Total posts: 3,520
-->
@zedvictor4
But you have to think those pesky leprechauns are adorable? Surely????
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Wagyu
And here I was thinking you were both retreating to a safe place because you had not substantial or worthwhile reply.
I don't particularly care how some people translate it. The fact is - it refer to murder - to breaking covenant. You can reject that if so persist - but I will only ever address it in that sense - because that is what it means. And the context of that verse in the entire bible demands such a translation because God obviously commands killing things on occasion - even if that is referring to animals, let alone people who break covenant.
In relation to Hitler, my viewpoint has not changed by your scenario. Fact is - unless I have government sanctioned authority to kill him, I would not. If I did not have sanctioned authority to kill him, and he was threatening me or my family - then I if the circumstances warranted it could act in a legal defence.
I would not kill Hitler otherwise. I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. The journey is equal to the destination.
I reject your position that the moral justification of the greater good is more important than doing what is right.
In relation to my choice - it is easy. Everyone stands before the judgment seat of God. Much better to stand in the human court than the divine one.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Wagyu
HI Guys,
have you guys forgotten this interesting topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is that a little bit like being an atheist. All these competing views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you see a difference between libertarian progressiveness and Marxist - Lenin Progressiveness?
Created:
Posted in:
I am not sure why I am constantly surprised but it never ceases to amaze me how many sheep there are in the human race.
So many people who simply believe everything they read in a newspaper. Or everything their favorite commentators say. Or everything their political party and their elders tell them. Or whatever their school taught them.
What is it with this? Why is there no serious critical thinking any more? Why is it that something is said - repeated and then suddenly it is gospel and you are not allowed or permitted to speak against it?
Colleges used to teach people how to think. Now they seem to be teaching them how not to think. (Or what to think)
We need to get rid of this cancel culture. We need to stop telling other people how to live their lives. We need to stop being pressured and guilted into silence.
If things do not change shortly, there will be an counter - cultural revolution. People can only be silenced for so long.
What are your views about how to deal with these thing? I personally don't believe violence is an acceptable response. Yet this does not mean that a time won't come when it might be necessary.
Let me be clear - I am asking for different views here - to try and address my frustration at the overwhelming number of sheep. And hoping against hope that there is no need for an uprising - and that a progress towards a more natural position can be achieved without resorting to anything more than common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Desperation pushes people to try and find some reason for why so many people believe in and trust God. And this is not the desperation of the theists - but those who wish they were. Which incidentally is EVERY atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Verify that reason and logic is correct without resorting to axiomatic thinking and circular reasoning. It can't be. Therefore - by your own admission you can't reasonably believe it is knowledge.So, by your view logic and reason can't be verified thus 'verifiable' is not a reasonable request of anything? Stop with the absurdity.
You jump to so many conclusions.
I never said any of those things. I rejected your argument that knowledge is only knowledge if it is verified - and obviously that requires some kind of objective process.
And it is not logic I am rejecting - it is yours.
I would take the view that reason and logic is knowledge - that does not require verification to be considered knowledge. It stands alone - since it is an axiom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Interesting thoughts, thank you.
Yet I don't concur completely . The story of Genesis indicates that God breathed in human body - and that this then became a living soul. Hence - both body and life or consciousness together constitutes a soul.
Still - there is an aspect of what you say that is compatible with the OT. It certainly often uses interchangeably the heart, or the kidneys, or intestines with the word soul. I would take the view that spirit and soul are the same.
The inner person and the outer person. I suppose I take the view that the difference between the inner and outer persons is a mirage. We might not reveal our inner person to many people - yet that is still us on the outside.
When we are resurrected according to the Bible, we will not just be spirits or a consciousness wandering around we will have real bodies.
Yet I am understand there is a difference for the temporal and the eternal. I note that Psalm 11 talks of God hating the wicked and the violent with his soul. Yet God does not have a body like humanity.
Thanks EtrnlVw
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Simply not true.
Verify that reason and logic is correct without resorting to axiomatic thinking and circular reasoning. It can't be. Therefore - by your own admission you can't reasonably believe it is knowledge.
It will come down to your own experience. Not mine. But Yours. And this thing called "blind faith". Not just faith - but blind faith.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except, according to other lawyers... .its noteriously bad in court, at least if you have literally any other type of evidence
It is obvious you have not spent much time in a court room or talking to court room lawyers.
95 % of crooks plead guilty based on their own admissions. That is the direct eye-witness of the testimony of the crook.
95% is extremely high proportion of cases resolved by eye-witness testimony.
Testimony of witnesses can be a flawed process - but actually it is one of the best ways to determine if people are telling the truth sincerely or lying.
Academics hate testimonies. It goes against the way they want to the law to work or progress. This is why they prefer other forms of evidence and why they wish to get rid of the jury system.
A good lawyer recognizes easily when people lie in the stand. They also recognize when a couple of their own witnesses have stories that don't seem consistent with each other. Incidentally, when the stories mesh - it is a sign of a conspiracy and a fake story. And when the storys don't mesh - it is a more believable and plausible story.
Academics think the stories should all be perfectly in accord. Yet experienced lawyers and judges know differently.
We all know that some people will lie on the stand. That goes without saying. Yet recognizing that is a huge tool. Many lawyers believe everything their client tells them. Smart ones don't.
