mary, virgin or not

[Prophet]

Yes. Deistic.

I don't have special plans to stick around, but I see no reason I'll be leaving any time soon.

I've never one vs. one debated. That said, I'm pretty confident I'd take to it well. I think we should debate the meaning of Jesus' words in instances he used the phrase "Kingdom of God" as this debate would interest me. Set it up, if you dare.

 

[mr black]

Yes. Deistic.

I don't have special plans to stick around, but I see no reason I'll be leaving any time soon.

I've never one vs. one debated. That said, I'm pretty confident I'd take to it well. I think we should debate the meaning of Jesus' words in instances he used the phrase "Kingdom of God" as this debate would interest me. Set it up, if you dare.

There's no evidence he ever used that phrase.

 

[Prophet]

There's no evidence he ever used that phrase.

This is a false claim. There are many quotations of Jesus both inside and outside of the Bible using the phrase "Kingdom of God".

You should say, rather, that there is no evidence which you accept as valid. This would express your viewpoint more accurately and truthfully.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

the documents modern egyptologists use are very fragmentary though. They are the Palermo Stone which list the first five dynasties, the Turin Papyrus gives a list of kings and their reigns from the “Old Kingdom” into the “New Kingdom” and various stone inscriptions. Then they compile these into a chronology based on the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third century B.C.E. And the problem with that is that Manetho's writings are not lists of successive rulers over Egypt, but of independent princes reigning at the same time in different regions. So trying to put a timeline to that sort of information is almost pointless.

The fact is we can put a timeline to it. Obviously ALL history is sketchy the further back we go. But we know the Chinese and the Japanese have a much more extensive history greater than "biblical history". We're still trying to figure out if the peole listed in the bible actually have historicity surrounding them. The bible is both fact and fiction concerning it's history. To the casual reader and lay people they actually make the assumption all of it is history......but we don't even need the Sumerian culture, Chinese or Japanese cultures to tell us man has been on the planet tens of thousands of years before biblical history.

predating the bible does not negate the bible though. The sons of Shem (from whom the Isrealites sprang) transmitted their teachings and ideas orally from parent to child just as some nations still do today. So the fact that they didnt write things down until 1500bce does not mean their information is less valid then those who wrote their ideas down before that time,.

Doesn't mean that it's valid either. What we do know is that these stories do appear in previous cultures which these people were apart of and over time these stories went through an evolution. Case in point would be the flood myth.