For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 353
#181
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
You would first have to consider the evidence available. Which is what I've been saying, you have an extraordinarily vast body of spiritual facts at your finger tips that correlate with the nature of God. It is not proof, but certainly we can VERIFY that a Creator exists by looking at the overwhelming evidence. From there, you can begin to ask for information and weigh it.
As of yet I've not got a single piece of evidence for a creator. I have a lot of claims, but no evidence. I'd be happy to take a look at your vast body of evidence for a creator.
Go back and read the definition of evidence, and perhaps you will change your tune about the false claim "there is no single piece of evidence" baloney. Claims, which are testimonials are not just claims, they are an aspect of evidence. Like if you first-hand experience something that you wanted to convey. That is called a testimony.

 It would of course be circular reasoning to say 'we can verify spiritual evidence because it correlates with god's nature' and then also argue that spiritual evidence proves a god exists.

Wrong, we have both evidence as well personal experience which can be cross referenced with many sources, which is involved in spirituality......which is the practical application and observation of what actually exists beyond the physical perceptions. Circular reasoning would be to say that because something says something it is true....that is not what I have stated. I said that what is said can be verified both by personal experience and cross referencing. 

Topic's author
#182
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
No one has disputed what I claim is historical fact
That's because you have yet to show it is historical fact.


Okay, what do you want me to establish as fact? That Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70? Are you questioning that this is a fact?

In Post 11 I stated: 

"The biblical prophecies regarding the Olivet Discourse are specific to a particular date and time. They speak of the coming destruction of the city and temple. That happened in AD 70."

What part of that statement do you dispute as a fact?

***

In Post 13 I stated: 

"We KNOW that in AD 70 the city and temple were destroyed by the Roman armies that had surrounded the city."

What part(s) of that statement do you wish to dispute as a fact?

"We know that the OT people operated under the Mosaic Law and covenant."

Which part(s) of that statement do you want to dispute as a fact?

" After AD 70 this covenant and its laws can no longer be met."

Do you disagree that this is a fact?

" We know that there is no more animal sacrifice, no more priesthood, no more temple, and that the curses of Deuteronomy 28 have been poured out on this people, as per the numerous warning in the OT and NT, which meets with the statement, "days of vengeance" and great distress upon the land and people so that everything yet unfulfilled would be fulfilled."

What do you want to dispute as a fact regarding that paragraph?

Regarding the NT being written AFTER the fact I said:

"As Christians, we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies. What is the earliest evidence you have that states they were inserted after the fact?"

What is the earliest evidence you can provide that disputes these prophecies in ancient manuscripts?

I said: 

"As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts  (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date?"

What do you wish to dispute as a fact from that statement?

"The OT looks forward to the time of the Messiah and God's judgment for unfaithfulness. What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)?"

Do you want to dispute as a fact that the OT looks forward to the time of the Anointed One, the Messiah? Do you want to dispute as a fact that the biblical God warned the Old Covenant people of coming judgment because of their unfaithfulness to Him? Again, I asked for evidence from early sources that prove the OT documents were written after the fact of the destruction of Jesuralem in AD 70.

***

In Post 14 I stated:

"The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable?"

Do you want to dispute this as a fact?

***

In Post 18 I stated:

"What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION. The destruction has NOT taken place in any NT gospel or epistle, or Revelation."

Do you want to dispute this as a fact?

***

Shall I continue?

So, what do you want to challenge as factual concerning prophecy?
#183
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
First, you have to believe He exists. That would be the first step. How would you either believe or trust God if you did not believe He existed (per Hebrews 11:6). Then, by trusting Him He would supply the confirmation as He promised.
I do not see belief as something you choose. I cannot accept the existence of god as true because I have no reason to conclude it is true. I could assume it and have done in the past, but that has never led to anything that can be used to conclude god exists.

Even without believing God there is a host of evidence for the reason that this is His universe. He created it and understands every aspect of it.
What evidences would they be? I have been presented with a lot of claims, but nothing that can be verified as supporting the existence of a god.

I continue to ask you what is more reasonable, chance happenstance or mindful being?
Impossible to know until we're aware of the conditions (if any) that preceeded this universe. You can no more honestly answer this question than I can, you just make an assumption, based on your admited earlier assumption that god exists.

I continue to ask you to make sense of the universe devoid of God. The questions are somewhat sidestepped. It is easier to avoid the difficult questions than to answer them.
Oh, I will make sense of the universe where I can. I will answer what questions I can, however I am willing to concede that I can't answer all questions, instead I seek answers. We could make sense of an ordered and consistent universe. In fact we do (though not as well as we might like), yet I've not once been shown that this universe necessitates god.

Make sense of your worldview. You are making as many claims as I am. AND, I offered you reasonable explanations and evidence via prophecy. I have yet to see anyone other than SkepticalOne address the heart of this thread. Stephen bowed out by stating that he wasn't interested in it. 
Not at all. My world view as relevant to theology is that it's an unknown. We lack the means to confirm if the universe was created or not. We lack means of answering this question. We have many, many claims, yet none that are supported by evidence  (evidence supports a claim when it can show the claim is true).

What would these 'reasonable explanations' be and what prophecies would you care to discuss? Wht are your standards for verifying a prophecy? How specific does it need to be? How obscure an event? What about timeframe?

I'm giving examples of how your worldview system of belief is incapable of answering the why questions by listing some of them that others have sidestepped.

As I said an argument from ignorance 'you can't answer the question so my answer must be right' 

You claim it is an argument from ignorance, PROVIDED God does not exist and has not revealed Himself to His creatures - humanity
No, it's an argument from ignorance regardless. However, I don't accept the claim that a god has revealed himself. I see a lot of claims for this, but how do you substantiate those claims?
#184
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
First lets get something straight because most atheists I've discussed with actually have no idea what evidence consists of because they are used to thinking that we have to observe a physical object to collect "evidence" for it.

Not my position at all, but the testimonial, fact or information must support the assertion  (we'll see that in your definition below). If you were arguing that the spiritual may exist then what you present would be a body of evidence, however, you are asserting it is evidence that the spiritual does exist. This is why I repeatedy ask why it would only apply if your position is correct. So far you have only answered with assertions.

This is true only for physical objects but it is in no way the boundaries of what evidence consists of. Lets supply a definition and see if we can agree what we mean by "evidence".

Actually it's not we can have evidence for something physical based on testimony rather than physical evidence. The issue is that it must support an assertion.


Because your claim that you have yet to see any evidence of God is false, as testimonials is most certainly a part of evidence. So there is more evidence than you could ever know what to do with in the spiritual arena. Anyone who claims there is "no evidence" has no idea what they are saying. Examples of evidence would be the vast body of testimonial facts and experiences.

Only if the information can be showed to support the assertion as true. I have a lot of evidence that people believe in god. Reliability is also a factor as well as if the source is the same as that making the claim  (is it evidence of dragons if I state there are dragons in my house? Does it become evidence of that assertion if I repeat it?)

This includes the whole of spirituality and all experiences associated with it. They may be "claims" because they are made by individuals but testimonials are a part of evidences and that is something you cannot deny. 
They are claims because they are making a claim (I saw a dragon). They are then making statements to support that claim. Same as the dragon example above. It would be evidence if someone else went on to describe that dragon without knowing the description of the dragon being given to the claimant. Care to present some evidence and we can discuss if it supports the assertion.

Evidence-
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence,[2] and physical evidence.

Not a single one of these definitions contradict or show there is no evidence for a Creator, quite the opposite if you know how to read. 

Notice how the testimonial has to support the assertion (not that the person giving the testimonial believes the assertion). In this context I would say a testimonial is first hand authentication of a fact. Now I have seen many people that attribute things to god, for those to be testimonies I would say they need to authenticate the fact that it was god. I haven't seen that done.
#185
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Again, I'm NEVER assuming anything. These little word plays of yours are getting in the way and becoming a problem. I show you I'm not assuming things by giving you explanations and reasoning. But you have to consider my reasoning at face value if it makes sense and stop with the assumptions and ask anything you need to. My argument is that the spiritual would not exist if the Divine did not exist, you're not arguing the point you're just claiming it is an assertion
You assert the consciousness exists externally of the brain.

I ask how you can confirm this.


You assert that NDE's couldn't occur if the brain produced consciousness as NDE's occur outside of the brain (you also assert that these were brains in a state of brain death a state deemed irreversible to the point it's actually part of the definition unless I've missed it you haven't addressed my queries on this).

I ask how you can confirm that this isn't a product of the recorded surge of activity in the brain at the moment of death.

Now, you have made comments on experiences being the most real of your life I believe? Yet this doesn't dismiss the construct of the brain. If the materialists assertions were correct then we would expect experiences created by the mind to be potentially indestinguishable from reality. Can you show that isn't the case.

See where we hit a problem is that the answers you give to your claims tend to be more claims. It's starting to look like turtles all the way down. While I will honestly consider your claims, I will always question them. So far I'm not seeing anything that puts your claim ahead of the materialists.
#186
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
When you bring up the question of the variables at work you also bring up the question of whether the present is the key to the past. We look at data available today and assume that what we currently see is an indication of what was all those many years ago that we were not present to. Thus, we INTERPRET the data by what we presently know and what we presently suppose. 
How can we know anything about what came before the universe (if anything)? If acannot know then  can we accurately determine what is reasonable?
 
You also bring up the possibility of someTHING existing before the universe. You suppose something before the Big Bang, perhaps a multiverse. Energy is dissipating and the universe is supposedly dying a heat death. By positing "before this universe" you presuppose the universe is not the start of time. Are you proposing an infinite time frame?
Is it possible that there was something before this universe? I don't know. Is it possible there was some manner of multiverse? I don't know. Was there time before this universe? I don't know. That's my point. The question of what is more reasonable in a complete unknown is meaningless, we haven't the necessary information to form a reasonable answer.

You won't find a reason without intelligence. Why do we continue to find reasons, meaning, purpose in a supposedly meaningless universe? Why do we continually find order in a chaotic, mindless, random chance universe? You just ASSUME it is possible. Why would we see the uniformity of nature (laws that govern the universe and without which it would not exist)? How does random chance happenstance sustain anything (laws)? You just ASSUME it must because there is no view other than God that can account for it. You don't like that alternative. It means, if God exists, then you are ACCOUNTABLE to Him. You are not autonomous after all. That is a frightening thought to many, so they rationalize away God as they build their house of cards. 
What meaning reason or purpose do we find inherent in the universe? Why do you assume that the only meaning, purpose and reason in the universe weren't a product of intelligence forming within the universe and imposing it? As for the rest. I don't assume anything, I don't claim to know if the universe is the product of a creator or not. There isn't the necessary information to determine. As for the physical laws, they simply require the forces that interacting with each other do so consistently. Any reason to assume (as you do) that this couldn't be the case without an intelligent creator?
#187
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The prophecy did not state the day or year. The prophecy did not state Roman soldiers would surround and destroy it. Hence, no prophecy.
#188
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
Why do we discover information in our DNA, the genetic code? From one end of the spectrum to the other we continually find meaning and purpose. How can something without personhood produce consciousness, intelligence, logic, truth, order? Secularists dogmatically assert that these things can happen without making sense of any of them. 
Not meaning and purpose order. You may infer meaning and purpose from order, but as of yet no one has demonstrated to me any reason order requires an intelligence to form. As such I see no reason to assume order required a creator. Of course all of this is an argument from ignorance. The fact that proposition A doesn't have the answers doesn't mean proposition B is true  (or even suggest it is likely to be true) since I am not proposing a non-god universe  (I won't reject it as a possibility unt there is reason to do so, same as I won't reject the proposition god exists until there is reason to do so), so this could be seen  as a straw man argument. It can certainly be seen as shifting the burden of proofm

So, of the two possibilities, God can and does make sense of the universe, of being, of life, of morality, of meaning. The universe does not, nor can it do so. You are welcome to such absurdity, but I believe you (generic) act on blind faith. There is no reason to believe otherwise. 
As of yet I have no reason to believe either way. I believe the universe exists. I will say it seems likely it had a beginning, I lack the information necessary to determine either way. No I don't believe anyone is asserting the universe can make sense of anything, but perhaps we humans can. Accepting beliefs without reason certainly doesn't seem to be helpful to that though. Why does order require an intelligence to form? 

Oh, just to add. We see information in everything. Anything we can receive knowledge from gives us information. People just tend to focus on DNA because it's  complex and some assume complexity requires intelligence.
#189
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
As I said, I question whether there is such a thing as spiritual facts.  When believer A and believer B have spiritual facts that contradict, then its obvious one or both are not talking about facts. This is the law of non-contradiction.  X and not X cannot be true at the same time. Obviously, what is understood as spiritual fact is not, in fact, a fact. If it were, then some believer somewhere would submit his spiritual facts to the world, and establish the god he believed in exists.

Instead, believers pretend they have an objective truth even though they can't show it, and somehow the weakness of their argument is the fault of non-believers.

I'll leave you to it, sir.  Maybe one day you and I can have an honest conversation about this.


#190
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't support EtrnlVw's view of the spiritual, but I believe the Bible gives us a very convincing view of the spiritual truth of God contained in the OT and explained in the NT. There is a spiritual reality that is expressed by the actual history of OT Israel, Adam, the Fall, the sacrificial system, worship, etc., etc. I can go into extensive detail on these spiritual truths, as expressed in Corinthians:

The Bible is not convincing to me in the least.  The contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, the blatant tampering by self interested anonymous persons, additions, deletions, etc.  In addition to this, the Bible is the claim and cannot be evidence of itself.


Topic's author
#191
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
The prophecy did not state the day or year. The prophecy did not state Roman soldiers would surround and destroy it. Hence, no prophecy.
What prophecy are you speaking of? Daniel 9:24-27?


Daniel 9:24-27 (NASB)
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city
, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the
most holy
 place.

 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”


That prophecy gave six conditions that would take place.
1) to finish the transgression,
2) to make an end of sin,
3) to make atonement for iniquity,
4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5) to seal up vision and prophecy,
6) to anoint the most holy place.

Can it be shown from the NT that these six conditions have been met? Yes. 

Now to the time frame. 
1) Seventy weeks are decreed for DANIEL'S people. First, you have to ask who Daniel's people are? They are a people in a (Mosaic) covenant relationship with God. Daniel 1-26 discusses this covenant relationship.
2) The timeline would start with the issuing of the decree to REBUILD Jerusalem (v. 25).
You have to understand that with the Babylonian captivity the city and temple were destroyed. Thus, God is giving these people another period of 70 heptads of years (490 years) to finish their transgressions against Him. That timeline would start with the decree and would end with the complete destruction once again. The timeline would end with the cessation of sacrifice (putting an end to sin - see also v. 27). It would include the making an atonement for their iniquity which is Jesus' sacrifice. He met all the righteous requirements for sin with a perfect life lived before God. 
3) The Anointed One (Messiah) would be cut off (i.e., killed). This would have to happen before the end of the seventy weeks. We know in the NT accounts that Jesus was put to death around AD 30. We know that the Anointed One could not come after the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26). 
4) We know that the end (the destruction - I might add, the destruction of the Mosaic Covenant as well as city and temple) would come like a flood, i.e., quickly. 
5) We know that wars and desolation were determined during this period (v. 26). 
6) We know that there would be an abomination of desolation set up in the holy place (v. 27). 

So, from deduction, we know that only one army destroyed Jerusalem and the sanctuary since it was rebuilt after the Babylonian destruction. We know that was the Roman army. We know from Josephus'  War of the Jews, that during the first-century timeframe the prophecy fits the bill concerning wars. We know from Josephus' accounts of the siege of Jerusalem that what the Jews would consider an abomination did happen. We know that after the destruction of the city and temple that the OT sacrificial system was put to an END. We know that animal sacrifice was stopped before the city was destroyed. We know that after the destruction there was no more Levitical priesthood. We know that after the destruction, animal sacrifices (a requirement of the Mosaic worship system) are never again practiced. 

Also, in King Nebuchadnezzar's dream in which Daniel interprets, we are given a timeline of four empires or kingdoms in regard to a relationship with Israel. It would be during the fourth kingdom that God would set up His eternal kingdom (Daniel 2:40-44). The NT always speaks of a SOON/NEAR coming kingdom. This, I would argue, happened in AD 70. 

Which of the list of claims I gave you are you disputing as facts; after all, you said I did not state facts. 

Peter
#192
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
Does it begin with YOU? I know it does not begin with me. I see it did not begin with those who are born after me. People before me thought these meanings existed before I did.
Who said the universe has a single meaning? I don't assume an inherent meaning to the universe,  nor do I see reason to. Without that assumption it becomes entirely possible we each impose our own meaning upon the universe. If this is the case then the first intelligent life would have been the first being to impose meaning upon the universe logically.

Which person did the laws of the universe begin with?
What an odd question. Why would you assume I think natural processes began with a person? The physical constants, the processes and interactions that cause the universe to behave as it does would have  begun with the universe. Why do you think they need be started by a person?

If you make up qualitative meanings and I make up qualitative meanings, then why are your meanings any better than my meanings, or are they? If they are no better then why hold them? 
The meaning I impose upon the world around me are personal and hold value to me, not because they are better than yours, not because they are more accurate than yours but because they aid me in viewing the world around me and placing value in it.

So, are these laws something we make up to explain the way the universe is governed orare they discovered and applied?9
 In other words, do they exist before we think of them? 
The laws? No.  The natural phenomena they observe and predict definately came before the law.

Yes, 'meaning' is a product of intelligence, but whose intelligence? In a qualitative system, there has to be a best to arrive at the good. Who establishes that 'best' and why is it best? Why do we continually see the meaning shift, depending on who is in power? It is because people can't identify a best. They do not have what is necessary to arrive at best. What is necessary is an omniscient, unchanging, eternal, benevolent being  - God, the necessary Being. Otherwise, I challenge you to make sense of qualitative values.


Well it depends on the law in question. Newton produced a few. If you mean the processes that the laws were made to explain? How do you establish they need an intelligent origin?

Qualitative values are subjective good and best depend on cirumstance. It would be good if I had a couple of sausages and potatos for dinner tonight, it would be bad if I had the same and needed to feed the family. What evidence do you have that there is an objective 'good' or 'best'? Can you demonstrate an objective example of best?
#193
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
That prophecy gave six conditions that would take place.
1) to finish the transgression,
2) to make an end of sin,
3) to make atonement for iniquity,
4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5) to seal up vision and prophecy,
6) to anoint the
most holy
 place.

That's ridiculous, those are just vague faith based assertions that cannot be observed or tested in any way and can applied to any number of events. In fact, please tell me if #2 occurs any more? Do people still sin or not? What about #4, is there everlasting righteousness and can you demonstrate that?
Topic's author
#194
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

The Bible is not convincing to me in the least.  The contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, the blatant tampering by self interested anonymous persons, additions, deletions, etc.  In addition to this, the Bible is the claim and cannot be evidence of itself.


It was written during ancient times. The language and culture were different. 

Even if you look at it as a claim, history backs up prophecy. 

BTW, it looks like DebateArt did not reset the debate. Do you want me to start it over or should we first get our five judges to commit?
Topic's author
#195
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
That prophecy gave six conditions that would take place.
1) to finish the transgression,
2) to make an end of sin,
3) to make atonement for iniquity,
4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
5) to seal up vision and prophecy,
6) to anoint the 
most holy
 place.

That's ridiculous, those are just vague faith based assertions that cannot be observed or tested in any way and can applied to any number of events. In fact, please tell me if #2 occurs any more? Do people still sin or not? What about #4, is there everlasting righteousness and can you demonstrate that?


Some of them most definitely can. 
1) How would you finish the transgression of these people? You would bring judgment upon them, as you warned over and over again in the OT writings (i.e., Deuteronomy 28). 

16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
20 “The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.
25 “The Lord shall cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you will go out one way against them, but you will flee seven ways before them, and you will be an example of terror to all the kingdoms of the earth. 26 Your carcasses will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away.
32 Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and yearn for them continually; but there will be nothing you can do.
45 “So all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the Lord your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. 46 They shall become a sign and a wonder on you and your descendants forever.

2) How would you make an end of sin? God would put an end to their sacrificial system and judge their sins. How did God bring judgment upon Israel and other nations in the OT times (the Mosaic Covenant)? He brought other nations against the nation in a judgment of them. This can be demonstrated time after time in the OT writings. That was His means of putting an end to their sins.  

Yes, people still sin today. What is sinning? It is doing what is wrong in God's eyes. During the OT God's provision for sin was an animal sacrifice. God gave Israel a means to still maintain a relationship with Him. It was costly, it represented what should have been their judgment. It had to be performed every year to atone for the sins of the nation, plus there were individual sacrifices that were offered during the year. It was an imperfect system, and a lesson to them, because another and another sacrifice was always needed. Although the sacrifice had to be perfect the system was not. Jesus provided a better sacrifice, one that only had to be offered once, a perfect sacrifice. The problem is for those who do not accept that sacrifice in their place. If they do not do this they are still answerable for all the wrongs they have done against God. 

4)  I can demonstrate that the NT teaches it. Since you do not believe in or trust God you won't believe it, yet I can show that what I say is factual in regards to the Biblical teaching expressing just that. That one sacrifice Jesus offered (Himself) was enough to bring in everlasting righteousness FOR those who BELIEVE. Jesus' life meets every righteous requirement of God, as per the Law and the prophets. He lived a perfect life before the Father according to the NT accounts.  

Here is your dilemma, when you stand before God without trusting in Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior:

Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Are you perfect? Have you never done something wrong? Wrongful actions separate you from the presence of God. 

And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.

For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Jesus is the perfect sacrifice for our sins! The OT imagery of sacrifice and atonement is presented here, in Jesus. 

But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.






#196
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, people still sin today.
Then, you have just admitted the prophecy is false. Well done. I knew you'd eventually see the facts.


Here is your dilemma, when you stand before God without trusting in Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior
Your dilemma is trying to demonstrate a prophecy, but then admitted the prophecy is false.
#197
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible is not convincing to me in the least.  The contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, the blatant tampering by self interested anonymous persons, additions, deletions, etc.  In addition to this, the Bible is the claim and cannot be evidence of itself.


It was written during ancient times. The language and culture were different. 
Given that the Bible is said to be inspired by "God", it makes no difference when or where it was written. A perfect being should be able to communicate in a way that would not deteriorate and become unclear. Regardless of language or culture, there should be no ignorance represented as truth or knowledge.  And, finally, there should be no contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc.

The Bible does not communicate clearly, it does represent ignorance as knowledge, there are contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc. Given this, the Bible is not the work of a perfect being regardless of what it claims.


Even if you look at it as a claim, history backs up prophecy. 
At best, history agrees with your interpretation of prophecy.


BTW, it looks like DebateArt did not reset the debate. Do you want me to start it over or should we first get our five judges to commit?

Maybe we should postpone it.  I recently lost my father and I don't have the focus to do a debate right now.

Topic's author
#198
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

BTW, it looks like DebateArt did not reset the debate. Do you want me to start it over or should we first get our five judges to commit?

Maybe we should postpone it.  I recently lost my father and I don't have the focus to do a debate right now.

I'm very sorry to hear of your loss. 

Topic's author
#199
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Goldtop
Yes, people still sin today.
Then, you have just admitted the prophecy is false. Well done. I knew you'd eventually see the facts.

How do you figure that?


Here is your dilemma, when you stand before God without trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior
Your dilemma is trying to demonstrate a prophecy, but then admitted the prophecy is false.

How have I done that? You have not addressed a single factual statement I made (just standard operating procedure). See Post 182, 191, for instance.

Topic's author
#200
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
The Bible is not convincing to me in the least.  The contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, the blatant tampering by self interested anonymous persons, additions, deletions, etc.  In addition to this, the Bible is the claim and cannot be evidence of itself.


It was written during ancient times. The language and culture were different. 
Given that the Bible is said to be inspired by "God", it makes no difference when or where it was written. A perfect being should be able to communicate in a way that would not deteriorate and become unclear. Regardless of language or culture, there should be no ignorance represented as truth or knowledge.  And, finally, there should be no contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc.


Sure it makes a difference when it was written. God chose a people through which to make Himself known to the world. Through these people, we learn that they cannot measure up to God's covenant of works. This is demonstrated by their sin and rebellion. God decided on a point in time at which to provide a solution that was always pointed to in the OT, via the Messiah. 

Prophecy points to that point in time.

God communicated adequately yet man has always twisted His meaning. What are you calling an ignorant representation of truth? He communicated to a people and culture far removed from ours, yet the message of salvation is eternal and clear. That is what most people reject and object too.  

What you call contradictions has logical explanations. 

The Bible does not communicate clearly, it does represent ignorance as knowledge, there are contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc. Given this, the Bible is not the work of a perfect being regardless of what it claims.

You look at it superficially. You misinterpret plain meaning by ignoring the audience of address. "This generation" turns into a generation far removed from the audience of address. This age has a specific reference to an OT people who Jesus came to. Soon, near, quick, are in reference to these OT people. They are the primary and relevant audience. That is EVIDENT from the text. 



Even if you look at it as a claim, history backs up prophecy. 
At best, history agrees with your interpretation of prophecy.

Paul admonished believers to study to show themselves approved by God and correctly handle the word of truth. From those verses, we can deduce there is a correct interpretation, just like we know we need to understand the authors meaning if we are to understand them. There is only one correct interpretation. I invite you to challenge my interpretation and prove it wrong in regards to prophecy.  

I have stated certain things as fact, per Post 182 and others. Prove me wrong or prove your view is more reasonable and logical than mine.

#201
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
 I recently lost my father and I don't have the focus to do a debate right now.
I'm sorry man. It's literally my only fear in this life to lose either my mom or dad. This world sucks when it comes to that. I'm going to honor him by playing a song on the piano for him tonight. I know that's not much... but, i've enjoyed your comments and thoughts throughout the years, so i know your dad's probably even cooler than you ;p 

#202
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Outplayz
Thank you for that. Maybe we could get something lined up in a week or so. I would like to do a bit of research and I think I will be ready then.
#203
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Outplayz
Sorry, Outplayz, Im on my phone (which I can't see well) and took your message to be from PGA  Thank you for you kind words and please disregard the debate discussion!
#204
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Thank you. I think I'll be ready for a debate in a week if you'd like to aim for then.
#205
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0

Sure it makes a difference when it was written
Unless you want to argue it is unreasonable to expect a perfect being (all knowing, all powerful, etc) to choose a conduit of communication that will stand the test of time, then my point stands: the Bible is not the work of a perfect being.

Beaming a message to humans and leaving it in their safekeeping with no apparent oversight is a completely absurd route for the alleged creator of the universe to rely upon. If you, I, or any competent human, given the same power and knoweldge, would not rely on a multi-millennial game of telephone to convey crucial information to mankind.

Also, I just want to point out that you argued against contradictions, ignorance, and deterioration of the message (all of which are indisputable) and made no mention of the other 6 things that should not exist in the communications of a perfect being. I could concede ignorance and contradiction, the inability to know what the original authors actually wrote (much less what they actually meant) in the Bible and still have plenty of reasons to reject the Bible as the work of a perfect being. 

I'd rather not talk passed one another, so I'm going to expect you to address all of my point of stop attempting to use the Bible as any sort of justification for your arguments with me.
#206
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would you hold a belief in something if it was not superior to some other belief? (I have an answer to that question) Only because you don't know any better or because you don't like the consequences of believing the other (as you admit and I underlined).

Here you miss my point entirely. I am not stating that I would hold a belief knowing that there is a better belief, but that I don't assume my belief is the best (As I've said I'm not convinced there is a best). What would make a belief best? Some people want beliefs that provide answers, others want beliefs that are comforting or make them happy, some people want beliefs that are as accurate to reality as possible (I know I do). Which is objectively best and why?


You can't throw around terms like better unless there is a final, fixed measure of better - best. Do you have one? If not, then how do you know what you believe is right, or good, or ought to be the case? You plead ignorance.
I don't throw such terms around. I answered your question which references best. I haven't once claimed (nor will I) that one belief is better than another, I may say that something is better for me. I may give a subjective opinion that includes what I consider best, I won't claim it is objectively true. My question to you is can you show there is an objective 'best' in terms of beliefs? If a reason I should presuppose god is to have a way of identifying the objective 'best' or 'good' then can you demonstrate that such exists?

You have not demonstrated the ability to reason on why I SHOULD believe you. 
What claims have I made? When have I suggested you should believe me? I am asking questions offering alternative views and asking how you can show them to be inaccurate.


You have many. Maybe you do not understand them. Many, many people do not realize their worldview bias. No one is neutral. If you don't presuppose God then you presuppose some other beginning. You build on those beginnings from a worldview that excludes God as the, or the likely, explanation.
This is a false dichotomy  (and a fairly arrogant one at that). I know my world views, I don't presuppose anything. I haven't and don't, claim to know how the universe began, I don't claim a god is impossible or improbable, I don't claim that a god is necessary or likely. I haven't supposed what (if anything) was before this universe. I fail to see why I must presuppose any of these things rather than remaining with the default position of 'I don't know' it's an honest position that makes sense with the evidence available to us.
Topic's author
#207
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It is a sad time in life when you lose a loved one. Let me know when you are ready then. 
#208
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Life goes on - I'll be ready in a week. 😉
#209
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
Cities will be dominated by thieves, the Vedas will be contaminated by speculative interpretations of atheists, political leaders will virtually consume the citizens, and so-called priests and intellectuals will be devotees of their bellies and genitals -- Srimad Bhagavatam 12.3.32

Oh look a prophecy... The Bible is wrong and Hinduism is right... this is after all a much more accurate prophecy. And... a lot more of this in Hinduism to boot. 

The Bible's prophecies are no better than any other prophecy... Or guess. There are psychics that predict a persons entire life. Are they prophets too? I guess Wicca should be the ultimate religion since it's so accurate. 
#210
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
You assert the consciousness exists externally of the brain.
I'm not asserting anything less than what you are. You ask me a question, you will get an answer  (not assertion) from a Theistic point of view. Just like you will assert consciousness is a product of the brain, I'm not just asserting it I'm giving you explanations. I've explained what consciousness is, where it originated, how the soul operates through the body and brain and how the brain and body functions work with our soul inhabiting it. You've offered no argument that I am aware of, and if you did I answered it. I'm not asserting anything, and it's not something I make up, this knowledge has been around well before you and I and I have reasons and experience for my beliefs.

I ask how you can confirm this.

I've given you several answers, that is why I'm getting bored at this point, you chop my full statements and explanations and then repeat the same thing I already answered. That is annoying, go back and read what I wrote about verifying.

You assert that NDE's couldn't occur if the brain produced consciousness as NDE's occur outside of the brain (you also assert that these were brains in a state of brain death a state deemed irreversible to the point it's actually part of the definition unless I've missed it you haven't addressed my queries on this).

I don't assert it, I've explained it and then asked you how it would be possible for someone to travel outside their own body and brain if consciousness was confined to brain activity. You have yet to give me a good reason or argument to accept your assertions. If a person is unconscious, brain dead and completely unaware of its surrounding, how can that persons soul travel outside the body and know exactly what everyone is doing? I say with common sense and common knowledge that it is only possible because of the soul, it exists independent of the human body, and the mind which you claim is generated by the brain. Did you not look at the link I supplied that has medical facts and testimonies about NDE's???

I ask how you can confirm that this isn't a product of the recorded surge of activity in the brain at the moment of death.

I answered that with my analogy of the circuit board and also that yes, the brain will have a surge in ACTIVITY at the moment of death because the soul is experiencing something it normally does not, but then the soul continues to experience yet again you've ignored my arguments and then just repeat, Pete and repeat were on the boat....Pete fell off and who was left? This is getting tedious. I ask again, how can you consciously travel OUTSIDE the human brain (which includes the mind) if the brain was what creates your awareness, how can the soul travel after brain death? the mind does not exist independent of the brain as YOU claim.....these are things you have yet to answer. That I have seen yet anyways.

Now, you have made comments on experiences being the most real of your life I believe? Yet this doesn't dismiss the construct of the brain. If the materialists assertions were correct then we would expect experiences created by the mind to be potentially indestinguishable from reality. Can you show that isn't the case.

Oh really now? so now the mind, which is created by the brain (according to you), is now able to travel freely outside a brain lol? wow, that is pretty incredible. Even after brain DEATH, somehow the mind can now have conscious experience. Why ASSUME that when there is a time-tested understanding of spirituality and the soul? this would be a good time to observe Occam's razor. The information is here and has been here, consciousness is an open question in science, it has been shown over countless testimonies and through religion that the soul exists as it is, independent of any brain, just like experiences and evidence show. So why take so many assumptions about the brain and mind when you don't really know? I also explained the nature of spirituality, and how it opposes the products of the mind and body, and you can observe your soul away from the body. Again, the mind is not an entity, it is a storage compartment......you've never even argued any of most of my responses!! if the materialists view were correct, then we wouldn't see what we do in fact see, that is the whole point.

See where we hit a problem is that the answers you give to your claims tend to be more claims. It's starting to look like turtles all the way down. While I will honestly consider your claims, I will always question them. So far I'm not seeing anything that puts your claim ahead of the materialists.

Everything you know is a claim. However, my answers, I repeat answers aren't just empty claims. I can show you how it works with reason, common sense, evidence and arguments.....that is not just claims unjustified. At what point do you ever consider something an answer and not a claim? Now I can expand on those arguments but not until you concede or actually address my whole statements. Once you are satisfied or give me a good reason to reject a superior understanding we should move forward, I don't enjoy repeating myself unless you give me a good argument to what I supplied. Maybe you should go back and read the answers again or consider the fact that materialists don't know what consciousness is, and that would be due to the reality that the soul exists independent of the body.