The problem with other forms of evidence is that none is foolproof. DNA evidence is totally flawed and many cases are being thrown which try and rely on DNA all by itself. I have seen many cases thrown - when the evidence is simply a cigarette butt - which the police say has DNA on it - which in their mind ties the defendant to the place where the offence took place. What police don't recognize and what most people in the non-lawyer world don't realise is that this DNA evidence which suggests a link with the defendant is not reliable or admissible until it has been rigorously tested. Tests which in Australia take up to 12 months to be ready to be given to the defendant and his lawyer. And until it is given to the defendant's lawyer - the evidence of the cigarettes' butt is treated as circumstantial evidence only.
And circumstantial evidence IS NOT strong evidence, whatever you might like to think about it. IT is not enough by itself - especially when their is eyewitness testimony which denies it. If you don't believe me, look at the recent Cardinal Pell in Australia - High Court Appeal.
Document evidence - video evidence - identification evidence - all are often seen as doctored or fake or bad evidence.
Don't misunderstand me - I think that evidence is typically at its highest point when taken together it paints a pretty good narrative. Yet in most court cases - at least in Australia - it is very rare not to have eye-witness testimony as a main plank in the evidence presented to the court.
Logic and reason by the way are not considered evidence. They are legal submissions and arguments - but not evidence.
And DNA in Victoria has been strongly discredited in the courts. Many police cases had to be delayed for up to 24 months because of the significant flaws in the methodology.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Evidence comes in various forms. It is normally defined as "any statement, record, testimony, or other things, apart from legal submissions, which tends to prove the existence of a fact in issue".
I like eyewitness testimony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
With great respect - it is not a biblical idea - because the biblical idea about heaven and earth is not above and below - but heaven and earth together. Heaven on earth. Consider the two great pictures we have of it - like bookends in the Bible - at the beginning and at the end.
In Genesis - Heaven is pictured as the Garden of Eden - on earth. When God created - he began with the heavens and the earth. Not with heavens and not with earth - but together.
Similarly at the end of Revelation - heaven is pictured at the City of Jerusalem - the new heavens on the new earth.
It is a Greek idea that separates heaven from earth and why we in the West tend to think that way. Yet The Hebrew idea is much less separate. Remember Jesus pictured his people as coming and going into the kingdom of heaven. The two are intrinsically linked - not above and below - but together - joined at the hips as it were.
Whatever Janesix is wanting to know about these aspects of "heaven" - I am merely pointing out I would disagree it is a biblical picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sounds like you are getting fed up with some posters who disagree with you.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
Except of course when you rule out evidence just because you don't like it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Nonsense.
Typical Left leaning over the top rhetoric that has been sustained since before Trump was even elected and formally sworn in.
The accusations have never stopped in his entire time as president. Even before he was formally sworn in as president the Democrats were calling his impeachment.
And if you cannot remember the protests and riots at that time, then your memory is intentionally selective.
How many people were crying in the streets even before he was formally sworn in - many decrying him, even moving to go to Canada?
The lies from the beginning about Russian involvement proved to be lies.
The lies about him intending to grant himself immunity - intended only to besmirch the president. That he never formally denied he would do it is a no brainer. Why would any person accused of such nonsense going to deny it? And to be perfectly candid, what law has he actually broken?
To suggest he incited the mob going to the Hill is nonsense. Trump - always was going to fight all the way. And good on him I say.
Fighting all the way to court is a sign of a healthy democracy. It is not a sign of trying to destabilize it. Hilary could never admit that she was beaten by Donald Trump. Why would it surprise anyone that Trump might feel the same way about Biden?
BTW - I think the votes in this election did not have a win for Biden so much as a loss for Trump. He lost. More people hated him than like Biden.
I have never been a fan of Trump. Although I did like his last Supreme Court pick. She is a brilliant lawyer and the Supreme Court is much better and brighter for her being on it. I cannot say I am fan of Cavanagh - but I always thought it was going to be hard for a white male to get a Guernsey.
Trump's policies in relation to employment for the African Americans is win for the Black community. His policies in respect of the Middle East was long sighted. Trump as a politician - because he was first and foremost a businessman - was one of the best things that have happened to America in a long time. He did not just suck it up like Obama did. Or Bush did. Or Clinton did. This struck a nerve for countries all around the world. A president not being a politician. Wonderful and it will be sad to see the end of.
Trump of course was a terrible economist. And I say that because he was a Keynesian - not because he did not understand it. He was essentially a socialist in his economic policies and moreover in most of his government policies. When he stopped playing politician and went back to being a businessman - was when he was at his best. When he stuck it to China - China blinked. This however now is a thing of the past.
I don't think Biden will be any more than a puppet. He really is too old. He was much more clear when he was younger. Now it really is a scary thing to think that he has finger on the trigger. I have to say - that I now find the world a heck of a lot more scarier. Trump exposed America to the world as it was. Biden might last 18 months.
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
Capital Punishment is not murder. It is lawful killing.The ten commandments states thou shall not kill, not thou shall not murder. If a religious person really did get their morality from the bible, they should say no to all killing. Clearly, they don't.
It is you shall not murder - and is translated that way in many translations. The Hebrew in the text actually indicates that a proper translation is "you shall not put to death an Israelite (Covenant keeper). The implication clearly is that it is forbidden to kill someone who is doing the right thing.
I do not think that the killing of 1 person is more justified than the killing of a billion.
If I bought Adolf Hitler to you and said that in order for you to save the entire planet, you had to kill Hitler, would you? Any sane person would say yes, however, the Bible clearly states that thou shall not kill. Simple.
A clear hypothetical. SO tell me - why did you bring him to me and not kill him yourself? Are you suggesting you are not sane? And yet here we are in a hypothetical situation.
Did you bring him to me before he killed anyone? Did you bring him to me in the midst of a war? Did you bring him to me as a soldier - you and me? Did you bring him to me in the 21st century when is about 120 years old?
My personal view is that I would not kill Hitler unless I have proper authority to do that. There are of course legitimate defenses of self defence - of myself - of others. But these are all legitimate reasons to kill someone - not murder.
If he was in prison - and I was his guard. I would not kill him either. Do I think he is worthy of being killed? Absolutely. Yet, only legitimately - not as a vigilante. For me to kill Hitler without lawful justification makes me a murderer. I am not a murderer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
OK and what is your point? There is nothing like comedy referring to a few bits of a story - without relating the whole story.
It really is difficult to take the comedy even semi-seriously when it is written and directed by person's who obviously have drawn their own conclusions.
It is a bit like watching the Democrats attack Republican policy or vice versa.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, that is the point isn't? There are some on this site who believe that God has murdered people and also asked humans to murder people.
And arising from that position - comes the question: if God asked you to murder someone would you do it?
And this of course it is also based on the prior question of whether fresh or new revelation is still occurring?
Many Christians and many people from other religions, e.g, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, new agers, spiritualists, wiccans, and perhaps some Jews still believe fresh revelation is occurring.
Reformed Christians on the other hand, do not. Jews, for the most part, practice even if they don't admit it, that revelation ceased with the OT.
I then am in the interesting position that not only do I not believe that God would ask me to unlawfully kill someone, but furthermore, that God has chosen to speak only through his word the Bible until the second coming in special revelation. Of course natural revelation remains in place - but this is not fresh or new - but has existed from eternity.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The definition of murder includes unlawfulness. It is impossible to murder lawfully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Agreed. It is a brave thing to share such a change.
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.Though God did not necessarily ask Abraham to kill, he did ask him to sacrifice what he loves most, which God being omnipotent, should know is his son.
I do not know the mind of God. Nor do I know the mind of Abraham. Was Isaac the thing Abraham loved most? Perhaps? Perhaps not? Would not this demonstrate that he actually loved God even more than his son? Personally, I think Abraham believed in the resurrection of his son.
The 6th commandment is the statute which forbids murder. You shall not murder.If religious people really did get their morality from the bible, then why are their Christians who are in favour of the death penalty? I'm sure, if you asked any Christian whether they would rather kill 1 person or a billion, all of them would say that the one person could go. Clearly, religious people do not get their morality from the bible, they infer passages from the bible into their liking.
Capital Punishment is not murder. It is lawful killing. Personally, I do not think the West is mature enough for the death penalty. I am a Christian. I do not think that the killing of 1 person is more justified than the killing of a billion. Christians - tend to think that the END does not justify the MEANS. Christians tend to take the view that how we get somewhere is just as important as the destination. It seems you do not even understand what Christians think, let alone are able to conclude that they do not get their morality from the bible. Hence your last sentence is clouded with your own beliefs.
the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.And Abraham was hearing...
The book of Hebrews 1:1-3 tells us that times past God spoke in diverse ways. After Jesus, this changed. Paul says the same thing in 1 Corinthians 13:8. Both describe what Daniel spoke of in Daniel 9:24. The sealing up of vision within the generation of Jesus' death - up until the end of the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 which correlates with the writing of the NT.
The Reformed position is that fresh revelation has ceased. God has spoken but has now stopped speaking. He won't speak again until the end - on judgment day. He now speaks through the Bible.
The Reformed position is that all religions or people claiming new or fresh revelation are speaking through their hats. This would mean that we reject the Catholic Church's view on the pope's ex cathedra. It would mean that we would reject the LDS, the JWs, ALL cults of any stripe, the Seventh Day Adventist, the Charismatic movement, the Pentecostal movement. And any religion or spiritualist who claims to be speaking on behalf of God. This also includes the ancient popes who said they heard directly from God. Rejecting their so called words of revelation does not mean rejecting them per se. Yet it does mean that we refuse to give their news words any authority or credibility. It simply means that - any of these new called fresh revelation is sourced either in humanity, demons, or something else. Just not God.
For the Reformed faith - the line has been drawn in the sand. We stand and fall with the Bible - in the NT and the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMelioist
"All are quite intelligent. Yet, are part of the culture they have been raised in. "do you mean by this? are you saying that the "culture" has more effect on them then the evidence? do you define "culture" by the scientific conscience?
No, not really, though that certainly is an implication of this thought. Our culture has redefined "evidence". What was once considered evidence by all is no longer considered evidence by all. For example, in the past, affidavits were considered legitimate evidence. But now it is only accepted as evidence by some and not at all by others. Likewise, facts are no longer facts as understood in the past. Now, facts are only whatever select people say are facts.
When it comes to discussions over the age of the earth, facts are discarded or interpreted differently by a wave of "experts". All dissenting voices are silenced.
Our modern culture has become a cancel culture. A culture that uses shame to dismiss any alternative voices. This means that a particular voice is louder than every other voice to the extent that no other voice is permitted to speak or adduce evidence. In fact ALL evidence from an alternative voice is immediately labeled as not real (fake) evidence.
Hence, when I say that these intelligent people are raised in their culture, I mean no disservice to them. They all appear quite genuine in their views and wish to appear reasonable. Yet all, also are quite aware, that some topics are untouchable. Lane might well argue well for the resurrection of Jesus, and he does so with persuasive words, yet, he does not apply the same logic to the question of the age of the earth. That is a non-negotiable and untouchable subject. People may well smile at you for believing Jesus rose from the dead, but don't tell me the earth is not old. The first is considered a religious doctrine, the second a scientific one. The first one people will tolerate because of freedom of religion. The second is a high doctrine of the scientific community.
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
I personally don't think that God will ask us to murder.
I concede that the example of Abraham is relevant to this question but I take the view that that example was unique. It was one out of the box and was for our understanding not for our example to follow.
The OT itself does not condone murder but condemns it. The 6th commandment is the statute which forbids murder. You shall not murder.
The NT follows this example. A hermenuitic of NT theology is that if the OT is expressly commanded to be followed in the NT - then the law applies not just specifically to ISrael but to the church as well. Paul condemns murder.
Paul and the writer of Hebrews also confirms that fresh revelation has ceased. 1 Cor 13:8 and Hebrews 1:1-3 both indicate that new or fresh revelation from God has ceased. This might annoy the Mormons and the JWs and the charismatics - and all cults that want to blame God for everything - but the NT is quite clear that revelation has ceased. In fact Daniel 9 gives us the end of revelation - so both the OT and the NT together provide clarification that fresh revelation is no longer taking place - so
the application to this is : if someone pretending to be God tells you to kill someone - you can know with the assurance of the Bible- God's word itself - that any so called new or fresh revelation is NOT from God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMelioist
Cool I used to be an atheist, an old earther, and evolutionist and now I am not.
I have never read Ken Ham.
I read the bible. I re read my text books. I read Francis Collins - and I like William Lane.
All are quite intelligent. Yet, are part of the culture they have been raised in.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are just going along with the perceived wisdom. That is a choice for you. I cannot be bothered arguing the toss - because historically, the two paths are quite different with different perspectives.
I disagree with you. I also like to pick my battles - and succeeding at this one with you will not help me win the war. In fact it might hinder it.
I respect your intellect by the way. And I enjoy engaging with you. Yet today I am pre-occupied with quite a lot of other real world stuff to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Hi Ethang,
I guess I hold an optimistic position that people generally want to know the truth.
You may be correct that he is only here seeking attention. Yet who knows - God works in mysterious ways.
What is "Jesus day"? Is it another forum?
I suspect you are correct about Zedman's view about Stephen. Yet, I suppose he was suddenly alone and felt he had to step it up abit for his fellow atheists. More power to him.
Thanks for the advice. Helpful as always.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
John is not hiding in the hills. the geography of that place is many miles away from Bethlehem. It is like saying that John was hiding in the Rocky Mountains because the soldiers were attacking Jesus in Texas. It is nonsense.
I call John the B - John the B when he was a child to distinguish him from the author of the book whose name is also John.
He was not the B when he was a child obviously.
I am not presenting anything that cannot be verified. I am simply reading the story in its narrative. I am not presenting it like it is true or not - I am attempting to read it as the author wrote it.
Like any book written by any person - the author had an intention. His intention was to demonstrate that Jesus fled to Egypt in line with the prophecies. There is no indication that John was in danger from the narrative. Since John the B ended up baptizing Jesus 30 odd years later - we can see he was not killed by Herod's men.
I personally attempt to understand what the author is attempting to say. I don't have a particular narrative I have to follow. But I will not ignore church tradition simply because someone comes up with a novel idea. Stephen's idea is novel. Yet it does not fit with John the B' living in the hills. That is my point. And I am not interpreting it any different to the narrative itself.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fair call. It was rude of me to call you a sheep. That was uncalled for and I apologize.
Yet, I did not attempt to rebut what you wrote because - there was not anything I could see that needed rebutting. No offence meant - it just seemed like you wanted to take the presumed position.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So - ok - you are a sheep. Cool!
Baaa!
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The reason I find that specific reasoning off-kilter, is because you are assuming the reason that they don't use it because it contradicts other evidence - while in reality - the new evidence (the dating methods which find 4.5 billion years) contradicted them - the evidence which is shown to be most reliable, the least deviational, etc. my point here is that there other sources for why, this is speaking generally here, those sorts of data methods aren't valid. Its not because they contradict the 4.5 billion dating method, but because the 4.5 billion dating method contradicts it, as well as general veracity and lack of reliability.
Of course scientists don't use the other dating methods if they have a bias. Why would they? To say that the new evidence contradicted previous measures is a bit rich and biased. It is not contradiction to show that something is much older than previously thought. But it would be a contradiction to demonstrate that something was much younger than previously thought.
Scientists might at times use the word "contradict" but that is not really what they mean. You see it is ok if a scientist with older tools finds a date which is millions of years in the first place. You cannot measure something if it is billions of years if your measuring tool only goes to millions. Yet, once the tools are manufactured which goes to billion - then the millions of years are obviously obsolete. But the point is the trajectory is one that is always expanding. It won't be long before the current dates become obsolete because newer technology will have found ways to provide greater evidence that everything is so much older than we believe at the moment.
This is why it is not really contradictory when the newer evidence contradicts the older methodology. Yet, if a scientist came along and used new tools to prove the earth was young, it would be thrown out - despite the accuracy of the evidence. Why - it contradicts the bias. Not the science. It would be ridiculed - and not because of the science or the methodology or any thing scientific. It would be ridiculed simply because it is in line with the correct bias. This is what I mean when science is our friend but bias is not.
You see, despite the rhetoric of scientists saying that they seek the truth, they don't. Not unless it already fits within the mainstream of perceived bias. My favorite subject at school was science. I loved science and I still do. I loved math - which is why I studied economics as well as laws and a whole range of other things. Yet, statistics and math are tools that scientists love to use - despite all of their assumptions being demonstrably unsound.
Scientists are also intensely proud beings. They hate being ridiculed. Depending upon where they work, they don't want to lose tenure. Or funding - so they use their knowledge to assist their lords and masters - whether public like the UN or private like their multi-national corps. But the scientific peer system is also extremely cruel. If it does not like your new evidence - you will be cast out - ridiculed, called a pseudo-scientist, extremist, or doing what your master tells you because he paid you. This is not science.
I actually think science will not really develop in our world until it develops a system of freedom for people to seek the truth - no matter how much it contradicts the perceived wisdom. This can only happen if - we reduce the size of governments and stop giving grants based on pre-conditions for scientists to receive funding. Science has become stunted in its purity. It is now disfunctional - and has too many people who have too many fingers in the pie. It has all become a system where self interest outweighs truth.
Science is our friend. Bias is our enemy. The peer group system is our enemy - unless we can find a way to enrich it with less self-interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The problem is that he does not point out the literal interpretation. If that was the case I would have no issue with it. To demonstrate this - why don't you show me where he has provided even one case.
BTW - I provided a case of what I consider to be a literal inconsistency. And there is much more strength to this inconsistency than anything Stephen has produced.
Stephen tends to rely upon "silence" as opposed to actual literal inconsistencies. For instance - the child John the Baptist was not even in the same region as the soldiers sent by Herod. Yet Stephen insists the child was in danger. Why? because Stephen wants to see something which is not there. There is no literal inconsistency. There is no inconsistency at all - unless Stephen can demonstrate that John was in the same region as the soldiers were sent.
Now if John the B was in the same region, then I would think someone might reasonably ask - why was John not killed when all the other children 2 and under were killed? And that assumes John was 2 or under. And I am prepared to consider he was within the right age for this to take place. But even when it was pointed out - where John was - and Stephen himself quoted the verse - he still fails to connect the dots. The hill country of Judea is not in the region of Bethlehem.
That zedman is a fact - not an interpretation. I actually am not turning anything into purposes for my theistic position. As I have said previously, I begin with harmonization not with inconsistency. Christians begin with the book is God's word. Non-Christians begin with "It is not". The former sees the harmony. The latter seeks only the discrepancy. Why is it that Christians only see the good God - and why non-Christians only see the evil god? And this is consistent around the world and is a dilemma yet to be explored or explained satisfactorily.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Who determines what evidence is reliable ?
If one were to do a population growth experiment. And if one were to estimate population growth for humans - and work backwards - will it fit the young earth scenario better or the old age scenario better? Or will the non-biased scientist make an educated assumption - and say - well we have to factor in the old age earth because the young age is obviously wrong - which is what they do with dating methodology.
There are several kinds of dating methodology available. We all know that. Yet we don't use the methodology used for millions of years on something which we know to be only thousands of years. Why not? because if we did - then the evidence would show that what we know to be 1000s of years has been falsely proved to be millions of years. And we know that cannot be right. So we make educated - or non-biased - (Lol) assumption which put certain things into particular time frames with the proper dating methodology.
Yet, if those assumptions are not used - and we took any particular item and put it into a non-biased testing regime - we would discover that everything can be dated within each of the specific dating methods and be any particular age.
Yet, no one would even attempt to date a rock from the moon with a dating methodology that could be specific to a coupe of thousand years. Why not? Because it does not fit with the perceived wisdom that the moon is millions of years old. Not science - bias. Assumptions rule the age. Not science. Science is our friend - but bias and assumptions are not.
For the record I am not saying the earth is old or young. I am happy to go with the perceived wisdom - but I am not persuaded by it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hi Zedman -
I thank you for taking the time to tag me in your post.
I feel quite privileged really. Please feel free to pat Stephen on the back. He truly needs the encouragement.
I really don't understand why you continue to put this down to interpretation and opinion. I say - read the facts in the stories - not just inject into it what is not there.
What is the point of continually demonstrating that God is both full of love and mercy but also prepared to punish and discipline as though it is a dilemma?
The two are not contradictory. The two don't demonstrate a split personality. Nor does it mean that they are two different gods struggling in a cosmic battle.
Love is demonstrated not just with a kiss but also with discipline. They go hand in hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Matthew 6:19-20Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:So putting things away for a rainy day is pointless , according to god-Jesus. And one could suppose that would make sense if the end was indeed, nigh? 1 Peter 4:7
LOL @ Stephen.
No wonder you are such a confused person. Jesus is not saying - "don't put things away for a rainy day". What an absolutely weird and obtuse way of understanding what Jesus is saying. Jesus is comparing the earth with heaven. The temporary with the eternal. He is saying you cannot rely upon the temporary in the eternals. HE is pretty much indicating that if your focus here on earth is to get rich, then you will miss the boat. There are other things which are far more important to focus on now. In other words he is saying "don't make getting rich or wealthy in your life - your most important goal".
I wonder then why is it that members of his "chosen people" were showered in riches beyond the dreams of any poor widow that has had her house stolen from her by the deceit of Chaplains, Priests and Pastors in "fancy robes" ? Luke 20:47
Now you don't need to wonder anymore - because your premise is wrong. The poor widow in the temple by the way was being compared to the pharisees and other wealthy religious people - the former put into the plate out of her poverty. The latter gave only what was expected - out of their wealth. In other words, the former had her eyes on eternal matters - and the latter on temporal ones. Essentially Jesus' message is the same in both verses.
I also accept that in some parts of Christianity - some church leaders are cheating and deceiving ordinary and vulnerable people in the community. The Prosperity Doctrine theology seen in congregations such as Hillsong and on many of the television shows is not only heresy, but needs to be stamped out. There is no excuse for their behaviour - but what they teach is not biblical nor what the Christian church has taught from the beginning. Money and wealth is not evil. IT is when greed and the love of it that makes it an idol that is the problem. It is one of the things that those in other parts of the church constantly are battling. These tv evangelists use guilt manipulation - they focus on the prosperity. They teach falsely - "come to Jesus and everything will be ok". Yet the church has historically taught that suffering is a normal part of the Christian walk.
If we take just one example: Solomon.
Solomon was a king of Israel. Kings inherently tend to have more than most. Solomon was also a very wise man who made lots of connections around the world and contracts as well. It would in fact be an oddity for a king not to have riches.
The list of his riches is simply mind boggling,it really is. Just one visit from one foreign dignitary earned him:1 Kings 10:10- 2910 And she gave the king 120 talents[of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious stones. Never again were so many spices brought in as those the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon.11 (Hiram’s ships brought gold from Ophir; and from there they brought great cargoes of almugwood and precious stones.14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents,
It was a staggering amount. And that is the point isn't? Solomon was the Son of David. Solomon's kingdom became the highpoint of Israel's history, geographically, in wealth, and might and power. Don't miss the significance however of the 666 talents of gold. It's an obvious reference to the height of humanity in its pride. And one reason that the writer of Revelation picked it up later.
16 King Solomon made two hundred large shields of hammered gold; six hundred shekels of gold went into each shield. 17 He also made three hundred small shields of hammered gold, with three minas of gold in each shield. The king put them in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon.18 Then the king made a great throne covered with ivory and overlaid with fine gold. .................21 All King Solomon’s goblets were gold, and all the household articles in the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon were pure gold.
Absolutely! The picture is of overwhelming prosperity. Almost too good to be true. An obvious link to the blessings of God - heaven on earth.
Don't laugh , but 21 >>> "Nothing was made of silver, because silver was considered of little value in Solomon’s days" . Apparently, silver to Solomon , was as common as "stones on the ground".
Yes, it goes with the image - streets made of gold.
23 King Solomon was greater in riches and wisdom than all the other kings of the earth. —articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.27 The king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones,Well if that one example didn't make your eyes water then nothing will.
It is overwhelming and almost indulgent in its extent. And yet this is the picture presented of the Son of David -and the glory of God's people at its height in the nation of Israel. I think it is impressive.
Jesus tells us that: " it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."Matthew 19:24He instructed a man that was rich to give away all his worldly goods to "the poor" Matthew 19:21 <<< again, what would be the point of the poor having this rich mans hard earned wealth if the end was nigh?
I find it amusing that now you have referenced the end of the world a couple of times now. Obviously that is part of your dilemma - that flows out of a faulty view.
Jesus was not anti-wealth. Nor was he concerned about the end of the world - literally. If you knew your OT scriptures, you would know that the end of the world occurs on many occasions - yet not the literal world. In fact when Christ came, and the temple eventually destroyed it was the end of the world - the end of the covenant between God and Israel. Not literally but covenantally. There is that word again. IT was the end of the age. As Jesus put it - or as the writer of Hebrews put it - Jesus died and was crucified once and for all at the end of the age.
Nevertheless, Jesus' point in the above verse is that rich man don't have a right to go to heaven. The disciples understood this to mean "no one can go to heaven". Matthew 19: 25. And Jesus confirms that in the next verse where he indicated that impossible things for man are possible for God. It is not an argument against wealth per se - but again about focusing on wealth as an end on this earth. When wealth and money become an idol, then you are focused on earthly things not heavenly things. If wealth is an idol, get rid of it. And that is Jesus' message here to the rich man. Wealth is your idol. If you want to follow me - get rid of your idol. The disciples on the other hand had a distorted view of wealth. They thought that wealth, like the people in the book of Job, was a sign of God's blessing. And therefore gave you a first in policy into Heaven. Jesus dispels that completely by saying - it is impossible for anyone to get into heaven without the help of God.
And Jesus appears to have surrounded himself with rich men and women and people of influence?
This is not accurate. Jesus was surrounded by both rich and poor people. He was surrounded by righteous and drunkards and prostitutes.
Yet the one thing they had all in common was a humility before God that meant that they had threw their idols away. And the rich people were not focused on their wealth but on the eternal things of God.
So we see on the one hand , Jesus telling everyone else to give away everything, while on the other he has rich friends and says nothing about the obscene wealth of Solomon, one of his own chosen people.
Well, again you read into things which do not exist. Jesus never tells EVERYONE to give EVERYTHING away. HE constantly tells his disciples that they need to focus on eternal things and not let the earthly things become idols. Whether that be family, or money, or jobs, or power, - all can become idols. Matthew 19: 29 brings that out very clearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There is less need to prove that Jesus was plausibly killed on the cross by expert killing machines like the Romans than to prove that these expert killing machines did not kill him and in fact were in a conspiracy with Jesus and the disciples to fake a resurrection.
Sometimes it is better to go with Occam's razor rather to grasp at ludicrous conspiracy theories.
So yes, I can believe what I like and yes, proving my case is impossible. Yet it is heads and shoulders above the absurd and ludicrous theory you are postulating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
And now he is making Biden president. Gee go figure.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen old chap,
are you ever going to answer the question -that I have now asked you on several occasions to answer. When specifically in John is Jesus baptized? Chapter and verse please.
Waiting for such a long time for your answer. Is there a reason you keep avoiding it. Don't be cryptic. Just tell us where it takes place.
I don't think the gospels were written to provide a chronological history. This does not mean that we cannot work out what the chronology is using all of the gospels.
Nor does it mean that what I tend to think is not certain from my point of view.
The gospels tell the stories that are working towards the points that they making. They were never meant to be identical. There would be no point in having identical books.
Luke does not mention the Egyptian Escapade. Why? Because each of the different gospels were presenting different aspects of the Saviour. Some point out his fulfillment of prophecy more - like Matthew. Others point out the families position on the law like Luke. John mentions 7 specific miracles. Mark emphasises his kingly servant nature. All of them leave out stuff or put stuff in that the others do not mention.
This does not mean that the stuff left out in some books were unimportant or did not occur - it just means that the author electing to leave it out or put it - was making a different point. The Gospels were not meant to be identical. This I think highlights or at least gives weight to the veracity of their testimony.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Well you seem to ignore the word "child". It is a word for a small child but not a baby. There are words for baby and even another for embryo. Another one for a bigger child than a toddler. This word - here is not baby. You just walk straight past it every time.
You ignore the facts of the NT. John was not in danger. You ASSUME John was in danger because he was six months older. You ASSUME he was in danger because he was in the same country. YET the NT does not provide any evidence to support your reasoning. None whatsoever. In fact it says nothing of the sort. It says John was a child. Not a baby. It says John was likely in the hills of Judea. It says Herod sent people to the region of Bethlehem. The hills of Judea are not the same region as the region of Bethlehem. Please address the facts.
You then attempt to make this silence mean something which it does not. Typical strawman. Invent something and then try and deny the truth.
You have not corrected me. I referred to all of these things in my original post. I linked you back several times to show that you cannot read.
I have not denied any of the scriptures. I just refuse to read into them what is not there. That is your MO. You read into it what is not there. And you read into it when the NT is silent on it.
You keep lying. Where does it say John was in danger? Where does it say he was in the region of Bethlehem? Where? Nowhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It is highly implausible that Jesus did not die on the cross. One of the indisputable facts of history is that the Romans were very good at killing people.
It is nothing short of grasping for straws to believe that he did not die. If he was not dead - the Romans failed. The Jews failed and the sense of good logic died.
If Jesus did not die - then the Jews would have found him - looked for him intensily in order to demonstrate that not only did he not die - but he could not have been resurrected. They would have done all that could to prove the disciples and Jesus were frauds.
But they did not do this. Not only that - when Jesus was seen by many others later - the Jews and the Romans would simply have said - he was not put to death on the cross. In deed it was a sham. A fake. A conspiracy. And the interesting thing - is that if it was a conspiracy between the Romans and the Disciples, it was one of the best kept secrets of all time. The fact is - this according to experts is highly implausible.
Not only that - if he did not die then - where was his body finally laid? Bodies have a tendency of being found - and after two thousands years - it would have been found. It has not - because Jesus not only died - killed by the Romans - but he rose again.
Jesus did know he was going to die. He prophesied about it many times . I find it difficult to believe that even you would attempt to make such an argument. As for Barbera Theiring - she is not accepted in most Christian circles - and even most of the Liberal scholars laugh at her unbelievable and unlikely scenarios. She might well convince her own converts - but not because of the evidence but because of their own desire to find an alternative to the most plausible scenario that Jesus died and rose again.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I notice again that you have AVOIDED completely my question to you. What are you so afraid of?I have answered your question, you just don't want to see it, OR - going by your track record of blinding biblical ignorance, - you cannot see it.
Well if you have answered the question, I missed it. Please do so again so there can be no doubt.
When did Jesus's ministry actually start Reverend? Was it before or after his baptism and receiving of the "holy spirit"? You don't know do you? And you don't want to know either, do you.
I tend to take the view that Jesus' ministry began in Galilee - probably on an occasion when he read from the Isaiah Scroll. I don't take it that he begun it with his ordination. Nor in the wedding of Cana - or in the wilderness - or at his birth. Mark 1:14 indicates that it was after John the B was put into prison that Jesus began to preach about the kingdom of God. Matthew 4 puts both of these events closely together. Luke 3:20 reveals John was locked up. And that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his ministry.
All this seems consistent to me. I don't take the gospels as necessarily putting a chronologic picture either. Their point was never about chronology. It was about Jesus. This is obvious from Luke where John is said to be imprisoned and then Jesus is baptized. Jesus was not baptised by John while in prison. And then after this Jesus is led into the desert.
It seems natural to think that Jesus was baptized by John. He went into the desert. Jesus returned from the desert. He saw John again - and then went back to Galilee where he attended a wedding - John had not yet been put into prison - since Jesus time had not yet come, yet he had disciples - and then he heard John was in prison - his ministry commenced formally.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am not sure why you are focusing on this one - when a much more alleged inconsistency is raised with Luke 2:39.
Does this happen before or after Jesus and his family flees to Egypt?
I have my own views - but surely this is one which much more clear as to inconsistency - moreseo than the other ones you have raised.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecret: "Ethang5 is a good friend of mine. I have know him for a significant period of time. And if you think we are like each other, that is a huge compliment for me.If I could be more like him, I would" . #76I will be honest, you quite took me aback when you told the whole forum that, seeing that only a day before, the figure of all your aspirations was telling us that anyone killed by jihadist were " sheep" , as if they asked to be and deserved to be slaughtered. #154. Anyway, I hope that clears that up for you. OR didn't you write post #76 Tradesecret? It has you name on it?
Yes, having not read anything you repeat about others - I hardly think it matters. Ethang is one of the few posters on this site with any real integrity. You seem to spend a lot of time pouring over other people's posts in order to ridicule and mock them. I don't listen to hearsay and I nor will I read your denigrations of others either. Unless I feel like it - which currently I don't.
So if Jesus is almost 2 ...............................STOP IT!!!Jesus was just born when Herod ordered the death of children two and under. John was six months old and putting them both in danger. There is no getting away from it. You simply do not know you fkn scriptures . I have caught you cold AGAIN!!! dropping a great clanger and showing your own pure ignorance of these scriptures that YOU lecture and tutor university students on, yet know not the basic things of the life of Christ or the baptist John his "forerunner" who, the scriptures also tell us , doubted Jesus was the "messiah".. .Mary was told she was with child at the same time she is also told :Luke 1:36-4136 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child , and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. Do the maths, Reverend!!!!!!!!Why didn't god send an angel Elizabeth telling her that her that her 6 MONTH old only son, that would grow to be the greatest prophet that ever lived , was in imminent danger from Herod as he had done so for Jesus?
I don't particularly care what you think Stephen. You have no evidence - no support to say that Jesus was only six months old at this time. You simply don't. Yes John was 6 months older than Jesus. And when Jesus was baptised he was 30 and John was either 30 or 31.
The narrative of Jesus' birth and his escape to Egypt is not required to take place in the same month, week, or even year. The narrative puts it that the magi came from the East and said to Herod - where is the boy born king of the jews? I reckon it is quite possible that Jesus was born even before the Magi left the East. A trip of at least 3 months and probably longer. Since they would probably not have planned it until after the birth. Then they went to Herod - how long did they stay there for? More than five minutes. Then they traveled to Bethlehem - how long? More than five minutes. Then they looked for the baby who was no longer in the stable or the manger but now in a house. Then they stayed there for how long? More than 5 minutes. He was the reason they came after all. Then they left and went home. How long after they left, did it take for Herod to realise that they were not coming back - more than 5 minutes. How long before he organised for the solidiers to go Bethlehem region? How long before the soldiers go to Bethlehem? More than five minutes. How long did they spend with each child or family before they killed the children? How long did they spend in the region of Bethelehem before they were satisfied that they had killed all the children?
The fact - yes fact - that Herod orders everyone 2 years and under to be killed - and not 6 months old - new born babies indicates strongly that Jesus was much older than six months and was probably close to 2 years of age. You can chuck a hissy fit if you like - but you CANNOT refute this from the scriptures. I gave two reasons for why John did not require an angel trying to save him - the first was that he was probably over 2 years of age and therefore not in danger. Since you cannot prove how old Jesus was specifically - this reasoning is plausible. There is not a thing in the NT that refutes this. Not one thing. And telling everyone that JEsus was six months younger that John does not refute it, since you don't know how old Jesus was specifically at the time. What we do know is that it takes months to travel to Jerusalem from the East. What we do know is that Jesus' family had moved from the stable to a house. What we do know is that Herod ordered the killing of all children 2 years and under. Hence it is quite plausible that Herod believed Jesus was at least 2 years of age, unless you think he is even more of a murderous B than he was.
I also said that although I though this was a plausible reason for John's safety, that I considered my second reason much more likely. And that Herod send the soldiers to the region of Bethlehem whereas John's family lived in the hills of Judea. Two different places - and the latter - not within the region of Bethlehem - a sound reason to understand why John's safety was not in danger.
You have simply wanted to believe that there was an inconsistency. And yet, either of these two scenarios are plausible. And nothing in the NT refutes this situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You mean he believed in the resurrection? And so knowing you were going to live makes all of the suffering and pain he went through worth it?
The problem you have is that God does not believe the ends justifies the means. Hence, in this situation, it was not the end per se he was looking at but both the means and the ends. Still, that you judge everyone by your own standards is not surprising.
The first statement you blurted out - does not even make sense.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why do you keep calling me Ethang? Have you completely lost your mind?
I agree with the scriptures that Jesus is 3 months younger that John. I have never disagreed with this account.
So if Jesus is almost 2 - at 1 and 7 months old - how old is John? He is over 2. What is your problem?
IF the soldiers are out to kill everyone 2 and below - then John is over 2.
The narrative tells us that Jesus was living in a house. Not in a stable with a manger.
Time has passed on. I take the view as many people do - that the wise men appeared much later - potentially up to 2 years after his birth. There is nothing in the NT which disputes this. The fact that Herod killed babies up to 2 years of age - supports this.
John would have been well over 2. And nothing in the NT disputes this -and I know this hurts your narrative - but I prefer the bible over you anyway.
And since John was neither under 2 nor in the region of Bethlehem - there was no need for an angel to warn his parents. the question you raised about Jesus going to live with John is an interesting one - but I suppose the prophecy in relation to Egypt would not have been fulfilled if that was the case. And since the prophecy clearly needed to be fulfilled - then it was going to happen.
Just dumb luck eh.
For you anyway. LOLL@ Stephen's poor grasp of the NT and of OT prophecy.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I see you are going to continue on in your nonsense.
I notice again that you have AVOIDED completely my question to you. What are you so afraid of?
Just answer the question. Where in John's gospel is Jesus' baptism given? Come on.
So far, we see according to the gospels, Jesus was baptised by John. He went into the wilderness for 40 days. He arrives back from the wilderness. after 40 days. He sees John the B - who declares that he is the lamb of God. The next day - Andrew and another disciple hear the Lord and then go and talk to Peter. Jesus then decides he will go to Galilee. And then sometime thereafter there is a wedding.
That is totally consistent with everything we have read in both John and in Mark. Nothing you have shown in the Scriptures provide any other narrative.
LOL @ your desperation. Until you can show in John where the baptism is of Jesus, then you have nothing. LLOL LOLL
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
LOLL@ Zed.
What part of it is clearly unresolvable?
Please explain it to me.
Created: