Total posts: 327
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that when modern man evaluates the past, especially religion, their explanation only demonstrates their arrogance and ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That last post didn't come out like I meant it to. What I mean by not caring is that I don't think it is an issue. I originally only mentioned it in passing. We disagree on how it was done, but I just don't see it as being a matter of importance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.
Indeed. Because I have and I will never belong to any religion or political group. I'm not a JW, Christian or Jew. Democrat or Republican. Never have been. Never will be.
Well that is good and refreshing. Every JW I have ever met and discussed the Watchtower sees it as prophetic. Still good to know that you are not the typical JW. Perhaps there is hope for you after all.In relation to the biblical accounts mentioned by you, none were in relation to submersion, were they?
I believe they were.
Saying people went into the water and came up doesn't signify submersion.
Okay. If you believe that it says otherwise, that they had to go into the water to do whatever it is that you think they do, that's your belief. I really don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Christ mythology is stupid I agree. I have said many times on this forum , that I believe Jesus was a man that believed or was led to believe that he was rightful heir to the kingdom of Israel and that it was his time to rule and that Christians have wrapped in a myth.
Sort of, but no. The fanatic religious ideologues who were the self-appointed guardians of the kingdom of Israel (Sadducees, Pharisees) were looking for that sort of messiah, but that isn't what they got and they weren't able to question Jesus's claim to something far more significant which is why he rejected them and they rejected him. The subsequent mythology was inevitable and merely a repetition of history as history is wont to do. (Jesus geneaology)
But I can tell you, even if we take the superstition of the time, if there is one thing that these ancient Priests and Kings knew about it was the workings of the "heavenly bodies" and the "laws" that they dictated, it was THEIR CLOCK!. .... I also believe that these ancient celestial laws are still being applied to day.
Their clock, perhaps yes, but not their superstition, which is what you seem to be kicking around. The links to astrology I gave are a rebuttal to that. It doesn't really matter too much what the Priests and Kings may or may not have used to achieve their political goals, in the case of the Jews - that came to a crashing halt in 70 CE anyway, while the aforementioned ideologues were able to reap their reward from the smokey ruins is hardly surprising or significant beyond the obvious. Politics is like a heavily scripted reality television show from a schoolyard playground. Yesterday and today. (Reruns)
That is why you piqued my interest when you wrote this on another thread> " the way things have turned out, which is exactly the way the Bible foretold".
I don't understand that, really. I don't think the context had anything to do with what you must have thought it to. I was talking about the religion and politics of atheistic ideology and ignorance, I suppose. I'm not interested enough to revisit. None of that matters much. The average ignorant militant "Christian" sees themselves much the same as the religious idiots that rejected Christ, and in their own way they do the same, while seeing themselves as saviors of the unwashed heathen who at least have enough sense not to fall in that obvious trap but not enough to see themselves in the same way while only imitating what they despise. Who cares is my point. God doesn't want those people to go against their own will which is why I quoted Jesus to that effect in his teaching in parables. That was my point. Not in assigning some superstitious nonsensical astrology to what already is the obvious end of the world which began with the conception of Cain.
I don't know - maybe you missed that point?
Yes, Specifically what did they "specifically" tell Herod?And what was Herod's reaction?
You're going to have to do better than this if you want me to come to your conclusion. Herod told them about the star which appeared only to them when Jesus was about two years old and living in a house. The star was Satan's attempt to kill the infant by leading Herod to him. That's Christmas. The mythology of the star on the Chrismas trees of atheists and "Christians" alike. Note how the Biblical and the mythological deviate. Note the contrast.
I don't understand why "Christians," "Skeptics (British "Sceptics"), or "Scholars" don't do that. Why do they always conclude something other than what it is while concluding it's some grand mystery that isn't gnostic. A "science" minded skeptic will look at the celestial phenomenon in John's Revelation as if it's some superstitious fear of primitive people while being totally oblivious to the same celestial terminology being used in the Hebrew Scripture as political and social upheaval. The sun, moon and stars representing a new government, people and environment in Jerusalem after Babylon are the same as John uses on a grander scale globally. A new government (God's) a new people (God's) and a new environment. A new heaven, a new earth.
