Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Read-only
Total: 263
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I have indicated to you that I do not know.
I know you don't know. You're ignorant, remember?

So why ask me to answer a question that I have asked.  that I do not know. If you want it in plain English , I will clearly state that  I do not know, popoff.  The WHOLE REASON  for this thread is  - BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW -..

This is why I repeat in  bold,  underlined   and CAPITALS.
You repeat because your argument is fakery ...

No. And  I have already explained why to you but you must have missed that too again. So here you are again.




If anyone pretends not to see replies it is you. You pretend not to even see my replies often and especially when they have backed you into a corner. You are simply incapable of debate yet accuse others of being incapable of debate. You accuse others of telling lies, when it is you who often makes things up once you have painted yourself into a corner with  lies of your own. This is why I repeat in  bold, underlined and CAPITALS.  

But still you continue to pretend not to have seen my replies and answers and further questions that have arisen from your pure unadulterated   BULLSHITE.     As I have proven above.

Now answer the question...
I've answered it twice now.

No you haven't stop lying. That verse cannot be found anywhere .  And you cannot find it either. This is why YOU have failed to answer the question unless you missed it AGAIN. 


I told you, the bible doesn't contain all the scripture there is. 

So which scripture was Jesus referring to  when he says:


John 7:38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

You haven't answered that question.  BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW. So FFS stop with your bullshit lies.

I have asked you FOUR times now and have asked  ""What scripture says this?""  but you keep ignoring it and saying you have answered. Stop lying

Maybe you should ask Mike if he can make font color an option. Bolding, caps, and underlining isn't working for you. Wouldn't your lying spam be spectacular in say, red or orange?

it wouldn't be a bad idea. I could just copy and paste your shite in red to indicate your lies.



#32
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
I just don't believe it in the fawning  sycophantic manner in which you do. Because thankfully, I am not religious.

Again here we go, assertions. Which is why I told you to ask!!

I have said here many times that I believe that there is an underlying story in the scriptures that the gospellers are desperately trying to hide.

What are they hiding, I remember your claim but you never said what they are hiding lol....

These gospel writers, in trying to hide so much , reveal much more than they hide.  And this is why that there are hundreds of contradictions in these works.  And I will keep highlighting them even if its just to watch you wave them away as not important or struggle to explain them. 

What are they hiding if.... "I believe all the characters existed and I believe all the events including the so called miracles."
Are you nuts dude?? how can you believe someone is hiding something when you can't say what they are hiding?

Topic's author
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I just don't believe it in the fawning  sycophantic manner in which you do. Because thankfully, I am not religious.

Again here we go, assertions. Which is why I told you to ask!!

Yes, here we do go again. And I have said twice now, that the thread - my thread -  is about my question, not you or yours. 


I have said here many times that I believe that there is an underlying story in the scriptures that the gospellers are desperately trying to hide.

What are they hiding, I remember your claim but you never said what they are hiding lol....

 AGAIN! Are you fkn blind!!!? The thread - my thread -  is about my question and  not your question or your beliefs . FFS learn to read. Also learn to use the search engine. I have made threads on what I believe is going on in these scriptures. Now then,, off you trot,  you have a lot to cover and catch up on if you are  really interested in what I believe.  Mean while either answer the question at post one or leave the thread. 


 how can you believe someone is hiding something when you can't say what they are hiding?

AGAIN! This thread is not about your questions or your beliefs and opinions. And you call me nuts.? FFS get a grip lad.
#34
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
What is it they are hiding??
Topic's author
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Was it common knowledge to his audience.
Of course. But that is not what you started out saying is it? 


And your evidence that it was common knowledge  to his audience comes from where?  And if this be the case, why is it that you are just filibustering for the sake of saying something instead of just simply answering my question? 

#36
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
Of course, just like the Democrats, many sway public opinion with nonsense, IMO. 
And like the democrats, they will find that the public isn't nearly as dumb as they think it is.

I hope you are right! 

I don't understand how there are so many Dems who are willing to follow the lying media and their political leaders over the cliff. Their focus is so myopic that I find it unbelievable that they can be so gullible. Can you believe Shiff, Pelosi, or Nadler? The whole process is rigged and the President has not been given due process under the law. This is criminal, and I'm not even an American. (^8 
#37
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
When you compare Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Matrix to the Bible I challenge you on your assertions.  

I didn't assert that these were true. I said the only material I see between these stories and the biblical story is age. You have not disputed that save by essentially saying "No one believes those are true." The majority of the planet does not believe the bible's true either. 
You have opened up a big can of worms here. First, you are using the Argumentum ad Populum, also known as Appeal to the People, Appeal to the Majority, Appeal to the Gallery, Appeal to Popular Prejudice, Appeal to the Mob, Appeal to the Multitude, Argument from Consensus, Argumentum ad Numerum.

You are asserting that the same kind of evidence is available in these accounts that are available in the biblical accounts. For one, where are the prophetic accounts and where do they relate to the historical evidence? For goodness sake, Star Wars is a fantasy set in the future. Where do you find evidence of such creatures, planets, peoples? We know the author and where does the author show his story-line corresponds to any facts about the future?  

Only the biblical account regarding the resurrection. 
Exactly my point. You pick one that you believe, while eschewing any others that make the same claim because you recognize it as impossible in every other situation. It seems to me that it's on you to prove that it actually happened once, in the book of myths you choose, and never happened in any of the other myths / religions who make the same claim (resurrection). There must be some compelling reason. 
You mentioned in Post 22 "Is there any other book wherein someone comes back to life and you believe it's real, or is the bible the only one?"

You picked it. I believe and at times defend it with evidence.

Where is the same claim made and what is the evidence of such a claim?

As for it happening once, is the evidence reasonable? That thought goes beyond that proposition. It goes to whether evidence for God is reasonable to believe. It goes to the alternative which is blind, indifferent happenstance as the explanation of why something exists. 

When you claim the Bible is a book of myths it is up to you to back up that statement with reasonable and logical evidence since you are making the assertion, the claim. 

"if someone had thought ow rite"Based on a true story" in front of the first Harry POtter book, you'd have to at least allow for the possibility that it's true."

Your main argument seems to be that "no one believes those are real / everyone knows those are stories." My point is that if someone had claimed them true, you'd see that as evidence that they were true. 
No, not everyone knows them as just stories. Little children believe them true. So do the gullible and dim-witted. My point is on what evidence would I see them as true. I know one of the authors and I know she does not see them as true. Not so with the biblical accounts. These people went to their deaths believing they had seen the risen Messiah.
#38
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
You are asserting that the same kind of evidence is available in these accounts that are available in the biblical accounts. For one, where are the prophetic accounts and where do they relate to the historical evidence? For goodness sake, Star Wars is a fantasy set in the future. Where do you find evidence of such creatures, planets, peoples? We know the author and where does the author show his story-line corresponds to any facts about the future?  
Where did I assert that there is any evidence of them being true? All I said was your initial response, "no one believes those are true!", seems to leave unsaid that "people believe the bible's true." I don't believe any of them are true. I'm saying they have the same mythological elements. Can you prove that such creatures, planets and peoples DON'T exist? Because that's what you're asking me to do with the bible. I don't have any reason to believe any of them are real, and the only essential difference between them is age. That's all I said. I'm not bothering with your nonsense prohopecy claims because (a) they aren't in the book, (b), even if they were correct it wouldn't prove Jesus died and came back and (c) I've had this boring discussion with you where you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence. 

The rest of your post agrees with me (no, you wouldn't believe it if it were another religious text claiming that their hero was resurrected), followed by your usual "Random chance makes me uncomfortable so I choose to believe in something else." It's your right and you're not going to change your mind, so I don't care to go over it. AGAIN. 
#39
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
 Not so with the biblical accounts. These people went to their deaths believing they had seen the risen Messiah.

"Not so" refers to not knowing the authors of the biblical accounts as you do with JK Rowling...how's that bolster the case for your belief? You don't know who wrote them, so they're more likely true because (______________). 

And the 9/11 hijackers went to their deaths believing they were going to be handsomely rewarded in Muslim Heaven. Do you think that makes their belief more or less likely to be true?
#40
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I know you don't know. You're ignorant, remember?

So why ask me to answer a question that I have asked.  that I do not know
I didn't ask you a question you asked. You should have asked yourself what Jesus meant by "scriptures" before you started displaying your ignorance.

The WHOLE REASON  for this thread is  - BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW -..
Ignorance seems to be the actual reason behind all your threads, but your personal reason is always anti-theistic hate.

Now answer the question...
I've answered it twice now.

No you haven't stop lying.
Third time now. You asked, "What scripture in the Bible says this?" And you have been told, no scripture in the bible says this.

You stupidly think it must be in the bible. Why? You think Jesus is mistaken if it isn't in the bible. Why? Because your ignorance requires you to manufacture a dilemma.

That verse cannot be found anywhere. And you cannot find it either. 
So now your problem is that I cannot find it? Wasn't your question where in the bible could the verse be found?

That question has been answered. Are you now ready to move the goalposts again?

I told you, the bible doesn't contain all the scripture there is. 

So which scripture was Jesus referring to.. You haven't answered that question.
Sure I have. It is one of the many pieces of scripture not in the bible, as the bible itself alludes to.

I have asked you FOUR times now and have asked  ""What scripture says this?"  but you keep ignoring it and saying you have answered. Stop lying
Stop being stupid. I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.

Your problem was that it wasn't in the bible. For some reason, you believe it should be in the bible, and think its some sort of contradiction that it isn't.

Now that I show you that it isn't in the bible, and should not be, you want to morph to, "where exactly is it?"

Can we settle your first question before you morph to another one?

Or will you do your shuck and jive dance again?

Maybe you should ask Mike if he can make font color an option. Bolding, caps, and underlining isn't working for you. Wouldn't your lying spam be spectacular in say, red or orange?

it wouldn't be a bad idea.
Lol. The bolding, the underlining, the caps are OK, but the coloring would be a bad idea?

Guess you're stuck with the three loon tools then.
Topic's author
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
That verse cannot be found anywhere. And you cannot find it either. 
Wasn't your question where in the bible could the verse be found?

No it wasn't and why didn't you bother to check before asking me what my question actually was and still is. You are pretending yet again not to have seen it. It is at post one (#1) as you well know. Is all you are doing is causing me to re-post my question because  you pretending to not have seen it , but will complain that I have re-posted the question that you pretend not to have seen.

But being slow on the uptake, as you are obviously appearing to be, you are over looking the fact that while you pretend not to have seen the question, you some how know I have re posted it. How did you know it was a re post if you hadn't seen it before, Popoff?

POST # ONE  that will be the first post of this thread that can be found here >>>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3384/does-the-scripture-actually-say-this-at-all-anywhere?

This is what I have actually asked.... and what you have continually pretended not to have seen and  failed to answer , Popoff

"Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?

What scripture says this" ?  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Do you see that Popoff? 

Stop being stupid.
 
 I had a warning about referring to you as stupid.



I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.

Nope the question is there and hasn't gone anywhere and is still the same fkn question- that you haven't answered.https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3384/does-the-scripture-actually-say-this-at-all-anywhere?

And it must appear  strange to anyone reading here that you say that considering above you have just  to asked me what the question is at post 40 above;

--> @ethang5 Wasn't your question where in the bible could the verse be found?



#42
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
No it wasn't and why didn't you bother to check before asking me what my question actually was and still is.
You posted your question Jethro.

I had a warning about referring to you as stupid.
Do you know why?

You asked and posted, "What scripture in the Bible says this?" And you have been told, no scripture in the bible says this.

That is the answer homer. The one you are pretending not to see.

I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.

Your original problem was that it wasn't in the bible. For some reason, you believe it should be in the bible, and think it's some sort of contradiction that it isn't.

Now that I show you that it isn't in the bible, and should not be in the bible, you want to morph to, "where exactly is it?"

Can we settle your first question before you morph to another one?

Or will you do your shuck and jive dance again?

(You did your shuck and jive dance again.) 

When you're through dancing, post another fake contradiction and I'll dismember your argument again.

And then you can pretend again that your point is anything other than nonsense.
Topic's author
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You posted your question Jethro.



Correct!!!!  you are finally catching up!!! GOOD BOY!!!!! Peter Popoff.   I did post a question didn't I? And I have had to post it quite a few time now haven't I, because you keep pretending not to have seen it, don't you?  Popoff.

I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.
You even now keep on insisting that you have answered the question/s but that is just a lie AGAIN .

Would you like it again just for good measure?

Here you are again. Lets us see if you can do any better the billionth time around NOW WE KNOW YOU CAN SEE THE QUESTION. I have highlighted in bold and underlined the questions so that they STAND OUT from the rest of the text., You cannot miss them.

from post #1 in this thread that is titled -  Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?


This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ? 

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

" as the scripture has said"  

Where do the scripture actually say " out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."?


[1]What scripture says this? [2] Is it from the Old Testament scripture or [3] from earlier in the New Testament by another one of the gospel writers?https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3384/does-the-scripture-actually-say-this-at-all-anywhere?



Do you see that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Popoff. There are three clear and distinct questions above that you have - up to now - been pretending you haven't seen and  you have certainly not answered. 



You don't have to answer question two (2) or Three(3)  because  that was the first place I looked and I can tell you that ;  unless I have missed it, I can categorically say it won't be found in either  of the books mentioned questions  1 or 2. 

So Popoff ,that only leaves my initial question, doesn't it >>>>>>   [1]What scripture says this?  <<<<<<<

So off you pop, Popoff, let us have you address this puzzler once and for all.




#44
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen

 didn't you bother to check before asking me what my question actually was and still is.
You posted your question Jethro.

Correct!!!!  you are finally catching up!!! GOOD BOY!!!!! Peter Popoff.   I did post a question didn't I?
Yes you did. Which is why I didn't bother to check before asking you what your  question actually was and still is.

I keep answering you, but you keep trying to change your question.

You even now keep on insisting that you have answered the question/s but that is just a lie AGAIN . 
OK slick, but your own posts call you a liar.

Would you like it again just for good measure?
You will post it again even if I answer.

Here you are again. 
OK.

Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?
No.

This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time.
It cannot be a verse. Scripture had not been divided into verses by then.

