Stephen

-->

@zedvictor4

@Tim
Meeting in secret, in groups of greater than two, always strikes me as being a tad contradictory.

Though in terms of real accountability the Bible is inevitably, always going to be one big secret.

The point Vic is, that regardless of what was being taught in secret, the scriptures clearly show that Jesus did and said things in secret and then later denied doing and saying things in secret.

And I had already covered this nonsense on this thread of mine https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5681-how-does-jesus-expect-to-get-away-with-blatant-lies

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

No Show.

-->

@Timid8967

PGA2.0 can you tell me - more about the difference between full and partial preterist?

But I suggest you do so on another thread. This one is about Jesus failing to show after promising to return before some of those witnessing the promise had passed away..

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

You really get tetchy when people don't agree with you don't you?

Not at all. And I don't care if you agree or not.

I don't want your side to be agreeable to the bible

Then why say this>> " . I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ?

When you disagree with me - and say things like "nope",

That's right. I say it to anyone that tries to deny what is ACTUALLY written in the scriptures. Or have misquoted me. Like you did twice. And yes you can come and go as you please but stop accusing ME of telling YOU "what to believe". I don't give two fks you want to believe. I am just putting my thoughts and opinions forward on how I read these scriptures and you are protesting that I shouldn't... and a lot too, me thinks.

Jesus, it is a BIBLICAL fact, taught the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" in secret to some and not others. He did things in secret and he met people in secret. he then denied this at his trial<<<< these are bible facts, they are not verses invented by me to "fill in gaps". Take it or leave it. I don't care.

You will miss me.

Nope, I won't.

Anyway;

I am not anywhere nearer with the identity of who this other miracle worker was, but it must be remembered what it was that King Herod had to say after John the Baptist had his head removed:

After the death of John the Baptist King Herod on hearing about these so called miraculous wonders being performed by Jesus (he had never met him personally at this point Luke 23:8) appears to be frightened out of his skin. Why?

Well because the bible states this:

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

14 And king Herod heard of him [Jesus]; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Jesus].

15 Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.

16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

There is not a single story in scripture that tells of John the Baptist performing the signs and wonders or mighty works that were now being performed and "shewn" by Jesus. Yet Herod would know or not if John was also a "miracle worker". He was there. And he had never spoken to Jesus but he had spent a lot of time speaking with and "protecting" John the Baptist, and we know this because THE BIBLE says so.

So Jesus was now performing the same tricks as John the Baptist had once performed, but not before John had conveniently lost his head.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

Ok. But where did you refer to "righteousness"? Look it does not matter anyway. That was the answer Jesus gave and which persuaded John.

And I am not convinced. And the question still remains of why did even John believe that it was he that should be being anointed by Jesus in the first place. .

Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway

There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught.
This is my point. So for you to speculate and infer that it must be how you understand it is where I start to roll my eyes.

Roll away. This is what the scriptures lead me to believe. I haven't foisted anything on anyone and that includes you.. You came to this thread , I didn't drag you here kicking and screaming.

I am quite happy for you to have any view you like -

Oh well now that is fkn generous of you. Should I thank you too?

just don't foist it as though you are correct and everyone else is wrong.

"Foist"? . Don't make me laugh. If anything has been foisted on anyone it is these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures that have been foisted and forced onto mankind for millennia by Pastors and Priests and it still is to a lesser extent. And who have I accused of being wrong, YOU? I personally can't remember a single time when I have told anyone that they are wrong in their own beliefs.

Nope. At his trial he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did. Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again.

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.
But Jesus did not deny he was running a secret group. His doctrines were transparent and open.

Nope. The bible states that he taught Nicodemus "the mysteries" in secret. And there is this >>He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." Matthew 13:11

I just don't like being told what to believe by you or anyone.

I haven't done that.. I am not asking or demanding that you believe anything I say. . Just leave the thread if you believe that is what I am doing or have done and then I won't be telling you OR ANYONE ELSE "what to believe " will I?

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.
Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?
You are string stretching. You have not joined the dots. You admit to as such above. Me, agreeing that two guys met secretly with Jesus does not equate with Jesus having secret disciples - such that none of his other disciples did not know.

Opinion. I happen to believe that it does. And I have said, he didn't only have the inner 12, the bible AGAIN records that he had many more.

It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus.

Why? We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12. And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least his doubts about Simon Peter going so far as to call him "satan".

Why are you so dogmatic about your position? Whatever is it that makes you - an atheist - content to spend so many hours on a religious forum pushing an alternative narrative about the bible?

Why should it even concern you what I do with MY OWN time. Leave the thread if your not happy. Just go, I won't miss you.

except when you are so dogmatic

I don't believe I am. Most of my threads are all question based. I ask for answers and question what comes back if I am not happy.

I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible.

Well that is my point , I don't agree with the bible as it has come down and been taught to us. I have my opinions that the scriptures/ gospel authors are hiding a bigger story. I can't ever hope to prove anything, but it won't stop me putting what I consider what could be an alternative story to the one that we have had "FOISTED" onto us for millennia.... minus the so called "miracles". But like I have said, you can always leave MY thread sunshine. I'm easy.

More easily agreeable with the bible.

And why would you want my side to be "agreeable with the bible"? Haven't you repeatedly made it clear on this thread and many others that you don't believe the bible and are nontheist. Don't bother answering, I don't care.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

I just asked why you omitted to mention the one verse that answers your question.

And I didn't omit anything. I put up the relevant chapter and verses MATHEW 3:13-17 which INCLUDES the verse that you assume that I was "omitting".

Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway

There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught.

Nope. At his trial he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did. Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again.

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.

Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?

This is quite different however from having secret groups or people that were not known within the group.

Opinion.

It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus.

Why? We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12. And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least his doubts about Simon Peter going so far as to call him "satan".

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

No Show.

-->

@PGA2.0

it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense. No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement.
So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be?

But he didn't did he. And the bible says he didn't. And Peter the lair, and traitor and denier of Jesus, makes up some bullshit excuse for the no show saying 2a day is a thousand years".

I called your BS already.

Regurgitating unreliable and ambiguous verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous source does not make for "calling my BS" or stand as any type of proof that a dead, rotting and stinking corpse of a man came back to life, went up to heaven, came down again and was present at the fall of the city of Jerusalem some 40 years later in AD 66-70.

The bible says he didn't show when he promised to show. The Jews complained about this no show, they didn't complain because he did show, now did they, you silly little man.

So what excuse did the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus use for this no show?

He said listen you gullible, superstitious bell-ends, I know something you don't know, " With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" .

And tell me, was the "earth laid bare" when you say Jesus returned AD 66 - 70 ? NO. Did "the heavens disappear"? NO. Were "all the earths elements been destroyed by fire"? NO. But didn't the traitor and liar and three times denier of Jesus also tell us all these things would also happen when Jesus returned. Of course he did , here we are:

2 Peter 3:8-10

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare

And I keep telling you, there are millions of Christians still waiting this second coming and believe his return is imminent.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

No Show.

-->

@PGA2.0

it is nice to see some people attempting to provide good material to consider.

I think the notion that Jesus returning so soon after he left makes little sense. No wonder we see so much weirdness in the Christian movement.
So soon? Within the span of a generation. What generation do you think Jesus is referring to, and how long does the NT give a generation to be?

But he didn't did he. And the bible says he didn't. And Peter the lair, and traitor and denier of Jesus, makes up some bullshit excuse for the no show saying 2a day is a thousand years".

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Stephen,

Relative to the "context" of your thread, when in the hell is the Bible fool, and runaway of same, FAUXLAW going to use his alleged Greek knowledge of the scriptures to iron out your alleged "cherry picking" of the passages in question?

He won't be doing that anytime soon, Brother, I can promise you that. he's just full of bull****

We have continually asked this minion of Satan FAUXLAW to show us his assumed Greek expertise in rewriting the scriptures that have been accepted "as they are" for 2000 plus, but he is nowhere to be found in this respect other than running away from our superior Biblical knowledge over his embarrassing grade-school knowledge of same!