The context is made perfectly clear, the question posed to Jesus by his disciples make it specifically clear what the context is. And Jesus responds perfectly in context to what they asked. So again what is the meaning of "end times"?
I've told you. The end of Satan's rule of man making way for God's rightful sovereignty. A new heaven (without Satan and his demons which were cast out) and a new earth with the same.
If that is what you believe then why didn't Jesus simply say so himself when he was asked about the end times.
Assuming that he didn't, what do you suppose he did say? And where did he say it? We can keep playing this game till I get bored (looks at watch).
There are only two possible pointers in just two of the gospels and even they show a discrepancy of about ten years.
Show me.
Rather than go through it all I would show you where it's already been done.
The Prophetic arival of Jesus
"In the sixth century B.C.E., the prophet Daniel foretold that “Messiah the Leader” would appear 69 “weeks” after the order went forth to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. (Daniel 9:24, 25) Each one of these “weeks” was seven years long. According to the Bible and secular history, the order to rebuild Jerusalem was issued in 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-8) So the Messiah was to appear 483 (69 times 7) years after 455 B.C.E. That brings us to 29 C.E., the very year that Jehovah anointed Jesus with holy spirit. Jesus thus became “the Christ” (meaning “Anointed One”), or Messiah.—Luke 3:15, 16, 21, 22. (Source)
The Prophetic arival of the end
"During “the appointed times of the nations,” worldly governments would be allowed to interrupt rulership approved by God. That period began with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., and Daniel indicated that it would go on for “seven times.” (Daniel 4:23-25) How long is that? The Bible shows that three and a half “times” equal 1,260 days. (Revelation 12:6, 14) Twice that period, or seven times, would be 2,520 days. But nothing noteworthy happened at the end of that short period of time. By applying “a day for a year” to Daniel’s prophecy and counting 2,520 years from 607 B.C.E., however, we arrive at the year 1914 C.E.—Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6." (Source)
I don't agree with some of their interpretation regarding the exact significance of that date and their subsequent failed prophecies. They have a tendency to fuck that sort of thing up when they try to fix themselves within those sorts of prophecies, but I think they were on the right track. They've probably changed it a half dozen times since then anyway, but nevertheless, there it is.
Can you expand on that quoting the gospels?
On what? I briefly touch on it in the link I gave, under the heading Death of Herod at the bottom. You have to realize I've done this sort of thing enough. I've gotten lazy and sloppy because it's pointless. Others haven't got to that point yet and maybe they never will, but I'm an intrusion of sorts. Pay no attention to me.
Your link Yes. is interesting........... and ironic, titled, Revelation In Space. < my emphasis. Would that be the heavenly celestial "space" above our heads and all the heavenly bodies therein or some other space that only you know about?
Revelation in space is a website I tinker with in my spare time. It involves a sort of parable of global revolution and the spiritual journey of an android imprinted with the soul of a lifelong atheist. Some of it takes place in space where the android finds himself aboard the space station Laurasia. I'll likely not ever finish it. I also keep stuff I've written over the last 30 years on the forum I've linked to. Not an active forum, just a place to store stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Then you know absolutely nothing.
I know that a house divided falls and that if your Biblical analysis is dependent upon the use of astrology it falls. I also know that Christ Mythology is stupid.
What did the magi / wise men tell Herod?
Specifically? Apparently, the time of the star's appearance.
What did the disciples ask Jesus about the "end times"?What was his reply?
Lots of things. Specifically?
What is meant by "end times"?
Specifically? Various things depending on the context. Ultimately, I would say, the time of the world beginning with the conception of Adam's first child and concluding with the destruction of Satan's world making room for Jehovah God's kingdom in which the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it.
Well that will depend on which clues or pointers and in which gospel one chooses to believe.
All of them. And the prophecies which were known before then pointing to the time.
Do the gospel's even tell us directly when he was born?
Yes. The fall of 2 BCE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You're using a definition from your infallible watchtower as a tag for the meaning of baptism. Sorry do not pass go. That doesn't work.
The Watchtower I don't always agree with, besides that they, you and I are not infallible. What I use is the Bible accounts mentioned where the baptized came up out of the water.
There is simply no evidence that there were any submersions in the NT by John the Baptist or in the NT by any of the disciples of Jesus. None whatsoever.
I gave them.
What's the most important baptism for the NT Christian? How about we start with that question?
Public declaration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus didn't operate on the principle of astrology which was forbidden. When was Jesus born?
Created:
Posted in:
I said: The Hebrew word, without the definite article ha (ha satan) means, perhaps in this case, unironically, "liar; slanderer."
Wrong again. I was thinking of the word devil. The Hebrew word satan means adversary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Well, I get that. I used to enjoy debate very much myself. I just got to the point where I had to ask myself is this personal? Ego? Ideology? Am I wasting my time? Controversy for the sake of controversy? (1 Timothy 6:4) Online debate tends to make monsters of us. It makes us our own enemy. I've found a great deal of peace in being able to walk away and brush the dust off. And I never take it personally 'cause I've been down in the muddy pit wrestling with the pigs thinking to myself something God said. Pearls before swine. Swine have no need of pearls being shoved down their throat. The pigs in that analogy aren't just them, it's us.
Here is an interesting page that reminds me of the way I used to be, and our lovely legion of laundry, Best Korea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Read the actual person of reference , Ray.#24I haven't called anyone "the slime of Satan or dumb as fuck". Ray. But that bible cretin the Reverend Tradesecret certainly has done.
Post #24 doesn't say anything remotely like "the slime of Satan or dumb as fuck." Which means you are either lying, slandering, or - well - dumb as fuck. The Hebrew word, without the definite article ha (ha satan) means, perhaps in this case, unironically, "liar; slanderer."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I disagree. From the Watchtower Library, Baptism: Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1
Complete Immersion. From the definition of baptism as stated earlier, it is clear that baptism is complete immersion or submersion in water, not a mere pouring or sprinkling. The Bible examples of baptism corroborate this fact. Jesus was baptized in a sizable river, the Jordan, and after being baptized he came “up out of the water.” (Mr 1:10; Mt 3:13, 16) John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23) The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.
Historical sources show that the early Christians baptized by immersion. On this subject the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.” Larousse du XXe Siècle, Paris, 1928, says: “The first Christians received baptism by immersion everywhere where water was found.”
Your definition of baptism doesn't seem to comport with scripture. That means it comes from somewhere else. Personally, and I may be wrong about this, I don't think the technique is a terribly significant issue, as far as debate goes, but I would look to the scripture when contemplating the way it was done in Jesus's time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What I didn't come here for was to be told that I - "was the slime of Satan and DUMB AS FUCK" by a bible dunce such as you!
What you seem most certainly blissfully unaware of is that no else did either. By you.
The only thing I can say with reasonable confidence is that I will never know. And neither will you.
You don't know that either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
World.
"Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 37:29; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
You're wasting your time. They're idiots and can't comprehend simple concepts. You can't prove anything to them so why bother even listening to them?
Created:
Posted in:
A Response To The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB): What The Bible Says About The End Of The World
The SAB indicates that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners. I will demonstrate why this is not the case by explaining the verses they use to conclude this. They mistake the transfiguration, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus being at the right hand of power, and John's Revelation at Patmos as referring to the end of the world.
Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Also see Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27)
The Interpreter's Bible says: "The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical."
What believers and skeptics alike seem to have glossed over is the fact that in the very next verse Matthew reveals that just 6 days later this prophecy was fulfilled. Peter, James and John witnessed the transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-2; Luke 9:27-36; 2 Peter 1:16-18)
Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Also see Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32)
All of the above verses differ from the verses given in consideration of Matthew 16:28. British scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray: "The phrase 'this generation' should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dor, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism."
So Jesus could have been directing that statement to the Jewish opposition there around him at that time, who, within a generation would see the destruction of Jerusalem in 66 - 70 CE by Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian where 1,100,000 Jews died and 97,000 were taken captive, most of whom died horrible deaths and the Christians who knew it would come were saved. (Matthew 24:16, 22) And Jesus may have been applying the same to those in opposition in the future as well.
Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 are parallel accounts to one another and you won't have to wait or look far to see them fulfilled. Acts 7:55-56: "But he, being full of holy spirit gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand, and he said: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God's right hand." Also see Psalm 110:1; Luke 22:69; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1.
John 21:20-23 is somewhat interesting. Jesus may have been telling Peter that John would live longer than him, and in fact John would live 70 years, but also he might have been referring to the prophetic vision that John was given at the end of his life while in exile on the island of Patmos. As recorded in the book of Revelation John was transported to "the Lords day." (Revelation 1:1, 10; Revelation 22:20)
[SAB] - The end will come within the lifetime of the New Testament authors.
Response: Jesus taught his followers that no one, not even Jesus himself, knew the time of the end of the world. (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7)
Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 37:29; 115:16; Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.
1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:29; Philippians 1:10 all convey the importance of the missionary work in the early stages of Christianity. They all had important work to do before the end of their lives. Nowhere in any of these passages is it conveyed that they expected the end of the system of things to occur during that time.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 is often used to support the rapture, but actually it is referring to some who were mourning the death of their fellow Christians. Paul was reminding them as well as faithful Christians in the future of the resurrection hope, some to heaven immediately upon death and some to paradise earth upon resurrection.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."
The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10; Philippians 1:26; 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9; James 5:7, 8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28.
Pareimi is a related verb with the similar meaning of being present. It also occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 26:50; Luke 13:1; John 7:6; 11:28; Acts 10:21, 33; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19; Acts 12:20; 1 Corinthians 5:3, 3; 2 Corinthians 10:2, 11; 2 Corinthians 11:9; 13:2, 10; Galatians 4:18, 20; Colossians 1:6; Hebrews 12:11; 13:5; 2 Peter 1:9, 12; Revelation 17:8.
The Greek word, eleusis (Latin adventu), which conveys the physical act of coming is different and only occurs once in the Christian Greek scripture, at Acts 7:52. Paul was encouraging those with a heavenly hope to remain blameless until their death, or the conclusion of the system of things and the presence, not the physical presence, of Jesus Christ.
In discussing Hebrews 1:2; 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7 it is somewhat difficult to stay on topic of the so called end of the world because the last days that Paul was referring to were not the last days of the present system of things, but rather the last days of the Jewish system of things. Jehovah had given the prophecy of those days 850 years earlier. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:1-2) It was the end of God's favor upon the Jewish congregation and the beginning of his favor for the new Christian congregation.
1 John 2:18 refers to the end of the apostolic period. The work mentioned as important in the scriptures at the beginning of this article were near completion and would conclude upon the death of John shortly after he completed the writing of Revelation.
[SAB] - The end will come soon. (Within a couple thousand years or so)
Response: It is interesting that, as with the case of Philippians 4:5, the Lord that is being referred to isn't Jesus Christ but rather, Jehovah. Codex Sinaiticus, Greek, fourth century CE, Codex Alexandrinus, Greek, fifth century CE, Vatican ms 1209, Greek, fourth century CE, Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages, including Hebrew, by Elias Hutter, Nuremberg, 1599, Christian Greek Scriptures, Hebrew, by William Robertson, London, 1661, and the Latin Vulgate, by Jerome, c. 400 CE (Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem) all read Jehovah.
James 5:7-8 is talking about the presence (parousia) mentioned earlier in this article.
At Hebrews 10:37 Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:2-3 from the Greek Septuagint, which reads "And the Lord answered [me] and said: Write a vision; write it distinctly in a book that the reader may trace these things [may run]; for the vision is for a time yet to come. But it will spring up at last and will not be vain. Though he may tarry, wait for him; for he will assuredly come and will not fail [and will not tarry]."
Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic, who, of course, is familiar with the Biblical fact that a thousand years are as a watch in the night to God (Psalm 90:4), but to the writers of the Bible, especially John when writing Revelation and who would die shortly afterward, the resurrection hope would follow sleep in death which would seem, upon that resurrection, as the same day as they died, though it actually had been thousands of years.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Adam was created to live forever but warned that if he was disrespectful in his disobedience he, and his offspring (humanity) would die. So, it is God's will that we all die. Very few people were healed or temporarily resurrected in the Bible accounts. This either served practical purpose or as a sign for either newly interested or weak in faith. Those acts were confirmed as having ended with the apostles, so today are either fraudulent or demonic. My money would be on virtually all being fraudulent and even if there are some convincing circumstances they are fraudulent demonic. (See Healing)
Having said that, there is no way I could or would attempt to convince those interested in the paranormal they are looking in the wrong direction or deluded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, I wouldn't be surprised. It is only 1 out of 3000 chance to accuratelly guess the correct God.
Every God is the correct God. You don't get my message. You don't understand. A God is a personal responsibility, a preference. If you want a God as a cash cow and you perceive it works as such, then it's the right God for you. If you choose your God because it was the one that is geographically, culturally, socially, financially, militarily, intellectually, traditionally fashionably, scientifically or spiritually right for you personally for whatever reason, even if it's not real, if coerced, phony, evil, perverse, or anything else it's right for you.
A god is something, someone or someplace which is of supreme importance to someone. Zeus, Jehovah, Satan, Kim Jong-Un, Eric Clapton, Frodo, knitting, sex, boating, gambling, idols, Jesus, Shiva, Amaterasu, Buddha, Heaven, the universe, the sun, the Big Bang, science, math, fertility, drugs, money, food, or any of the 3000 you mention. The 8 million or countless gods of Shinto, the nameless god in the temple Paul referred to in the book of Acts and all the others I've not mentioned. The difference between a god and God is that titles, like names, are capitalized due to Identification, grammar and syntax, respect and formality, tradition and convention. (Source) So Jehovah is the God of Jehovah's Witnesses and myself, but to unbelievers Jehovah is only a god or, for identification in Christendom, traditionally, conventionally God of the Bible. That doesn't mean other gods can't be God to someone else in some other place or context.
If someone thinks God is their God but in reality, their God is something else, like tradition, money etc. then their God isn't what they think it is. For example, if someone thinks their God is the God of the Bible because traditionally and socially, they act as if it is, they go through the motions, attend church and pray, worship etc. but their actions reveal that science or money or sex or drugs or food etc. is more important to them, then their God is not really the God of the Bible but science, religion, money or whatever. That's why the God of the Bible, Jehovah, said he was a jealous God, have no Gods before (more important) than him. He said they don't know him. Cain is a good example of that. He picked fruit up off the ground to sacrifice to God as if God were, to him, a trash can while Abel chose the most valuable of his flock to sacrifice. That's why Paul said that it wasn't a big deal eating meat that was, as customary, sacrificed to "false gods" because he knew those gods weren't God's to him. In only that sense they weren't real. It didn't matter if they were real to the people sacrificing.
That's why faith is more important than knowledge and why atheism and theism more often than not are only ideologies. That's why atheists can have gods without knowing or acknowledging it and why theists think they are theists of a specific God when they aren't. That's why religion is so divisive, syncretistic and destructive, contentious and pretentious.
If you were going to give away a fortune but you wanted to make sure it went to people who genuinely cared about you and who wouldn't piss it away would you advertise an event where you were going to give a fortune away?
That, @Stephen, is what the emboldened text was about. The love of the greater number will cool off, the Bible foretold it because it was obvious that would happen.
Mark 4:10-12: When he was alone, those who were around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. He said to them, “To you is given the mystery of God’s Kingdom, but to those who are outside, all things are done in parables, that ‘seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest perhaps they should turn again, and their sins should be forgiven them.’” (Isaiah 6:9-10)
Created:
Posted in:
This is a poll for believers and unbelievers.
What if you were wrong? Would you want to know? And if so, why or why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You should expand on the bold underlined above in a new thread.If I am reading it right, its probably the most interesting comment you have made since you landed here Ray....
Okay, I can do that, but just because it is interesting doesn't mean anyone would want to hear it. Just out of curiosity what do you think I was getting at in the emboldened portion of my statement? I would rather hear what you think than have to tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, that wasn't as fun as I thought it might be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
The Bible sceptic is the most literal of intepreters. If the so-called "Old Testament" doesn't say "Jesus" they aren't going to see Jesus there. Also, if you show them where "Old Testament" is a Latin mistranslation they aren't going to change their perception of the "Old and New Testaments." What does that dichotomy reveal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Not ture.
That's not a very good definition of false, especially in a Biblical context. It's the statement of a position of an ideologue, and pun intended, the definition is not true. The word science means the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. The archaic term being propositional knowledge of any kind. The term ideology was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy as "the science of ideas" in 1796. As I pointed out in another thread, Ideologues are people who have taken an idea and made it a part of them and so if you try to alter or remove the idea it's as if you are doing that to a part of them and they will fight it to the death. This is true of believers and unbelievers alike. Biblical study should be scientific, not ideological fixation. In science the investigation seeks what is false, not true. A Bible student should be scientific in their approach.