Why can I not find it ?
Because you are stupidly looking for it in the bible.

...you have certainly not answered. 
Not only have I answered, I've scolded you for stupidly thinking it had to be in the bible, and for stupidly thinking the word "scripture" meant bible in 33 ad.

Now, do your shuck and jive dance again. Post the same stupidity again, and the results will be the same. Your nonsense will not suddenly become sensible by you spamming it.

...unless I have missed it, I can categorically say it won't be found in either  of the books mentioned questions  1 or 2.
You missed it. I told you in my first post to you that it was not in the bible. You're still ranting that it isn't. Why's should it be? You can't answer.

You don't have to answer question two (2) or Three(3)  because  that was the first place I looked and I can tell you that ;
Then why did you post the questions at all? So you admit now that I answered your questions?

So Popoff ,that only leaves my initial question, doesn't it. [1]What scripture says this? 
I answered you in post #42

You asked and posted, "What scripture in the Bible says this?" And you have been told, no scripture in the bible says this.

That is the answer homer. The one you are pretending not to see.

Now, do your silly dance again, and repost your inane question, and the answer will not change.

I told you, the bible doesn't contain all the scripture there is. 

Now that I show you that it isn't in the bible, and should not be in the bible, you want to morph to, "where exactly is it?"

Can we settle your first question before you morph to another one?

Or will you do your shuck and jive dance again?
Topic's author
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?
No.

Do you see those words in quotes Popoff? Those are quotes from Jesus himself. He is referencing some scripture. I want you to tell me WHAT FKN "scripture" is Jesus  referencing . You keep failing to do so. You have avoided the question again haven't you. LOOK >>>>>What scripture says this?   Tell me what scripture states    "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.?  that is my original question as posed at post one of this thread.


This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time.
It cannot be a verse.

MORE FKN DENIAL AND LIES!!!!  What the FK is this if it NOT a verse? POPOFF!!!!!!

John 7:38 King James Version has Jesus saying: 

38 "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."


 MY QUESTION IS >>>>>What scripture says this? >>>>>>"out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

if you don't know then simply say so instead of making up things and telling lie after lie and pretending you haven't even seen my question. 


 Peter Popoff Exposed as a Evangelical Fraud

#46
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
You are asserting that the same kind of evidence is available in these accounts that are available in the biblical accounts. For one, where are the prophetic accounts and where do they relate to the historical evidence? For goodness sake, Star Wars is a fantasy set in the future. Where do you find evidence of such creatures, planets, peoples? We know the author and where does the author show his story-line corresponds to any facts about the future?  
Where did I assert that there is any evidence of them being true? All I said was your initial response, "no one believes those are true!", seems to leave unsaid that "people believe the bible's true."
You associated Christianity in its verification with these authors, books, or movies of fiction in their evidence by "no one believes those are true."  

Your analogy does not work since it is trying to bridge a gap that you cannot prove exists. You see, countless millions throughout history have trusted the Bible to be God's revelation, not a fiction. As such they give many convincing proofs of their integrity and verifiability with history. Where do these listed sources do this?  

ME: "The Scriptures verify themselves to a great extent." 

YOU: "So does The Matrix, Star Wars and Harry Potter. That doesn't mean what they verify about themselves is real. We've had a very long discussion on claims versus evidence, specifically the problem with using the claim as the evidence. This is what you usually are doing, in my experience. If you have extra-biblical verification of any of the bible's supernatural claims, I'd be interested." 


I don't believe any of them are true.
I am aware of that, and I understand that no amount of proof will convince you and sway you from your worldview confirmational bias other than God's Spirit. So what? That is your faith, what you take to be. That is not going to destroy my faith. 

I'm saying they have the same mythological elements.
I would agree with the Matrix, Star Wars, and Harry Potter yet not so with the Bible. The Bible has supernatural elements in compliance with God, not mythological elements. 

Can you prove that such creatures, planets and peoples DON'T exist?
I can give reasonable evidence. That is proof. 

Because that's what you're asking me to do with the bible. I don't have any reason to believe any of them are real, and the only essential difference between them is age.
That is just the point. That is not the only essential difference. There are many glaring differences. We know that these authors have created a fiction whereas that is not the case with the Bible. There is a unity with the Bible that those not well versed in it miss. Prophecy is approximately 30% of the writings. 


That's all I said. I'm not bothering with your nonsense prohopecy claims because (a) they aren't in the book, (b), even if they were correct it wouldn't prove Jesus died and came back and (c) I've had this boring discussion with you where you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence.
Which is why it is a waste of time having a discussion on the Bible with you. You continually prove my point. You are not open to evaluating the evidence. 

The rest of your post agrees with me (no, you wouldn't believe it if it were another religious text claiming that their hero was resurrected), followed by your usual "Random chance makes me uncomfortable so I choose to believe in something else." It's your right and you're not going to change your mind, so I don't care to go over it. AGAIN. 
No, I would not. I understand that two contrary worldviews or claims cannot both be true when speaking of the same thing. Either God exists or He does not. Either the Bible is true or it is not. Either the universe is created or it is a product of indifferent chance happenstance. 

Now, if you want to believe such absurdity as a chance universe that is your choice. 
#47
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
 Not so with the biblical accounts. These people went to their deaths believing they had seen the risen Messiah.

"Not so" refers to not knowing the authors of the biblical accounts as you do with JK Rowling...how's that bolster the case for your belief? You don't know who wrote them, so they're more likely true because (______________). 
I have very good reason to believe the authors are those mentioned. 

And the 9/11 hijackers went to their deaths believing they were going to be handsomely rewarded in Muslim Heaven. Do you think that makes their belief more or less likely to be true?
Less likely to be true for the reason I stated earlier. Two beliefs that state opposites cannot both be true. 

Do you believe the disciples/apostles were radicalized? If so, what is your reason and how does it coincide with the biblical narratives? 
#48
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I have very good reason to believe the authors are those mentioned. 
So the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Okay then, most modern scholarship on the bible would disagree, but to me "biblical scholarship' is a bit of a contradiction. It's like knowing Lord of the Rings REALLY REALLY REALLY well. GOod for them, but it doesn't make it true. 


Less likely to be true for the reason I stated earlier. Two beliefs that state opposites cannot both be true. 
So how do you know yours isn't the belief that's false? Their holy book supports their beliefs too, you know. 

Do you believe the disciples/apostles were radicalized? 
I don't believe the stories in the bible are real factual accounts. You apparently believe them to be contemporaneous journalism. This question to me is the same as "Do you believe The Sparrows were radicalized" in the Song of Ice and Fire universe, or if I believe the oracle at Delphi was a real soothsayer, and not just high on weird fumes in her cave. 
#49
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I have very good reason to believe the authors are those mentioned. 
So the gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Okay then, most modern scholarship on the bible would disagree, but to me "biblical scholarship' is a bit of a contradiction. It's like knowing Lord of the Rings REALLY REALLY REALLY well. GOod for them, but it doesn't make it true.
Don't give me that bunk of "most modern scholarship." It is a particular group of scholars that are influenced by modern higher criticism. 

Again, you pick a highly fictitious work and compare it to the Bible. The analogy sucks. 

Less likely to be true for the reason I stated earlier. Two beliefs that state opposites cannot both be true. 
So how do you know yours isn't the belief that's false? Their holy book supports their beliefs too, you know.
Because God has given many convincing proofs. Not only that, the alternatives are inconsistent and make no sense. The tail chasing you have to go through for an atheistic belief is laughable to my eyes. 

Do you believe the disciples/apostles were radicalized? 
I don't believe the stories in the bible are real factual accounts. You apparently believe them to be contemporaneous journalism. This question to me is the same as "Do you believe The Sparrows were radicalized" in the Song of Ice and Fire universe, or if I believe the oracle at Delphi was a real soothsayer, and not just high on weird fumes in her cave.
Again, you are welcome to your beliefs but I do not believe contrary beliefs to the Bible can make sense of themselves when pushed to the core or central tenants of that belief system. 

As I said before, I recognize it is not likely I could convince you for the simple fact is that you do not want to be convinced. 
#50
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, you pick a highly fictitious work and compare it to the Bible. The analogy sucks. 

THe bible contains a story about a boat that held two of every animal on the planet, and insect, and probably plant too, and they all survived for 40 days when the entire earth was covered with water. The boat was built by a guy who lived to be 600, and he built it by hand, and the animals didn't blow the boat up with farts or the literal tons of shit, or eat each other. How is this somehow less believable than Lord of the Rings? You saying the analogy sucks sounds kinda like you think so because you don't have a better argument. Oh, and your book features talking animals too. And giants. And also demons. Why are demons more real than orcs or ogres exactly?

 Because God has given many convincing proofs. Not only that, the alternatives are inconsistent and make no sense. The tail chasing you have to go through for an atheistic belief is laughable to my eyes. 
I'm glad my lack of belief is laughable, I don't care, but why are muslims' beliefs laughable? Why are they so much more convinced than you are? You say "they're inconsistent and make no sense." How, exactly? Because I can say the same thing about the bible. Like it makes no sense for God to tell anyone to go smite his enemies on his behalf, I mean he could just do it himself, he's way more powerful than armies. Also, why would god make people he ended up thinking were so shitty he had to bomb their town with brimstone and turn them into salt? I mean that seems a little strange to me, blaming his creation for being so shitty. It'd be like me building a tree house in such a way that I knew it would fall, then being mad at the tree house for falling. Right?

 I could convince you for the simple fact is that you do not want to be convinced
I have asked you in this very thread, please present your extra-biblical (outside the bible) evidence for the truth of the entire bible. If the entire thing isn't true, how do I know which parts are and which parts aren't? If you cannot provide this, I would welcome any evidence that would definitively prove that any other world religion is demonstrably false. Just one. 
#51
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
For those of you who would like to see it, wiki has a list of all the works mentioned in the OT and NT that have been lost to history. It is an interesting read.


The non-canonical books referenced in the Bible includes pseudepigrapha, writings from Hellenistic and other non-Biblical cultures, and lost works of known or unknown status. By the "Bible" is meant those books recognised by most Christians and Jews as being part of Old Testament (or Tanakh) as well as those recognised by Christians alone as being part of the Biblical apocrypha or of the Deuterocanon.

It may also include books of the Anagignoskomena (Deuterocanonical books § Eastern Orthodoxy) that are accepted only by Eastern Orthodox Christians. For the purposes of this article, "referenced" can mean direct quotations, paraphrases, or allusions, which in some cases are known only because they have been identified as such by ancient writers, or the citation of a work or author.

For Stephen - non-canonical books mean books not canonized (or compiled) in the standard King James bible.
#52
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
how do I know which parts are and which parts aren't?

Why don't you give it a shot, you seem like a pretty logical fella what's the problem? Or, rather than using common sense to figure out what the accounts are trying to convey you simply use what is useful? what do you think about the Gospel? before you recite how a dead man was raised from the grave or how Jesus walked on water why not look at everything else in between?? the miracle stuff is interesting but what about the subtle beautiful nuances and extreme passion for the Creator? what about all the cool examples and teachings of Jesus throughout the whole collection?? what about the courage and hero like qualities of Jesus?

#53
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
To make a long story short, you are not required to believe in anything you find absurd or unacceptable. That's not the point behind spirituality or even an example like Jesus or any other spiritual Master or scriptures. What IS required of you is to be flexible and willing to apply things, DON'T just mock and look for things you believe are stupid. If something makes sense to you just apply it to yourself that's it. Give your all and refuse to be held down by any particular ideology like atheism, if you just did that you could make leaps and bounds. Hook up with a Theist that makes some damn sense and get involved, ask questions and be willing to do things differently. 

#54
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Do you see those words in quotes Popoff? Those are quotes from Jesus himself. He is referencing some scripture. I want you to tell me WHAT FKN "scripture" is Jesus  referencing .
One that is not in our current Bible.

...that is my original question as posed at post one of this thread.
And I've told you over and over, not all scripture is in the Bible.

This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time.
It cannot be a verse.

MORE FKN DENIAL AND LIES!!!!  What the FK is this if it NOT a verse?
Stop acting insane. The bible was not divided into verses till hundreds of years after Jesus lived. And, since Jesus is not referencing the bible, this scripture was never broken into verses.

Its just logic homer. Calm down and think. If you don't read the replies, you will remain ignorant.

if you don't know then simply say so instead of making up things and telling lie after lie and pretending you haven't even seen my question. 
What lie have I told? What did I make up?

You stupidly thought what Jesus said had to be a mistake if it wasn't in the bible. You thought this because in your ignorance, you conflated "scripture" with "bible".

But your lack of knowledge has embarrassed you again. You saw that it wasn't in the bible, and went ballistic, your cluelessness fueling your error.

Jesus is referencing scripture that has been lost to history. My previous post above gives other examples of this.

Even the bible says that not everything Jesus said and did was recorded. So calm down. There is no conspiracy to hide anything. The stuff you "find" isn't new, and they aren't contradictions.

You are just woefully ignorant on bible culture and context. And joined with that ignorance, your anti-theist hate makes you a perfect target for lolz.

I'm beginning to suspect you may be compulsive too. That would be wonderful.
Topic's author
#55
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

Do you see those words in quotes Popoff? Those are quotes from Jesus himself. He is referencing some scripture. I want you to tell me WHAT FKN "scripture" is Jesus  referencing .
One that is not in our current Bible.

So you do not know what scripture that Jesus is referencing. Well done Popoff. You got there in the end after all your denials and blatant lies.

Jesus is referencing scripture that has been lost to history.

  And that is all you needed to say in your first reply  at your first post then wasn't it?  But instead you thought turning the thread into 3 pages of lies, deceit and  bullishit was the better option . The question is still there at post one, unedited and in its original state . You could have given your  answer ( which is a  fair point) way back then. But  argument always seems to be your preferred and first response. And you have the fkn brass neck to say others here don't know how to debate.


...that is my original question as posed at post one of this thread.
And I've told you over and over, not all scripture is in the Bible.

And I said AS FAR BACK AS POST # 21  it wasn't in the Old Or New Testaments and  WELL BEFORE YOU have told me. But it hasn't stopped you making a fkn argument out of nothing has it, Popoff?






Peter Popoff Exposed as a Evangelical Fraud

#56
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
One that is not in our current Bible.

So you do not know what scripture that Jesus is referencing. Well done Popoff. You got there in the end after all your denials and blatant lies.
Lol. I told you in my first post to you. But you were too busy doing your shuck and jive dance.

Jesus is referencing scripture that has been lost to history. 

And that is all you needed to say in your first reply  at your first post then wasn't it? 
I did say so. You stupidly claimed I was "lying" and putting words "in the mouth of Jesus."

It was only my professional training as a troll whisperer that enabled me to force you into admitting you saw the answer.

You posted this because you thought it was an error on the bible's part. You thought it should be in the bible if it was not an error.

You now want to bury that bit of silliness behind, "I was only asking where it was!"

*You didn't know that it was stupid to think Jesus was quoting a book that would not be in existence for hundreds of years.

*You did not know that the bible was not broken into verses till long after Jesus.

*You did not know there was scripture that was not the bible.

*You still don't know that Jesus is the creator of "scripture". What He says IS scripture.

Every "contradiction" you've posted so far has turned out to be fakery. Your abandoned threads litter the board. All exactly alike. You post nonsense, claim there is no answer, spam the same nonsense in every post ignoring the rebuttals, and then run away when your denials become too silly to continue.

I told you I'd be here for you.
Topic's author
#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

I told you in my first post to you

Why are you now continuing to tell lies when there is no reason for you to do so? 



THIS WAS YOU FIRST FKN POST, POPOFF >>>>>> POST 16

"I only have one question. When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?"

You told me nothing at all but thought you'd TRY and be clever. You are not clever, you are far from clever.

So you don't know was all you had to say. And now we know you don't. 


I did say so. You stupidly claimed I was "lying" and putting words "in the mouth of Jesus."

You are only half right here Popoff. I have accused you of lying on this thread - as you do on all of the threads that you post on.

But I have not accused you of putting any words into anyone's mouth on this thread as you are prone to do on many threads when you have painted yourself into a corner.

Peter Popoff Exposed as a Evangelical Fraud


You are now simply posting to bury your own embarrassment, as you do on all your threads when caught out in hypocrisy, lying and contradiction.

Any way. Like I have said. You don't know.

PLEASE RED THIS CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY popoff!!!

 It was absolutely delightful to have you admit that everything religiously "scriptural" is not necessarily in the bible. 


It will be something I can use against you when - as you often do - deny anything introduced into an argument BY ME that is not in the bible, such as The Gospel of Thomas  that clearly states that LAZARUS was alive and not dead when Jesus "raised" him. 





#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
You told me nothing at all but thought you'd TRY and be clever.
My first post in this thread. Post #16

When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?

It cannot be what Stephen is "searching" as it would be more than 300 years before the bible would exist when Jesus said this.

In fact, when Jesus said this, the Torah had not even been divided into verses yet.

So Jesus was clearly not referring to the thing Stephen is searching.

The confusion stems from ignorance about how the bible came about, and what "scripture" is.

Scripture is every word that has come out of the mouth of God, but not every word out of the mouth of God is in the Bible.

Because he is ignorant he thinks the word Jesus used, "scripture", means "Bible", it doesn't, and cannot. The bible did not exist then, and would not exist for hundreds of years

You are lying when you say, "I told you nothing."

You are now simply posting to bury your own embarrassment,...
Here is what you said in post #2

It appears that the claim by Jesus appears to be false. 
How is it false? Because it isn't in the bible? Because you stupidly think, due to ignorance, that scripture must mean bible.

The only one embarrassed here is you.

It was absolutely delightful to have you admit that everything religiously "scriptural" is not necessarily in the bible. 
When I was the one who told you? Lol!! Funny. You didn't know homer, you thought Jesus was wrong.

It will be something I can use against you when - as you often do - deny anything introduced into an argument BY ME that is not in the bible, such as The Gospel of Thomas  that clearly states that LAZARUS was alive and not dead when Jesus "raised" him.
The gospel of Thomas is not in the bible homer. Neither is it scripture. The difference between you and I is that I know the bible, unlike you, I'm not ignorant.

So, Jesus was not wrong, you were just ignorant. All this bluster, all the caps, bolding, underlining, all the vulgarity, all for nothing. All because you were so ignorant you thought "scripture" could only mean "bible".

*You didn't know that it was stupid to think Jesus was quoting a book that would not be in existence for hundreds of years.

*You did not know that the bible was not broken into verses till long after Jesus.

*You did not know there was scripture that was not the bible.

*You still don't know that Jesus is the creator of "scripture". What He says IS scripture.
#59
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Again, you pick a highly fictitious work and compare it to the Bible. The analogy sucks. 

THe bible contains a story about a boat that held two of every animal on the planet, and insect, and probably plant too, and they all survived for 40 days when the entire earth was covered with water.
First, two of every kind or two of every animal? Would you consider a dog a kind or a poodle, a wolf, an Alsatian, Doberman a kind? Second, would the size make a difference to space? If so, the young would reduce space.


The boat was built by a guy who lived to be 600, and he built it by hand, and the animals didn't blow the boat up with farts or the literal tons of shit, or eat each other.
Second, who is to say what conditions existed that increased longevity or even if God designed that in humanity until the point where He reduced the lifespan. Some, like Henry Morris, have suggested the ultraviolet rays were blocked by the water in the atmosphere since the Bible explains it had not rained until the time of the Flood which could possibly affect their lifespan. Whether it was through supernatural means or natural means that they lived so long, we are not told. But God's existence grants the supernatural. You would try to explain everything through the natural if you did not believe in God. 

We know that God eventually limited the lifespan of humanity.

Genesis 6:3 (NASB)
3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
  
Later we are told, 

Psalm 90:10 (NASB)
10 As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years,
Or if due to strength, eighty years,
Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow;
For soon it is gone and we fly away.


How is this somehow less believable than Lord of the Rings?
We know the Lord of the Rings is a fictitious fantasy. The Bible discloses itself as the word of God. It contains a historical narrative. Where does the Lord of the Rings take place again?

" The Lord of the Rings takes place in Tolkien's fictional world, called Middle-earth."

We know the Amorites, Amalekites, Hittites, Canaanites etc, lived. We know these lands exist. We know cities existed/exist. We have historical confirmation of some of the people mentioned in the Bible existed. We have historical confirmation of many of the events. 

You saying the analogy sucks sounds kinda like you think so because you don't have a better argument. Oh, and your book features talking animals too. And giants. And also demons. Why are demons more real than orcs or ogres exactly?
Again, giants in relation to what? Is Andrea the Giant huge with respect to the average Joe? Goliath was said to be around nine feet nine inches tall.

Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

As for animals talking, if God decided to make an animal talk how would that be hard for an almighty God?

As for spiritual beings, the belief is held by many cultures throughout history. 

 Because God has given many convincing proofs. Not only that, the alternatives are inconsistent and make no sense. The tail chasing you have to go through for an atheistic belief is laughable to my eyes. 
I'm glad my lack of belief is laughable, I don't care, but why are muslims' beliefs laughable?
Islam was influenced by many different religious beliefs - Judaism, aberrant Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the pagan gods of the region. It forms 600 years after Christianity and borrows much from it and the OT. 

Why are they so much more convinced than you are? You say "they're inconsistent and make no sense." How, exactly?
The influence of all these different beliefs combined in the Qur'an is not consistent with their earlier sources. 

The following book was instrumental in my understanding of the differences:


Because I can say the same thing about the bible. Like it makes no sense for God to tell anyone to go smite his enemies on his behalf, I mean he could just do it himself, he's way more powerful than armies.
Sure it makes sense. He wanted His people to trust Him and His word. He wanted them to understand His power working in and with them. 

Also, why would god make people he ended up thinking were so shitty he had to bomb their town with brimstone and turn them into salt? I mean that seems a little strange to me, blaming his creation for being so shitty. It'd be like me building a tree house in such a way that I knew it would fall, then being mad at the tree house for falling. Right?
He chose Israel to make known to the world Himself and His purpose for humanity. He showed the weakness of Israel in living up to His perfect standard of righteousness, and He continually pointed through prophecy and what was to come, the solution, His Son.

 I could convince you for the simple fact is that you do not want to be convinced
I have asked you in this very thread, please present your extra-biblical (outside the bible) evidence for the truth of the entire bible. If the entire thing isn't true, how do I know which parts are and which parts aren't? If you cannot provide this, I would welcome any evidence that would definitively prove that any other world religion is demonstrably false. Just one. 
I have tried this numerous times before on this forum through two threads and found that those who demanded evidence were not interested in a serious discussion of the evidence, IMO. If you were sincerely interested I would make an exception with a new thread, but it would be a two-way street. It would mean not only me answering your questions but you answering mine too. 

Here are those two threads, plus I had others on different debate forums:


Topic's author
#60
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You told me nothing at all but thought you'd TRY and be clever.
My first post in this thread. Post #16

Yes  I know. here it is again; 

 Post #16 YOUR FIRST POST "I only have one question. When Jesus says in John 7:38, "scripture", what is He referring to?"


^^^^^^^^^^ above that was your first post. You wasn't "telling me" anything. It was a question. So stop with your bullshite.


That is what I had to point out to you above at Post 57,  when you carried on with your lies for absolutely no reason, FFS! Keep up Popoff.  

We all now know you don't know .  In fact it is highly debatable whether you have a clue as to what is going on in any of those biblical scriptures, never mind anything extra biblical. Oh well, deary me, there, there,never mind, eh , Popoff



Peter Popoff Exposed as a Evangelical Fraud