living I'm afraid of.
That could mean a couple of things ... but you're an idiot, so please tell me what it is you mean.It's living I'm afraid of.
Cheap.
Pol Pot?
That could mean a couple of things ... but you're an idiot, so please tell me what it is you mean.It's living I'm afraid of.
Cheap.
Jesus died for you, you ungrateful satanists!I don't believe in Satan.
Jesus died for you, you ungrateful satanists!I don't believe in Satan.
But Satan is as real as God!My point exactly.
But Satan is as real as God!My point exactly.
Then why did you say you don't believe in Satan?Because he is only as real as your god. He is a fictitious character from a fairy tale written thousands of years ago.
I practice the Soto sect of Zen Buddhism, actually ... so there is none of that Tibetan tantric tripe. Zen is all about experiencing life itself, pure and simple, like a hammer to the fore-brain.This is just more bullshit...just like what you accuse your adversaries of. I like when the fundie dude stated "you will probably shit your pants and cry like a baby" when death comes a knockin at your door...pwnd!
Then your head asplode (aka enlightenment).
It meanst it is a cheap demagogical statement. You'll shit your pants if you knew death were on your doorstep and cry like a little baby just to postpone its inevitable arrival. Living is all you have and you most probably enjoy every minute of it, even if you are a complete failure in life.You don't know much about me, Jefe. We do know that you are, in fact, JustaTroll (or Bushido), though.
This is just more bullshit...just like what you accuse your adversaries of. I like when the fundie dude stated "you will probably shit your pants and cry like a baby" when death comes a knockin at your door...pwnd!Fundie doesn't know anything about me; he only knows what he would do. It's also pretty obvious you don't even know of what I accused my so-called adversaries. Oh, tell me what enlightenment should entail, since you seem to know something about it as well.
PS - look where your "enlightenment" has brought you...to this forum...WOW...I'm impressed... ::)
Oh, tell me what enlightenment should entail, since you seem to know something about it as well.
Please try using a hammer on your forebrain. Then we'll talk more.
I don't need to. The fact that you are here is proof of what I wrote…You have no idea what it is you are trying to prove. You do not know what enlightenment is.
Not necessary. I have enough “real” life experiences to know what would occur...It is obvious something very real has struck you in the head previously, I agree.
That could mean a couple of things ... but you're an idiot, so please tell me what it is you mean.It's living I'm afraid of.
Cheap.
It meanst it is a cheap demogogical statement. You'll shit your pants if you knew death were on your doorstep and cry like a little baby just to postpone its inevitable arrival. Living is all you have and you most probably enjoy every minute of it, even if you are a complete failure in life.
That could mean a couple of things ... but you're an idiot, so please tell me what it is you mean.It's living I'm afraid of.
Cheap.
It meanst it is a cheap demogogical statement. You'll shit your pants if you knew death were on your doorstep and cry like a little baby just to postpone its inevitable arrival. Living is all you have and you most probably enjoy every minute of it, even if you are a complete failure in life.
I'm afraid you only understand the position of God/death-fearing people such as yourself. I'll use myself as an example. Yes, living is all I have, and I do enjoy living, and yes, I would attempt to postpone my death if I had the option, but I don't fear death. If, for example, I were captured, bound, and lined up on a wall with others, and one-by-one we were systematically killed, I doubt I'd be afraid. I would probably be disappointed that I couldn't live longer or accomplish more (unless I were extremely old and had age-related handicaps, in which death would probably be a nice alternative to suffering), but definitely not afraid.
Now let's change the scenario. Suppose I were in a classroom, and a gunman broke into it and began shooting everyone in sight. If no one i really cared about were in it (that list is basically limited at this moment to my girlfriend, and a few of my closest friends), then the only emotion I would experience would be self-preservation. If one of the aforementioned were in the room, then I would probably fear for their safety, but I still wouldn't fear for my own, to the extent of my death allowing harm to come to any of them.
I know many of the fucked-up little monkeys prowling this site, obsessed with their own religion, would get down and pray not to meet with death, and probably be shot for standing still to long (I think anyone crouched over, unmoving, with their hands clasped together would be an easy target).
First of all, my statements are only as long as they need to be, and never fallacious, unlike many other posters on this site. How do you know what I am thinking / would think. I think the best person to make any judgment about myself is me. And since I've taken the course for AP Psychology (5 out of 5) and an out-of-school Introductory Psychiatry course, I think I'm more qualified than anyone else to make that judgment. Anyways, the sad truth, for you at least, is that I am perfectly 'alright' with dying (mainly if it were inescapable, which is why I gave two separate scenarios). Just because you are insecure with death does not mean we all are.
First of all, you claim that no one can be sure of their future actions. In this case, how can I be lying about it if no one actually knows what I would do. You continue contradicting yourself.
And again, let me completely assure you: I am not afraid of death; would I postpone it, yes. But not fear it, mainly because I believe there is nothing to death. Death is merely the end. Thus there is nothing to fear, no judgment, no ambiguity, just subtle passage out of consciousness, never to return.
I only listed AP Psych for credibility of analysis, not credibility of thought.
You continue to assert that I would fear death if I were faced with it, without any logical reasoning. Given your arguments thus far, may I safely conclude that your statements are completely groundless, with neither fact nor observation as backing?
That could mean a couple of things ... but you're an idiot, so please tell me what it is you mean.It's living I'm afraid of.
Cheap.
It meanst it is a cheap demogogical statement. You'll shit your pants if you knew death were on your doorstep and cry like a little baby just to postpone its inevitable arrival. Living is all you have and you most probably enjoy every minute of it, even if you are a complete failure in life.
I'm afraid you only understand the position of God/death-fearing people such as yourself. I'll use myself as an example. Yes, living is all I have, and I do enjoy living, and yes, I would attempt to postpone my death if I had the option, but I don't fear death. If, for example, I were captured, bound, and lined up on a wall with others, and one-by-one we were systematically killed, I doubt I'd be afraid. I would probably be disappointed that I couldn't live longer or accomplish more (unless I were extremely old and had age-related handicaps, in which death would probably be a nice alternative to suffering), but definitely not afraid.
Now let's change the scenario. Suppose I were in a classroom, and a gunman broke into it and began shooting everyone in sight. If no one i really cared about were in it (that list is basically limited at this moment to my girlfriend, and a few of my closest friends), then the only emotion I would experience would be self-preservation. If one of the aforementioned were in the room, then I would probably fear for their safety, but I still wouldn't fear for my own, to the extent of my death allowing harm to come to any of them.
I know many of the fucked-up little monkeys prowling this site, obsessed with their own religion, would get down and pray not to meet with death, and probably be shot for standing still to long (I think anyone crouched over, unmoving, with their hands clasped together would be an easy target).
Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities
Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities
Is this management and control of the flow of paleolithic hand axes and scrapers between caves?
I'm having an existential meltdown right now.
Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities
Is this management and control of the flow of paleolithic hand axes and scrapers between caves?
I'm having an existential meltdown right now.
I thought to reply in that manner, too, but I looked it up in a dictionary:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logistic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logistic)
You phail.
Okay, Dilton. ::)
Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.
Your evidence is wrong, theist. I suggest you look over your source again. And again. And again.
This time, with the blinders off. Then speak. For thy tongue is a foul beast that knows not of that which it speaks.
Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.
Is that a fancy way of putting "lol bible iz not tru!"? I still think you are a liar, you don't know.
Your evidence is wrong, theist. I suggest you look over your source again. And again. And again.
This time, with the blinders off. Then speak. For thy tongue is a foul beast that knows not of that which it speaks.
First of all, you claim that no one can be sure of their future actions. In this case, how can I be lying about it if no one actually knows what I would do. You continue contradicting yourself.
And again, let me completely assure you: I am not afraid of death; would I postpone it, yes. But not fear it, mainly because I believe there is nothing to death. Death is merely the end. Thus there is nothing to fear, no judgment, no ambiguity, just subtle passage out of consciousness, never to return.
I only listed AP Psych for credibility of analysis, not credibility of thought.
You continue to assert that I would fear death if I were faced with it, without any logical reasoning. Given your arguments thus far, may I safely conclude that your statements are completely groundless, with neither fact nor observation as backing?
Only if you are willing to stipulate that your assesment is equally groundless.
My evidence, here it is:
Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage Heb. 2:14-15
According to the Bible, we are all supposed to fear death, as our enemy. Since there are no lies in the Bible (I've checked), you must be lying about your fear of death.
EDIT: This fear of death is conquered by faith in out Lord, and his Heavenly Kingdom. Without this, it is impossible.
I claimed you are lying in saying you know how you would react to the situation, you don't.
Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.
Is that a fancy way of putting "lol bible iz not tru!"? I still think you are a liar, you don't know.
theist, you call me a liar, based on evidence in the bible. All I ask is that you show me logical (i.e. deductive) proof that the bible is infallible. And don't give me that "Teh bible is tru cz teh bible sez teh bible iz tru!!!111!!1!11!!!!" shit, as that is not proof, merely a logical fallacy. The problem is, you can't prove that the bible is infallible, because we already know that it is only one version of a series of Hebrew oral traditions, passed down and changed over generations, mottled together into that sad collage of fairy tales you call your 'holy text'. ::) It was written by old, bigoted men, attempting to pass on their twisted morals as the 'word of god'. In short, it is a collection of short stories, with no historical accuracy, nor anything worthwhile inside. You want proof of the bible's numerous lies, try googling "bible" and "contradictions" (or visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)), for, if the bible is always true, then how can it claim to opposing facts? Or, is it that one is incorrect, which means the bible is lying? (Of course, by far the most probable reason is that both are incorrect, as they were both written by old men who knew nothing other than to fear a god that they were taught to fear.)
You are avoiding my response, simpleton. I demand a proper rebuttal.
You are avoiding my response, simpleton. I demand a proper rebuttal.
Your message is insubstantial. I casually overlook it every time I browse this thread, like I do with most of your postings.
Ah, theist, my apologies. I thought I was dealing rational argument. You use the bible as evidence, which invalidates all arguments founded upon said evidence, as there is no evidence backing your fairy tale collection. However, against my better instinct, I have decided to respond to your edit. And don't even try to say "The bible is true because the bible says the bible is true", as that's a Bare Assertion Fallacy.
I'm afraid that YES, I know exactly how i would react. Unlike you, with your Australopithecan-like logistic capabilities, I can accurately simulate the most extreme situations and great emotional strain. But that wouldn't even be necessary, as I do not fear death, so any situation where I am confronted with unavoidable death would logically cause no fear in me. I don't even see why I'm leveling with you on this. Hara made my point much better than even I could.
Is that a fancy way of putting "lol bible iz not tru!"? I still think you are a liar, you don't know.
theist, you call me a liar, based on evidence in the bible. All I ask is that you show me logical (i.e. deductive) proof that the bible is infallible. And don't give me that "Teh bible is tru cz teh bible sez teh bible iz tru!!!111!!1!11!!!!" shit, as that is not proof, merely a logical fallacy. The problem is, you can't prove that the bible is infallible, because we already know that it is only one version of a series of Hebrew oral traditions, passed down and changed over generations, mottled together into that sad collage of fairy tales you call your 'holy text'. ::) It was written by old, bigoted men, attempting to pass on their twisted morals as the 'word of god'. In short, it is a collection of short stories, with no historical accuracy, nor anything worthwhile inside. You want proof of the bible's numerous lies, try googling "bible" and "contradictions" (or visit http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/)), for, if the bible is always true, then how can it claim to opposing facts? Or, is it that one is incorrect, which means the bible is lying? (Of course, by far the most probable reason is that both are incorrect, as they were both written by old men who knew nothing other than to fear a god that they were taught to fear.)
If any of that post implies the Bible is not true, than I can tell you that you are mistaken. Other than that, your attention is wasted on me, the more verbose your posts get, the less I feel like reading them.
Where is that coy little bean? I miss his "ACME Coporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acme_Corporation)" type explanation on things.
If you are unable to understand the above paragraph (or else mentally censoring everything you read which may disprove your ideals), please have fun immediately, and save us the trouble of having to deal with your trollish habits.
An unofficial forum rule is that you have to actually know something about your subject. Comply, and you'll be fine. Don't, and Narc will google that subject, find some weak counters and use your incompetance as a way to prove FE.
Yes, living is all I have, and I do enjoy living, and yes, I would attempt to postpone my death if I had the option, but I don't fear death. If, for example, I were captured, bound, and lined up on a wall with others, and one-by-one we were systematically killed, I doubt I'd be afraid. I would probably be disappointed that I couldn't live longer or accomplish more (unless I were extremely old and had age-related handicaps, in which death would probably be a nice alternative to suffering), but definitely not afraid.I don't know this for sure, but I would bet if you were bound and lined up on a wall with several others who were being systematically killed one-by-one you would shit your pants, piss on your shows and loose some semen as you got closer and closer to sure death...dumbass...
<snip>
I read through several of the pages and I haven't really seen anyone give a legitimate response to the OP (especially from a Christian perspective). I apologize ahead of time if I've made a mistake and overlooked someone's post.
Roundy, the arguments you bring forth have been blah blah blah blah blah blah zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz blah blah blah blah
He has been waiting for you.
in love,
>>zack
There are no legitimate inconsistencies in the Word of God. It is inspired and infallible in its original autographs. Things may seem to be inconsistencies at first, but this is (more often than not) because a person doesn't understand the given context. Knowing that the Bible is what it is, I know that if I ever come across something that doesn't look right at first, it is not the Word that is insufficient...it is my understanding of it.Honestly we used to have somebody on here that used to say "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true!" That's what this sounds like here. You're not saying that you know there are no inconsistencies because everything can be reasonably explained, you're saying you know there are no inconsistencies because... it's the Bible.
Regardless of all of that...Nothing I've presented you is a rationalization in any way. It is simply what the text states. Nothing more...nothing less.It is rationalization. I'm not saying you were rationalizing, I'm saying the authors of the New Testament were rationalizing. It's a twisting of the original text to suit the need for Jesus to fulfill the prophecies no matter how you look at it. To say that some of the prophecies are only now coming to pass, or have yet to come to pass, is ridiculous. They were supposed to come about in the messiah's lifetime. There is no mention of a "Second Coming" in the prophecies. He was supposed to be an earthly king. He wasn't.
Never meant to be a divine figure? Try reading the OT again. Especially the Psalms and Isaiah.Maybe you can tell me the specific passages you're talking about here.
That is a false presumption. Read the book of Daniel.Daniel wasn't believed by the Jews to be a messianic prophet.
Where is that in the Bible? Yes, the line of Solomon is the royal line and Joseph was descended from this line. Joseph is Christ's adopted father and this makes Christ Joseph's firstborn. Simple. IfBUT! If I recall correctly, the only definitive BLOOD connection was to neither David nor Solomon, but to Jesse.This seems to be right. But in Biblical times tribal affiliation went through the father, not the mother. So whether or not it can be argued that Mary was descended from David is irrelevant. It had to come through the father. Since he was not descended by blood through his father from David, he could not have been the Messiah.
No it is not stated explicitly. However, given seeming contradiction that pops up after David in the lineages, the fact that historians such as Eusebius have attested to this, and that the Israelite tribes were not to intermarry it is a rather logical conclusion to come to is it not?Or perhaps it was a mistake. But it's irrelevant, anyway.
I think that's the first true statement you've made so far, bro. However it is not complete. He was also supposed to be a priest "in the order of Melchezidek," or a Priest-King. His role was a dual one. It was actually believed by many of the Jews that "the Messiah" would actually be TWO men. They couldn't imagine one man doing everything that the Messiah was supposed to do. He had a role to fulfill as King and as Preist. He came as One Man and eliminated the distinction between the Kings and the Preists and became a preist "in the order of Melchezidek." If you don't know who Melchezidek is I'd suggest looking into that. It is some fun reading and study.That's true, many messianic prophecies are believed to be referring to two different men. Just the same, he was supposed to be a Davidic king. Jesus wasn't.
Well if you knew the truth and told the opposite you'd be lying. So in order for you to be lying you would have to know the truth. I said I was assuming this was not the case...that you don't know the truth.So either I don't know what I'm talking about or I'm lying? It can't possibly be that we have differing opinions about how these words are interpreted, I'm either ignorant or I'm intentionally spreading lies? ::)
I was an atheist until I was 17. I'm now 21. Thanks for the sympathy though. I would have loved to have that kind of upbringing. Unfortunately I did not. I came to this on my own (not without God's grace)...with a complete bias against the supernatural. How a man goes from atheism to being a tongue speaking, signs and wonders preaching, charismatic Christian is beyond me.I'd suggest the possibility that it's a sign of insanity. But that's just me. I find what you claim extraordinary but not outside the realm of possibility.
I'd be glad to help. Firstly, I don't see the necessary connection in Jesus having existed and the details of His life sharing similarities with pagan religions.Well, that answers my question, I guess. You're saying that the reason why Jesus shares many similarities to the evil pagan gods the OT God warned against worshipping was that they were kind of echoes planted by God of what was to come. Or something like that? I think it's more plausible to think that the people who came up with the Jesus story were borrowing bits and pieces of pagan religion to make Christianity more attractive to the pagans, but hey, whatever.
But anyway...
There have been many pagan practices adopted by Christianity throughout the ages. The celebration of Christmas and Easter are good examples. I don't have a problem with that. Paul states in Romans that we have this type of freedom to worship Christ and that God true worship does not come from form but from the base level of the heart. But to address your specific question I'll take you back to the beginning of creation. You see I don't see Christianity borrows specifics from pagan mythology (such as the virgin birth) but that pagan mythology has taken from the original plan of God. Since the Creation there have always been people in communion with the One True God, YHWH. The interesting thing to take notice of in Scriptures is that people lived a long time in the pre-flood days. It was normal for a man to see the birth of his great great great great great great great grandson. Catch my drift? Even though man had fallen they still lived in recognition and communion with God. I can imagine Adam having a conversation with Enoch (Adam's great great great great grandson) about what it was like walking and talking with God in the Garden.
This type of thing continued up until the flood when only Noah and his family were left alive. Noah's sons were Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Shem's descendants are known as the "Shem-ites" or Semites or Semetical peoples who populated the Middle-East.
Ham would be the ancestor of the people who populated the land of Canaan (the Canaanites) through his son Canaan who were later pushed out of Canaan into the African continent when the Israelites entered the Promised Land. The rest of Ham's sons populated much of the Asian continent.
Japheth's descendants migrated westward and would become the Indo-European peoples. So most "white Americans" could trace their lineage back to Noah's son Japheth. That doesn't really matter in this context...just a neat side-note.
So by these three men the rest of the world was populated. So it comes as no surprise to me that practically every culture worships some god and more specifically so many cultures have some "flood story." Why wouldn't they? I can imagine that the story of the flood and how God saved "our great grand-dad Noah." I can imagine a little kid asking his dad, "Hey dad, tell me the story of the flood again." Generation after generation the story changes and receives new twists and turns and thus while the flood stories have many similarities they are indeed different. You can even see this type of thing in Japanese evident in Japanese writing. Many of their more complex characters are made up of other less complex characters. I can't remember the exact characters off of the top of my head, but a couple of examples are the character for "ship" is made up of the symbol for "boat" or "vessel," the symbol for "man," and the symbol for the number "8." The Ark was was a big boat "ship" that transported 8 people. I think the symbol for "garden" is made of of two "man" symbols a "tree" symbol and a "serpent" symbol. Those kinds of similarities are abundant. These things are too similar for them to just be coincidence.
However through all of this, I believe the only Culture to get the flood story exactly right was the people group that was chosen by God and thusly kept that continual communion with Him, the Israelites-the preservers of the Word of God.
Given that long story that might've seemed irrelevant...I believe that most cultures and their pagan practices find their origins in the original plan of God and became corrupted and incomplete. That is not to say that some (probably most) pagan practices were not self-originating, but that the instances you are speaking of most likely fall into the latter category.
... sadistic, infantile, childish entity...
1 Corinthians 15.12-19
12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
Isaiah 9:1-7
1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as men rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian's defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior's boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
The very specific prophecies given in Scripture that come to pass are a good indicator that this is no ordinary book.That's just BS.
My absolute favorite argument from people who support the Bible's veracity is this:
"Well then you are taking it out of context."
In the words of Gulliver: THIS is a straw man statement.
First of all, who in the living fuck made you the 'supreme translator droid' for mankind, to make such an egotistical, self-deluded defense of a manuscript, which, might I add, has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts?
One example. Some idiot says something like this:
"So you are telling me that God basically made Jobe's life a LIVING HELL, because he loves him?"
and the rebuttal: "You are taking it out of context".
Sorry, wrong answer, bucko. The words are plain as day. What context is there to mistake? It specifically states that a man's life was turned into melted ice cream at the whim of a sadistic, infantile, childish entity, who, by all intents and purposes, represents not an almighty power to me personally, but a petulant child tantrum collage.
God is about as real as the multiverse theorem. You can't be 100% sure.
The point is that people go around, like the fag-o-tron bible humper above, as if they are 100% sure. How can they be 100% sure? They rely on a book, but cannot reproduce anything in it as proof. So it's impossible, in my eyes, to be 100% sure, otherwise, you just become a zealous bigot.
I love how they can walk around going 'cuz da bible says so', but then when they are faced with documented science they refuse to accept it. Even though the science texts say so too.
It's hypocrisy at it's finest.
Well my personal view is that if you have absolute faith then you ARE absolutely sure, but you still can't say you 'know' it to be tru because you can't prove it. You can be sure without proof, but not know without proof. If that makes sense.
Quote from: zackallenThe very specific prophecies given in Scripture that come to pass are a good indicator that this is no ordinary book.That's just BS.
The argument that a book is in fact a true account (of somethng) if THAT book that says somethnig may/will/has come to pass/happen and then, a few chapters later, says that a. or b. HAS in fact come to pass, is PURE bull.
No, it certainly isn't BS. Let us assume that in your mother's biography is a chapter about the day before you were born. The next chapter tells of the day you were born. Does this mean that her biography is not a true account of your birth?Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly.
PS. Jesus was a fraud, and is now burning in hell for his sins, and every one of his followers will eventually join him.
For a guy who is seemingly intelligent, you should know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary. If you can't understand what this statement means, may God have mercy on your soul.
Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly.
Suppose I write a book prophecising that "if, in the year 2000, nicolin will go take a pee at home, then this means that nicolin is god" and then in another chapter I write "hallelujah, today nicolin, in the first day of the year 2000, took a pee at home. Praise unto him for, as it has per the prophecy, nicolin is indeed the one and true god".
This would in fact mean that, by my own acount, I AM GOD.
So, please bow down and worship me.
Circular arguments...
Many people have despised the prophesies of God because they have never examined or proved them to determine if they are reliable and true. Perhaps this is because people suppose that prophecy is not real and genuine, or so commonplace that it can be easily explained. The biblical prophecies are quite specific, real, and genuine; they are unique because they do not exist anywhere else.
In all the writings of Buddha, Confucius, and Lao-tse, you will not find a single example of predicted prophecy. In the Koran there is on instance of a specific prophecy--a self fulfilling prophecy--that he, Mohammed, would return to Mecca. Quite different from the prophecy of Jesus, who said that He would return from the grave. One is easily fulfilled, and the other is impossible for any human being.
The prophecies of Scripture, on the other hand, are incredibly specific and detailed. They must be exactly fulfilled. The prophecies cannot possibly be just good guesses because they concerned themselves with things that had no likelihood of ever coming to pass. They predicted the very opposite of the natural expectations of human beings. They could not have been written after the events and pawned off as prophecies, because in hundreds of instances the fulfillment of the prophecy did not take place until hundreds of years after the death of the prophet. In many cases, the fulfillment came after the completion of the Old Testament, and even its translation into Greek in 150 BC.
Well let us see if I can understand what that statement means.
It seems to me to say,
1. Because I seem intelligent
2. I should know that organized religions is a crock and completely unnecessary.
implying that...
1. Intelligent (or at least seemingly intelligent people) people know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary.
2. I seem to be an intelligent person.
3. Therefore I should know that organized religion is a crock and completely unnecessary.
I think I understand that much. However, what I am unclear on is your definition of "organized religion". You need to clear this up for me.
Further, while this is certainly sound reasoning, it is far from valid. Your first premise is a HUGE assumption based on nothing more than your opinion. If you have evidence for this claim then please show me. This also requires you to define what you mean by "intelligent." There have been "intelligent" people who could run figurative circles around us on both sides of this argument.
The prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling. All the NT writers had to do was make sure the bases were covered as they fabricated their book. "We'll put some stuff that would be plausible to have already happened in the Gospels, and the other stuff we'll just say will happen at his Second Coming!" Not that hard. The prophecies that came true in the NT are ZERO rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah. ::)
I can trust the apostles' testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyrs' deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Christ, and their beliefs in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged, and they finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods then known:
1. Peter - crucified
2. Andrew - crucified
3. Matthew - the sword
4. John - natural [while in exile]
5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified
6. Philip - crucified
7. Simon - crucified
8. Thaddeus - killed by arrows
9. James, brother of Jesus - stoned
10. Thomas - spear thrust
11. Bartholomew - crucified
12. James, son of Zebedee - the sword
The response that is usually chorused back is this: "Why, a lot of people have died for a lie; so what does it prove?"
Yes, a lot of people have died for a lie, but they thought it was the truth. Now if the resurrection didn't take place (i.e. was false), the disciples knew it. I find know way to demonstrate that they could have been deceived. Therefore these eleven men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie.
Harold Mattingly, in his history text, writes: "The Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, sealed their witnesses with their blood." Tertullian wrote that "No man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth." Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, a man who lectured for years on how to break down a witness and determine whether or not a witness is lying, concludes: "The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidence of the great facts and truths which they asserted."
The Apostles went through the test of death to substantiate the veracity of what they were proclaiming. I believe I can trust their testimony more than most people I meet today, people who aren't willing to walk across the street for what they believe, let alone die for it.
Roundy-
I looked on the internet for a quote from the OT that mentions a second coming, by the way, and only came up with an apparently deliberate misinterpretation of Genesis 3:15. Please, enlighten me.
You say that "some of the prophecies are now coming to pass". In fact, I'm sure some of them have come to pass several times. We're talking about 2000 years, here. If you're vague enough with prophecy you can claim it's referring to any number of things, as evidenced by Nostradamus.
I have to say by the way that your source concerning Christianity being based on pagan myth (both quotes from the same place) is not exactly unbiased.
If people identify themselves with an organized religion, I know they are ignorant for several reasons.
One, because participating and identifying with an organized religion is not required. I do not need to say I'm Catholic to believe in the same values and ideas as them. Next, there are so many contradictions, that people invoke selective reasoning or they are completely oblivious to those contradictions. They are essentially agreeing to something that they don't know everything about, and when/if they find out the actual details, they will simply pick and choose what they want. Those type of people, in my definition, are not intelligent.
I know the prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling. I made it perfectly clear that the prophecies contained within the Bible are NOT self-fulfilling. First of all, the prophecies to which I am referring are primarily OT prophecies. However, Jesus own prophecy about Himself raising from the grave is incredible rational evidence with substantial eyewitness testimony.I'm wondering if you're reading what I write. I never said you said the prophecies need to be self-fulfilling. My point is that the NT was written long after the events took place. Eye-witness testimony in a folk tale means nothing, and as I'm sure you're aware, folk tales have a tendency to get more and more exaggerated as time passes. I'll restate what I said: the NT writers made sure that what was plausible to have already passed was included in the Gospels, and what wasn't (world peace, etc) would take place during the Second Coming. There is no rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah in the NT.
You've left the realm of talking about prophecy to talking about whether or not the NT writers can be trusted. This is a different ballgame altogether.I know the story behind this book, by the way; another fundie tried to send it to me after I told him I was Jewish. I'm curious about what kind of evidence outside the Bible there is that these things actually happened, and whether there's more to the story than simply that they died as martyrs.QuoteFrom More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell:QuoteI can trust the apostles' testimonies because, of those men, eleven died martyrs' deaths on the basis of two things: the resurrection of Christ, and their beliefs in Him as the Son of God. They were tortured and flogged, and they finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods then known:
1. Peter - crucified
2. Andrew - crucified
3. Matthew - the sword
4. John - natural [while in exile]
5. James, son of Alphaeus - crucified
6. Philip - crucified
7. Simon - crucified
8. Thaddeus - killed by arrows
9. James, brother of Jesus - stoned
10. Thomas - spear thrust
11. Bartholomew - crucified
12. James, son of Zebedee - the sword
The response that is usually chorused back is this: "Why, a lot of people have died for a lie; so what does it prove?"
Yes, a lot of people have died for a lie, but they thought it was the truth. Now if the resurrection didn't take place (i.e. was false), the disciples knew it. I find know way to demonstrate that they could have been deceived. Therefore these eleven men not only died for a lie - here is the catch - but they knew it was a lie. It would be hard to find eleven people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie.
and...QuoteHarold Mattingly, in his history text, writes: "The Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, sealed their witnesses with their blood." Tertullian wrote that "No man would be willing to die unless he knew he had the truth." Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, a man who lectured for years on how to break down a witness and determine whether or not a witness is lying, concludes: "The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unflinching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidence of the great facts and truths which they asserted."
The Apostles went through the test of death to substantiate the veracity of what they were proclaiming. I believe I can trust their testimony more than most people I meet today, people who aren't willing to walk across the street for what they believe, let alone die for it.
Look up information about the old Jewish wedding customs and then read John 15. That's a good place to start.??? Can you provide one of the many (500!) quotes from the OT you mentioned earlier that speak of a second coming or not? Honestly you're not making much of a case for your trustworthiness here. And you accuse me of lying.
Now I'm sure. You don't read what I write. The prophecies contained within the Bible are far from vague generalities. They are very specific.So tell me which of these are now coming to pass. Give me a couple examples of original quotes, then examples of how they've been fulfilled in modern times.
It is impossible to not have a bias. No matter how much you try your communications will always be influenced by your preconceived bias.I have no argument with this. It boils down to "he-said, she-said" in this case so we'll just leave this issue alone.
I'm wondering if you're reading what I write. I never said you said the prophecies need to be self-fulfilling. My point is that the NT was written long after the events took place. Eye-witness testimony in a folk tale means nothing, and as I'm sure you're aware, folk tales have a tendency to get more and more exaggerated as time passes. I'll restate what I said: the NT writers made sure that what was plausible to have already passed was included in the Gospels, and what wasn't (world peace, etc) would take place during the Second Coming. There is no rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah in the NT.
I know the story behind this book, by the way; another fundie tried to send it to me after I told him I was Jewish. I'm curious about what kind of evidence outside the Bible there is that these things actually happened, and whether there's more to the story than simply that they died as martyrs.
??? Can you provide one of the many (500!) quotes from the OT you mentioned earlier that speak of a second coming or not? Honestly you're not making much of a case for your trustworthiness here. And you accuse me of lying.
So tell me which of these are now coming to pass. Give me a couple examples of original quotes, then examples of how they've been fulfilled in modern times.
Midnight,My absolute favorite argument from people who support the Bible's veracity is this:
"Well then you are taking it out of context."
In the words of Gulliver: THIS is a straw man statement.
I'm not sure that you understand what a "straw man argument" is. Reading something out of context will often times lead to a misunderstanding of a given text. Not just the Bible.
For instance:
You said,
"My ass...has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts!"
Context is of the utmost importance when trying to discern the actual intent of someone's words. It is ignorant to argue otherwise.
First of all, who in the living fuck made you the 'supreme translator droid' for mankind, to make such an egotistical, self-deluded defense of a manuscript, which, might I add, has been in more hands than a hooker's breasts?
The individuals aren't making a "supreme translator claim." What they are doing is, based on their belief about the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant, stating the obvious. If God's Word is inerrant then there can be no contradictions. It boils down to a different argument altogether.
Just so you know...what you have done here is a perfect example of a straw man argument.
God didn't make Job's life a living hell. Satan did.
Job 2:7 - "So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head."
So, Yes. You were taking it out of context, and as you said, "The words are plain as day."
Hara Taiki, no one insulting you. There is no need for that.
This is a particular topic that I've always enjoyed studying. Something I've learned is that God never calls anyone to "blind faith." Faith is not "believing in God" as many people claim. You demonstrate your faith in things everyday. Faith is trust. Your legs when you walk, an airplane when you fly, your mind when you rationalize...all require you to take advantage of something at some point. The faith that the Bible talks about is faith that God is who He says He is and that He will do what He says He will do. Faith is trust. Faith is obedience.
No, it certainly isn't BS. Let us assume that in your mother's biography is a chapter about the day before you were born. The next chapter tells of the day you were born. Does this mean that her biography is not a true account of your birth?
Besides, no one is making that claim. It is much more complex than that. You are throwing grenades at the wrong fort, friend.
About the comic...I'm not going to be offended by anything that you say or do. It just isn't going to happen. You might find it to be humorous, but you know good and well that I will not. I would ask that you show at least a little respect and carry yourself with some dignity rather than stooping to meaningless insults and taking shots.
I don't know where you live, but back in my world we celebrate Easter every year.
I'm wondering if you're reading what I write. I never said you said the prophecies need to be self-fulfilling. My point is that the NT was written long after the events took place. Eye-witness testimony in a folk tale means nothing, and as I'm sure you're aware, folk tales have a tendency to get more and more exaggerated as time passes. I'll restate what I said: the NT writers made sure that what was plausible to have already passed was included in the Gospels, and what wasn't (world peace, etc) would take place during the Second Coming. There is no rational evidence that Jesus was the Messiah in the NT.
You said: "The prophecies didn't need to be self-fulfilling." As if to be argumentative with a statement I made about prophecies being self-fulfilling. I had already stated that the prophecies were not self-fulfilling. Why you would say something like this confused me.
How long after the events took place was the NT written?
The eye-witness testimony is what assures us that it is not a folk-tale. It is the test of historicity.
There is rational evidence in the NT that Jesus was the Messiah. For the ump-teenth time Jesus Christ rose from the grave. Sources outside the NT attest to this.QuoteI know the story behind this book, by the way; another fundie tried to send it to me after I told him I was Jewish. I'm curious about what kind of evidence outside the Bible there is that these things actually happened, and whether there's more to the story than simply that they died as martyrs.
Why do you keep coming back to extra-biblical sources. I've given you plenty of extra-biblical sources to look into. If you were really curious about this you'd take a look at those and find the answers you seek.Quote??? Can you provide one of the many (500!) quotes from the OT you mentioned earlier that speak of a second coming or not? Honestly you're not making much of a case for your trustworthiness here. And you accuse me of lying.
I've never accused you of lying.
These passages speak of Christ's rejection as the Messianic Servant [Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Zechariah 9:9; 12:10; 13:5-7].
These passages speak of Christ reigning as the Messianic King [Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:1-10; Zechariah 14:3ff].
The OT is filled with prophecies of a rejected Messianic servant AND a reigning Messianic Priest-King. Christ fulfilled the former during His first coming. It is said in the NT that He will return to fulfill the latter. Whether or not that is true is what is being debated here. I say it is based on Christ's claims of divinity, His walking in signs and wonders, and His fulfillment of prophecy.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-second-coming.htm (http://www.allaboutgod.com/the-second-coming.htm)
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm (http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm)
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-old-testament-kingdom-prophecies-fulfilled.htm (http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-old-testament-kingdom-prophecies-fulfilled.htm)
http://www.valleybible.net/resources/AdultEducationClasses/Doctrine/Christ/prophecies.shtml (http://www.valleybible.net/resources/AdultEducationClasses/Doctrine/Christ/prophecies.shtml)QuoteSo tell me which of these are now coming to pass. Give me a couple examples of original quotes, then examples of how they've been fulfilled in modern times.
Here's a hundred...
http://www.100prophecies.org/ (http://www.100prophecies.org/)
Read these articles...
How Do We Know Jesus is the Messiah
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r004.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r004.html)
Messianic Prophecies
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/messianicprophecies.html)
An open letter to our non-Messianic Jewish friends
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/letter-judaism.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/letter-judaism.html)
Resurrection of Christ
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/resurrectionofchrist.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/resurrectionofchrist.html)
Some say that Christ's resurrection was a myth, not history. Is this possible?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t009.html)
How do we know that Jesus Christ really rose from the dead?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html)
Check out Gary Habermas' website...this guy is brilliant
http://www.garyhabermas.com/ (http://www.garyhabermas.com/)
http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#evi (http://www.garyhabermas.com/qa/qa_index.htm#evi)
in love,
>>zack
I have an erection....
And I come with this:
The above posts showing manipulation, malcontextual statements, and twisting truths are the prime example of a belligerent, ignorant, zealous bigot.
When you can learn to take the bible out your ass and face the truths that are being exposed about your so called 'faith', then you will be permitted to make such statements as well.
You cannot preach truth without knowing it first. :-*
I have an erection....
And I come with this:
The above posts showing manipulation, malcontextual statements, and twisting truths are the prime example of a belligerent, ignorant, zealous bigot.
When you can learn to take the bible out your ass and face the truths that are being exposed about your so called 'faith', then you will be permitted to make such statements as well.
You cannot preach truth without knowing it first. :-*
Do you ever get tired of being Midnight's sidekick, Hara?
Jesus's credibility as the Messiah the Jewish people foresaw is predicated on the fulfillment of certain prophesies set forth in the Old Testament. But the writers of the New Testament seemed content to pick and choose what was needed to be fulfilled, blatantly ignoring some prophesies.
For example: "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
In other words, the Messiah would rule at a time of world peace. This was clearly not the case in the days of Jesus, and arguably hasn't been the case since then. In fact, the very idea of the Crusades is hypocritical in light of this fact.
But the Crusades may have been necessary in the eyes of the Middle Age Christians, because the Messiah was supposed to usher in a period when everybody in the world worshiped under one God:
"And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the Lord" (Isaiah 66:23)
This passage is clear in its intent, but seems to be ignored by Christians. Even if you make the supposition that all followers of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity worship the same God, you still have the Hindu as well as other smaller religions who do not, not to mention atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists who do not worship any God.
The Crusaders who spilled the blood of millions in the name of Christ tried to fulfill this prophecy, God love 'em (summarily ignoring the first prophecy mentioned, but they may have felt that was justified given that we've never had a period of world peace since the placement of Jesus as the Messiah anyway...) but failed even trying to force-feed their propaganda to the world at large.
In addition, the Messiah was supposed to be a direct male descendant of King David:
"And when your days [David] are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12-13)
Since Jesus was not Joseph's biological son, it follows that he was not a direct descendant of David in the sense given here.
Even though I don't personally believe any of it, I thought it would be interesting to give a Jewish spin on the arguments for and against the Jesus myth, since it's not currently represented here. If you consider these criteria (and there are other criteria that Jesus doesn't fulfill as well, these are really just the most glaring) you really can't accept Jesus as the Messiah.
If you take all this, combined with the facts that
1)there is no historical record of Jesus's time on earth;
2)many elements of the Jesus story come from pagan tradition; and
3)the books of the New Testament were written down long after the events supposedly took place,
you can see how the early Christians cobbled together bits and pieces of Old Testament and pagan lore to form a cult that is really based solely on myth. The bottom line is that Jesus does not fulfill the most important prophesies set forth in the Old Testament in any way, so his credibility as the Messiah predicted by the Jews is non-existent.
I've been waiting for you to open this up.
*yawn*
1) How the fuck is either of those a historical record that proves the Biblical Jesus' existence?
2) Read and learn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology)
3) For being eye-witness accounts, 35 years seems like a long time to me. And only one of the Gospels is said to have been written that shortly after the events anyway.
Yours sincerely,
Roundy,
in his last words on this tired subject.
I've been waiting for you to open this up.
*yawn*
1) How the fuck is either of those a historical record that proves the Biblical Jesus' existence?
2) Read and learn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_comparative_mythology)
3) For being eye-witness accounts, 35 years seems like a long time to me. And only one of the Gospels is said to have been written that shortly after the events anyway.
Yours sincerely,
Roundy,
in his last words on this tired subject.
1) They prove that those who knew Jesus were historical people and the bible is not pure mythology
2) Thankyou I will
3) Luke was a doctor, he had a good memory and was a very articulat, plus he woulod have interviewed everyone who had known Jesus, Matthew was a tax collector but he was also a notary and had a good memory also. And keep in mind, they went to their deaths, why would they do this for a lie?
--They couldn't have been halucinating they were actually trying to avoid Jesus and didn't believe the ressurection accounts at first. Also if they were lying they would have eventually given up before they were killed.
Yours again sincerely, The Rational Theist
SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES
I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.
(1) Arguments offered to "prove" a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.
(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a "Last Supper" in Mithraism or a "baptism" in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word "savior" with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.
(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.
(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).
(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. "A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone."[21] This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.
(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ's death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.
(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, "It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction."[22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.
1) They prove that those who knew Jesus were historical people and the bible is not pure mythology
3) And keep in mind, they went to their deaths, why would they do this for a lie?
--They couldn't have been halucinating they were actually trying to avoid Jesus and didn't believe the ressurection accounts at first. Also if they were lying they would have eventually given up before they were killed.
Yours again sincerely, The Rational Theist
(http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0927/nhl_g_kane_toews_412.jpg)
your mother.(http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2007/0927/nhl_g_kane_toews_412.jpg)
When did you and Vauxy merge?
Your answer indicates you have no understanding of the question. Sober moar.(http://wikichan.org/images/0/06/Nou-37800.jpg)
Do you ever get tired of being Midnight's sidekick, Hara?
Do you ever get tired of being Midnight's sidekick, Hara?
Hara and Mids are one and the same.
1) They prove that those who knew Jesus were historical people and the bible is not pure mythology
No, they prove that speculation to the layman is rampant.3) And keep in mind, they went to their deaths, why would they do this for a lie?
People do awfully senseless things to perpetuate a lie.--They couldn't have been halucinating they were actually trying to avoid Jesus and didn't believe the ressurection accounts at first. Also if they were lying they would have eventually given up before they were killed.
Why the fuck not? Are you claiming that hallucinations are impossible?Yours again sincerely, The Rational Theist
There was nothing sincere in your post.
Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
1) You're unclear on where the burden of proof belongs here.
2) There's no contemporary historical evidence of Jesus' existence. It's really not that hard to dispute.
The evidence is overwhelming
Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest
The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest
Contradictions between the Gospels suggest dishonesty or ignorance of the events.
They are easy to dispute. No original documentation exists that documents Jesus' life. Just documents +100 years from the events.
The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest
Contradictions between the Gospels suggest dishonesty or ignorance of the events.
The evidence is overwhelming
lol
The burden of proof belongs on the atheist in this case since you would have to somehow prove thay were so dishonest
Contradictions between the Gospels suggest dishonesty or ignorance of the events.
This is also a response to your previous statement. First of all there are only 35 years between Jesus's life and the time the New Testiment was finished
Second the Gospels are not supposed to be in chronological order. They are different people's perspectives of the various events in Jesus's ministry
The evidence is overwhelming
lol
Go ahead and laugh just don't respond until you've actually studied the evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming
lol
Go ahead and laugh just don't respond until you've actually studied the evidence.
Yeah, you have no idea how much I've studied the evidence. This has been a topic of fascination to me for almost two decades. I know what I'm talking about.
All sides. I never look at one side of an argument before forming a real opinion.
Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
Your argument is very easy to crush (not to sound offensive of course), your argument is pretty much destroyed when you take into account that Jesus was born in Palestine and therefore Judaea not Syria (alkthough your argument still has promise, it's basically gone from here). And the order was issued by Ceaser not Quarinius and even if Quarinius did carry it out it woudn't have mattered in Judaea being that he was not governor of Judaea.Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
Easy example;
Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born. Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.
Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations. That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago. How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to? Why would you have to go there? How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out? Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?
The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament. If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.
Your argument is very easy to crush (not to sound offensive of course), your argument is pretty much destroyed when you take into account that Jesus was born in Palestine and therefore Judaea not Syria (alkthough your argument still has promise, it's basically gone from here). And the order was issued by Ceaser not Quarinius and even if Quarinius did carry it out it woudn't have mattered in Judaea being that he was not governor of Judaea.Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
Easy example;
Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born. Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.
Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations. That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago. How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to? Why would you have to go there? How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out? Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?
The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament. If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.
Your last statement shows that you generalize and are a bigot. You assume that all religous people are dishonest, superstitious, and harmful. Your prejudice against those who hold religous convictions ooses off of every article you produce on this forum practically.
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
THanks I was looking for that verse. But if you noticed it happned while Quarinius was governor of Syria, other then that Quarinius doesn't have anything to do with it.Your argument is very easy to crush (not to sound offensive of course), your argument is pretty much destroyed when you take into account that Jesus was born in Palestine and therefore Judaea not Syria (alkthough your argument still has promise, it's basically gone from here). And the order was issued by Ceaser not Quarinius and even if Quarinius did carry it out it woudn't have mattered in Judaea being that he was not governor of Judaea.Or the Gospel authors exaggerated the witnesses and events or fabricated everything.
1) Can you prove that
2) If they had fabricated everything they would have been very easy to dispute.
Easy example;
Governor Quirinius of Syria wasn't governor when Jesus was born, and the census he carried out did not require people to go back to the place where their ancestor 1000 years ago was born. Apart from the Gospel of Luke, there are zero accounts of people having to travel for a census at the time, but plenty of accounts of that governor carrying out a census.
Just think about it; 1000 years is about 40 generations. That would mean you would have 80 different great great etc. grandparents born 1000 years ago. How do you decide which one is the one whose birthplace you have to go to? Why would you have to go there? How would any businesses, food production, law enforcement etc. still be carried out? Why would nobody other than Luke write about it?
The only rational explanation is that Luke made up that story so that he could make up a reason for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, as predicted by the old testament. If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem then the prediction of the Old testament that the messiah would be born there is incorrect, and because religious people are dishonest, Luke lied in order to convince people that what he was saying was true.
Your last statement shows that you generalize and are a bigot. You assume that all religous people are dishonest, superstitious, and harmful. Your prejudice against those who hold religous convictions ooses off of every article you produce on this forum practically.
Er. dude;Quote from: King James BibleAnd it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Luke 2:2.
Oh wait, I know more about what the bible says than a religious person. LOLOLOLOL!
Sure, but Quarinius was governor after Jesus was supposedly born. Which means that the census must have been carried out after he was born.
You haven't addressed any of the other points about the census either.
40 great etc. grandparents; which ones birthplace do you go to? Why didn't the census get mentioned in any historical accounts from the time? Who produced food when everybody had to move?
Sorry, you misunderstand. I don't mean that Quarinius was governor a few days after Jesus was born. He wasn't governor for years after Jesus was born.It could mean a different Quarinius, I'll research that
Are you now claiming that for this census people had to permanently move to the birth place of one of their 40 great great etc. grandparents? Or they had to move there for 10 years before being able to go home?
(http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9590/ohjesus3xs9.jpg)