Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen wrote: I read what you say you have lifted from Wikipedia - the same Wikipedia that you decry and dismiss when anyone else uses it as any kind of evidence to support their claims. I just love those double standards.Tradesecret wrote: LOL! Please produce a link to me decrying wikapedia?
My word.
Ok then.
This from the man that crows of being taught to "memorise the whole bible from a very early age".
let me remind you Reverend, is this near enough?
Tradesecret wrote: Do you have any support for this from credible expertsStephen wrote: What would you consider to be a "credible expert"? #39Tradesecret wrote: Someone who has studied and been peer reviewed by his field. Not wikapedia or an armchair theologian. #40
I just love your double standards, Reverend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Ahhh bullll, Stephen.What is?You yourself have no debates on this site, and ought to understand that some people prefer conversation to formal debate.I do understand that completely. I prefer the forum myself. So I can't see your gripe.What I don't understand is someone calling a challenge to debate, a threat? Can you?Nor should you 'not be able to see the motivation underlying a person when they 'issue such a debate challenge.Don't understand what you mean.But I am sure that I understand that one enters into a debate to WIN, unless you know different. Do you know different?I've said, what I've said.
Yes I know, but not really explained yourself and ignored my questions.
As you have done here>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Ahhh bullll, Stephen.
What is?
You yourself have no debates on this site, and ought to understand that some people prefer conversation to formal debate.
I do understand that completely. I prefer the forum myself. So I can't see your gripe.
What I don't understand is someone calling a challenge to debate, a threat? Can you?
Nor should you 'not be able to see the motivation underlying a person when they 'issue such a debate challenge.
Don't understand what you mean.
But I am sure that I understand that one enters into a debate to WIN, unless you know different. Do you know different?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Airmax who.Never heard of them before 2022.
Me neither, Vic .But he's got a giant chunk of the pie .
Probably why some have thrown in the towel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I don't take offence from internet men - I just enjoy exposing fraudulent people.
Understandable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You keep threatening people with debates
So being a member of a debating forum where one is encouraged to debate others it is considered a threat when a challenge to debate is issued.
How very odd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And to add to my post above at #12Some sources describes Jesus as “a bastard son of an adulteress” describing Jesus as “ben Pantera” (son of-Pantera) a corruption of the Greek word/name parthenos. Pantera was said to be a Roman archer from Sidon in Phoenicia but had served in Syria.Sources or source? What are these so called sources?
Seriously!? After all of your years of studying ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and translating them into English, you are telling us that you had never , ever come across this hypothesis?
Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera (/pænˈtɛrə/; c. 22 BC – AD 40) was a Roman-Phoenician soldier born in Sidon, whose tombstone was found in Bingerbrück, Germany, in 1859. A historical connection from this soldier to Jesus has long been hypothesized by numerous scholars, based on the claim of the ancient Greek philosopher Celsus, who, according to Christian writer Origen in his "Against Celsus" (Greek Κατὰ Κέλσου, Kata Kelsou; Latin Contra Celsum), was the author of a work entitled The True Word (Greek Λόγος Ἀληθής, Logos Alēthēs).
Celsus' work was lost, but in Origen's account of it Jesus was depicted as the result of an affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier. He said she was "convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Pantera".[1][2] According to James Tabor, Tiberius Pantera could have been serving in the region at the time of Jesus's conception.[1] Both the ancient Talmud and medieval Jewish writings and sayings reinforced this notion, referring to "Yeshu ben Pantera", which translates as "Jesus, son of Pantera". Tabor's hypothesis is considered highly unlikely by mainstream scholars given that there is little other evidence to support Pantera's paternity outside of the Greek and Jewish texts.[3][4]
Tradesecret wrote: "I
study the original languages, translate them to English", #25
And what level of credibility were they given by the church in the early church?
Irrelevant, Reverend.
And it appears once again that all of your years spent kneeling at the feet of those academics has been totally wasted on you.
Tradesecret wrote: "I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church".
Why does only one mention his 12 year old trip to Jerusalem?
Ah yes. An absolute wonderful story of how the BOTH parents to none other than the son of god managed to lose their holy charge - a gift from god himself - for three days!? They didn't even notice that this immaculately conceived child was missing until after traveling a WHOLE DAY before they even realised he was missing.!
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Is the Bible written in English worth the paper it is written on?I would suggest reading it in English and studying the words it was translated from when something catches your attention.
So that's no, then.
but you Don't want to read to deep into them.
So why suggest "studying the words it was translated from" ?
Yes any Greek work translated to English will lose something in translation.
So do you agree then that this loss renders the bible in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ?
a result of how limited translations can be at showing the original meaning.
Interesting. Do the meanings and definitions of words translated from Greek to English change? And can you give us an example from the New Testamant where certain words change their meaning and definition once translated from Greek into English?
Created:
Is the Bible written in English worth the paper it is written on? I
personally wouldn’t want to see this ancient work destroyed.
I think it is well known of me by now that on the surface I find the Bible (New Testament in particular) to be a book of contradictory, ambiguous, anomalous, vague, enigmatic and problematic half stories surrounding a man that believed or was led to believe he was a rightful king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem and the power struggle that he had to endure in the times of ancient Palestine under Roman occupation and between the many other factions and sects that existed at the time. And not to be taken literally at all times. i.e. a man didn’t rises from a physical death to be alive again after being physically dead for three days.
Others think to the contrary. For instance, there are those that I have met that believe the Bible to be clear and concise in its presentation and self evidently true and without any ambiguity whatsoever in the way it has come down to us. Until of course they are posed a few simple questions which usually arise not just frequently from the Bible but just as frequent from their own commentary, and when pressed on such it appears that these very same people will resort to the default that one must understand Greek or Hebrew to even begin to understand a Bible that is written in English! But by saying so they do not seem to understand that they have, in just a few words, rendered the Bible written in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ.
So is there at all any point to reading, never mind studying the Bible written in English? A Bible that those who have said that is clear and concise but suddenly insist that the Bible is fathomable and understandable only when one is tutored, trained and learned in the ancient Greek or Hebrew languages?
I think it is well known of me by now that on the surface I find the Bible (New Testament in particular) to be a book of contradictory, ambiguous, anomalous, vague, enigmatic and problematic half stories surrounding a man that believed or was led to believe he was a rightful king and heir to the throne of Jerusalem and the power struggle that he had to endure in the times of ancient Palestine under Roman occupation and between the many other factions and sects that existed at the time. And not to be taken literally at all times. i.e. a man didn’t rises from a physical death to be alive again after being physically dead for three days.
Others think to the contrary. For instance, there are those that I have met that believe the Bible to be clear and concise in its presentation and self evidently true and without any ambiguity whatsoever in the way it has come down to us. Until of course they are posed a few simple questions which usually arise not just frequently from the Bible but just as frequent from their own commentary, and when pressed on such it appears that these very same people will resort to the default that one must understand Greek or Hebrew to even begin to understand a Bible that is written in English! But by saying so they do not seem to understand that they have, in just a few words, rendered the Bible written in English redundant, pointless and unreliable as any kind of “witness” source to the life and times of the Christ.
So is there at all any point to reading, never mind studying the Bible written in English? A Bible that those who have said that is clear and concise but suddenly insist that the Bible is fathomable and understandable only when one is tutored, trained and learned in the ancient Greek or Hebrew languages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
Stephen 168Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand. Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".Tradesecret 171So what? It does not change what I said. Your drawing attention to Matthew Hopkins is simply attempting to draw attention from the fact that you lied and that you are dumb. Non-sequitur even.Amoranemix wrote: You made an appeal to the authority of notable people of the 17th century while withholding the time period. Apparently Matthew Hopkins was also notable. Why should we accept the authority of such people ?
Indeed,Amo. Our resident "defence lawyer" quite often makes this mistake of leavening the gate open for the prosecution. He missed the point of the underlined too.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You lost me Vic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@Double_R
Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.It’s not a direct quote from scripture, that is blatantly obvious,
Apart from the fact the he did quote scripture 57 times regardless of who was discussing it at the time the Westminster Confession of Faith document was formed. He's omitted the fact that this near 500 old document that he cites (with which he included verses from scripture) was actually revoked with the restoration of the Monarchy in England with the introduction of Act Rescissory which repealed all legislation that was in that document.
But you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on., that is blatantly obvious, but you are still using scripture to validate scripture because everything written there was lifted directly from scripture and cites scripture as its source. That was the point, not the semantics you want to focus on.
Not to mention he is using - unreliable ambiguous - scripture lifted directly from the same - unreliable ambiguous - scripture and cites same unreliable and ambiguous - scripture as its source.
Created:
Posted in:
Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?Well that just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture. .................. that I lifted from wikipedia. Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia
I read what you say you have lifted from Wikipedia (or more likely herehttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3.i.i.html)- the same Wikipedia that you decry and dismiss when anyone else uses it as any kind of evidence to support their claims. I just love those double standards.
Nor did you recognize it which reveals a lack of ignorance on your part.
Nope. I read your post #162 _ concerning the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith ( which is only a statement of belief ) drawn up by the Westminster Assembly made up of - "learned, godly and judicious Divines to doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England" - that would be Anglican to you, Reverend. A church I am sure that you once told us that you do not recognise being a Presbyterian yourself. "I
am a Presbyterian". #116 Wasn't one of these "notable academic "Divines" Philip Nye the vehement anti Presbyterian?
Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand. Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".
And didn't the WCF lose its official status with the restoration of English Monarchy? And was WCF only retained, although reformed and tinkered with, by the Presbyterians of Scotland?
Never mind it goes nowhere in showing "Evidence for God" as is the topic of the OP, does it?
just shows that you did not read what I posted for it is not Scripture.
What you posted were 57 quotes directly from scripture regardless of who may have been discussing them at the time.
Tell me Reverend, when these so called " Divine learned and intelligent people of the day" were forming this Stuart period document, were they referencing scripture in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English? And did these "Divines", unlike you, take the bible literally?
It was debated by politicians and other notable academics in the English Parliament.
"Notable" you say, lets have their names then?
Westminster Assembly, (1643–52), assembly called by the English Long Parliament to reform the Church of England. It wrote the Larger and Shorter Westminster catechisms, the Westminster Confession, and the Directory of Public Worship. The assembly was made up of 30 laymen (20 from the House of Commons and 10 from the House of Lords), 121 English clergymen, and a delegation of Scottish Presbyterians. Although all were Calvinists in doctrine, the assembly represented four different opinions on church government: Episcopalian, Erastian, Independent, and Presbyterian. From July 1, 1643, until Feb. 22, 1649, it held 1,163 sessions in Westminster Abbey, and it continued to meet occasionally until 1652. The works produced were generally accepted by Presbyterians throughout the world, although Presbyterianism in England was suppressed when episcopacy was re-established in 1660.
Right mixed bag there Reverend, and so many "notables" from nearly 400 years ago to choose from. I wonder was Matthew Hopkins one of those 30 laymen?
And you may have missed this too;
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
'Tradesecret; Is this a joke? I just explained how scripture cannot be the method by which you determine whether scripture is correct and your response is to quote scripture?
I think it must be a joke. It can be the only reason for showing us his own blatant hypocrisy and double standards.
But you shouldn't be surprised by this/his contradiction, Double-R. Not when he freely admits ; " - I never take anything in the BIBLE literally", himself #50.
But then is quite happy and ready to throw reams of verses from scripture in English at you and tell you to "read the BIBLE yourself". And them go on to tell us categorically that to "understand the Old & New Testaments one must be to learned in ancient Greek and Hebrew".
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
I provided the name of a study which agrees with me that it is a Hebrew Idiom.
No you haven't. Stop telling lies.
I clearly have shown you that what you have called an "idiom" is nothing more than rhyming slang.
"Made in the image and likeness of God." That is the idiom. What is the Hebrew idiom.
I asked you to explain the idiom in the bold underlined above that you claim to be an example of an ancient biblical idiom and you keep refusing, as you have refused to accept the King James Version's own Dictionary definition of the word - perfect. You favourite bible according to you.
You say "only god can be perfect" yet the bible says different, and this is why you were afraid to commit yourself because; as Jesus once said, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures", Reverend "Tradey".
PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]
1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.
As full, as perfect in a hair as heart.
2. Fully informed; completely skilled; as men perfect in the use of arms; perfect in discipline.
3. Complete in moral excellencies.
Just one of many examples:
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.Genesis 6:9
You are a fraud, Reverend.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though it does not follow that all people who label theistically, are necessarily ideological nutcases.
This smacks of those well rehearsed sayings "not all Muslims" and "only a tiny minority," which I have covered on this forum sometime ago, Vic lad.
Where does all this radicalism come from—including the 8% of Muslims worldwide who now support ISIS?
Considering this is 8% of 1.6 Billion Muslims "worldwide" which sound very tiny until it is converted into figures and words, this then amounts to 128000000 or One Hundred & Twenty Eight Million Muslims or "ideological nutcases" who support Islamic State which is by no means a "tiny minority". And I am sure anyone running for government office wouldn't turn their noses up to this "tiny minority" on election day.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Where can I find these "campaign threads" he's talking about?
he has had me on block for ages now, but it doesn't stop him posting to me on my own threads. shouldn't be allowed in my opinion.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Who is #51 above addressed to, Wylted?
Created:
@RM
his own campaign thread
Where are these campaign threads?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Come up with an original topic.I so dearly wish you would , Witch.Of your own 32 threads in this forum you have 11 threads in the religion forum, you haven't once created an "original topic" concerning your own Pagan religion or Pagan gods that you say are from "other worlds" and are older than Christian god. Now wouldn't that be "original", Witch? In fact I don't believe anyone has created a thread on Witches or Pagan cults or their mystery schools.I think it would make for interesting reading and discussion.Here's' your chance to be the first and "original".[....] So could we please quit saying theists and say monotheist because if we're going to sit around and talk about crap we should at least be accurate about it. But I know every time I bring up being accurate about various theological concepts people say it really doesn't matter because basically only the monotheist count. [.....]
That is no excuse for not creating your own "accurate" and "ORIGINAL" thread concerning your own Pagan beliefs in your "otherworldly" gods.
Well it's probably been addressed in one of these various posts here: https://www.debateart.com/search?type=forum-topics&search_term=Free+will
And this is more reason for you to create your own "original " and "accurate" thread concerning your own otherworldly and ancient Pagan gods.
So can we except something "original" from you, Witch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Come up with an original topic.
I so dearly wish you would , Witch.
Of your own 32 threads in this forum you have 11 threads in the religion forum, you haven't once created an "original topic" concerning your own Pagan religion or Pagan gods that you say are from "other worlds" and are older than Christian god. Now wouldn't that be "original", Witch? In fact I don't believe anyone has created a thread on Witches or Pagan cults or their mystery schools.
I think it would make for interesting reading and discussion.
Here's' your chance to be the first and "original".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
And no, this doesn't mean Hitler wasn't evil --- just that God already decided that he would be.
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it....
Isaiah 45:7 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Colossians1:16 - For by him were all things created...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Free will
Hardly free will if it comes with a death threat is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Theists will reply that God is outside of time. .....
......and that he knows everything before it will happen.
"For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything." (1 John 3:20)
"Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether." (Psalm 139:4)
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers.That is not an idiom."Wally Grout" = Shout.Yes it is an idiom. Yes it is rhyming slang. But shout is not taken literally. Shout itself is an idiom.
Nope. That smacks of utter desperation. Stop being silly.
That is rhyming Slang for - "its your shout (round)" rhyming with - Grout. As is Tom - foolery rhyming with - Jewellery. Frog `n` toad rhyming with - Road. Skin and blister rhyming with - Sister. There is no rhyming slang in the scriptures I can assure you of that! Stop taking everyone for the dunce that you yourself are.It is an Aussie Idiom. Just like Hebrew has its own idioms.
Nope. You have clearly demonstrated rhyming slang. Which can no way be compared to ancient BIBLICAL idioms. You really are desperate aren't you. I just searched this for the hell of it. You'll love it.
NOUN
informal Australian
- A person's turn to buy a round of drinks.More example sentences
Origin
1980s rhyming slang for ‘shout’, from Wally Grout (1927–68), an Australian wicketkeeper.
WALLY GROUT | Meaning & Definition for UK English | Lexico.com Nothing there showing any relation whatsoever to it being an idiom For all of your alleged education, you simply do not understand what an idiom is, BIBLICAL or otherwise.
I have a feeling that this has become your new apologetic -get out - once you have painted yourself tightly into a theological corner.
Yet God is invisible[ ..........................] For God has no visible face.Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is becauseI saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30..The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. (Genesis 18:1). And they went on to eat and drink. With no visible mouth , I take it!The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).What about The Adam and Eve? And what about the 1 Chronicles 16:11, does it not tell them to "seek his face"? OR Ezekiel 39:29 "I will not hide My face from them any longer"?Why does this verse always leapt to my mind when YOU - of all people - make theses silly claims;Seeing God face to face - was an idiom. God is invisible. No one can see God at any time - lest they die. One is a physical thing and one is an idiom.