That's all he will ever do once he has painted himself into a theological corner, Brother

Remember the equally Bible fools Tradesecret and ethang5, where at least this ungodly duo knew when to bail out of this forum because the membership easily made them the Bible ignorant fools that they were.

I hadn't noticed Brother. Strange that you do now mention it that they both disappeared around the same time after I called them out on sharing a password and accused one of posting in the name of the other. Still, neither are missed by me. And where both of those bible ignorant tossers are concerned Matthew 22:29 says it all for me.

They both "are in error because neither do not know the Scriptures".

Therefore, FAUXLAW should learn from them and to save himself from further embarrassment not only in front of the membership, but in front of Jesus as well as He looks down upon him is total dismay (Hebrews 4:13).

He won't be doing that, Brother, he's too proud, too ignorant and far too arrogant.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?

John 19:38 - "Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews". And there was Nicodemus who would only visit Jesus under the cover of darkness. Nicodemus’ Secret Conversation with Jesus: https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/disciples/was-nicodemus-a-follower-of-christ.html
Thanks for that. I think that is a big stretch.
There is no indication that the other disciples did not know Josephus was a disciple.

Firstly, there is no indication that they did either or Jesus had told them . Remember these meeting were carried out in secret "for fear of the Jews".

Secondly, I didn't say "Josephus" I have clearly stated Joseph of Arimathea

The best we can glean is that he (Josephus) kept it secret from the Jews.

I said Joseph of Arimathea

I didn't say he was in a secret group I have said he was a secret disciple BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO! and probably unknown to the others because of his position as a Pharisee and a member of the council, he had to be kept secret that he/they was a supporters of Jesus .

There simply is no evidence. None whatsoever. The same applies to Nicodemus. I thought you had something solid. He met Jesus at night in order for the Jews or the Pharisees not to find out - since they were trying to kill Jesus.

Indeed and all done in secret. As the bible clearly states. You can deny all day long. But the scriptures tell us that these things were done in secret and Jesus denied doing them in secret at his trial.

Where does Jesus deny it?

John 18:20 " I have said nothing in secret".
Stephen, thanks again. Yet again, I think you are reading into this more than is said.

Nope. At his trial he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did. Such as here ..John 7:10

Stephen, I think you are starting lose me here. I don't believe the bible.

Well I do. I just don't, believe it in the state that it has come down and has been taught to us.

To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him....

How? What was said, or done or promised for John to appear to change his mind? Simply read verse:

Matthew 3:13-17 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 King James Bible

"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?

"Is there a reason why you omit to refer to Matthew 3:15. "let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented. "

Ok, you haven't said (1) Why John forbade him in the first instance. (2) What caused John to change his mind. (3) I haven't omitted anything. I posted MATHEW 3:13-17. So you can stop your veiled insinuations that I am being sly or devious. I don't need to be sly or devious or need to make shite up. I leave that kind of deviousness to the Pastors and the Priests.

After all his years crying and wailing in the "wilderness" and preaching about "the one to come", why would John suddenly believe that it was Jesus that should be baptising him?
Perhaps because all of his crying and wailing in the wilderness was about the one to come. And now the one to come has appeared.

It was. I said it was. And yet when the moment came what did John say? He said , "you should be baptising me".

The bible puts a lot of emphasis of John and his sole purpose for existing. By all accounts he was the forerunner to the Christ, yet when the "messiah" eventually does make an appearance, John isn't having any of it? And look at those last four words, they could just as well read in modern English ' and you have the nerve to come to me '!!?
whatever - not sure why a particular interpretation in one translation should be given preference over another.

Me neither. And I haven't given anything over another, you are simply forgetting the fact that these are ALL bibles/ supposed holy religious text.......... not written by me.....

such as this version>> Amplified Bible

"But John tried to prevent Him vigorously protesting, saying, “It is I who need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”

Or this

New Living Translation

But John tried to talk him out of it. “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you,” he said, “so why are you coming to me?”

Or this

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

But Yohannan had refused and said to him, “I need to be baptized by you, and you have come to me?

The point is that they ALL say John refused to baptise Jesus.

Why would he need to be authorised?
To do anything in the name of anyone else, one is usually authorised to do it by the authoriser. I couldn't do or say anything in your name unless you gave me authorisation.
Well I suppose you have a point there. But is that how things happened in that time and culture? And even if it was, It still does not provide evidence that Jesus had a group of secret disciples. It really only tells us that there is a man speaking in Jesus name to rid people of demons.

He had secret disciples and the bible makes that clear . I don't care if you ignore the fact. He had rich followers in all high places not to mention low ones too.

that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever, where is he? He seems rather interesting.

Eye of the beholder, springs to mind. I admired his tenacity, But he knows nothing of these scriptures and even admits to simply passing on what he has been told and taught to pass on. Here >> " I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't".   #20

It is interesting that he adds that he has "no agenda" when it is a fact that all clergy including pastors and priest have been given a "great commission". I find it astounding that this Pastor and Chaplin Tradesecret had forgotten this from the mouth of Christ himself:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”  Amazing isn't it. That a Pastor/Chaplin can say he has "no agenda" when the bible clearly states that he most certainly has!?
I don't really care - actually. You brought this person into it.

I did as a perfect example of what I mean by bible ignorant twats such as he, that can't stop bragging about their credentials, qualifications and authority on the subject yet do not know a thing about the shite the preach , teach and charge universities to tutor their students on.

You brought this person into it.

And you questioned me about him. You didn't have to if you "didn't care-actually ", did you?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

No Show.

-->

@PGA2.0

You keep posting the same verses

That's correct and you need to read them .. They all say and show Jesus didn't return in the time that he promised that he would. Would you like them again? And you haven't proven that a dead stinking rotten corpse rose from being dead to being alive again in AD 66-70, either. So , when you ready, the floor is all yours, knock yourself out.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?

John 19:38 - "Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews". And there was Nicodemus who would only visit Jesus under the cover of darkness. Nicodemus’ Secret Conversation with Jesus: https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/disciples/was-nicodemus-a-follower-of-christ.html

Where does Jesus deny it?

John 18:20 " I have said nothing in secret".

That is an interesting perspective. When I read the NT I don't get that they were rivals at all. They are cousins aren't they? Possibly friends?

Well it appears on the surface that they are indeed cousins. But who fathered them both?

I think that if we are to go by biblical tradition, they were half brothers and more than likely fathered by the same person. And sibling rivalry is a theme that runs through the bible from beginning to end starting with Cain and Able. In actuality, this theme goes back even further if we are to look at ancient Mesopotamian literature and see that they record the first sibling rivalry of Enlil and Ninlil on earth, assumed to be myth of course but no more mythical than talking "serpents " if we are to take it all literally.

To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him....

How? What was said, or done or promised for John to appear to change his mind? Simply read verse:

Matthew 3:13-17 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 King James Bible

"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?

After all his years crying and wailing in the "wilderness" and preaching about "the one to come", why would John suddenly believe that it was Jesus that should be baptising him?

The bible puts a lot of emphasis of John and his sole purpose for existing. By all accounts he was the forerunner to the Christ, yet when the "messiah" eventually does make an appearance, John isn't having any of it? And look at those last four words, they could just as well read in modern English ' and you have the nerve to come to me '!!?

Some of the more modern bibles make it more clear: https://biblehub.com/matthew/3-14.htm , they have John say " why have you come to me"?

Why would he need to be authorised?

To do anything in the name of anyone else, one is usually authorised to do it by the authoriser. I couldn't do or say anything in your name unless you gave me authorisation.

that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever, where is he? He seems rather interesting.

Eye of the beholder, springs to mind. I admired his tenacity, But he knows nothing of these scriptures and even admits to simply passing on what he has been told and taught to pass on. Here >> " I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't". #20

It is interesting that he adds that he has "no agenda" when it is a fact that all clergy including pastors and priest have been given a "great commission". I find it astounding that this Pastor and Chaplin Tradesecret had forgotten this from the mouth of Christ himself:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” Amazing isn't it. That a Pastor/Chaplin can say he has "no agenda" when the bible clearly states that he most certainly has!?

did he block you? Or did you block him?

No and No

he has not been on this site for quite a while.

I hadn't noticed. And we are way of the subject matter.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Maybe Methuselah was not so old afterall

-->

@BrotherDThomas

I think that the only member that can solve this problem is FAUXLAW by using his alleged understanding of the Greek language translations to spin doctor this anomaly away in some form, don't you agree?

Let's see if FAUXLAW comes forth to help us out in this situation, we'll await!

I am still waiting for a Greek translation on this thread and others, Brother >> #32

The whole forum knows his track record for showing us his knowledge of the ancient Greek language is NIL, Brother. Ever since the day he told us all the he was "a student in ancient Greek"#28 he has never taken up the opportunity to demonstrate the meaning of even simple words such as " secret" that, according to him, secret in English doesn't mean the same in ancient Greek but when ask to translate and define its meaning in Greek he then immediately fails to explain what is does mean and simply runs away.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Maybe Methuselah was not so old afterall

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Nevets,

Relative to your extreme ages of Biblical characters, how do pseudo-christians deal with the blatant contradiction in what is shown within this passage stated by Moses: “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10)."

“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). Therefore Moses stating the above Biblical axiom blatantly contradicts your treatise upon Bible characters living in the numbers you represented, now what?

Interesting stuff, that is Brother, when we also take into account the "god"cut the years of man down to 120 years. GENESIS 6:3 . It has to be asked from what number did "god" cut the years of man down from?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is the claim that we have no free agency a cop-out?

-->

@BrotherDThomas

You sound surprised by his actions, Brother.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion

-->

@zedvictor4

@fauxlaw
You old rapper, you.

Is there no end to this Man's talents?

Nope, and he can do it in ancient Greek ,too

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Jamball

Resurrection can only ever be sp[iritual

So these BIBLICAL verses are not true then?

Did Thomas touch the wounds of a body or a spirit?John 20:27-29

Do spirits eat and drink ?Acts 10:40-41

Did Lazarus float out of his tomb or walk? John 11:43-44

Did all those dead people rise from their graves bodily and walk into the city. Matthew 27:52

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

No blessing for same sex marriages.

-->

@Timid8967

So you think pope Francis is clear headed? Perhaps you are correct.

"clear headed" ? What I said was he understood perfectly what he was saying and chose his words with caution. ie. saying that - partnerships between homosexuals are; “not ordered to the Creator’s plan.”... and forgetting to mention that homosexuality is an " abomination" to the" creator", and that the "creator" says that the penalty is death.

(Leviticus 20:13)"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death,;

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

What would you do if God commands you to murder.

-->

@Matthew_18

Abraham was backward in coming forward.
Quite a powerful account we know .....................

No it is a silly story. . Abraham didn't have the brains to work out that god would be failing to keep his promise if he was to carry out the sacrifice of his "only son".

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Matthew_18

Try answering the questions and show how the resurrection according to the bible is speaking only of a "spiritual" resurrection.

I will agree that Paul contradicts the four gospels. But then Pauldoesn’t mention the miraculous ascending into heaven event either, no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body,no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ whowould eat, or that Jesus was elevated physically into heaven after agiven time. To Paul the body of Jesus who died was degradable,weak, and physical.

We are mocked

You are mocked because the second that you are under fire you start reinterpreting the bible, and putting words into the mouths of the authors of, and characters in, these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures.

I personally do not believe that a corpse of a dead man that had been laying rotting and stinking for three days was resurrected back to life, but that is not what there bible or the church teaches and preaches , is it? And now you come along and will have it that the bible doesn't teach bodily resurrection when it clearly does.

Did Thomas touch the wounds of a body or a spirit?John 20:27-29

Do spirits eat and drink ?Acts 10:40-41

Did Lazarus float out of his tomb or walk? John 11:43-44

Did all those dead people rise from their graves bodily and walk into the city. Matthew 27:52

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/663-abraham-was-backward

-->

@Matthew_18

the resurrection is purely a spiritual thing and has no worldly application whatsoever.

Oh ffs! You believers are al the fkn same!. You will even deny what is actually written in these scriptures.

Did Thomas touch the wounds of a body or a spirit?John 20:27-29

Do spirits eat and drink ?Acts 10:40-41

Did Lazarus float out of his tomb or walk? John 11:43-44

Did all those dead people rise from their graves bodily and walk into the city. Matthew 27:52

Is it ANY wonder that you Christians are mocked!!!?

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

What would you do if God commands you to murder.

-->

@Matthew_18

Abraham was backward in coming forward.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Is the claim that we have no free agency a cop-out?

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Check out FAUXLAW stepping in the proverbial poo AGAIN in being a hypocrite to the topic in my following link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5994-is-the-claim-that-we-have-no-free-agency-a-cop-out?page=1&post_number=14

FAUXLAW'S CONTRADICTING HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE IN POST #12 !!!: "God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency. "

" god has a plan for us V god does not interfere in our plans". Just breathtaking Brother. I wonder, is that a Greek thing?

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

And the Bible is myth. So it can say what it wants to.

It can . but then why say this>? "If they are saying his body rose up then I suppose it did there."#109

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

The Bible is myth not fact.

And I haven't said or even suggested it was, have I Witch?

I said "undeniable BIBLICAL details" . But is it fact that the bible talks only of bodily resurrection.

If they are saying his body rose up then I suppose it did there.

But you have just said above that the bible is "myth"

But that is not a thing that happens on Earth.

Well according to the bible it did happen on earth. It is a fact that the resurrection of the body of Jesus is written about in the bible.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

I have just given you the undeniable biblical details , Witch.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

If the soul is eternal we all resurrect at death, just not with our body.

But Jesus, by all accounts resurrected bodily, didn't he? He sat and had a meal and a drink with his disciples. Do souls eat and drink? Thomas poked his wounds, didn't he? Lazarus was "raised from the dead" bodily? The scriptures tell us that " all the graves opened and all the bodies were raised bodily and went walking into the city" .Matthew 27:52

It mentions nothing at all about souls , Witch. The bible only speaks of a bodily resurrection.

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

Is the claim that we have no free agency a cop-out?

-->

@Timid8967

Throwing God into the mix just muddies the waters.

Well it is the theist and the scriptures that put god in the frame, themselves? Like many other things biblical,they just never accept the fact .

Lets look at their standpoint .

It never ceases to baffle me as to why it is Christians spout the phrase " free will" whenever they find themselves on the back foot of many religious arguments concerning god himself.

Ask a Christian why it was the biblical Adam/Eve chose to defy their god and maker no less, and they simply throw at you that one single phrase - free will - but never hang around long enough to explain what "free will" actually is in any sense or when it was granted.

Ok here then, according to the believer we have free will.

Lets start with when we get to Genesis 9 and god seems happy with his handy work, and his happiness is expressed again at Genesis 12 & again at 21,25 and up until god has one more look over his creation and it says at 31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

So we have humans created in the image of a god and god was very pleased and although all was " very good" they both defy god?

And no explanation as to why this happened. We hear that this pair of humans were somehow "beguiled" by a being known as the serpent. But if we backtrack just a few verses we can re-read that these humans were created in the image of god himself, and no mention whatsoever of them being granted anything resembling free will. Did god say to them you have a choice to eat of the tree or not? Or even a mention to them to beware of any being calling himself a reptile. Was there any warning that "satan" will be along shortly to tempt and test them. Why not? And why did god have no control over the serpent ?

And lets not forget that the beguiling was done by one of gods own creations. Why create such an entity? And, if they were made in " gods image" , doesn't it follow that this pair were only doing what god himself would sometimes do? Or is it a case of - do as I say and not as I do?

I don't doubt for one second that the theist will tell us that we "were created only very good and and not perfect", and if that is the case, then they need to ask their god why only good and not perfect? Besides, there are a few characters in the scripture that are said to be "blameless" and "righteous" that "walked in the way of god", why create some "blameless and others defiant?

And then there is the point of how can the actions of the Eden couple be because they had "free will" when the command came with a penalty of death? Or do the words "you will die" mean something entirely different to "the student of ancient Greek "Genesis 2:17

The free will excuse used for gods own failings is utter nonsense.

This thread is perfect example of a theist in denial.

And doesn't the bible actually tell us that our paths are chosen for us by god? And what do these mean verses in Greek or any language?

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." (Ephesians 1:11) Key word:

"The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33).

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

FAUXLAW BLOCKS THE BROTHR D BECAUSE HE CANNOT ACCEPT SUBSTANTIATED BIBLICAL AXIOMS THAT HE CANNOT ADDRESS!

He blocked me for over 15 months once , Brother but it didn't stop him cowardly posting to me on my threads while leaving me no opportunity at all to respond directly. But he came crawling back and unblocked me after many warnings about his nineteen faced and double standards behaviour just so he could respond to my threads without breaking the rules. That is how desperate he was for company, Brother.

I have him on block now. All very childish I know , but it is a bad habit I picked up from him directly.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

But as usual they have only managed to display their bible ignorance of the fact the there seems to have been another "miracle worker" on the block that wasn't one of them and these lovely tolerant disciples of Jesus didn't appear like it. Luke 9: 51-55.
Whoever said that the disciples were lovely and tolerant? It looks to me like in this particular verse that the normal me v them attitude is being paraded.

I was being sarcastic. And the New Testament to my mind is nothing more than a story of a power struggle between many factions in 1st century Palestine.

I think the author - according to tradition is Luke, intentionally does not provide the name of the miracle worker because his or her name is irrelevant to the point he is making.

I agree. It is enough they they have mentioned that there was another "miracle worker" beside Jesus.

Yet it is impossible to discover and probably pointless to speculate.Yet it is impossible to discover and probably pointless to speculate. I think it is interesting that this so called miracle worker was using Jesus' name to drive out demons, not his own name or someone else's name. This suggests that he knew Jesus or had at least seen Jesus drive a demon out. Perhaps he was a Jewish pharisee, they too drove out demons in their own ways, and figured that Jesus was doing it better than he could. Sometimes people think - "if it works I will try it". And if it works they will probably keep on doing it.

I agree. It is pointless to speculate. That said, we do know that Jesus had rich and influential friends in high (and low) places. The scriptures make it clear that Jesus had "secret" disciples who were pharisee and in the council that he would "meet in secret". Although Jesus denies the fact at his trial.

So it could be that maybe it was a case that these disciples didn't know these other disciples because Jesus had kept the fact secret from them? and why Jesus didn't seem to bothered that they were performing miraculous tricks in his name.

Given the disciples response to this person doing what he is doing, it might be surmised that either he was someone who had been part of the group but had left under bad relations, or that they had no idea who he was.

Again, I believe John the baptist and Jesus were rivals. Depending how it is read, the meeting at the Jordan appears on the surface to have John being subservient to Jesus. We have to look at that conversation closely to see that it could well have been a case of John being forced to baptise Jesus.

Ask yourself, why would John believe that it was Jesus that was supposed to be baptising him?

Or would Jesus has simply taken the view that driving out demons is a good thing and whoever does it is doing a good thing?

But then that gives rise to the question of from where and when did the other "miracle worker" get his power . Who authorised him? Jesus didn't start performing his so called "miracles" until after his baptism by John. And what a waste of a good miracle the first one was. Water into wine!!!? I ask you?

Who are the people on this site who think they are scholars? Perhaps you could invite them join in the discussion? Although I see some people block others.

It would be nice , yes. But they can never hold it together once they have painted themselves into a sticky theological corner and made themselves to look silly and bible ignorant with the end result being abuse and lies and denials. (Here is a good example of a Pastor and Chaplain that teaches the bible to students in universities showing his bible ignorance #8)

(A) And then they block you. I was blocked by 3-4 members here yet still they would come to my threads simply to agitate and derail my threads. This went on for quite sometime before I retaliated and returned the gesture and blocked three all at the same time.

Perhaps you have been blocked by them or you have blocked them.

See (A) above

Sometimes it is necessary to block people I guess. But given your response that no one has bothered,

?? It doesn't matter to me either way. It simply leaves me to post what I want without interference and agitation and any theist that I haven't blocked are welcome to comment; who is stopping any of the other believers here posting and responding to my threads? Are you suggesting that the three I have on block are the only theists here?

I appreciate your posts.

Nice.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@Timid8967

Great question Stephen, do you know who it is? And why is it stuck here in such an interesting way?

What do you mean by " stuck here in an interesting way"?

do you know who it is?

No, but I could have a good guess.

I was hoping that any of those students of ancient Greek and other Christians may be able to enlighten us all. But as usual they have only managed to display their bible ignorance of the fact the there seems to have been another "miracle worker" on the block that wasn't one of them and these lovely tolerant disciples of Jesus didn't appear like it. Luke 9: 51-55.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

Why Did the Jews Believe Jesus to be Possessed?

-->

@Timid8967

Yet you did not address the author's clear inference that Jesus was not demon -possessed even though he was accused by others of the same.

Which author? And I have made it clear that being accused of being "demon possessed ", could mean any amount of things in those times.

And nor did you provide a verse which indicates his mother and family thought he was demon-possessed.

No what I did was show that being accused of being mad didn't mean he was "mad/ beside himself/out of his mind or had lost his senses" NOR did it mean he was "demon possessed" John the baptist too was said to have had " a demon".....

New International Version

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.'

Luke 7:33

New Living Translation

For John the Baptist didn’t spend his time eating bread or drinking wine, and you say, ‘He’s possessed by a demon.’Luke 7:33

......Yet Jesus had the baptist down as the greatest prophet that ever walked the planet, if the scriptures are to be believed. So we see, that just being different and unconventional one can be accused of being "demon possessed".

As I have wrote above:

I think this goes someway in explaining what is meant by "possessed by a demon" biblically.

Matthew12: 22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.#34

I believe that this shows- if it is to be taken literally - that simply suffering from and infliction/illness as in the case of this man, one is also considered to be possessed? I say this because both terms- possessed and illness - are used in the same sentence as with the accusations levelled at Jesus example:

New International Version

Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?" John 10:20 So suffering insanity or simply talking bollocks is being equated to being demon possessed" <<<<<<<< Jesus is accused by his family of being "mad/ beside himself/out of his mind or had lost his senses" they just don't use the idiom " possessed" in the same sentence as do may other verses do when illness, infliction, deafness, blindness and being mute, it spoken about.

I also wonder whether it is accurate to suggest that ANYONE said to have a demon can be equated with EVERYONE said to have a demon?

Being accused of "having a demon" and being "demon possessed" could mean two different things. And I didn't say everyone and to my memory neither do the scriptures, they say " many" and "some" another simply says "the Jews".

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

As we both have tried to do, is to get the Bible dumfounded FAUXLAW to bring forth his alleged knowledge pertaining to Greek translations

Well you knew,as did I, right-away that he was never going to commit himself. They are al the same, when caught on the backfoot. It like a petulant last resort . It is a " I know more than you because I am student in Greek" but then fall at the first fence when the opportunity presents itself for them to show their ancient language skills. I am still waiting for any "student in ancient Greek" to tell me what the English word "secret" means in Greek? I believe it to mean exactly what it means in English. But then I am not a "student in ancient Greek" as a few here claim to be. #28 fauxlaw

Created:

4 years ago

1

Posted in:

-->

@BrotherDThomas

How far can the Bible fool FAUXLAW go in slapping Jesus in the face while he embarrasses Christianity and this notable forum just by being here spewing forth his Devil Speak?

Brother,

I am still trying to understand how someone that professes his belief in Jesus/god and scripture can render the "word of god " in English , useless and pointless with one simple throwaway statement. #28 fauxlaw

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in:

No blessing for same sex marriages.

-->

@Timid8967

The pope is somehow a little bit confused.

Nope. The Pope knew exactly what he was saying without mentioning the punishment. He had been recently in "discussions" with Muslims not long before he chose to make this comment and we all know what they think about homosexuals and homosexuality and the punishment for it in Islam.

Created:

4 years ago

0

Posted in: