- This topic has 514 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 28 2008,23:56) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 28 2008,04:06) Kejonn how do you distinguish between the truth and lies in scripture?
I don't anymore. So much of it is in doubt in my mind because of the view of Gd presented therein that it has become a fascinating view into the mindset of a historical people to me rather than anything I could view as literal truth.
Then you forfeit your right to make any emphatic statement based on scripture. You have no “real knowledge” at all about the Messiah kejonn, just speculation.Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2008,22:55) Hi again Is1:18 Quote How have I discounted scripture?
Really Is 1:18. Are you trying to be disingenuous?
And since you put not stock in the veracity of the scriptures we'll have to exclude them as a source of reference
Was it kejonn or you who wrote this?
My mistake, I thought you were using the word “discount” as a perjorative.Quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki….mammals It is a perfectly sane conclusion that there is no such thing as the supernatural and that it is a figment of human imaginations. That is exactly the conclusion you have to make based on empirical evidence. While you may not respect empirical evidence I bet you will expect any prescription drugs you may take to be very strictly empirically tested. It is the same science, yet you both require it and mock it.
perfectly sane conclusion does not equate to real knowledge. What is conclusive to one in not to another. One is subjective, the other objective.Quote Luke has to be wrong in his dating of Jesus’ birth (6CE) for it to predate Herod’s death (4BCE). Matthew might have just made it fit, but Luke hasn’t. The lack of corroborating evidence is recorded in the holy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_InnocentsOf course, like Luke, the scholars could be wrong.
On the Matthew/Luke dating discrepancy; try here: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.aspProperly understood, there isn't one.
Quote OK, you’re right. The Scripturepedia says: Clinical death is now seen as a medical condition that precedes death rather than actually being dead. I should have checked more carefully.
I mean’t to say dead. Doornail dead. Brown bread (that’s Cockney Rhyming slang to the uninitiated).
Plenty of documnetation for people being doornail dead and then coming to life again – Lazarus (John 11:1-46), Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:49-56), The young man of Naim (Luke 7:11-14). Also lots of documented accounts of the dead being raised in modern times in Africa/Asia.Quote I think you should disagree that Jesus was revived. That would not bode well for your salvation. Did I write Jesus was “revived”? He was resurrected.
T
That is my conclusion, based on the only rational interpretation of the evidence. If you want to postulate the supernatural that is fine. You will not find me a willing believer if you cannot produce unequivocal evidence.
Where is your “unequivocal evidence” for the “real knowledge” you have postuated? I see only conjecture and assumption.Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 28 2008,23:34) Haha, that's rich. The problem with this setup is that, you, as a fundamentalist Christian, DO believe in the “veracity” of the scriptures. So all I have to do is use your own scriptures against you. It was that kind of progression for me, you know, knowledge after faith? Here's how it worked:
(1) In trying to see where I could find Jesus in the OT during a debate about pre-existence, I started seeing where many messianic passages did not match Jesus.
(2) At the point that I concluded that Jesus was not the promised Jesus messiah, I investigated the Noahidic covenant. But then I found that it was likely just the invention of Rabbis to offer an alternative to Jesus for “Gentiles”.
(3) In that investigation, I became appalled with the actions the Jews took and then said God told them to do. So much death, so much destruction. Could the God of love who was supposed to be Jesus' father be the same God?
(4) When I tried to find some information about what both Jews and Christians believed about such wanton destruction, I stumbled across a Zoroastrian website. It was in the Gathas of Zarathushtra that I encountered a view of God that didn't have Him playing favorites, making a list of “dos” and “don'ts” to be righteous, or forcing people to believe in an obscure Jewish preacher from the 1st century Middle East.What kills me about fundamentalist Christians who don't like it when someone says Jesus is not messiah is they use the old ploy of “prove it, but you can't use the bible because you don't believe in it”. Well duh. But you fail to see that the proof is in the very scriptures themselves.
You can't on one hand impugn the Bible as a source of knowledge and on the other claim to have drawn “real knowledge” from it Kejonn. Either it is a relaible source of knowledge for you or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, not if you want anything you write that is based on the Bible to be taken seriously, that is….
Hi Is 1.18,
I think he is getting mixed up with what some call knowledge.
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”–Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 27 2008,13:54) Or pity I was not “reborn from above' so I could have the “holy spirit” blind me to the OT passages that say Jesus is not the Jewish messiah.
Hi KJ:I have already shown you by the scriptures that the Messiah has already come. If not Jesus, then who?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 28 2008,15:05) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 28 2008,23:56) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 28 2008,04:06) Kejonn how do you distinguish between the truth and lies in scripture?
I don't anymore. So much of it is in doubt in my mind because of the view of Gd presented therein that it has become a fascinating view into the mindset of a historical people to me rather than anything I could view as literal truth.
Then you forfeit your right to make any emphatic statement based on scripture. You have no “real knowledge” at all about the Messiah kejonn, just speculation.
Oh, I was unaware you made the rules. Should I consult you before every post from now on?In any case, some versions of the bible are in the public dominion and others are freely available. I would say that the only ones who may keep me from making any statements about scripture are those who sell certain versions, like the NRSV.
You certainly don't have to right to restrict me
.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 28 2008,16:09) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 28 2008,23:34) Haha, that's rich. The problem with this setup is that, you, as a fundamentalist Christian, DO believe in the “veracity” of the scriptures. So all I have to do is use your own scriptures against you. It was that kind of progression for me, you know, knowledge after faith? Here's how it worked:
(1) In trying to see where I could find Jesus in the OT during a debate about pre-existence, I started seeing where many messianic passages did not match Jesus.
(2) At the point that I concluded that Jesus was not the promised Jesus messiah, I investigated the Noahidic covenant. But then I found that it was likely just the invention of Rabbis to offer an alternative to Jesus for “Gentiles”.
(3) In that investigation, I became appalled with the actions the Jews took and then said God told them to do. So much death, so much destruction. Could the God of love who was supposed to be Jesus' father be the same God?
(4) When I tried to find some information about what both Jews and Christians believed about such wanton destruction, I stumbled across a Zoroastrian website. It was in the Gathas of Zarathushtra that I encountered a view of God that didn't have Him playing favorites, making a list of “dos” and “don'ts” to be righteous, or forcing people to believe in an obscure Jewish preacher from the 1st century Middle East.What kills me about fundamentalist Christians who don't like it when someone says Jesus is not messiah is they use the old ploy of “prove it, but you can't use the bible because you don't believe in it”. Well duh. But you fail to see that the proof is in the very scriptures themselves.
You can't on one hand impugn the Bible as a source of knowledge and on the other claim to have drawn “real knowledge” from it Kejonn. Either it is a relaible source of knowledge for you or it isn't. You can't have it both ways, not if you want anything you write that is based on the Bible to be taken seriously, that is….
I can have it any way I want. After all, if anyone can show you where Jesus is not the messiah using the bible and you have little to defend such with, then it matters little who brings the info. You may choose to ignore me, but that is as far as it goes.Your permission has not been sought.
Quote (942767 @ Mar. 28 2008,17:23) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 27 2008,13:54) Or pity I was not “reborn from above' so I could have the “holy spirit” blind me to the OT passages that say Jesus is not the Jewish messiah.
Hi KJ:I have already shown you by the scriptures that the Messiah has already come. If not Jesus, then who?
Uh, no one? Nothing has come to pass in the OT prophecies about the Jewish Messiah so there has been no messiah. Likely never will be.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 28 2008,17:16) Hi Is 1.18,
I think he is getting mixed up with what some call knowledge.
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”–
I find it comical that whenever I speak on issues of the bible, all you do is sidestep and post stuff like this. If you have nothing of substance to contribute to a thread, please consider doing the job you are meant to do here: moderate.Hi Is1:18
Stu: It is a perfectly sane conclusion that there is no such thing as the supernatural and that it is a figment of human imaginations. That is exactly the conclusion you have to make based on empirical evidence. While you may not respect empirical evidence I bet you will expect any prescription drugs you may take to be very strictly empirically tested. It is the same science, yet you both require it and mock it.
Quote perfectly sane conclusion does not equate to real knowledge. What is conclusive to one in not to another. One is subjective, the other objective.
In that case your term ‘real knowledge’ is one that you must define very differently from me. It is objectively true that there is no evidence for the supernatural. The definition of that word precludes it, because if we have evidence for it then it is part of the natural world. It is a completely justified conclusion that there is no such thing, based on that (zero) evidence. You postulating a supernatural world is a subjective assertion.It is real that humans have to have two biological parents. Can I assume you read the link I posted?
Quote On the Matthew/Luke dating discrepancy; try here: http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp
Properly understood, there isn't one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
…has an account of the history of the apologia on this point. I think the article to which you link is doing the usual apologist thing of simplifying the question to make it go away.Quote Plenty of documnetation for people being doornail dead and then coming to life again – Lazarus (John 11:1-46), Jairus' daughter (Luke 8:49-56), The young man of Naim (Luke 7:11-14). Also lots of documented accounts of the dead being raised in modern times in Africa/Asia.
Documentation is not the same thing as evidence. The bible is even further from that standard of objectivity. People do not come back from being truly dead. Do you live in some kind of uncritical fantasy world? Actually, I suppose you must.Stu: That is my conclusion, based on the only rational interpretation of the evidence. If you want to postulate the supernatural that is fine. You will not find me a willing believer if you cannot produce unequivocal evidence.
Quote Where is your “unequivocal evidence” for the “real knowledge” you have postuated? I see only conjecture and assumption.
I am not suggesting the existence of anything that I cannot justify with evidence. You are. Put up or shut up is what science says to you. I just wish others here would be as honestly rude.Stuart
Hi Stu,
Have you ever seen an angel?
Does that mean they do not exist?I think most people you ask would believe in angels and yet the only definite record of them is in the bible.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 28 2008,20:34) I think most people you ask would believe in angels and yet the only definite record of them is in the bible.
Wrong. From wikipedia on Zoroastrian angelology:- Zoroastrian angelology is branch of Zoroastrian doctrine that deals with the hierarchical system of divinities introduced by the reforms of Zarathustra (Zoroaster). Those reforms reorganized the multitude of divinities (and divine concepts) of proto-Indo-Iranian religions in a complex order under the supremacy of Ahura Mazda, the Creator of everything.
There are angels in other religions as well.
Hi Nick
Quote Have you ever seen an angel?
No. Have you?Quote Does that mean they do not exist?
No. The truth about whether angels exist is not able to be determined on current evidence. The fact that there is no evidence for angels but there is evidence that humans do definitely imagine things that aren't there is good enough to make a predictive and falsifiable theory of it. Indeed I am sure that psychology is replete with such proper scientific theories of why people believe in angels. I could propose all sorts of non-existent things and then demand that others produce evidence to disprove them, but I don’t think you would find that fair at all. Yet that is exactly what you do. It comes down to whether you respect the principles of the scientific method. If you take prescription medication then you should.Quote I think most people you ask would believe in angels and yet the only definite record of them is in the bible.
I think I could find 100 people to ask who would almost certainly, consecutively to a person, say they do not believe in angels.In any case, as we have said many times before, opinions are irrelevant: believing in something does not make it true.
Stuart
Speaking of angels, Christians stay confused because
- Heb 13:2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.
2Co 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Hi KJ,
Indeed.
And as for leaven1Jn4
1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
So we need the Spirit of God to give us discernment.
People of the world do remain forever confused.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 29 2008,15:40) Hi Stu,
Quite so.
So a majority opinion against scriptural truth is not relevant either.
Sure. If you are asking about whether it is true, opinions are not relevant, unless it is a well-considered professional opinion that is based on an objective weighing of the evidence. But then that is not so much opinion anyway.Democracy means people should do what they decide collectively. But if you want the majority to decide what happened in history, you are likely to get wrong answers. You know that yourself with regard to the bible. People generally have no idea how right or wrong it is. I think that applies to both of us as well.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