Complete denial after being caught out with the words of scripture AGAIN. And to be expected from anyone that has been shown his own bible ignorance.
“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures". Matthew 22:29Could it be that "god" was just a highly intelligent man at the end of the day? And we in his likeness and image?LOL @ you. God is not a man.
I was hoping you would say that. Its a shame that you didn't actually read those BIBLICAL verses above that contradict you .
Keep in mind the argument here "in his image and in his likeness" Here is just one example of many where god is described as a man.
"So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak. But Jacob replied, I will not let you go unless you bless me.
The man asked him, what is your name? Jacob, he answered. Then the man said, your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.
Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” Genesis 32:24-30. NIV.
You see, Jacob here is telling us that he seen a man and wrestled with a man. 6 times!!! Jacob called this being a man. So unless we are going to contradict Jacob, call him a liar, say he was delusional, or accuse him of dreaming or simply making a false claim or not understanding what he had been wrestling with, then we have to take his word that he wrestled with a human that he simply called a "god".
Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70.Source.There are lots of sources -It is generally accepted by secular scholars that the dating of the gospels were written at least 35/50 – 100 years after the crucifixion.Yes. 35 years after the resurrection - was AD 70.
But then other scholarly consensus' is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c. 68-110 AD. So no one knows for sure. The only thing they appear to agree on is that none of the alleged "authors" had met the Christ himself and all were composed AFTER the Crucifixion and the ascension.
go and read Dr Kenneth GentryHave you?You see for the best part of his work Gentry mainly focusses on the NT Revelation End Times i.e. John's "visions", dreams and nightmares. He doesn't even date the NT to the time that the Christ was alive (unless as I believe, that Jesus actually did survive the cross). And I could be wrong here but isn't he the same person in agreement with those that have in the past called for the imposition of Old Testament laws upon modern society!? And you have the nerve to call me a "dill".Gentry dates Revelation to prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
So. Some have dated it to almost 100 years after the fall of Jerusalem. It means nothing.
"Made in the image and likeness of God." That is the idiom. What is the Hebrew idiom.Explain the Idiom in the bold underlined above.Why? You are not my keeper.
So that's another piece of BS from you.
Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter.Would this be Simon Peter the fisherman one of the Christ's close disciples?Yes.
But didn't you once agree with historians scholars (that you "have a certain amount of trust in") that these disciples were illiterate?
Luke travelled with Paul- but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.So Luke not being a disciple took dictation from Paul the self confessed liar that had never met the Christ . And can you or anyone confirm that it was Luke that actually accompanied Paul at any time, anywhere?Luke did not dictate from Paul. Paul did meet Christ - on the road to Damascus.
Nope. Paul is said to have had a "vision"...what else? And only years after Jesus was said to have ascended He never met the Christ in his life time. And this particular "vision" episode is contradicted by the gospels themselves too. How many versions of this story are there, 3-4? Paul was an Hellenised Jew. And only ever spoke of the "mysteries". All very pagan and all very gnostic in my eyes and the eyes of many scholars.
Paul was not the founder of Christianity - Christ was.
Nope. Christ never once mentions the word Christian or Christian's in any of the 4 gospels. You see, Jesus was a Jew. Believed to be King of the Jews, not Christians.
And let me tell you, of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, of those Matthew's Gospel uses about 600 and Luke’s Gospel uses about 300. There are also about 200 verses which are very similar in Matthew and Luke, but which are not in Mark. Biblical scholars argue for these verses; Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually referred to as "Q". The existence of Q is also in dispute, however, almost all agree that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark.So what?
They are not eyewitness accounts. That is what.
Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document.Do you mean docu- MENTED?Which historians? What "more documentary" evidence"?Do your own homework. I have also shown this prior to now.
Nope you have put one single name forward without a single comment from said name.. And from wiki by the looks of it. The same Wiki that you refuse to accept and debunk when anyone else posts anything from that site; hypocrite.
I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.Who do you mean when you say " our historians"?Our historians - being the wide ranging historian of all ilks - whether christian, or not.
So this would include a Christian historian such as Clement Bishop of Alexandria?
People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.That seems to go against every single thing that you have said on this thread.I was merely responding to the point that proving any history ABSOLUTELY is impossible.
You said it. Which, with that one single comment underlined above you have rendered all the gospels unreliable, including the dating of. Hence your belief in the scriptures are purely faith based.
I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your positionSuch as? It is astounding that you say - "I don't need to" #72- when asked yourself to corroborate anything that you say or claim!?I am not addressing you.
That's neither here nor there, Reverend "Tradey". I am addressing your own comments and double standards..not to mention your own utter bible ignorance....AGAIN.
PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.So that then is the KJV bible dictionary's definition. Are you refusing this definition.Why???????
Because you are arguing above the word - perfect .
I asked you - could anyone of us be perfect? #24 I also asked you to define the word Perfect/ Perfection when the word is used in the bible.#42
You came back with this:
"we still need someone to define for us what perfection is". #26
I have given you the accepted definitions of the word - perfect and I have also given you the KJV Bible dictionary' definition of the word perfect.
THAT'S WHY!!!!
So do you accept the KJV's Bible dictionary's definition? Yes or no?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
In Australia if we say - "it's your wally grout", what does that mean? Wally Grout was an Australian Cricketer. Yet if we heard those words in the local Australian pub - everyone knows its meaning - your turn to buy the round of beers.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
That is not an idiom.
"Wally Grout" = Shout.
That is rhyming Slang for - "its your shout (round)" rhyming with - Grout. As is Tom - foolery rhyming with - Jewellery. Frog `n` toad rhyming with - Road. Skin and blister rhyming with - Sister. There is no rhyming slang in the scriptures I can assure you of that! Stop taking everyone for the dunce that you yourself are.
Idioms do not have to relate directly to the words contained in the phrase.
But they do , its just that you do not understand what an idiom is. I have myself have pointed out AND explained some the idioms in the New Testament many times since the day I joined here.
Yet God is invisible[ ..........................] For God has no visible face.
Jacob said; please tell me your name. But he replied, why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, it is because
I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”Genesis 32:24-30..
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. (Genesis 18:1). And they went on to eat and drink. With no visible mouth , I take it!
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).
What about The Adam and Eve? And what about the 1 Chronicles 16:11, does it not tell them to "seek his face"? OR Ezekiel 39:29 "I will not hide My face from them any longer"?
Why does this verse always leapt to my mind when YOU - of all people - make theses silly claims;
“You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures". Matthew 22:29
Could it be that "god" was just a highly intelligent man at the end of the day? And we in his likeness and image?
Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70.Source.There are lots of sources -
It is generally accepted by secular scholars
that the dating of the gospels were written at least 35/50 – 100
years after the crucifixion.
go and read Dr Kenneth Gentry
Have you?
You see for the best part of his work Gentry mainly focusses on the NT Revelation End Times i.e. John's "visions", dreams and nightmares. He doesn't even date the NT to the time that the Christ was alive (unless as I believe, that Jesus actually did survive the cross). And I could be wrong here but isn't he the same person in agreement with those that have in the past called for the imposition of Old Testament laws upon modern society!? And you have the nerve to call me a "dill".
"Made in the image and likeness of God." That is the idiom. What is the Hebrew idiom.
Explain the Idiom in the bold underlined above.
The point is most were written by people with eye witness testimony.
Well Paul, the self confessed liar that some believe to be the founder of Christianity wasn't an eyewitness to the life and times of Christ, was he?
Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter.
Would this be Simon Peter the fisherman one of the Christ's close disciples?
Luke travelled with Paul- but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.
So Luke not being a disciple took dictation from Paul the self confessed liar that had never met the Christ . And can you or anyone confirm that it was Luke that actually accompanied Paul at any time, anywhere?
And let me tell you, of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, of those Matthew's Gospel uses about 600 and Luke’s Gospel uses about 300. There are also about 200 verses which are very similar in Matthew and Luke, but which are not in Mark. Biblical scholars argue for these verses; Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which is usually referred to as "Q". The existence of Q is also in dispute, however, almost all agree that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark.
Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document.
Do you mean docu- MENTED?
Which historians? What "more documentary" evidence"?
I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.
Who do you mean when you say " our historians"?
People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.
That seems to go against every single thing that you have said on this thread.
I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your position
Such as? It is astounding that you say - "I don't need to" #72- when asked yourself to corroborate anything that you say or claim!?
PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.So that then is the KJV bible dictionary's definition. Are you refusing this definition.Why???????
Because you are arguing above the word - perfect .
I asked you - could anyone of us be perfect? #24 I also asked you to define the word Perfect/ Perfection when the word is used in the bible.#42
You came back with this:
"we still need someone to define for us what perfection is". #26
I have given you the accepted definitions of the word - perfect and I have also given you the KJV Bible dictionary' definition of the word perfect.
THAT'S WHY!!!!
So do you accept the KJV's Bible dictionary's definition? Yes or no?
Created:
@RM
Stephen [....] in the religion forums as his genuine daily hobby.
It is an hobby of sorts. But I wouldn't call it an "addiction" RM. I notice too that you have more than double the post count that I. Yet we joined around the same. time.
Created:
Correct me if I am wrong but is this the same member (RM) that posted this?
"I have converted to Taoism and I quit this website. Have a pleasant time without me, or don't. Either way I am content for that is the way of the Tao".
Then changed his mind just two days later? #25
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@Lunar108
Who was Jesus father ?
And following on from both my posts above at #12 & #18 I shall in his absence offer this comment relevant to this thread from Brother D Thomas.
"You say that the Trinity is another way of saying Jesus is one with His word and spirit? So it is Jesus, His word, and His spirit, but nonetheless, there are also three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. However, there is exactly one God (1 Timothy 2:5), therefore Christ is His own Father and His own Son. The Holy Ghost is neither Father nor Son, but both in spirit. The Son was begotten by the Father through Celestial impregnation through incest, but existed before He was begotten. Jesus is just as old as His Father, and the Father is just as young as His Son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but He is of the same age as the other two! #11 BrotherDThomas Added02.26.21 04:59PM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This is one of the reasons why the Holy Spirit is the one who breathed on Mary.
I bet he did. And heavy too.
Why do none of the gospel writers not talk about Jesus life between 12 and 30?
Why not indeed. Are you going to share with us the childhood period of Jesus born of a virgin, Reverend "Tradey"?
Or between the time he spent Egypt and showing up at the temple at the age of 12?
Why does only one mention his 12 year old trip to Jerusalem?
Ah yes. An absolute wonderful story of how the BOTH parents to none other than the son of god managed to lose their holy charge - a gift from god himself - for three days!? They didn't even notice that this immaculately conceived child was missing until after traveling a WHOLE DAY before they even realised he was missing.!
Searching out the answers to these questions are a good thing to do. I don't have an issue with that. I am pleased you take time to read the bible.
Don't patronise me you jumped up pompous bible dunce.
Yet, I think you read the bible not to find it truth, but rather to prove it a lie.
Or both. You haven't even considered that have you, Reverend - what a wonderful memory I possess - "Tradey" Tradesecrete.? #52
You won't forget this now will you, Reverend "Tradey"
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Islamophobia is the fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general. I'd argue that there is no "right use" for bigotry. Generalizations on such a scale rapidly multiply inaccuracies.
And a Phobia is an irrational fear or dread of something or someone. I see nothing irrational about fearing Islam.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
"Made in the image and likeness of God." That is the idiom. What is the Hebrew idiom.
Explain the Idiom in the bold underlined above.
Actually there is good evidence to suggest every book in the NT was written prior to AD 70.
And you are going to show us this "good evidence", are you?
The point is most were written by people with eye witness testimony.
Well Paul, the self confessed liar that some believe to be the founder of Christianity wasn't an eyewitness to the life and times of Christ, was he?
Mark is basically a cooperation between both himself and Peter.
Would this be Simon Peter the fisherman one of the Christ's close disciples?
Luke travelled with Paul- but as a doctor was quite elegant in his notetaking.
So Luke not being a disciple took dictation from Paul the self confessed liar that had never met the Christ . And can you or anyone confirm that it was Luke that actually accompanied Paul at any time, anywhere?
And let me tell you, of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, of those
Matthew's Gospel uses about 600 and Luke’s Gospel uses about 300.
There are also about 200 verses which are very similar in Matthew and
Luke, but which are not in Mark. Biblical scholars argue for these
verses; Matthew and Luke must have used another written source, which
is usually referred to as "Q". The existence of Q is also in dispute, however,
almost all agree that Matthew and Luke knew of, and used, Mark.
the gospel of John was traditionally written by the apostle John or perhaps Lazarus.
So you don't know.
Historians are in consensus that there is more documentary evidence for the NT and its accuracy than there is for almost any other ancient document.
Do you mean docu- MENTED?
Which historians? What "more documentary" evidence"?
I happen to have a certain trust in the way our historians document and understand things.
Who do you mean when you say " our historians"?
I think the scientific method and the historical understanding and basis of these documents is pretty solid.
Does that include the Gnostic Gospels? The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? The Gospel of Thomas who was a disciple of Jesus ( that some believe to be Jesus' twin) yet his gospel was rejected? And the Gospel of Judas, to name just a few? And all rejected as heresy.
People of course cannot prove anything happened 5 minutes ago.
That seems to go against every single thing that you have said on this thread.
People will believe what they want to believe - when it suits them.
And you'd would know all about that.
I am merely asking you to find some corroboration for your position
Such as? It is astounding that you say - "I don't need to" #72- when asked yourself to corroborate anything that you say or claim!?
"You would need to demonstrate that perfection is equivalent to without a flaw. #34" My view is that humans were created very good.As I have already explained to you, the word - perfect / perfection means "without flaw" in any dictionary that I know. But of course, we now know that you don't accept the universally accepted definition of - perfect - but without any sound reason you refuse to accept it and dismiss it (because it was written by humans, suspect)..So lets try this;KJV Dictionary's version , which also happens to agree with the universally accepted version.PER'FECT, adjective [Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete; per and facio, to do or make through, to carry to the end.]1. Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.So that then is the KJV bible dictionary's definition. Are you refusing this definition.Why???????
Because you are arguing above the word - perfect .
I asked you - could anyone of us be perfect? #24 I also asked you to define the word Perfect/ Perfection when the word is used in the bible.#42
You came back with this:
"we still need someone to define for us what perfection is". #26
I have given you the accepted definitions of the word - perfect and I have also given you the KJV Bible dictionary' definition of the word perfect.
THAT'S WHY!!!!
So do you accept the KJV's Bible dictionary's definition? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I just don't need some long list copy and pasted from an atheist forum page.
Why ever not!? A bible contradiction that is shown and proven to be a bible contradiction no mater what its source is still a bible contradiction.
I take it that you will be looking into these proposed contradictions yourself BEFORE you complete your " survey for future use"?.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunar108
who was jesus father ?
And to add to my post above at #12
Some sources describes
Jesus as “a bastard son of an adulteress” describing Jesus as
“ben Pantera” (son of-Pantera) a corruption of the
Greek word/name parthenos. Pantera was said to
be a Roman archer from Sidon in Phoenicia but had served in Syria.
One has to wonder and ask why the silence from Mark and John concerning the "virgin
birth"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
The book of Enoch has it that the sons of god "went into the daughters of men" and as punishment for defiling themselves with earthly women they were ordered to take them as wives and not allowed to return to their heavenly station.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Equal then not equal
John 10:30 " I and the Father are one".John 14:28 “ I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" .
I judge then I don't judge
John 5:22 , 30. " Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just".John 8:15 " You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.John 12:47 " I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
I am my own witness and it is true. Then It is not true.
John 8:14 “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going".John 5:31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.
Man is not my witness. Man is my witness .
John5: 33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
problematic contradictions in the Bible
The best one's come from the Christ himself. Which should be "problematic" for those that believe in the Trinity. But they will contradict the BIBLICAL contradictions.
Too many to list here. I am off to the pub, I haven't had a single beer over the Christmas holiday.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Power is taken in many ways. Unfortunately religion is one way.
You tell us that your own particular religion is "Heathenism" & that you are "a solitary" #14,. What power has your own solitary brand of Witchery & heathenism has your religion taken away from you, Witch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunar108
who was jesus father ?
"the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, - that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son, for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.
More over, if the Son is the Father what of Mary getting pregnant? Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunar108
It appears Islam isn't on its own when it comes to the feelings of ancient 'snowflakes'.
2 Kings 2:23-24 King James Version
23 And he[ Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Elisha was, according to the Hebrew Bible, a prophet and a wonder-worker.
"baldy head"
That's the 'sticks and stones' rhyme that we teach our children clean out the window.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's Go Christmas with Jill & Joe
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Looks to like Mrs B got the message. Joe really needs to go.
I wonder if she pointed out to Sleepy what had just happened?
Created:
-->
@Bones
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. That didn't last long, did it!.
But I feel the resurrection of the pretend non theist Timid8967 is on the cards sometime in the new year, wearing a new face.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
That is what Jesus taught, --- yet Christians see him as dying for them, --- which Jesus would see as a Capital Sin.
Jesus the Jew would have been appalled that a whole new religion had spring up in his name.
Created: