You have given me no reason to do it except that "you said so". It was done at the Pasadena City College under supervision using conservative parameters, I think you need to post something more substantial than "I said so" for me to reply.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God said it, not me...
- Thread starter allfoak
- Start date
You're not going to get it.
You have no obligation to reply. If you end the conversation now, you'll have just failed to convince me that your position is based on anything other than hand-waving and nonsense.
I'm not going to go through the game of responding point-by-point to a link you took a few seconds to copy and paste. It's a disproportionate effort - the online equivalent to dealing with a Gish Gallop - and usually ends up with the copy-paster going "oh - but I don't agree with THAT part of the article (that you spent 15 minutes dissecting)!"
If you can't be bothered to make a real argument in your own words, then you aren't worth my time. Whether I'm worth your time is your own thing to figure out.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
No, because the vast majority of them were never intended to be prophecies, they were simply ripped entirely out of context by the Gospel writers, plus we have no means of determining if the things that the Gospel writers said actually happened. It's just claims without objective verification. There isn't a single demonstrable prophecy in the Bible, period. Wishful thinking on your part doesn't make it so.
I disagree. Your point was given without support or statement on how it was wrong. I don't have to convince you when you are already convinced without providing any statistical support for your position.
To say "If you can't be bothered to make a real argument in your own words, then you aren't worth my time." when you asked me to give support to what I said in my own words, is quite funny.
Last edited:
Again, you give no support other than in your humble opinion.
I have the support of other people statements who were in the know of that time. If 2,000 years later you decide that they took it out of context, I can't stop you. However, it doesn't change reality.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
No, you actually don't. You have, at best, claims made second or third person, and documents remaining after a purge by the early Christian church. You have left what the early church wanted to be left. You're only getting one side of the arguments and pretending that you have it all.
Yes, you keep saying that contrary to their contemporaries who say differently. You quote people of today who didn't live back then, and then there is what is written:
1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,
2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Well... that's first person
2 Peter 1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
Hmmm... That's first person
Jude 1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:
That's first person
1 Thess. 1 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.
That's pretty clear
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,
2 To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
YUP! First person
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
Still first person...
Oh, wait a minute, even though these books verify what was written to, you MUST be speaking ONLY of the 4 gospels.
But, wait, there is no controversy about the book of Luke who spoke to the Apostles. Ohhhh... that isn't good enough.
Are there arguments for the other 3? Yes... but the arguments go both ways and not just yours. Suffice to say the ALL talk about Jesus and they ALL give the same historical accounts.
However, you have not been able to convince anyone otherwise for you have no support other than some people who lived 2,000 years after it happened.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
You're just assuming that any of that crap happened. It's mythology. Try again.
There is no reason not be believe it happened.I tend to believe Jesus WAS Immanuel, God with us, send to die for our sins and reunite us in co-union with Him. But, hey, that's what floats my boat (I'm not asking you to believe what I believe). You are free to believe there is no God or find other ways to redeem yourself.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
I tend to believe Jesus WAS Immanuel, God with us, send to die for our sins and reunite us in co-union with Him. But, hey, that's what floats my boat (I'm not asking you to believe what I believe). You are free to believe there is no God or find other ways to redeem yourself.
You can believe whatever you want. I care what you can prove and you can't prove a damn thing.
Only in your eyes
... which is fine with me. It's like people telling me there are no more miracles... a little too let to tell me they don't happen when I've already had some. I took a very logical position at age 28 as I said to myself:
1) the Bible is either false or true, it can't be both. I will start with it being true and test the sucker. If it is false, I will find out soon enough. (Still hasn't shown me to be false)
2) My life is going from bad to worse... might as well try something different (It got better in 24 hours)
3) It won't hurt me to accept Jesus as my Lord. (It didn't hurt.. it put me right side up)
So... for me I'm satisfied. Certainly you haven't proven me wrong for holding my position.
Just remember, you have a free will and can choose your own path. (I'm not trying to convert you, just establishing that you haven't proven me wrong)
It was proportional to the effort involved in copying and pasting a link.
I could say the same for you. A link is not an argument.
I asked you to show your work. You still haven't done that.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Only in your eyes
I took a very logical position at age 28 as I said to myself:
1) the Bible is either false or true, it can't be both. I will start with it being true and test the sucker. If it is false, I will find out soon enough. (Still hasn't shown me to be false)
2) My life is going from bad to worse... might as well try something different (It got better in 24 hours)
3) It won't hurt me to accept Jesus as my Lord. (It didn't hurt.. it put me right side up)
So... for me I'm satisfied. Certainly you haven't proven me wrong for holding my position.
Just remember, you have a free will and can choose your own path. (I'm not trying to convert you, just establishing that you haven't proven me wrong)
There is nothing objective in what you've done there, you wanted a particular outcome and stacked the deck in that outcome's favor. You have an emotional attachment to the belief system, not a rational one. That's your choice, of course, I find it absurd and childish.
Then you need to go back to previously posted information. I'm not going to do your work for you.
In your humble opinion. I just don't agree with your position.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Reality doesn't care what you agree with.
EXACTLY!!! I think you've got it!
Why wouldn't you allow for the possibility that the book could be a mix of true and false? It's an entire book that says many things; it's not a single claim.
Why would you expect to know "soon enough" if it was false? None of it directly deals with the present; almost all of it deals with either events in the distant past, events at unspecified points in the future, or things that supposedly happen after we die. If you're going to overlook the contradictions in the Bible (which you are, apparently), there isn't a lot you would see on a day-to-day basis that would violate the Bible's claims, simply because the Bible doesn't make that many claims about what someone in the 21st Century would typically see.
Because it creates multiple problems, two of which are:
1) What value does a hundred dollar bill have if there is 99% true and 1% false?
2) How does one decide which part is true and which one is false?
Because the principles are current, applicable, and timeless.
If it says that you can lay hands on the sick and they recover, then you can.
If it says that God will show you the future, then He will.
If it says that you can hear the voice of the Shepherd then you should
Etc.
You shouldn't assume that one overlooks. And, as noted above, there are 21st century things that you can see. Certainly the formation of Israel was another "current" event that can be seen. (as far as time is concerned)
False analogy. What value does a bag of money have if 1% of the bills in it are counterfiet?
You would need some other reliable source to tell. Or maybe you just can't tell and have to doubt both.
What principles?
If you're trying to claim that any of these thinfs have happened, show me the evidence.
The formation of Israel doesn't meet any reasonable definition of prophecy. People who had full knowledge of the Bible were inspired by it to do something. That isn't fulfilled prophecy; that's just carrying out a plan.