The Bible is not true in a variety of ways. For example, it says things that aren't true. The illustrations Jesus gave weren't true in that they weren't literal accounts. There was no Lazarus and Rich Man. Abraham hadn't ascended to heaven where Lazarus could be in his bosom (favored) position for Jesus himself later said that no man had ascended to heaven except himself, who had descended from heaven.
The Bible often gives opinions or testimony of people that aren't true. As I pointed out in another thread: You can't read one small portion of the Bible and assume that it means what it says. It gives you the story in other's perspectives. For example, Eve's perspective. She thought the snake talked. The Bible says the snake talked. The snake didn't talk. She was decieved by Satan making it appear as if the snake had talked. (Genesis 3:3-4; 1 Timothy 2:13-14)
Similar examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true is the ass in the case of Balaam. (Numbers 22:22-30; 2 Peter 2:16) But also in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. (1 Samuel 28:3–25; Numbers, 13:31-33) Spiritism is prohibited by the Bible due to it's false demonic influence and the Nephilim had all perished in the flood.
Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.
This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman.
The Bible has proven itself false and it is fallible. The inspired word of Jehovah God is infallible, but the Bible itself is the imperfect translation of that. So, if you have a good reference Bible, at Mark 16:9-20, John 5:4, John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7 it will tell you that these verses didn't appear in earlier manuscripts. They are spurious, added on later.
The Bible also warns the reader to test rather than to just believe even the inspired expression (some translations read "spirit") because there are many false teachings or expressions. (1 John 4:1-3)
At 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, where the KJV uses the term "a strong delusion" other translations use "working of error" (ASV) "a misleading influence, a working of error" (AMP) and "fooled into believing a lie" (CEV). The question is, what does this mean?
In a basic sense it means God will allow them to believe whatever they want, which in that case, was a lie. As it was with King Ahab at 1 Kings 22:1-38 and 2 Chronicles 18. If you prefer the lie there is nothing that God can do to change that except hold you accountable for it. Note that other translations use the term "judged" rather than damned as the KJV uses. Also note that, where most translations, including the KJV, use the term "found pleasure" in unrighteousness literally means in Greek "having thought well." They have given it thought and strive in an intellectual sense to come to the conclusion they desire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Anything can both be proven true and proven false at the same time. Proven doesn't necessarily mean true. A false passport, for example, or Satan. Prove is defined as to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. Evidence and argument are falible, like all scientific theories are falsifiable.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
My guess is that there isn't any work being done. It's a dead site, which is, to me, its charm. Perhaps you don't realize how difficult it is to find a website forum like this. Most people prefer X, Reddit or Facebook. That there is a few people and possibly their sock puppets here is fairly unusual, especially when it comes to debate. People don't want to debate they want a soapbox with a crowd around to slap them on the back and agree with them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
First, so that we know we are on the same page, define false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
No I said Jesus basically said that. He didn't say word for word like I did.
I understand that.
I gave these folks scriptures and you if applicable and them reject what is written.
The scriptures don't mean anything to them. You're taking an ideological approach, they are responding accordingly. They have their ideology and you have yours. It's a battle that will never be won. It's pointless. Even if God himself or the stones spoke to them about the truth they wouldn't listen. Ideologues are people who have taken an idea and made it a part of them and so if you try to alter or remove the idea it's as if you are doing that to a part of them and they will fight it to the death. This is true of believers and unbelievers alike.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Okay. The difference is pretty obvious. You know how when you see a dog food commercial and it says a slogan like "Science did that!" to sell you dog food? Same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yes, the Bible has been proven false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Did you quote where Jesus said that or are you expecting them to do the work for you and come to the same conclusions as you? Luke 24:27
To the writers of the Bible and the people who lived in the time of Jesus it was obvious that the Bible, almost in its entirety, is about Jesus, especially his relationship with mankind. That's what the OP said, especially the link in the OP which was copied in post #13. But the modern-day sceptics aren't like the apostles, having lived with the scriptures and being familiar with their history and teachings. The modern-day sceptics have been alive and familiar with apostate Christendom, televangelists and people whose gods are the traditions of men. From Socrates, Plato, Constantine, Dante, Milton, Darby, and other pagan philosophies.
The irony is that the teachings of those "great thinkers" is what the Church teaches while the real teachings of the Bible are more compatible to the modern thinking. I used to get frustrated with that. That both skeptics and the mislead religious don't know the real teachings of the Bible, but for some time now I have seen the wisdom in the way things have turned out, which is exactly the way the Bible foretold. And now I realize that I had been getting frustrated at what was happening even though I knew that the Bible itself said it would happen.
See? That sounds crazy to a sceptic.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
The Bible. Creationists aren't particularly adept at representing the creation account of the Bible.
Created:
"Observation is essential in science. Scientists use observation to collect and record data, which enables them to develop and then test hypotheses and theories. " - Science Learning Hub
The theory of evolution, though rooted in the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Anaximander, became a failed metaphysical experiment based on the racism popularized by eugenics during the industrial revolutions in order for academia to usurp the authority of the apostate "Christian" church.
With steam, coal and oil powered engines international travel became more accessible, and to the prudes of that time, who literally would cover the legs of pianos, the Chimpanzees from abroad, especially when dressed in clothes, were adorably humanesque. Theory after theory was created designed to make dark skinned peoples appear apelike.
Microevolution is supported by the Bible and observable. Macro evolution isn't in accordance with the Bible and has never been observed. Creationism is nonsensical apostate theology that has little to do with the accurate understanding of the Bible.
In conclusion, both evolutionism and creationism are stupid. Not surprisingly so well received.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah, silly walks make my brain hurt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe the modern prohibition would be to yell "Batman!" Or to misgender someone. An actual Batman or Tootsie film being the obvious exceptions.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Wow. Time flies. Little Alex has grown up. Our little Cosmic Skeptic has become a man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I've always thought that not being able to yell FIRE! in a crowded movie theater because idiots who can't think for themselves would panic and kill one another trying to escape the madness was, well, stupid. Hate speach. How stupid. I hate hate speach but that goes without saying. Or is that thinking? It goes without thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
My liked videos on YouTube are out of date. It says: "No videos No views Last updated on Dec 31, 1969"
I didn't think it had been that long. Especially since I would have been 3.
It's not the Twilight Zone (think cave, ocean, or Rod Sterling if you prefer); It isn't the Matrix but it is a glitch. A Unix epoch glitch from the past. Why?! Why 2 K? I've often asked myself.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Morally superior to what? Honey Badgers?
Created:
-->
@baggins
Because JRR Tolkien did?
How do I know Dumbledore isn't a wizard of the Grey order who rides a white steed named Shadowfax? By reading the fucking books and doing some quick research.
Funny video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyDpS-GftCk
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
does this god of yours have a y chromosome ?
No. I'm going to assume that he doesn't. Jehovah is a spirit being. Wind, breath and mental inclination are also translated spirit, from, for example, the Greek word pneuma (pneumatic, pneumonia) which means invisible active force. Do those things have chromosomes? The thing is, we don't know if spirit beings (angels, seraphs, cherubs, demons) are simply unseen to us or some sort of being that we just can't see with the naked eye, like germs, viruses, pathogens, methanol and ethanol fire.
how do we know which book is written by the real god(s)
Like I did. Investigate them.
and which book is written by a fake god(s) ?
No gods are fake. Most sacred and quasi-sacred texts don't claim and in fact deny divine inspiration. Dhammapada, Apocrypha, Analects, Quran, Pirke Avot, Nihongi, Kojiki, Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu for example. Arguably the Bhagavad Gita, but that's a whole other can of proverbial worms.
Created:
-->
@baggins
He is Jehovah and yes he wrote the book. (2 peter 1:20)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Moozer325
All this is saying is that climate changes and always has.
No fear. Fear is the mind killer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
and we know this how ?
He wrote it in a book. Think of a science book but more accurate. Think of a cave painting or pottery shards and bone fragments, but better.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
When I'm reading what your [Deb-8-a-bull] writing, my head automatically makes you sound like gollum for some reason.
Interesting comparison. I hear the ocean when I read it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Theists see Jesus on dog's butt.
Some of them do, but they have to wait for science to get done poking around back there.
Science is God's bitch.
Created: